>Well she said a few days ago that she was part of the "never Hillary" thing- which means anyone but Hillary (which of course makes no sense to me - because it's going to be either Trump or Hillary) - so with this narrow minded outlook, all you're going to hear is just that - anyone is better than Hillary - so by default Trump is ok no matter what because he is not Hillary - so since nothing else matters I'd have to agree with your brick wall assessment. Sadly this single minded viewpoint is all too common with the American voter, which is why you end up with a racist womanizing sexual predictor with zero political experience that still seems to be getting 40% or so of the votes in the polls being taken. 320 million people in the USA to pick from - and this is the dipshit the GOP give us...and sure enough people line up for the guy. geeeze - tells you something about our education system. What I find most disturbing is that I didn't realize just how many racist, homophobic, and indifferent to women's health and rights people there are in my society - I mean I knew there were SOME, maybe even quite a few, but I never had any idea how bad it really was until this election. Quite sad realization for me I have to admit.
>And don't think that Trump is going to go away after this election either - he is already attempting to undermine our democracy by saying the election is rigged, and just like he did with Obama he will try to delegitimize her presidency. And of course these fools will follow along like a bunch of stupid sheep.
>
>And your attitude is open-minded HOW? Please demonstrate. You are a part of the never Trump crowd which means that you will vote for HRC no matter how many criminal acts she has gotten away with. Or are you thinking about voting for Gary Johnson, Jill Stein or Evan McMullin instead?

My support for Hillary is based on the fact that she is the most qualified for the job - it's not based on the simple fact she is not Trump. I also have looked into Gary Johnson, Evan McMullin and Jill Stein - but there are a lot of policy things that they each have which I don't care for, so despite HRC issues, for me she is still the best one for the job. Plus at this late stage one has to be realistic - and the president is gong to be either Trump or Hillary - so since these are the only two candidates that have any possible path to the white house one really has to pick between the two of them.

>BTW, I give idiots who subscribe to and practice Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" philosophy zero credibility.
>
>* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
> * RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
> * RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
> * RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
> * RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

First of all you left off the last 7 rules.

* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

And you're incorrect in saying this has zero credibility as pointed out on a wikipage which I have copied below:

( this is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals)

Direct impact
After Alinsky died in California in 1972, his influence helped spawn other organizations and policy changes. Rules for Radicals was a direct influence that helped to form the United Neighborhood Organization in the early 1980s.Its founders Greg Galluzzo, Mary Gonzales, and Pater Martinez were all students of Alinsky. The work of UNO helped to improve the hygiene, sanitation, and education in southeastern Chicago. Additionally, the founders of Organization of the North East in Chicago during the 1970s applied Alinsky’s principles to organize multiethnic neighborhoods in order to gain greater political representation.

Rules for Radicals have been dispersed by Alinsky’s students who undertook their own community organizing endeavors. Students of Alinsky’s such as Edward T. Chambers used Rules for Radicals to help form the Industrial Areas Foundation, the Queens Citizens Organization, and the Communities Organized for Public Service. Another student of Alinsky’s, Ernest Cortez, rose to prominence in the late 1970s in San Antonio while organizing Hispanic neighborhoods. His use of congregation-based organizing received much acclaim as a popular method of Alinsky’s by utilizing “preexisting solidary neighborhood elements, especially church groups, so that the constituent units are organizations, not individuals.” This congregation-based organizing and symbol construction was taught to him by Edward Chambers and the IAF during his time studying under both.

The methods and teachings of Rules for Radicals have also been linked to the Mid-America Institute, the National People's Action, the National Training and Information Center, the Pacific Institute for Community Organizations, and the Community Service Organization.

Later influence
The methods from Rules for Radicals have been seen in modern American politics. The use of congregation-based organizing has been linked to Jesse Jackson when he was organizing his own political campaign The book was praised and used as an organizational guide by the Tea Party conservative group FreedomWorks during Dick Armey's tenure as chairman.

...so like this philosophy or not, one can't claim it isn't effective or has zero credibility,