2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

KingBrian2

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I feel the exact opposite. Why should he get behind a candidate so mired in controversies and who I likely to make Obama look like a unity figure if elected.

The Democrats seem determined to give the Republicans control of Congress for the foreseeable future.

It might be time for Joe Biden to enter the race the electorate are so polarized at the motion and all the candidates are not where they would like to be. We have a hardcore right winger in the form of Donald Trump speaks for all the Conservatives, neoliberals. far right & anti left independents. You got Sanders who appeals to the former Obama supports that were ignored and you got Clinton who has all the Conservative Democrats & liberal Republicans.

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

No he's not, Brian. Quote where he says what you are saying he is.

Quote where he specifically says to only ban Jihadists.

You keep getting confused with basic reading comprehension. Just go ahead an quote where he says to ban only those interested in Jihad, and not all Muslims.

Yes Brian, it is. Over 1 billion Brian. Over 1 billion people Trump wants denied any access to the US.

Apart from London Mayors, who he feels the need to say he might make a specific exception for.

What else is going on in that head of yours, seriously?

Now go and quote where Trump makes the distinction to ban all Muslims.

Your cognitive dissonance knows no odds. Tell me, when I said...



Did you just see a blank screen?


No go and find the passage where Trump explicitly says he only wants Jihadists banned from entering the USA in his official statement entitled STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION that starts with Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.

Because, as you have proven to us all Brian, not once in the entire statement does he use any of the words Islamists, Jihadists, terrorists or extremists.

He is clearly talking about Muslims that believe in Jihad which is referenced in the text. All other Muslims are irrelevant. The topic he is discussing is the threat posed by Islamic terrorism. You keep using the term Muslim which is immaterial since Muslims have various beliefs. We have Sunni's Shi'ites, Hanabli's etc. You can't keep taking the term Muslim and using it to bash Trump with it.

Billy86

KingBrian2 wrote: »

He is clearly talking about Muslims that believe in Jihad which is referenced in the text.

So quote it, Brian.

All other Muslims are irrelevant.

Quote where he says that too, Brian.

The topic he is discussing is the threat posed by Islamic terrorism.

Quote where he only calls for terrorists to be banned, Brian.

You keep using the term Muslim which is immaterial since Muslims have various beliefs.

I'm just using the same term Trump keeps using there, Brian. If you disagree, just quote the part where he says he only wants to ban Muslims with terroristic inclinations.

We have Sunni's Shi'ites, Hanabli's etc. You can't keep taking the term Muslim and using it to bash Trump with it.

So go ahead and quote the part where he says he is not talking about all Muslims, despite him explicitly stating, in the very first word Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States

Do you know what the words 'total' and 'complete' actually mean, Brian?

KingBrian2

I would also point out Billy their may be a billion Muslims in the world but their are 7 and increasing Islamic States in the world. Islamic Republic of Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Yemen, Sudan & Qatar.

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

Quote where he only calls for terrorists to be banned, Brian.


?

He is calling on those who believe in Jihad not to be allowed in so for all the other Muslims who don't believe in Jihad he says nothing about them. Was it not Romney that was calling on deportations of Mexicans back to Mexico. Now that came from Romney yet Trump is been vilified for wanting restrictions on those who believe in Jihad and the counterargument does not hold. Why would you let people into your country who want to impose their ideology?

Billy86

KingBrian2 wrote: »

He is calling on those who believe in Jihad not to be allowed in so for all the other Muslims who don't believe in Jihad he says nothing about them.

So go find the quote where he says this. Because as of right now Brian, and until you can do that, you are literally making it up.

Was it not Romney that was calling on deportations of Mexicans back to Mexico.

What has this got to do with anything? Oh that's right, you are trying to shift the goalposts and change conversation again. This sentence is irrelevant to this conversation.

You said Trump is "all for religious toleration", despite the fact he wants to ban all Muslims, full stop, from entering the US. With the odd, specially named exception, like the f'ing Mayor of London.

Now that came from Romney yet Trump is been vilified for wanting restrictions on those who believe in Jihad and the counterargument does not hold.

Stop trying to play that victim card, it's pathetic.

Find the quote where Trump said he did not want all Muslims banned, and only specifically Jihadists.

Why would you let people into your country who want to impose their ideology?

How do you spot a Jihadist then, Brian? "Business, pleasure or jihad?"

And once more... quote where Trump said he only wants Jihadists banned, and not "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."

I mean for crying out loud Brian, along with bringing outsourced jobs back to the US this is one of the only issues he has been very consistent on.

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

So go find the quote where he says this. Because as of right now Brian, and until you can do that, you are literally making it up.

What has this got to do with anything? Oh that's right, you are trying to shift the goalposts and change conversation again. This sentence is irrelevant to this conversation.

You said Trump is "all for religious toleration", despite the fact he wants to ban all Muslims, full stop, from entering the US. With the odd, specially named exception, like the f'ing Mayor of London.

Stop trying to play that victim card, it's pathetic.

Find the quote where Trump said he did not want all Muslims banned, and only specifically Jihadists.

How do you spot a Jihadist then, Brian? "Business, pleasure or jihad?"

And once more... quote where Trump said he only wants Jihadists banned, and not "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."

I mean for crying out loud Brian, along with bringing outsourced jobs back to the US this is one of the only issues he has been very consistent on.

In the text provided to me by you he distinctly says that those who believe in Jihad not be allowed in. Not all Muslims believe in jihad only those that do and I am referencing the material you provided. The polls themselves are startling.

51% of American Muslims support Sharia Law and
25% believe violence is merited against fellow citizens.

K-9

Mod:

@Billy86 & KingBrian2, can we move on from the Muslim/Jihadist thing, it's clear both of ye aren't going agree or cede ground so it might be time to move on.

No doubt it will come up again another time!

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Brian? wrote: »

I can't see how Sanders can win. But yeah I he loses California it's curtains.

As much as I dislike Clinton, Bernie needs to stand down his campaign and get behind her ASAP. Infighting only helps Trump.

I feel the exact opposite. Why should he get behind a candidate so mired in controversies and who is likely to make Obama look like a unity figure if elected.

The Democrats seem determined to give the Republicans control of Congress for the foreseeable future.

To stop Trump.

Billy86

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Billy86 wrote: »

So go find the quote where he says this. Because as of right now Brian, and until you can do that, you are literally making it up.

What has this got to do with anything? Oh that's right, you are trying to shift the goalposts and change conversation again. This sentence is irrelevant to this conversation.

You said Trump is "all for religious toleration", despite the fact he wants to ban all Muslims, full stop, from entering the US. With the odd, specially named exception, like the f'ing Mayor of London.

Stop trying to play that victim card, it's pathetic.

Find the quote where Trump said he did not want all Muslims banned, and only specifically Jihadists.

How do you spot a Jihadist then, Brian? "Business, pleasure or jihad?"

And once more... quote where Trump said he only wants Jihadists banned, and not "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."

I mean for crying out loud Brian, along with bringing outsourced jobs back to the US this is one of the only issues he has been very consistent on.

In the text provided to me by you he distinctly says that those who believe in Jihad not be allowed in.

So it's all there where he says he only wants jihadists and not all Muslims banned in the statement that explicitly calls for banning all Muslims, but you just can't quote it for some reason? What an incredible coincidence!

Good one Brian. Quote it.

Are you still sticking to your line that "the media" added in the word 'Muslim' despite it coming straight from Trumps mouth too, by the way?

Not all Muslims believe in jihad only those that do and I am referencing the material you provided. The polls themselves are startling.

51% of American Muslims support Sharia Law and
25% believe violence is merited against fellow citizens.

IF you don't quite where he said to only ban Jihadists there is a reason, Brian.

Here's a hint: it's because he never said in. Why do you think he felt the need to specifically state it would not apply to the Mayor of London?

Billy86

K-9 wrote: »

Mod:

@Billy86 & KingBrian2, can we move on from the Muslim/Jihadist thing, it's clear both of ye aren't going agree or cede ground so it might be time to move on.

No doubt it will come up again another time!

Grand so, sorry there just put up the last response on the subway back so didn't see this!

So I'll close on Donald Trump saying how much he loves the show Only Fools and Horses.

KingBrian2

K-9 wrote: »

Mod:

@Billy86 & KingBrian2, can we move on from the Muslim/Jihadist thing, it's clear both of ye aren't going agree or cede ground so it might be time to move on.

No doubt it will come up again another time!

I will do as you said but since Billy86 continued to reply after your desist notice it seems only fair to reply to that last post.

Billy86 Donald Trump was talking about the Jihadists of the country that want Sharia law imposed across America and not the Muslims who have no ill will towards their fellow citizens. I will end it there.

InTheTrees

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's really not. She and her staff have been shown to have deliberately circumvented established protocol with respect to handling classified materials. If a regular employee had done what she has, they would, at best, lose their clearance and be banned from ever holding one again. A much more likely outcome is that such a person would find themselves facing a substantial fine and jail time.

She sent some official email from home.

The republicans have spent years and millions of dollars on a special committee investigating the Benghazi attack.

All they've managed to come up with to justify their "investigation" is that she may (or may not) have sent official email from an unofficial computer at her home.

Anyone that believe that this will result in an indictment should try reading some other news sources from time to time.

BoatMad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It might be time for Joe Biden to enter the race the electorate are so polarized at the motion and all the candidates are not where they would like to be. We have a hardcore right winger in the form of Donald Trump speaks for all the Conservatives, neoliberals. far right & anti left independents. You got Sanders who appeals to the former Obama supports that were ignored and you got Clinton who has all the Conservative Democrats & liberal Republicans.

actually the true right wing of the GOP like the Tea Party and other GOP conservative groups hate Trump with a passion. ( try reading redstate.com for example) . They dont believe he is a right winger at all and more like a good old Southern Democrat in his true nature

InTheTrees

Suryavarman wrote: »

He can't make a strong case at the convention with superdelegates. To claim that he could is the most far fetched claim in the entirety of his ridiculous campaign.

Exactly. Its important to remember that sanders isnt even a member of the Democratic Party.

The Superdelegates are usually Democratic Party officials. I'm not sure how he thinks he's going to sway superdelegates to vote for him.

InTheTrees

InTheTrees wrote: »

She sent some official email from home.

The republicans have spent years and millions of dollars on a special committee investigating the Benghazi attack.

All they've managed to come up with to justify their "investigation" is that she may (or may not) have sent official email from an unofficial computer at her home.

Anyone that believe that this will result in an indictment should try reading some other news sources from time to time.

The issue isn't that she sent emails from home, it's that she deliberately used a private server to avoid FOI requests and prying eyes while at the same time, as just one example, taking 'donations' through her foundation that coincided suspiciously with large arms deals that she had influence over. She's someone who believes that Snowden should spend the rest of his life in jail for exposing government snooping on private citizens, but went to extraordinary lengths to cover up her own activities. Everything about her wreaks. She makes Trump look good. Think about that for a second.

AbusesToilets

InTheTrees wrote: »

She sent some official email from home.

The republicans have spent years and millions of dollars on a special committee investigating the Benghazi attack.

All they've managed to come up with to justify their "investigation" is that she may (or may not) have sent official email from an unofficial computer at her home.

Anyone that believe that this will result in an indictment should try reading some other news sources from time to time.

You are not understanding the scope of what she was party to, it's not just that she had a personal server. She deliberately, either personally or by directing others to, illegally transfered information from a classified network to an unclassified one. You can't do that accidentally. You have to physically copy the materials over. That is a huge violation of security protocols, and one that would land the average person in jail for a long time.

Billy86

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You are not understanding the scope of what she was party to, it's not just that she had a personal server. She deliberately, either personally or by directing others to, illegally transfered information from a classified network to an unclassified one. You can't do that accidentally. You have to physically copy the materials over. That is a huge violation of security protocols, and one that would land the average person in jail for a long time.

Still, you do have to question why some people who are so up in arms over it don't seem too bothered that Palin and Romney likewise.

BoatMad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You are not understanding the scope of what she was party to, it's not just that she had a personal server. She deliberately, either personally or by directing others to, illegally transfered information from a classified network to an unclassified one. You can't do that accidentally. You have to physically copy the materials over. That is a huge violation of security protocols, and one that would land the average person in jail for a long time.

err, she used a personal email server to send and receive state department emails, its not that she "coped" anything. She also fully operated with the investigation. Also there is no evidence that the material was leaked or used inappropriately.

it was a technical break rather then a material one

InTheTrees

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

as just one example, taking 'donations' through her foundation that coincided suspiciously with large arms deals that she had influence over.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

She deliberately, either personally or by directing others to, illegally transfered information from a classified network to an unclassified one. You can't do that accidentally.

Um. Okay.

So given that congress is controlled by the republicans, and the special committees are controlled by the republicans.

Are there any actual charges against her?

Or is it all just spin put out by an ineffective and impotent partisan congressional committee thats facing dissolution if they lose the election?

AbusesToilets

Billy86 wrote: »

Still, you do have to question why some people who are so up in arms over it don't seem too bothered that Palin and Romney likewise.

It's a gross violation of security protocols, that potentially puts peoples lives at risk. Bradly Manning was rightly imprisoned for similar, though more egregious, actions.

I find the regular carry on of politicians leaking classified information to be disgraceful, and anyone who does so ought to be punished accordingly.

AbusesToilets

InTheTrees wrote: »

Um. Okay.

So given that congress is controlled by the republicans, and the special committees are controlled by the republicans.

Are there any actual charges against her?

Or is it all just spin put out by an ineffective and impotent partisan congressional committee thats facing dissolution if they lose the election?

You realise that it is the FBI who conducted the investigation, at the direction of the Justice Department. Any decision to indict her will come from them.

Black Swan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Agree. As noted before, it takes 270 ECs to win the 2016 presidency, and California has 55 ECs or approximately 20% needed to win.

AbusesToilets

BoatMad wrote: »

err, she used a personal email server to send and receive state department emails, its not that she "coped" anything. She also fully operated with the investigation. Also there is no evidence that the material was leaked or used inappropriately.

it was a technical break rather then a material one

No it's not just she used a personal email server. She had classified information, that could only come from separate, secured networks, in emails that she sent. That information had to be manually copied across the network.

The links below detail that the State Department concluded that 104 emails had information that they classified at the Secret level, to include 22 that they placed at the Top Secret level.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-on-her-private-server-wrote-104-emails-the-government-says-are-classified/2016/03/05/11e2ee06-dbd6-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/us/politics/22-clinton-emails-deemed-too-classified-to-be-made-public.html?_r=0

Fr Tod Umptious

Black Swan wrote: »

Agree. As noted before, it takes 270 ECs to win the 2016 presidency, and California has 55 ECs or approximately 20% needed to win.

But we are not talking about the EC and the presidency

We are talking about the Democrat party primary.

BoatMad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

No it's not just she used a personal email server. She had classified information, that could only come from separate, secured networks, in emails that she sent. That information had to be manually copied across the network.

The links below detail that the State Department concluded that 104 emails had information that they classified at the Secret level, to include 22 that they placed at the Top Secret level.

taking the newspaper article you mentioned and actually reading it

Hillary Clinton wrote 104 emails that she sent using her private server while secretary of state that the government has since said contain classified information

i.e. she put in information that was classified ( subsequently it seems ) into these emails, that classified information could have been personally knowledge , i.e. she must as SoS have heard classified information , no example of " copied " infomation

In roughly three-quarters of those cases, officials have determined that material Clinton herself wrote in the body of email messages is classified

i.e. she didnt copy it, she herself knew classified information ( i.e. it was in her mind )

Clinton sometimes initiated the conversations but more often replied to aides or other officials with brief reactions to ongoing discussions.

or others inserted the classified info and she merely replied

The analysis also showed that the practice of using non-secure email systems to send sensitive information was widespread at the department and elsewhere in government.

oh dear, that nugget gets conveniently left out of commentaries , including your own !!!

Clinton’s publicly released correspondence also includes classified emails written by about 300 other people inside and outside the government, the analysis by The Post found. The senders ­included ­longtime diplomats, top administration officials and foreigners who held no U.S. security clearance.

whoops, it would seem the US is not so Top secret as we thought , loads of "the wrong people" knew US top secrets !!!!, funny that

In those cases, Clinton was typically not among the initial recipients of the classified emails, which were included in back-and-forth exchanges between lower-level diplomats and other officials and arrived in her inbox only after they were forwarded to her by a close aide.

oh well, but she's a witch anyway

For federal employees other than Clinton, nearly all of the sensitive email was sent using their less secure, day-to-day government accounts. Classified information is supposed to be exchanged only over a separate, more secure network.

of course those " federal employees " are just as culpable , but of course they dont have the GOP hunting for them !!!

and to summarise The Washington Posts says

The analysis raises difficult questions about how the government treats sensitive information. It suggests that either material is being overclassified, as Clinton and her allies have charged, or that classified material is being handled improperly with regularity by government officials at all levels — or some combination of the two.

oh deary me, the whole edifice is rotten

This is not withstanding the claim that Clinton made that most of the material was subsequently classified and was not so when she wrote or corresponded with it

“I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.” At other points, she has said that none of the emails was “marked classified” at the time she sent or received them — a point she reiterated Friday in a CNBC interview.

and the state department has its finger up its bum in this regard

Spokesman John Kirby said only that the department’s reviewers “focused on whether information needs to be classified today — prior to documents being publicly released.” State officials have not offered an assessment of whether the information was classified when it was sent.

but hey lets not have facts ruin a good witch-hunt

AbusesToilets

BoatMad wrote: »

taking the newspaper article you mentioned and actually reading it



i.e. she put in information that was classified ( subsequently it seems ) into these emails, that classified information could have been personally knowledge , i.e. she must as SoS have heard classified information , no example of " copied " infomation



i.e. she didnt copy it, she herself knew classified information ( i.e. it was in her mind )



or others inserted the classified info and she merely replied



oh dear, that nugget gets conveniently left out of commentaries , including your own !!!



whoops, it would seem the US is not so Top secret as we thought , loads of "the wrong people" knew US top secrets !!!!, funny that



oh well, but she's a witch anyway



of course those " federal employees " are just as culpable , but of course they dont have the GOP hunting for them !!!

and to summarise The Washington Posts says



oh deary me, the whole edifice is rotten

This is not withstanding the claim that Clinton made that most of the material was subsequently classified and was not so when she wrote or corresponded with it



and the state department has its finger up its bum in this regard



but hey lets not have facts ruin a good witch-hunt

Clearly you fail to understand the nature of classified information and how governments protect such material. Her "knowing" the information doesn't make it any less classified. If I "knew" details pertaining to the US nuclear secrets and put that in an email, I would be just as guilty as if I scanned documents and posted them as attachments.

You also seem content to ignore the part of those articles that states there was information in 22 emails that was rated as Top Secret.

In addition, as Secretary of State, she is responsible for setting the tone for State Department employees, something that, judging by the widespread disregard for regulations endemic across the State Department, she clearly did.

BoatMad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Clearly you fail to understand the nature of classified information and how governments protect such material. Her "knowing" the information doesn't make it any less classified. If I "knew" details pertaining to the US nuclear secrets and put that in an email, I would be just as guilty as if I scanned documents and posted them as attachments.

You also seem content to ignore the part of those articles that states there was information in 22 emails that was rated as Top Secret.

In addition, as Secretary of State, she is responsible for setting the tone for State Department employees, something that, judging by the widespread disregard for regulations endemic across the State Department, she clearly did.

was she ill advised to do what she did , of course , she cannot duck that.

was it the "crime" that republicans think it is , clearly not.

Her "knowing" the information doesn't make it any less classified. If I "knew" details pertaining to the US nuclear secrets and put that in an email, I would be just as guilty as if I scanned documents and posted them as attachments

you clearly ignore the question that most of the information she claims ( and is not disputed ) was NOT classified when it was part of the correspondence when written and only become classified later.

The only issue she can be accused of , is sending information contary to State department guidelines , over a non authorised communications process. She is not being accused of leaking such information or any other issue.

Billy86

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's a gross violation of security protocols, that potentially puts peoples lives at risk. Bradly Manning was rightly imprisoned for similar, though more egregious, actions.

I find the regular carry on of politicians leaking classified information to be disgraceful, and anyone who does so ought to be punished accordingly.

Yes, but that doesn't explain why some people who are so up in arms over it don't seem too bothered that Palin and Romney likewise.

AbusesToilets

BoatMad wrote: »

was she ill advised to do what she did , of course , she cannot duck that.

was it the "crime" that republicans think it is , clearly not.



you clearly ignore the question that most of the information she claims ( and is not disputed ) was NOT classified when it was part of the correspondence when written and only become classified later.

The only issue she can be accused of , is sending information contary to State department guidelines , over a non authorised communications process. She is not being accused of leaking such information or any other issue.

First, yes it is a crime. Absolutely. Mishandling of classified information is a huge ****ing crime, people get fined and jailed for it. Period.

Second, "Most" information was not classified, still means some of it was, to include some that was considered to be Top Secret. No amount of dissembling is going to change that.