2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

AbusesToilets

Billy86 wrote: »

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.

They should be, anybody who mishandles classified materials should be punished appropriately. I wish more politicians were reprimanded for it.

BoatMad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

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.

Let's be careful here. HC has not been found guilty of any crime in this regard. She is innocent until proven quilty.

People are primarily prosecuted for either communicating secret material to others not cleared to receive it or making such material inappropriately public ( leaving aside moral arguments over the " public good" ) no such accusation has been levelled at HC.

I'm no fan of HC , but clearly this issue has all the hall marks of a republican witch hunt , in the same vein as to the one mounted against her husband.

AbusesToilets

BoatMad wrote: »

Let's be careful here. HC has not been found guilty of any crime in this regard. She is innocent until proven quilty.

People are primarily prosecuted for either communicating secret material to others not cleared to receive it or making such material inappropriately public ( leaving aside moral arguments over the " public good" ) no such accusation has been levelled at HC.

I'm no fan of HC , but clearly this issue has all the hall marks of a republican witch hunt , in the same vein as to the one mounted against her husband.

You are still not acknowledging the fact that classified material was passed by her on emails through an unsecured network. That is a knowing violation of established regulations. If you or I had done what she has been shown to have done, we would be facing jail time. She and her staff were complicit in doing so, on multiple occasions.

Whether she faces charges or not depends on how much sack those in charge of the Justice Department have.

BoatMad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You are still not acknowledging the fact that classified material was passed by her on emails through an unsecured network. That is a knowing violation of established regulations. If you or I had done what she has been shown to have done, we would be facing jail time. She and her staff were complicit in doing so, on multiple occasions.

Whether she faces charges or not depends on how much sack those in charge of the Justice Department have.

You are not judge and jury.

Allegations have been made , certain mitigating factors have been advanced by HC. No decision to prosecute has been made ( arguably if the practice was common as has been alleged , it would arguably be the Gov itself that should be prosecuted for negligence . ) . No hearing has commenced and no verdict delivered.

With that in mind HC may or may not have knowingly broke rules . She is entitled to the presumption of innocence , anything else is exactly as I claimed , a witch hunt.

AbusesToilets

BoatMad wrote: »

You are not judge and jury.

Allegations have been made , certain mitigating factors have been advanced by HC. No decision to prosecute has been made ( arguably if the practice was common as has been alleged , it would arguably be the Gov itself that should be prosecuted for negligence . ) . No hearing has commenced and no verdict delivered.

With that in mind HC may or may not have knowingly broke rules . She is entitled to the presumption of innocence , anything else is exactly as I claimed , a witch hunt.

Just a wild coincidence that the State Department won't release 22 of the emails found on her server because they contain Top Secret information. I'm sure there's a perfect reasonable explanation for that. How could someone who has served in the US Senate and as Secretary of State be expected to know the ins and outs of handling classified information?

KingBrian2

BoatMad wrote: »

You are not judge and jury.

Allegations have been made , certain mitigating factors have been advanced by HC. No decision to prosecute has been made ( arguably if the practice was common as has been alleged , it would arguably be the Gov itself that should be prosecuted for negligence . ) . No hearing has commenced and no verdict delivered.

With that in mind HC may or may not have knowingly broke rules . She is entitled to the presumption of innocence , anything else is exactly as I claimed , a witch hunt.

She is still a Presidential nominee and before even entering the corridors of power she is involved in a scandal. It usually happens when the person is in office.

AbusesToilets

KingBrian2 wrote: »

She is still a Presidential nominee and before even entering the corridors of power she is involved in a scandal. It usually happens when the person is in office.

I struggle to understand the Democrats desire to push Clinton as their nominee. I get Sanders is an outsider to the party,however, they stand a much better chance of advancing their legislative agenda with him in office. No republican is going to work with Clinton. She is not a popular figure, and I would wager there is a strong chance that the Republicans will win control of Congress in the next set of elections if she is President.

KingBrian2

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I struggle to understand the Democrats desire to push Clinton as their nominee. I get Sanders is an outsider to the party,however, they stand a much better chance of advancing their legislative agenda with him in office. No republican is going to work with Clinton. She is not a popular figure, and I would wager there is a strong chance that the Republicans will win control of Congress in the next set of elections if she is President.

I would agree with that assessment.

InTheTrees

KingBrian2 wrote: »

She is still a Presidential nominee and before even entering the corridors of power she is involved in a scandal. It usually happens when the person is in office.

Republicans have been hounding Hillary since the mid 1990's

This is just the last gasp attempt from the failed GOP Benghazi Committee.

AbusesToilets

InTheTrees wrote: »

Republicans have been hounding Hillary since the mid 1990's

This is just the last gasp attempt from the failed GOP Benghazi Committee.

Or a legitimate issue that deserves full public scrutiny.

InTheTrees

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I struggle to understand the Democrats desire to push Clinton as their nominee. I get Sanders is an outsider to the party,however, they stand a much better chance of advancing their legislative agenda with him in office. No republican is going to work with Clinton. She is not a popular figure, and I would wager there is a strong chance that the Republicans will win control of Congress in the next set of elections if she is President.

She's received more total votes in the primaries than trump. Three million more than sanders.

Congress is already controlled by Republicans. There's also a good chance with the negative reaction against trump that people will vote against republicans in the house and senate to deny trump control of congress.

AbusesToilets

InTheTrees wrote: »

She's received more total votes in the primaries than trump. Three million more than sanders.

Congress is already controlled by Republicans. There's also a good chance with the negative reaction against trump that people will vote against republicans in the house and senate to deny trump control of congress.

How many votes did Obama receive in his elections? How did the subsequent Congressional elections go and what were the consequences for his and te Democrats legislative efforts?

BoatMad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

She is still a Presidential nominee and before even entering the corridors of power she is involved in a scandal. It usually happens when the person is in office.

the demand in the US for its politicians to be squeaky clean is a sight to behold.

now wheres Trumps tax returns hmmm.....

JPNelsforearm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Republicans have been hounding Hillary since the mid 1990's

This is just the last gasp attempt from the failed GOP Benghazi Committee.

Hillary is the first and only candidate, under criminal investigation during the election process. Considering the repeated attempts to make a big issue out of Trump leasing his brand/name to a mlm scam masquerading as a university, and the civil suit in which he is named, its small potatoes compared to what Hillary is accused of.

BoatMad

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Hillary is the first and only candidate, under criminal investigation during the election process. Considering the repeated attempts to make a big issue out of Trump leasing his brand/name to a mlm scam masquerading as a university, and the civil suit in which he is named, its small potatoes compared to what Hillary is accused of.

Trump's case is potentially far more damaging.

Former officials of Trump University have come forward to implicate the billionaire real estate mogul, saying that he was intimately involved in its marketing style, preying upon the young as well as older people who ended up deeply in debt, and without a legitimate degree.

http://townhall.com/columnists/donaldlambro/2016/06/03/both-presidential-candidates-under-investigation-either-by-the-fbi-or-in-federal-court-n2172424

JPNelsforearm

BoatMad wrote: »

http://townhall.com/columnists/donaldlambro/2016/06/03/both-presidential-candidates-under-investigation-either-by-the-fbi-or-in-federal-court-n2172424

Donld Trump is accused of knowingly running an mlm-type scam(of which there are many in the educational sector, see the University of Phoenix). He maintains he just leased his name/brand.


Hillary Clinton is accused of knowingly violating many laws as regards state secrets, which comes with criminal charges, she maintains her ignorance, ignorance is no excuse in her case.

Worst case scenario for Trump is years of litigation followed by a fine, worst case scenario for Hillary is jail.

I fail to see how Trump is in a worse situation, legally.

Suryavarman

It's crazy to see Hillary's shills in the media and online claiming this race is over. They clearly have no respect for democracy. Okay she has 3 million more total votes. Okay she has more pledged delegates. Okay she has far more support from superdelegates that will go out and campaign for the nominee. Okay she has won more contests. Okay she has won 11 of the 12 largest states in the nation, most of them by large margins. Okay she has continuously beaten Sanders in diverse states and among minorities. Okay she beats Trump in polls despite being attacked by Republicans constantly for the last 25 years.

But she hasn't won Washington DC which still has to vote. Washington DC is clearly the most important contest as that is where the President actually lives. If Washington DC chooses that it wants Bernie Sanders to live there then who are the millions of people that voted for Clinton over Sanders to deny them their choice? When DC votes for Sanders over Clinton just like California was supposed to then the hundreds of superdelegates that have long favoured Clinton will naturally end up voting for Sanders at the convention. Do you think that the superdelegates drawn from the party establishment are going to let things like Sanders constantly criticising them and the Democratic Party or the fact that he has done little to no fundraising for down ballot Democratic candidates stop them from voting for Sanders at the convention? Thinking that Clinton has this sewn up is truly delusional.

FA Hayek

Brian? wrote: »

I find the above quote bizarre. You used my post as an example of a "smug liberal". I'm not a liberal and never have been. I'd appreciate if you'd accept that instead of implying I'm a liberal by default. I actually don't have a "team" In the election to "bat for".

Oh really?

Brian? wrote: »

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

Brian? wrote: »

To stop Trump.

Ahem!
Its OK to bat for a team but at least come clean.

Suryavarman

Suryavarman wrote: »

It's crazy to see Hillary's shills in the media and online claiming this race is over. They clearly have no respect for democracy. Okay she has 3 million more total votes. Okay she has more pledged delegates. Okay she has far more support from superdelegates that will go out and campaign for the nominee. Okay she has won more contests. Okay she has won 11 of the 12 largest states in the nation, most of them by large margins. Okay she has continuously beaten Sanders in diverse states and among minorities. Okay she beats Trump in polls despite being attacked by Republicans constantly for the last 25 years.

They've been saying the race is over since day one, pretty much. Bernie got a tiny fraction of the coverage that Hillary got, many voters had never even heard of him in the early primaries. And she still managed to almost lose. Now we can watch Trump demolish her like Bernie should have.

Akrasia

The DNC rigged the vote for Hillary, and Hillary won, but by nowhere near the margin that they had hoped for.

http://www.gregpalast.com/california-stolen-sanders-right-nowspecial-bulletin-greg-palast/#more-12053

Sanders is by far the better candidate for America and the world.

Clinton is a war monger and a shill to industry. She won't tackle climate change, she'll expand fracking and build more pipelines as the world continues to see record breaking temperatures

Trump would be worse, but Hillary is a terrible candidate.

The only hope is for Hillary to face indictment and the DNC to choose Sanders at the convention but I doubt that even a criminal indictment against Hillary would be enough at this stage.

The General election will be rigged anyway, millions of legitimate votes will not be counted in the November election.

The GOP have been the kings of rigging elections recently, but the Democrats are trying to catch up.

FA Hayek

Akrasia wrote: »

The GOP have been the kings of rigging elections recently, but the Democrats are trying to catch up.

I am curious. What elections have the GOP rigged and I assume you mean national elections are are we talking about state and local elections.

Akrasia

FA Hayek wrote: »

I am curious. What elections have the GOP rigged and I assume you mean national elections are are we talking about state and local elections.

If you follow the investigative reporter Greg Palast you'll see how the GOP stole the Bush Gore election (as just one example) and how they work to exclude likely democrat voters from the electoral registers

http://www.gregpalast.com/one-million-black-votes-didnt-count-in-the-2000-presidential-election-rnits-not-too-hard-to-get-your-vote-lost-if-some-politicians-want-it-to-be-lost/

If you set up the voting process so that it's more likely that your opponents votes won't get counted, that is enough to steal a close election.

In The U.S. election in 2000, over a million black voters had their votes 'spoiled' which is more than half the total number of spoiled votes in that election, despite the fact that Black people made up 12% of the register.

Election machines were set up to fail more often in areas that favour democrats.

Its fraud, but it's plausibly deniable fraud because you can always blame the voters for not voting correctly or point to some republican voters who had their vote spoiled too and claim that they balanced each other out

FA Hayek

Akrasia wrote: »

If you follow the investigative reporter Greg Palast you'll see how the GOP stole the Bush Gore election (as just one example) and how they work to exclude likely democrat voters from the electoral registers

http://www.gregpalast.com/one-million-black-votes-didnt-count-in-the-2000-presidential-election-rnits-not-too-hard-to-get-your-vote-lost-if-some-politicians-want-it-to-be-lost/

If you set up the voting process so that it's more likely that your opponents votes won't get counted, that is enough to steal a close election.

In The U.S. election in 2000, over a million black voters had their votes 'spoiled' which is more than half the total number of spoiled votes in that election, despite the fact that Black people made up 12% of the register.

Election machines were set up to fail more often in areas that favour democrats.

Its fraud, but it's plausibly deniable fraud because you can always blame the voters for not voting correctly or point to some republican voters who had their vote spoiled too and claim that they balanced each other out

Thanks, ill give it a look but at first glance I am skeptical. Normally people want to believe these stories more then what the facts actually portray. A lot has been written about the 2000 election and an army of lawyers have look at the results. Yet it seems only one reporter knows what really went on?

skywanderer

Hopefully Sanders will run Independent and split the Democratic vote handing it to Trump. Hillary deserves no less. Sanders won't be elected and in an ideal world Trump and Sanders might run together with Sanders as VP but it would be too much for hardline Republicans to swallow and they might vote Hillary instead. Hillary Clinton is worse than G.W. Bush in my opinion.

Akrasia

FA Hayek wrote: »

Thanks, ill give it a look but at first glance I am skeptical. Normally people want to believe these stories more then what the facts actually portray. A lot has been written about the 2000 election and an army of lawyers have look at the results. Yet it seems only one reporter knows what really went on?

It's a sad indictment of the state of journalism and the media today that there are so few people who actually do the work required to investigate these things and so few media outlets prepared to report on them

Palast is currently documenting the generation of cross state purging lists that could affect millions of U.S. voters in America.
The 'Crosscheck list' that is removing people from their electoral register because they're allegedly registered twice in different states, but in reality, it's just disenfranchising people with common names, and that's disproportionately minority voters

Palast is also the only one who really talks consistently about the 'Provisional ballots' issue.

Voters who are given provisional ballots because they have been purged from the election register will be made to feel as though they have voted, but their vote is far less likely to be counted.

Most presidential elections are decided by a couple of percent either way, so if you can bias the vote by a few percent, it can swing the vote in your way.

Another issue is absentee ballots. Half a million absentee ballots (one in 7) were not counted in the last election, and a black person had a 900% chance of having his/her ballot discarded and not counted.

InTheTrees

FA Hayek wrote: »

I am curious. What elections have the GOP rigged and I assume you mean national elections are are we talking about state and local elections.

Gerrymandering of electoral district's and Voter ID laws are common GOP tactics.

Suryavarman

Akrasia wrote: »

The DNC rigged the vote for Hillary, and Hillary won, but by nowhere near the margin that they had hoped for.

http://www.gregpalast.com/california-stolen-sanders-right-nowspecial-bulletin-greg-palast/#more-12053

Sanders is by far the better candidate for America and the world.

Clinton is a war monger and a shill to industry. She won't tackle climate change, she'll expand fracking and build more pipelines as the world continues to see record breaking temperatures

Trump would be worse, but Hillary is a terrible candidate.

The only hope is for Hillary to face indictment and the DNC to choose Sanders at the convention but I doubt that even a criminal indictment against Hillary would be enough at this stage.

The General election will be rigged anyway, millions of legitimate votes will not be counted in the November election.

The GOP have been the kings of rigging elections recently, but the Democrats are trying to catch up.

You do have a point. Hillary did point out her gratitude to the Illuminati for helping her nomination. Without them colluding with Wall Street and the lamestream media to pull the DNC's strings, millions of voters might have chose Sanders over Clinton. Alas, the propaganda won out over free will and we must spend the rest of our lives thinking about what could have been.

InTheTrees

I think it would certainly have helped Sanders bid for the Democratic Party nomination if he'd actually joined the Democratic Party. He may have had some of the establishment support that otherwise went to Hillary Clinton.

Manic Moran

Gerrymandering of electoral district's and Voter ID laws are common GOP tactics.

I assure you, gerrymandering is in no way confined to the Republicans.

K-9

Manic Moran wrote: »

I assure you, gerrymandering is in no way confined to the Republicans.

Mostly Republicans around the mid 00's on from what I've read, but not confined to them. I'd read even one of Obama's districts back in Chicago was redrawn so both parties do it. The GOP seems to have really targeted it as party strategy in the last decade and the results show it worked.