2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

The crown prince of Saudi indicated they were funding 20% of Hillary's campaign.

I've seen that rumour on a number of partisan websites, but:

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/deleted-official-report-says-saudi-key-funder-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-223282807

It is illegal in the United States for foreign countries to try and influence the outcome of elections by funding candidates.

Bohlen said he could confirm that Saudi Arabia has provided no funding to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

InTheTrees

Black Swan wrote: »

My 2 euros, no 2 bucks worth...

There's a young man from Texas named Julian Castro who may be on the shortlist. Ex-mayor of San Antonio, now Obama's Sec Of Housing and Urban Development.

He would help bring in the south and may even sway some of those purple states.

Suryavarman

InTheTrees wrote: »

There's a young man from Texas named Julian Castro who may be on the shortlist. Ex-mayor of San Antonio, now Obama's Sec Of Housing and Urban Development.

He would help bring in the south and may even sway some of those purple states.

He seems like a good option to me, although I don't know many of the potential picks in depth. A young, hispanic, male from the South would offer a lot of diversity and expand the appeal of the ticket. He is quite inexperienced though, I've done some searching to find out what he believes but I can't find a whole lot. He does seem to fall in line with the Democratic mainstream which means he won't scare away independents the way Warren would. There seems to be evidence that Clinton is losing support to the Libertarian Party, picking Warren would only make the problem worse. She has a large lead, if polls are to be believed, but why risk the lead narrowing?

Amerika

RobertKK wrote: »

So is this correct: the Attorney General and her team are involved in investigating Hillary Clinton's email server scandal. Bill Clinton at the airport in Phoenix sees the plane of the Attorney General on the tarmac and goes onto the plane and has a 30 minute meeting.
It is being called the 'fix is in', that Bill was trying to fix the outcome of the investigation into Hillary's emails.

Yup. A local TV news station, ABC15, broke the news of the meeting.
Lynch stated when questioned by reporters...
“I did see President Clinton at the Phoenix airport,” she told ABC15.

“As I was leaving and he spoke to myself and my husband on the plane. Our conversation was a great deal about his grandchildren. It was primarily social and about our travels. He mentioned the golf he played in Phoenix.”

Even the liberal media is in a WTF mode. There is a general consensus from the media of “primarily social”... please don’t think we’re all stupid, Ms. Lynch. And he didn’t just run into her in the terminal. The meeting was on her plane, and would have to be some remarkable coincidence for them to bump into each other by accident because there were no publicly announced events scheduled for Bill Clinton.

At a minimum the optics are terrible and highly suspect for Lynch, the Clinton’s, and the Obama administration with having the Attorney General meeting with the husband of a women currently under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

There are now calls for her to recuse herself from the criminal investigation involving Hillary Clinton. Instead, she doubles down on partisan politics. Lynch comes out and says she wants to handle the Clinton investigation like any other case, but simultaneously filing a motion in federal court seeking a 27-month delay in producing correspondence between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s four top aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings. That would mean the release would come 22 months after the presidential election. Originally there was estimated to be around 6,000 emails between Clinton’s State Department with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings (a closely allied public relations firm that Bill Clinton helped launch. Now there seems to be over 34,000 emails involved.

How convenient for the Clinton campaign, wouldn't you say.

Nothing to see here, please move along?

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Team Trump has been "flooding" fundraising emails specifically to MP's at the British Parliamentary addresses, consequently the MP's have asked their Digital Services Department to block them. This is intentional, not randomly sent to generic email addresses. Just another example of Donald Trump's ZERO experience in diplomacy (when running for the highest diplomatic office in USA), and the adverse affects it is now causing with foreign government official complaints from several countries around the world.

I'm curious. What information do you have that indicates Team Trump has 'specifically' targeted MP's for donations, and that the emails were not just names on some yuugge political email mailing list?

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've seen that rumour on a number of partisan websites, but:

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/deleted-official-report-says-saudi-key-funder-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-223282807

It's interesting to note, though, that the article only made a small two sentences note near the end of the article of Saudi Arabia giving as much as $25 million to the Clinton Foundation... a charitable organization that provides less than 10% to charity of the money it takes in.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

...the Clinton Foundation... a charitable organization that provides less than 10% to charity of the money it takes in.

"Mostly False".

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/29/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-clinton-foundation-spends-just-/

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Mostly False".

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/29/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-clinton-foundation-spends-just-/

The reasoning behind PolitiFact's 'Mostly False' claim reads as gobbledygook.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/29/punditfact-a-case-study-in-fact-free-hackery/

[UPDATE: Phil Kerpen notes on Twitter that PunditFact and PolitiFact are funded by a large and active Clinton Foundation donor and partner, a fact PunditFact conveniently failed to disclose in its defense of the Clinton Foundation.]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/oct/10/politifact-launch-punditfact-checking-pundits-and-/

Now, after reading this detailed analysis, I'd say the two organizations: PunditFact and Politifact's claim of "Mostly False" are Mostly False... Unless, that is, you're of the mind that facts aren't necessary in determining 'facts.'

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

The reasoning behind PolitiFact's 'Mostly False' claim reads as gobbledygook.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/29/punditfact-a-case-study-in-fact-free-hackery/

The Federalist disagrees with Politifact's analysis of its original claim.

Film at 11.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

The Federalist disagrees with Politifact's analysis of its original claim.

Film at 11.

I think that's "News at 11."

Don't you think the reporting by The Federalist is thorough and accurate and light years above PolitiFacts "analysis," in comparison?


Aside...

I’ve got to admit it, this is a nice recovery (if true) by Attorney General Lynch, as a response to the tarmac meeting brouhaha. But it doesn’t address the fact that she is still giving cover by delaying the reporting of information... but I think the courts will decide if she is allowed to get away with it.

A Justice Department official said the attorney general will accept the “determinations and findings of career prosecutors and lawyers as well as FBI investigators and director [James B.] Comey.” The official spoke on the condition of anonymity in advance of Lynch’s remarks. The New York Times first reported the expected Lynch comments.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/attorney-general-to-back-fbi-and-justice-findings-in-clinton-email-server-probe/2016/07/01/77ce6d8e-3f78-11e6-a66f-aa6c1883b6b1_story.html

So I’m wondering if all that might be left for Clinton is a presidential pardon issued by President Obama, or a lengthy ugly trial with negative public opinion surrounding it, that would sink her candidacy?

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

Don't you think the reporting by The Federalist is thorough and accurate and light years above PolitiFacts "analysis," in comparison?

I think that The Federalist has seized upon the idea that the 15% the Clinton Foundation gave to other charitable organisations is the only thing that could be conceivably described as "charity", and is focusing on that idea to the exclusion of all else.

I guess it's a bit like Benghazi: the GOP decided it was Hillary's fault, and then spent millions of dollars of taxpayers' money desperately trying to find some evidence to support that conclusion.

If you want to carefully carve out a narrow definition of "charity" that will allow you to criticise the Clintons, work away. Within your own carefully-chosen terms of reference, I'm sure it's satisfying to you to be right.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

I'm curious. What information do you have that indicates Team Trump has 'specifically' targeted MP's for donations, and that the emails were not just names on some yuugge political email mailing list?

These emailed campaign donation solicitations were from Donald Trump, Trump's sons, or the Trump campaign, and were sent to very specific foreign government MP official email addresses, with the obvious foreign national codes at the email address end. For example:

• Iceland Parliament: Trump email's sent to members of Iceland's parliament had addresses ending in "@althingi.is" with "althingi" the name for Iceland's parliament, and the "is" for Iceland.
• British Parliament: Both Scottish and British MPs received several emails addressed to them from the Trump campaign to the official parliament address ending in "@parliament.uk" with the "parliament" the obvious official name and the "uk" for United Kingdom.
• Australian Parliament: Several MPs complained about Trump emails being sent to their official Australian parliament email addresses that end in "@aph.gov.au" with "aph" designated for the Australian Parliament, and "gov" obvious, and "au" for Australia.

Furthermore, these Trump emails have been sent repeatedly to the same MPs of several nations beginning on or before or after 22 June 2016.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

These emailed campaign donation solicitations were from Donald Trump, Trump's sons, or the Trump campaign, and were sent to very specific foreign government MP official email addresses, with the obvious foreign national codes at the email address end. For example:

• Iceland Parliament: Trump email's sent to members of Iceland's parliament had addresses ending in "@althingi.is" with "althingi" the name for Iceland's parliament, and the "is" for Iceland.
• British Parliament: Both Scottish and British MPs received several emails addressed to them from the Trump campaign to the official parliament address ending in "@parliament.uk" with the "parliament" the obvious official name and the "uk" for United Kingdom.
• Australian Parliament: Several MPs complained about Trump emails being sent to their official Australian parliament email addresses that end in "@aph.gov.au" with "aph" designated for the Australian Parliament, and "gov" obvious, and "au" for Australia.

Furthermore, these Trump emails have been sent repeatedly to the same MPs of several nations beginning on or before or after 22 June 2016.

That’s the filed complaint. It still doesn't give any answers to mailing list quantity numbers. Were they small numbers and targeted just to @althingi.is, @parliament.uk, @aph.gov.au, and similar foreign entities? Or were they part of huge mailings in the tens-or-hundreds-of-thousands, or perhaps millions? I guess we’ll find out soon enough, unless Team Trump takes a page from Foggy Bottom and the Obama Administration... and waits years to comply with official requests and complaints.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think that The Federalist has seized upon the idea that the 15% the Clinton Foundation gave to other charitable organisations is the only thing that could be conceivably described as "charity", and is focusing on that idea to the exclusion of all else.

I guess it's a bit like Benghazi: the GOP decided it was Hillary's fault, and then spent millions of dollars of taxpayers' money desperately trying to find some evidence to support that conclusion.

If you want to carefully carve out a narrow definition of "charity" that will allow you to criticise the Clintons, work away. Within your own carefully-chosen terms of reference, I'm sure it's satisfying to you to be right.

I think The Federalist proves the all important overall point that The Clinton Foundation spends very little of the donations they take in on actual charity work, whereas PolitiFact in their ruling of “Mostly False” leads readers to the wrong conclusion - specifically by stating, in disdain IMO, “There’s a grain of truth here…”

"A grain of truth," give me a break!

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

I think The Federalist proves the all important overall point that The Clinton Foundation spends very little of the donations they take in on actual charity work, whereas PolitiFact in their ruling of “Mostly False” leads readers to the wrong conclusion - specifically by stating, in disdain IMO, “There’s a grain of truth here…”

"A grain of truth," give me a break!

On the subject of truth and sources, you have yet to point out what page and section of the Benghazi report the following statements come from, since you did claim that they were part of the Benghazi report.

Here is what you claimed the Benghazi report stated:

1. "The Obama/Clinton policy in Libya was a disaster but for political purposes warnings were ignored and political ends were prioritized over security needs in the months leading up to the September 11 attacks."

2. "During the attacks American lives could have been saved by the swift deployment of military assets, but political desires created a bureaucratic paralysis preventing key decisions from being made."

3. "In the aftermath of the deadly terrorist attacks, the Obama/Clinton teams chose politics and deception rather than tell the American people the truth."

And here is the Benghazi Report for you to source from:

http://benghazi.house.gov/NewInfo
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/1%20Intro%20Material.pdf
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/2%20Part%20I%20Redacted%20DR_0.pdf
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/3%20Part%20II%20Redacted%20DR.pdf
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/4%20Part%20III%20Redacted%20DR.pdf
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/5%20Part%20IV%20Compliance.pdf
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/6%20Part%20V%20Recommendations.pdf
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/7%20App%20A%20H%20Res%20567.pdf
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/8%20App%20B%20Persons%20and%20Orgs.pdf
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/9%20App%20C%20Questions%20to%20POTUS.pdf
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/10%20App%20D%20Timeline%20of%20Security%20Events.pdf
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/11%20App%20E%20Security%20Incidents.pdf
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/12%20App%20F%20Benghazi%20Security%20Redacted.pdf

Remember, you only have to click on them and hit 'CTRL + F' to search for those passages you claimed were in it, so the defense of it being too long to read through is not available to you.

Inquitus

Is it all over? Trump's campaign is in disarray, he doesn't have fundraising in place, he doesn't have the skillset to campaign at GE level, he can no longer stand at a stump and say the first thing that pops into his head as he did in the primaries.

Nate Silver has Trump @20% odds to win the presidency, he also has Hillary at 20% to sweep the Presidency, the Senate and the House, citing the fact that Trump is going to be a down ticket disaster for the GOP.

Is this a done deal at this point? is there any way back for Trump? Can the GOP overthrow him at the convention? reading the latest news and opinion this is over as a contest! Anyone disagree?

TheDoctor

Wasn't really much of a contest to begin with.

Billy86

Some further reading o the Clinton Foundation claims, for those interested.

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=27856
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/19/simply-wrong-another-fact-checker-blows-up-a-fa/204072
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
http://www.examiner.com/article/clinton-foundation-only-gives-15-percent-of-donations-to-charities-irs-concern

K-9

So it isn't 5/10/15 % and could be up to 88%.

Throw enough dirt and it'll stick, watch it get repeated throughout the campaign.

Billy86

K-9 wrote: »

So it isn't 5/10/15 % and could be up to 88%.

Throw enough dirt and it'll stick, watch it get repeated throughout the campaign.

If you've ever wondered why I get hung up on posters backing up their claims, this is it.

It's true though, tell a lie unchallenged enough and it eventually becomes truth.

Amerika

Sorry, holiday weekend starts now. Won't be back until maybe late next week to do battle with the liberal biased media.

But here's a question? I post a comment on my take from information, and supply the data/article (granted from a right leaning source, and at least I admit it). And to counter my contention, someone merely posts data from left leaning sources, with no counters to the data first supplied in my source. So, do I merely post other articles to counter the counter articles to my original comment and sources? Doesn't sound very productive.

K-9

Amerika wrote: »

Sorry, holiday weekend starts now. Won't be back until maybe late next week to do battle with the liberal biased media.

But here's a question? I post a comment on my take from information, and supply the data/article (granted from a right leaning source, and at least I admit it). And to counter my contention, someone merely posts data from left leaning sources, with no counters to the data first supplied in my source. So, do I merely post other articles to counter the counter articles to my original comment and sources? Doesn't sound very productive.

Well what would you regard as independent then?

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

Sorry, holiday weekend starts now. Won't be back until maybe late next week to do battle with the liberal biased media.

But here's a question? I post a comment on my take from information, and supply the data/article (granted from a right leaning source, and at least I admit it). And to counter my contention, someone merely posts data from left leaning sources, with no counters to the data first supplied in my source. So, do I merely post other articles to counter the counter articles to my original comment and sources? Doesn't sound very productive.

When you're posting lies about and refusing to answer on them by trying to pass off conspiracy theory websites' opinions as factual findings from an official body (as with the Benghazi report, scroll up 7-8 posts), of course people will treat your posts and sources with suspicion and will stop giving you any benefit of the doubt. That shouldn't need to even be mentioned.

Fr Tod Umptious

RobertKK wrote: »

So is this correct: the Attorney General and her team are involved in investigating Hillary Clinton's email server scandal. Bill Clinton at the airport in Phoenix sees the plane of the Attorney General on the tarmac and goes onto the plane and has a 30 minute meeting.
It is being called the 'fix is in', that Bill was trying to fix the outcome of the investigation into Hillary's emails.

How do the Democratic party or Hillary's team allow such a thing to happen ?

The optics are so so bad, surely someone somewhere should have stood up and said that its a bad idea of Lynch and Bill to meet right now, regardless of what they planned to talk about.

PopePalpatine

Inquitus wrote: »

Is it all over? Trump's campaign is in disarray, he doesn't have fundraising in place, he doesn't have the skillset to campaign at GE level, he can no longer stand at a stump and say the first thing that pops into his head as he did in the primaries.

Nate Silver has Trump @20% odds to win the presidency, he also has Hillary at 20% to sweep the Presidency, the Senate and the House, citing the fact that Trump is going to be a down ticket disaster for the GOP.

Is this a done deal at this point? is there any way back for Trump? Can the GOP overthrow him at the convention? reading the latest news and opinion this is over as a contest! Anyone disagree?

Let me play devil's advocate for a second. Trump's a celebrity with his own branded business empire, going up against a woman whom right-wing pundits have attacked for over 20 years. McCain and Romney didn't have Trump's celebrity status prior to becoming the GOP's nominee, nor did Obama have the status of "Conservatives' Enemy #1" before he won the Dems' nomination in 2008. I wouldn't be certain that his lack of fundraising ability would derail his Presidential campaign.

Granted, Republicans running for swing seats in Congress don't have the Trump brand name.

20Cent

Heard the right wing American fella George Hook has on his show today. He's as republican as it gets. Said Trump has no chance. Funny point he made was that Trump boasts about donating to war veterans but has actually given more money to Hillary than them.

RobertKK

Hillary Clinton met the FBI today to answer questions about her email scandal.
The attorney general said she would accept the findings of the FBI, as she was under suspicion after her meeting with Bill Clinton.

RobertKK

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

How do the Democratic party or Hillary's team allow such a thing to happen ?

The optics are so so bad, surely someone somewhere should have stood up and said that its a bad idea of Lynch and Bill to meet right now, regardless of what they planned to talk about.

Well the Clinton detractors say the Clinton's are a law onto themselves. To the point some argue they literally get away with murder.

InTheTrees

RobertKK wrote: »

Well the Clinton detractors say the Clinton's are a law onto themselves. To the point some argue they literally get away with murder.

The republican method is to accuse her of every conceivable crime and then when she's not indicted they claim she's "getting away with it".

Its complete nonsense.

Like the complete waste of time and money that was the benghazi committee.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

How do the Democratic party or Hillary's team allow such a thing to happen ?

The optics are so so bad, surely someone somewhere should have stood up and said that its a bad idea of Lynch and Bill to meet right now, regardless of what they planned to talk about.

Well the Clinton detractors say the Clinton's are a law onto themselves. To the point some argue they literally get away with murder.

You're accusing the Clintons of murder?