2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

FA Hayek

If/When Hillary wins this election, people are going to wake up a few days later and realise they have a president that no one really wanted. She will be in for a torrid time and will be lucky in my opinion to last 4 years never mind get re-elected.

This will be spun of course that she is hated for being a woman but she will be hated because she is Hillary Clinton and all the baggage that has come with her.

Timberrrrrrrr

FA Hayek wrote: »

If/When Hillary wins this election, people are going to wake up a few days later and realise they have a president that no one really wanted. She will be in for a torrid time and will be lucky in my opinion to last 4 years never mind get re-elected.

This will be spun of course that she is hated for being a woman but she will be hated because she is Hillary Clinton and all the baggage that has come with her.

I agree, The same could be said for both candidates.

Sofa Spud

Inquitus wrote: »

It sounds like this is nothing at all, due to a separate investigation they have had to review some mails sent by Clinton, and as he has stood in front of congress on the issue he is legally bound to notify them of the same. This is certainly not a re-opening of the investigation and any mention of that is simply headline grabbing mis-reporting.

Agreed - this sounds like the most realistic summation of what has happened - one of the devices that belonged to Huma Abedin probably had a cache of emails from Clinton that had been deleted by Clinton on her side, and so they need to review them to determine if they were classified. Potentially no more. no less and will most like end up being nothing in the end but great ammunition for the haters....

Gringo180

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

For what?

Federal law makes it a crime for a trusted U.S. official to “knowingly and willfully” disclose or transmit secret information to an “unauthorized person.” A second law makes it a crime to “remove” secret documents kept by the government or to allow them to be stolen through “gross negligence.”

Herself and her husband are corrupt to the core and if she gets into the White House they will be sold to the highest bidder.

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

They do including our own Eamon Gilmore who was all for that FSA in Syria.
Cameron and Sarkozy and their governments most guilty in Europe, along with Blair for Iraq.

She pushed for the removal of Gaddafi, the country is now in a far worse mess, which is still home to many thousands of ISIS members.
She hasn't a clue along with many other western leaders what they are doing most of the time, and usually just produce a far bigger mess than the original problem.

I think we can all agree that the policy of ''the West '' is the Middle East for 50 years or more has just been one long disaster .

The problem with you is your hatred of HRC is so great that you are elevating her to the top of the pile when in fact she had only executive power for 4 years and even then not at the height of the cock ups.

She has to take her fair share of responsibility but she is simply not in the same league as Bush Cheney Powell Rice Blair Straw etc

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

You know you don't have to be so defensive of Hillary Clinton or anyone else in the election?

I don't think Trump is much worse, he hasn't his fingers in every major disaster in the middle east from Iraq to Libya, to Syria to Yemen, she has been one of the main causes of the migrant crisis, and has been an absolute failure as secretary of state.

Neither have I, and unlike Trump I did not support them at the time either. Can I be president now and we'll just call it a day?

EDIT: I've also never given the ball away, committed a single foul, misplaced any passes or missed a single shot in a professional football match, so surely I am better suited than anyone to be Ireland and Man Utd's captain and the first name on the teamsheet. Seriously, by your logic this is without any exaggeration what you would agree with.

Black Swan

Gringo180 wrote: »

Killary should be behind bars for the rest of her days not running for the President of the United States.

Fortunately, the US is a country of laws, and its citizens are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

Hillary Clinton has been investigated numerous times for years, especially by the Republican controlled Congress, but unlike Donald Trump, she is not currently a defendant in court. Donald Trump is a current defendant for alleged "fraud, racketeering, and corruption" as founder of failed Trump University, and is scheduled to go to trial in US District Court, San Diego, CA, 28 November 2016.

Of course Donald Trump has claimed during presidential debate and during his rallies that Hillary Clinton "should be behind bars," and that he would push for a special prosecutor to pursue the jailing of his political opponent if he is elected president, just like what we hear Banana Republic dictators do with their political opponents, or what Russian dictators were known to do when sending their political opponents to Siberia.

Billy86

Black Swan wrote: »

Fortunately, the US is a country of laws, and its citizens are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

Hillary Clinton has been investigated numerous times for years, especially by the Republican controlled Congress, but unlike Donald Trump, she is not currently a defendant in court. Donald Trump is a current defendant for alleged "fraud, racketeering, and corruption" as founder of failed Trump University, and is scheduled to go to trial in US District Court, San Diego, CA, 28 November 2016.

Of course Donald Trump has claimed during presidential debate and during his rallies that Hillary Clinton "should be behind bars," and that he would push for a special prosecutor to pursue the jailing of his political opponent if he is elected president, just like what we hear Banana Republic dictators do with their political opponents, or what Russian dictators were known to do when sending their political opponents to Siberia.

I could well be wrong on this, and it's not something that would ever be explicitly brought up, but I get a feeling after those comments that certain people are going to see that Trump, if found guilty, gets anything but a lenient sentence.

I'm guessing his 1.5 per week lawsuits per week (no seriously, do the maths... his first was 1973, so 3,500 divided by the 43 years since = 81.4 per year, which divided by 52 weeks = 1.56 lawsuits per week. For 43 straight years!!) habit is going to bite him significantly in the ass from this point on, and with how badly his businesses are failing, it could be very interesting to see where he stands not too long from now.

Bit tinfoil hat-ish, but it's certainly one worth keeping an eye on in the coming years.


F***ing seriously though, imagine 43 solid years in a row of going new court cases ever 4 and a half days. :eek:

philstar

seems like team Clinton released the Trump sex tapes too soon..they should have waited sooner to election day

m1ck007

Fbi reopen case against hilary this evening = trump win

20Cent

m1ck007 wrote: »

Fbi reopen case against hilary this evening = trump win

Not really story debunked already. Trump supporters will see another conspiracy of course. It's probably just lots of photos of Weiners Weiner.

m1ck007

20Cent wrote: »

m1ck007 wrote: »

Fbi reopen case against hilary this evening = trump win

Not really story debunked already. Trump supporters will see another conspiracy of course. It's probably just lots of photos of Weiners Weiner.

How has the story been debunked when the FBI havent released details of their new investigation this evening?

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

You know you don't have to be so defensive of Hillary Clinton or anyone else in the election?

I don't think Trump is much worse, he hasn't his fingers in every major disaster in the middle east from Iraq to Libya, to Syria to Yemen, she has been one of the main causes of the migrant crisis, and has been an absolute failure as secretary of state.

She has easily more experience than anyone else who has been president in recent times. She has been pillared repeatedly over the same things. These are doing the same thing Mr. Powell did and that no one cares about and getting the entire blame for the Benghazi incident which let's be fair did remove a horrific human being from the planet and she hardly did that on her own. She has also shown a great knowledge of policy, a calm head, has worked for a large portion of her life in office.

She is up against a man who has no idea of foreign policy. He has shown repeatedly he doesn't know what effect trade deals have. He has shown he has no idea what ISIS is. He has called Mexicans rapists. Come up with unworkable plans. Threatened to increase American military actions. Make war crimes official policy. Flies off the handle when called names but has no issue dishing out childish insults (when other people attack him they are being mean and nasty women, when he does it is calling it like it is). He has a history of not paying workers, has used charity money to buy pictures of himself, has confessed to sexual harassment, blamed a reporter's question on her period, insulted soldiers for getting shot/captured, gone bankrupt repeatedly after starting with plenty of money, has 0 experience of public office and nor has he ever shown any desire to take a position where he could make a difference that wasn'the the one that would inflate his ego the most. He has given out about other candidates not releasing their tax returns and then not released them. He gave about others for not paying enough tax and then bragged about not paying any. Has he had a speech were he has been able to concentrate long enough to get through without making random crazy Comments? His financial policies are entirely unworkable and the main tax cut I have seen bragged about only helps the rich. He tried to ban people of a certain religion from the place where European's settled partially to avoid religious persecution. I am pretty sure I am forgetting a few things here. The only reason he hasn't been involved in a political disaster is it would have implied he ever cared about holding a public office that didn't stroke his ego.


Sure I would have had a tough choice between Hillary and Bernie but the fact that Trump is getting more than 10% of the vote is mind boggling to me. I don't like any of the other candidates but I can understand a protest vote against the two party system.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Billy86

m1ck007 wrote: »

How has the story been debunked when the FBI havent released details of their new investigation this evening?

Read the last few pages of the thread.

Billy86

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You know what's really bizarre/worrying? I think there is exactly one other prominent Republican she would still be in with a good chance of beating - Ted Cruz.

E.g. the guy who came runaway second in the primaries.

m1ck007

Id say Trump is going to win this regardless. He is not that far away even though he is an idiot which speaks volumes. Id say we will see a lot of closet Trump votes, much like brexit, with the democrats not voting as they think the race has already been won.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

You know you don't have to be so defensive of Hillary Clinton or anyone else in the election?

I don't think Trump is much worse, he hasn't his fingers in every major disaster in the middle east from Iraq to Libya, to Syria to Yemen, she has been one of the main causes of the migrant crisis, and has been an absolute failure as secretary of state.

I suppose it doesn't really matter that she was out of government when the Saudi's started their campaign in Yemen?

m1ck007

She wont stop the sale of weapons to the middle east though.

Means Of Escape

JFK jnr would have been running in this election and would have sailed through.

This spectacle is a national embarrassment for the US

GUBU

B_Wayne

m1ck007 wrote: »

How has the story been debunked when the FBI havent released details of their new investigation this evening?

There's absolutely no indication that the investigation is reopened. Even Podesta has requested that Comey reveals what they think they have... Comey is being incredibly vague so it's impossible to determine if there's anything.

m1ck007 wrote: »

Id say Trump is going to win this regardless. He is not that far away even though he is an idiot which speaks volumes. Id say we will see a lot of closet Trump votes, much like brexit, with the democrats not voting as they think the race has already been won.

Polls were spot on for the primaries.....

marienbad

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear surely you don't want Trump to win ???

Sand

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Thats very true, but whats very puzzling is how Trump ever got through the Republican primaries and is the genuine candidate of the party of Lincoln. That is amazing and should be of deep concern to Republicans given they will be tarnished as being the party of Trump for decades to come. They really are at risk of devolving into a party of unelectable cranks and flat earthers.

Clinton might be a poor candidate (and she is) but she is not a racist. She is not defending herself in court for fraud. She has not dodged taxes. She has not got a history of sexual predatory behaviour. She seems competent enough to have a career in public service for 30 years and the best muckrakers can come up with against her is she ill-advisedly used a private email server.

I mean, yes, she would be sunk in a race against any other candidate but no one can argue Clinton is unacceptable for the office of President because of bland emails and then argue that Trump is the guy to vote for. Other than blind hatred of Clinton there is no justifiable reason for voting for Trump.

Overheal

philstar wrote: »

seems like team Clinton released the Trump sex tapes too soon..they should have waited sooner to election day

Her campaign had no affiliations

AbusesToilets

Sand wrote: »

Thats very true, but whats very puzzling is how Trump ever got through the Republican primaries and is the genuine candidate of the party of Lincoln. That is amazing and should be of deep concern to Republicans given they will be tarnished as being the party of Trump for decades to come. They really are at risk of devolving into a party of unelectable cranks and flat earthers.

Clinton might be a poor candidate (and she is) but she is not a racist. She is not defending herself in court for fraud. She has not dodged taxes. She has not got a history of sexual predatory behaviour. She seems competent enough to have a career in public service for 30 years and the best muckrakers can come up with against her is she ill-advisedly used a private email server.

I mean, yes, she would be sunk in a race against any other candidate but no one can argue Clinton is unacceptable for the office of President because of bland emails and then argue that Trump is the guy to vote for. Other than blind hatred of Clinton there is no justifiable reason for voting for Trump.

The Republicans haven't been the party of Lincoln for sometime, as evidenced by their primaries. A schism is needed, with the Tea Party sect shorn away and left to be their own entity.

Black Swan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Remember when "family values" were raised years ago as if they were an important qualification for president? It follows that the "family values" norms for both Democratic and Republican nominees have grandly changed, especially if we recall why Gary Hart had been eliminated from running during the 1984 presidency. It had been discovered he had a mutually consensual extra-marital affair with Donna Rice, then POOF, no more candidacy for Gary Hart.

But apparently times have been changing where "family values" no longer hold sway, especially when we consider the extra-marital affair that Donald Trump had with mistress Marla Maples while he was still married and had children with Ivana Trump (which resulted in divorce from his first wife and marrying his mistress). Of course after a few short years Marla was traded-in for a younger model 3rd wife Melania; which, if Trump does not win 8 November 2016, methinks Melania will be traded-in for a younger model replacement (e.g., just like dumping the old car for a new one every few years).

m1ck007

B_Wayne wrote: »

m1ck007 wrote: »

How has the story been debunked when the FBI havent released details of their new investigation this evening?

There's absolutely no indication that the investigation is reopened. Even Podesta has requested that Comey reveals what they think they have... Comey is being incredibly vague so it's impossible to determine if there's anything.

m1ck007 wrote: »

Id say Trump is going to win this regardless. He is not that far away even though he is an idiot which speaks volumes. Id say we will see a lot of closet Trump votes, much like brexit, with the democrats not voting as they think the race has already been won.

Polls were spot on for the primaries.....

BBC headline tonight 'FBI probes New hilary clinton emails'

RobertKK

Christy42 wrote: »

She has easily more experience than anyone else who has been president in recent times. She has been pillared repeatedly over the same things. These are doing the same thing Mr. Powell did and that no one cares about and getting the entire blame for the Benghazi incident which let's be fair did remove a horrific human being from the planet and she hardly did that on her own. She has also shown a great knowledge of policy, a calm head, has worked for a large portion of her life in office.

She is up against a man who has no idea of foreign policy. He has shown repeatedly he doesn't know what effect trade deals have. He has shown he has no idea what ISIS is. He has called Mexicans rapists. Come up with unworkable plans. Threatened to increase American military actions. Make war crimes official policy. Flies off the handle when called names but has no issue dishing out childish insults (when other people attack him they are being mean and nasty women, when he does it is calling it like it is). He has a history of not paying workers, has used charity money to buy pictures of himself, has confessed to sexual harassment, blamed a reporter's question on her period, insulted soldiers for getting shot/captured, gone bankrupt repeatedly after starting with plenty of money, has 0 experience of public office and nor has he ever shown any desire to take a position where he could make a difference that wasn'the the one that would inflate his ego the most. He has given out about other candidates not releasing their tax returns and then not released them. He gave about others for not paying enough tax and then bragged about not paying any. Has he had a speech were he has been able to concentrate long enough to get through without making random crazy Comments? His financial policies are entirely unworkable and the main tax cut I have seen bragged about only helps the rich. He tried to ban people of a certain religion from the place where European's settled partially to avoid religious persecution. I am pretty sure I am forgetting a few things here. The only reason he hasn't been involved in a political disaster is it would have implied he ever cared about holding a public office that didn't stroke his ego.


Sure I would have had a tough choice between Hillary and Bernie but the fact that Trump is getting more than 10% of the vote is mind boggling to me. I don't like any of the other candidates but I can understand a protest vote against the two party system.

Experience that doesn't make her anymore qualified since she made a mess of most things.
Her no fly zone plan for Syria is potentially very dangerous.

The thing is nether of the candidates are good, but you post as if there is only one not good, what good is Hillary's experience when it is just a trail of disaster.
Her reset button with Russia seems to have put relations back to the cold war...she has the Midas touch, except everything she touches turns to excrement.

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

Experience that doesn't make her anymore qualified since she made a mess of most things.
Her no fly zone plan for Syria is potentially very dangerous.

The thing is nether of the candidates are good, but you post as if there is only one not good, what good is Hillary's experience when it is just a trail of disaster.
Her reset button with Russia seems to have put relations back to the cold war...she has the Midas touch, except everything she touches turns to excrement.

Hardly you just blame her for everything bad that has happened overy the last 15 years. Sure her experience makes her more qualified. I mean not by itself-you also need Trump's obvious lack of knowledge.

Hillary has several issues. It is just like comparing a pickpocket and a psychopath. IT is a false equivalence. You can say the pickpocket is bad but you can't really compare to the psychopath.

RobertKK

Christy42 wrote: »

Hardly you just blame her for everything bad that has happened overy the last 15 years. Sure her experience makes her more qualified. I mean not by itself-you also need Trump's obvious lack of knowledge.

Hillary has several issues. It is just like comparing a pickpocket and a psychopath. IT is a false equivalence. You can say the pickpocket is bad but you can't really compare to the psychopath.

One could look at both and ask which is the psychopath.
Hillary who says she supports women and gay people but then has the Clinton Foundation accepting many millions from nations that treat women like crap and who punish or kill gay people. Maybe you find such a person is a person you can trust but her record shows she lacks real empathy and it is all about power.
One could ask which psychopath is worse, there is a reason why these two people have record low likeable ratings, neither are particular good whether they have experience or none.
I couldn't be bothered to defend any of them when it comes to their scandals, because neither of these people would care about you.
That is why I feel it is strange why anyone gets defensive over any of these two people, they aren't worth defending.

FISMA.

... looks like a weiner will bring down a Clinton campaign!!!

Sand

RobertKK wrote: »

Experience that doesn't make her anymore qualified since she made a mess of most things.
Her no fly zone plan for Syria is potentially very dangerous.

Why is it very dangerous? Turkey shot down a Russian jet last year, and I missed the fine details but there was no nuclear exchange. Setting a no-fly zone over Syria and enforcing it might cost the Russians a few jets and maybe a few pilots, but the Russians are not going to see Moscow turned to a glass desert over Syria. They will huff and they will puff but if they didn't turn to nukes - or even a conventional military response - with Turkey.

The overestimation of Russian military capability and will is an outcome of a long Soviet/Russian propaganda campaign to encourage fear of both in the west. If the US enforces a no fly zone, the Russians may fly on the edges of it, but they wont cross it.

alastair

FISMA. wrote: »

... looks like a weiner will bring down a Clinton campaign!!!

There's nothing to bring down her campaign. She's won the election.

FISMA.

alastair wrote: »

There's nothing to bring down her campaign. She's won the election.

Nope. Trump won tonight.

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

One could look at both and ask which is the psychopath.
Hillary who says she supports women and gay people but then has the Clinton Foundation accepting many millions from nations that treat women like crap and who punish or kill gay people. Maybe you find such a person is a person you can trust but her record shows she lacks real empathy and it is all about power.
One could ask which psychopath is worse, there is a reason why these two people have record low likeable ratings, neither are particular good whether they have experience or none.
I couldn't be bothered to defend any of them when it comes to their scandals, because neither of these people would care about you.
That is why I feel it is strange why anyone gets defensive over any of these two people, they aren't worth defending.

Should they turn down the money? I like that you are still equating their sins. How did the Trump foundation spend their money again (which seems like a more important question for a charity)? I didn't even mention Trump University before. How much does Trump have to do wrong before you admit he is worse? The racism, the misogyny. He can't have too high an opinion of gay people or science wither given his VP pick. Or his tweets about the reality of global warming.

You just go they both have sins and are therefore equally bad as justification for posting complaints about one side.

alastair

FISMA. wrote: »

Nope. Trump won tonight.

Best of luck with that.

Manach

With RobertKK on the no fly zone.

I would disagree that it could be implemented, as per Clinton's idea. There is little basis for it under International Law, given no specific UN resolution and the doctrine of humanitarian intervention would be problematic to apply given the multisided factors involved. That the US then would seek to impose a one sided exclusion zone is one that the Russians (even given their lag of technology would have the numbers to threaten other areas, such as from Kalingrad) could challenge. From a recent book I'm reading, The Direction of War by Hew Strachen, suggests that modern politicians have drifted away from a proper appreciation of the randomness and friction that is inherant in war. Thus incidents when confronting a regional power like Russia can easily spiral out of control.

K-9

FISMA. wrote: »

Nope. Trump won tonight.

If it was anybody else, maybe. It's Trump, 1 step forward and 2 steps back is the story of his campaign.

To Trump supporters this is huge, just like they thought he won the first 2 debates!

Until something tangible can be pointed to, this will be forgotten about in a day or 2.

alastair

Manach wrote: »

With RobertKK on the no fly zone.

I would disagree that it could be implemented, as per Clinton's idea. There is little basis for it under International Law, given no specific UN resolution and the doctrine of humanitarian intervention would be problematic to apply given the multisided factors involved. That the US then would seek to impose a one sided exclusion zone is one that the Russians (even given their lag of technology would have the numbers to threaten other areas, such as from Kalingrad) could challenge. From a recent book I'm reading, The Direction of War by Hew Strachen, suggests that modern politicians have drifted away from a proper appreciation of the randomness and friction that is inherant in war. Thus incidents when confronting a regional power like Russia can easily spiral out of control.

The lack of a UN resolution didn't impede the establishment of a no-fly zone in Kosovo - again with a situation of multi-sided combatants. The last Clinton administration was up to the job, and, to a large degree, it was deemed to have shortened what was a very nasty conflict. It's not impossible to think that the US could call Russia's bluff in Syria, and end the stalemate - since the Assad regime is clearly not going to regain control over all the Syrian people.

alastair

K-9 wrote: »

If it was anybody else, maybe.

I wouldn't even go that far. It's a nothing story on an issue that nobody really cares about.

PopePalpatine

I'm just wondering - what could possibly show up in Anthony Wiener or Huma Abedin's inboxes that could be so devastating to the Clinton campaign? What reason would she have to send classified documents to either of them?

Manach

alastair wrote: »

The lack of a UN resolution didn't impede the establishment of a no-fly zone in Kosovo - again with a situation of multi-sided combatants. The last Clinton administration was up to the job, and to a large degree, it was deemed to have shortened what was a very nasty conflict. It's not impossible to think that the yS could call Russia's bluff in Syria, and end the stalemate - since the Assad regime is clearly not going to regain control over all the Syrian people.

The lack of UN resolution was both highly criticized at the time and there were numerous protests after the fact by nonaligned powers about this abrogation of the norms at the time of international law. Thus this break lead to both a souring of Russian relations and a more and interventionist regime by other powers (Iraq, Afganistan, Libya, Crimeia etc). So if you are saying that the Kosovo intervention is a good precedent then clearly you can explain what constitutes the proper application of force within the world community that does not degenerate into nationalist partisan politics and mores?

alastair

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm just wondering - what could possibly show up in Anthony Wiener or Huma Abedin's inboxes that could be so devastating to the Clinton campaign? What reason would she have to send classified documents to either of them?

Even if there were photos of Hillary standing over the corpses of the 48 victims of her, and her husbands, political murder spree, it's not going to make any difference to the campaign. There's not going to be any findings on this stuff for weeks, and then, it's most likely going to be more of the same.

alastair

Manach wrote: »

The lack of UN resolution was both highly criticized at the time and there were numerous protests after the fact by nonaligned powers about this abrogation of the norms at the time of international law. Thus this break lead to both a souring of Russian relations and a more and interventionist regime by other powers (Iraq, Afganistan, Libya, Crimeia etc). So if you are saying that the Kosovo intervention is a good precedent then clearly you can explain what constitutes the proper application of force within the world community that does not degenerate into nationalist partisan politics and mores?

It saved lives, and there's never been a time when countries weren't going to war, so it's a bit rich to suggest it triggered some change in that regard. I think it did more good than bad.

FISMA.

Hillary just spoke in the States.

... blah, blah, blah... I demand you release, blah, blah, blah...

As a lawyer, perhaps, she understands that the FBI cannot comment on ongoing investigations?

Amazing how bad her memory is when she speaks to the Feds under oath but how she doesn't miss a beat when free to lie!

Sand

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm just wondering - what could possibly show up in Anthony Wiener or Huma Abedin's inboxes that could be so devastating to the Clinton campaign? What reason would she have to send classified documents to either of them?

I am going to guess nothing really. I think the FBI was not unaware that this would throw among a cat amongst the pigeons and probably agonised about it for a while. I think they fell on the side of its better that we dot the i's and cross the t's and observe the bureaucratic legalities rather than be seen to 'cover up' the discovery of emails that will likely prove to be inconsequential.

Of course the media are lapping it up because the whole election has died a death since Trumps handlers have kept him away from microphones for the past week. And of course Trump fans are cranking it up because they realise their candidate has already lost.

Trent Houseboat

Both sides predicting on what effect this will have are getting ahead of themselves. Trump has said dozens of things that would have disqualified himself for nomination for dog catcher in years previous, forget about the actual election.
The Wikileaks were entirely boring for their lack of substance, but would have scuttled a regular Dem in this 24/7 news environment in which we live.

People don't trust or like either Clinton or Trump. This will be seen as a headshot by Donald's supporters and as a continuation of the 25 year witch hunt by Hillary's. Just like each side claims victory after the debates.

FISMA.

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

... continuation of the 25 year witch hunt by Hillary's.

Witch-hunt?

Today's information was found during an investigation of a middle aged man sexting a 15 year old girl.

That witch-hunt?

Hillary lies about Benghazi and an investigation in to that lie uncovers a personal server.

That witch hunt?

Seems like just rewards for perverts and liars.

RobertKK

Sand wrote: »

Why is it very dangerous? Turkey shot down a Russian jet last year, and I missed the fine details but there was no nuclear exchange. Setting a no-fly zone over Syria and enforcing it might cost the Russians a few jets and maybe a few pilots, but the Russians are not going to see Moscow turned to a glass desert over Syria. They will huff and they will puff but if they didn't turn to nukes - or even a conventional military response - with Turkey.

The overestimation of Russian military capability and will is an outcome of a long Soviet/Russian propaganda campaign to encourage fear of both in the west. If the US enforces a no fly zone, the Russians may fly on the edges of it, but they wont cross it.

The Russian plane had flown into Turkish airspace for 17 seconds after being warned 10 times to change course.

Russia are in Syria at the request of Assad.
Syria is a proxy war between Sunni and Shia Muslim nations with Russia on the Shia side and the west supporting the ISIS supporting Gulf states of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The downing of the Russian plane was not a threat to Assad or Russian aims, but if Hillary wants to remove Assad the way she did with Gaddafi, Russia will not stand aside to allow it happen.
The Turkish incident was small fry in the larger scheme of things.
We should remember how Hillary gets so much wrong.

BorneTobyWilde

Clinton asking FBI to release their information while an investigation is ongoing is down right
stupid. They can't do that.