2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

alastair

ebbsy wrote: »

Wonder who actually pushed the button on this latest scandal.

Problem Hillary has now she will have to concentrate on this for the next week or so.

And not a policy in sight from either candidate !!!!!

Hillary has no need, or capacity, to concentrate on this. It's not anything that anyone can bounce off - as there's not going to be any information to debate, until after the election.

Iceboy

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Whoever in the FBI found there was emails that they hadn't seen before.

Preet Bharara and the NYPD are leading the investigation into Anthony Weiner. Preet and his team found the emails.

Itssoeasy

ebbsy wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

ebbsy wrote: »

Wonder who actually pushed the button on this latest scandal.

Whoever in the FBI found there was emails that they hadn't seen before.

Problem is for Hillary what else is being held in reserve.

Well she is asking for the FBI to release what they have but I don't think the FBI can or will do that.

Christy42

ebbsy wrote: »

Problem is for Hillary what else is being held in reserve.

This is a big issue. Hillary is repeatedly being judged on what might come out. OH Assange said he will save the big release, oh maybe the fbi might have possibly found something incriminating about Hillary in an email exchange she doesn't seem to be a part of.

It is all in time people will see with little actual back up.

aloyisious

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

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

It's the correct political move to make. Show all or shut up, wash away any ground for Don to mount a reasonable logical base to attack her from. If the mails don't include a mails sent by Hillary and Don tries to use the "new revelation", let him away on it for two days then get a PR firm with a known republican party link from within the Legal community to have their senior lawyer oversee the release. Torpedo the Don ship in deep water and let the republican party send out a rescue boat, if they want to.

alastair

Christy42 wrote: »

This is a big issue. Hillary is repeatedly being judged on what might come out. OH Assange said he will save the big release, oh maybe the fbi might have possibly found something incriminating about Hillary in an email exchange she doesn't seem to be a part of.

It is all in time people will see with little actual back up.

Assange is full of it. He claimed that their leaks would sink Hillary's campaign, and then produces a steady stream of meh. Far more smoke than fire there.

Calina

alastair wrote: »

Assange is full of it. He claimed that their leaks would sink Hillary's campaign, and then produces a steady stream of meh. Far more smoke than fire there.

I've concluded he really thinks or thought he had a smoking gun. I don't think he gets to hear enough dissenting voices.

Same could be said of Trump, mind.

Iceboy

alastair wrote: »

Assange is full of it. He claimed that their leaks would sink Hillary's campaign, and then produces a steady stream of meh. Far more smoke than fire there.

Tell me, where does smoke come from?

The drip drip drip is brilliant its bad on the meta level and shrouds hillary in bad news.

alastair

Iceboy wrote: »

Tell me, where does smoke come from?

The drip drip drip is brilliant its bad on the meta level and shrouds hillary in bad news.

And yet she's still headed to win this election. That says something about what the electorate have judged those leaks to amount to. Something short of a hill of beans.

B_Wayne

Calina wrote: »

I've concluded he really thinks or thought he had a smoking gun. I don't think he gets to hear enough dissenting voices.

Same could be said of Trump, mind.

Assange has a pretty undiscerning attitude to the scale of what he's leaking. Eg The Erdogan leaks had feck all to do with Erdogan and just endangered a load of people. Similar with Saudi leaks, just endangered people.

Iceboy

alastair wrote: »

And yet she's still headed to win this election. That says something about what the electorate have judged those leaks to amount to. Something short of a hill of beans.

The IBDC-TIPP Presidential Election Tracking Poll, described as the “most accurate poll in recent presidential elections,” on Wednesday had Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton by one point, 41 percent to 40 percent.

So no, Hilary is not heading to win this election.

Also, relevant is that almost all the polls are used by the MSM in America are oversampling democrats, the same thing they pulled with brexit and look how that turned out/

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/latest-abc-news-presidential-poll-oversampled-democrats-9/

Fr Tod Umptious

alastair wrote: »

And yet she's still headed to win this election. That says something about what the electorate have judged those leaks to amount to. Something short of a hill of beans.

That's because her opponent is Donal J Trump.

Anyone else would have her buried at this stage.

B_Wayne

The most accurate analysis of polling to the point every state is Nate Silver, amazing how the five thirty eight is so often ignored...

Itssoeasy

B_Wayne wrote: »

The most accurate analysis of polling to the point every state is Nate Silver, amazing how the five thirty eight is so often ignored...

It isn't ignored. It's polls are posted here.

Iceboy

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

That's because her opponent is Donal J Trump.

Anyone else would have her buried at this stage.

Yet he holds the record for the most amount of GOP voters in history by almost 2 million votes..

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/06/VoteTotals_For.jpg&w=480

Itssoeasy

An abc news poll is showing that hillary is only 2 points ahead of trump.

Fr Tod Umptious

The only polls worth discussing are the individual state ones, and more closely the swing state ones,

How are both doing where it matters, where tne EC votes are.

National polls are not worth a damn.

B_Wayne

Itssoeasy wrote: »

It isn't ignored. It's polls are posted here.

More in reference to Trump supporters.

alchemist33

B_Wayne wrote: »

Assange has a pretty undiscerning attitude to the scale of what he's leaking. Eg The Erdogan leaks had feck all to do with Erdogan and just endangered a load of people. Similar with Saudi leaks, just endangered people.

Assange should have zero credibility to anyone with sense. Wikileaks isn't even a wiki - despite the owners if Wikipedia repeatedly asking him to change the name he continues to piggyback on the name of one of the most visited sites in the www, like a parasite. He fact that he' s trying to influence the election in this way (if he was as civically minded as he lets on, he'd have released everything in ine go) tells you all you need to know. And that's not even mentioning the reason he's holed up in an embassy.

BorneTobyWilde

Clinton lied countless times to FBI and she got away with it. Trump has talked about a retired four-star Marine Corps general who served as the nation’s second-ranking military officer , he made false statements in a probe of a leak of classified information and was charged and will go to jail if found guilty.
Clinton was proving to have lied to FBI over and over with an added 39 times of I can't remember.
It's these double standards that have put pressure on FBI to do there job right. Trump has talked about that 4 star General in every rally over the past 2 weeks.
So many FBI agents know that Clinton should have been charged, they can't speak up though.

Billy86

Iceboy wrote: »

The IBDC-TIPP Presidential Election Tracking Poll, described as the “most accurate poll in recent presidential elections,” on Wednesday had Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton by one point, 41 percent to 40 percent.

So no, Hilary is not heading to win this election.

Also, relevant is that almost all the polls are used by the MSM in America are oversampling democrats, the same thing they pulled with brexit and look how that turned out/

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/latest-abc-news-presidential-poll-oversampled-democrats-9/

If it's accuracy you're after, you can go to 538 - pretty sure nobody in the history of US elections has come close to them over the last two cycles (since they were founded) and they have Clinton at over 80% of a chance to win it.

Having said that, Trump has made about a 5% climb back since this time yesterday. Whether he can continue to build on that or not however, remains to be seen.

Billy86

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

That's because her opponent is Donal J Trump.

Anyone else would have her buried at this stage.

I would agree except to say, with the possible (though far from certain) exception of Ted Cruz. Which is pretty startling given that he came second in the primaries, far ahead of Kasich in third. It just shows how broken the Republican primary process is - a race to see who can get furthest to the right, which ultimately screws them when it comes time for the general.

Billy86

Iceboy wrote: »

Yet he holds the record for the most amount of GOP voters in history by almost 2 million votes..

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/06/VoteTotals_For.jpg&w=480

That is about 13.5mn voters, looking at it... about 6.16% of the US voting public.

It's not about how many primary votes you win by; it's about winning the primary while being able to appeal to those who didn't vote in it as much as possible - Raegan is an example of someone who absolutely mastered this, hence his absurd winning margins in 1980 & 1984. Clinton is not doing a very good job of that herself, but it would be extremely difficult for anyone to do a worse job of it than Trump has, and by constantly riling up his base at the expense of alienating potential voters for months now, he has shown little interest in or even awareness of this fact.

RobertKK

On Anderson Cooper 360 last night, they said the result of the latest email controversy could be a lower voter turn out, as people might feel they can't vote for either of the main candidates and think what is the point in voting for someone they don't like.

cnocbui

Seems I am not the only one who thinks Comey's blatant political interference is inappropriate. There is a Sydney Morning Herald article which rips into him. If Clinton is elected, I suspect he will be packing his bags shortly after.

FBI Director James B. Comey's stunning announcement that he has directed investigators to begin reviewing new evidence in the Clinton email investigation was yet another troubling violation of long-standing Justice Department rules or precedent, conduct that raises serious questions about his judgment and ability to serve as the nation's chief investigative official.

Comey's original sin came in July, when he held a high-profile news conference to announce his recommendation that the Justice Department bring no charges against Hillary Clinton.

In doing so, Comey violated Justice rules about discussing ongoing cases and, as I argued at the time, made assertions that exceeded FBI authority, recklessly speculated about matters for which there was no evidence, and upended the consultative process that should exist between investigators and prosecutors.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-james-comeys-fitness-to-lead-fbi-questioned-20161029-gsdu8r.html

ChikiChiki

This seems to be getting very little attention in the media. Gives an insight into how Hillarys mind works.

http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/#.WBOP6mO8ojs.twitter

alastair

ChikiChiki wrote: »

This seems to be getting very little attention in the media. Gives an insight into how Hillarys mind works.

http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/#.WBOP6mO8ojs.twitter

Really?

Here's the quote:

“I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake,” said Sen. Clinton. “And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.”

How is that supposed to mean that she wanted to rig the election?

Itssoeasy

Director comey seems to be getting criticised from both democrats and republicans and he seems to have gone against DOJ procedures around elections. He seems to be damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

Carcharodon

ChikiChiki wrote: »

This seems to be getting very little attention in the media. Gives an insight into how Hillarys mind works.

http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/#.WBOP6mO8ojs.twitter

It's not like America has never tried to get influence who gets into power somewhere in the world, is it ?
Just because the headline says rigging, doesn't mean it's true, not everything on the internet is 100% factual

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

Really?

Here's the quote:


How is that supposed to mean that she wanted to rig the election?

Read between the lines

oscarBravo

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Read between the lines

The problem with reading between the lines is that there's nothing there but blank space, which means that "reading between the lines" literally means "making sh*t up".

K-9

This is a discussion site, debate by YouTube video really doesn't work.

Add a few lines about what actually is in the video seeing as you watched it. Some people do not have the time, inclination or bandwidth to watch videos.

Sweetemotion

alastair wrote: »

Really?

Here's the quote:


How is that supposed to mean that she wanted to rig the election?

" Then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.”

How does that quote, mean otherwise?

It's there in the quote you quoted. We should have made sure we did something to determine who was going to win.

What else does it mean but rig the vote?

bajer101

https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/792291266960642048

Brian?

Sweetemotion wrote: »

" Then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.”

How does that quote, mean otherwise?

It's there in the quote you quoted. We should have made sure we did something to determine who was going to win.

What else does it mean but rig the vote?

Your contention is that the only way to influence the outcome of an election is to cheat?

What about endorsing a chosen candidate or funding said candidate? No, because it's Hillary she mush have meant cheating. You know, because she's so evil.

Sweetemotion

Brian? wrote: »

Your contention is that the only way to influence the outcome of an election is to cheat?

What about endorsing a chosen candidate or funding said candidate? No, because it's Hillary she mush have meant cheating. You know, because she's so evil.

Is that not still trying to rig the vote?

KingBrian2

Carcharodon wrote: »

It's not like America has never tried to get influence who gets into power somewhere in the world, is it ?
Just because the headline says rigging, doesn't mean it's true, not everything on the internet is 100% factual

It was not right to interfere in another gvt politics when it was done and it still is not right. We know America interferes in political processes of other parts of the world. The US gave protection to opposition groups in Russia (pussy riot and liberals) against the Kremlin and now the Democrats cry foul every time a foreigner is involved in hacking American sites. If you don't want hackers then don't engage in spying yourself. The scandal over listening in on Chancellor Merkel's conversations was an example of US intelligence engaging in this cyberespionage.

aloyisious

Is anyone following Fox New's understanding of the newly revealed emails? I think I just heard the host say that even if the emails were NOT sent by Hillary, she lied about them to Congress. I'm laughing at how F/N is praising how much a class of 6-year old US schoolkids know about politics, having interviewed them on who they think is better, Hillary or Don?

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Read between the lines

No need to read between the lines. The actual lines make clear she's not talking about rigging any election. And spare me the failed Republican candidate (he's not a Haitian president btw) in Florida and his crazy rant to Trump.

bajer101

The latest FBI investigation is irrelevant nonsense. Abedin used a computer that she shared with Weiner to transfer docs from one email account to another to facilitate printing.

http://europe.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-comey-donald-trump-anthony-weiner-huma-abedin-514918?utm_source=social&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-comey-donald-trump-anthony-weiner-huma-abedin-514918

aloyisious

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It was not right to interfere in another gvt politics when it was done and it still is not right. We know America interferes in political processes of other parts of the world. The US gave protection to opposition groups in Russia (pussy riot and liberals) against the Kremlin and now the Democrats cry foul every time a foreigner is involved in hacking American sites. If you don't want hackers then don't engage in spying yourself. The scandal over listening in on Chancellor Merkel's conversations was an example of US intelligence engaging in this cyberespionage.

That bit about spying and hacking is asinine. The other states won't refrain from spying and hacking on/into one state's business just because that state is pure-as-driven-snow when it comes to electronic and other forms of espionage.

alastair

Sweetemotion wrote: »

" Then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.”

How does that quote, mean otherwise?

It's there in the quote you quoted. We should have made sure we did something to determine who was going to win.

What else does it mean but rig the vote?

It means no such thing. It means that they should have known who was likely to win. They didn't.

If you "determine how far it is to walk to the shops", you're doing no more than establishing the facts on the ground. You're not going to change a thing about that distance in the process.

20Cent

It's three emails, not from HC, not from her server, not even about her. Republicans really grasping at straws now. They should try selecting a better candidate and appealing to minority's next time instead of whining.

Sweetemotion

alastair wrote: »

It means no such thing. It means that they should have known who was likely to win. They didn't.

We should have done something to determine who should have won.

How can you do something to determine who should have won,without trying to rig the vote?

How does that mean "no such thing". It's there in black and white.

What does, we should have done something to determine who should have won, mean to you if it doesn't involve rigging the vote in their favour?

Sweetemotion

20Cent wrote: »

It's three emails, not from HC, not from her server, not even about her. Republicans really grasping at straws now. They should try selecting a better candidate and appealing to minority's next time instead of whining.

I don't think it's Republicans grasping at straws at all and how is appealing to a minority going to win the vote?

majority always wins, no?

alastair

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I don't think it's Republicans grasping at straws at all and how is appealing to a minority going to win the vote?

majority always wins no?

'Minorities' not ' a minority'.

PopePalpatine

20Cent wrote: »

It's three emails, not from HC, not from her server, not even about her. Republicans really grasping at straws now. They should try selecting a better candidate and appealing to minority's next time instead of whining.

Unfortunately (for Clinton's supporters and Trump's opponents), this looks like a prime example of the political rule-of-thumb, "If you're explaining, you're losing."

Sweetemotion

alastair wrote: »

It means no such thing. It means that they should have known who was likely to win. They didn't.

If you "determine how far it is to walk to the shops", you're doing no more than establishing the facts on the ground. You're not going to change a thing about that distance in the process.

What if you invested in buying a car to get too the shops the faster?

alastair

Sweetemotion wrote: »

We should have done something to determine who should have won.

How can you do something to determine who should have won,without trying to rig the vote?

How does that mean "no such thing". It's there in black and white.

What does, we should have done something to determine who should have won, mean to you if it doesn't involve rigging the vote in their favour?

Explanation of the use of the English language above. It doesn't mean rigging anything.

alastair

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Unfortunately (for Clinton's supporters and Trump's opponents), this looks like a prime example of the political rule-of-thumb, "If you're explaining, you're losing."

Except she's winning.