2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dwazza said:
I see it as a damned if you do/don't situation. Releasing the statement now is a better option than after the election if the emails result in criminal charges. If they don't, the only person who gets hurt is Comey.
Click to expand...
The 60 day policy exists for good reason, and in the hypothetical scenario where he had not said anything and the evidence led to charges against the newly elected President Clinton then he could have simply pointed out the fact that DoJ policy prevented him from saying anything before knowing what was being talked about when so close to an election.

He made this public without even knowing what has been found. The FBI didn't even have the legal due process to look at these emails yet, they don't even know if they're new. They could be duplicates of already reviewed content and apparently weren't even emails sent by Clinton.

His vaguely worded letter made it seem like something damning had been found and in taking the action he did, contrary to the wishes of the AG and in breach of policy he has left himself open to perfectly reasonable accusations of partisanship and brought the FBI itself into disrepute.
 
Dwazza said:
I see it as a damned if you do/don't situation. Releasing the statement now is a better option than after the election if the emails result in criminal charges. If they don't, the only person who gets hurt is Comey.
Click to expand...

It was ever thus because he broke with tradition publicly commenting on Clinton's investigation despite recommending no charges. The first time in their history.

Plenty of people at the time criticised him for it and said it would open the floodgates. Got shouted down as partisan hacks. Look where we are now.
 
I feel for Comey, once again he was stuck in a shitty no-win situation. You can just imagine the response if he had said nothing, and then a week after the election had had to announce that they were having to reopen the investigation and had known about it before the election but kept quiet.

The only people responsible for this nonsense are the idiots who voted for this horrible candidate in the primaries. They knew then she was under FBI investigation, and they knew then how bad a candidate she was, but they still voted for her. So now we have an actual competition, despite one side being Donald fecking Trump. Utterly ridiculous.
 
Kentonio said:
I feel for Comey, once again he was stuck in a shitty no-win situation. You can just imagine the response if he had said nothing, and then a week after the election had had to announce that they were having to reopen the investigation and had known about it before the election but kept quiet.

The only people responsible for this nonsense are the idiots who voted for this horrible candidate in the primaries. They knew then she was under FBI investigation, and they knew then how bad a candidate she was, but they still voted for her. So now we have an actual competition, despite one side being Donald fecking Trump. Utterly ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Interesting term for women and minorities.
 
Ubik said:
Interesting term for women and minorities.
Click to expand...

So women and minorities who voted for her should be treated differently to the non-women/minorities who voted for her? Oh and talking about minorities, we are still talking about the candidate who ran a racist dog-whistle campaign against Obama, and who has a shitty record on gay rights including her infamous statement "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman."? We are still talking about that Hillary Clinton right?
 
Rado_N said:
The 60 day policy exists for good reason, and in the hypothetical scenario where he had not said anything and the evidence led to charges against the newly elected President Clinton then he could have simply pointed out the fact that DoJ policy prevented him from saying anything before knowing what was being talked about when so close to an election.

He made this public without even knowing what has been found. The FBI didn't even have the legal due process to look at these emails yet, they don't even know if they're new. They could be duplicates of already reviewed content and apparently weren't even emails sent by Clinton.

His vaguely worded letter made it seem like something damning had been found and in taking the action he did, contrary to the wishes of the AG and in breach of policy he has left himself open to perfectly reasonable accusations of partisanship and brought the FBI itself into disrepute.
Click to expand...

If Clinton committed a criminal act both Comey and the FBI would get slaughtered a hell of a lot worse if they said noting. The furore around this is all because it might disrupt her excellency's coronation procession. You're kidding yourself if you believe otherwise. Deflect, pivot, lie; her most effective tactics in a nutshell.

Although they needed a warrant I think the due process argument might be voided by Huma's seemingly blatant perjury.

Would that be the AG who is best mates with the subject's influential ex-president husband and had a secret/impromptu meeting with him on an airplane prior to the FBI dropping their active investigation? I'm not positive about her impartiality there, but then again, everyone involved in this election are a bit too intertwined for my liking...including the candidates!
 
Kentonio said:
So women and minorities who voted for her should be treated differently to the non-women/minorities who voted for her? Oh and talking about minorities, we are still talking about the candidate who ran a racist dog-whistle campaign against Obama, and who has a shitty record on gay rights including her infamous statement "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman."? We are still talking about that Hillary Clinton right?
Click to expand...
Well, they tend to be the democratic base vote. I've heard extreme Bernie or Busters write off her wins in the southern primaries because "they were from the confederacy", so, you know, these things have to be mentioned occasionally.

"Racist dog-whistle campaign" - did you get that from a Trump speech? You'd think Obama would've held that against her, huh.

And other than having more or less the same timeline on supporting gay marriage that Bernie Sanders had, what examples of her "shitty record on gay rights" do you have, and why do you think so many LGBT groups endorsed her?
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
You bed wetters may want to follow the chain, he was Obama's FL Field Director in 2012.
Click to expand...

Look man, I'm not doing Brexit again. Where the polls look in your favor, you lament how many votes the absurd proposition will get but feel assured that rationality will prevail. And then all of a sudden its the middle of the night and the Sunderland results come in, commentators start telling you it doesn't look so good. Now you're sitting at your laptop in the middle of the night refreshing the BBC, Guardian and Telegraph websites, with BBC World service on TV. By 1 AM you're left questioning everything you though about the UK, its people and the future of Western Civilization.

So this time I'm doing the end of the western civ routine each time things shift. 538's model now says 75% probability, and I've played enough poker to know that those are odds you like, but once every 4 times it still ends with your net worth smaller than before even though you did nothing wrong.
 
Dwazza said:
If Clinton committed a criminal act both Comey and the FBI would get slaughtered a hell of a lot worse if they said noting. The furore around this is all because it might disrupt her excellency's coronation procession. You're kidding yourself if you believe otherwise. Deflect, pivot, lie; her most effective tactics in a nutshell.

Although they needed a warrant I think the due process argument might be voided by Huma's seemingly blatant perjury.

Would that be the AG who is best mates with the subject's influential ex-president husband and had a secret/impromptu meeting with him on an airplane prior to the FBI dropping their active investigation? I'm not positive about her impartiality there, but then again, everyone involved in this election are a bit too intertwined for my liking...including the candidates!
Click to expand...

So you don't think the FBI should have at least seen the contents of the emails first before commenting?
 
Dwazza said:
If Clinton committed a criminal act both Comey and the FBI would get slaughtered a hell of a lot worse if they said noting. The furore around this is all because it might disrupt her excellency's coronation procession. You're kidding yourself if you believe otherwise. Deflect, pivot, lie; her most effective tactics in a nutshell.

Although they needed a warrant I think the due process argument might be voided by Huma's seemingly blatant perjury.

Would that be the AG who is best mates with the subject's influential ex-president husband and had a secret/impromptu meeting with him on an airplane prior to the FBI dropping their active investigation? I'm not positive about her impartiality there, but then again, everyone involved in this election are a bit too intertwined for my liking...including the candidates!
Click to expand...

I'm not defending her in this, her guilt or otherwise should be determined by a proper and thorough investigation, but to make that statement before even taking the time to determine if there's anything even been discovered was wrong, regardless of who may or may not be affected, and the fact that even Jeanine Pirro is defending Clinton speaks volumes.

If the FBI get shit from people for doing their jobs right that's one thing, but right now they're getting shit for doing it wrong, which is another thing entirely. Deciding that doing the wrong thing might bring you less shit so you'll go that route isn't behaviour becoming of the Director of the FBI.
 
MarceloFalcon said:
Look man, I'm not doing Brexit again. Where the polls look in your favor, you lament how many votes the absurd proposition will get but feel assured that rationality will prevail. And then all of a sudden its the middle of the night and the Sunderland results come in, commentators start telling you it doesn't look so good. Now you're sitting at your laptop in the middle of the night refreshing the BBC, Guardian and Telegraph websites, with BBC World service on TV. By 1 AM you're left questioning everything you though about the UK, its people and the future of Western Civilization.

So this time I'm doing the end of the western civ routine each time things shift. 538's model now says 75% probability, and I've played enough poker to know that those are odds you like, but once every 4 times it still ends with your net worth smaller than before even though you did nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

You must rue the day you chose a job wherein you can't drink yourself unconscious to commemorate the world's end. :lol:
 
Ubik said:
Well, they tend to be the democratic base vote. I've heard extreme Bernie or Busters write off her wins in the southern primaries because "they were from the confederacy", so, you know, these things have to be mentioned occasionally.
Click to expand...

I don't write them off, Bernie should really have been working to build his name recognition and connect with southern communities a lot earlier, but then again his campaign wasn't initially intended to actually win.

Ubik said:
"Racist dog-whistle campaign" - did you get that from a Trump speech? You'd think Obama would've held that against her, huh.
Click to expand...

He did hold it against her, and she was widely attacked in the media for it at the time. In case you missed it the first time around..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-rucker/can-black-people-trust-hillary_b_9312004.html

Ubik said:
And other than having more or less the same timeline on supporting gay marriage that Bernie Sanders had, what examples of her "shitty record on gay rights" do you have, and why do you think so many LGBT groups endorsed her?
Click to expand...

I think so many major LGBT groups supported her because those endorsements were generally made by the very rich people on their boards who move in her circles. There was certainly a lot of kickback from the actual membership of those same groups. Bernie Sanders was openly supporting gay rights going right back to the 70's. Hillary Clinton had to 'evolve' on the issues (as did Obama), with Clinton not coming around to gay marraige until it was already basically a done deal.

And that's the main problem with Hillary, after she got burned on healthcare back in the day, now she seems to stick to whatever the position is that will win her the most votes at any particular time.
 
Kentonio said:
He did hold it against her, and she was widely attacked in the media for it at the time. In case you missed it the first time around..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-rucker/can-black-people-trust-hillary_b_9312004.html
Click to expand...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-rucker/can-black-people-trust-hillary_b_9312004.html
That's the same stuff Trump comes out with. People were fired on her campaign in 08 for putting that stuff about. The quotes from Bill on that link are huge reaches in particular.

I think so many major LGBT groups supported her because those endorsements were generally made by the very rich people on their boards who move in her circles. There was certainly a lot of kickback from the actual membership of those same groups. Bernie Sanders was openly supporting gay rights going right back to the 70's. Hillary Clinton had to 'evolve' on the issues (as did Obama), with Clinton not coming around to gay marraige until it was already basically a done deal.

And that's the main problem with Hillary, after she got burned on healthcare back in the day, now she seems to stick to whatever the position is that will win her the most votes at any particular time.
Click to expand...
Bernie didn't openly support gay marriage when it was going through the Vermont government in the early 2000s. He "evolved" his position when one of the most liberal states in the US decided they were okay with it. http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...riage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html

This re-running of the primaries is fairly unnecessary at this stage, just not a fan of branding her bulk of support within the Democrats as idiots.
 
MarceloFalcon said:
Look man, I'm not doing Brexit again. Where the polls look in your favor, you lament how many votes the absurd proposition will get but feel assured that rationality will prevail. And then all of a sudden its the middle of the night and the Sunderland results come in, commentators start telling you it doesn't look so good. Now you're sitting at your laptop in the middle of the night refreshing the BBC, Guardian and Telegraph websites, with BBC World service on TV. By 1 AM you're left questioning everything you though about the UK, its people and the future of Western Civilization.

So this time I'm doing the end of the western civ routine each time things shift. 538's model now says 75% probability, and I've played enough poker to know that those are odds you like, but once every 4 times it still ends with your net worth smaller than before even though you did nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

But we're not running this 4 times. The odds once are all that's needed.
 
Am answering my own post and request from a few pages ago where I asked Why Hilary deleted the emails in the first place: I found this on facebook


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


https://www.facebook.com/theamandablain/posts/1123231627711899

https://medium.com/the-curious-civi...know-what-the-clinton-511dc1659eda#.xww6skqxf



I don't like posting about politics.. but.. man, technology I do...

I personally read the ENTIRE FBI released report about Hillary's Emails. I don't know anyone else who has.
Some points....

1) When asked most people say something to the effect of... "Hillary deleted these emails with an evil cackling laughter to hide all her evil secret doings"... But the reality is... Hillary never deleted or sent any emails to the interview departments according to these reports. She was requested to send emails by the govt in july 2014. Her team emailed the IT guy with the search for all *.gov emails. He did this from Outlook .pst backups from old servers. He sent those back to the team.. Team sent the files to her Lawyers. Lawyers sent them to the govt. IT guy asked.. What do you want me to do with the not .gov emails? and remaining backups? At this time it is July 2014 - Over a year since Hillary left the state office. Hillary and team said well.. we dont need them? IT guy deleted them. Then he bleached the server as IT security guys do. His report says no one asked him to do this. Hillary.. never touched these emails. She is not very technical. How many people could sort through backed up .pst files reading this thread? How many even know what a .pst file even is? You think Hillary did this?

2) There were a total of 2093 classified emails found (although this number changes around a bit depending what you include as classified). Most of these classified emails according to the FBI report were things like Hillary Clintons travel and flight schedule. IE - this would be classified information as to when she was landing but it is not necessarily classified in the sense of national secrets most people are thinking about. Each and every sender and receiver of the 2093 "classified emails" was brought in, interviewed and questioned. They are in the reports. The FBI determined that 110 were classified at the time. About 0.17% of emails on the server. The FBI also found that NONE of the 110 "serious emails" were properly marked with headers and subject lines as classified.... Which is govt classified protocol. Hillary and her team discussed classified information in morning meetings, secure faxes and via secure phone calls - not via email. This is why she said there wasn't any. Because there should not have been. The emails were sent poorly by other people in the USA government. IE - The emails that were found - Hillary was part of the email threads that other people in the Gov't made mistakes on.

3)The hack emails are a whole other ball of wax... Most people mush them all together.. Often confusing the whole thing again showing lack of technical knowledge. Hillary's email has never been hacked. Wiki leaks published the entire Clinton Emails published under the FOIA here - https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/ I read a bunch.. nothing of note.
Guccifer the script kiddie hacked Sydney Blumenthal Aol email by... guessing his security password reset question - He emailed Hillary a lot on the server. Wiki leaks published a bunch of that here - https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/…
John Podestra emails released by Wikileaks has not been publicized how they got this information. But llikely an inital phising scheme and then as shown in this email - https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6589 he published his password.. and then used the same password everywhere.ugh You can read those here - https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/

So yeah. I have read a bunch of these countless emails. You can too. Most of 'the media' posting about these choose one or two emails that is Hillary's aides and pr team doing their jobs.. or posting their personal water cooler email opinions. IE- How to target younger voters in a certain state or What to do about Bernie Sanders. Most company internal emails would look similar. I looked at lots of them but I didn't see any OMG smoking gun or secret conspiracy in these either.

4) It is important to note how complete the FBI investigation was.. They cross checked server log in times, IT department tickets, every computer, laptop, etc. phone records.. They interviewed basically every person to ever remotely work for or with Clinton in any way. They never found "secret clinton scandals".. there is no insider deals. You can read countless pages of interview answers, transcripts, questions, of how non technical Hillary and her team are.. For people who sure didn't seem all that technical... it would be a miracle to cover up things like this.

5) The media has had a hay day with this because people are not technical. "The Media" is not technical. And I mean seriously.. who reads all these documents besides me? How did you reading this get your information about the "email scandal"... ? All the information most people have.. is some guy who wrote about what he read.. and likely they are not very technical. Do they know what .pst is? Bleach bit? Back up servers? Do they know how IMAP works? Sent messages? Secure FTP? All things mentioned in the FBI files? I just don't think 'the media' understands what they are reading per say or focus on the sensationalized parts more than others. How come most people know there is classified emails.. but NOT that Hillary never touched the emails sent or deleted for example...

In MY opinion, Clinton's email scandal is such a thing.. because for the first time .. the people of the world are looking at and are interested in how the technology in the USA gov't works. And its bad. The USA gov't like most organizations is SERIOUSLY behind on technical knowledge, training and protocol around technology. This is my opinion based off what I personally have read. You may have a different one.

I agree with the FBI findings.. She shouldn't have done it. And she was careless. But there is no.. crooked, evil, cackling plots like most people think. The USA Gov't needs to seriously work on their technology protocols. This isn't the first email scandal BTW... Other gov't officials have too - including Bush, he had a private email on the republican server. He had tons of missing emails off THAT server.. conveniently around the Weapons of mass Destruction time period after Sept 11... No one heard a peep about Crooked Bush .. and he was the PRESIDENT.
 
Last edited:
Ubik said:
That's the same stuff Trump comes out with. People were fired on her campaign in 08 for putting that stuff about. The quotes from Bill on that link are huge reaches in particular.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but 'Trump says that' doesn't make something immediately untrue (although it probably does in about 80% of cases, but hey..). Both Clintons were WAY out of line in the 08 campaign, and Mark Penn wasn't fired so I don't know where you get that from.

Hell, even in this campaign she's already stood in front of BLM activists and said 'Respectfully, if that is your position, then I will only talk to white people about how we are going to deal with these very real problems'. Because obviously she's just SO tuned into racial issues.

Ubik said:
Bernie didn't openly support gay marriage when it was going through the Vermont government in the early 2000s. He "evolved" his position when one of the most liberal states in the US decided they were okay with it. http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...riage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html

This re-running of the primaries is fairly unnecessary at this stage, just not a fan of branding her bulk of support within the Democrats as idiots.
Click to expand...

No, he didn't think the time was right at that point to make progress, he was still happy being an open supporter of gay rights going back to a time when that kind of position made you a wild eyed radical. He sure as hell didn't make public statements about how marraige should be only between a man and a woman.

As for re-running the primary, I've no interest in doing it either, but I'm also sick of the same people who voted for probably the worst Dem nominee in my lifetime now crying when the same things we raised back during the primary now come and bite us all in the ass. Oh and lets not forget implying that finding her a shitty candidate must mean we're sexist and racist, that's always fun too.
 
I don't necessarily agree with what @Kentonio says about Clinton supporters being 'idiots' at all, but I do think there's a case to be made that her personal stuff (mainly the emails, but more than that) have been heavily influential in this election, and that any halfway decent candidate would've put Trump away around the election. Certain demographics preferring Hilary doesn't change that.

I still think Biden would've been perfect if he'd been up for it. I'd like to think Sanders would've won easily too..although Trump would've no doubt stoked up the 'communist' insults and the like.
 
sammsky1 said:
What's your prediction @Raoul? For election result?
Click to expand...

Its really impossible to predict given the strange detour we've taken over the past few days. Prior to that I was looking at a 323-215 Hillary win. Now I'm looking at something closer to the 287-251 range with Trump possibly taking Florida. If Hillary wins Florida, then it will be something like 316-222.

If Trump does win then it will be something like 270-268 with NH tipping the balance. He may have an outside chance at Colorado and Michigan as well, but thats very low percentage.
 
Jaxdan said:
It it were you, me, Martha Stewart, or most other Americans we'd be wearing orange jumpsuit type outfits. That's the double standard that appalls many of us. Nixon went down over Watergate (a far less involved cover up) because the press actually cared about doing it's job back then. But when 90% of the press is complicit in choosing the side that aligns with them politically, this is what happens. This is the worst choice of two candidates in my lifetime. I first voted in 1980. 300 million plus people and THIS is what we come up with? Embarrassing.
Click to expand...


What a load of shite. Woodstein were stuck and the only reason that they started getting any traction was because a high-level FBI agent started feeding them information. Where are you getting this 90% figure from? Which newspapers do you actively read to make that determination?
 
Feels like Trump's chances on 538 are getting better and better every time I go on it.:nervous:
 
Bryan's wrong. Even Shakespeare's true villains have a very human vulnerability.
 
It's squeaky bum time lads.

I always maintained it will be tight...

At this point, I hope Hillary wins by 2 electoral votes.
 
Well it appears that one of the stories Rick Wilson was alluding to might have dropped! Trump has serious ties to the Russian's and had an email server set up to talk directly to a Russian bank.



Now what was he talking about people and email servers? Hmmmmmmmmmmm, I wonder.
 
Red Defence said:
Would surely have made sense. Is this Comey a Trump supporter?
Click to expand...

Lifelong Republican. Currently unaffiliated.

Fwiw, I don't believe that if his actions were politically motivated, they were to help Don elected, more likely case is he bet on Clinton winning anyway but help downballot Rs by ginning up enthusiasm amongst R and R-leaning voters.
 
langster said:
Well it appears that one of the stories Rick Wilson was alluding to might have dropped! Trump has serious ties to the Russian's and had an email server set up to talk directly to a Russian bank.



Now what was he talking about people and email servers? Hmmmmmmmmmmm, I wonder.
Click to expand...


The clear solution to all of this is to ban the internet imo.
 
Raoul said:
Its really impossible to predict given the strange detour we've taken over the past few days. Prior to that I was looking at a 323-215 Hillary win. Now I'm looking at something closer to the 287-251 range with Trump possibly taking Florida. If Hillary wins Florida, then it will be something like 316-222.

If Trump does win then it will be something like 270-268 with NH tipping the balance. He may have an outside chance at Colorado and Michigan as well, but thats very low percentage.
Click to expand...

it will be a landslide man, dont start this trump stuff :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.