|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 24 2016 12:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 11:57 kwizach wrote:Republican officials are literally trying to help Sanders over Clinton. They would much rather face him than Clinton, because they believe he's their best shot at getting moderates to vote Republican. It's one thing for you to think they're wrong, but to deny that they'd rather face Sanders than Clinton is simply to ignore the facts. The Sanders head-to-head polls cannot take into account that the Republican machine has been relentlessly attacking Clinton while almost completely sparing Sanders. That would change in a heartbeat if he was nominated, and they've got plenty of material to paint him as a far-left extremist. Hmm.. Romney's old manager and Karl Rove's superPAC... Pretty safe bet to say whatever they are expecting, the opposite is what will happen. That whole moderate play comes from the prayer that there will be an establishment nominee from the Republican party for Sanders to be up against. Sanders does much, better with moderates than Trump. Hence beating him by double digits in heads up polls.
I'm not saying they're right. All I'm saying is they'd rather face Sanders (I do believe they'd have a better shot against him than Clinton, though).
|
This all sounds like the same stuff people were pushing in the summer about how Trump wouldn't last or stand up to the scrutiny of being the front runner.
I suspect the inevitability of Hillary's nomination will take a similar path as the inevitability that Trump wont win the R nomination.
No one ever took me up on betting against Trump getting the nomination, perhaps people who think they know Hillary will get the nomination would be willing to back up the talk by putting something on the line?
|
On January 24 2016 12:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 11:56 Doublemint wrote:On January 24 2016 11:44 xDaunt wrote:
The email story is far from over. I think she is going to get indicted. I agree that it's not yet over. it's probably the most important factor of the democratic nomination process in the nearer future lol. jury's still out on indictment or no indictment, nobody knows. As just a reminder, here's what we know: 1) Clinton has said that she did not send or receive classified information on her email server 2) Clinton said that she deleted personal emails on the her email sever 3) The FBI has recovered what she deleted, which includes personal and "work" emails 4) Over 1,300 emails containing classified information have been found on her server. These include emails subject to SAP, the most confidential/top secret classification 5) Many officials, including former Secretary Gates, have said that it is likely that the email server was hacked by foreign countries 6) FBI officials have expanded the inquiry to see whether Clinton used her position to unlawfully benefit the Clinton Foundation The final load of emails is coming soon, but to say that the facts listed above constitute a legal problem for Hillary is an understatement. Aside from the charge of mishandling classified information, there's more than a whiff of corruption and obstruction of justice here. Given the above, and given what we know about the current FBI direct (Comey), I have no doubt that he's going to recommend that Hillary be indicted. If Lynch refuses to do so, I wouldn't be surprise if we some resignations from the FBI as a result. Frankly, I don't see how Lynch or Obama can let Hillary off the hook if the FBI recommends prosecution. It would be a political disaster for them.
yeah, from a legal standpoint you do have a good point. but it's still politics we are talking about.
you remember the juniper back door incident that hardly gets/got any press I posted a while back? that's edward snowden times a thousand. that's clinton emails times a million. I am not making this shit up, just google it.
that was basically an enemy government of the US at worst, or a very sneaky and double faced ally at best that not only had the golden key to files you are describing, they made the lock themselves. a very elegant way to circumvent the safeguards in place one must admit. using the US' weapons when it comes to encryption policy against them 
I am more of the opinion that if clinton gets indicted, all hell will break loose and that scandal of massive proportions will finally get the attention it deserves.
that is to say, I don't think she will get indicted 
//edit: for anyone interested, wired has an excellent article that gives you the details and gist of this highly underrated story.
|
"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump said at a campaign rally here.
-_- this guy thinks lowly of his base... smart.
|
or lowly of his opponents
|
United States19574 Posts
Or lowly of people on 5 th ave! Who knows what Trump's mind conjures.
|
On January 24 2016 05:56 Soap wrote:
China is still growing faster than the US did since the 80s.
Not if you factor in the environnemental cost
|
On January 24 2016 08:54 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 06:06 WhiteDog wrote:On January 24 2016 05:56 Soap wrote:
China is still growing faster than the US did since the 80s. And how far are chinese from US citizens in GDP per capita ? Come on... China is just riding on its cheap labor and its disrespect for intellectual property, its model is unsustainable and barely help the global economy. Economists already jumped ship by the way, most papers I've read in the last month talked about India as the new hero for future growth. That's delusional. Even with Modi as a neoliberal lapdog for opening the country up to capital, it's not like the Chinese are going to be buying Indian goods, and the reason China is sliding is because the US/West is saturated with Chinese goods.
Accurate description of the average economist.
In reality the global economy lacks demand, not offer, and may have a problem with modern innovations that, while greatly impacting the daily life, are not having real (measurable) effect on productivity and destroy labor while not creating any new ones.
|
On January 24 2016 12:17 xDaunt wrote:
4) Over 1,300 emails containing classified information have been found on her server. These include emails subject to SAP, the most confidential/top secret classification
Is that labeled classified or emails actually containing classified information?
As a former government contractor I know that a lot of classified labels get plastered on emails either automatically or out of habit. A lot of people working for the government don't understand classified labels beyond "I need to plaster these labels on my shit or I could get fired".
I mean, I've seen emails that were like:
+ Show Spoiler +THIS IS SUPER SECRET DON'T TELL ANYONE
Bob, let's get coffee.
-Jim
SUCH SECRET, MUCH DOGE
|
Nearly half of all Senate Democrats on Friday urged Barack Obama to put an end to deportation raids on women and children, as advocates expressed fears that immigration raids could resume this weekend.
A multi-state round-up of Central American families three weeks ago caused alarm and anger in Latino communities and a political backlash which continues to resonate, with the Obama administration offering no indication that it would change course on its policy of prioritising recent border crossers even if they pose no apparent security threat.
On Friday, 22 Democratic senators sent a letter to the president in which they expressed “serious reservations about these ongoing immigration raids”, adding that they were “deeply concerned that in its eagerness to deter additional arrivals from this region, the Department [of Homeland Security] is returning vulnerable individuals with valid protection claims to life-threatening violence.”
The letter continues: “It is important to evaluate this as a humanitarian and refugee crisis involving a vulnerable population and not strictly as a border security and immigration enforcement matter. Targeting families contradicts the administration’s repeated commitment to focus its enforcement resources on removing felons not families … Given the particular risks faced by these mothers and children, the tactic of using widely publicised, aggressive removal operations – often in the wee hours of the morning – is shocking and misguided.”
The senators also called for those from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala to be granted the temporary right to remain in the US because of the increased rates of violence in the countries from which they fled. John Kerry, the secretary of state, announced this month that the US would expand its refugee programme for the three countries.
Source
|
On January 24 2016 23:15 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 12:17 xDaunt wrote:
4) Over 1,300 emails containing classified information have been found on her server. These include emails subject to SAP, the most confidential/top secret classification Is that labeled classified or emails actually containing classified information? As a former government contractor I know that a lot of classified labels get plastered on emails either automatically or out of habit. A lot of people working for the government don't understand classified labels beyond "I need to plaster these labels on my shit or I could get fired". I mean, I've seen emails that were like: + Show Spoiler +THIS IS SUPER SECRET DON'T TELL ANYONE
Bob, let's get coffee.
-Jim
SUCH SECRET, MUCH DOGE
Containing. There's been some talk that Clinton may have had someone illegally remove classified labeling from some emails, but this isn't really clear at this point.
|
On January 24 2016 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:
This all sounds like the same stuff people were pushing in the summer about how Trump wouldn't last or stand up to the scrutiny of being the front runner.
I suspect the inevitability of Hillary's nomination will take a similar path as the inevitability that Trump wont win the R nomination.
No one ever took me up on betting against Trump getting the nomination, perhaps people who think they know Hillary will get the nomination would be willing to back up the talk by putting something on the line?
A few good polls in early states doesn't undo the south. Bernie is a complete disaster in the south.
|
On January 24 2016 20:34 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 08:54 IgnE wrote:On January 24 2016 06:06 WhiteDog wrote:On January 24 2016 05:56 Soap wrote:
China is still growing faster than the US did since the 80s. And how far are chinese from US citizens in GDP per capita ? Come on... China is just riding on its cheap labor and its disrespect for intellectual property, its model is unsustainable and barely help the global economy. Economists already jumped ship by the way, most papers I've read in the last month talked about India as the new hero for future growth. That's delusional. Even with Modi as a neoliberal lapdog for opening the country up to capital, it's not like the Chinese are going to be buying Indian goods, and the reason China is sliding is because the US/West is saturated with Chinese goods. Accurate description of the average economist. In reality the global economy lacks demand, not offer, and may have a problem with modern innovations that, while greatly impacting the daily life, are not having real (measurable) effect on productivity and destroy labor while not creating any new ones.
That's an awfully reductionist view of global economics.
|
On January 25 2016 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:
This all sounds like the same stuff people were pushing in the summer about how Trump wouldn't last or stand up to the scrutiny of being the front runner.
I suspect the inevitability of Hillary's nomination will take a similar path as the inevitability that Trump wont win the R nomination.
No one ever took me up on betting against Trump getting the nomination, perhaps people who think they know Hillary will get the nomination would be willing to back up the talk by putting something on the line? A few good polls in early states doesn't undo the south. Bernie is a complete disaster in the south.
Is that you sounding confident that Hillary will win, but not willing to actually put anything on the line?
|
Ill put 1,000,000 eSports dollars that Hillary wins the nomination.
I'll even change my sig to "I felt the Bern." :D
Which is cool because Im rooting for Sanders, so I win either way.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
our only chance is a bloomberg/webb campaign
|
Is Sanders really that unpopular among the more rural population? I think he has a pretty mixed record on gun control for a democrat and he seems to poll well among the White voters
|
On January 25 2016 03:44 Zambrah wrote:
Ill put 1,000,000 eSports dollars that Hillary wins the nomination.
I'll even change my sig to "I felt the Bern." :D
Which is cool because Im rooting for Sanders, so I win either way.
Yeah I figure if people actually believe Hillary will win, a sig or ~30-day ban should be an easy bet.
I simply don't believe they are as confident as they are pretending.
EDIT: I guess I'll add that I'll still take Trump against the field for the Republican nomination if anyone still thinks he won't win it. Though I doubt any of the people saying Trump wouldn't win are confident enough in their perception either.
|
United States43672 Posts
GH I'd bet actual money on it. What would it profit me if I won a ban bet and got you banned?
|
On January 25 2016 04:54 KwarK wrote:
GH I'd bet actual money on it. What would it profit me if I won a ban bet and got you banned?
You would win the praises of TL'rs, though I think plenty would consider a ban bet between the two of us win-win. Could always pick the sig bet and then make my sig something like "In all matters, I defer to the master of knowledge, Kwark" or something.
I'm sure if you're really confident we could come up with something. Admittedly you're not at the top of my preference list but if no one else has got the guts, I'd take it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
