Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 motyak wrote:

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Poll recently taken has Bernie at 44%, Hilary at 37% 7% lead by Bernie, and that he may be top come primary election day.

Does Whembly secretly like Hilary?

The theory that whembly is showing his affection schoolyard-hair pulling-footsies style has been floated before

I'm just resigned that's it's the most likely outcome.

I mean... she could be Presidential no?

 whembly wrote:

It's awfully early. Remember, frigg'n Michelle Bachman was the frontrunner in IA for a few months about this time in the last election.

While it's true that it's still early, I don't seem to recall the Dems running the same kind of knock down drag out fight style primaries as the Republicans have done the last couple times.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

It's awfully early. Remember, frigg'n Michelle Bachman was the frontrunner in IA for a few months about this time in the last election.

While it's true that it's still early, I don't seem to recall the Dems running the same kind of knock down drag out fight style primaries as the Republicans have done the last couple times.

O.o Dude... the democrat 2008 primary between Obama and HRC was fugly. Clinton was even the source of the Birtherism™ movement.

Also... just saw this on my twittah and I'm researching a bit:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Doesn't that apply to HRC's private server & thumbdrive that her lawyer had in possession?

 whembly wrote:

O.o Dude... the democrat 2008 primary between Obama and HRC was fugly. Clinton was even the source of the Birtherism™ movement.

While that's true, you still only had 2 candidates, by and large.... I mean, with this years crop of Republicans, we can field a full rugby side, and I'm sure if we wait long enough, we'll get some reserves to suit up as well


The campaigns ran by Dems may be "ugly" but they aren't clown car getting hit by a freight train ugly like we're getting right now.

 whembly wrote:

Doesn't that apply to HRC's private server & thumbdrive that her lawyer had in possession?

No. Clinton's lawyer did not have custody of any form of deposited record. He had access to the original data, but that is distinct from a deposited record.

I've said it a bunch of times before, but the basic way to assess whether a scandal has real legs is to see if it can be explained in a single sentence, that makes it sound really serious and believable. If it requires more detail than you can reasonably fit in a single sentence, or requires any kind of follow up question, or results in most people thinking it sounds like partisan/conspiracy nonsense, then it isn't going to work very well.

This doesn't mean things that fit in to one sentence are the only things that should be scandals, or that everything that is told in one sentence is a genuine scandal. I'm just saying that's a pretty good rule of thumb for establishing whether or not something will actually produce a decent scandal.

And that's the issue here. I just cannot figure out a sentence that sounds like anything more than murky, technical nonsense. I doubt anybody else could. If they can, they should probably send that sentence to the GOP, because those guys have spent crazy effort trying to make this in to something without really getting anywhere. Already it seems like they're positioning to make this 'oh it really is bad for sure, but we just couldn't produce anything meaningful because Clinton is magic, and the MM is biased'.

Just been catching up with the latest round of the email saga, and it only confirms what I've been saying for months: HRC is bullet proof. The hand of destiny is pushing her all the way to 1600. I seen it with Obama. Will HRC be a good president? That's another question entirely, but get used to it, whembley, she's going to be your president

Haruspex wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Jeb won't be the nominee.

You're living on another planet if you honestly believe anybody else has a fraction of a chance of even getting the money together for a proper campaign.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lest we forget, around this time in 2012 pundits and polls actually placed Rick Perry and Herman Cain as frontrunners for the Republican nomination. But at this point in the game it's a dog and pony show. There was never any doubt of Romney's candidacy then, and there is no credible reason to doubt Bush's candidacy in the absence of a proper challenger.

This is a different election. Thats why Sanders and Trump are so popular.
Bush is barely making the top 5 at this point in many polls.

Just as I'm fairly confident that Jeb will be the nominee, I'm not sure at all it will be Hillary. She's a pretty terrible campaigner on the best of days.

 Frazzled wrote:

Haruspex wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Jeb won't be the nominee.

You're living on another planet if you honestly believe anybody else has a fraction of a chance of even getting the money together for a proper campaign.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lest we forget, around this time in 2012 pundits and polls actually placed Rick Perry and Herman Cain as frontrunners for the Republican nomination. But at this point in the game it's a dog and pony show. There was never any doubt of Romney's candidacy then, and there is no credible reason to doubt Bush's candidacy in the absence of a proper challenger.

This is a different election. Thats why Sanders and Trump are so popular.

Keep in mind that when we are talking about Trump being popular, we are talking about being at the top of a pile of 15 people and attracting less than 20% of the people. Being at the top of the polls =/= being popular, especially when 80+% of the people pick anyone but you.

This is very true.

Yup. Trump is pretty steady at 25 or so, with the remaining going to the others. When the voters settle on their establishment candidate, whether that be a Bush or a Rubio or whatever, that 75% will likely coalesce behind him, while Trump will likely peak at 25%. That's my prediction anyways. I have to believe that the majority of Republican voters are smarter than to want to nominate a sideshow like Trump.

Never overestimate the intelligence of the US voter.

I still have to believe it, otherwise all remaining optimism I have for the future of the Republic will collapse in on itself like a dying star

Trump is a chump. I don't see him getting the Republican ticket.

I think he is higher than 25% and the polls are known to be innaccurate. Trump is the Republican equivalent of Obama. People talk about Trump with Messianic tones.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

It's awfully early. Remember, frigg'n Michelle Bachman was the frontrunner in IA for a few months about this time in the last election.

While it's true that it's still early, I don't seem to recall the Dems running the same kind of knock down drag out fight style primaries as the Republicans have done the last couple times.

At this point in time it doesn't make any sense for Democrats to get into a brawl. If Hillary or Bernie start getting into the mix, all the Republicans will suddenly stop fighting each other and swing their targeting reticules toward whoever is the Democrat front-runner. With nearly twenty Republicans spending tons of money tearing into each other, the Democrats need only keep a low profile and fund raise. This allows them to save money for the actual primaries and general election where the Republicans will have spent much of their money too early.

I'm actually looking forward to a Trump-Hillary debate

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I think he is higher than 25% and the polls are known to be innaccurate. Trump is the Republican equivalent of Obama. People talk about Trump with Messianic tones.

The difference is that the Democrats who supported Hillary generally still liked Obama, while most Republicans who don't support Trump hate the guy. Of course that plays well with his target audience: disaffected conservatives.

 kronk wrote:
Trump is a chump. I don't see him getting the Republican ticket.

Allow me to jog your memory, but not so long ago, the Republican party deemed it wise to nominate one R.M.Nixon for the ticket


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I think he is higher than 25% and the polls are known to be innaccurate. Trump is the Republican equivalent of Obama. People talk about Trump with Messianic tones.

The difference is that the Democrats who supported Hillary generally still liked Obama, while most Republicans who don't support Trump hate the guy. Of course that plays well with his target audience: disaffected conservatives.

Conservatives are always disaffected if American media is anything to go by. Even when they have a Republican president, they're still disaffected.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm actually looking forward to a Trump-Hillary debate

I'm going to ask my bookmaker for odds for Trump yanking off his toupee and throwing it at somebody during a debate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

It's awfully early. Remember, frigg'n Michelle Bachman was the frontrunner in IA for a few months about this time in the last election.

While it's true that it's still early, I don't seem to recall the Dems running the same kind of knock down drag out fight style primaries as the Republicans have done the last couple times.

At this point in time it doesn't make any sense for Democrats to get into a brawl. If Hillary or Bernie start getting into the mix, all the Republicans will suddenly stop fighting each other and swing their targeting reticules toward whoever is the Democrat front-runner. With nearly twenty Republicans spending tons of money tearing into each other, the Democrats need only keep a low profile and fund raise. This allows them to save money for the actual primaries and general election where the Republicans will have spent much of their money too early.

It's strange how most normal people can see that a mass brawl of candidates only helps the Democrats, and yet, they keep playing into Democrat hands.

I've maintained this for months, and I stick by it: the election is Hilary's to lose. If she loses it'll only be because of some scandal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I think he is higher than 25% and the polls are known to be innaccurate. Trump is the Republican equivalent of Obama. People talk about Trump with Messianic tones.

Eh? I doubt if Trump's own family talk about him with Messianic tones

You dont have to go that far back. Moving back in time , you'll meet 1992 before you meet 1960.

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm actually looking forward to a Trump-Hillary debate

It's been done.

Og Gawd. I remember when SNL first kicked off

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Conservatives are always disaffected if American media is anything to go by. Even when they have a Republican president, they're still disaffected.

Anger generates interest, which makes the media money. No one cares about people saying "Yeah, things are pretty great!" unless they previously had things pretty bad.

 Jihadin wrote:
Og Gawd. I remember when SNL first kicked off

Candy gram! Girl scouts!

No Pepsi. Coke!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Just been catching up with the latest round of the email saga, and it only confirms what I've been saying for months: HRC is bullet proof.

The other side of the equation is that, because of her position and prominence, any case against her absolutely has to be bulletproof. The case has to be rock solid. Even a whiff of "party vs party witchhunt" means much of the public will automatically be biased in her favor. Our partisan politics are so bad that if a senator from one party punched a senator from the other party, there would be people in both parties believing the other was somehow to blame, and damn the facts.

They have to investigate and Hillary has to allow it. If not then it can be used as a beat stick against her for the perception of a "Double Standards"

 Jihadin wrote:
They have to investigate and Hillary has to allow it. If not then it can be used as a beat stick against her for the perception of a "Double Standards"

This is such an obvious trap for the republicans I'm amazed they are walking into it. Tannhauser nailed it.

If HRC is smart she will welcome this investigation with open arms as it will bounce off her. HRC can then say she is being reasonable I've got nothing to hide and it is the republicans who are wasting public money to score political points. Public agrees with HRC.

If there was really TS SCI SI TK on there, then 'having nothing to hide' isn't going to be the case.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/inspector-general-clinton-had-top-secretsensitive-compartmented