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.
Frazzled wrote: A growing chance actually. Well to be more correct Hillary's chances are declining. He's not improving. Millennials and others are starting to hit the "not going to vote" or Stein/Johnson route.
And both Stein and Johnson seem to be drawing more away from Clinton, then Trump. Every 4 way poll I've seen shows a much tighter race with Trump then two way polls.
That is surprising, given the civil war in the Republican Party. Again if only one of the majors who put forth a candidate that did not make likely voters have anal leakage, it would have been a cakewalk. Imagine Biden or Julian Castro against Trump?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: That is surprising, given the civil war in the Republican Party. Again if only one of the majors who put forth a candidate that did not make likely voters have anal leakage, it would have been a cakewalk. Imagine Biden or Julian Castro against Trump?
I'd love Biden. His penchant for giving advice that would land you in jail would be hilarious.
skyth wrote: And you are acting as if Clinton and Trump are on the same level of bad...Clinton is as 'bad' as other politicians. Trump is an order of magnitude worse.
How so? Because he's "Rayciss"?
The sweet, tasty irony in your post is delicious.
Frazzled wrote:That is surprising, given the civil war in the Republican Party. Again if only one of the majors who put forth a candidate that did not make likely voters have anal leakage, it would have been a cakewalk. Imagine Biden or Julian Castro against Trump?
The "civil war" is more shouting than shooting. Since both candidates are "just as bad" (a truly 'lol' sentiment if there ever was one), many R voters will pull the lever for their clownshoes gakstain candidate, because tribal something something.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Frazzled wrote: That is surprising, given the civil war in the Republican Party. Again if only one of the majors who put forth a candidate that did not make likely voters have anal leakage, it would have been a cakewalk. Imagine Biden or Julian Castro against Trump?
I'd love Biden. His penchant for giving advice that would land you in jail would be hilarious.
He's like every family's crazy uncle thats the life of the party.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: That is surprising, given the civil war in the Republican Party. Again if only one of the majors who put forth a candidate that did not make likely voters have anal leakage, it would have been a cakewalk. Imagine Biden or Julian Castro against Trump?
It doesn't matter what candidate the Democrats run...There would be lies and they would be painted as horrible people we would have the same narrative as 'just as bad as Trump'. Just the same as it is with Hillary.
Frazzled wrote: That is surprising, given the civil war in the Republican Party. Again if only one of the majors who put forth a candidate that did not make likely voters have anal leakage, it would have been a cakewalk. Imagine Biden or Julian Castro against Trump?
It doesn't matter what candidate the Democrats run...There would be lies and they would be painted as horrible people we would have the same narrative as 'just as bad as Trump'. Just the same as it is with Hillary.
Frazzled wrote: That is surprising, given the civil war in the Republican Party. Again if only one of the majors who put forth a candidate that did not make likely voters have anal leakage, it would have been a cakewalk. Imagine Biden or Julian Castro against Trump?
It doesn't matter what candidate the Democrats run...There would be lies and they would be painted as horrible people we would have the same narrative as 'just as bad as Trump'. Just the same as it is with Hillary.
I'd vote for Biden over Trump.
But not Hils, correct?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Frazzled wrote: That is surprising, given the civil war in the Republican Party. Again if only one of the majors who put forth a candidate that did not make likely voters have anal leakage, it would have been a cakewalk. Imagine Biden or Julian Castro against Trump?
It doesn't matter what candidate the Democrats run...There would be lies and they would be painted as horrible people we would have the same narrative as 'just as bad as Trump'. Just the same as it is with Hillary.
I'd vote for Biden over Trump.
But not Hils, correct?
I've made it very clear, multiple times, why I will not vote for Hillary. I'm opposing the person, not the party. And just to be clear, for the 500th time, I'm not voting for Trump over Clinton. I'm still on the fence if I'm casting a Presidential vote, but if I do, Johnson will be the only candidate who will get my vote.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/19 17:48:51
Frazzled wrote: That is surprising, given the civil war in the Republican Party. Again if only one of the majors who put forth a candidate that did not make likely voters have anal leakage, it would have been a cakewalk. Imagine Biden or Julian Castro against Trump?
It doesn't matter what candidate the Democrats run...There would be lies and they would be painted as horrible people we would have the same narrative as 'just as bad as Trump'. Just the same as it is with Hillary.
I'd vote for Biden over Trump.
I'd pretty much vote for the anti-Christ over Trump. AC, "Hi, HRC has stepped down from the Democratic POTUS nomination due to health issues and I'm the anti-Christ, and I've used my persuasive powers to get the nomination for myself, so vote for me or you'll get the Big Orange as your next POTUS."
Me, "K."
Frazzled wrote: That is surprising, given the civil war in the Republican Party. Again if only one of the majors who put forth a candidate that did not make likely voters have anal leakage, it would have been a cakewalk. Imagine Biden or Julian Castro against Trump?
It doesn't matter what candidate the Democrats run...There would be lies and they would be painted as horrible people we would have the same narrative as 'just as bad as Trump'. Just the same as it is with Hillary.
Shame it seems that president Trump looks more of a reality now due to the "Cut off your nose to spite your face" sentiment. A 3rd party vote helps Trump.
Frazzled wrote: That is surprising, given the civil war in the Republican Party. Again if only one of the majors who put forth a candidate that did not make likely voters have anal leakage, it would have been a cakewalk. Imagine Biden or Julian Castro against Trump?
It doesn't matter what candidate the Democrats run...There would be lies and they would be painted as horrible people we would have the same narrative as 'just as bad as Trump'. Just the same as it is with Hillary.
I would vote for Biden over Trump in a heartbeat. if I could I'd rent a TransAm (thats a type of old muscle car to you youngins) with a T Top and wear a wife beater while doing it. Heck I supported Biden in 2008 until he lost the bid.
Frazzled wrote: That is surprising, given the civil war in the Republican Party. Again if only one of the majors who put forth a candidate that did not make likely voters have anal leakage, it would have been a cakewalk. Imagine Biden or Julian Castro against Trump?
It doesn't matter what candidate the Democrats run...There would be lies and they would be painted as horrible people we would have the same narrative as 'just as bad as Trump'. Just the same as it is with Hillary.
I'd vote for Biden over Trump.
I'd pretty much vote for the anti-Christ over Trump. AC, "Hi, HRC has stepped down from the Democratic POTUS nomination due to health issues and I'm the anti-Christ, and I've used my persuasive powers to get the nomination for myself, so vote for me or you'll get the Big Orange as your next POTUS."
Me, "K."
Remember: Cthulu 2016-No Lives Matter
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/19 17:54:48
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
WrentheFaceless wrote: Shame it seems that president Trump looks more of a reality now due to the "Cut off your nose to spite your face" sentiment. A 3rd party vote helps Trump.
Exactly why I've chided those who can't see the stakes involved and that it's truly a binary race. I think Trump...I'm going to gag here...is going to win. There's just too much momentum for him, too many pissed off miscreants blindly hanging on his every word as if it were the wisdom of the ages, the straight party line GOP folks who'll vote for any GOP candidate, all the liberal "Never Hillary" crowd who will waste their vote to spite their face, all the folks who've bought the GOP wall of lies and slander and even though they hate Trump, just won't vote HRC so they'll toss their vote down the hole as well and combine that with just a seemingly "meh" attitude from the left base and it tells me we're in for a Brexit style perfect storm disaster.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/19 18:01:18
WrentheFaceless wrote: Shame it seems that president Trump looks more of a reality now due to the "Cut off your nose to spite your face" sentiment. A 3rd party vote helps Trump.
Exactly why I've chided those who can't see the stakes involved and that it's truly a binary race. I think Trump...I'm going to gag here...is going to win. There's just too much momentum for him, too many pissed off miscreants blindly hanging on his every word as if it were the wisdom of the ages, the straight party line GOP folks who'll vote for any GOP candidate and just a "meh" from the left that tells me we're in for a Brexit style perfect storm disaster.
In order for Trump to win, using the Romney template, he'd have to win FL, OH AND PA.
He ain't getting PA for sure... that state is the biggest cocktease for GOP Presidential candidates in a looooooooong time.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Shame it seems that president Trump looks more of a reality now due to the "Cut off your nose to spite your face" sentiment. A 3rd party vote helps Trump.
Exactly why I've chided those who can't see the stakes involved and that it's truly a binary race. I think Trump...I'm going to gag here...is going to win. There's just too much momentum for him, too many pissed off miscreants blindly hanging on his every word as if it were the wisdom of the ages, the straight party line GOP folks who'll vote for any GOP candidate and just a "meh" from the left that tells me we're in for a Brexit style perfect storm disaster.
In order for Trump to win, using the Romney template, he'd have to win FL, OH AND PA.
He ain't getting PA for sure... that state is the biggest cocktease for GOP Presidential candidates in a looooooooong time.
NC doesn't look like it'll happen either.
Your mouth to God's ears. My spider sense has been tingling about this for a while and it's usually pretty accurate.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Shame it seems that president Trump looks more of a reality now due to the "Cut off your nose to spite your face" sentiment. A 3rd party vote helps Trump.
Exactly why I've chided those who can't see the stakes involved and that it's truly a binary race. I think Trump...I'm going to gag here...is going to win. There's just too much momentum for him, too many pissed off miscreants blindly hanging on his every word as if it were the wisdom of the ages, the straight party line GOP folks who'll vote for any GOP candidate and just a "meh" from the left that tells me we're in for a Brexit style perfect storm disaster.
In order for Trump to win, using the Romney template, he'd have to win FL, OH AND PA.
He ain't getting PA for sure... that state is the biggest cocktease for GOP Presidential candidates in a looooooooong time.
NC doesn't look like it'll happen either.
Can't use the Romney template, battleground isn't the same. Trump's just had a HUGE surge in Colorado, and may lock that state up. That won't offset PA, but if Colorado goes Trump... seriously, all bets are off.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/19 18:04:07
WrentheFaceless wrote: Shame it seems that president Trump looks more of a reality now due to the "Cut off your nose to spite your face" sentiment. A 3rd party vote helps Trump.
Exactly why I've chided those who can't see the stakes involved and that it's truly a binary race. I think Trump...I'm going to gag here...is going to win. There's just too much momentum for him, too many pissed off miscreants blindly hanging on his every word as if it were the wisdom of the ages, the straight party line GOP folks who'll vote for any GOP candidate and just a "meh" from the left that tells me we're in for a Brexit style perfect storm disaster.
In order for Trump to win, using the Romney template, he'd have to win FL, OH AND PA.
He ain't getting PA for sure... that state is the biggest cocktease for GOP Presidential candidates in a looooooooong time.
NC doesn't look like it'll happen either.
Can't use the Romney template, battleground isn't the same. Trump's just had a HUGE surge in Colorado, and may lock that state up. That won't offset PA, but if Colorado goes Trump... seriously, all bets are off.
I'm telling ya...
If we wake up after the election to a Trump presidency...and I think we will...there will be a "sucking sound", but it won't be the NAFTA taking jobs, it'll be the DJIA down 20%...conservative estimate, methinks...and people's 401(K) and IRA's getting obliterated.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/19 18:10:55
WrentheFaceless wrote: Shame it seems that president Trump looks more of a reality now due to the "Cut off your nose to spite your face" sentiment. A 3rd party vote helps Trump.
Exactly why I've chided those who can't see the stakes involved and that it's truly a binary race. I think Trump...I'm going to gag here...is going to win. There's just too much momentum for him, too many pissed off miscreants blindly hanging on his every word as if it were the wisdom of the ages, the straight party line GOP folks who'll vote for any GOP candidate and just a "meh" from the left that tells me we're in for a Brexit style perfect storm disaster.
In order for Trump to win, using the Romney template, he'd have to win FL, OH AND PA.
He ain't getting PA for sure... that state is the biggest cocktease for GOP Presidential candidates in a looooooooong time.
NC doesn't look like it'll happen either.
Can't use the Romney template, battleground isn't the same. Trump's just had a HUGE surge in Colorado, and may lock that state up. That won't offset PA, but if Colorado goes Trump... seriously, all bets are off.
That's surprising as all hell to me.
I spent a few weeks in Colorado in the summer and the hated, HATED Trump. Must be the non-Denver/non-Boulder crowds getting energized similar to when they recalled some (D) politicians over new gun control laws.
It is 21st Century values. The values we have today, are not the same that they were 70 years ago. And 70 years before that, and so forth. We can't look at history through a clear class. It is always going to be tinted, because our thought practices are different, in many ways, from the time period we are looking at.
It's not 21st century values. There were a lot of Americans who thought it was wrong then, and they were vocal about it.
Kilkrazy wrote: Rather than argue about some anti-vaxxer site's value as a factual source, let's look at what the FBI said.
... we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information,
...
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.
...
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
So...breaking the law is OK and not punishable, so long as you didn't intend to break it?
She either did or she did not. I don't see what intent should have to do with the decision on whether to bring charges.
Kilkrazy wrote: Rather than argue about some anti-vaxxer site's value as a factual source, let's look at what the FBI said.
... we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information,
...
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.
...
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
So...breaking the law is OK and not punishable, so long as you didn't intend to break it?
She either did or she did not. I don't see what intent should have to do with the decision on whether to bring charges.
Intent is kind of the basis of the US legal system.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/19 19:12:39
Kilkrazy wrote: Rather than argue about some anti-vaxxer site's value as a factual source, let's look at what the FBI said.
... we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information,
...
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.
...
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
So...breaking the law is OK and not punishable, so long as you didn't intend to break it?
She either did or she did not. I don't see what intent should have to do with the decision on whether to bring charges.
If only the investigating body wrote some sort of report, and then released all the information on some sort of website, and then had that website linked in some sort of thread on some sort of website dedicated to toy soldiers, in response to some sort of question about what the actual legal circumstances and findings were.
Then we might have an answer, but until then we must all just speculate about these findings and motivations and jump to our own predetermined conclusions...
Kilkrazy wrote: Rather than argue about some anti-vaxxer site's value as a factual source, let's look at what the FBI said.
... we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, ... In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. ... As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
So...breaking the law is OK and not punishable, so long as you didn't intend to break it?
She either did or she did not. I don't see what intent should have to do with the decision on whether to bring charges.
Essentially the core basis of anglo-saxon law is that in order to commit a crime you have to form the mental intention to commit a crime. To put it another way, if you accidentally kill someone, you did not commit murder, because murder is the crime of deliberately killing someone. You can only commit the crime of murder by first deciding you are going to try to kill someone and then kill them.
As if to doubly emphasise that point, the specific law we are talking about states that you have to intend to send or allow to be sent, useful information, to a foreign power, to be used to the detriment of the US defence situation.
There isn't the thinnest shred of evidence that the Secretary of State had any intentions in that direction at all. She was careless with her email set up, that's all.
Hence she did not break the law, there was no crime, and therefore the FBI report said there was no grounds to charge her.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/19 19:23:24
Kilkrazy wrote: Rather than argue about some anti-vaxxer site's value as a factual source, let's look at what the FBI said.
... we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information,
...
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.
...
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
So...breaking the law is OK and not punishable, so long as you didn't intend to break it?
She either did or she did not. I don't see what intent should have to do with the decision on whether to bring charges.
For the exact same reason that if you pass out and headbutt somebody as you fall to the floor, they are unlikely to be successful in getting the police to press charges.
Intent matters in criminal law.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Kilkrazy wrote: Rather than argue about some anti-vaxxer site's value as a factual source, let's look at what the FBI said.
... we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, ... In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. ... As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
So...breaking the law is OK and not punishable, so long as you didn't intend to break it?
She either did or she did not. I don't see what intent should have to do with the decision on whether to bring charges.
Nailed it.
The Clinton supporters will stubbornly hang onto that "intent" provision.
18 USC §793. This statute explicitly states that whoever, “entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…through gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody…or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
Comey called her “extremely careless"... which was highly charitable.
But INTENT is not what the statute requires.
18 USC §2071. This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and “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.”
Clearly, Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control. Here email infrastructure was NOT in government control.
Furthermore, her staff who removed classified information from those secured "air gapped" terminals and sent them to Clinton would explicitly be breaking this law...
That's by definition... a blatant intent.
18 USC §1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who “knowingly removes [classified] documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.” Simply the fact that Hillary's homebrew server proves that this law was broken.
18 USC §798. This law states that anyone who “uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States…any classified information…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
Hillary and her staff transmitted classified information on non-government unclassified (UNCLAS) infrastructure in a manner that harmed the United States.
3000
4000 
