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.

Mitochondria wrote:
Can we put Clinton in jail yet?

1) an indictment has to happen
2) she'd need to have her day in court
3) then the sentancing
4) provided that Obama doesn't Pardon her
5) THEN she may go in the slamma

#1 isn't likely to happen...

Mitochondria wrote:
Can we put Clinton in jail yet?

Can we put you in jail?

Seeing as how you and hillary have something in common (hint it's not being charged with a crime)

 whembly wrote:
Not even disagreeing with you buddy.

Cool, then you recognise that the Democratic position on climate change, however they reached it, is stronger because it aligns with the current science.

I still don't see it man. He'd have to flip at least one "cocktease" state of PA, WI, MN or CO+?? We'll see next Tuesday eh?

Clinton’s firewall right now includes Colorado and New Hampshire, where she leads by 3 and 4 points. If results on the day differ from the polls by 3 points, then all the current toss up and slightly Clinton states like Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Nevade fall to Trump, and Colorado and New Hampshire became the close races, and Trump would only have to pick up one of those two to win the election.

Not saying a 3 point variation from the polls will happen, polls were off by Obama’s final result in 2012 by 2 points. Nor is it a given that if there is a polling miss it will be in Trump’s favour - Clinton could just as likely end up with a result another 3 points in her favour, meaning she could pinch Arizona and Iowa. Just saying this is probably the most likely way we’d see a Trump win, and that it isn’t that unlikely.

And yeah, we'll learn the result on Tuesday, but remember the result doesn't invalidate the probabilities. Just because you won the lotto doesn't mean it was a good investment

Eh? I still think they're both bad.

You said one candidate was bad, and the other justified summonin Cthulhu. I'm gonna take your position as Trump worse, and no takesie backsies.

A Clinton Presidency will look vastly different that a Trump Presidency. But, I think they'll both be serious gak show.

How do you think the Clinton presidency will differ from an Obama presidency?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mitochondria wrote:
Can we put Clinton in jail yet?

The big learning experience from 2016, for some people at least, is that you actually need to have committed a crime, have that crime investigated and substantiated by a police investigation, then have the matter successfully tried in a court of law before you can be put in jail. It turns out that political opponents making chants to lock a person up actually has no effect on actually putting that person in jail.

Shocking I know. Personally I thought the chanting was enough. And now you've learned this incredible new fact as well. Learning is fun, don't you think?

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Not even disagreeing with you buddy.

Cool, then you recognise that the Democratic position on climate change, however they reached it, is stronger because it aligns with the current science.

I don't. Because the Democrats use it to brow beat their opponent. They're not really interested in the subject itself, it's something that they can motivate their voters.

Just like their pro-abortion stance...

Like their anti-2nd amendment stance...

As all political creatures, they're only interested in the access to the power/money trough.

I still don't see it man. He'd have to flip at least one "cocktease" state of PA, WI, MN or CO+?? We'll see next Tuesday eh?

Clinton’s firewall right now includes Colorado and New Hampshire, where she leads by 3 and 4 points. If results on the day differ from the polls by 3 points, then all the current toss up and slightly Clinton states like Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Nevade fall to Trump, and Colorado and New Hampshire became the close races, and Trump would only have to pick up one of those two to win the election.

Not saying a 3 point variation from the polls will happen, polls were off by Obama’s final result in 2012 by 2 points. Nor is it a given that if there is a polling miss it will be in Trump’s favour - Clinton could just as likely end up with a result another 3 points in her favour, meaning she could pinch Arizona and Iowa. Just saying this is probably the most likely way we’d see a Trump win, and that it isn’t that unlikely.

And yeah, we'll learn the result on Tuesday, but remember the result doesn't invalidate the probabilities. Just because you won the lotto doesn't mean it was a good investment

A lot... A LOT has to go right in order for Trump to win.

Someone must have duct taped his ass to a chair and took his phone away... because he's been awfully QUIET these last few days...

Eh? I still think they're both bad.

You said one candidate was bad, and the other justified summonin Cthulhu. I'm gonna take your position as Trump worse, and no takesie backsies.

LOL... fair enough. My reference to Cthulhu is simply chaos. A Trump Presidency will devolve into chaos somehow.

A Clinton Presidency will look vastly different that a Trump Presidency. But, I think they'll both be serious gak show.

How do you think the Clinton presidency will differ from an Obama presidency?

I didn't say it'd differ all that much. I think she'd be more of a hawk foreign policy wise.

She won't work with Congress so we'll see more gridlock and acrimony.

She'll definitely abuse the Presidency more and even curry more pay-to-play gak if they can get away with it.

 Breotan wrote:
Then there's Hillary's bouts of amnesia during depositions. Her oft repeated "I don't remember" line was the subject of parody back in the day when Bill was President and she had another bout of amnesia just recently when talking to the FBI about her emails. I don't know why she's allowed to get away with that when other people being deposed can't - even Bill got fined for perjury.

I guess it's because it's really hard to prove someone doesn't remember something? Bill got hit with perjury for saying he "didn't have sex with that woman" which was a bold-faced lie under oath.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Then there's Hillary's bouts of amnesia during depositions. Her oft repeated "I don't remember" line was the subject of parody back in the day when Bill was President and she had another bout of amnesia just recently when talking to the FBI about her emails. I don't know why she's allowed to get away with that when other people being deposed can't - even Bill got fined for perjury.

I guess it's because it's really hard to prove someone doesn't remember something? Bill got hit with perjury for saying he "didn't have sex with that woman" which was a bold-faced lie under oath.

The "I don't remember" was in reference to her training that teaches security classification and handling.

She was the god damn Secretary of State. This isn't a position where she'd rarely see classfied gak. This is a position where damn near EVERY DAY she'll be handling classified information.

In this case, she told the FBI she thought the "(C)" was some bullet point enumeration.

Not knowing that it meant Confidential-Classfied was pure, unadulterated bull gak. It's literally a "dog ate my homework" excuse.

 whembly wrote:
I don't. Because the Democrats use it to brow beat their opponent. They're not really interested in the subject itself, it's something that they can motivate their voters.

But you just agreed with me that it doesn't matter how or why the sausage gets made, all that matters at the end of the day is picking the meat sausage over the turd and razor blades sausage.

And then here you're saying that you don't care if Democrats have the better sausage because they only made it for political reasons.

A lot... A LOT has to go right in order for Trump to win.

True, but a lot of those pieces are correlated. If Trump does better than expected in Nevada, he'll probably also do better than expected in Florida, for instance (as a polling miss in Trump's favour will likely be driven by a lower than expected hispanic turnout).

Someone must have duct taped his ass to a chair and took his phone away... because he's been awfully QUIET these last few days...

Yeah, while momentum is in your favour it makes sense to lay low and let everyone focus on your opponent. What's surprising is that Trump is making the subtle, smart play

LOL... fair enough. My reference to Cthulhu is simply chaos. A Trump Presidency will devolve into chaos somehow.

Most likely, yeah.

I didn't say it'd differ all that much. I think she'd be more of a hawk foreign policy wise.

Then you must be arguing that the last 8 years have been a shitshow.

She won't work with Congress so we'll see more gridlock and acrimony.

I don't think there's anyone alive, dead, or completely fictional who could get something out of that congress.

 whembly wrote:
I don't. Because the Democrats use it to brow beat their opponent. They're not really interested in the subject itself, it's something that they can motivate their voters.

Well that's certainly an unimpressive dodge. "It doesn't matter if you're right, you're just being a politician so it doesn't count". Do you ever admit that you are wrong?

I didn't say it'd differ all that much. I think she'd be more of a hawk foreign policy wise.

ISIS is making a tremendous amount of money because of the oil that they took away, they have some in Syria, they have some in Iraq, I would bomb the gak out of them.

I would just bomb those suckers, and that's right, I'd blow up the pipes, I'd blow up the refineries, I'd blow up ever single inch, there would be nothing left.

- Donald Trump

She won't work with Congress so we'll see more gridlock and acrimony.

Wait, isn't this the thread where the Clinton haters keep talking about how it's ok to vote for Trump because congress won't work with him and he won't be able to get anything done? In fact, haven't you said exactly that?

She'll definitely abuse the Presidency more and even curry more pay-to-play gak if they can get away with it.

Do you honestly think that Trump, of all people, is going to avoid corruption or is this just another excuse to keep you from admitting that you should vote for Clinton? What exactly about Trump's career up to this point gives you even the slightest reason to believe that he won't take every possible opportunity to abuse the position?

 Peregrine wrote:

She won't work with Congress so we'll see more gridlock and acrimony.

Wait, isn't this the thread where the Clinton haters keep talking about how it's ok to vote for Trump because congress won't work with him and he won't be able to get anything done? In fact, haven't you said exactly that?

Yeah he said that.

Also funny to claim she won't work with congress when said congress has already stated THEY won't work with her.

Do you honestly think that Trump, of all people, is going to avoid corruption or is this just another excuse to keep you from admitting that you should vote for Clinton? What exactly about Trump's career up to this point gives you even the slightest reason to believe that he won't take every possible opportunity to abuse the position?

Good question. We are talking about guy who is proud to utilize all legal(and shady) means to avoid taxes. Who believes he won't use all means available as president to make even more money for himself?

I mean dodging taxes with laws is all well and good but being able to INFLUENCE said laws has got to be tax evaders wettest dream!

Let's put the "Clinton in jail" thing to bed. Even if there was hard evidence of criminal activity, the worst she would get is a slap on the wrist. This isn't because she's a politician, this isn't because of her personal experience/network in the public eye, though both of these things help. It boils down to this: she's wealthy and wealthy people don't have to account for their actions in this country (or anywhere, generally speaking).

Here is an interesting article from the BBC.

What happens if Trump loses?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37846433

The TL/DR is that the GOP has been getting gradually more extreme since Barry Goldwater days, and Trump has revealed the fact that the extreme wing have taken over and now are the core of the party. Also, Trump's inflamatory rhetoric and great success has validated the views of this fairly large group of voters. This is likely to cause upheaval in the political system for years to come.

The only thing that could really save the GOP from the deplorable mess it has gotten itself into this election with the racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, etc., is for a truly charismatic, responsible, and respectable leader to arise from these ashes. The problem, however, is I don't think I see anyone like that in the GOP right now. Some of their candidates this cycle had some of those qualities, but none of them had all three to the degree needed. Seriously, Ted fething Cruz came in second, and he's the only other one who would have polarized the nation almost as much as Trump.

Best case I could see is a respectable center-right military leader transitioning into the political sphere. The military part would make a center-right candidate viable to most Republicans. Then the candidate would have to restore faith in center-right policies.

Honestly center-right/left should be the only candidates. I'm getting bored already (as in my own brief life) of having a 50/50 chance of getting no representation for the duration of a term.

Now we are starting to see the R's get in line, and the looseness of the D coalition become a bit of an issue.

I find it amazing how the FBI letter basically with no new content is moving the polls as much as DT's tape about sexual assault.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Best case I could see is a respectable center-right military leader transitioning into the political sphere. The military part would make a center-right candidate viable to most Republicans. Then the candidate would have to restore faith in center-right policies.

Honestly center-right/left should be the only candidates. I'm getting bored already (as in my own brief life) of having a 50/50 chance of getting no representation for the duration of a term.

I don't think being in the military will get the votes from the republican base if they're not also a raving right-wing lunatic.

A large part of the republican membership didn't care about Trump insulting POWs and arguing with families of soldiers killed in combat. They want the right-wing lunacy.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Let's put the "Clinton in jail" thing to bed. Even if there was hard evidence of criminal activity, the worst she would get is a slap on the wrist. This isn't because she's a politician, this isn't because of her personal experience/network in the public eye, though both of these things help. It boils down to this: she's wealthy and wealthy people don't have to account for their actions in this country (or anywhere, generally speaking).

Ninth speaks truth to power.

 Easy E wrote:
Now we are starting to see the R's get in line, and the looseness of the D coalition become a bit of an issue.

LordofHats made a very good post about it some time ago, but historically, the only thing that truly unites the different groups within the GOP is their opposition to the Democrats.

 Easy E wrote:
Now we are starting to see the R's get in line, and the looseness of the D coalition become a bit of an issue.

I find it amazing how the FBI letter basically with no new content is moving the polls as much as DT's tape about sexual assault.

A neutral observer could think that there is some intention behind it.
The FBI is influencing the poll.
I still think that Trump would be worst choice ever.
He's a narcissist.

The FBI is doing what it is supposed to do. It found additional evidence and they promised to advice the committees if additional evidence appeared. It was the committees that leaked the letter.

If it came out that the FBI found it had possession of the emails with incriminating evidence under wraps then there would be hell to pay, and thats what the Democrats are actually arguing for.

Its not the FBI's fault, its your candidate's fault, and your fault for picking that candidate. Don't blame the cop for investigating the crime.

 Easy E wrote:
Now we are starting to see the R's get in line, and the looseness of the D coalition become a bit of an issue.

I find it amazing how the FBI letter basically with no new content is moving the polls as much as DT's tape about sexual assault.

I have no evidence for this, and in fact there may be people with evidence to the contrary. BUT, I really don't think the FBI thing has even a little to do with polls moving. I think your first sentence is more on point. Most Rs have come in line because "RED TEAM". And someone with the unlikeability ratings of Hillary was never going to run away with this election in a colossal landslide. Also, what energy there is in this race belongs to segments on the GOP side.

And what's more, the media doesn't want a fait accompli. They want a close race, with as much drama as possible. The narrative we're given down the stretch *was always going to be* about the race tightening. That's what folks who complain about media bias don't understand. It's not about blue or red. It's about green.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Best case I could see is a respectable center-right military leader transitioning into the political sphere. The military part would make a center-right candidate viable to most Republicans. Then the candidate would have to restore faith in center-right policies.

The GOP had Colin Powell, but ditched him in their dash to the far right.

 Frazzled wrote:
The FBI is doing what it is supposed to do. It found additional evidence and they promised to advice the committees if additional evidence appeared. It was the committees that leaked the letter.

If it came out that the FBI found it had possession of the emails with incriminating evidence under wraps then there would be hell to pay, and thats what the Democrats are actually arguing for.

Its not the FBI's fault, its your candidate's fault, and your fault for picking that candidate. Don't blame the cop for investigating the crime.

Shouldn't the FBI ascertain whether there was actually any new information before telling the committees they had new evidence? They found 650,000 emails, not all of which are from Clinton, some of the ones from clinton may be duplicates of emails already submitted to them as evidence etc.

You shouldn't announce that you have new evidence until you are actually sure you have new evidence.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Let's put the "Clinton in jail" thing to bed. Even if there was hard evidence of criminal activity, the worst she would get is a slap on the wrist. This isn't because she's a politician, this isn't because of her personal experience/network in the public eye, though both of these things help. It boils down to this: she's wealthy and wealthy people don't have to account for their actions in this country (or anywhere, generally speaking).

So you're saying that when Trump launches his special investigation into her, because he says she should be in jail because of how corrupt he is. He's going to join the R's of the 9 bengahzi hearings in being yet another total failure and in the end just waste more tax money than it's worth? That's just shocking.

Trump, failing on his campaign promises before he's even in office

At this point with the utter lack of any evidence against her, you can only conclude she hides bodies batter than whoever hid Jimmy Hoffa, or she's actually innocent on all charges. hey wait a second, I wonder what he knew of hillary?

Shouldn't the FBI ascertain whether there was actually any new information before telling the committees they had new evidence?

Yes indeed.

They found 650,000 emails

You just answered your question.

There are now rumors floating that there may be indictments shortly related to the "charity" coming. I doubt they will be against her or Billy. As noted, the wealthy don't take the fall for that sort of thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Let's put the "Clinton in jail" thing to bed. Even if there was hard evidence of criminal activity, the worst she would get is a slap on the wrist. This isn't because she's a politician, this isn't because of her personal experience/network in the public eye, though both of these things help. It boils down to this: she's wealthy and wealthy people don't have to account for their actions in this country (or anywhere, generally speaking).

So you're saying that when Trump launches his special investigation into her, because he says she should be in jail because of how corrupt he is. He's going to join the R's of the 9 bengahzi hearings in being yet another total failure and in the end just waste more tax money than it's worth? That's just shocking.

You betcha. Anything else is illegal. He can't have her imprisoned or any such nonsense. A prosecutor has to make charges. I believe those charges have to be sufficient to support and arrest warrant. Then we have the trial.

She'll win a trial, come out looking like a saint, and Trump will be a one term President.

I'm just waiting for his first Presidential speech, held at the nearest Trump hotel, where he'll talk about his great hotel.

 Frazzled wrote:

Shouldn't the FBI ascertain whether there was actually any new information before telling the committees they had new evidence?

Yes indeed.

They found 650,000 emails

You just answered your question.

There are now rumors floating that there may be indictments shortly related to the "charity" coming. I doubt they will be against her or Billy. As noted, the wealthy don't take the fall for that sort of thing.

650,000 emails, of which they do not know how many are from Clinton, contain classified material or whether they already have said emails.
Until they have identified whether the information is relevant and not already known to the investigation they do not have new evidence.

 Frazzled wrote:
The FBI is doing what it is supposed to do. It found additional evidence and they promised to advice the committees if additional evidence appeared. It was the committees that leaked the letter.

If it came out that the FBI found it had possession of the emails with incriminating evidence under wraps then there would be hell to pay, and thats what the Democrats are actually arguing for.

Its not the FBI's fault, its your candidate's fault, and your fault for picking that candidate. Don't blame the cop for investigating the crime.

Actually in this instance, yes it is the FBI's fault.

As stated, they found 650,000 emails. The only connection between them and Hillary is whose devices they were found on(one of her aides).
They were found as part of an investigation into Anthony Weiner, so why in the world did Comey immediately state that they were reopening the case against Clinton?

It's like if Jimmy gets investigated for something, cleared, and then while the cops are investigating Billy they come across something that is associated with Billy's wife Veronica who works for Jimmy.

So despite Jimmy being cleared, the cops open the case back up with no real evidence.

I found a USB stick that contains emails, that may prove Frazzled is actually a Cat lover, but I haven't looked at them yet. They may just be more of those emails I looked at a few months ago where he was complaining about kids on his lawn and how Tex Mex used to be better when the dinosaurs were around.

Am I doing this FBI thing right? Can I have a job now please?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Shouldn't the FBI ascertain whether there was actually any new information before telling the committees they had new evidence?

Yes indeed.

They found 650,000 emails

You just answered your question.

There are now rumors floating that there may be indictments shortly related to the "charity" coming. I doubt they will be against her or Billy. As noted, the wealthy don't take the fall for that sort of thing.

650,000 emails, of which they do not know how many are from Clinton, contain classified material or whether they already have said emails.
Until they have identified whether the information is relevant and not already known to the investigation they do not have new evidence.

It is evidence. Evidence is not only evidence of wrongdoing. They have a duly sworn search warrant. The materiality of that evidence has to be determined.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
I found a USB stick that contains emails, that may prove Frazzled is actually a Cat lover, but I haven't looked at them yet. They may just be more of those emails I looked at a few months ago where he was complaining about kids on his lawn and how Tex Mex used to be better when the dinosaurs were around.

Am I doing this FBI thing right? Can I have a job now please?

Why young man you are doing it exactly right!

Lets misabuse people of my view of their competence.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/02/alabama_secretary_of_state_says_more_voting_would_cheapen_the_work_of_civil.html

just because you turned 18 doesn’t give you the right” to vote.

.. uh huh.

Alabama continues to live up to stereotype shocker !

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Shouldn't the FBI ascertain whether there was actually any new information before telling the committees they had new evidence?

Yes indeed.

They found 650,000 emails

You just answered your question.

There are now rumors floating that there may be indictments shortly related to the "charity" coming. I doubt they will be against her or Billy. As noted, the wealthy don't take the fall for that sort of thing.

650,000 emails, of which they do not know how many are from Clinton, contain classified material or whether they already have said emails.
Until they have identified whether the information is relevant and not already known to the investigation they do not have new evidence.

It is evidence. Evidence is not only evidence of wrongdoing. They have a duly sworn search warrant. The materiality of that evidence has to be determined.

Right.

The materiality of that evidence has to be determined. Which makes it wildly irresponsible to come forth and say that you're reopening the investigation because of that evidence, when in fact you haven't actually reviewed said evidence.

We're just gong to have to agree to disagree on that.