US Politics

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.

**sebster**

loki old fart wrote:
The Department of Homeland Security just went on the air with Fox News and told the American People that Hillary Clinton is guilty of treason.

No, they fething didn't. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, is the chair of the House Homeland Security Committee. This is an oversight committee, it is a bunch of congressmen asking questions of senior staff in Homeland security, supervising the budget, stuff like that. No-one on the committee has any powers to dictate or decide the actions of Homeland Security. As such, Michael McCaul can give his personal opinion on what he thinks about Hillary Clinton, and that's all he can do, it is nothing but his personal opinion. His opinion in no way carries the weight of the Department of Homeland Security.

So the actual story here is that a Republican from Texas thinks Clinton is guilty. Stop the fething press people, holy gak that's some serious fething nothing right there.

So what happened here is that you just read a gak newspaper that deliberately misled you about this story, you swallowed up that bs and posted it here, making yourself look a bit silly, again. In all serious, do you feel a bit silly having fallen for a lie from an openly conservative hatchet site? Even just a little, so that maybe you might not believe this kind of nonsense next time around? Maybe enough that you might start sticking to sources that don't tell political lies as a matter of routine?

**Frazzled**

New state department emails found on computer.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-finds-emails-related-to-hillary-clintons-state-department-tenure/

I wonder if that means Huma/Wiener have violated the law as he did not have a security clearance.

**CptJake**

Frazzled wrote:
New state department emails found on computer.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-finds-emails-related-to-hillary-clintons-state-department-tenure/

I wonder if that means Huma/Wiener have violated the law as he did not have a security clearance.

The info would not have to be classified for her to have broken the law. When she left DoS she had to sign off that she had turned over all documents (including electronic). Keeping after having signed off that she does not have any more is illegal.

There is also Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) or Sensitive But Unclassified info, and pretty much anything originating from SEC State which is unclassified is going to fall into that category, which by sharing with her husband who does not have a Need to Know is also illegal.

**Kilkrazy**

It probably isn't worth waiting until the actual nature and content of the emails are revealed. We should make a load of prejudiced assumptions to save time.

**Frazzled**

CptJake wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
New state department emails found on computer.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-finds-emails-related-to-hillary-clintons-state-department-tenure/

I wonder if that means Huma/Wiener have violated the law as he did not have a security clearance.

The info would not have to be classified for her to have broken the law. When she left DoS she had to sign off that she had turned over all documents (including electronic). Keeping after having signed off that she does not have any more is illegal.

There is also Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) or Sensitive But Unclassified info, and pretty much anything originating from SEC State which is unclassified is going to fall into that category, which by sharing with her husband who does not have a Need to Know is also illegal.

the article notes she certified all documents had been previously given over to the FBI.
I was more about thinking she was dealing with classified docs on the same computer that Wiener was sending pics of his wiener on, and wondering if there is criminal liability there for her (or both of them). I honestly have no idea, hence the question.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
It probably isn't worth waiting until the actual nature and content of the emails are revealed. We should make a load of prejudiced assumptions to save time.

Not commenting on the content, only that state department emails were on a laptop shared with someone who had no security clearance and seemed to have more than a passing interest in underage girls.

**Kilkrazy**

Without knowing the technical details this means nothing. Modern operating systems provide multiple separate user accounts on laptops, and keep each user's data separate.

**loki old fart**

sebster wrote:
loki old fart wrote:
The Department of Homeland Security just went on the air with Fox News and told the American People that Hillary Clinton is guilty of treason.

So what happened here is that you just read a gak newspaper that deliberately misled you about this story, you swallowed up that bs and posted it here, making yourself look a bit silly, again. In all serious, do you feel a bit silly having fallen for a lie from an openly conservative hatchet site? Even just a little, so that maybe you might not believe this kind of nonsense next time around? Maybe enough that you might start sticking to sources that don't tell political lies as a matter of routine?

Wrong. I was another site where they were discussing this video, and that's the only link I could find at the time.
Secondly don't stand on your soap box pontificating at me. Save it for someone who gives a feth.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Without knowing the technical details this means nothing. Modern operating systems provide multiple separate user accounts on laptops, and keep each user's data separate.

Except its a physical device.
I know in ancient times I was told no one but those who passed clearances could use the computers I used. But thats when they were driven by steam power and interrupted by occasional hyenadon attacks.

**A Town Called Malus**

loki old fart wrote:
sebster wrote:
loki old fart wrote:
The Department of Homeland Security just went on the air with Fox News and told the American People that Hillary Clinton is guilty of treason.

So what happened here is that you just read a gak newspaper that deliberately misled you about this story, you swallowed up that bs and posted it here, making yourself look a bit silly, again. In all serious, do you feel a bit silly having fallen for a lie from an openly conservative hatchet site? Even just a little, so that maybe you might not believe this kind of nonsense next time around? Maybe enough that you might start sticking to sources that don't tell political lies as a matter of routine?

Wrong. I was another site where they were discussing this video, and that's the only link I could find at the time.
Secondly don't stand on your soap box pontificating at me. Save it for someone who gives a feth.

So you are saying that the Department of Homeland Security has accused Hillary Clinton of treason? Despite the claims coming from a Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, which is not a part of the DHS and the claims themselves being based on the hearsay of two anonymous sources in the FBI whose claims go against the findings of the official investigation?

**reds8n**

https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.knYdoeENV#.gvRGkjmPd

How Macedonia Became A Global Hub For Pro-Trump Misinformation
BuzzFeed News identified more than 100 pro-Trump websites being run from a single town in the former Yugoslav Republic.

“This is the news of the millennium!” said the story on WorldPoliticus.com. Citing unnamed FBI sources, it claimed Hillary Clinton will be indicted in 2017 for crimes related to her email scandal.
“Your Prayers Have Been Answered,” declared the headline.
For Trump supporters, that certainly seemed to be the case. They helped the baseless story generate over 140,000 shares, reactions, and comments on Facebook.
Meanwhile, roughly 6,000 miles away in a small Macedonian town, a young man watched as money began trickling into his Google AdSense account.
Over the past year, the Macedonian town of Veles (population 45,000) has experienced a digital gold rush as locals launched at least 140 US politics websites. These sites have American-sounding domain names such as WorldPoliticus.com, TrumpVision365.com, USConservativeToday.com, DonaldTrumpNews.co, and USADailyPolitics.com. They almost all publish aggressively pro-Trump content aimed at conservatives and Trump supporters in the US.
The young Macedonians who run these sites say they don’t care about Donald Trump. They are responding to straightforward economic incentives: As Facebook regularly reveals in earnings reports, a US Facebook user is worth about four times a user outside the US. The fraction-of-a-penny-per-click of US display advertising — a declining market for American publishers — goes a long way in Veles. Several teens and young men who run these sites told BuzzFeed News that they learned the best way to generate traffic is to get their politics stories to spread on Facebook — and the best way to generate shares on Facebook is to publish sensationalist and often false content that caters to Trump supporters.
As a result, this strange hub of pro-Trump sites in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is now playing a significant role in propagating the kind of false and misleading content that was identified in a recent BuzzFeed News analysis of hyperpartisan Facebook pages. These sites open a window into the economic incentives behind producing misinformation specifically for the wealthiest advertising markets and specifically for Facebook, the world’s largest social network, as well as within online advertising networks such as Google AdSense.
“Yes, the info in the blogs is bad, false, and misleading but the rationale is that ‘if it gets the people to click on it and engage, then use it,’” said a university student in Veles who started a US politics site, and who agreed to speak on the condition that BuzzFeed News not use his name.

Sample stories from US politics sites run by Macedonians.
Using domain name registration records and online searches, BuzzFeed News identified over 100 active US politics websites being run from Veles. The largest of these sites have Facebook pages that boast hundreds of thousands of followers.
BuzzFeed News also identified another 40 US politics domains registered by people in Veles that are no longer active. (An April report from the Macedonian website Meta.mk identified six pro-Trump sites being run from Veles. A Guardian report identified 150 politics sites.)
Their reasons for launching these sites are purely financial, according to the Macedonians with whom BuzzFeed News spoke.
“I started the site for a easy way to make money,” said a 17-year-old who runs a site with four other people. “In Macedonia the economy is very weak and teenagers are not allowed to work, so we need to find creative ways to make some money. I’m a musician but I can’t afford music gear. Here in Macedonia the revenue from a small site is enough to afford many things.”
Most of the posts on these sites are aggregated, or completely plagiarized, from fringe and right-wing sites in the US. The Macedonians see a story elsewhere, write a sensationalized headline, and quickly post it to their site. Then they share it on Facebook to try and generate traffic. The more people who click through from Facebook, the more money they earn from ads on their website.
Earlier in the year, some in Veles experimented with left-leaning or pro–Bernie Sanders content, but nothing performed as well on Facebook as Trump content.
“People in America prefer to read news about Trump,” said a Macedonian 16-year-old who operates BVANews.com.
BuzzFeed News’ research also found that the most successful stories from these sites were nearly all false or misleading.
For example, the most successful post BuzzFeed News found from a Macedonian site is based on a story from a fake news website. The headline on the story from ConservativeState.com was “Hillary Clinton In 2013: ‘I Would Like To See People Like Donald Trump Run For Office; They’re Honest And Can’t Be Bought.’” The post is a week old and has racked up an astounding 480,000 shares, reactions, and comments on Facebook. (To put that into perspective, the New York Times’ exclusive story that revealed Donald Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns generated a little more than 175,000 Facebook interactions in a month.)
The viral Clinton story was sourced from TheRightists.com, a site that admits it publishes both real and fake content. According to emails released by WikiLeaks, Clinton said in a private speech to Goldman Sachs that she would like to see more successful business people enter politics. But she did not mention Donald Trump in any way. The quote used in the headline is false.

The original hoax from The Rightists.

Four of the five most successful posts from the Macedonian sites BuzzFeed News identified are false. They include the false claim that the pope endorsed Trump, and the false claim that Mike Pence said Michelle Obama is the “most vulgar first lady we’ve ever had.” Those four posts together generated more than 1 million shares, reactions, and comments on Facebook. That resulted in huge traffic and significant ad revenue for the owners of these sites, with many people being misinformed along the way.
The Macedonians BuzzFeed News spoke to said the explosion in pro-Trump sites in Veles means the market has now become crowded, making it harder to earn money. The people who launched their sites early in 2016 are making the most money, according to the university student. He said a friend of his earns $5,000 per month, “or even $3,000 per day” when he gets a hit on Facebook.
The 16-year-old who operates BVANews.com with a partner said he also runs health websites in addition to the US politics site. They launched the site in early 2016 and it’s now averaging 1 million page views a month, said his partner. (The teens declined to share revenue figures.)
The 17-year-old and his three partners are still waiting for Google’s AdSense program to approve their site for ads. As of now, they’re only generating about 800 views a day and aren’t earning any revenue. The university student launched his site in August and stopped updating it in order to focus on another, more successful site he has that’s focused on health and well-being. He estimated there are “thousands” of health-related sites being run out of Veles. US politics is just this year’s opportunity, thanks to a combination of Trump and Facebook.
“I stopped because I didn’t really enjoy doing it and we didn’t actually make any money from it since there are so many people posting already,” the university student said. “The people who started early are the ones reaping the rewards.”

Aside from the allure of easy money, they also have an element of pride that web-savvy people — including teenagers — in a small country like Macedonia can earn money by gaming Facebook, Google, and Americans.
“A good chunk of the world thinks Macedonia is primitive, but that is not true,” the 17-year-old said.
The young men running these sites know the Trump traffic bonanza will soon come to an end. They expect traffic and revenue to decline significantly once the election is over. But they also hold out hope that a Trump win will keep their sites afloat.
“If Trump loses I plan to redirect my site to sports,” the 16-year-old’s partner said. “It means that there will be no more politics [worth covering].”

.. strange days indeed eh ?!

**Frazzled**

Well at one point they did have their own wall...of spears.

**Sarouan**

You thought it was ugly? Sit down, it's only the beginning.

Some Trump supporters try to mislead democrat voters by sending false ads;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/03/no-you-cant-text-your-vote-but-these-ads-tell-clinton-supporters-to-do-just-that/?postshare=8771478172875346&tid=ss_tw-bottom

Guess everything is fine as long as they get victory in the end. Really, I'm starting to believe the election will indeed be rigged...but not by the side Trump had in mind when he said that.

Be careful, guys. At this state, I'm expecting some "Trump Strike Force" to get in front of voting places and do anything they can think to intimidate/stop the others voters from voting Clinton. Like in some kind of southern dictatorial state.

**Tannhauser42**

I've been hearing on the radio this morning that there is the possibility of terrorist attacks planned for the day before the election. And Texas is one of the targets.
Looks like it's just starting to hit the news sites:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/sources-us-intel-warning-of-possible-al-qaeda-attacks-in-us-monday/
That'll be just lovely. If anything does happen, we'll get to see how tastelessly Trump can tweet about how he "called it".

On another note, Walter Cronkite would be 100 today. I wish the news was still run by him.

**generalgrog**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Crispy78 wrote:
This is an interesting read, in light of Trumps continuous banging on about the bloody emails...

http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-companies-destroyed-emails-documents-515120?rm=eu

Interesting but irrelevant. One of the distinctively curious features of the this election is that Clinton has been held to very high standards while Trump has been allowed to get away with practically anything.

I wish Howard Stern would release his Trump sex tapes, but he promised not to in order to avoid biasing the election. It's come to something when a rather scurrilous shock jock has higher ethical standards than the head of the FBI.

KK I have a lot of respect for you, but really? You really think that about Comey?

Your side loved him when he decided not to indict Mrs. Clinton, now all of a sudden he is the embodiment of evil? Put yourself in his shoes for a minute, he is really in a no win situation. If he had chosen not to release the information, and stuff came out after the election he would have been crucified for not saying anything.

GG

**infinite_array**

Sarouan wrote:
Really, I'm starting to believe the election will indeed be rigged...but not by the side Trump had in mind when he said that.

The horrifying fact of this election that we seem to keep missing is that anything Trump and his supporters accuse Clinton and her supporters of, they will actually be doing.

Trump accuses Clinton of using the Clinton Foundation to sell favors? Turns out Trump's own charity was planning to do that.

Trump accuses Clinton of using the Clinton Foundation's money on herself? Turns out Trump was already doing that.

Trump accuses Clinton of deleting emails to avoid prosecution? Turns out Trump and his businesses were already doing that during ongoing investigations.

Trump accuses Clinton and her supporters of rigging the election? Well, you've seen how that's been going so far.

Be careful, guys. At this state, I'm expecting some "Trump Strike Force" to get in front of voting places and do anything they can think to intimidate/stop the others voters from voting Clinton. Like in some kind of southern dictatorial state.

We can only hope that these kinds of Trump supporters fall back to their natural, cowardly state when it comes to actually going outside and dealing with people outside of their safe zones.

**sirlynchmob**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
I've been hearing on the radio this morning that there is the possibility of terrorist attacks planned for the day before the election. And Texas is one of the targets.
Looks like it's just starting to hit the news sites:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/sources-us-intel-warning-of-possible-al-qaeda-attacks-in-us-monday/
That'll be just lovely. If anything does happen, we'll get to see how tastelessly Trump can tweet about how he "called it".

On another note, Walter Cronkite would be 100 today. I wish the news was still run by him.

If they're targeting polling places I highly doubt al qaeda will be responsible. Now the christian terrorists on the other hand ....

Earlier this week, an alert warned local police of “polling places” being seen as “attractive targets” for “lone wolf”-type attacks by individuals motivated by violent extremist ideologies, sovereign citizen or other extremist activity.

ah the lone wolves, code for white christian terrorist & trump supporter.

**Frazzled**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
I've been hearing on the radio this morning that there is the possibility of terrorist attacks planned for the day before the election. And Texas is one of the targets.
Looks like it's just starting to hit the news sites:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/sources-us-intel-warning-of-possible-al-qaeda-attacks-in-us-monday/
That'll be just lovely. If anything does happen, we'll get to see how tastelessly Trump can tweet about how he "called it".

On another note, Walter Cronkite would be 100 today. I wish the news was still run by him.

Well that sucks.

**BigWaaagh**

loki old fart wrote:
https://conservativedailypost.com/breaking-department-of-homeland-security-chairman-officially-indicts-hillary-clinton-of-treason/
The Department of Homeland Security just went on the air with Fox News and told the American People that Hillary Clinton is guilty of treason.

In the damning announcement, Department of Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul revealed that Hillary Clinton clearly acted against the multiple security warnings she received while Secretary of State.

Furthermore, he went on to release that Hillary Clinton took multiple devices overseas. Not only that, these devices were proven to be hacked by China, Russia, and the Islamic State of Iran.

The intent is clear. Hillary Clinton used the secret server to hide her actions from the American People. She committed pure treason against the United States.

John pilingers report Assange: Clinton & ISIS funded by same money, Trump won’t be allowed to win
https://www.rt.com/news/365299-assange-pilger-saudi-clinton/

...oh, you were serious with this post?

**Compel**

Those Twitter ads are just devious and horrific, is like to how they're be straight up illegal too... I'm sure they're not but ick, just ick.

**Kilkrazy**

infinite_array wrote:
Sarouan wrote:
Really, I'm starting to believe the election will indeed be rigged...but not by the side Trump had in mind when he said that.

The horrifying fact of this election that we seem to keep missing is that anything Trump and his supporters accuse Clinton and her supporters of, they will actually be doing.

Trump accuses Clinton of using the Clinton Foundation to sell favors? Turns out Trump's own charity was planning to do that.

Trump accuses Clinton of using the Clinton Foundation's money on herself? Turns out Trump was already doing that.

Trump accuses Clinton of deleting emails to avoid prosecution? Turns out Trump and his businesses were already doing that during ongoing investigations.

Trump accuses Clinton and her supporters of rigging the election? Well, you've seen how that's been going so far.

Be careful, guys. At this state, I'm expecting some "Trump Strike Force" to get in front of voting places and do anything they can think to intimidate/stop the others voters from voting Clinton. Like in some kind of southern dictatorial state.

We can only hope that these kinds of Trump supporters fall back to their natural, cowardly state when it comes to actually going outside and dealing with people outside of their safe zones.

To be fair, Hillary hasn't been accused of child rape like Trump has.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-child-rape-victim-speaks-out-13-year-old-jane-doe-accusations-allegations-sexual-a7394356.html

Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Crispy78 wrote:
This is an interesting read, in light of Trumps continuous banging on about the bloody emails...

http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-companies-destroyed-emails-documents-515120?rm=eu

Interesting but irrelevant. One of the distinctively curious features of the this election is that Clinton has been held to very high standards while Trump has been allowed to get away with practically anything.

I wish Howard Stern would release his Trump sex tapes, but he promised not to in order to avoid biasing the election. It's come to something when a rather scurrilous shock jock has higher ethical standards than the head of the FBI.

KK I have a lot of respect for you, but really? You really think that about Comey?

Your side loved him when he decided not to indict Mrs. Clinton, now all of a sudden he is the embodiment of evil? Put yourself in his shoes for a minute, he is really in a no win situation. If he had chosen not to release the information, and stuff came out after the election he would have been crucified for not saying anything.

GG

Comey went against DoJ and FBI management advice when he wrote to Congress, and may have violated the Hatch Act.

That is a different matter to his decision in the email case, which was in accordance with the facts and legal advice.

It seems to me that all senior officials increasingly risk getting into no-win situations, because Trump has ramped up the election to a fever pitch of hatred and lies.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Economist has come out in support of Trump.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21709540-why-we-would-cast-our-hypothetical-vote-hillary-clinton-americas-best-hope

**BigWaaagh**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Tannhauser42 wrote:
I've been hearing on the radio this morning that there is the possibility of terrorist attacks planned for the day before the election. And Texas is one of the targets.
Looks like it's just starting to hit the news sites:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/sources-us-intel-warning-of-possible-al-qaeda-attacks-in-us-monday/
That'll be just lovely. If anything does happen, we'll get to see how tastelessly Trump can tweet about how he "called it".

On another note, Walter Cronkite would be 100 today. I wish the news was still run by him.

If they're targeting polling places I highly doubt al qaeda will be responsible. Now the christian terrorists on the other hand ....

Earlier this week, an alert warned local police of “polling places” being seen as “attractive targets” for “lone wolf”-type attacks by individuals motivated by violent extremist ideologies, sovereign citizen or other extremist activity.

ah the lone wolves, code for white christian terrorist & trump supporter.

It's not ISIS disrupting the election that I'm concerned about, it's these gak bags. So far off the reservation that they've become what they profess to oppose.

I love this observation: "They are machinists and retirees, roofers and factory line workers, all steeped in the culture of the rural South. They say Mr. Trump, a Manhattan billionaire and real estate tycoon, speaks for them."

There is the brink of insanity, and then there is the abyss...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-militia-gets-battle-ready-for-a-%e2%80%98gun-grabbing%e2%80%99-clinton-presidency/ar-AAjSSa0?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=ASUDHP

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
infinite_array wrote:
Sarouan wrote:
Really, I'm starting to believe the election will indeed be rigged...but not by the side Trump had in mind when he said that.

The horrifying fact of this election that we seem to keep missing is that anything Trump and his supporters accuse Clinton and her supporters of, they will actually be doing.

Trump accuses Clinton of using the Clinton Foundation to sell favors? Turns out Trump's own charity was planning to do that.

Trump accuses Clinton of using the Clinton Foundation's money on herself? Turns out Trump was already doing that.

Trump accuses Clinton of deleting emails to avoid prosecution? Turns out Trump and his businesses were already doing that during ongoing investigations.

Trump accuses Clinton and her supporters of rigging the election? Well, you've seen how that's been going so far.

Be careful, guys. At this state, I'm expecting some "Trump Strike Force" to get in front of voting places and do anything they can think to intimidate/stop the others voters from voting Clinton. Like in some kind of southern dictatorial state.

We can only hope that these kinds of Trump supporters fall back to their natural, cowardly state when it comes to actually going outside and dealing with people outside of their safe zones.

To be fair, Hillary hasn't been accused of child rape like Trump has.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-child-rape-victim-speaks-out-13-year-old-jane-doe-accusations-allegations-sexual-a7394356.html

Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Crispy78 wrote:
This is an interesting read, in light of Trumps continuous banging on about the bloody emails...

http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-companies-destroyed-emails-documents-515120?rm=eu

Interesting but irrelevant. One of the distinctively curious features of the this election is that Clinton has been held to very high standards while Trump has been allowed to get away with practically anything.

I wish Howard Stern would release his Trump sex tapes, but he promised not to in order to avoid biasing the election. It's come to something when a rather scurrilous shock jock has higher ethical standards than the head of the FBI.

KK I have a lot of respect for you, but really? You really think that about Comey?

Your side loved him when he decided not to indict Mrs. Clinton, now all of a sudden he is the embodiment of evil? Put yourself in his shoes for a minute, he is really in a no win situation. If he had chosen not to release the information, and stuff came out after the election he would have been crucified for not saying anything.

GG

Comey went against DoJ and FBI management advice when he wrote to Congress, and may have violated the Hatch Act.

That is a different matter to his decision in the email case, which was in accordance with the facts and legal advice.

It seems to me that all senior officials increasingly risk getting into no-win situations, because Trump has ramped up the election to a fever pitch of hatred and lies.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Economist has come out in support of Trump.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21709540-why-we-would-cast-our-hypothetical-vote-hillary-clinton-americas-best-hope

Where does it say The Economist is in support of Trump?

**reds8n**

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/business/economy/jobs-report.html?_r=0

The government, delivering the last major snapshot of the economy before Election Day, reported on Friday that employers added 161,000 workers in October, a performance that suggests a healthy outlook for the months ahead.

The official unemployment rate dropped to 4.9 percent.

Average hourly earnings rose 2.8 percent year over year, a level not reached since July 2008.

For the presidential campaign, the latest employment report serves as a Rorschach test allowing each side to offer its own distinctive narrative of the economy’s performance and prospects.

“This is right down the middle of the fairway,” said Vincent Reinhart, chief economist at Standish Mellon. “The main message is from the payroll report: Jobs are being created and earnings are going up.”

Nagging economic anxiety has been called responsible for a surge in voter anger among the white working class that helped propel Donald J. Trump to the top of the Republican ticket. And while the final weeks of the presidential campaign seemed to be preoccupied with everything but the economy, Friday’s report from the Labor Department refocused attention — at least briefly — on the crucial bread-and-butter issue: jobs.

Mr. Trump has argued that jobs have been disappearing, highlighting the continuing loss of well-paid manufacturing jobs as production moves to other countries. The Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, has emphasized the progress President Obama made in digging the country out of the recession, pointing to the creation of roughly 15 million additional jobs since 2010.

The data on Friday showed that more jobs were created in August and September than previously estimated as well. The revisions showed 44,000 more positions had been created in those months. Over the last three months, job gains have averaged 176,000 a month.

More than seven years after the recession ended, employment gains have been remarkably steady, finally leading to a rise in earnings in the last couple of years. But overall economic growth has remained modest and despite the recent improvements, the recovery has failed to deliver to many Americans the sense of job security and steady advancement that traditionally girds the middle class.

The type of jobs created is one reason. “Where we are creating jobs is in service areas, which are not as productive as manufacturing, and lower paying,” said Mr. Reinhart of Standish Mellon. “So we’ve got a problem.”

At the same time, many employers complain about a shortage of qualified workers.

“It has been tough to hire good people,” especially near cities like Baltimore, Washington and Philadelphia, said Scott Nash, the founder and chief executive of Mom’s Organic Market, which operates 17 grocery stores between Virginia and New Jersey, and employs more than 1,000 people. Mr. Nash offers a starting wage of $12 an hour, significantly above the mandated minimums in the areas where his stores are. He said he planned to hire an additional 200 workers, from cashiers to managers, over the next 12 months.

As the recession has receded, the definition of what economists consider a strong or weak employment report has shifted. So what now should be considered normal growth?

Last month, when the government reported that in September, 156,000 additional jobs were created and the unemployment rate was 5 percent, Mr. Trump labeled it “terrible.” By contrast, some members of the Federal Reserve Board argue that the labor market is already close to the goal-post — the lowest level of unemployment that a healthy economy can sustain without igniting inflation.

Taking into account population growth and an aging work force, economists at the San Francisco Fed estimated the “break-even” point — growth that is sufficient to keep the jobless rate from rising — now ranges from 50,000 to 110,000 jobs a month. Additional jobs would most likely push the unemployment rate further down, while fewer could lift it.

Record low participation rates in the labor force, however, suggest that a sizable number of people might be lured back into the work force for the right job at the right wage.

Ian Siegel, chief executive of ZipRecruiter, which distributes job postings primarily from small and midsize businesses, said he saw a substantial jump in listings last month. “There are more middle-skill jobs at higher salaries,” Mr. Siegel said. His assumption is that rather than seeking talent at the top of the skills ladder, employers are increasingly willing to train new employees. “It’s a great time to be a job seeker,” he said.

ZipRecruiter defines middle-skilled jobs as those that require vocational training, related on-the-job experience or an associate degree.

Mr. Siegel also expects to see a large upswing in temporary hiring of low-skilled workers by retailers and related industries, like parcel delivery, as businesses gear up for the holiday season.

Uncommon Goods, an online retailer located in Brooklyn, plans to add hundreds of temporary employees to its 170-person work force by the end of the year, said Dave Bolotsky, the founder and chief executive. Over the next year, he expects to create 20 to 30 full-time positions, with a starting wage of $14 an hour. “If you can pay above market rate, it’s a sign of appreciation or respect,” said Mr. Bolotsky, who supports an increase in the mandated minimum wage.

As for high-skilled workers, Tara Sinclair, an economist at Indeed, a jobs listing website, noticed a decline in postings for technology jobs, a closely watched sector that makes up a relatively small portion of the overall labor market.

“It seems there’s a little bit more caution that what we were seeing nine months ago,” Ms. Sinclair said. “For a while every company needed a data scientist, thinking ‘I don’t know what it is, but I want one.’ Now they may be asking ‘What is going to be the business value of hiring these people?’”

This week, the Fed announced it was once again holding off on any increase in its benchmark interest rate, but indicated a December bump was likely. In its statement, the policy-making committee noted that inflation still remained below the target long-run goal of 2 percent annual growth.

Ted Wieseman, an economist at Morgan Stanley, noted the employment picture showed plenty of signs of resilience. “Unemployed workers have been dropping out of the labor force in smaller numbers, and there’s been a pickup in formerly discouraged workers starting to look for work again,” he said in his employment report preview. The rate of workers being fired has also remained low this year.

... have you considered perhaps just writing in Michelle Obama instead of any of the options you're being offered ?

**BigWaaagh**

I'd write in John Kasich if the stakes weren't so high.

**Co'tor Shas**

Yeah KK, did you mean to write Hillary?

**generalgrog**

Kilkrazy wrote:

Comey went against DoJ and FBI management advice when he wrote to Congress, and may have violated the Hatch Act.

That is a different matter to his decision in the email case, which was in accordance with the facts and legal advice.

It seems to me that all senior officials increasingly risk getting into no-win situations, because Trump has ramped up the election to a fever pitch of hatred and lies.

The hatch act accusation is red herring attempt by Harry Reid and the liberal media to make people think that Comey violated the law by doing his job. The hatch act has nothing to do with an FBI investigation into criminal activity. I.E. does not apply.

As far as DOJ and FBI advice. DOJ is partisan and having secret meetings with her husband on tarmacs, hardly a credible source of "advice".

GG

**Kilkrazy**

No, I am serious.

People should read that article and understand why one of the world's most respected factual magazines has endorsed Trump.

**Co'tor Shas**

Kilkrazy wrote:
No, I am serious.

People should read that article and understand why one of the world's most respected factual magazines has endorsed Trump.

What are you on about? They say they would "cast their hypothetical vote" for Clinton.

**infinite_array**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
No, I am serious.

People should read that article and understand why one of the world's most respected factual magazines has endorsed Trump.

What are you on about? They say they would "cast their hypothetical vote" for Clinton.

Yeah, let's post the text here so people can read it:

A QUARTER of Americans born since 1980 believe that democracy is a bad form of government, many more than did so 20 years ago. If the two main parties had set about designing a contest to feed the doubts of young voters, they could not have done better than this year’s presidential campaign. The vote, on November 8th, is now in sight, yet many Americans would willingly undergo the exercise all over again—with two new candidates. Of course that is not on offer: the next president will be either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

X marks the spot
The choice is not hard. The campaign has provided daily evidence that Mr Trump would be a terrible president. He has exploited America’s simmering racial tensions (see article). His experience, temperament and character make him horribly unsuited to being the head of state of the nation that the rest of the democratic world looks to for leadership, the commander-in-chief of the world’s most powerful armed forces and the person who controls America’s nuclear deterrent.

That alone would stop us from casting a vote, if we had one, for Mr Trump. As it happens, he has a set of policies to go with his personality. A Trump government would cut taxes for the richest while imposing trade protection that would raise prices for the poorest. We disagree with him on the environment, immigration, America’s role in the world and other things besides. His ideas on revenue and spending are an affront to statistics. We would sooner have endorsed Richard Nixon—even had we known how he would later come to grief.

Our vote, then, goes to Hillary Clinton. Those who reject her simply because she is a Clinton, and because they detest the Clinton machine, are not paying attention to the turpitude of the alternative. Although, by itself, that is not much of an endorsement, we go further. Mrs Clinton is a better candidate than she seems and better suited to cope with the awful, broken state of Washington politics than her critics will admit. She also deserves to prevail on her own merits.

Like Mr Trump, Mrs Clinton has ideas we disagree with. Her tax plan is fiddly. Her opposition to the trade deal with Asia that she once championed is disheartening. The scale of these defects, though, is measured in tiny increments compared with what Mr Trump proposes. On plenty of other questions her policies are those of the pragmatic centre of the Democratic Party. She wants to lock up fewer non-violent offenders, expand the provision of early education and introduce paid parental leave. She wants to continue Barack Obama’s efforts to slow global warming. In Britain her ideological home would be the mainstream of the Conservative Party; in Germany she would be a Christian Democrat.

In one sense Mrs Clinton is revolutionary. She would be America’s first female president in the 240 years since independence. This is not a clinching reason to vote for her. But it would be a genuine achievement. In every other sense, however, Mrs Clinton is a self-confessed incrementalist. She believes in the power of small changes compounded over time to bring about larger ones. An inability to sound as if she is offering an overnight transformation is one of the things that makes her a bad campaigner. Presidential nominees are now expected to inspire. Mrs Clinton would have been better-suited to the first half-century of presidential campaigns, when the candidates did not even give public speeches.

However, a prosaic style combined with gradualism and hard work could make for a more successful presidency than her critics allow. In foreign policy, where the president’s power is greatest, Mrs Clinton would look out from the Resolute desk at a world that has inherited some of the risks of the cold war but not its stability. China’s rise and Russia’s decline call for both flexibility and toughness. International institutions, such as the UN, are weak; terrorism is transnational.

So judgment and experience are essential and, despite Republican attempts to tarnish her over an attack in Benghazi in 2012, Mrs Clinton possesses both. As a senator she did solid work on the armed-services committee; as secretary of state she pursued the president’s policies abroad ably. Her view of America has much in common with Mr Obama’s. She rightly argued for involvement early on in Syria. She has a more straightforward view of America’s capacity to do good; her former boss is more alert to the dangers of good intentions. The difference is of degree, though. Mrs Clinton helped lay the foundations for ending the embargo on Cuba, striking a nuclear deal with Iran and reaching agreement with China on global warming. A Clinton presidency would build on this.

Keep America great
The harder question is how Mrs Clinton would govern at home. It is surely no coincidence that voters whose political consciousness dawned in the years between the attempted impeachment of Bill Clinton and the tawdriness of Mr Trump have such a low opinion of their political system. Over the past two decades political deadlock and mud-slinging have become normalised. Recent sessions of Congress have shut the government down, flirted with a sovereign default and enacted little substantive legislation. Even those conservatives inclined to mistake inaction for limited government are fed up.

The best that can be said of Mr Trump is that his candidacy is a symptom of the popular desire for a political revival. Every outrage and every broken taboo is taken as evidence that he would break the system in order that, overseen by a properly conservative Supreme Court, those who come after him might put something better in its place.

This presidential election matters more than most because of the sheer recklessness of that scheme. It draws upon the belief that the complexity of Washington is smoke and mirrors designed to bamboozle the ordinary citizen; and that the more you know, the less you can be trusted. To hope that any good can come from Mr Trump’s wrecking job reflects a narcissistic belief that compromise in politics is a dirty word and a foolhardy confidence that, after a spell of chaos and demolition, you can magically unite the nation and fix what is wrong.

If she wins, Mrs Clinton will take on the burden of refuting the would-be wreckers. In one way she is the wrong candidate for the job. The wife of a former president, who first moved into the White House almost 24 years ago, is an unlikely herald for renewal. In her long career she has at times occupied a no-man’s-land between worthy and unworthy, legal and illegal. That is why stories about the Clinton Foundation and her e-mails, which the FBI is looking at again, have been so damaging. They may barely register on the Trump-o-Meter of indiscretions but, in office, Mrs Clinton’s reputation for rule-breaking could destroy her.

In another way, she is well-suited to the task. Herding bills through Congress to the point of signing requires a tolerance for patient negotiating and a command of sleep-inducing detail. Though it has been hard to hear above the demand to “lock her up”, Mrs Clinton has campaigned for an open, optimistic country. She can take heart from the fact that, outside Washington, there is more bipartisanship and problem-solving than most Americans realise, and from the fact that popular pessimism has far overshot reality. Around 80% of Trump supporters say that, for people like them, America is worse than it was 50 years ago. That is false: half a century ago 6m households lacked a flushing lavatory. It is also a most un-American way to see the world. The time is ripe for a rebound.

In elections we have sometimes hoped for Congress and the presidency to be controlled by different parties. Some who cannot bring themselves to vote for Mr Trump but do not care for Mrs Clinton either will opt for that choice. Yet the loss of Congress would increase the chances of a Republican Party reformation that both the party and the United States need.

Hence our vote goes to both Mrs Clinton and her party. Partly because she is not Mr Trump, but also in the hope she can show that ordinary politics works for ordinary people—the sort of renewal that American democracy requires.

Spot the endorsement.

**whembly**

Peregrine wrote:
Mitochondria wrote:
As private citizens we can do a great many things with our email as it is private.

Unless you are under a court order to preserve and present emails related to an ongoing legal case, as Trump was. This is a case of (potentially) illegal destruction of evidence, not a private citizen deciding to delete their junk mail folder.

You mean... like the subpoenaed emails that the Clinton flunkies deleted? Like that too?

**Tannhauser42**

whembly wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Mitochondria wrote:
As private citizens we can do a great many things with our email as it is private.

Unless you are under a court order to preserve and present emails related to an ongoing legal case, as Trump was. This is a case of (potentially) illegal destruction of evidence, not a private citizen deciding to delete their junk mail folder.

You mean... like the subpoenaed emails that the Clinton flunkies deleted? Like that too?

Well, duh, that's the point being made or did you miss the preceding posts explaining that Trump has done the same things he's accused Hillary of?