US Election 2016: DO NOT MY FRIENDS BECOME ADDICTED TO WATER

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, maarsen said:

Wasn't the issue classified emails on a home server? How hard is it to check if an email carries classified info? This is a yes/no question.

It's trivial to check whether the emails contain classified info and that question was answered affirmatively last year. If a low ranking State Department operative had tried to do something like this, he or she would undoubtedly be in prison by now. However, given that Clinton is who she is and also that previous Secretaries of State (e.g. Colin Powell) had done similar things (though not quite as bad), the authorities are hesitant to prosecute her based on a technical violation of the rules. My guess is that they're waiting to see whether any actual harm came of it. For example, if a Russian/Chinese/whatever hacker comes forward and says "Haha, here are all of the emails on that server; I've had them for years", then they'll do something about it.

[maarsen]

According to your article, none of the emails weremarked classified, even though it may have contained classified info. I can go to wikileaks and find all kinds of classified US government info, send it to you and you would then be in receipt of said classified government info. Would you expect to be sent to jail for that? I come from a country that just booted out a government that would stamp toilet paper classified for political ends. Then there is the problem of levels of secret classifications. I have dealt with bureaucracies before. If in doubt, stamp it classified. I suspect that if she is charged and the actual classified documents are produced, they will be of such inane and trivial subject matter that the case would be laughed out of court. That is why it is not going forward. 

[Kalbear]

35 minutes ago, maarsen said:

According to your article, none of the emails weremarked classified, even though it may have contained classified info. I can go to wikileaks and find all kinds of classified US government info, send it to you and you would then be in receipt of said classified government info. Would you expect to be sent to jail for that?

This is somewhat ironic, as the answer is actually yes. You could not as a government employee go see wikileaks for the information for a while, and even more amusingly people who had the clearance to go see it would rather see it on wikileaks as it was easier to see. 

 

35 minutes ago, maarsen said:

 

I come from a country that just booted out a government that would stamp toilet paper classified for political ends. Then there is the problem of levels of secret classifications. I have dealt with bureaucracies before. If in doubt, stamp it classified. I suspect that if she is charged and the actual classified documents are produced, they will be of such inane and trivial subject matter that the case would be laughed out of court. That is why it is not going forward. 

Well, it's more that it was discussing classified things, which in itself made it classified. The idea that she had people go to some of the secret TS places, copy down the data and then spread it into email appears to be completely wrong. Instead, what happens is that whenever you discuss anything that is classified that discussion becomes technically classified too, even if it is not marked that way. And Clinton, as SoS, has the authority and the responsibilty to reclassify things higher as needed. 

There is zero indication that any mails marked classified made it to her server. 

[Altherion]

I have no doubt that some of the rules regarding classification are overzealous to the point of stupidity, but it is not fair that the rank-and-file (if you recall the Wikileaks threads, including some people on these very boards) have to dance around them whereas the people at the top get to ignore them.

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, maarsen said:

According to your article, none of the emails weremarked classified, even though it may have contained classified info. I can go to wikileaks and find all kinds of classified US government info, send it to you and you would then be in receipt of said classified government info. Would you expect to be sent to jail for that? I come from a country that just booted out a government that would stamp toilet paper classified for political ends. Then there is the problem of levels of secret classifications. I have dealt with bureaucracies before. If in doubt, stamp it classified. I suspect that if she is charged and the actual classified documents are produced, they will be of such inane and trivial subject matter that the case would be laughed out of court. That is why it is not going forward. 

It's actually even funnier then this afaik. Because let's say something gets out into the public. It's published front page of the NYT. But that information is then labeled classified. Now an email discussing a front-page news story is labelled as containing classified information and has to be handled as such.

There's also the fact that some of this stuff was things that weren't classified at the time they were sent but were classified afterwards. Really the whole question of that part of the email issue seems like a clusterfuck of bad policies.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

15 hours ago, Altherion said:

I don't think so. The stated positions of Sanders are closer to those of Clinton than those of Trump, but they are still quite different. More importantly, the funding of Sanders and Clinton (which, in my opinion, is a much, much more valuable indicator of a politicians actions once in office than anything they say during the campaign) is radically different and, at least for now, Sanders is actually much closer to Trump in this respect: neither of them has a SuperPAC worth noting and neither of them has relied on big external donors.

That's not going to be try of Trump for long: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-camp-concedes-its-low-on-money/article/2592501

I'm starting to suspect that he may not actually be worth 10 billion.

[Kalbear]

Adelson has pledged $100 million to Trump. How, exactly, does Trump not have big external donors?

And the only reason Trump doesn't have a SuperPAC of note is because he has screwed up on making an official one so far. He actually wants to - several, apparently - but doesn't actually know how to do it well. The idea that it's noble that his incompetence doesn't let him be greedy enough is, well, pretty Trumpian actually. 

[Shryke]

17 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

That's not going to be try of Trump for long: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-camp-concedes-its-low-on-money/article/2592501

I'm starting to suspect that he may not actually be worth 10 billion.

He's not. Basically any information we have on his wealth and income suggests he's ALOT less rich then he boasts about.

[ThinkerX]

To continue:

Clinton manages to win despite the ever present FBI investigation, but has little in the way of coat tails.  Worse, the republicans get their act together, and launch a formidable campaign to gain a full majority in the Senate, assisted by massive DNC incompetence.

Then, just before the midterms, the FBI decides an indictment is warranted.

Should the republicans manage a 'clean sweep' in the Senate, do they decide to press ahead with impeachment?

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Adelson has pledged $100 million to Trump. How, exactly, does Trump not have big external donors?

This is why I said so far. It is possible that Trump will eventually take large donations, but he has not done so during the primary.

Quote

And the only reason Trump doesn't have a SuperPAC of note is because he has screwed up on making an official one so far. He actually wants to - several, apparently - but doesn't actually know how to do it well. The idea that it's noble that his incompetence doesn't let him be greedy enough is, well, pretty Trumpian actually.

This is not plausible. By law, SuperPACs must be independent of the candidate. Obviously, this turns to be not much more than a legal fiction, but in any case, it would not be Trump himself who is making the SuperPAC; all he would have to do is give the usual wink-and-nod in its direction. It is much more likely that Trump saw how utterly worthless the hundreds of millions of dollars raised and spent by SuperPACs turned out to be for J. Bush, Cruz, Rubio, etc. and decided that he's better off proclaiming his competition to be bought and paid whereas he himself is not.

[Kalbear]

Quote

It is much more likely that Trump saw how utterly worthless the hundreds of millions of dollars raised and spent by SuperPACs turned out to be for J. Bush, Cruz, Rubio, etc. and decided that he's better off proclaiming his competition to be bought and paid whereas he himself is not.

He's looking to get 1 to 2 billion dollars of funding; do you think that's going to come from individuals?

In any case it's wrong; he's already raised $2 million or so in SuperPAC funding, and that will likely increase as things go on.

 

[Altherion]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

He's looking to get 1 to 2 billion dollars of funding; do you think that's going to come from individuals?

In any case it's wrong; he's already raised $2 million or so in SuperPAC funding, and that will likely increase as things go on.

I don't know his plans for the general election. The $2M is not worth noting -- even Jindal and Graham raised more than twice as much each and they dropped out so long ago that I didn't even remember they were in the race.

In completely different election-related news, Gary Johnson wins the Libertarian Party candidacy with William Weld as his running mate. This election is basically the best-case scenario for the Libertarian Party: Johnson and Weld are popular, two-term governors from very different states (New Mexico and Massachusetts, respectively) and their mainstream competitors are have the highest and second-highest unfavorable ratings in history. If the Libertarians can't get anything out of that, they should just give up on presidential elections until something big changes.

[Vastet]

Democrats need to realise that Hillary has a high chance of losing to Trump, while Bernie will wipe the floor with him. If you don't want your next president to be Donald Trump, it's time to drop Hillary. And fast. There's always the next election. If Trump loses big, he probably won't try again.

[Altherion]

That's a nice sentiment, but there's no way to put it into practice. Clinton won more delegates, more votes and more states -- and would probably have done so even without the party registration shenanigans. There's no way to drop her without an indictment or something similarly massive and no such things appears to be forthcoming.

[alguien]

29 minutes ago, Vastet said:

Democrats need to realise that Hillary has a high chance of losing to Trump, while Bernie will wipe the floor with him. If you don't want your next president to be Donald Trump, it's time to drop Hillary. And fast. There's always the next election. If Trump loses big, he probably won't try again.

[Edited]: Sanders has been relatively untouched in terms of attacks so far, but if he were the candidate for the general, with his illegitimate son, essay on women fantasizing about gang rape, socialist ties, and the simple fact that his healthcare plans would raise taxes on everyone, he'd get pretty hammered in the general, especially by an asshole of Trump's caliber.  

ETA: For context about how meaningless polling is at this stage, both Kerry and Dukakis were beating their opponents by much larger margins at this point in the election process. 

**Also, for the record, I like Sanders. The above is how I imagine the GOP would try to frame his personal history and current proposals. 

[alguien]

18 hours ago, Altherion said:

I don't think so. The stated positions of Sanders are closer to those of Clinton than those of Trump, but they are still quite different.

False. They're positions are like 85% similar. Hell, their voting record is 93% the same. 

Quote

More importantly, the funding of Sanders and Clinton (which, in my opinion, is a much, much more valuable indicator of a politicians actions once in office than anything they say during the campaign) is radically different.

Also false now that Trump has locked it up. 

[Dr. Pepper]

I have to finally admit that I've reached a boiling point with a rather sizeable section of Bernie supporters, at least those that I know or interact with in some way.  They act like they are in a stadium cheering on some sports team.  True, this is not specific to Bernie supporters.  Lots of political discussion at this stage turns into something that mirrors stadium cheering.  I can't stand it, but I don't like or get sports, so I tend to ignore it.  But damn, it makes me nearly cry to see people I love and people I usually consider highly intelligent act this way and say the dumbest things.  

I think I was wrong that it was a good thing that Bernie energized so many of the millennial (35 and younger) crowd because I'm dreading the idea of these people actually voting this year.  It's everything from completely false statements about Hillary to not understanding the political or election process to being wholly ignorant about how their votes for third party candidates affects the race.  I really thought it was great that my generation was finally starting to get politically active and involved but now I just want them to go away already.  The most terrifying thing is that I've met many who are like Altherion in that they seem to think it will be perfectly ok if Trump and the GOP dominate the wins.  

I think I should also admit that I'll have to start agreeing with those of you who say that Bernie should drop out already.  I'm seeing ways that he's damaging the progressive cause and it's quite upsetting.  

 

[Jace, Extat]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I have to finally admit that I've reached a boiling point with a rather sizeable section of Bernie supporters, at least those that I know or interact with in some way.  They act like they are in a stadium cheering on some sports team.  True, this is not specific to Bernie supporters.  Lots of political discussion at this stage turns into something that mirrors stadium cheering.  I can't stand it, but I don't like or get sports, so I tend to ignore it.  But damn, it makes me nearly cry to see people I love and people I usually consider highly intelligent act this way and say the dumbest things.  

I think I was wrong that it was a good thing that Bernie energized so many of the millennial (35 and younger) crowd because I'm dreading the idea of these people actually voting this year.  It's everything from completely false statements about Hillary to not understanding the political or election process to being wholly ignorant about how their votes for third party candidates affects the race.  I really thought it was great that my generation was finally starting to get politically active and involved but now I just want them to go away already.  The most terrifying thing is that I've met many who are like Altherion in that they seem to think it will be perfectly ok if Trump and the GOP dominate the wins.  

I think I should also admit that I'll have to start agreeing with those of you who say that Bernie should drop out already.  I'm seeing ways that he's damaging the progressive cause and it's quite upsetting.  

 

I'm basically at a more advanced state of anger for the same reasons. I liked the old man at first, but what first looked like promise has turned sour in a hurry. 

[Dr. Pepper]

16 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

I'm basically at a more advanced state of anger for the same reasons. I liked the old man at first, but what first looked like promise has turned sour in a hurry. 

I think the anger might be more advanced that I'm willing to admit right now.   My partner and I had to put a moratorium on discussing politics at all because for an hour one night, I was pretty sure our relationship wasn't going to survive.  I felt so betrayed by how irrational they were being about something so important.  

[maarsen]

3 hours ago, Shryke said:

He's not. Basically any information we have on his wealth and income suggests he's ALOT less rich then he boasts about.

The man is a liar??? Who would have thought.