Originally posted by Bardock42
It is a bit worrisome that Clinton dominates the Democratic primaries in states that will almost certainly not go Democratic in the General Election (or I guess you could claim that's a plus, but I don't think so)
If anything, Clinton polling strong with black voters in the South is a good thing because it suggests they'll get out to vote in the GE.
Time
Bombshells on Hilary FBI investigation
http://thehill.com/policy/national-...l-investigationSecondly Loretta Lynch was asked about a grand jury being put together.
It's not against the law to say yes, so she does not want to go on record as lying.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/lore...-investigation/This is looking worse and worse. The director is heavily involved and he is not the type to let something illegal slide.
Actually, when someone's charges appear to be BS, having the FBI director involved is a good thing, it means it gets wrapped up faster. (And as a matter of policy, they do normally not comment on specifics of cases)
Why people keep flogging this dead horse, I'm not sure. It hasn't worked so far, turns out you can't 'want' someone into being guilty, and these aren't actually signs of guilt.
Originally posted by |King Joker|
Some Bernie supporters will not be voting for Hillary if she wins the nomination: http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/1/hillary-clinton-cant-count-on-bernie-sanders-suppo/
I do wonder if they'll say that when Bernie endorses her once the primary's gone.
The two agree on a heck of a lot- if you want Wall Street Reform, then if you can't get Bernie, Hillary is the obvious bet, for example.
Also there were polls from January that said 70%+ of each democratic candidates supporters would vote for the other.
There's definitely a group of Bernie-only people, but I think they're a minority of Bernie supporters, and I think it's pretty dumb and a lot will come around. And/or they're trying to use mono-support as a tactic, "But, see, you should support Bernie because huge numbers* will only vote Hillary, while most Hillary supporters would vote Bernie**."
Some of 'em really will stay home, but... you do get some regardless, and I don't think they'll matter much.
*Not so huge
**True, but so's the reverse, and Hillary is likely to get much better turnouts in several major demographics.
Originally posted by Q99
Actually, when someone's charges appear to be BS, having the FBI director involved is a good thing, it means it gets wrapped up faster. (And as a matter of policy, they do normally not comment on specifics of cases)Why people keep flogging this dead horse, I'm not sure. It hasn't worked so far, turns out you can't 'want' someone into being guilty, and these aren't actually signs of guilt.
Yeah thats why the FBI granted immunity to the guy that setup the server for Hillary. Hillary had secure govt information sitting in her house unsecured on her server, any other US citizen would have been thrown in jail by now for less.
Realistically the only way Hillary survives this debacle is calling in alot of favors. Make no mistake though she did wrong, period.
Originally posted by Q99I doubt she'd be perceived as > Trump in terms of fixing the political system. Trump has the whole "I don't take money from people" thing, and there's also the perception that Hillary is an evil robotic lizard-woman with no integrity, and that perception isn't limited to conservatives.
The two agree on a heck of a lot- if you want Wall Street Reform, then if you can't get Bernie, Hillary is the obvious bet, for example.
Originally posted by snowdragon
Yeah thats why the FBI granted immunity to the guy that setup the server for Hillary. Hillary had secure govt information sitting in her house unsecured on her server, any other US citizen would have been thrown in jail by now for less.
Bzzt. We had a general recently not get either a discharge or prison for *actually* leaking information. Meanwhile, Hillary did not actually leak anything, and it appears to be the case that none of it was classified at the time of sending, and it was all between authorized people anyway, and the actual sending of later-classified information in such a format is something the previous Secretary of State did too, and Colin Powell.
Really, why must so many of you insist on forgetting all surrounding information on this each time...?
Or is it that you're not so much 'forgetting' as 'actively trying to deceive'? Because it does seem like it must be one of those.
Realistically the only way Hillary survives this debacle is calling in alot of favors. Make no mistake though she did wrong, period.
Realistically, you're still working yourself up on something that is not remotely as serious as you make it out, according to, you know, the Department of Defense who has specifically commented on the content of the e-mails.
We've had no new information on this that actually change the situation in, what, 8 months? 10? It gets mentioned in something with no actual new developments (latest development: FBI director is asked a question and says no comment), and then we have another post in here and actively try and misrepresent the latest events as meaning that she's totally going to be convicted even though that's not what's said. Even if she was, it'd be actual news, with an actual announcement, and not this little stuff. But like you know very well, she did not actually do anything particularly serious, with no leaks occurring.
It's pretty clear what's going on here, and should be beneath you.
Try waiting until actual news on it comes out instead of just latching on the latest mention and repeating the same inflations, k? We had actual discussion on primaries and numbers and interesting political stuff going, it's not as fun when it's distracted by petty, repetitive stuff like this. And this goes for everyone who jumps every time the same news story appears for the dozenth time with no new information.
Originally posted by |King Joker|
I doubt she'd be perceived as > Trump in terms of fixing the political system. Trump has the whole "I don't take money from people" thing, and there's also the perception that Hillary is an evil robotic lizard-woman with no integrity, and that perception isn't limited to conservatives.
That's not what 70%+ of Bernie Sanders people say. Hillary Clinton is more popular with Bernie voters than any Republican candidate is with the supporters of other candidates.
While she's not universally loved, those who really hate her do seem to project an exaggerated view and overlook that a lot of people are more, 'I've got some specific issues with her, but she's no evil robot lizard.'
The fact is, she's made detailed proposals on wallstreet reforms, ones economists actually rate quite highly. Bernie Sanders is almost certainly going to endorse her too. People who're popular with Bernie voters like Elizabeth Warren as well. A lot of stuff to help consolidation, really.
Donald Trump isn't talking about reforming the economics side of things at all, he's going after the party and politics as usual but he doesn't even touch on Bernie's causes. People who're into Bernie purely on outsider cachet may switch over, but the people who are into Bernie's goals will almost certainly go with Hillary.
Originally posted by Q99
The fact is, she's made detailed proposals on wallstreet reforms, ones economists actually rate quite highly.
Really? Tell me more about these things and/or drop a link on my face. I'm ready.
Originally posted by Q99
Donald Trump isn't talking about reforming the economics side of things at all, he's going after the party and politics as usual but he doesn't even touch on Bernie's causes.
Anything having to do with trade and taxes is an economic side.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm
Originally posted by Q99
People who're into Bernie purely on outsider cachet may switch over, but the people who are into Bernie's goals will almost certainly go with Hillary.
I'd switch to Hilary if she adopted some of Bernie's and Trump's tax reforms...and she stopped acting like a war-mongering barbarian.
Originally posted by Q99
Bzzt. We had a general recently not get either a discharge or prison for *actually* leaking information. Meanwhile, Hillary did not actually leak anything, and it appears to be the case that none of it was classified at the time of sending, and it was all between authorized people anyway, and the actual sending of later-classified information in such a format is something the previous Secretary of State did too, and Colin Powell.
What do you think HIllary did when she handed her thumb drive over to her lawyer who had no govt security clearance?
I realize the best defense for hillary is word play and to restate things over and over until you believe your own story.
Storing classified/secret/topsecret at your home isn't legal nor is it legal to pass said information to your attorney who has no security clearance.
You seem to have a difficuly grasping what Clinton said, she said she never sent an email marked classified, not that there wasn't classified emails sent......................once again deflection and lack of understanding is why there are people that think this isn't an issue for Hillary.
Obviously the FBI thinks this is serious by offering immunity to the individual who set up the server🙂
As much as I liked Bernie to have the VP if he can't be the POTUS, I don't think she'd pick up. The "socialist" scare.
Elizabeth Warren would be someone I'd like her to pick, but doing a female duo is probably too much for the country to swallow at once. So I doubt that.
If she were to pick a former runner, I'd think O'Malley would be a safe bet, he's likeable, younger than Clinton, a male and seemingly has very little in the scandal department.
But my guess it will be a non-white male who is younger than her; likely a Latino.
O'Malley would be the right choice of VP if Bernie is a no-go. Bernie will likely either refuse to be a part of a Clinton administration (unlikely, for all the vitriol among Sanders supporters toward Clinton, he doesn't seem to have any major problem with her on a personal or ideological level, he just thinks he's the better person for the job) or he'll get a major cabinet position like Secretary of the Treasury.
She already has so much of the minority vote in her pocket for a general election so I don't see the point in picking a Latino, because usually candidates pick a VP that will help them get a demographic or state they're struggling with/want to attract. O'Malley would be a logical choice for her, IMO, but I think Hillary would definitely try to gain the support of the Sanders base in some way or another by putting him in her cabinet or something.
I agree with this:
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Bernie will likely either refuse to be a part of a Clinton administration (unlikely, for all the vitriol among Sanders supporters toward Clinton, he doesn't seem to have any major problem with her on a personal or ideological level, he just thinks he's the better person for the job) or he'll get a major cabinet position like Secretary of the Treasury.
But not with this:
Originally posted by Omega Vision
O'Malley would be the right choice of VP if Bernie is a no-go.
I think the right and likely choice will be Julian Castro.