2016 Democratic Thread

[StrangeSox]

Are you implying that she didnt send or receive classified info because thats what she said to the media? Thats not what she said to the fbi or what the fbi said to us.

She did. The issue is that that system never should have done so, right? So it's not actually a problem that these people had access to her non classified email system, it's an issue that classified info was on there at all.

 

Why does huma have a questionable background?

[Soxbadger]

As Ive said, unless Trump does something really stupid or gets destroyed in the debate I think he is going to win. Every day Hillary has new bulls*** coming out, its incredible.

 

And I doubt she will end up going to jail for this but there are people sitting in jail for doing what she did but on a much smaller scale. I understand that you think it should be ok for her to commit these crimes because it is needed to prevent Donald Trump from getting to the White House. But she shouldnt be above the law because she is a Clinton. We shouldnt be held to higher standards than someone running for President. Despite their grand standing its important to have politicians like Trey Gowdey and Jason Chaffetz. Id enjoy watching them destroy any politician from any party. Hillary had the god damn FBI and DOJ covering for her and almost got away with it.

 

I never said it was "ok". I believe in innocent until proven guilty. My record on this matter is pretty substantial on this message board. Ive said it for good people, ive said it for bad people, people I agree with, people I disagree with. There is no point in speculating on partial evidence, its just not worthwhile. If she is prosecuted and I get access to the docs, Ill gladly go through it, but for now she isnt even being prosecuted.

[DrunkBomber]

I never said it was "ok". I believe in innocent until proven guilty. My record on this matter is pretty substantial on this message board. Ive said it for good people, ive said it for bad people, people I agree with, people I disagree with. There is no point in speculating on partial evidence, its just not worthwhile. If she is prosecuted and I get access to the docs, Ill gladly go through it, but for now she isnt even being prosecuted.

Clearly you think its ok if you still think she should be President. So are you saying that if she wins and then ends up getting indicted or something and found guilty you would agree she should be impeached? Or are you saying that no matter what they decide to do she should be allowed to be the President?

[Soxbadger]

Clearly you think its ok if you still think she should be President. So are you saying that if she wins and then ends up getting indicted or something and found guilty you would agree she should be impeached? Or are you saying that no matter what they decide to do she should be allowed to be the President?

 

Well lets start with the terminology.

 

If she wins then it would be up to the House to "impeach" her. If the House "impeaches" her then the Senate would have to convict her. If the Senate convicts her she is removed from office. So if that happens she wont be President.

 

If the question is, do I personally think that if a President is successfully convicted by the Senate they should be removed from office, my answer is yes. Whether its Hillary, Trump, Lincoln, Reagan, Washington, those are the rules.

 

In case you are more interested about the impeachment process here is the link from the Senate:

 

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/histor...chment_Role.htm

 

All I am saying is that the chance of Hillary being convicted by the Senate is almost 0. It literally would take the Democratic party imploding on itself. Granted, maybe there is something that I am unaware of in the emails (Hillary admitting that she is Hitler, Saddam etc reincarnated or actually is them wearing a mask), but anything short of that Hillary is safe.

 

 

[caulfield12]

So basically Huma Abedin's suspect because of her ties to Saudi Arabia,

 

Colin Powell's not in any trouble at all for announcing to the world that Israel has 200 nuclear missiles aimed at Teheran,

 

And HRC is going to be impeached.

 

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/polit...ney-war-crimes/

That will happen about the same time Bush, Cheney and Powell are brought up on charges of lying to Congress and the United Nations about Iraq having chemical/biological weapons and yellow cake blah blah ... Or when they are arraigned on "war crimes" charges in the U.S.

 

I'll bet all of Greg's houses against it happening...regardless of whether she wins or loses.

 

 

 

[DrunkBomber]

Well lets start with the terminology.

 

If she wins then it would be up to the House to "impeach" her. If the House "impeaches" her then the Senate would have to convict her. If the Senate convicts her she is removed from office. So if that happens she wont be President.

 

If the question is, do I personally think that if a President is successfully convicted by the Senate they should be removed from office, my answer is yes. Whether its Hillary, Trump, Lincoln, Reagan, Washington, those are the rules.

 

In case you are more interested about the impeachment process here is the link from the Senate:

 

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/histor...chment_Role.htm

 

All I am saying is that the chance of Hillary being convicted by the Senate is almost 0. It literally would take the Democratic party imploding on itself. Granted, maybe there is something that I am unaware of in the emails (Hillary admitting that she is Hitler, Saddam etc reincarnated or actually is them wearing a mask), but anything short of that Hillary is safe.

There is video of Justin Cooper testifying that he and Hillary both committed a crime. There are people in jail right now for doing exactly what Cooper testified that they did. If youre saying it doesnt matter simply because our bulls*** process will make it very difficult to actually enforce the law then you are quite simply saying its ok if she breaks the law because of who she is. You cant have it both ways.

[DrunkBomber]

Well lets start with the terminology.

 

If she wins then it would be up to the House to "impeach" her. If the House "impeaches" her then the Senate would have to convict her. If the Senate convicts her she is removed from office. So if that happens she wont be President.

 

If the question is, do I personally think that if a President is successfully convicted by the Senate they should be removed from office, my answer is yes. Whether its Hillary, Trump, Lincoln, Reagan, Washington, those are the rules.

 

In case you are more interested about the impeachment process here is the link from the Senate:

 

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/histor...chment_Role.htm

 

All I am saying is that the chance of Hillary being convicted by the Senate is almost 0. It literally would take the Democratic party imploding on itself. Granted, maybe there is something that I am unaware of in the emails (Hillary admitting that she is Hitler, Saddam etc reincarnated or actually is them wearing a mask), but anything short of that Hillary is safe.

Also the bold pretty contradicts the points youve been trying to make the whole time. I cant use a video testimony from Cooper that admits criminal activity as a point because according to you its not fair until she gets her day in court. But then you go and say you that you KNOW there is 0 chance she is convicted, despite proof of a crime. gmafb lol.

[StrangeSox]

There is video of Justin Cooper testifying that he and Hillary both committed a crime. There are people in jail right now for doing exactly what Cooper testified that they did. If youre saying it doesnt matter simply because our bulls*** process will make it very difficult to actually enforce the law then you are quite simply saying its ok if she breaks the law because of who she is. You cant have it both ways.

No there isn't, but you seem determined to remain ignorant on this.

 

[caulfield12]

Comey told Bureau employees in an internal memo that it wasn't a close call (whether she mishandled classified information).

 

Orange County Register. Hardly a bastion of Democratic sympathizers.

 

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/clinton...tee-cooper.html

 

[DrunkBomber]

No there isn't, but you seem determined to remain ignorant on this.

I posted it

 

Edit: Also, if you want to go back to just arguing semantics or twisting words to fit your narrative and call me ignorant then you can discuss this with yourself. I have posted proof of everything Ive said numerous times and since you have absolutely no argument you go right back to snarky comments with no substance. I have no interest in playing your stupid games. I posted over 20 links proving incompetence and corruption in the gop thread and you didnt have a thing to say about it except a weak claim that "dems arent supposed to post in that thread" lol

Edited September 20, 2016 by DrunkBomber

[DrunkBomber]

So basically Huma Abedin's suspect because of her ties to Saudi Arabia,

Colin Powell's not in any trouble at all for announcing to the world that Israel has 200 nuclear missiles aimed at Teheran,

 

And HRC is going to be impeached.

 

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/polit...ney-war-crimes/

That will happen about the same time Bush, Cheney and Powell are brought up on charges of lying to Congress and the United Nations about Iraq having chemical/biological weapons and yellow cake blah blah ... Or when they are arraigned on "war crimes" charges in the U.S.

 

I'll bet all of Greg's houses against it happening...regardless of whether she wins or loses.

I hadnt heard that. I googled it and there was some interesting stuff though.

[StrangeSox]

I posted it

 

Edit: Also, if you want to go back to just arguing semantics or twisting words to fit your narrative and call me ignorant then you can discuss this with yourself. I have posted proof of everything Ive said numerous times and since you have absolutely no argument you go right back to snarky comments with no substance. I have no interest in playing your stupid games. I posted over 20 links proving incompetence and corruption in the gop thread and you didnt have a thing to say about it except a weak claim that "dems arent supposed to post in that thread" lol

It's not arguing semantics to point out that your argument makes no sense. You haven't explained why you think the video shows him admitting to a crime or why you think it was inappropriate for huma to have access to Clinton's email. You haven't explained why you think huma has a suspicious background. You couldn't explain your point behind bringing up the Syrian army bombing multiple times and don't seem to understand the complications and recent history in Syria. You've just been shouting loudly over and over that a Republican house committee showed irrefutable proof that Clinton committed all of these crimes, and you're not really responding to anything anyone is saying in response to that.

 

If you want to spam townhall.com links and random email screen caps, feel free, but that's not really going to get anyone to want to discuss those things with you.

 

To try to explain it to you one last time, the whole email server scandal is centered around Hillary having ever sent or received classified information on that system when she should not have. It was set up and intended to be a non-classified email server, which is why it's fine for her IT guy who didn't have clearances to have access to it. That's why it's fine for Huma (who did have clearances) to have access to it.

Edited September 20, 2016 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

random gun stats some may find interesting

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/201..._3_percent.html

 

The 2015 study, conducted by public health researchers, found that the majority of guns in America are concentrated in the hands of a very, very few. In fact, roughly 50 percent of the estimated 265 million guns in the U.S. are owned by just 3 percent of the adult population.

 

More specifically, the survey showed that the 3 percent owned 133 million guns. Each of these 7.7 million “super-owners” possess between 8 and 140 firearms for an average of 17 guns per person. For some context, most of America’s estimated 55 million gun owners own, on average, three guns and nearly half of have one or two, according to the survey.

[StrangeSox]

Nate Cohn of the NYT with an interesting and demonstrative experiment on how much influence pollsters' decisions of how to establish their demographics model (will this eleciton's electorate look like 2008? 2004? Something we've never seen before) can have on a poll's results. They took one of their own recent Florida polls and gave the raw data for four respected polling firms.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09...about.html?_r=0

[StrangeSox]

Fahrenthold with more on Trump's charity scams.

 

Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems

 

In one case, from 2007, Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club faced $120,000 in unpaid fines from the town of Palm Beach, Fla., resulting from a dispute over the size of a flagpole.

 

In a settlement, Palm Beach agreed to waive those fines — if Trump’s club made a $100,000 donation to a specific charity for veterans. Instead, Trump sent a check from the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a charity funded almost entirely by other people’s money, according to tax records.

 

In 2010, a man named Martin Greenberg hit a hole-in-one on the 13th hole while playing in a charity tournament at Trump’s course in Westchester County, N.Y.

 

Greenberg won a $1 million prize. Briefly.

 

Later, Greenberg was told that he had won nothing. The prize’s rules required that the shot had to go 150 yards. But Trump’s course had allegedly made the hole too short.

 

Greenberg sued.

 

Eventually, court papers show, Trump’s golf course signed off on a settlement that required it to make a donation of Martin Greenberg’s choosing. Then, on the day that the parties informed the court they had settled their case, a $158,000 donation was sent to the Martin Greenberg Foundation.

 

That money came from the Trump Foundation, according to the tax filings of both Trump’s and Greenberg’s foundations.

 

Greenberg’s foundation reported getting nothing that year from Trump personally or from his golf club.

[southsider2k5]

random gun stats some may find interesting

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/201..._3_percent.html

 

I have to say that this seems normal, as I have seen it across many other areas. Most consumption of a particular item is concentrated in a much smaller percentage of its users. I have to say that this seems like typical economic behavior.

 

For example, Health care: 50% use little to none, the top 5% use about 50%.

[bmags]

Something I was thinking about Re: Chelsea/NJ bombings.

 

There is zero narrative that this man could not be tried in US court system, or that it poses too much risk and he should be moved to GB.

 

 

[bmags]

Fahrenthold with more on Trump's charity scams.

 

Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems

 

Oh man. missed this.

[illinilaw08]

Something I was thinking about Re: Chelsea/NJ bombings.

 

There is zero narrative that this man could not be tried in US court system, or that it poses too much risk and he should be moved to GB.

 

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/lindsey-g...rica-1786824584

 

Lindsey Graham is pushing that narrative. It is a scary narrative. The bomber is a US citizen and needs to be tried as a US citizen...

[CrimsonWeltall]

Fahrenthold with more on Trump's charity scams.

 

Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems

 

So basically the Trump Foundation is one of Donald's personal bank accounts. People donate to it, then he spends that money on himself, or gives it to other charities and takes credit for it.

[bmags]

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/lindsey-g...rica-1786824584

 

Lindsey Graham is pushing that narrative. It is a scary narrative. The bomber is a US citizen and needs to be tried as a US citizen...

 

Spoke too soon I guess.

[illinilaw08]

Im very liberal on most social issues. I have been adamantly for gay marriage and LGBT rights for as long as I can remember. While I dont doubt that Hillary would be better for things like that I also am not convinced Trump has any plans to try to stifle the progress theyve made. I might be wrong about that but it isnt something Ive heard people complaining about.

 

The Supreme Court is impossible to be happy with when youre socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Im likely not going to be happy either way. I didnt mind Garland actually but I also did no research into him so I may have missed stuff.

 

I just think that there is pretty much zero chance she doesnt get caught up with this server stuff and get impeached if she wins.

 

Take a look at Mike Pence's record on LGBT rights. IF Trump's agenda is influenced in any way, shape, or form by Pence, then you will get a socially conservative presidency, and a socially conservative court.

 

I know this is echoing what SB said previously, but even if Clinton gets impeached if elected, impeachment does not remove her from office. She needs to be tried and convicted by the Senate, and that just is extremely unlikely to happen.

 

And even if she were to be convicted by the Senate, Kaine isn't a social conservative. So he would still be more in line with your beliefs on LGBT rights, and more likely to appoint SCOTUS justices who will maintain Obergfell.

[StrangeSox]

I have to say that this seems normal, as I have seen it across many other areas. Most consumption of a particular item is concentrated in a much smaller percentage of its users. I have to say that this seems like typical economic behavior.

 

For example, Health care: 50% use little to none, the top 5% use about 50%.

 

I suppose it's probably close to other "hobby" items as opposed to necessity-type items e.g. toasters and fridges are owned broadly and nobody really stockpiles dozens of them but only a handful of people own 99% of RC aircraft.

[bmags]

Still it feels like a lot of people own guns so I was surprised it was that heavy.

 

I wonder what it looks like for cars.

[Soxbadger]

There is video of Justin Cooper testifying that he and Hillary both committed a crime. There are people in jail right now for doing exactly what Cooper testified that they did. If youre saying it doesnt matter simply because our bulls*** process will make it very difficult to actually enforce the law then you are quite simply saying its ok if she breaks the law because of who she is. You cant have it both ways.

 

It seems like you are confusing a lot of things so I will try and explain. First, I am not an expert on classified documents, nor on the laws that regulate classified information. I do not know whether or not Hillary, Justin Cooper, or anyone else committed a crime. In order for me to even begin going down that road, Hillary, Justin Cooper (or anyone else for that matter) would have to be charged for allegedly committing a crime. At that point I could then review the allegations and determine if (in my opinion) there is enough evidence (again evidence not proof) to prove that a crime was committed based on the legal standard. Now again, I do not know much about this type of law, I presume the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" but for all I know it could be "preponderance of the evidence" or some other standard that I am completely unaware of.

 

This leads to the second point in which you call the process "bulls***". Well I dont agree. The US criminal system is arguably the fairest in the world. Yes it means that it is difficult to convict, but that is also because I strongly believe whether its Blackstone's "All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer" or Franklin's "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer" or Adams "It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished. ... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever." Now granted you may disagree, but it is not "ok" because of who Hillary is, it is the exact opposite. Whether it was Trump or Hillary, the process is the same. If you think that process is bulls***, well that is not Hillary's fault, that is the founding father's fault and the impeachment process has been the same since the founding of our nation.

 

Also the bold pretty contradicts the points youve been trying to make the whole time. I cant use a video testimony from Cooper that admits criminal activity as a point because according to you its not fair until she gets her day in court. But then you go and say you that you KNOW there is 0 chance she is convicted, despite proof of a crime. gmafb lol.

 

I never said that you cant use the video as a "point" I said that its evidence. I then said that she is not guilty until she is convicted, which is a factual statement. I am not sure I used the word "fair." And then I made an opinion statement about whether I believe she will be convicted based on how the impeachment process works.

 

You are the one who expressed a concern about Hillary because she may be "impeached." I have just explained why that is not really a concern for me because in my opinion its extremely unlikely.