Presidential Race 2016

[Elmer]

15 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I'd say it's 60/40 that she gets indicted and isn't allowed to run for POTUS, which would be enough of a victory for most of us.   While I'd gain great pleasure in seeing her go to jail, just knowing she won't ruin this country beyond what's already been done to it is good enough.  

If we could bet I would put money down on your odds and clean you out!!!!
I say there is 5% chance she gets indicted (even a ham sandwich can get indicted) and 0% for conviction. 

SO shall we call it a gentleman's bet?

But before you answer, please read below!

"All criminal laws require a certain level of intent and, in the area of classified document cases, the intent to disclose it to someone not authorized to receive it," says Lowell, who has a long history of defending politicians in ethics cases, and served as chief counsel to the House Democrats during Bill Clinton's impeachment proceedings. "Secretary Clinton's use of an email server was [for correspondence with] her own staff and other officials. It was not [intended to be provided] to the press or to a foreign country or any other entity, so it would be ridiculous [for her to] even be considered charged under these laws."-lawyer Abbe David Lowell 

She... "never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy."

 

http://jaybookman.blog.myajc.com/2016/04/11/odds-of-a-hillary-indictment-darn-close-to-zero/ 

Edited June 6, 2016 by Elmer

[Chilli Dipper]

If this race does, as expected, come down to the first woman to lead a major-party presidential ticket versus the candidate with the worst favorability ratings among women on record, the wisdom that would tell the candidate who polls terribly with women to not repeatedly use demeaning words to attack his opponent on the basis of her gender alone doesn't even elevate to the status of common sense. That should be stupidly obvious to anyone.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

If this race does, as expected, come down to the first woman to lead a major-party presidential ticket versus the candidate with the worst favorability ratings among women on record, the wisdom that would tell the candidate who polls terribly with women to not repeatedly use demeaning words to attack his opponent on the basis of her gender alone doesn't even elevate to the status of common sense. That should be stupidly obvious to anyone.

In other words, DT could call HRC an asshole, a meanie, a jerk, a buffoon, a crook, a deviant, etc. He just can't call her a bitch? Or that c word?

Ooooooookkkkkkaaaaaaayyyyyy.

[newtogolf]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

In other words, DT should call HRC an asshole, a meanie, a jerk, a buffoon, a crook, a deviant, etc. He just can't call her a bitch? Or that c word?

Ooooooookkkkkkaaaaaaayyyyyy.

LOL, I almost spit out water all move my keyboard when I read this.  Hillary supporters crack me up.  

10 minutes ago, Elmer said:

If we could bet I would put money down on your odds and clean you out!!!!
I say there is 5% chance she gets indicted (even a ham sandwich can get indicted) and 0% for conviction. 

SO shall we call it a gentleman's bet?

But before you answer, please read below!

"All criminal laws require a certain level of intent and, in the area of classified document cases, the intent to disclose it to someone not authorized to receive it," says Lowell, who has a long history of defending politicians in ethics cases, and served as chief counsel to the House Democrats during Bill Clinton's impeachment proceedings. "Secretary Clinton's use of an email server was [for correspondence with] her own staff and other officials. It was not [intended to be provided] to the press or to a foreign country or any other entity, so it would be ridiculous [for her to] even be considered charged under these laws."-lawyer Abbe David Lowell 

She... "never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy."

 

http://jaybookman.blog.myajc.com/2016/04/11/odds-of-a-hillary-indictment-darn-close-to-zero/ 

I'm not betting anyone on something as corrupt as politics because ultimately Obama can get her off the hook just like all the criminals he's been releasing from jail.

When someone drives drunk they don't intend on getting into an accident and killing someone but that doesn't mean it was okay to drive drunk.  

[Chilli Dipper]

18 minutes ago, iacas said:

In other words, DT could call HRC an asshole, a meanie, a jerk, a buffoon, a crook, a deviant, etc. He just can't call her a bitch? Or that c word?

Ooooooookkkkkkaaaaaaayyyyyy.

He can call her all of those things if he wants, but we live in a patriarchal society. We don't have words in our language that demean men for the sake of being men.

There is nothing that Hillary Clinton or her female supporters can say about Donald Trump's manhood that would provoke someone like me, a man who strongly dislikes Trump, to jump on his side and say, "you do not get to talk about him like that!" The same can't be said when the roles are reversed. Like it or not, there is no good counterpart.

[Gunther]

Her withdrawal from the race is in Valerie Jarrett's hands.  If the polls keep trending towards Trump beating her, and if Bernie beats her in Cali and NJ, they will figure a way to exit her gracefully and plug in Biden.  Most likely it'll be a health issue.  If she doesn't play ball, they will put the Justice Department on her.  That's the only way she gets indicted

Edited June 6, 2016 by Gunther

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Chilli Dipper said:

He can call her all of those things if he wants, but we live in a patriarchal society. We don't have words in our language that demean men for the sake of being men.

No, sorry, "bitch" does not demean women for the sake of being women any more than calling a guy an asshole or a cock or a dick demeans men for the sake of being men.

It demeans women for being rude, mean, hostile, etc.

And to your second point, if you think "bitch" does that for women, isn't "dickhead" or "cock" the equivalent for men? So aren't you wrong about that, too?

1 minute ago, Chilli Dipper said:

There is nothing that Hillary Clinton or her female supporters can say about Donald Trump's manhood that would provoke someone like me, a man who strongly dislikes Trump, to jump on his side and say, "you do not get to talk about him like that!" The same can't be said when the roles are reversed. Like it or not, there is no good counterpart.

No, that's just how you see things, but you're biased.

Dickhead and cock seem to be very much the equivalent. Except that I've heard guys called "bitches" before, but you never hear a woman called a "dickhead" or a "cock." Heck, those terms are arguably more gender-based.

---

And this right there is why I hate politics.

Because, who cares? Who really, really truly cares about this shit? All it does is create ways for us to get mad at each other. Now, I'm not saying I'm mad at you. I'm not in the slightest. But you might be a little bit at me, and why? Because I see something completely unrelated to the point of this forum differently? And saw fit to share that opinion?

That's a shame. And that's why politics sucks. It divides.

[Elmer]

17 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

 

I'm not betting anyone on something as corrupt as politics because ultimately Obama can get her off the hook just like all the criminals he's been releasing from jail.

When someone drives drunk they don't intend on getting into an accident and killing someone but that doesn't mean it was okay to drive drunk.  

No, but when they get behind the wheel while drunk their intent is to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence. Killing someone would be vehicular manslaughter.
manslaughter in and of itself differs from a felony. Manslaughter is a charge for killing without malice aforethought, Where as murder is killing with intent.

for a conviction you need to prove Hillary's intent was to break the law.
There has been indication that her actions were not "against the law" at the time she conducted her activity. This is further backed up by similar actions of her predecessors.
Some of the documents were classified after the fact, and the people who received the classified were cleared to receive such information.

So what law did she break and what law will she be convicted on?

Your drunk driver analogy was a bad one. Snowden or Patreus would have been a better. 

[StevenR84]

4 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Her withdrawal from the race is in Valerie Jarrett's hands.  If the polls keep trending towards Trump beating her, and if Bernie beats her in Cali and NJ, they will figure a way to exit her gracefully and plug in Biden.  Most likely it'll be a health issue.  If she doesn't play ball, they will put the Justice Department on her.  That's the only way she gets indicted

I'm sorry you edited and deleted the bottom paragraph you had before. You cannot say this administration is any more or less corrupt than another, regardless of how you feel about the current POTUS. Same goes for Hillary and a would be Trump administration.

[Gunther]

3 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

I'm sorry you edited and deleted the bottom paragraph you had before. You cannot say this administration is any more or less corrupt than another, regardless of how you feel about the current POTUS. Same goes for Hillary and a would be Trump administration.

Actually, I can and the evidence is stupendous.  I actually had a couple paragraphs on it but decided to limit my focus.  

While I was deleting that material, somehow my finger clicked Submit.  It's off topic and fodder for another day but I do believe it is true.

[iacas]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533

Quote

 

If I asked you what most defines Donald Trump supporters, what would you say? They’re white? They’re poor? They’re uneducated?

You’d be wrong. 

In fact, I’ve found a single statistically significant variable predicts whether a voter supports Trump—and it’s not race, income or education levels: It’s authoritarianism.

 

 

[Chilli Dipper]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

No, sorry, "bitch" does not demean women for the sake of being women any more than calling a guy an asshole or a cock or a dick demeans men for the sake of being men.

It demeans women for being rude, mean, hostile, etc.

And to your second point, if you think "bitch" does that for women, isn't "dickhead" or "cock" the equivalent for men? So aren't you wrong about that, too?

No, that's just how you see things, but you're biased.

Dickhead and cock seem to be very much the equivalent. Except that I've heard guys called "bitches" before, but you never hear a woman called a "dickhead" or a "cock." Heck, those terms are arguably more gender-based.

---

And this right there is why I hate politics.

Because, who cares? Who really, really truly cares about this shit? All it does is create ways for us to get mad at each other. Now, I'm not saying I'm mad at you. I'm not in the slightest. But you might be a little bit at me, and why? Because I see something completely unrelated to the point of this forum differently? And saw fit to share that opinion?

That's a shame. And that's why politics sucks. It divides.

I only times I get mad in this thread is when I get stuck into circular arguments that I know are never going to reach a reasonable conclusion, but am stubborn to give up on the point. Even then, I'm usually mad at myself for jumping into the muck.

I don't believe that gender politics have evolved in this country to where a male candidate can call his female opponent a bitch without expecting negative consequences among women voters; I fear that's where this presidential election is headed, and it's not going to be pleasant. You and I may have to agree to disagree on that, but I'll definitely agree with you about everything else.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

I don't believe that gender politics have evolved in this country to where a male candidate can call his female opponent a bitch without expecting negative consequences among women voters; I fear that's where this presidential election is headed, and it's not going to be pleasant. You and I may have to agree to disagree on that, but I'll definitely agree with you about everything else.

I never commented on that (bold). I simply refuted the ideas about the application and definition of the word/words.

Women aren't called "bitches" just because they're women, and there are male equivalents.

[StevenR84]

3 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

I don't believe that gender politics have evolved in this country to where a male candidate can call his female opponent a bitch without expecting negative consequences among women voters;

Imagine if we could live in a world where real adults ran for office. I'm all for pointing out records and distinguishing yourself from the other candidate, but name calling is just childish in the situation. If he (trump) ever comes out and calls her a bitch, it's game over trumpster and the GOP will basically just start crying. I'm not saying hillary can't take it, because i'm sure she's heard worse, it's just amazing that grown, successful people can be brought down to one of the most immature ways of expression with slinging personal insults and name calling.

[Chilli Dipper]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533

 

It wasn't in this article, but I read recently that researchers did a study asking politically-active Christians how they thought the world would look like if they had never found God. The subjects who identified as both conservative and highly authoritarian imagined chaos and destruction; the liberal and least authoritarian subjects imagined a bleak darkness.

Interpret that as you will.

[Gunther]

21 minutes ago, Elmer said:

No, but when they get behind the wheel while drunk their intent is to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence. Killing someone would be vehicular manslaughter.
manslaughter in and of itself differs from a felony. Manslaughter is a charge for killing without malice aforethought, Where as murder is killing with intent.

for a conviction you need to prove Hillary's intent was to break the law.
There has been indication that her actions were not "against the law" at the time she conducted her activity. This is further backed up by similar actions of her predecessors.
Some of the documents were classified after the fact, and the people who received the classified were cleared to receive such information.

So what law did she break and what law will she be convicted on?

Your drunk driver analogy was a bad one. Snowden or Patreus would have been a better. 

Russia and China hacked her server.  Her intent was to evade the law and remove classified information from its secure location in order to sidestep FOIA requests.  She is guilty.

Also, you don't seem to realize that the investigation is a multi-pronged effort, which is why there are 100 agents working it.  They are also mapping donations from foreign governments to her Foundation against her actions as Sec of State to see if any of it was criminal, i.e., favors to those countries.  None of us truly know if she is guilty on that front, but I strongly believe she is.  

[rehmwa]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

No, sorry, "bitch" does not demean women for the sake of being women any more than calling a guy an asshole or a cock or a dick demeans men for the sake of being men.

It demeans women for being rude, mean, hostile, etc.

You guys miss the point - he can say "I respectfully think her position on _____ could be modified slightly despite her good intentions"

 

the press will report "Donald uses sexist slurs on Candidate Clinton"  (he used the word "her", though it seems harmless, we all REALLY know what he meant --wink wink'--)

I can't stand the guy, but even I can see the press doing this constantly.

 

aside - I think his rhetoric is calculated high level shock propaganda and it's working like crazy.  I think he's either unaware, or doesn't care, about the fringe element that this is exciting on both sides - these are very hostile and unsavory crowds and it's a serious issue.

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

You guys miss the point - he can say "I respectfully think her position on _____ could be modified slightly despite her good intentions"

No, you missed the point that I was never discussing the politics at all.  Just the definitions and such.