Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

[acbytesla]

There are a number of polls since this brouhaha and the round-the-clock demands for new charges, new hearings, censure, etc... started. But they're not conclusive. Polls taken during and after are still coming through and they're getting muddied with pre-convention polls.

Overall, the sentiment seems to be that those on the right who hate Hillary are more convinced than ever, but they're not attracting any new votes. This may be why the prosecution-supporters have STFU. They know they're not making any impact.

If the convention season holds to historical tendencies, Trump will have a bump carrying over from the FBI/Justice spat and through the convention. Hillary will rebound almost immediately as her convention is a scant week later. First polls to really start telling the tale of the tape will be around August 5 to 11.

Do we know the dates of the debates? I thought the parties themselves agreed to 3 but I'm guessing that the candidates could still choose fewer or more or none and no one could do anything but complain.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Do we know the dates of the debates? I thought the parties themselves agreed to 3 but I'm guessing that the candidates could still choose fewer or more or none and no one could do anything but complain.

Starting around the last week in Sept., squeezed into about a four week timespan.

My point was multi-faceted. First, the format is set. Trump's in no position to bully the debate holders or moderators if he's behind, and I anticipate him being behind,... well behind. He will accept the terms and the format of the debates because he has to. I doubt there will be a murmur from his camp trying to finesse anything in his favor, as he'll look like he is just continuing in his attempt from the primaries to control the language so that it favors him. If I was the DNC, I'd start baiting him on the topic just to see if you can push him into "Oh, yeah, I'll show you" behavior. If he threatens to not debate, be prepared to say, "Fine, we've just schedule a rally in California for that date", then refuse to agree to anything other than the original format/conditions.

Further, that if he thinks his only hope is a knock-out punch in the debate, like Sanders did, he's in no position to push for additional debates. He could call the shots in the GOP primaries because he's the Ratings King and those hosting the debates are Ratings Whores. Being the clear leader he could take his volleyball and go home or to a pretend fund-raiser. He tries that crap in the GE and he'll cost himself support. He's in the position of being a supplicant if he wants to bolster his standings with a fourth debate and Trump can't allow himself to appear weak.

ETA: Forgot the link.....
http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-presidential-debate-schedule/

 

[Maya22]

Do we know the dates of the debates? I thought the parties themselves agreed to 3 but I'm guessing that the candidates could still choose fewer or more or none and no one could do anything but complain.

There will be three presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/preside...p-hillary-clinton-dates-and-venues-announced/

 

[PhantomWolf]

This is simply a delusional re-interpretation of history. There would have been no military intervention if the UN Security Council hadn't approved a no-fly zone under Chapter VII of the UN Charter (which authorizes any member state to use military force to implement the resolution). And the UN Security Council Resolution 1973 wouldn't have passed if the United States hadn't backed it. Your understanding of world diplomacy and your logic is laughably bad.

Again, go and read up on what was occurring at the time. The US Senate had already passed a vote to support the No Fly Zone. The Security Council would still have passed the Resolution, unless the US had vetoed it. Why would the US have vetoed it when it was their own allies introducing it? Even if they had restrained from voting, as Russia, China and Germany did, they would not have blocked it, and if you believe that they would have then it is you that would have be delusional. Do you really think that the US would have vetoed their European Allies from preventing the slaughter that the Government forces were about to do in Benghazi? I guess that would have been good for you too, we'd be here talking about how cowardly Obama and Clinton were for allowing the Libyan Civil War and the Massacre of Benghazi because of their veto of International Intervention.

That had no legal force and was absolutely meaningless anyway without the approval of the House.

I didn't say that it did, what it did show was that there was significant support for intervention in the US Government weeks prior to Clinton heading to Paris to speak with Sarkozy and then Cameron in mid March. With the Senate already passed the vote, it was extremely unlikely that Obama would have ordered the US to veto the No Fly Zone even if he didn't support it.

They wouldn't have been there but for our approval and encouragement in the first place

.

History doesn't show that, They were ready to go without the US, the only thing that might have stopped it was a US veto and unless you can show that this was even a possible outcome then you're totally in lala land.

We don't have to be first in, but we do call the shots.

Arrogance much? The US aren't rulers of the world, they don't control everyone else, no matter how much you think it so.

Qaddafi might still be there if we had been willing to tolerate his existence.

And millions of Libyans would now be refuges in Europe or dead, just like the Syrians, and the European intervention probably would have cost a lot more lives on all sides because they wouldn't have had the same support structures for control and reconnaissance.

It is quite possible more have died because of our intervention than without it. The counterfactual is unknown, although we can guess. My guess is that both Egypt and Libya, and we, would have been better off if we had maintained the status quo.

Because that worked so well with Syria.....

 

[The Big Dog]

The media spins things to keep us watching. I mean the FBI says "nothing wrong with those e-mails" and everyone talks about how it was "terrible" for Hillary anyways. Logic be damned!

The FBI said WHAT?

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information" = "nothing wrong."

Logic be damned indeed...

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Tied at Only 40 Percent in Latest National Poll

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has caught up to Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, according to the latest national poll numbers released this morning.

The CBS and New York Times poll has the presidential candidates tied at just 40 percent each, with a margin of error of three points. The poll was conducted July 8 through July 12, in the aftermath of FBI Director James Comey’s recommendation not to file criminal charges on Hillary Clinton for her email controversy.

Just last month, Clinton was leading Trump by six points. Clinton’s decline in polling could be due in part to 67 percent of voters not finding her honest or trustworthy, a five percent increase from last month.

Read more:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hill...p-tied-latest-national-poll/story?id=40571216 (July 14, 2016)

According to the poll, 67 percent of voters consider Hillary Clinton dishonest and untrustworthy (commonly known as a liar). That number is all but certain to go even higher when she is indicted for perjury.

 

[dudalb]

AMzing how you see very flaw, real or imagined, in Hilary,but see no flaws whatsoever in Cheeto Jesus.

Of course, you have in your past posts made it clear the main reason you support Trump is that you think he will burn down the establishment, and don't care about the collatrial damage done in the process.

 

[Travis]

The FBI said WHAT?

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information" = "nothing wrong."

Logic be damned indeed...

Indeed that does mean "nothing wrong".

 

[acbytesla]

AMzing how you see very flaw, real or imagined, in Hilary,but see no flaws whatsoever in Cheeto Jesus.

Of course, you have in your past posts made it clear the main reason you support Trump is that you think he will burn down the establishment, and don't care about the collatrial damage done in the process.

It's not amazing, it's disingenuous and duplicitous.I've seen this one trick pony in action.

 

[acbytesla]

Bill Maher summed up the email issue rather accurately.

"I think the more you look deeply into this, the more there’s absolutely nothing there. I know that 56 percent of Americans say she did commit a crime and should be indicted, because of course they know the law better than James Comey, but the talking point of how she got off because she’s above the law and if a regular person did what she did they’d be in jail? That’s such ********. First of all, the private server only came to light because of the Benghazi committee, and regular people aren’t usually exposed to partisan witch-hunts 24/7. Trey Gowdy combed through every stitch of potential dirty laundry for the better part of this decade and said, “I got nothing.” Now, a Republican prosecutor, James Comey, has come back with “no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges.” So either Hillary is Houdini or they really just don’t have anything. I feel Hillary’s been like a black driver in a white neighborhood with the Republicans as the cops, and they keep pulling her over and keep having to let her go. Her friends aren’t exonerating her, her enemies are!"

 

[Fudbucker]

Indeed that does mean "nothing wrong criminal".

Of course the email scandal is a whole litany of what's wrong with Clinton. It will go down as a textbook case of how NOT to handle a scandal.

We're just starting to see the fallout from it, and it's godawful bad news for Clinton. In two major polls post-email (CBS and NBC), 66% of people view Clinton as dishonest and untrustworthy.

If Clinton can't get those numbers down, and she wins, 2/3 of America will think their president is a crooked liar. I don't think even Nixon was ever this reviled.

 

[wareyin]

Of course the email scandal is a whole litany of what's wrong with Clinton. It will go down as a textbook case of how NOT to handle a scandal.

We're just starting to see the fallout from it, and it's godawful bad news for Clinton. In two major polls post-email (CBS and NBC), 66% of people view Clinton as dishonest and untrustworthy.

If Clinton can't get those numbers down, and she wins, 2/3 of America will think their president is a crooked liar. I don't think even Nixon was ever this reviled.

Just curious, but have you, personally, ever been able to read any news about Clinton without claiming it is bad news for her? Even when she was winning the nomination, you claimed it was terrible because she wasn't winning by enough.

 

[The Big Dog]

Indeed that does mean "nothing wrong".

It's just a flesh wound.

 

[RobRoy]

Sorry everyone. Welcome to the near end of page 6.

Is Hillary Clinton done?

 

[newyorkguy]

I feel Hillary’s been like a black driver in a white neighborhood with the Republicans as the cops, and they keep pulling her over and keep having to let her go.

That's a pretty good comparison.

This is someone who has in her history a five-year federal investigation to determine if she perjured herself when she told a hearing she was NOT the person who DECIDED the White House travel staff (who had trouble with an audit) should be let go. And then, when the federal prosecutor FINALLY said he was going to let the case drop because he could not produce credible evidence she had lied, announced to the media, "I think she lied."

 

[RobRoy]

That's a pretty good comparison.

This is someone who has in her history a five-year federal investigation to determine if she perjured herself when she told a hearing she was NOT the person who DECIDED the White House travel staff (who had trouble with an audit) should be let go. And then, when the federal prosecutor FINALLY said he was going to let the case drop because he could not produce credible evidence she had lied, announced to the media, "I think she lied."

If you can't get an actual court's opinon, you can always try people in the court of public opinion.

 

[Fudbucker]

I want to parse a few sentences here, because Real Time is probably my favorite show on TV now.

Bill Maher summed up the email issue rather accurately.
"I think the more you look deeply into this, the more there’s absolutely nothing there.

There obviously WAS something there. Enough for the State Department's IG report to contradict a number of Clinton's claims and for the FBI director to call her "reckless". Almost every Clinton talking point was demolished by the State Dept. and FBI. The two conclusions are that Clinton was totally clueless about how her own State Dept., or was deceitful.

I know that 56 percent of Americans say she did commit a crime and should be indicted, because of course they know the law better than James Comey, but the talking point of how she got off because she’s above the law and if a regular person did what she did they’d be in jail? That’s such ********.

Agreed.

First of all, the private server only came to light because of the Benghazi committee, and regular people aren’t usually exposed to partisan witch-hunts 24/7.

Why does it matter how Clinton's private server came to light? Is Maher claiming it's better to be ignorant about Clinton's violations of State Department procedures and fast-and-loose behavior with classified info than have the information come about through a partisan witchhunt? Learning about Clinton's private server was the only good thing that came out of the Benghazi hearings.

Trey Gowdy combed through every stitch of potential dirty laundry for the better part of this decade and said, “I got nothing.” Now, a Republican prosecutor, James Comey, has come back with “no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges.” So either Hillary is Houdini or they really just don’t have anything.

That's not the takeaway I got from Comey's news conference. Clinton acted recklessly, but not recklessly enough to be prosecuted. The fact that she wasn't prosecuted doesn't exonerate her. Typically, we prefer potential presidents to not engage in reckless behavior. When the FBI director has to publicly call you out for reckless behavior, you ********** up pretty bad. Not bad enough to land you in jail, in Clinton's case, but still, a serious lapse of judgement.

I feel Hillary’s been like a black driver in a white neighborhood with the Republicans as the cops, and they keep pulling her over and keep having to let her go. Her friends aren’t exonerating her, her enemies are!"

Many of Clinton's wounds are self-inflicted, and sound almost like self-parody: leaving the WH dead broke? dodging sniper fire? Goldman Sachs speeches?

She brought this whole email scandal on herself by consciously deciding to have a private server installed and conducting all of her State Dept. business on it. She should have known that would come to a bad end, and it did.

 

[Fudbucker]

If you can't get an actual court's opinon, you can always try people in the court of public opinion.

Or you can run for office and have 2/3 of the electorate think you're dishonest and untrustworthy.

Running for office is not the same as being tried for a crime. Politicians very much operate in the "court of public opinion". There's no presumption of innocence. Quite the opposite. Trump not releasing his tax returns doesn't mean **** in court. Trump not releasing tax returns while running for president is a major talking point against him.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

She brought this whole email scandal on herself by consciously deciding to have a private server installed and conducting all of her State Dept. business on it. She should have known that would come to a bad end, and it did.

Hillary's original motivation for having a private server was to circumvent transparency laws (FOIA). And when questioned about her improper use of a private server, she then lied to Congress while under oath (perjury). New polls indicate that the majority of voters (67%) now consider her to be a "dishonest and untrustworthy" liar.

 

[acbytesla]

Hillary's original motivation for having a private server was to circumvent transparency laws (FOIA). And when questioned about her improper use of a private server, she then lied to Congress while under oath (perjury). New polls indicate that the majority of voters (67%) now consider her to be a "dishonest and untrustworthy" liar.

It's too bad that none of that is true. Why not write your own thoughts instead of cutting and pasting others?