Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[cubby]

To placate your intellectually frail sensibilities, here's the chart showing number of people on food stamps (instead of percentage of population as previously posted). Roughly 20,000,000 people were added to the food stamp roles since 2008 and we've been holding very close to that level for several years. I'm not saying all of the 20,000,000 people stopped looking for work after 12 months and no longer show up in the BLS unemployment statistics, but it's not unreasonable to connect the dots here and reasonably conclude that several million did indeed fall into this black hole. Unfortunately the level of factual information you demand doesn't exist as no one keeps track of those who gave up looking for work after 12 months...but you knew that already...or I at least hope you did. The food stamp numbers scream my point that millions have indeed stopped looking for work (not accounted for in BLS numbers) and that millions are also marginally employed at best (many likely not accounted for in BLS numbers). But these are things for reasonable people to discuss and find common ground for agreement. As for others, it's just too damn difficult to be reasonable and accept the obvious.

If you're arguing that because millions have fallen off the BLS numbers and are now untrackable, I would agree - your reasonableness assumption works. However, if you're using that assumption to say that there is an unemployment percentage misnomer and therefore the low number shouldn't "count", I have to disagree.

(If I'm putting words in your mouth, I apologize ahead of time.)

[Daerio]

If you're arguing that because millions have fallen off the BLS numbers and are now untrackable, I would agree - your reasonableness assumption works. However, if you're using that assumption to say that there is an unemployment percentage misnomer and therefore the low number shouldn't "count", I have to disagree.

(If I'm putting words in your mouth, I apologize ahead of time.)

How can you say you agree that millions of people are no longer being counted by the metric (but could be counted by other more accurate metrics which the administration chooses not to use) but at the same time say we should continue using the metric to support the claim?

[Breccia]

As of February 2016, there were 45,800,000 Americans receiving food stamps. The last time the unemployment rate was under five percent was in 2008, there were only 28,000,000 million on food stamps at that time. Think about it and then please give me a reasonable explanation for this.

How about "the minimum wage"? You know, the thing that hasn't budged since 2009 and was stopped by Senate Republicans in 2014?

More than half of able-bodied people of working age who get SNAP are employed. Sounds like they're working, but not being paid enough.

[Daerio]

How about "the minimum wage"? You know, the thing that hasn't budged since 2009 and was stopped by Senate Republicans in 2014?

More than half of able-bodied people of working age who get SNAP are employed. Sounds like they're working, but not being paid enough.

And/or they went from holding a full-time position to holding a part-time position, post-Obamacare. And/or their position magically changed to being a subcontractor instead of a full-time position.

[DocSavageFan]

If you're arguing that because millions have fallen off the BLS numbers and are now untrackable, I would agree - your reasonableness assumption works. However, if you're using that assumption to say that there is an unemployment percentage misnomer and therefore the low number shouldn't "count", I have to disagree.

(If I'm putting words in your mouth, I apologize ahead of time.)

I'm not saying the lower number shouldn't count. I'm saying that real unemployment rate is actually higher than it appears to be due to the number of people who quit looking for work which is not reflected in the BLS unemployment statistics. How much higher, I don't know. But it appears that it could be relatively significant...looking at the numbers, an additional 10,000,000 unemployed who quit looking for work would not be unreasonable imo.

[Annoying]

Income level and food stamp subsidies are definitely correlated. Income level and unemployment are definitely correlated. Therefore unemployment and food stamp subsidies are correlated. Am I missing something here?

As of February 2016, there were 45,800,000 Americans receiving food stamps. The last time the unemployment rate was under five percent was in 2008, there were only 28,000,000 million on food stamps at that time. Think about it and then please give me a reasonable explanation for this.

You are missing something. Income level and unemployment aren't correlated at all. They are literally in different sets of data, unless you assume "0" is an income level. What you're really missing is that the ability for jobs to maintain a livable income is slowly decreasing alongside the crash, creating underemployment. You certainly could look at the data we're given and say underemployment has become a problem, but attempting to link food stamps to unemployment neglects a huge amount of variables.

[cubby]

How can you say you agree that millions of people are no longer being counted by the metric (but could be counted by other more accurate metrics which the administration chooses not to use) but at the same time say we should continue using the metric to support the claim?

Glad you asked.

Because people are rating Obama's economic recovery efforts by a number of factors, based on those factors back when he inherited this mess. One of those factors was the unemployment rate. At that time people just pushed the number out, saying how horrible it was, and how it needs to go down. And no one was talking about the BLS numbers or those that weren't counted because they'd fallen off. They just wanted the horrible number lowered, as a solid metric.

Now the unemployment is WAY down - under what it was prior to Recession. But Obama haters are now claiming that the number is a misnomer, because blah blah blah, citing issues and reasons that were never brought up back in 2007-08.

That's why I'm saying we should use the number as a metric even if we know it's not entirely accurate.

[Daerio]

You are missing something. Income level and unemployment aren't correlated at all. They are literally in different sets of data, unless you assume "0" is an income level. What you're really missing is that the ability for jobs to maintain a livable income is slowly decreasing alongside the crash, creating underemployment. You certainly could look at the data we're given and say underemployment has become a problem, but attempting to link food stamps to unemployment neglects a huge amount of variables.

Those people didn't magically slide under the poverty line without changing jobs.

They lost their job or got demoted from full time to part time.

- - - Updated - - -

Glad you asked.

Because people are rating Obama's economic recovery efforts by a number of factors, based on those factors back when he inherited this mess. One of those factors was the unemployment rate. At that time people just pushed the number out, saying how horrible it was, and how it needs to go down. And no one was talking about the BLS numbers or those that weren't counted because they'd fallen off. They just wanted the horrible number lowered, as a solid metric.

Now the unemployment is WAY down - under what it was prior to Recession. But Obama haters are now claiming that the number is a misnomer, because blah blah blah, citing issues and reasons that were never brought up back in 2007-08.

That's why I'm saying we should use the number as a metric even if we know it's not entirely accurate.

So you started off strong admitting millions of people aren't being counted in the metric, but then you slide off into lala land claiming the economy is as strong as it was before the crash citing the same metrics you already admitted were bullshit.

[cubby]

So you started off strong admitting millions of people aren't being counted in the metric, but then you slide off into lala land claiming the economy is as strong as it was before the crash citing the same metrics you already admitted were bullshit.

I neither started off strong nor slid into whatever - I remained logical the entire time.

What I'm saying is that if you're going to use a metric to define economic recovery, you cannot blindly use it in one instance, and then drill down into "what the numbers actually/might" mean in the second, claiming a positive change isn't really positive because _______ skews the numbers. Well, those same metrics were skewing the numbers at the start of the measurement, so they still are on the second, so the change remains what it is - either good or bad.

Now, I have also indicated that there is solid logic is saying that the Unemployment Rate isn't entirely accurate because the BLS numbers don't include those that have fallen off after 12 months. But those same numbers did the same thing in 2008.

[Daerio]

I neither started off strong nor slid into whatever - I remained logical the entire time.

What I'm saying is that if you're going to use a metric to define economic recovery, you cannot blindly use it in one instance,

Where did anyone claim the metrics were accurate when the Bush administration was using them?

The difference, for the fourth or fifth time, is that the economy was healthy under Bush before the 2008 crash and nobody gave a shit about the true deviation between U3 and U6 because the economy was generally in a good place.

After Bush left office, those statistics suddenly became a lot more relevant to reality and important to a lot more people, so Obama simply continuing the lies that somebody else started is irrelevant and not some sort of dissolution of responsibility.

[cubby]

Where did anyone claim the metrics were accurate when the Bush administration was using them?

The difference, for the fourth or fifth time, is that the economy was healthy under Bush before the 2008 crash and nobody gave a shit about the true deviation between U3 and U6 because the economy was generally in a good place.

After Bush left office, those statistics suddenly became a lot more relevant to reality and important to a lot more people, so Obama simply continuing the lies that somebody else started is irrelevant and not some sort of dissolution of responsibility.

You're not understanding. I'm not saying they were accurate when the Bush administration was using them. I'm saying that if you're going to measure them against them from back then, you can't now start to analyze the specifics and point out the inaccuracies and adjust accordingly. You have to use the same methods to measure accurately from then and now.

I'm NOT saying that the numbers aren't entirely accurate. I'm just saying that we need to be intellectually honest when analyzing and critiquing the current economic recovery and the unemployment rate compared to where it was at the start of the Obama administration.

[Trump]

FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider

A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.”

“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”

Without a clearance there is no way she could be POTUS. Damn shame they did not prosecute her!

[Edge-]

FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider

Without a clearance there is no way she could be POTUS. Damn shame they did not prosecute her!

Her clearance yanked when? After the investigation? During it? Because I don't believe she continued to have clearance after she left the State Department.

And the POTUS doesn't need clearance. That comes with the office, it is not granted and cannot be revoked. The only way to "revoke" it is to remove them from office through a successful impeachment process.

[cubby]

FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider



Without a clearance there is no way she could be POTUS. Damn shame they did not prosecute her!

/shakes head

This is why Trump is still polling well in some states. Or polling at all. A delicious combination of will full ignorance, outright stupidity and an unwillingness to assimilate new facts and ideas.

[Venant]

/shakes head

This is why Trump is still polling well in some states. Or polling at all. A delicious combination of will full ignorance, outright stupidity and an unwillingness to assimilate new facts and ideas.

As more and more information is being leaked about how things are actually run in this country, it seems like its the Hillary Clinton supporters who are hopelessly clinging to their echo chamber. I like how in the most recent release, there was an admission that the 'concessions' they made to Bernie Sanders supporters, concessions that were touted as a 'huge victory' by the pro-Clinton media (in order to sheepdog Bernie supporters), really are meaningless an ineffective when it comes to reforming the primary system.

The ultimate lesson here is that it is impossible to reform a hopelessly corrupt system from within.

[cubby]

As more and more information is being leaked about how things are actually run in this country, it seems like its the Hillary Clinton supporters who are hopelessly clinging to their echo chamber. I like how in the most recent release, there was an admission that the 'concessions' they made to Bernie Sanders supporters, concessions that were touted as a 'huge victory' by the pro-Clinton media (in order to sheepdog Bernie supporters), really are meaningless an ineffective when it comes to reforming the primary system.

The ultimate lesson here is that it is impossible to reform a hopelessly corrupt system from within.

More ridiculous tripe from a Trumper trying hopelessly to defend the most reprehensible candidate for President the United States has even seen. Almost every day we see new acts of fraud, lewdness, lies and calls of violence that each, individually, out weight anything Clinton might have done.

It's so intellectually dishonest and absolutely horrible for someone, anyone, to equate the two candidates as equal. Or to have any ongoing conversation about Hillary and her issues while categorically denying or ignoring Trump's horrific behavior.

But keep it up - everyone knows what you are now.

[Venant]

More ridiculous tripe from a Trumper trying hopelessly to defend the most reprehensible candidate for President the United States has even seen. Almost every day we seen singular acts of fraud, lewdness, lies and calls of violence that each, individually, out weight anything Clinton might have done.

It's so intellectually dishonest and absolutely horrible for someone, anyone, to equate the two candidates as equal. Or to have any ongoing conversation about Hillary and her issues while categorically denying or ignoring Trump's horrific behavior.

But keep it up - everyone knows what you are now.

So you responded without addressing any of the issues I raised in my post.

I agree that there are many things about Trump that are reprehensible, but ultimately he is less reprehensible than Clinton. For starters, maybe you can be the first Clinton supporter on this thread to justify Hillary Clinton's obsession with arming terrorists in Libya and Syria. I would like to know exactly what 'mean words' Trump has used that equate to committing actual war crimes.

[Damajin]

So you responded without addressing any of the issues I raised in my post.

I agree that there are many things about Trump that are reprehensible, but ultimately he is less reprehensible than Clinton. For starters, maybe you can be the first Clinton supporter on this thread to justify Hillary Clinton's obsession with arming terrorists in Libya and Syria. I would like to know exactly what 'mean words' Trump has used that equate to committing actual war crimes.

Even her own staffers weren't swallowing the official line:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4099

*For my question*, it's basically some variation of [not quite phrased right yet]: I know when I talk to my friends who are attorneys we are all struggling with what happened to the emails and aren't satisfied with answers to date. While we all know of the occasional use of personal email addresses for business, none of my friends circle can understand how it was viewed as ok/secure/appropriate to use a private server for secure documents AND why further Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents without providing anyone outside her circle a chance to weigh in. It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I've either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc.

Almost sounds like the argument that Congress and people not directly associated with her were bringing against the email server.

You're not going to get anywhere with Cubby or most of the Hillary apologists. The Trump hatred is so strong there that we could get video footage of Hillary sacrificing and eating kids and they'd still be all in for her. The mental and philosophical contortionism that has to go into that haha.

[cubby]

You Trumpers are now almost beyond help. All you do is fill your minds with his ridiculous excuses and lies, then try and feed others that load of bullshit. Everything you're arguing now has already been said.

So you responded without addressing any of the issues I raised in my post.

Why would anyone address any of your "issues" - you ignore logic, reason and facts and instead eat a daily diet of lies and misnomers designed to keep people just like you on the Trump Train to Hell. You ask me to address your issues, I ask you in turn to listed to what people have already told you, repeatedly.

I agree that there are many things about Trump that are reprehensible, but ultimately he is less reprehensible than Clinton.

And this is why you and your kind are hopeless. You literally do not understand what you are talking about any more. You ignore decades of awful, reprehensible behavior, failing to make the link that people who have behaved horribly in the past will continue to do so (just look at the last week of Trump's behavior). What more can we tell or ask of you?

For starters, maybe you can be the first Clinton supporter on this thread to justify Hillary Clinton's obsession with arming terrorists in Libya and Syria. I would like to know exactly what 'mean words' Trump has used that equate to committing actual war crimes.

So this is the newest spin to Trump is using you for to deflect the awfulness he represents.

Don't listen to me or any of the other reasonable minds on this thread. Just look at Trump's own party - people who have backed the most ridiculous things in the past are fleeing like rats from a sinking ship. Trump on a daily basis has more and more of his past and current behavior and actions coming to light. Any one of which are worse than anything Hillary has done.

Wake up or walk out - we don't care. Trump is finished. He's not fired because no one would give him the job to begin with.

[Daerio]

The biggest question is whether or not Clinton's donors who also happen to run the automated voting machines are going to be able to accurately predict the voting trends so they can pre-rig the votes without too many people noticing. If they're unable to get an accurate polling of the population, (which of course they aren't able to do with their bullshit rigged news polling) they're more prone to making stupid mistakes like counties with -2000 votes for a candidate, and counties with 100% votes for one candidate, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUv43rUuDjI

The thing about massive voter fraud without a certifiable paper trial is that they're constantly playing stupid while concerned citizens point out the glaring lack of authenticity in the elections. Every election the calls to fix the problems become louder, and the replies are always, "We'll do better next year... at not getting caught." But they'll never be able to completely rig the votes without there being indicators of what they're doing; though they set the system up to be impossible to prove their initial fraud beyond a doubt since it's designed to be abused.

We are the biggest banana republic in the world. Everyone knows it, but the mainstream will never be able to publicly admit it.