Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

I have two things to say one is that tracking polls are good at pinpointing enthusiastic in my opinion and that's it.

The other is that Clinton is still 6 points ahead nationally even after factoring in the fbi directors letter. This election is killing me physically...

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dat...letter-n675771

She is 3 points up in the Rasmussen report poll as well which is heavily biased towards right wingers.

[Stommped]

To be fair, if Wikileaks had an email showing that the campaign chastized any of these people, do you really think they'd release it? They're already cherry-picking the 'worst' things they can find.

Again though, come forward, be open and honest as soon as the email came across. Show some evidence that you didn't just use the knowledge for an advantage for the Clinton campaign, there is none.

[Stommped]

I have two things to say one is that tracking polls are good at pinpointing enthusiastic in my opinion and that's it.

The other is that Clinton is still 6 points ahead nationally even after factoring in the fbi directors letter. This election is killing me physically...

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dat...letter-n675771

She is 3 points up in the Rasmussen report poll as well which is heavily biased towards right wingers.

Politico has her as a 3 point lead as well

Silver's article says that all indications are that he's narrowed the gap

[RobertoCarlos]

It's not corruption.

And you bringing this up is just stupid.
No really, it is.
You do know that the debate was in Flint?
You really do not need the gift of foresight to know that there will be a person asking the nominees what they intend to do about it.


I should totally mail Hillary and tell her that if she debates in Ferguson, she will get questions about police shootings and racism.

Hillary was prepped on debate topics in Flint, Sanders was not. Seems corrupt to me. And theres loads of other smoke about Hillary announcing her victory early etc. Its been bs from the start

[Smitzelplix]

This matches exactly what Reid said a couple days ago.

Yeah I read your post you made about what Reid said. So now that it looks like Comey is inconsistent with releasing information that could affect the election, could this be seen as a partisan move on Comey's part? Could Comey be found in violation of the Hatch Act?

[Stommped]

You're assuming they told her it's for sure going to be asked. They could have just made sure it was in the list of other things she should be prepared to answer.
Honestly though, I wouldn't give a shit if either or both of them were given the questions ahead of time. They're always about things they should be prepared to answer anyway. They're not very surprising questions to be asked.

That's not the point of debates though. All political candidates would be able to give the best answer that everyone wants to hear if you let them prepare ahead of time. Debates are making them answer on the spot, so the public can see if they get flustered or unsure about something. Which is why question confidentiality is so important.

[RobertoCarlos]

That's not the point of debates though. All political candidates would be able to give the best answer that everyone wants to hear if you let them prepare ahead of time. Debates are making them answer on the spot, so the public can see if they get flustered or unsure about something. Which is why question confidentiality is so important.

Thank you for explaining this, amazing people can actually defend these actions.

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

Politico has her as a 3 point lead as well

Silver's article says that all indications are that he's narrowed the gap

So basically the polls are tightening and all the right wingers doom saying have been wrong which was my point... Politico admits she has been unaffected by Comey's letter. How accurate is politico polling? Politico suggested that Romney and Obama would tie last election but Obama won by 2-3 points.

[Damajin]

You did nothing to even graze my argument. If you want to do that, name one beneficiary of you not voting that is not you. Thinking that your special snowflake vote must be pure or else it cannot be case is narcissism 101. That is just a fact.

Me calling voting a civic duty is common use of a common term. Saying something is your duty, is not saying its a legal obligation. Many choose to not vote, and that is fine. What I am saying, is that people who normally would otherwise vote, who say they can't "in good conscience vote for either," do so for 100% self serving reasons.

You have typed a lot of words, and not one thing you see even attempts to refute my notion in a direct and honest manner. You can disagree with me all you like, but your rebuttal was an air ball. I find it amusing that you, in now way, even began to refute what I said, yet declared yourself the winner.

You needing there to be a beneficiary of not voting is amusing. There needn't be a benefit or a loss on a voluntary action for it to be or not be done. If you can't see this you might want to think a bit more.

Nothing is something worth doing, sometimes. When that nothing is based on ones' own evaluation it's definitely worth doing.

I didn't say my vote was a special snowflake one, it's the same vote as everyone else but if I choose not to vote based on what I believe in and the lack of qualifying candidates involved that's not narcissism. But keep using that word without understanding what it means.

Civic duty has a specific meaning. You are backtracking now, so either you misspoke or now you're tangled up and just want to "it's fine if you don't vote blah blah" your way out of it.

There's nothing self serving in not voting, it's a value based decision that neither serves nor disserves it simply is.

I've been nothing but direct and honest with you. You talk of disgraceful and then say that, what a fucking joke.

[Deleted]

So..what are you claiming? That Podesta read the question and didn't tell Clinton? (Again this is back the goldfish logic and reasoning statement).

18:21 is where the question and her answer happens.

I think Endus is shielding his mind from the cognitive dissonance of supporting and defending a corrupt criminal. His critical thinking regarding her is blocked. "Unless Hillary herself states that she is a criminal, there is no way it can be true" is maybe subconsciously rooted somewhere.

[Endus]

........seriously? So If I hire staff and those staff are working on my campaign they are free to get the questions on my behalf, but it has nothing to do with me.

How many men of El chappo's men died protecting him again?

Brazile worked for the DNC, not the Clinton campaign. So you've got this all screwed up in your own head.

So..what are you claiming? That Podesta read the question and didn't tell Clinton? (Again this is back the goldfish logic and reasoning statement).

Err, no, my point is that there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of such a bit of information, just with soliciting it, or leaking it. Pretty much the same way I don't have much issue with the concept of Wikileaks releasing documents, but still take big issue with those who criminally leaked that information to them in the first place.

LOL Endus, you gotta just wave the white flag on this one buddy. It doesn't matter if they didn't ask her for the question, they clearly used it.

To repeat; there's nothing unethical or illegal about using that information. The rules aren't that the campaigns can't prepare answers to questions, it's that they aren't to be [i]given[i] those questions. So someone giving them those questions is the one breaking rules, not the campaign for preparing a response.

Again, the same way I think whoever hacked Podesta's account and leaked the contents to Wikileaks should do jail time, but Assange and Wikileaks themselves are within their rights to publish the stuff (even if it's mostly nothing).

[Kasierith]

Yeah I read your post you made about what Reid said. So now that it looks like Comey is inconsistent with releasing information that could affect the election, could this be seen as a partisan move on Comey's part? Could Comey be found in violation of the Hatch Act?

They could argue that he was negligent in evaluating the impact of his release especially in terms of the numerous bodies saying that unless he had something directly actionable and requiring the assistance of Congress it shouldn't be released within 60 days of the election, but unless it can be shown that he had been sitting on the information to set it up as a November surprise (sources indicate this is not the case and that he revealed it to Congress shortly after receiving the information) it would be very hard to establish it as intentionally damaging the political process. The Hatch Act is oriented towards purposeful partisanship, not fuckups, and I strongly doubt there's going to be much actual energy in establishing that given the information at hand. I personally believe he was highly partisan and was doing it in an effort to save his job since Clinton isn't going to let him get away with how he announced the decision not to charge, but the burden of proof for activating the Hatch Act is higher than for my own personal opinion.

[Dystemper]

Unfortunately for you 20% of America has already voted and the data we have from that shows Clinton on track to win by a pretty hefty margin. So for example democrats lead republicans in ballots cast by 17% in North Carolina. In Florida democrats and republicans are tied in ballots cast, however, republicans tend to do better in mail-in ballots and democrats in in-person, and this year democrats have caught up with that early republican advantage at a much faster rate. In Arizona, a republican state, democrats and republicans are also tied. Note that in 2012 at this point in time republicans were leading by 7%. In 2012 in Colorado republicans led by 10% at this point in time. Yet this year they are down by 5%. In Texas (yes republican Texas!) the most populous counties, i.e. big city counties that vote strongly democrat are showing a 50% increase in early voters vs 2016.

On and on it goes...... if this keeps up its a democrat landslide.

You are delusional Hahahahahahahahahaha

Infracted - please do not make nonconstructive posts just to bash others

[Breccia]

So, isn't that a blatant violation of the Hatch Act, then?

If true, yes.

Reid is not an idiot. He could, as I said earlier, be bluffing. Yes, that FBI thing doesn't jive with that, but Reid pulled this in 2012. He claimed Romney paid no taxes. Romney eventually released his tax records to disprove it. And there was some stuff in there that Reid knew about, but knew he couldn't release, and it went bad from there.

Comey is in a bad place by his own choice, but it's just like Trump's tax returns, ironically enough: Dems can say whatever the fuck they want knowing they won't be contradicted.

[Deleted]

the two party system seems awfull, top that with the insane amoutns of money spend on propoganda for either party and Id have a hard time trusting either of these ppl... you know if they'd pick any other 2 people as presidential elects.

good luck to all of us.

[Tijuana]

You needing there to be a beneficiary of not voting is amusing. There needn't be a benefit or a loss on a voluntary action for it to be or not be done. If you can't see this you might want to think a bit more.

Nothing is something worth doing, sometimes. When that nothing is based on ones' own evaluation it's definitely worth doing.

I didn't say my vote was a special snowflake one, it's the same vote as everyone else but if I choose not to vote based on what I believe in and the lack of qualifying candidates involved that's not narcissism. But keep using that word without understanding what it means.

Civic duty has a specific meaning. You are backtracking now, so either you misspoke or now you're tangled up and just want to "it's fine if you don't vote blah blah" your way out of it.

There's nothing self serving in not voting, it's a value based decision that neither serves nor disserves it simply is.

I've been nothing but direct and honest with you. You talk of disgraceful and then say that, what a fucking joke.

You are just repeating what you already said. Please clarify one small thing, as I have asked many times. Who or what is benefited from not voting due to narcissism? If I choose to not vote, because I am lazy, I benefit by not having to do a chore. If I choose to not vote, because I can't 100% support either candidate, I benefit by not having to feel guilty or second guess myself later. Please name one other benefit, or beneficiary, other than one's self, for not voting because the candidates are immoral assholes who we can't believe made it this far?

Also, all these narcissists who don't think these candidates are worthy of their oh so pure vote, I wonder how many showed up on primary/caucus days in their states.

[RobertoCarlos]

Prepped up?
Because she was told people in Flint would ask about the water?

How fucking stupid does one have to be to not see that coming miles away?

- - - Updated - - -


You are going at this from the wrong angle.
Someone told Clinton that people in Flint would ask questions about their water. SHOCKING!

Theres a difference between a general debate on "water in flint" and the mother of 2 kids explicitly asking them. And then amazing how Hillary has those "500,000" kids fact on hand, please.

If you cant see this for what it was then Im not gona try explain it.

[Tijuana]

the two party system seems awfull, top that with the insane amoutns of money spend on propoganda for either party and Id have a hard time trusting either of these ppl... you know if they'd pick any other 2 people as presidential elects.

good luck to all of us.

The money doesn't matter. Nobody falls for political ads.

The money that needs to get out of politics isn't handed out to the media, but to the politicians. But, if you talk about removing tax deductions, the currency of corruption, the real product Washington sells, people look at you like you are crazy.

[Stommped]

Brazile worked for the DNC, not the Clinton campaign. So you've got this all screwed up in your own head.



Err, no, my point is that there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of such a bit of information, just with soliciting it, or leaking it. Pretty much the same way I don't have much issue with the concept of Wikileaks releasing documents, but still take big issue with those who criminally leaked that information to them in the first place.



To repeat; there's nothing unethical or illegal about using that information. The rules aren't that the campaigns can't prepare answers to questions, it's that they aren't to be [i]given[i] those questions. So someone giving them those questions is the one breaking rules, not the campaign for preparing a response.

Again, the same way I think whoever hacked Podesta's account and leaked the contents to Wikileaks should do jail time, but Assange and Wikileaks themselves are within their rights to publish the stuff (even if it's mostly nothing).

I mean I really don't know how to respond to this? It's absolutely unethical to use that information. It's corruption. She gained an unfair advantage over her opponent and could have chosen not to. The only comforting thought is that I know for a fact you are in the minority. I would say roughly ~80% of Americans think Hillary Clinton and the entire campaign is corrupt. The problem for Trump is that the majority of those people are still going to vote for her. Again, we can legitimately argue whether or not she's a criminal, but you will lose every argument if you take the side of her not being corrupt.

[Endus]

I mean I really don't know how to respond to this? It's corruption. She gained an unfair advantage over her opponent and could have chosen not to.

Again, not "corruption" by any useful definition of the word. It's taking advantage of a windfall, that's it. It's like arguing that it's "corrupt" to pick up a $20 bill you see in the street, because you didn't earn that money.