Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Paranoid Android]

But then we wouldn't have had Saint Regan! At least not for a second term.

THOU SHALL NOT touch St. Reagan! Even tho basically what they are accusing Hillary of some sort of dementia, stroke or old age. Never forget Reagan onset of Alzheimers probably in 2nd term.

[PACOX]

What are the chances that the next batch of emails will actually find anything.

The lady has been under the microscope for decades, literally. The several thousand other emails didn't turn up anything. What makes people think the next several thousand will?

[truckboattruck]

What are the chances that the next batch of emails will actually find anything.

The lady has been under the microscope for decades, literally. The several thousand other emails didn't turn up anything. What makes people think the next several thousand will?

thats no lady
swamp troll is more appropriate

[Fugus]

What are the chances that the next batch of emails will actually find anything.

The lady has been under the microscope for decades, literally. The several thousand other emails didn't turn up anything. What makes people think the next several thousand will?

The odds are slim to none, the FBI allowed her and her lawyers to first go through the list and remove what they wanted claiming them to be personal, this allowed them first crack to delete anything incriminating before the FBI ever got to touch them and they were removed with software that makes it where even the best forensic teams on the planet would be unable to recover them.

The only reasons they have what they have now is either because it was intentionally left behind to placate people by giving them something to go after so long as they missed the big stuff or if they screwed up going through the shear volume of emails and allowed a few to fall through the cracks that the FBI actually found. I am more leaning towards the former.

If it had been any other person, the FBI wold have gone through all of it, both private and personal and the person would have no choice in the matter. Otherwise it would allow people to cover their tracks and delete evidence.

[mvaliz]

What are the chances that the next batch of emails will actually find anything.

The lady has been under the microscope for decades, literally. The several thousand other emails didn't turn up anything. What makes people think the next several thousand will?

It doesn't matter... you're one of the few who have been politically aware that she's been attacked for decades with nothing for the Repubs to show for it... EXCEPT that wasn't their plan - there plan was for the politically UNaware to become absolutely convinced she's an evil person because of the decades of scandals they've heard about in passing over their shoulders and gracing their social media twits.

They'll hammer those email headlines out, because I believe my fellow Americans currently encourage to what I call the "Cynical generation" - where they hear one piece of news like "New emails released!" and instead of asking "what's in them?" they'll automatically assume there's more "corrupt" things in there and fill in the gaps with their own cynical feelings instead of truth.

[kail]

Hah. Obama's former doctor: Clinton should have neurological exam.

That exam should be a requirement for every candidates before they even run. Might have given us better options to vote on.

[zenkai]

You mean like Trump trying to win the African-American vote?

Is that the best you can do to defend Clinton is point out Trumps flaws? It's like some Partisans want to remain ignorant.

[Lenonis]

Is that the best you can do to defend Clinton is point out Trumps flaws? It's like some Partisans want to remain ignorant.

Generally, in a two party race, if one candidate has flaws that the other candidate has worse, then that actually is a valid defense.

A person doesn't need to be wonderful to get elected. They just need to be better than the other person.

I'm not quite sure why people think think that Clinton supporters who aren't enthusiastic about their candidate but absolutely don't want the GOP/Trump to win aren't a valid segment of the voter base.

[zenkai]

Generally, in a two party race, if one candidate has flaws that the other candidate has worse, then that actually is a valid defense.

A person doesn't need to be wonderful to get elected. They just need to be better than the other person.

I'm not quite sure why people think think that Clinton supporters who aren't enthusiastic about their candidate but absolutely don't want the GOP/Trump to win aren't a valid segment of the voter base.

It's never an excuse to not acknowledge the subject at hand, its a shit distraction tactic the only stupid people fall for. It's like telling you SO they did something wrong and they pointed out something you did wrong, it doesn't change what they did that was wrong or excuse it, it's just a distraction tactic.

TLDR bullshit

[Lenonis]

It's never an excuse to not acknowledge the subject at hand, its a shit distraction tactic the only stupid people fall for. It's like telling you SO they did something wrong and they pointed out something you did wrong, it doesn't change what they did that was wrong or excuse it, it's just a distraction tactic.

TLDR bullshit

*shrug* I mean, I guess so but it doesn't mean much. If Clinton killed 10 kittens and Trump killed 100 and someone said "How dare Clinton kill 10 kittens?!?" saying "Well, Trump killed 100 so I'm still supporting Clinton" seems like an entirely valid response.

[zenkai]

*shrug* I mean, I guess so but it doesn't mean much. If Clinton killed 10 kittens and Trump killed 100 and someone said "How dare Clinton kill 10 kittens?!?" saying "Well, Trump killed 100 so I'm still supporting Clinton" seems like an entirely valid response.

My reason they both suck because they both killed kittens

[Lenonis]

My reason they both suck because they both killed kittens

Details matter.

[Breccia]

Is that the best you can do to defend Clinton is point out Trumps flaws?

I'm not convinced a politician, trying to bring people to their side, is a "flaw". HOW they do so matters. For example, Trump's attempt to woo African-American voters by "what do you have to lose?" while lying about inner-city crime, African-American homicide statistics, and implying Clinton was going to tax African-American businesses (specifically!) 50%, yet being vehemently opposed to any form of gun control while saying just yesterday he wanted to get rid of gangs, is beyond pandering and into hypocrisy.

But don't say crap like "Clinton is bad, because she'll say whatever suits her needs" when
a) the opposition is provably far worse, so it makes you look like you're applying a double-standard (you're not, you hate them both, but it makes you LOOK like it)
b) wooing voters is politics business as usual, as an abstract concept

[truckboattruck]

I'm not convinced a politician, trying to bring people to their side, is a "flaw". HOW they do so matters. For example, Trump's attempt to woo African-American voters by "what do you have to lose?" while lying about inner-city crime, African-American homicide statistics, and implying Clinton was going to tax African-American businesses (specifically!) 50%, yet being vehemently opposed to any form of gun control while saying just yesterday he wanted to get rid of gangs, is beyond pandering and into hypocrisy.

But don't say crap like "Clinton is bad, because she'll say whatever suits her needs" when
a) the opposition is provably far worse, so it makes you look like you're applying a double-standard (you're not, you hate them both, but it makes you LOOK like it)
b) wooing voters is politics business as usual, as an abstract concept

reality doesnt mean much to liberals does it?
how else could you spew this nonsense lol


go live in detroit if you believe that shit

[DocSavageFan]

I'm not convinced a politician, trying to bring people to their side, is a "flaw". HOW they do so matters. For example, Trump's attempt to woo African-American voters by "what do you have to lose?" while lying about inner-city crime, African-American homicide statistics, and implying Clinton was going to tax African-American businesses (specifically!) 50%, yet being vehemently opposed to any form of gun control while saying just yesterday he wanted to get rid of gangs, is beyond pandering and into hypocrisy.

But don't say crap like "Clinton is bad, because she'll say whatever suits her needs" when
a) the opposition is provably far worse, so it makes you look like you're applying a double-standard (you're not, you hate them both, but it makes you LOOK like it)
b) wooing voters is politics business as usual, as an abstract concept

We'll take that as a 'yes'.

[Breccia]

reality doesnt mean much to liberals does it?
how else could you spew this nonsense lol


go live in detroit if you believe that shit

*ahem*
Trump wanting to get rid of gangs and wanting to expand open-carry and oppose assault weapon ban
50% taxes on African-American businesses. False.
African-American homicide statistics. Pants on Fire.
Inner city crime. Pants on Fire.

So, yes, Trump was beyond pandering to African-American voters, to flat-out lying and being a raging hypocrite. Again: wooing voters is common practice. Doing so by outright blatant proven lies is not. Whether or not I'm a liberal is irrelevant. Trump can't tell the truth when trying to win votes from the general public, he can't tell the truth when talking about immigration and Mexico, and he'll take both sides of an issue on the same day. And yes, the fact that Clinton at least not so blatantly, obviously lying all the goddam time is a redeeming trait in this election.

[truckboattruck]

*ahem*
Trump wanting to get rid of gangs and wanting to expand open-carry and oppose assault weapon ban
50% taxes on African-American businesses. False.
African-American homicide statistics. Pants on Fire.
Inner city crime. Pants on Fire.

So, yes, Trump was beyond pandering to African-American voters, to flat-out lying and being a raging hypocrite. Again: wooing voters is common practice. Doing so by outright blatant proven lies is not. Whether or not I'm a liberal is irrelevant. Trump can't tell the truth when trying to win votes from the general public, he can't tell the truth when talking about immigration and Mexico, and he'll take both sides of an issue on the same day. And yes, the fact that Clinton at least not so blatantly, obviously lying all the goddam time is a redeeming trait in this election.

wow you drank youre own Kool aid
honestly if you dont think blacks commit farrrrrrrrrrr more crime than their demographic share then i can't help you

again, go live in detroit
clearly, "theyre just like us"

[TrumpIsPresident]

Thought this was funny...

[Yvaelle]

wow you drank youre own Kool aid
honestly if you dont think blacks commit farrrrrrrrrrr more crime than their demographic share then i can't help you

again, go live in detroit
clearly, "theyre just like us"

They absolutely do. However, they are also overwhelmingly amongst the poorest people in the US.

The strongest correlation to murder rates isn't skin color or age, it's poverty. Poverty is predominantly a crime of the poor, against the poor.


In the linked study of the relationship between young age and homicide rates, the long-held belief that murder was most common among the young seems to vanish. Why? Because the researchers controlled for poverty. Young people do commit homicide far more often than middle-aged and older people, however this is a consequence of young people consistently being poorer than older generations.

When you track younger generations by socioeconomic status as they get older, the only cohort in which the homicide rate does not decline with age is... the poor. Meaning that young people murder people more often, because young people are poor and their lives are more desperate. Older people who are also poor, tend to commit homicide at comparable rates to the young-poor.

I suggest that the same is undoubtedly true for black people in the US. Consider this Forbes article.

The typical black household now has just 6% of the wealth of the typical white household; the typical Latino household has just 8%, according to a recent study...

In absolute terms, the median white household had $111,146 in wealth holdings in 2011, compared to $7,113 for the median black household and $8,348 for the median Latino household.

Homicide is overwhelmingly a crime of poverty, or more accurately (compared globally) a crime of wealth inequality. Where some have everything, and others have nothing, people get murdered.

Interestingly, it's not the wealthy that are the most likely to suffer homicide - 93% of crime committed against US blacks, is committed by US blacks (and 83% of US crime committed against US whites, is committed by US whites). Our crime is both socioeconomically and racially segregated.

[Etselion]

Kinda OT.

How many debates are, and when do they start?