US Election: 2016

[mariomike]

I believe there was lots of discussion re deferment of rich guys during the Vietnam War.

 

[QV]

Neither of the Clintons served. 

 

[mariomike]

Neither of the Clintons served.

Mrs. Clinton was not subject to the Draft. Mr. Clinton and Mr. Trump were.

 

[QV]

Right.

 

[observor 69]

Ah yes Mr.Trump:

"But after he graduated from college in the spring of 1968, making him eligible to be drafted and sent to Vietnam, he received a diagnosis that would change his path: bone spurs in his heels."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/us/politics/donald-trump-draft-record.html

 

[George Wallace]

So?  Now the Chairman of Homeland Security has outright called Hillary a Traitor, and implicated PROTUS as communicating on insecure means with her under a pseudonym.  They now believe five or more foreign intelligence agencies hacked all those email communications.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HtZXJnVfAA

 

[observor 69]

So you might want to take a look at this. Whole lot of apologizing going on. 

Fact Check

Politics 

Premature Litigation

An inaccurate claim that Hillary Clinton was indicted for treason followed in the wake of a report that her e-mail server was hacked by multiple foreign intelligence agencies.

http://www.snopes.com/homeland-security-indicts-hillary/

 

[George Wallace]

So you might want to take a look at this. Whole lot of apologizing going on. 

Fact Check

Politics 

Premature Litigation

An inaccurate claim that Hillary Clinton was indicted for treason followed in the wake of a report that her e-mail server was hacked by multiple foreign intelligence agencies.

http://www.snopes.com/homeland-security-indicts-hillary/

Guess you never watched the video.

He outright called it treasonous.  That is his opinion.

It is right there in front of your eyes and if you turn on your volume, you will hear him say it.  Snopes can not discredit the video evidence.......Or are other outside Intelligence Agencies now using CGI to create videos discrediting Hillary Clinton?

 

[cupper]

Everyone at Fox News wet themselves when they got the scoop from Brett Baier.

Only to have Baier come out the next day and retract his story.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/04/fox-news-apologizes-clinton-report/93300254/

And the "Chairman of Homeland Security" you refer to is the REPUBLICAN Chairman of a congressional committee, so isn't exactly a shining beacon of truthiness.

Sorry George, you're about 48 hours behind the 24 hour news cycle.

 

[George Wallace]

Everyone at Fox News wet themselves when they got the scoop from Brett Baier.

Only to have Baier come out the next day and retract his story.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/04/fox-news-apologizes-clinton-report/93300254/

And the "Chairman of Homeland Security" you refer to is the REPUBLICAN Chairman of a congressional committee, so isn't exactly a shining beacon of truthiness.

Sorry George, your about 48 hours behind the 24 hour news cycle.

I really don't have a horse in this race and am not betting on any of the current horses.  It really doesn't matter what or who the news agency is showing this video broadcast, it is right there for you to see and hear.  So what if you have a low opinion of Fox News.  It really is irrelevant.  So, the CHAIRMAN is a Republican.  I am sure that he has just as many who are not Republicans on that panel/committee.  Again: it is his opinion.  Whether or not all the committee agree that it was Treason, again doesn't matter, until they have a unanimous statement, or lay charges, of Treason.  His statement, however, can not be ignored as a jest.  I would imagine that making it will either make or break his career.

AND ONCE AGAIN, I POINT OUT THAT WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT WHAT WAS SHOWN ON THE VIDEO I LINKED.

 

[cupper]

AND ONCE AGAIN, I POINT OUT THAT WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT WHAT WAS SHOWN ON THE VIDEO I LINKED.

Actually I did watch the video, and yes I am talking about what was stated in the video. Steve Duce starts the conversataion referencing Baeir's report, which included the incorrect statement the the server was hacked by 5 foreign agencies.

Fox News anchor Bret Baier apologized on air Friday for his report that Hillary Clinton faces a "likely" indictment as the result of a  federal investigation into the Clinton Foundation and for his report that Clinton's private email server had been hacked by five foreign intelligence agencies.

Both of Baier's mistaken reports were made Wednesday night in an appearance with Fox News Channel's Brit Hume. At the time, Baier said the information was based on "two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations into the Clinton emails and the Clinton Foundation."

Having read portions of the FBI's summary of the investigation, there is no definitive evidence that the information stored on the server was compromised. The only intrusion that was shown was by Guccifer, which accessed a separate e-mail set up for former Pesident Clinton and his office staff. There is no evidence that information was taken from the server.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-documents-in-hillary-clinton-e-mail-investigation

I was listening to a story on This American Life which interviewed Garret Graff a reporter on the national security and political beat. He read the full summary when it was released, and essentially the whole e-mailgate story comes down to 1) Clinton is clueless when it comes to technology, and cannot adapt to any changes to what she is used to using (several staffers reported that she didn't know how to use a desk top computer). 2) A culture within government that the rules are really just guidelines 3) A government that is still operating computer systems that were state of the art back in the previous century. 4) staffers that were incompetent when it came to transferring and backing up information to protect document retention.

When the story is available online tomorrow night I will add a link to it. It is very eye opening.

For now the link to the promo and story summary is here:

https://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/601/master-of-her-domain-name

 

[cupper]

;D

 

[cupper]

Fortunately security prevented something serious from happening, and Trump went on later to finish his speech.

Trump rushed off stage at campaign rally

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/05/politics/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-campaign-rally/index.html

Reno, Nevada (CNN)Donald Trump was rushed off a stage here Saturday by Secret Service agents during a campaign speech after an incident in the crowd near the front of the stage.

A scuffle could be seen breaking out in the audience, but it was not immediately clear what happened. A law enforcement official told CNN no weapon was discovered. The GOP nominee was apparently unharmed and returned to the stage minutes later to finish his speech.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I would imagine that making it will either make or break his career.

As a Republican Member of Congress, I'm guessing saying Hillary is treasonous won't do his career any harm.  And as for his chairmanship, I'm also guessing that'll depend what Congress looks like after the election.

It looks like everyone's correct -- the Chair of the Committee calls it "treason", but Fox News guy who first said she would "likely" be indicted, and now says, "uh, nobody knows if that's going to happen or not."

 

[mariomike]

Fortunately security prevented something serious from happening, and Trump went on later to finish his speech.

The scenario of the sudden demise - due to causes natural or unnatural - of either candidate this close to Nov. 8th has probably been considered by the legal community.
What effect it would have now on the election is likely too morbid for polite discussion in politically mixed company. 

Glad he is ok and hopefully there will be no problems with either candidate!

 

[cupper]

The Secret Service apparently released a statement which says that when the scuffle broke out someone yelled "Gun!". They said that no gun was found.

 

[mariomike]

The Secret Service apparently released a statement which says that when the scuffle broke out someone yelled "Gun!". They said that no gun was found.

I'm sure Clint wouldn't hesitate to take a bullet for either candidate!

 

[Brad Sallows]

Item 1:

>Do you remember it [2000 post-election?] being as hateful/vicious though?

To add my $0.02, I was in FL (Orlando, Miami, Key West) for a couple of weeks just after the election.  Can't speak to what was going on in the rest of the US, but everything in those communities looked like business as usual, except for endless TV coverage of legal minutiae that was most likely boring the heck out of everyone.  Even today I could probably still pick David Boies out of a line up.

Item 2:

With respect to Trump's supposed refusal to accept the election result - he hasn't refused anything yet; the election result isn't in.  What he said was basically that he'd wait to see the result: “I will look at it at the time. I will keep you in suspense.”  Not sure how deranged you have to be to interpret that as an outright refusal, let alone a threat to foment revolution (as some would have it).  Nearly every candidate in history waits to see how close a result is before conceding; nearly every candidate in history reserves the right to contest a close result.

Item 3:

Baier relied on an FBI claim that an indictment was likely, barring DoJ obstruction.  (The FBI doesn't level indictments.)  Welcome to the land of Chomsky-fied "no true Scotsman" statements.  Comey not too long ago: "No reasonable prosecutor would bring a case."  Some guy inside the FBI now: "No reasonable prosecutor would fail to seek an indictment."  Meanwhile, very little else that Baier said has been refuted.  My guess: since the DoJ has to bring the indictment and the DoJ will not for political reasons, an indictment is unlikely.

 

[Kirkhill]

;D

Godwin's law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American attorney and author Mike Godwin coined his eponymous law on Usenet in 1990
Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazism or Hitler approaches 1"[2][3]—​​that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.
Promulgated by American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990,[2] Godwin's law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions.[4] It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric[5][6] where reductio ad Hitlerum occurs.
In 2012, "Godwin's law" became an entry in the third edition of the Oxford English Dictionary.[7]
Corollaries and usage[edit]
There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[8] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.[citation needed]

[cheers]

 

[mariomike]

The inventor of "Godwin's Law" had this to say,

By Mike Godwin
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/12/14/sure-call-trump-a-nazi-just-make-sure-you-know-what-youre-talking-about/
"If you’re thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician."

More regarding "Godwin's Law" and Mr. Trump,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump+godwin&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=5yUfWIjyHauC8QeR-YCADg&gws_rd=ssl

Scenes from the Trump rally in NV where he was rushed off-stage by Secret Service.  Lots of Paramedics in ballistic helmets and vests.
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2016/11/05/us/scenes-from-the-trump-rally-in-reno/s/rally-ss-slide-3WIA.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0