This is a joke! (US Presidential Election Thread)

I seem to have the opposite impression - that they're going extremely soft on her simply because she is running for president. If they wanted to influence the election they could've pushed for a prosecution... They're being quite lenient so as to not be seen as meddling in the election.

But, I guess that in itself is meddling in an election -- allowing someone to avoid disqualification.

It is also important to note that the FBI operates under the oversight of the Justice Department and President, both firmly in Hillary's camp. I'm wondering if this isn't a ploy to set up for a possible lawsuit should she lose.

What is so bad about employment opportunity returning to the U.S.?

If you support a minimum wage and high employment, then you can't support Hillary since her donors are in favour of unrestricted free-trade (which means you[they - U.S. workers] would be competing with the minimum wage of the poorest countries).

Incidentally, just out of curiosity, what were some of the reasons of why you opposed Brexit?

What is so bad about employment opportunity returning to the U.S.?

If you support a minimum wage and high employment, then you can't support Hillary since her donors are in favour of unrestricted free-trade (which means you[they - U.S. workers] would be competing with the minimum wage of the poorest countries).

Incidentally, just out of curiosity, what were some of the reasons of why you opposed Brexit?

Um... I guessing you posted in the wrong thread?

Um... I'm guessing you posted in the wrong thread?

No. This is a continuation of a thread that got locked and it was suggested to wait until the next presidential debate before discussing the topic any further.

Also, G.O.D. is form the UK and I'm interested in understanding more about why people feel so strongly about globalization.

Also, G.O.D. is form the UK ...

And did those feet in ancient times walk upon England's mountains green?

Yea it is a joke. And I've given up trying to argue with folks who think otherwise. It's pointless. I hope we can salvage this eleciton somehow and move on, but what scares me is that even then, in 4 years, it'll all return.

All I can tell you is hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

What is so bad about employment opportunity returning to the U.S.? If you support a minimum wage and high employment, then you can't support Hillary since her donors are in favour of unrestricted free-trade (which means you[they - U.S. workers] would be competing with the minimum wage of the poorest countries).

There are millions in the US who have exactly the opposite view as you. Individuals would always have reasons for their choices. But democracy is about net outcome of these collective individual decisions. And attempting to artificially affect (change) this net outcome is the main issue here

EDIT: Some are even saying the FBI may have broken the law

I seem to have the opposite impression - that they're going extremely soft on her simply because she is running for president. If they wanted to influence the election they could've pushed for a prosecution... They're being quite lenient so as to not be seen as meddling in the election.

But, I guess that in itself is meddling in an election -- allowing someone to avoid disqualification.

This is threading the boundary between doing something really careless/stupid and doing something criminal

Does doing something really really careless and stupid automatically make it a criminal act - because she is high profile and has lots of political enemies?

For prosecution to happen there has to be criminal intent - and that's a long shot

Incidentally, just out of curiosity, what were some of the reasons of why you opposed Brexit?

Brexit discussion in this thread is a distraction, but just to satisfy your curiosity;- at that time Brexit was a close call for me. With hindsight -> it was mis-sold and shouldn't have happened

Voters in either camp made up their mind months ago (probably based on their economic situation).

Ratings today are based on "tabloid gossip" rather "real issues". Talk about issues instead of gossip and watch politics improve.

But first thing's first; unemployment has go down. If Hillary wasn't such a "Republican" :wink: and showed she was in favor of trade-restriction to promote job growth domestically, then she would win, no problem. But she doesn't want to oppose her biggest campaign donors.

Brexit

Give it some more time, and you'll be glad Brexit was a success. Strong local opportunity is very important in any country.

I don't see why millions of Americans would be in favor of unrestricted free-trade unless they didn't fully understand the consequences of globalization. Sure, you get cheap stuff immediately (short-term gain), but as industry starts leaving, your long-term employment prospects suffer (and I've witnessed this on both sides of the equation), which also affects taxes (so you end up keeping less of what you earn, unless you understand tax loopholes :wink:). There are countries right now that serve as an example/warning on how this can ruin a seemingly safe/strong economy. I could not in good conscience be in support of such a devastating outcome.

Once you solve the problem of unemployment (give back people their opportunity [and therefore their freedom]), then you can focus on other issues. I just wish Hillary wasn't doing the biding of her donors (who don't need any more congressional influence - they've done quite enough fleecing.).

But since we can't get off the topic of gossip: Did you miss this story? http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-ally-aids-campaign-of-fbi-officials-wife-1477266114

Or if you're not a WSJ subscriber: http://nypost.com/2016/10/24/clinton-ally-gave-500k-to-wife-of-fbi-agent-on-email-probe/

Either way as an Australian I have way more than enough to worry about the last ten (please note 10 is an arbitrary number it is probably a great deal larger) years of our political clownery, that I have little sympathy for the what the US citizenry has given itself in the form of either the Democratic or Republican nominees. There are so many layers of onion to both sides of the debate that unravelling one layer will only lead to another layer and at the end of the day will only lead to tears because no one seems able to cut through the crap without finding another layer of some new/old drama deeper down. He said, she said, I said, you said....nothing changes when people won't accept that not just everyone else's agenda needs to change.

I seem to have the opposite impression - that they're going extremely soft on her simply because she is running for president. If they wanted to influence the election they could've pushed for a prosecution... They're being quite lenient so as to not be seen as meddling in the election.

But, I guess that in itself is meddling in an election -- allowing someone to avoid disqualification.

Well, I think this might be a case of "two wrongs don't make a right." Specifically, the original investigation that cleared Hilary may well have been an example of "going soft on her" (although it's not completely clear that an ordinary citizen in her position wouldn't also been cleared), which understandably was upsetting to a lot of her opponents.

Given that Comey was criticized extremely heavily by his own party (Republican), it doesn't seem at all impossible (or even unlikely) that he released this new statement at least in part to appease the Republicans -- and as it turns out, there's extremely compelling evidence in favor of this interpretation. First, the timing of the announcement is highly unusual given the state of the investigation; no warrant has yet been issued to review the emails. It also seems like the "new" developments aren't the "new" at all, so Comey could just as well have made the announcement earlier. Second, making this kind of statement at all is not standard protocol at all, and it doesn't seem like it would ever be made with respect to a normal citizen. Finally, (so I've heard -- this might not actually be the case), this announcement was initially made specifically to certain Republican members of congress only, which makes especially little sense in the case of a "normal" election.

Simply put, this announcement was extremely unorthodox and premature, and there's absolutely no discernible reason for making it prematurely except for its proximity to the election.

Sure, Hilary may indeed have gotten off lightly the first time around, but there's really no way to argue that this applies to the new announcement.

Voters in either camp made up their mind months ago (probably based on their economic situation).

Ratings today are based on "tabloid gossip" rather "real issues". Talk about issues instead of gossip and watch politics improve.

But first thing's first; unemployment has go down. If Hillary wasn't such a "Republican" :wink: and showed she was in favor of trade-restriction to promote job growth domestically, then she would win, no problem. But she doesn't want to oppose her biggest campaign donors.

Brexit

Give it some more time, and you'll be glad Brexit was a success. Strong local opportunity is very important in any country.

I don't see why millions of Americans would be in favor of unrestricted free-trade unless they didn't fully understand the consequences of globalization. Sure, you get cheap stuff immediately (short-term gain), but as industry starts leaving, your long-term employment prospects suffer (and I've witnessed this on both sides of the equation), which also affects taxes (so you end up keeping less of what you earn, unless you understand tax loopholes :wink:). There are countries right now that serve as an example/warning on how this can ruin a seemingly safe/strong economy. I could not in good conscience be in support of such a devastating outcome.

Once you solve the problem of unemployment (give back people their opportunity [and therefore their freedom]), then you can focus on other issues. I just wish Hillary wasn't doing the biding of her donors (who don't need any more congressional influence - they've done quite enough fleecing.).

But since we can't get off the topic of gossip: Did you miss this story? http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-ally-aids-campaign-of-fbi-officials-wife-1477266114

Or if you're not a WSJ subscriber: http://nypost.com/2016/10/24/clinton-ally-gave-500k-to-wife-of-fbi-agent-on-email-probe/

It is comical how many job opportunities there are in the UK. Education is a bigger problem imo, at least in the UK.

I seem to have the opposite impression - that they're going extremely soft on her simply because she is running for president.

This.

Everybody else would either already be in jail or in court, fearing to get jailed.

Note that we're not just talking about a private email being sent to the wrong recipient by accident, or such. We're talking about several cases of leaking classified information that may impair national security (or may not, I couldn't tell how big the impact really is, quite possibly they're just overly paranoid with their petty secrets).

Once may have happened out of stupidity (benefit of doubt), which doesn't make it alltogether null and void, but it allows you to at least be forgiving and say: "Oh well, that's not great, but... shit happens". However, that excuse doesn't work for two cases, and in at least one of these it was deliberate -- you can assume that setting up your own server counts as "deliberate", you don't just wake up in the morning and have a server set up by accident, and without knowing. So that's an entirely different ballpark.

That, and there's this story (allegations, truth, who knows?) about some millions disappearing in charity funds run by herself and her husband, the same husband who became famous for perjury and obstruction of justice (I am deliberately not saying "for sex stuff" because in my opinion, if he had just been truthful, then whoever he fucked or didn't fuck would have been purely something between him and his wife).
Plus this smut affair story (which involved some religious stuff) to sabotage her party comrade Sanders. That's maybe not actionable (though it might very well be, why not?), but in any case, it is undoubtly indecent.

And then, those various other stories

Don't get me wrong, she might be innocent after all, but usually when there is smoke, there is fire. And with her, there is an awful lot of smoke, repeatedly. She just doesn't look like a very honest and innocent person.

(Of course, Trump doesn't precisely look like an innnocent, honest altruist either, I'll agree to that. But at least he doesn't pretend being anything different from what you can see. With him, you know exactly what you're buying, he is making no secret about what he is.)

Specifically, the original investigation that cleared Hilary may well have been an example of "going soft on her"

Oh wait, wait, wait... that's not at all what happened. She was by no means "cleared", on the contrary.

It was concluded by the FBI that despite having stated the exact opposite on July 2 (and for several months before), she demonstrably had sent and received classified emails, and had extensively used her private account for that, also from abroad. The FBI's evaluation stated that Clinton was "extremely careless" and that it was likely that "that hostile actors gained access".

However, the FBI did at that time not deem any charges "appropriate". Read as: "guilty, but walks (because president candidate)", not "innocent, cleared". This is a big difference.

Now there's that story with 50-year-old men dating underage girls on top. Which is, especially in the USA, a really ugly, sticky thing.

While it sure isn't Clinton's fault where Weiner puts his weiner, there's nevertheless the relation to her with those new emails that were found. And while she is probably innocent of Weiner's teen girl affair, the whole thing still doesn't shed a very favourable light onto her (whether that's fair or not).

In any case, it certainly allows the FBI (in fact, not just allows, but compels -- investigation of a suspected crime is not an optional thing, they must do this) to further investigate on what other Clinton-related emails they've found during that search.

Take it easy, phantom.

Don't blame a drop in the British Pound Sterling on Brexit. Years before the IMF suggested it was valued a little too high, now the IMF got their wish. (Not that the IMF cares a jot about the long term prosperity of any nation, anyway.) The IMF, by the way, are totally against Brexit (which is good sign, actually.)

You can't measure the benefits of Brexit so soon anyhow. Brexit prevented an economic disaster from happening sooner (It doesn't have a trade surplus like Germany, ~82 Billion). It gives ministers some time to think of solutions to the problems they are facing. Whether or not your ministers take advantage of this opportunity and act is another matter entirely. I know I would be trying to get unemployment down to 2% and I know it can be done. Question is; do your ministers know? :lol:

As for the political discourse of the U.S.A., I know the media is biased even in the UK, but please don't tell me that's the impression the you've been left with. It's, um... a bit extreme.

currency has dropped 20% in value

Well, to be fair...

This is not really Brexit's fault, the drop is well within the trend.

Specifically, the original investigation that cleared Hilary may well have been an example of "going soft on her"

Oh wait, wait, wait... that's not at all what happened. She was by no means "cleared", on the contrary.

It was concluded by the FBI that despite having stated the exact opposite on July 2 (and for several months before), she demonstrably had sent and received classified emails, and had extensively used her private account for that, also from abroad. The FBI's evaluation stated that Clinton was "extremely careless" and that it was likely that "that hostile actors gained access".

However, the FBI did at that time not deem any charges "appropriate". Read as: "guilty, but walks (because president candidate)", not "innocent, cleared". This is a big difference.

Now there's that story with 50-year-old men dating underage girls on top. Which is, especially in the USA, a really ugly, sticky thing.

While it sure isn't Clinton's fault where Weiner puts his weiner, there's nevertheless the relation to her with those new emails that were found. And while she is probably innocent of Weiner's teen girl affair, the whole thing still doesn't shed a very favourable light onto her (whether that's fair or not).

In any case, it certainly allows the FBI (in fact, not just allows, but compels -- investigation of a suspected crime is not an optional thing, they must do this) to further investigate on what other Clinton-related emails they've found during that search.

Well, I suppose you're welcome to argue that not pressing charges and furthermore declaring that it would not be reasonable to press charges is not the same thing as "clearing" someone. Perhaps "clear" has a precise legal definition I'm not aware of. However, as for "Read as: "guilty, but walks (because president candidate)", not "innocent, cleared". This is a big difference." that's simply incorrect with respect to the United States' legal system, as we have "innocent until proven guilty." There's no difference (legally) between the two.

Beyond the issue of semantics, though, I'm not at all sue what point you're trying to make. I'm not aware of anyone except you has trying to insinuate a connection between Clinton and Anthony Wiener's wrongdoings specifically -- the "new" emails are being investigated as part of the preceding investigation of Clinton's private server.

This thread is clearly not about the British exit from the E.U.

Keep on topic please.

This thing makes no sense at all because these new emails are not efen to or from Hillary. They are from her aide, Huma Aberdeen. The letter is so vague that it's impossible to even tell if there is anything, which is why I think it's a load of utter bullshit. There may be a tie. The FBI never does this but not they've decided to do it because Comey was either whining about Clinton or his head is on the chopping block and he had no other options.

Like seriously? There's already lots of accusations of wrongdoing.

As much as I don't like Hillary, painting her as being related/supporting Weiner's decisions is pretty unfair. We don't know if the 650k~ emails are duplicates or what either, yet.

The Clintons have been constantly investigated/ questioned, so this isn't something political that's just coming up, it's just par for the course.

Also I voted for Trump yesterday (NC)