2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

The real email scandal is not whether or not there was classified information, the real email scandal is that Clinton set up her private server for the specific purpose of evading freedom of information law - and that doing so is not a criminal offence.

Once again, the true villain is not the white collar criminal but the law which allows them to get away with what they have done.

It doesn't matter whether there was classified information or not - the very act of attempting to evade legally mandated transparency by moving her data beyond the reach of freedom of information requests is in itself corruption of the highest order, and should in my view have disqualified her from seeking nomination in the first place. It is a travesty that a politician deliberately trying to circumvent the law is not regarded as a criminal.

I would analogise it to a similar case at home. Alan Shatter violated data protection law by leaking information about Mick Wallace on national television - and yet even though he has been confirmed to have broken the law, it is not considered a criminal matter. Dafuq kind of society are we living in, in which violating the law and being considered a criminal are not one and the same? All violations of the law by public officials should be criminal matters, not just civil ones.

Nody wrote: »

You mean exactly as Bush did for 2003 to 2009? While intentionally not saving 22 million e-mails and refused a Senate subpoena to disclose the e-mails? On a server run by the Republican party? While routing 95%+ of all e-mails through it including for the president, VP and their staff?

How about we impeach the Republican party and Bush first to set the example?

By all means, yes. Both parties' establishments are utterly rotten to their cores, which is why I was and remain a Sanders advocate. Although I fear he'll be too old to contemplate going through this again, I hold on to some hope that he might challenge whoever wins this election for 2020, or that one of his endorsed candidates might.

Elizabeth Warren would make an incredible president, but she seems - understandably - to fear what will happen to congress with one less progressive voice there, if she were to win the presidency.

2 replies to say you are not replying.

Well played

On topic it's looking like Hillary has it now but still grabbing a few beers and snacks for the excitement.

Senate going red and they more then likely have the House of Representatives as well.

Lame duck springs to mind

Amerika wrote: »

Because how can 13-20 million illegals be in the US and survive? Many steal ID’s or use phony ID’s to get jobs, welfare and other social benefits. Voting is a simple process when you have a stolen or phony ID. And since they can not be deported or jailed under Obama, they have nothing to lose by voting illegally.

http://immigrationreform.com/2016/03/09/irs-encourages-illegal-immigrants-to-commit-identity-theft-and-refuses-to-inform-victims/
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/illegals-border-fake-id/2015/01/08/id/617256/

"Voter ID laws keep illegals from voting"

"Illegals have stolen or phony IDs"

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Bonus: deportations under Obama

https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story%3Fid%3D41715661?client=safari

First Up wrote: »

Correct. The notion that an illegal would risk detection by being challenged at a polling station is absurd.
The illegals (Irish among them) will spend tomorrow working at their low paid jobs and hoping sanity prevails.

Yeah, agreed First Up, but I think the absurdity of it does not come into it, or logic for that matter. Inside the bubble of uninformed, populist scare mongering, illegals are capable of anything and to blame for everything.

I watched Trump last night give a speech in Minnesota after the newest Comey letter came out - I linked to it in this thread. I kept watching and he started to talk about Somali refugees coming to Minnesota and referenced a stabbing that had happened in a mall somewhere in the state. The clear message was that refugees equate to crime and terrorism.

For the record, Minnesota has the highest Somali population in the States, and they have been there for quite a while - I can remember watching a programme - I think it might have been one of Anthony Bourdain's travel/food shows, where he visited 'Little Mogadishu'. This was a community of refugees, fleeing from the sh!tstorm in Somalia and trying to make a better life for themselves and their families, and now the presidential candidate is whipping up irrational fear and hatred against them.

When you hear guff like that from a candidate, that reflects and fuels the irrational and fact free BS that fills the echo chambers on the net and then see posts about illegals voting, when it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, you have to wonder how this level of bile and bias will evolve. Trump may lose, but what has been created, and it's not all down to him alone, will not disappear after his Twitter meltdown runs out of energy. There is a massive section of the US that are so disillusioned, have lost so much and have little hope, that they are liable to believe anything that gives them a target to funnel their hatred and frustration towards, and once Trump sallies off into the sunset on his golf buggy, someone else will step in to fill the unthinking demagogue hole he leaves behind him...

Amerika wrote: »

You seem to always leave out the word 'valid.' McMullin would not be happy knowing that.

Is your viewpoint that weak? Shame.

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Alex Jones is all over it right now on his show!

But seriously, they are taking it out of context from some interview OBama did.

I can imagine AJ would love that!
What gets me is that people are willing to believe that over 700,000 illegal immigrants would risk presenting themselves at a polling station!
So, they are willing to risk being caught for being an illegal, for ID theft (which I'm guessing is a felony) and for illegal voting?
I found the report that I assume was being referenced and it's hilarious - and there's more articles about it being debunked than referencing it.

Indeed but still firmly places the entire campaign against Hillary on "...but Benghazi!"

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Yeah, sure what's a few dead soldiers.

There always are. I'm sure General Eisenhower got sworn in on a perfect record of no dead men under his command too.

Overheal wrote: »

Indeed but still firmly places the entire campaign against Hillary on "...but Benghazi!"

It also raises the question of where does culpability begin? Can she be held responsible, as Secretary of Sate, for the hiring practices, in one instance, of a security contractor in one specific location?

Should she held responsible for food poisoning by a food contractor in one office location? Or a cleaning company that hired people that turned out to be stealing from staff?

If she signed off on it, or one of her direct reports where they were following a direct instruction from her, then fine, but it would still be tenuous at best.

But your right, it still boils down to '..but Benghazi'.