What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (6 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
timschochet said:
Someone posted this earlier. Confidential polling data from the New York post. Show some polls! 
Click to expand...
“In the suburbs and upstate, Trump has a net positive while Hillary is a net negative,” one longtime Republican operative contended. “She’s more of a liability than many Democrats realized.”

I'm not sure how much stock I'd really put in this.  Much of upstate New York is pretty rural and leans GOP.  Here's a map of the 2012 presidential election.  Here's 2008, pretty similar.  NY's overall political presence is pretty much carried by the NYC area.  Obama dominated in 4 of the 5 boroughs in 2008, coming in with 88.7%, 85.7%, 79.4%, and 75.1% in Bronx, Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens.  McCain won Staten Island 51.7-47.6.  Those 4 Obama boroughs alone comprised 1,994,604 of his total votes in the state.  McCain had a little over 2.7 million votes, total, for the entire state.  Obama's numbers were even higher in those boroughs in 2012.  I wouldn't expect Hillary to score as high as Obama, but I also wouldn't expect her to lose the state.  Honestly, if she loses NY, she's got no shot in the rest of the country.

The GOP will score well in upstate outside of the bigger cities, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany.  If Trump can manage to swing the Hudson Valley and parts of eastern Long Island, it could make things interesting, but he'd have to sway a ton of voters.  NYC just wields so much power.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
So because she is a Democrat and Hillary is a Democrat that will impact her decision? Isn't that a really insulting charge? 
Click to expand...
Hypothetical...  The investigation drags on and on, let's say that Rubio pulls off the GOP nomination and wins the general, and he appoints his own AG.  Is it similarly insulting to think the new AG's decision making will be impacted by party in some way?

Not hypothetical...  Is it similarly insulting to accuse GOP senators of launching investigations based on politics?

 
Rich Conway said:
Hypothetical...  The investigation drags on and on, let's say that Rubio pulls off the GOP nomination and wins the general, and he appoints his own AG.  Is it similarly insulting to think the new AG's decision making will be impacted by party in some way?

Not hypothetical...  Is it similarly insulting to accuse GOP senators of launching investigations based on politics?
Click to expand...
Yeah.  It is extremely hypocritical.  Tim pulls the partisan politics card all the time on accusing Republicans, but it is the utmost insult to even suggest a Democrat might be swayed by politics.  

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
Yeah, what in the world could that be about?
Click to expand...
Knowing Hillary it's something she really doesn't want out there and she managed to get it redacted on some legal technicality - but who knows.  That's just plain weird.  What agency could that be?  If it's FBI that ain't good.  Is that why the month long stall?

 
tommyGunZ said:
Ham, please change your username to Geraldo Rivera.  
Click to expand...
About this unclassified email held back by an unnamed law enforcement agency...  Oh ####, that vault has a huge mother####ing DIAMOND in it.

 
Last edited:
For those keeping score at home:

2075 emails deemed classified

44 classified as "Secret"

22 classified as "Top Secret"

1 unclassified email not released at the request of law enforcement

 
If you read back, I said there was something big in the last batch and it would take a few days to sort through to understand why the long stall.  So relax and wait as a new pivot to this case unfolds.  

Again, if I'm wrong I will admit it.  But you just knew there was a game changer in there. Still think there is.

 
Last edited:
Rich Conway said:
Hypothetical...  The investigation drags on and on, let's say that Rubio pulls off the GOP nomination and wins the general, and he appoints his own AG.  Is it similarly insulting to think the new AG's decision making will be impacted by party in some way?

Not hypothetical...  Is it similarly insulting to accuse GOP senators of launching investigations based on politics?
Click to expand...
1. Yes absolutely. 

2. No. 

 
Mr. Ham said:
If you read back, I said there was something big in the last batch and it would take a few days to sort through to understand why the long stall.  So relax and wait as a new pivot to this case unfolds.  

Again, if I'm wrong I will admit it.  But you just knew there was a game changer in there,. Still think there is.
Click to expand...
That one email held back gives you some wiggle room.  Maybe the State Department devised a way to protect Hillary.  

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
For those keeping score at home:

2075 emails deemed classified

44 classified as "Secret"

22 classified as "Top Secret"

1 unclassified email not released at the request of law enforcement
Click to expand...
Lest we not forget another 30k deleted "private" emails.  Maybe a few emails "accidentally" got mixed in there too -- you know when Hillary was wiping the server like with a cloth.  This is going to drag out for another two years.  

 
Mr. Ham said:
If you read back, I said there was something big in the last batch and it would take a few days to sort through to understand why the long stall.  So relax and wait as a new pivot to this case unfolds.  

Again, if I'm wrong I will admit it.  But you just knew there was a game changer in there. Still think there is.
Click to expand...
LOFL.  Fortunately for you, Saintsinthedome's 8 thousand posts per day have dropped you to a clear 2nd place on the board's conspiracy theorist list.  

 
tommyGunZ said:
LOFL.  Fortunately for you, Saintsinthedome's 8 thousand posts per day have dropped you to a clear 2nd place on the board's conspiracy theorist list.  
Click to expand...
Hang in there, Tommy, trolling is always better than thinking, right?

eta - btw love how I'm in "the" Dome.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ said:
LOFL.  Fortunately for you, Saintsinthedome's 8 thousand posts per day have dropped you to a clear 2nd place on the board's conspiracy theorist list.  
Click to expand...
Conspiracy theory?  It just makes sense.  The Obama admin would move mountains to make this go away, so stalling a month makes no logical sense -- and even accounting for bureaucratic inefficiencies there was no need for another month.  It was stalling the release of something until it could not affect Super Tuesday.

Now slowly but surely people will ask what crime is being investigated that warrants holding back an email from public view.  And that my friend is no conspiracy theory.  That's history in the making,. 

 
Last edited:
So in this alternate rule book that supposedly exists for Hillary, is it written that it matters when things get classified?  Is that why the question keeps coming up?

 
timschochet said:
1. Yes absolutely. 

2. No. 
Click to expand...
:lol:  So republican senators are inherently biased but an AG can not be biased?  So Ashcroft, Reno, and Holder were apolitical? What kind of fantasy world do you live in?  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
So in this alternate rule book that supposedly exists for Hillary, is it written that it matters when things get classified?  Is that why the question keeps coming up?
Click to expand...
For the hundredth time, yes. If it wasn't considered important enough to be deemed classified at the time it was sent to Hillary, then, no harm no foul.  The fact that some agency is overly cautious about making it public years after the fact and retroactively classifies it, doesn't make Hillary guilty of not be prescient enough to realize that at the time.

Now that is not to say that there is information that is so obviously top secret or classified that anyone who views it should be aware of that, so the actual classification date may be irrelevant - however at this time we don't know if anything Hillary received falls into that category.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
See Scooter Libby.
Click to expand...
Nobody in the VPs office was the leaker.

Libby got railroaded to advance Fitgerald's career based largely on Russert's faulty memory (could not remember his "first time in 109 years" catchphrase under oath) and a jury packed with personal friends of key witnesses.

 
SIDA! said:
I can't wait for a Trump victory in November and then having Christie prosecute Clinton in 2017.
Click to expand...
I want Christie nowhere near the AG position. I will vote Clinton if I hear that kind of talk being floated. Christie will ratchet the drug war to 11. I will have none of that ****.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jobber said:
I want Christie nowhere near the AG position. I will vote Clinton if I hear that kind of talk being floated. Christie will ratchet the drug war to 11. I will have none of that ****.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But I would think that that is what Christie is gunning for with his endorsement.

 
squistion said:
For the hundredth time, yes. If it wasn't considered important enough to be deemed classified at the time it was sent to Hillary, then, no harm no foul.  The fact that some agency is overly cautious about making it public years after the fact and retroactively classifies it, doesn't make Hillary guilty of not be prescient enough to realize that at the time.

Now that is not to say that there is information that is so obviously top secret or classified that anyone who views it should be aware of that, so the actual classification date may be irrelevant - however at this time we don't know if anything Hillary received falls into that category.
Click to expand...
And for the thousandth time, information does not need to be marked classified to be classified.  Not sure why you keep insisting that it does.

 
Rich Conway said:
And for the thousandth time, information does not need to be marked classified to be classified.  Not sure why you keep insisting that it does.
Click to expand...
You have serious reading comprehension issues. No wonder it is so difficult to discuss anything with you.

From the second paragraph of what you responded to:

Now that is not to say that there is information that is so obviously top secret or classified that anyone who views it should be aware of that, so the actual classification date may be irrelevant - however at this time we don't know if anything Hillary received falls into that category.
Click to expand...

 
squistion said:
You have serious reading comprehension issues. No wonder it is so difficult to discuss anything with you.

From the second paragraph of what you responded to:
Click to expand...


squistion said:
Now that is not to say that there is information that is so obviously top secret or classified that anyone who views it should be aware of that, so the actual classification date may be irrelevant - however at this time we don't know if anything Hillary received falls into that category.
Click to expand...


intelligence officials say some material was clearly classified at the time.
Click to expand...
http://www.miamiherald.com/latest-news/article63221637.html

 
CcbYu2tWEAAGLf5.jpg:large


Say here's some classified information from inside the Japanese government that I'm leaving on unsecure server. - s/H

- Note the "Declassify on" date is 15 years after the moment it is sent.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
CcbLSU0XEAQ1-YL.jpg


- In which Huma Abedeen says sh|t she clearly knows should not be said over an unsecure line. - Now redacted.

Also classified from the moment sent.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
262K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Back
Top