Slashdot Mirror
Perfect Coin-Toss Record Broke 6 Clinton-Sanders Deadlocks In Iowa (marketwatch.com)
schwit1 writes: While it was hard to call a winner between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders last night, it's easy to say who was luckier. The race between the Democrat presidential hopefuls was so tight in the Iowa caucus Monday that in at least six precincts, the decision on awarding a county delegate came down to a coin toss. And Clinton won all six, media reports said.
Amazingly, the coin tosses weren't done intelligently. They weren't called in the air, they weren't videotaped closely enough to show which side was up or that the coins were not double-headed, etc...
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy--just that it was a really stupid way to decide an election. Obviously the state should count all of the coin-toss delegates and split them between the tied candidates. They can't do that retroactively for this election but should change the rules for the next one.
Who cares, Hillary has already reached her term limit.
Play the futures market as well as Hillary, can arrange to have a perfect 6 out of 6 in a simple coin toss contest..
Can I see that coin again?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Seems Bill isn't the only Clinton that can get some head when in need.
Low probability things do happen.
6 coin flips and all for one person, I am going to call B.S.!
Calling Bernie Sanders? How's that going to help?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Who do you think provided the coins? The big banks! And who created the coins? The establish-MINT.
Wake up, sheeple!
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
NEVER say those last three words again!
Unless Hillary runs the next 'Justice' department she will go to federal prison.
Don't get between her and the oval office, unless your insurance is paid up.
Who are you kidding? She's not getting charged for ANY of this.
At worst she gets dinged for some "process crime" like Sandy Berger did when he got caught with classified documents stuffed down his pants. There is no way the Obama administration lets her get charged on this unless she's ticked them off and they just want to throw her under the bus out of spite. They may be liberal progressives in the Whitehouse, but I don't see them as vindictive enough to do that to Hillary and blow up the democrat party in the process. Now if Joe Biden was running, then I can see the administration feeding Hillary to the sharks, but right or wrong he bowed out so the Hill is all they really have.
Now if you had worked for Hillary during this time, you better be lawyered up already. You can bet that if there is enough to charge *somebody* here (and I firmly think there is) then I'd fully expect Hillary to be throwing as many others under the bus as necessary to avoid getting perpwalked. She will then plea bargain this down to some minor (non felony) crime and be out on bond seconds after the judge announces the amount. Now if you are Huma Aberdime (sp?) (AKA, Mrs Anthony Weiner AKA Carlos Danger) you best be thinking about how an orange jumpsuit is going to look with your hair color and who's going to be watching the home front (Keeping your husband off of Social Media under assumed names) while you are away...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Why choose Hillary? Well for 1 she already wields a lot of political power, 2 She has the support of a large portion of the wealthy and elites, meaning she will have backing to force things through Congress. 3 She will nominate a SC judge to keep the court from becoming too lopsided. 4. A lot of women would like to see a woman president. 5. because it will enrage the far right and they tend to be ridiculous and ineffective when enraged.
On a side note, I'll vote for her before Trump or Cruz, but as it stands now none of those three have my vote.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Not a Clinton supporter but my 2 cents: Her supporters like progressivism and are willing to turn a blind eye to the shenanigans. They aren't principled. At least not in a moral sense.
The most common answer that I hear: "It's time for a woman to be president."
I didn't know that genitals were a qualification for any job other than porn.
Obama.
He brought change.
(Ba-dum tsh!)
Gotta wonder who provided the coins?
What difference [pounds desk] at this point, does it make?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The supreme court selected Republican Establishment George Bush instead of the people's popular vote?
No. The US Supreme Court said that the Florida government officials empowered before the election to make decisions regarding counts and recounts and submission deadlines would have their decisions stand.
Plus there is the pesky detail that the newspapers did their own recounts afterwards and found that Bush would still have won.
Plus there is that other pesky detail that the "popular vote" was never the agreed upon criteria for selecting a President. It was always the electoral college and both sides designed their campaigns with that in mind, not the popular vote. If the popular vote was the goal then both sides would have run very different campaigns.
It is a false urban myth that Gore would have won the recount. The election was "stolen" from Gore not by the Florida Governor nor the Florida Secretary of State nor the Florida Supreme Court nor the US Supreme Court. It was "stolen" by the Democratic Party officials who designed and deployed the butterfly ballot that confused Democratic voters into accidentally voting for Pat Buchanan. Gore lost due to his party's error. Painful but true. To say otherwise is denial.
Odds of 1 in 56 will win you $2 in Mega Millions when buying a $1 ticket. So yes, she basically "won the lottery", or least "won in the lottery". Not in the way that most people think of when you say winning the lottery, though.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
In terms of "classified" documents being found on it, so far, no one has said if any of them were ever "classified" at the time they were sent.
Yes, they have. Items sitting on the server in her house were from SAP material (above-top-secret stuff) that by its very definition is classified. We're talking about actual, current, operational intelligence - the sort of stuff that involves moles in foreign governments, satellite imagery from NRO systems, that sort of thing. The State Department has just said that there are over 20 emails just in this latest small batch that can't even be released in any sort of redacted form because the classified material in them is so sensitive. When she got the SoS gig, she signed the usual federal paperwork that says that if she becomes aware of classified material existing in channels that aren't appropriate (as in, government-controlled secure access systems) regardless of whether or not it is so "marked," that she is criminally liable for its mishandling if she doesn't immediately involve security personnel to secure it. She completely blew off that requirement.
She also didn't release any of them to the public, without them going through the proper channels
No, what she did was have her own personal staff (people without clearances!) go through 60,000-some emails and decide BEFORE ANYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT GOT A LOOK AT THEM which were or weren't "work related." Which means that even among the emails they eventually passed along, her non-cleared personal employees at her foundation were pawing through what we now know were SAP-level documents. Further, she took everything and burned it to some USB drives, and gave at least one to her NON-CLEARED lawyer, who then put it in his own personal safe. Crimes, again, at several points along the way.
In other words, all the steps have been followed.
No, they haven't. She explicitly went about conducting official government business, including the handling of Special Access Program material, on a non-secured private server in her home - all for her personal convenience and so that she could avoid FOIA requests looking at her government correspondence. So the very first step that should have been followed never was, right there. She never even had State set her up with a secure mail account in the first place. You understand that, right? She never even COULD have followed the rules because she chose to avoid even the very first step of following the rules. Then she failed the next requirement, which was to turn over ALL of her government-related records at the time she left office - again, something she chose not to do, and she had to get subpoenaed for the information and dragged the process out for years after she left office before delivering the information after she'd had her own staff handle it, destroying over half of it. That's another violation of the required process. The archivists at State are the ones who are supposed to decide what is, and isn't relevant from a record-keeping point of view. She deliberately prevented that step. She then stripped off all of the meta data and other header information from all of the emails she DID deliver, and provided them as context-less printouts, on 50,000 pieces of paper. And that's just her getting started on doing it all wrong.
Until someone comes out and says that document so and so was classified at the time it was sent and was known or should have been known to be classified by the person sending it and/or receiving it, nothing wrong has occurred that crosses into any type of criminal offence of state secrecy laws.
This has already been established. You're not paying attention. Inspectors General from multiple intelligence agencies have said that there was at-the-time classified material (including the holy grail, SAP-level material) running around on a non-secure computer in her house.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I wonder where this video of Sanders winning a coin toss came from then.
I stole this Sig
So I guess that money really did decide this election! /rimshot
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Easy enough:
I'm not a supporter, but I can see the reason.
1. She is what the democrat establishment wants as a nominee. She seems inevitable, so why not toss your support behind the supposed winner?
I do not think she would be that big of a deal if there were another viable "mainstream" candidate in the ring on the D side. Sanders may appear viable now, but he might not have that appeal in a general election. I do not think Sanders appeals to the bulk of rank and file moderate democrats. It's the radical left wing carrying him at this point.
2. She has a "D" next to her name. No matter how bad the candidate, party loyalists would rather hold their nose than to pick a candidate (even a possibly better one) in the opposite party. Not that I am claiming it exists here, but it can.
3. She's untouchable. It's pretty much assumed she'll walk away with at most a fine from this, if not a full, possibly preemptive pardon. it does not matter if she looks dirty, it comes with being a Clinton. It's expected of them.
4. Nothing will pull the democrats together more than the prospect of losing the White House for the next 4-8 years with all those aging Supreme Court justices waiting to keel over.
It's not just the Democrats going through this now. The Republican Party wants its chosen candidates and they get Trump and Cruz instead. Both parties are having to fight popular sentiment to get their candidates in the general election.
Watching both parties try to thwart popular opinion is proving to be quite entertaining, but not nearly as entertaining as a Trump vs Sanders in the general election will be.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
Biden remains on standby.
You mean he'd be.. *snigger* he'd be... *snort*
Sorry. Ahem. He'd be - oh, wait, wait...
*dons sunglasses* 8) ...Biden his time?
YEEEAAAH
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
The coin toss is just a typical media misdirection, the real story is in the voting machine fraud and the vote count fraud.
Those who understand how the world really works knows The Rothschilds has already picked Clinton (see cover of the 2016 Januaray editions of the Economist).
Clinton voter fraud in Polk County, Iowa Caucus
Voter Fraud and 'Missing' Precincts: How Clinton Stole Iowa
Caucus chair and Clinton precinct captain do not conduct actual count of Clinton supporters and deliberately mislead caucus
Imagine how many other precincts used similar tactics. The fact that even C-SPAN calls it outright voter fraud should leave Americans with no illusions: The Democratic nominee has already been chosen.
But wait, it gets worse:
Sanders's camp says that the Iowa Democratic Party has informed the campaigns that the caucus results from 90 precincts are missing.
â" John Wagner (@WPJohnWagner)
February 2, 2016
That's right: Caucus results from 90 precincts are missing. Clinton is certainly talented at misplacing/deleting things that she doesn't want people to read.
Hillary Clinton receives $200,000/hour to speak to Goldman Sachs behind closed doors (and no transcripts of what she says are allowed, of course). Do you really think this election hasn't already been bought and paid for?
"Democracy" is fun.
Actually, one in 32 odds. The chance that a coin tossed one time lands with the same face up is 1 in 1. The chance that a coin tossed two times lands with the same face up is 1 in 2, etc.
A little over two standard deviations.
However, as Washington Post notes, "see the update below: there were other tosses which Sanders won."
The update states:
Update: The initial 6-for-6 report, from the Des Moines Register missed a few Sanders coin-toss wins. (There were a lot of coin tosses!) The ratio of Clinton to Sanders wins was closer to 50-50, which is what we'd expect.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
"Heads Hillary Wins, Tails Bernie Loses"
So what's the problem?
Your "They aren't principled. At least not in a moral sense." is an example of what is wrong with politics today, and you should be ashamed of posting it.
Ok, let's look at your argument.
On the classification side of things, there is not a lot of solid information about whether something bad was actually done or not. Yes there are seven email threads (twenty-some emails in all) that contain information that is now considered classified. So far no-one with any knowledge of those emails directly has commented on whether that information was classified when those emails were sent. We have heard that those emails did not have classified markers on them, but that again does not mean that the information was not classified at that time.
In other words, she committed a felony right there by creating and maintaining the server right here since classified information was sent repeatedly and corrective action not taken.
It's also worth noting here that there's a lot more than a handful of "email threads". We have spy satellite data stripped of its classified information - that's a felony for whoever did that. We have people, particularly, Sidney Blumenthal without a clearance given access to this information. That is a felony right there. And then we have Clinton instructing an aide to strip classified markings from an email. That is a felony right there.
And it's worth noting that this particular email setup has already allowed Clinton to evade FOIA requests. I believe that is a felony as well.
So, saying people who support Hillery Clinton are not morally principled is an example of unprincipled partisanship. Please wait for facts before accusing anyone, let alone making accusations about their supporters. There is plenty to legitimately disagree about in the actual issues in the campaign, without resorting to unsubstantiated mud-slinging.
Fuck you. This sort of weaseling is exactly why I agree that Clinton supporters are remarkably unprincipled. Notice that you aren't arguing that Clinton didn't commit these crimes, but rather that we can't prove it.
The coins could all have been heads OR they could all have been tails. There are 64 possible outcomes, but 2 are sufficient. 1/32 is correct.
I still don't see it. There is a 1/32 chance that *either* of the two candidates would have won all of the coin flips, but only a 1/64 chance for 'only Clinton' or 'only Sanders'
Posting this here so it gets more views.
The story is wrong. There were many more coin flips than just the 6 reported and Sanders won his fair share of them. The coin flips are a result of precincts that have an odd number of delegates to the Iowa State Democratic Convention. Say the precinct has 5 delegates and the vote between Clinton and Sanders was a tie. The precinct then sends 2 delegates for Clinton and 2 delegates for Sanders and the 5th delegate is decided by the coin flip. IIRC from the story I heard on NPR there are something like 11,000 delegates to the Iowa State Democratic Convention and it is at that convention where the actual delegates to the Democratic National Convention are selected. So with 11,000 delegates to the state convention the results of a few coin flips aren't going to change much.