Computer Specialist Who Deleted Clinton Emails May Have Asked Reddit For Tips (usnews.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from U.S. News and World Report: An army of reddit users believes it has found evidence that former Hillary Clinton computer specialist Paul Combetta solicited free advice regarding Clinton's private email server from users of the popular web forum. A collaborative investigation showed a reddit user with the username stonetear requested help in relation to retaining and purging email messages after 60 days, and requested advice on how to remove a "VERY VIP" individual's email address from archived content. The requests match neatly with publicly known dates related to Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of state. Stonetear has deleted the posts, but before doing so, the pages were archived by other individuals. "ARCHIVE EVERYTHING YOU CAN!!!!" a person wrote on a popular thread on the Donald Trump-supporting subreddit r/The_Donald, as the entries disappeared. There are several reasons to believe the reddit user is indeed Combetta, who was granted immunity by the Justice Department during its investigation of Clinton's private server after he deleted a large number of emails. The evidence connecting Combetta to the account is circumstantial, but also voluminous. The inactive website combetta.com is registered to the email address stonetear@gmail.com, a search of domain registration information using the service whois.com indicates. An account for a person named Paul Combetta on the web bazaar Etsy also has the username stonetear. And, perhaps most damningly, there are the dates. Stonetear posted to reddit on July 24, 2014: "Hello all- I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP's (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a PST file. Basically, they don't want the VIP's email address exposed to anyone, and want to be able to either strip out or replace the email address in the to/from fields in all of the emails we want to send out..." U.S. News and World Reports adds: "On July 23, 2014, the House Select Committee on Benghazi had reached an agreement with the State Department on the production of records, according to an FBI report released earlier this month on the bureau's probe of her email use." Stonetear submitted an additional post to reddit on Dec. 10, 2014 that reads: "Hello- I have a client who wants to push out a 60 day email retention policy for certain users. However, they also want these users to have a 'Save Folder' in their Exchange folder list where the users can drop items that they want to hang onto longer than the 60 day window. All email in any other folder in the mailbox should purge anything older than 60 days (should not apply to calendar or contact items of course). How would I go about this? Some combination of retention and managed folder policy?"

UPDATE 9/19/2016: Slashdot reader NotInHere points out that there is a Slashdot user named "StoneTear" as well.

Comments

just one thing to say

[isotope23]

Whoop There it is!

Re:just one thing to say

[DaHat]

For what purpose would they want to change the email address inside of an email?

Are we to believe they were so concerned about other peoples email addresses being exposed as part of a FOIA request? Or are they trying to make it harder to search for certain content and/or hide the actual identities of who they are corresponding with?

It's still tampering with federal records, which at last check used to be a federal crime... at least until the FBI & DOJ opted to let a whole lot of people walk.

Re:just one thing to say

[isotope23]

Yeah I did. And I unlike you realize the following -

1. stripping the email address was almost certainly at a minimum an attempt to hide the fact that she was using a private server for government emails. (Something which would have gotten a "normal" person fired if not charged with multiple felonies)

2. stripping/altering the email address would have allowed them to cherry pick items - e.g. "well this email is potentially a problem, good thing it doesn't have clinton's email address on it!"

3. Later actions by the IT consultant (destroying evidence which was under subpoena) indicate the above was not simply "oooh we want to protect her private email address" rather it indicates they were looking at hiding or destroying the information.....

I dislike Trump but seriously just because he's the Republican candidate should not mean you are willing to overlook this kind of crap.
If the DNC wasn't corrupt at the core you probably would have had Sanders instead....

Re:just one thing to say

[msauve]

4. Stripping the email address allows them to truthfully claim they did a search for all emails from/to her address, and provided every single one of them. Dishonestly left unsaid, in the traditional Clinton manner, is that they also knew there were lots of emails which actually were from/to her which they didn't provide.

Re:just one thing to say

[Anonymous Coward]

This post from the exchange server subreddit might not answer all the questions, but helps me as someone not familiar with exchange to understand tools that are available for litigation and discovery, and maybe why and when they were or weren't used.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exchangeserver/comments/53ick9/remove_or_replace_tofrom_address_on_archived/d7tjg3v

To me it sounds like they wanted to tamper with the record before letting anyone else go over it with the normal tools.

Re:just one thing to say

[Berkyjay]

I dislike Trump but seriously just because he's the Republican candidate should not mean you are willing to overlook this kind of crap.

What kind of crap? Deleting emails? Without direct knowledge what was in those emails, you only have speculation as to why they were doing this. Where as with Trump, you have his own mouth to tell you that he doesn't respect your rights or the constitution and that he's a flaming racist and a hyper nationalist. Deleting emails seems trivial in that light.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l...

Re:just one thing to say

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for Correcting The Record.

$0.05USD has been deposited in your account.

Re:just one thing to say

[quantaman]

Yeah I did. And I unlike you realize the following -

1. stripping the email address was almost certainly at a minimum an attempt to hide the fact that she was using a private server for government emails. (Something which would have gotten a "normal" person fired if not charged with multiple felonies)

Except they already would have known she was using a private email address. That was the reason for the document request in the first place.

More likely it would be the case that they didn't want her email address on the thousands of pages of printouts they sent, maybe Clinton was hoping that the address wouldn't be published and she could keep using it.

It would be like a phone number, the moment it's published it's pretty much useless and you need to update everyone with your new contact info.

2. stripping/altering the email address would have allowed them to cherry pick items - e.g. "well this email is potentially a problem, good thing it doesn't have clinton's email address on it!"

3. Later actions by the IT consultant (destroying evidence which was under subpoena) indicate the above was not simply "oooh we want to protect her private email address" rather it indicates they were looking at hiding or destroying the information.....

Possibly, though this guy talking about his "VERY VIP" client doesn't seem particularly suited to the uber-competent cloak and dagger world.

And the nuking actually makes a lot of sense if you think you've gotten everything you're legally supposed to.

At that point she's under no legal obligation to keep her remaining non-work emails, but the moment someone thinks to subpoena them she has to keep them around and they become at risk of public disclosure.

If I was faced with the possibility of my enemies getting a copy of my personal inbox I'd launch my hard drive into the sun.

Re:just one thing to say

[amicusNYCL]

I dislike Trump but seriously just because he's the Republican candidate should not mean you are willing to overlook this kind of crap.

I can't stand that attitude, c'mon. "The second most disliked candidate in presidential polling history is corrupt as hell, so I guess we have to vote for the single most disliked candidate in presidential polling history."

No, you do not have to settle for someone you hate. Instead you can cast a vote for a smaller party, there is at least one on the ballet in all 50 states, and count your vote as a protest vote against the two-party system if you really don't believe someone in the smaller parties actually does represent your beliefs better (there's an argument to be made that a large percentage of Americans agree with the platform of the Libertarian party without knowing it).

You don't have to choose between Shitty and Shittier, vote against the entire system which would force you to choose between one of those two options while keeping the rest of the system in power.

Re:just one thing to say

[amicusNYCL]

Without direct knowledge what was in those emails

Man, if only we had direct knowledge of what was in those emails. Oh well, it was probably nothing, right? They were probably just low on disk space or something. We can take her on her word, right?

Deleting emails seems trivial in that light.

But, how can you say that without direct knowledge of what was in the emails?

Re:just one thing to say

[amicusNYCL]

Whatever you do, one thing is extremely important. Make sure that you either vote for a Democrat, or a Republican. It's vitally important that you do so. There aren't any other options. If you want proof, just look at any media story. They will helpfully tell you not only that there aren't any other options, but they will even tell you who they predict to win and what people are thinking right now. But even though they might tell you that more than half of voters dislike both candidates, still, the system depends on you voting for one of those two. Smaller parties will not be able to win, there's no reason to even consider casting a vote for any party which does not control the Commission on Presidential Debates. If you voted for another party the entire system, including your personal finances, will probably collapse. Do your patriotic duty and vote for a Democrat or Republican, it doesn't particularly matter which one, and remember, next time we'll probably give you better choices so just suck it up and wait until then.

Don't worry, we'll change, it will be better next time, we promise we won't abuse you again.

Re: just one thing to say

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be out of your mind. Read what you've written and think about what your saying. This liar is better than this liar? You've gone mad. These next 4 years are fucked. Ask yourself why you're so ok with that, and how it's come to this.

The sad part is you think you're correct and when it's that type of thinking, justifying that one poison is better than the other, that put us here in the first place. If really want fix this mess and I mean the whole mess, start right now. Help to dismantle the apparatus that saddled us with these two "choices."

Re:just one thing to say

[Berkyjay]

Man, if only we had direct knowledge of what was in those emails. Oh well, it was probably nothing, right? They were probably just low on disk space or something. We can take her on her word, right?

Who said you have to take her word for it? The only thing you can do is worry about the facts that you know. You know that someone in her staff deleted emails, that's it. Any thing more is mere speculation and it will forever be mere speculation. In the absence of certainty you are projecting your own suspicions into the void. Our brains don't like voids. Our imaginations take over and we invent scenarios which are often extreme. In this case, you are expecting the worst of Clinton and your imaginary scenario is worse than the reality of Trump. A rational human being would recognize this and check their imagination. But not many people are very rational these days.

But, how can you say that without direct knowledge of what was in the emails?

Facts > speculation

Re: just one thing to say

[Anonymous Coward]

With anybody willing to start quickly. I'm in the "fire em all and put 6th graders in" camp.

Re:just one thing to say

[rickb928]

The lawyerly response would be 'Yes, I'm sure you searched for all emails to and from the subject's address. Please provide all emails sent or received, as requested, or explain why these are not produced.'

As in cutting through the BS and stating the demand plainly. FOIA requests need not ask that the subject search for documents, but that they produce ANY available documents requested. How they do that is not the requester's concern.

And since even you know she used the private server(s) as the only means of official email communication, then the excuses are feeble and moot. Either fail to deliver or claim they are lost. The former, violation. The latter, incompetence at the least, and implicitly a violation.

Re:just one thing to say

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Mr. Hill-Shill. You are so transparent and dated it's like your argument is coming from the grave of a dead political campaign and you know it. Don't you. Shilling for a Bond Villain is a tough gig, eh?

Not to mention that out of the other 3 losers (that means Clinton staffers) involved in the email crimes, TWO just took the FIFTH in a hearing. They refuse to say anything, like so many other Obama/Clinton hacks. And get this, the other one didn't even bother to show up at the hearing. He ran away from truth and is hiding. And these are the kind of people leading the Party of the Klu Klux Klan. The so-called Democrat Party.

Re:just one thing to say

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, why is he doing so well in the polls?

My god do you really think people are as stupid as you are? She's DOWN by 5 points in almost all polls now, Your lies and delusions do not 'make reality.' At least not any more. People with a functioning brain now see Hillary for what she is. Even someone as dumb as Matt Laurer sees it.

Re:just one thing to say

[MachineShedFred]

Personally, I can't believe a word either of them says. Add to that the shockingly bad lapses in judgement that both have shown, and it really makes me wonder how this is the best we can come up with.

Re:just one thing to say

[Dishevel]

AC posts stupid AC shit.


She deleted government emails after they were demanded.
She straight up lied to congress about the devices she used.
She lied to the people and congress about sending and reviving classified documents.
She lied to the parents of the warriors that died trying to protect a US ambassador.
She sold State Dept access to donors of the "Awesome Clinton Foundation".
She accomplished nothing as a Senator.
She presided over the State Dept and when she left, many regions of the world were worse off and none better off.


There are a lot of things I do not know about Trump. You are correct.
Everything we know about Hillary proves she is unqualified and untrustable.

Re: just one thing to say

[Dishevel]

Voting for Trump hurts the establishment. Both the Democrats and the Republicans.
You keep on listening to their lies. They have already convinced you that one side of the establishment is better than the other side. It is not like you are not already so invested in your belief system that it is even possible for you to see that both sides only care for more power for the powers that be. The sides you have been convinced to take exist only in the reality they show you. In truth, there is the powers that be vs the people that want power to be more fluid.

One day you may see that. It will not though come to you before the election. You are incapable of seeing it.

Re:just one thing to say

[Dishevel]

We KNOW that they deleted emails.
We KNOW that some of the emails that were recovered were classified.
We KNOW that she lied to congress about the devices she used.
We KNOW that she lied to the people that she never received or sent classified emails.
We KNOW that they wiped out emails after they were demanded by the government.
We KNOW lots of things.

I know that if I were to be investigated by the government and they demanded the emails from my business and within days of me finding this out I started going through my email and deciding on my own what was important for the investigation to see and what was not and started deleting stuff ....
Even if they could find no direct evidence of my deleting material evidence, even if they could not prove that the stuff I removed had bearing on the case.
I would be in prison. You know this.

You can have a dog in the fight. You have that right. Do not though lie to yourself about what happened here. It is plain as day and would be proven in a court of law had it been any of us.

Re:just one thing to say

[D00MSlayer]

And these are the kind of people leading the Party of the Klu Klux Klan. The so-called Democrat Party.

Sorry, but that's probably the most laughable comment I've read yet this week.

Re:just one thing to say

[Berkyjay]

Still not worse than Trump.

Re:just one thing to say

[Dishevel]

You can have a dog in the fight. You have that right. Do not though lie to yourself about what happened here. It is plain as day and would be proven in a court of law had it been any of us.

Again. Did you read? You can vote for whoever you want. Just don't lie to yourself about what we actually know. If you have to lie to yourself to do something. You might want to check what you are doing.

Re:just one thing to say

[Viewsonic]

I like how you just make up that these would have gotten a person fired and charged with felonies, while the FBI specifically states any of this would not have gotten one of their own fired, nor was anything considered a felony.

Re:just one thing to say

[Viewsonic]

Considering we've seen tens of thousands of emails of pretty much the most mundane stuff, with the exception of them making fun of Boehner being a drunk, I'd have to say, yeah, it was probably not much of anything. But feel free to continue your fantasy.

Re:just one thing to say

[Berkyjay]

Oh I read your post. I'm not denying anything you said. My point is that when considering the facts we do know about Clinton and about Trump, the facts about Trump are worse.

Re:just one thing to say

[Dishevel]

Our brains don't like voids. Our imaginations take over and we invent scenarios which are often extreme. In this case, you are expecting the worst of Clinton and your imaginary scenario is worse than the reality of Trump.

There is zero extreme we have to "imagine" in this scenario. She knew that she had sent and received classified emails on her private server and there were emails that she wanted to hide from the people. She had the server wiped to cover up the facts.
What in that scenario is extreme or does not fit the facts we absolutely know?

Re:just one thing to say

[Berkyjay]

Still speculating and still not worse than Trump.

Re:just one thing to say

[amicusNYCL]

You're being very disingenuous about this. For example, given the list of things that we do know about Clinton as partially listed above, and also considering her behavior in the past, if I am a single-issue voter where I believe that the only thing at this point that matters is that people who are corrupt are not in charge of our country, then isn't Clinton worse than Trump? Your view of whom is better than the other is completely colored by your own biases or what you think the major threats to this country are, but you're still willing to state your opinions like they're facts.

Facts > speculation

And where do "your opinions" fall on that spectrum? Why should I care what you think? Just because you really believe something doesn't make it a fact.

But not many people are very rational these days.

No kidding. You're a prime example, but the problem with people like you is that you're just sure you're right. You don't even consider your own imagination to be part of the problem, instead you're sure that you're part of the solution and you have all the answers.

Sorry pal, but I'm not going to vote for someone who is blatantly corrupt to lead our country and then act like I'm doing The Right Thing (tm). I'm also not going to vote for Trump.

Re:just one thing to say

[Dishevel]

Worse or not is your opinion and you have a right to it.
There is no speculation there. If you could be honest with yourself you would admit that.
My guess is that if you admitted that she did the things that have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that you could no longer support her. So, you must hide from the facts. I would have some small amount of respect if you could look at the truth and hold your opinion. One though it seems, to you at least, has to go. You choose keeping your opinion over seeing the actual facts.
Again. Might want to look at that.

Re:just one thing to say

[Berkyjay]

Heh, you must not have read my response. What she did whether it's true or not is irrelevant to me. The gravity of her actions are nothing compared to the threat that Trump poses......yes in my opinion. I can support her purely on the fact that I feel that Trump is too much of a danger. So, no I'm not lying to myself. Frankly I think you and others who are fixated on Clinton blind yourselves to Trump.

Re:just one thing to say

[amicusNYCL]

it was probably not much of anything.

Then why did they feel the need to delete it?

Or, maybe you need a more explicit question that spells it out:

What could have been in the emails where they knew that getting caught deleting everything and dealing with the fallout from that was a better outcome than dealing with the content of the emails?

They made a choice. They made a calculated choice based on risk that getting caught deleting everything and having to talk about what they don't remember and reminding everyone that there's no proof and that you should just keep on trusting the Clinton machine (in the middle of her presidential campaign) was a better option and would hurt Hillary's brand less than if people saw what she was sending through email on a server that was not under the control of government.

And you're trying to suggest that they were talking about Boehner being drunk. They counted on people like you, you know. When they were making their decisions they were saying "we know that there are a lot of useful idiots out there who will help us, they will say stupid shit and make stupid comparisons to get people to forget and help us sweep everything under the rug". That's you they were talking about, you're the useful idiot that they counted on when they made the decision that deleting everything was going to result in less serious or fewer consequences. I hope you're at least getting compensated and not just doing that because you'd like to see people like her in charge of the country.

Re:just one thing to say

[Rob Y.]

Yes, you can vote for a smaller party. But to do that without actually supporting the policies of that party is lunacy. I imagine you are in agreement with the Libertarian party's platform (though it's hard to imagine anyone literally wanting their 'essentially no government' platform enacted. But presumably the swing, potential 3rd party vote this year is left-of-center Sanders supporters who basically (grudgingly) accept that the Clinton/Democratic platform is a pretty good approximation of Sanders' 'pull the Dems to the left' goal at the start of his campaign.

Some of these voters, though, either think Clinton won't enact any of that platform and/or that voting for a candidate that they dislike and/or distrust is worse than having a candidate they seriously dislike and distrust actually win. Okay kids, it's not about how you feel - it's about what you want to happen, and the policies you presumably care about. And as far as Clinton backtracking on the platform, that platform contains plenty that Clinton didn't have to be pulled into embracing - and probably some that she's glad to have been 'forced' to embrace.

Now maybe some think they're pursuing a fantasy strategy in which Trump wins and is so awful that a true leftist wins in 2020. Fat chance - since Dems tend to trend rightward after a big defeat. And of course, the next 4 years - and a couple of lifetime Supreme Court appointments - will make a mess that's even harder to clean up.

It's the whole 'Nader as spoiler' thing all over. Yes Nader and his apologists will claim robotically that "If Al Gore couldn't win his home state, it's not my fault", or "If it hadn't been for the ballot problems in Florida, Gore would've won anyway". But they conveniently discount the effect of Nader's running around the country saying "your choice is Coke or Pepsi" to an audience that missed all the nuance and assumed that meant electing Bush and Gore were essentially the same thing. Nader doesn't and didn't believe a Bush win was the same as a Gore win, but his message implied it. Nobody knows how much that detracted from Gore, but I suspect it had a greater effect than the direct Nader vote.

Yes, the two party system is a problem. No, voting for 3rd party spoilers within the 2 party system will not fix it.

Re:just one thing to say

[Berkyjay]

You don't even consider your own imagination to be part of the problem, instead you're sure that you're part of the solution and you have all the answers.

Sorry pal, but I'm not going to vote for someone who is blatantly corrupt to lead our country and then act like I'm doing The Right Thing (tm). I'm also not going to vote for Trump.

My imagination has nothing to do with what I've heard directly from Trumps mouth.

Re:just one thing to say

[Rob Y.]

The other thing we know is that when you start from hating Clinton first and proceed from there, every conspiracy is as good as a fact.

Of course, that conveniently overlooks that a bunch of the deleted emails were recovered by the FBI, and they were essentially no different in tone and content than the ones that were preserved. But of course there's got to be a smoking gun in there - it's a Clinton, after all...

Re:just one thing to say

[Dishevel]

And yet you still say that the statements are only speculation.
Why can you not admit that they are way beyond speculation?

Re: just one thing to say

[kenwd0elq]

Trump is no conservative; he's a Democrat.

Hillary is no democrat; she's a fascist.

Sanders is a Socialist, so at least HE was honest about it.

Johnson is a liberal Republican, not a Libertarian.

NONE of them are or were running for the nominations of the proper party.

Re: just one thing to say

[kenwd0elq]

Cthulhu for President! Why vote for the LESSER Evil?

Re:just one thing to say

[swillden]

If the DNC wasn't corrupt at the core you probably would have had Sanders instead....

It's a good thing that didn't happen. Trump probably could have beaten Sanders. I like Sanders quite a bit myself (even though I disagree with a lot of his policy positions, I think he's a good man and would make a fair president), but his extreme-left history makes him virtually unelectable in the generals. The RNC would have had a field day with anti-Bernie ads if he'd gotten the Democratic nod; there's just so much to draw on.

Re: just one thing to say

[kenwd0elq]

The real problem is government itself. When the Federal government was small, it couldn't do too much damage, even when it was badly administered. Now that the Federal government is enormous, overarching and omnipotent, all of the nasty people want to take control of the Federal government and use it for their own purposes. And they do.

The solution is to reduce the size, cost and power of the Federal government. Never re-elect anybody; it takes some time for each generation of crooks to learn how to line their own pockets effectively. Impose term limits; for example, no person shall be allowed to run for any government office if more than 50% of his working lifetime has been spent working for the government. That would clear out the functionaries who have NEVER held a job - like Bernie Sanders.

It'll never happen; the people who would be affected are the very people who currently run things. It may take a second American Revolution.

It's not so much that "power corrupts"; it's that corruptible people are drawn to power. Reduce the power, and reduce the corruption.

Re:just one thing to say

[Berkyjay]

I think you seem to be unable to grasp why anyone would not consider this consequential. That's the rub, you see this as some damning evidence and I see it as circumstantial. And again, in light of what Trump represents, Clinton's alleged crimes are minor....in my opinion. Say I have bias, say I'm lying to myself. Makes no difference to me. I see Trump as a threat to the well being of this country. Clinton may be corrupt, but at least she is capable.

Re:just one thing to say

[amicusNYCL]

But presumably the swing, potential 3rd party vote this year is left-of-center Sanders supporters who basically (grudgingly) accept that the Clinton/Democratic platform is a pretty good approximation of Sanders' 'pull the Dems to the left' goal at the start of his campaign.

Actually assuming that Clinton would do anything that she promises in order to get elected is lunacy.

voting for a candidate that they dislike and/or distrust is worse than having a candidate they seriously dislike and distrust actually win.

But I seriously dislike and distrust Clinton.

Okay kids, it's not about how you feel - it's about what you want to happen

What I want to happen is that we elect a leader who isn't blatantly corrupt. It's kind of a pipe dream, I know, but that's what I want to happen. So it doesn't really help my goal if I go and specifically vote for someone who is corrupt.

probably some that she's glad to have been 'forced' to embrace.

Ha. You're a funny guy, I like you.

Yes, the two party system is a problem. No, voting for 3rd party spoilers within the 2 party system will not fix it.

It's not about voting for "spoilers", and calling a legitimate candidate a spoiler is a symptom of the problem. I'm not going to vote for the system to continue, sorry but I'm just not going to do that. I'm not going to play their idiotic game where they counter the single most disliked candidate in presidential polling history with the second most disliked candidate in presidential polling history and then come whining to me about how I need to vote for them to stop the catastrophe that they could have clearly avoided if they just hadn't nominated the goddamn second most disliked candidate in presidential polling history like she has some ordained right to the office of president. I'm not going to do it. If their actual goal was just to defeat Trump then there are a ton of candidates who would have no problem doing that, why should I feel obligated to vote for the candidate they chose who comes with a mountain of baggage and many very serious questions about her trust and credibility? I'm not going to play the game. I'm done, I'm going to vote for a smaller candidate and against the two-party system and have a clear conscience when I leave the poll. Expecting Democrats and Republicans to mount any serious effort to fix their own system is stupid, it's literally stupid. I'm not going to leave it up to them, neither of them deserve my vote. I'm voting for someone who would actually change the system instead of buying into it.

Re:just one thing to say

[amicusNYCL]

Right, you're going to ignore the actions of one person because you don't like what another guy says, even though he can't even go several days without directly contradicting himself. You're going to assume that he's being straight-up and honest with what he says and that he means everything, while ignoring and minimizing the actions of the other person. Like I said, you're being disingenuous, your bias is clear, your mind is already made up regardless of what anyone says or does, but might as well deny your imagination anyway.

Re:just one thing to say

[syn3rg]

Historically accurate, however; the KKK was created by registered Democrats.

Re:just one thing to say

[amicusNYCL]

The other thing we know is that when you start from hating Clinton first and proceed from there, every conspiracy is as good as a fact.

That's really not that far off. When someone has had her credibility questioned for years, and she knows that, and she still decides to delete things which by law should have been saved, you have to wonder why she isn't just willing to come clean and let people see that she has nothing to hide. Again, they made the decision that deleting everything and dealing with the fallout from that was a better option than letting people see the content of the emails. I'm not suggesting anything about what was in the emails, but if I had a reputation like hers for dishonesty and I was trying to impress an entire country of voters I wouldn't want to give them any more reasons to think I'm dishonest unless that outcome is better than letting them see what I was doing. She's not a stupid woman, she weighed the risks and made the choice to deal with the fallout from deleting the emails rather than allow them to be seen.

Re: just one thing to say

[cunina]

Those "rednecks" to whom you refer have been bullied and browbeaten endlessly by the media over the last twenty years, and over the last eight they've had a President who outwardly, openly disdains them and does nothing to address their problems. And on top of that, we have a climate where millions of people like you feel completely comfortable describing them the way you just did. It's time for people like you to accept some of the blame for the rise of the Orange Fuhrer. Nice job.

Re:just one thing to say

[Berkyjay]

I'm not being disingenuous at all. I've clearly stated what I think from the beginning of my posts. Clinton's crimes Trump's crimes. You just don't like the fact that someone isn't seeing Clinton as the traitorous uber criminal that you think she is.

Re:just one thing to say

[Dishevel]

No.
I have stated that you can have your opinion. Facts are facts though. You continually state that it is just speculation. It is not. We know what happened at the very least. I have only stated what is provable.
With the facts in hand you can come to any conclusion you like. But you do not. You keep stating that the facts laid out are speculation when they clearly are not.

Re:just one thing to say

[erapert]

Can you read English and do some basic fucking googling?!

You're either a shill or an absolute moron.

Re:just one thing to say

[Rob Y.]

Okay kids, it's not about how you feel - it's about what you want to happen

What I want to happen is that we elect a leader who isn't blatantly corrupt. It's kind of a pipe dream, I know, but that's what I want to happen. So it doesn't really help my goal if I go and specifically vote for someone who is corrupt.

That's where you go off the rails. Your pipe dream isn't a choice. You have a choice between 2 options (yes, corrupt 2-party blah, blah). If you decide not to make one of those choices, it will be made for you. And if you seriously can't come up with a preference between Trump and Clinton, then you're not paying attention - or you're allowing your attention to be diverted and manipulated. And please, Clinton is 'corrupt' in the sense of 'typical politician', i.e. not particularly corrupt, but needs to raise lots of money, so y'know... Trump is a whole new thing - and don't let his 'self-funded' bullshit convince you that at least he's not a typical politician - he's something much worse... And I assume you know that - that's what's so distressing.

Re:just one thing to say

[Rob Y.]

...and by the way, I find it hard to believe that 'we elect a leader who isn't blatantly corrupt' is the only thing you want to happen. So, give up on that one, and focus on, oh, maybe a Supreme Court nominee that won't make the corrupt electoral system worse. Citizens United isn't the only place where the right-wing court has been whittling away at the one-person/one-vote core of our democracy.

Re:just one thing to say

[amicusNYCL]

You just don't like the fact that someone isn't seeing Clinton as the traitorous uber criminal that you think she is.

See what I mean about your imagination? You have a bias in favor of Clinton where you think that she would be qualified to lead the country, even though she preferred to violate law by deleting her communications instead of letting people see what the content was. You're also assuming what I think about her. She's not a traitor, she's just corrupt.

Re:just one thing to say

[D00MSlayer]

If you knew your history well enough, you'd understand that those same Democrats left the party after Truman and the other Democrats successfully pushed Civil Rights expansions for african americans. They then went to form the Dixiecrat party, which died off shortly thereafter when they were lured by southern Republican leaders with their "southern strategy," which appealed to white racist southerners.

Re:just one thing to say

[Grishnakh]

I'm not trying to stick up for Hillary here, but while we don't have much of a political record of Trump's to go on since he wasn't a politician until recently, we do have one for his running mate Pence, who's an ultra-conservative neo-con who says he idolizes Dick Cheney, meaning he intends to run the show from behind the scenes with Trump as a mere figurehead.

We have two really lousy choices this year.

Re: just one thing to say

[chasm22]

Oh gee I have tears in my eyes. The poor little rednecks are being brow beaten by the viscous liberals.

You're either a troll laughing while hitting the submit button or the person who has the wildest imagination in the world.

I'm assuming the latter. I'm also suggesting that, whenever you have time to touch base with reality, you go review the comments made about this President following any story ever written about him.

Obama has endured more insults than any other President in my lifetime. Certainly more than he has dished out about rednecks. For that matter, I can't remember hearing or reading any comment by him that was directed towards rednecks by name.

Sorry for so few tears. It's not the liberals responsible for Trump. It's the dumb fucking REDNECKS who have openly embraced his attitude because it's so very, very close to their own.

Re:just one thing to say

[Meski]

I'd wonder how many accounts existed on what is, after all, a private server of hers. And then examine them all.

Re:just one thing to say

[Dishevel]

Trump will either do some good or crash and burn the country trying to be awesome. Of all the issues I have with Trump, that motherfucker loves his name. He has a deep seated need to win. To have is name synonymous with WIN,
I feel that he will really try, very hard in his way to do good things. Great things. I have questions about if he can accomplish them. Not if he wants to do good.

Hillary.
I know for a fact that she is in politics to build power for the establishment. She is more interested in building power and money and I know she will lie, cheat and steal to get it done. There is a small part of me that thinks that the nut jobs that say the Clintons kill people might be right. Clinton will ruin the country. As would Sanders, Cruz, Rubio, Bush, and all the rest. They will ruin the US. They will do it slower, but more certainly.

That is what I think, and my sole reason for voting Trump. Trump sucks but with him there is a small amount of hope. I have none for any of the others.

Re: just one thing to say

[KenHansen]

If you knew your history well enough, you'd understand that those same Democrats left the party after Truman and the other Democrats successfully pushed Civil Rights expansions for african americans.

That's a neat trick - the Klan was founded around the turn of the century, and your claim that 'those same democrats' left after Truman (in 1945, I assume) and 'the other Democrats pushed civil rights expansion for African Americans' (in 1964, after blocking the Republican's efforts to pass it for years) - THAT'S when those turn of the century, hood wearing, black killing klansmen from the turn of the century suddenly became Republicans? Let me guess, this fantasy was shared with you by your democrat teachers or your democrat politicians? It isn't true - as an example, Al Gore Sr. Filibustered Civil Rights for years and stayed a Democrat until his death. 100% of Republicans voted for Civil Rights in 1964, about 40% of Democrats supported civil rights... It's an easily provable/dos-provable fact, I encourage you to look it up.

Re:just one thing to say

[Grishnakh]

I partly agree with your assessment about Trump, and completely about Hillary. But where on Earth do you get the idea that Sanders will "ruin the US"? By making it more like his idol country, Denmark? What's to dislike about that? Great standard of living, education, strong economy, healthcare, what's not to like unless you think you're a "temporarily embarrassed millionaire"? Now maybe it's not that realistic to try to be like that (we are very different nations after all), but if we move a little bit in that direction (Presidents have limited power, they have more power to veto and to start wars than to do great legislative things), I don't see how that's a bad thing, in fact it's much better than what all the other candidates want to do. Very likely, a Bernie Presidency would probably be known for two things: 1) not getting into any stupid wars, and 2) maybe, just maybe accomplishing some nice social services goal, such as single-payer healthcare (that might be too optimistic) or moving to a better hybrid regulated healthcare system like what Germany has. And if you're a gun-loving conservative, he's already proven he's pretty neutral on that issue, unlike Hillary, who seems to want to revive the ineffective AWB of the 90s because it sounds good.

As for what Trump will accomplish, I have no doubt that he loves his name and wants to go down in history for doing great things. However, he's also allied himself with a bunch of ultra-conservatives, and picked Pence as his running mate, and that guy is a firm member of the establishment. I can only hope that if he does get elected, he'll tell the religious loonies and neo-cons to sit down and shut up and maybe try to do something good. He did say a few things about making sure everyone's taken care of healthcare-wise, so I'll give him credit for that, unlike most on the right who think it should be everyone for themselves

Re:just one thing to say

[AutodidactLabrat]

Pity that Comey says EXACTLY the reverse of your random accusations!!!

Re: just one thing to say

[toquams]

We're having a discussion about Combetta and HRC trying to hide incriminating correspondence and you're off on a completely unrelated tangent about Trump and you want to know why he's doing so well in the polls? Bro, that's why.

Re:just one thing to say

[Dishevel]

Sanders ran as an outsider but he is just another career politician. It was not his turn so he was not favored, but he has been a part of the machine for longer than all the idiots voting for him have been alive. Politician from day one. That is his job. His only job. Politicians ruin the country. People who server for a bit are what we need to survive.

Re:just one thing to say

[Grishnakh]

Oh please, the guy's been an independent (though caucusing with Dems) for ages, and he does have a record of getting useful things done, which is why he's called "the amendment king". Sure, he's been a politician for a long time (and a career one at that), but that's not a bad thing by itself unless you assume that everyone gets corrupt, which I think is false. Sanders didn't win because the DNC didn't like him: he's not a "real Democrat", because he hasn't played the party game all this time like Hillary and DWS have, he wasn't even *in* the party until just before the race. You can't be "part of the machine" if you're not in one of the two main parties. All indications are he's in it to try to make things better; if not, after all this time he'd be a multi-millionaire like so many other Congresspeople, not just comfortably upper-middle-class (which he got just by being in Congress all that time and collecting their normal paychecks). Sanders is just very unusual, and he's been a politician this long because he comes from a very unusual little state (Vermont) where apparently the puny number of voters there (state pop. is a little over a half-million) like him.

You just seem to have a religious belief that no one can stay in politics for long without turning corrupt. I say the reverse is problematic: it's all too easy for some corrupt person, affiliated with some moneyed interest (like the payday loan industry, in the case of DWS), to get elected and then work to pass legislation helpful to that interest. It's better to have highly experienced politicians stay in their jobs for a long time, and not be allied to any moneyed interests, which is why the pay for these people (in the federal government at least) was set to be reasonably high, but it's up to the voters to do a decent job choosing these people. Apparently most voters fail miserably.

As for your question, the reason it's "so hard" to have politicians for a few years is because people have to have careers. You can't just take a 5-year hiatus from a career to do something else for a while and expect to come back to it and be competitive. Anyone working in tech should know this all too well: how do you think YOU would do if you took 5 years off and then asked for your old job back? The only time it seems to work out well is when there's some pretty obvious corruption, like with Eric Cantor when he lost his seat and then got some corporate job paying millions, because he had connections. There's plenty of decently-run (well, better than the US at any rate), highly developed nations in western Europe that don't have any such notion about politicians serving only a few years. That's a quaint old concept from 200+ years ago when the founders/politicians were all farmers and landowners, and it really was possible to let someone else run the farm for a while and then come back to it. That doesn't work in modern society.

Re:just one thing to say

[Dishevel]

That is funny.

We know that the emails were deleted by the ones they were able to recover. (Not speculation. Fact)
We know that she told the congress, under oath, that she used only one device. She told the FBI that she had used 13. (Not speculation. Fact)
We know that she stated that she had never sent nor received classified documents over he private email, Comey and the facts state otherwise. (Not speculation. Fact)
We know from the testimony of the parents that she told them that she would get the video guy for doing this.(Not speculation. Fact. Unless you are calling the parents liars.)
The State Dept access thing was not looked into at all by Comey. If though you look at who she met with, it is fairly obvious. Proving it in court might be more difficult though.
She did in fact not pass a single bill of substance as a Senator with her name on it. (Not speculation. Fact)
As for the last. This one IMO is more objective than subjective, but you can argue it. What region of the world do you think we ended up with a better relationship in or was more stable than before?


So. Again. Would you like to point out the holes in my argument or will your next awesome comment be, "Hillary says it's not TRUE!"
Because the words of people, when in direct opposition to known facts is not a viable argument.
You literally just spewed a statement that effectively refuted nothing in my previous statement. If you continue this path of argument, you will just be ignored.

Re:just one thing to say

[Dishevel]

Which is why originally politics was to be of service. People who had already been successful and were able to take the hit that serving in congress would entail in order to serve the country and the people that made it possible.

Now we have people that want to be a politician for life. It does corrupt. If you think Sanders is immune, look into his statements of truth about Hillary while it was helping his career path to bash her and the statements when bashing her would hinder is political career.

Truth is not as important to him as his political career. That is evident by his turn around.

Re:just one thing to say

[Grishnakh]

We're getting the government we deserve.

Re: just one thing to say

[Dishevel]

She stated under oath to congress she used only one device for email.
She stated to the FBI that she used 13 devices.

How is one of these not a lie?


She stated multiple times that she never received nor sent classified emails over her private email server.
The FBI found and reported on classified (At the time they were sent or received.) emails found to have been sent from and received by that server.

Where are we speculating here? Is the fact that she lied about this not just a fact now?


We can go over them one by one. Or you could point to a statement that you think has not been proven. I just pointed out two really fast that can in no way be refuted. If you want to vote for Hillary, this is your constitutional right. Do not though try to hide behind wiggly words to pretend she does not lie.

Re:just one thing to say

[Berkyjay]

I have a bias against Trump. There's a big difference there. My support of Clinton is mere pragmatism. Whether she broke the law or lied or whatever, she is still, by a wide wide margin, the far better option in this election. Again, no third party option has any chance of winning. Any vote for them is a vote for Trump. We as a country are on the precipice of a very wide chasm and Trump is at the bottom of that chasm. So yes, I have bias. It's a bias of not seeing Trump as president.

Re: just one thing to say

[D00MSlayer]

On the Contrary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

let me highlight a very particular passage of that page:

The original House version:

        Southern Democrats: 8–87 (7–93%)
        Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
        Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
        Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

        Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
        Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
        Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
        Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

So, as I stated before. The civil rights act clearly distinguished the southern dixiecrats from the rest of the democratic party.

And the only 100%'s for republicans were southern republicans voting AGAINST the Civil Rights Act.

Let me repeat: The Republicans garnered the festering tumor of the democratic party which was the Dixiecrats, using the "Southern Strategy" AFTER the CRA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Where's you get your info from? Your Republican parents? The tree stump you argue with?

Re: just one thing to say

[Dishevel]

She told congress that she did it so that she only had to use one device at a time.
Her statements to the FBI showed her consistently using 2 to 3 devices at a time.

Re:just one thing to say

[AutodidactLabrat]

And yet, Comey says NOTHING of the sort happened.

Re: just one thing to say

[Dishevel]

The FBI report clearly shows the use of multiple devices at the same time. It is in the report. From her account. Not a guess.

Fuck it. You win. Hillary is running the most transparent campaign ever. She said it, so it is true.

Re:just one thing to say

[Dishevel]

Where did Comey say there were no emails deleted?
(He did not.)

Where did Comey say that she only used one device at a time?
(He did not.)

Where did Comey say that no classified documents were sent or received by the private server?
(He did not.)


He never looked at any of the other things and made no statements about those at all.
Show me a single statement from Comey saying that nothing of that sort happened. Because in the FBI report and his press conference he stated that those things were true. He only stated that he did not recommend prosecution.

Did you get your facts from the report? From his press conference? Where did you even get the idea that he stated that none of that happened?
Where ever you got that info from should be stricken as a future place to get your facts. They did you wrong.

Re:just one thing to say

[AutodidactLabrat]

In his email to the troops Comey said "There is zero evidence of any intent to unlawfully disclose any classified material"
And "this was never even close"

Re:just one thing to say

[Dishevel]

Intent. It was his opinion that there was no intent.
First and foremost. By law, intent is not needed to prosecute for mishandling of classified data.
Second, and to the point. He is not saying that Clinton did not Send or Receive Classified data. Only that in his opinion there was no intent.
In his briefing he went over how there was classified material sent and received.

So again. Point out one statement where he says it did not happen. Because in the report and the words that came out of his mouth during the press conference, he stated clearly that it did in fact occur.
Facts are a bitch.

Re: just one thing to say

[Dishevel]

Not talking about Trump, and I have already allowed that if people choose Hillary that is their absolute right.
Not. About devices.
11 Blackberries in succession. Now they will not, even under direct questioning really answer if there was overlap, which is likely because of the fact that she had 2 phone numbers for that period of time it is likely that she had 2 devices. Not going to push that hard though, because we do not have to. She also, during that time used 3 iPads to do email.
I find it almost impossible to believe that when she had the iPads that she discontinued use of any Blackberry on her 2 phone numbers. Her testifying to congress that the reason for the private email was to consolidate to a single device in demonstratively false.
She lied. If you think that she is still a better choice than Trump, more power to you. Again. My problem is that you seem to need to believe that she did not lie about these things, when we have reports from the FBI that prove otherwise. She lied. Fact. If she would make a better President than Trump is an opinion.

Re:just one thing to say

[amicusNYCL]

I don't know man. I would never vote for Clinton anyway, so when I'm told that I need to vote for her because the other side of the system has put up a dangerous candidate, it just seems so stupid. It seems like this is exactly how they have the system set up to work. The only way that Hillary Clinton would possibly be able to get elected is if the Republicans found someone even more detestable than her, which they have managed to do, and the real funny thing about it is that the only person that Donald Trump could conceivably beat is Hillary Clinton. This is a race to the bottom. It's a Shakespearean tragedy the likes of which we haven't seen before. George H. W. Bush is saying he's going to vote for Hillary Clinton. Keep reading that sentence until you realize that this is bizarro world that we're living in. If George H. W. Bush voting for Clinton isn't a sign that the 2 parties are so much more alike than they are different than I don't know what is.

I want off the ride. I want them to stop it so I can get off. I've had enough. I don't think they're going to stop it on their own though, there are too many people who have been in power for too long and the money is flowing like a river. The number of people who want real change are a very small minority in Congress. If they aren't going to stop it on their own, then maybe it just needs to be burned down and built again. That's Trump getting elected. It's obviously not the result that most people would want, but they aren't going to change on their own. You can't put a heroin addict in charge of a room full of heroin and leave them there and tell them not to get high, they're going to get high because they're addicted to it.

I was pleasantly surprised to see Bernie get so much support from running a campaign centered around the idea that there is too much money in politics. I also think that's the #1 problem, and I also think that is a much greater threat than Trump. Clinton to me is a perfect poster child for that threat, which is why I can't just hold my nose and vote for her. She's literally the exact problem that I want to move away from, it doesn't help me to vote for the specific problem that I'm trying to avoid. If the United States crashes and flames out in a blaze of glory, it will be because of money. It will be because so many people have their hands in the pie and everyone tries to take their share all at once and there's nothing left for anything else. Hillary Clinton is off taking 6-figure paychecks from banks for speeches which do not get disclosed, and then she turns around and says that we need to rein in and control the banks. She doesn't mean that. She's the kind of person who will negotiate a trade deal in secret, where the only reason any citizen knows anything about it is because of leaks to the press, and then she'll try to jam that down everyone's throat so that the people are bound by a law that was negotiated without their input and in fact specifically kept from them. That's not democracy. Then she's going to turn around and say she opposes that deal because of Bernie's stance. You think she means that? No, I don't think she does. I think she gets into office, passes some meaningless amendments to the deal which she'll call a victory for progressives, and then pass it and talk about what a great deal it is.

I'm just sick of it. When Candidate Obama made all of these grand speeches about privacy and made promises about government surveillance, and then he got into office and renewed the Patriot Act, I said that I wasn't going to vote for a Democrat or a Republican any more. They tricked me enough. Just because one of them has managed to nominate a dangerous candidate doesn't mean I'm going to come back to them like an abused wife. I'm done with them, they had decades to prove that they had the best interests of the country at heart and they keep showing that it's all about them. I can't do it, sorry. It sucks if Trump gets elected but even if that happens there's a silver lining - Clinton

Re:just one thing to say

[amicusNYCL]

Again, no third party option has any chance of winning.

And as long as the media and people like you keep trying to convince people that's true, they never will. I don't buy into it though, sorry.

Whether she broke the law or lied or whatever, she is still, by a wide wide margin, the far better option in this election.

Well, she did break the law, and she did lie, and I'm not willing to overlook that and vote for her. Is she better than Trump? Yes. But, sorry man, "better than Trump" is just not a reason to vote for someone to be the goddamn president. Seriously, the best thing that people can say about Clinton is that she is better than Trump. That's a major problem. But that doesn't stop you from trying to argue about her crimes and lies by saying that without knowledge of what she deleted (which she very obviously took pains to make sure that we don't know), we shouldn't judge her. We'll never know. Yeah, whatever, that's exactly the line she wants you to say. To me, that's enough to disqualify her. I don't want her in office doing shady shit behind everyone's back and covering it up and then saying "hey, you'll never know what I was doing so you shouldn't judge me for it." She's a lawyer, and she knows that if there's no body then she's not going to get convicted, so she's doing everything she can to get rid of the body. That's not someone I want leading the country, regardless of any opponent she faces.

Any vote for them is a vote for Trump.

That's always been such a stupid disingenuous line. It implies that those votes would automatically go for Clinton instead of the third party. That is completely wrong. Many Republicans might go third party, are you trying to suggest those are equivalent to Trump votes? Because they're fucking not. Trump DIDN'T GET THE DAMN VOTE, IT'S NOT A VOTE FOR HIM. A vote for him means that he has 1 more vote than Clinton, and that therefore Clinton needs TWO VOTES to counter that and win. She only needs one. It's not the same. Stop pushing that bullshit line and trying to convince everyone who believes your crap that they only have two choices. Let them vote for who they think represents their beliefs instead of trying to shame them or guilt them into voting for a lying criminal.

Re:just one thing to say

[Berkyjay]

Well, she did break the law, and she did lie, and I'm not willing to overlook that and vote for her. Is she better than Trump? Yes. But, sorry man, "better than Trump" is just not a reason to vote for someone to be the goddamn president. Seriously, the best thing that people can say about Clinton is that she is better than Trump. That's a major problem. But that doesn't stop you from trying to argue about her crimes and lies by saying that without knowledge of what she deleted (which she very obviously took pains to make sure that we don't know), we shouldn't judge her. We'll never know. Yeah, whatever, that's exactly the line she wants you to say. To me, that's enough to disqualify her. I don't want her in office doing shady shit behind everyone's back and covering it up and then saying "hey, you'll never know what I was doing so you shouldn't judge me for it." She's a lawyer, and she knows that if there's no body then she's not going to get convicted, so she's doing everything she can to get rid of the body. That's not someone I want leading the country, regardless of any opponent she faces.

Talk about bias.

Stop pushing that bullshit line and trying to convince everyone who believes your crap that they only have two choices. Let them vote for who they think represents their beliefs instead of trying to shame them or guilt them into voting for a lying criminal.

Nope, I'm going to continue pushing everyone I know to vote Clinton. You're delusional if you think that Stein or Johnson have anything close to a chance. You can rage all you want against that cold hard fact, but you won't change a damn thing. And it's not because people like me telling them that a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump. It's because they are both terrible candidates in their own right.

If you want people to take third party candidates seriously then you go find an actual popular individual who can grab votes from both the right and left sides of the country, who isn't corrupt, who garners enough respect in order to form compromises, and who has the ability to generate enough funds to run a successful national presidential campaign. I'd love it if you would, but frankly better people than you have already tried. So good luck with that.

Re:just one thing to say

[amicusNYCL]

Yes, I have a bias against someone who has shown that she is untrustworthy and dishonest based on her actions. It would be hard not to have a bias against someone like that, but you seem pretty willing to ignore it.

And it's not because people like me telling them that a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump. It's because they are both terrible candidates in their own right.

No, that's not the reason. The reason is because the entire system has been set up and run by the Democratic and Republican parties to make sure that they stay in power. That's why they call media outlets and yell at them and threaten the careers of journalists when they report negative things about their candidates or parties, it's why they deliver talking points to the media which the journalists just go on air and repeat, and it's why the media can't cover any candidate who is not a Democrat or Republican without taking flak from the 2 parties. It's why only those 2 parties are allowed to debate in prime time on TV, you can thank the Commission on Presidential Debates for that one. They set up the system with those rules to make sure that they stay in power, and the media helps them out by letting everyone know that there are only 2 candidates and that no one else a chance. And people like you happily take up the same line. After the announcement that only 2 candidates would be allowed to participate in the debate, NPR was kind enough to let Gary Johnson call in. Did you hear that? I'll forgive you if you missed it, because he was only on for about 90 seconds. She asked him to give the opening statement he would have given if he was allowed and he quickly made a case for himself, he got interrupted a few times by people trying to tell him that he really has no chance, and then they started up the music to play him off the air while he was in the middle of talking. This is one of 3 or 4 people who could even conceivably win the office of the president and they give him 90 seconds of air time with several interruptions and then play him off the air. You can't tell me that they media doesn't push the line that there are only 2 choices, and the reason they do that is because if they don't play along then they don't get interviews, they don't get debate sponsorships or get to supply moderators or get to air the debates, etc. It's a pay to play system, if the media plays along then they get the benefits from the Democratic and Republican parties, and if they don't then they get shunned. It's a pity that this country has a media that has no balls and takes all that shit, but that's the way it is.

Don't try to sit there and tell me that Gary Johnson would not be able to seriously challenge the two most disliked candidates in the history of presidential polling, because that's bullshit. But, we'll never know, will we? He doesn't get the airtime, he doesn't get the exposure, so we'll never know how people would have responded to him or how things would be different if the people taking polls listed his name first or if he was included in the televised debates. We'll never know, just like we'll never know why Clinton wanted all of her emails removed.

If you want people to take third party candidates seriously then you go find an actual popular individual who can grab votes from both the right and left sides of the country, who isn't corrupt, who garners enough respect in order to form compromises, and who has the ability to generate enough funds to run a successful national presidential campaign.

Why, just so that person can be roundly dismissed by the media and pundits on every major network while they tell everyone that this person has no chance and that you really only have 2 choices? I'd rather try to change the system. That's not going to happen if I vote for a Democrat or a Republican again. It was shameful how the media treated Sanders, he was dismissed throughout the entire process. While he was mounting his campaign and gaining ground r

Re:just one thing to say

[Berkyjay]

I don't have time to keep reading and responding to your voluminous diatribes. So how about you do what you want and I'm going to do what I want.

Re:just one thing to say

[amicusNYCL]

The TL;DR school of political debate. Is it really any wonder that it's Clinton vs. Trump? People seem to like Trump because he matches their attention span, and they like Clinton because they forgot what she did.

Re:just one thing to say

[amicusNYCL]

Here's an article that has some graphics and things that show how fucked up this election cycle is:

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/21/...

I already knew this was true (although the last poll I saw had these people as a majority), that the major reason people are voting for either candidate is because they aren't the other one, they're voting against the other person instead of for the one they want.

The top concerns about each candidate are also pretty predictable. Trump supporters' biggest concern is his temperament, and Clinton supporters' biggest concern is her honesty. No surprises.

I literally laughed out loud at the last graph, and then became sad that this is the way it is:

If Trump wins, 59% of respondents will be disappointed or angry.

If Clinton wins, 49% of respondents will be disappointed or angry.

Look at the other lines in that graph though - among Trump supporters and Clinton supporters both, there is a non-zero number of people who will be disappointed if their candidate wins. Among Trump supporters there is even a non-zero number of people who will be *angry* if he wins. I don't know if those results reflect upon the intelligence of the respondents and their ability to comprehend the questions, or take into account the apparent fact that some Trump supporters are angry no matter what, but it's funny. It goes the other way too, for both groups of supporters there is a non-zero number of them who will be relived or excited if the other person wins. But according to the link to the actual study, and based on my expert analysis of the pixels in the graph, both of those results are probably within the margin of error (with the possible exception of Trump supporters who will be disappointed if he wins, which I can understand).

This election is a joke. I don't hold it against you or any of my other friends who wants to vote for Clinton or Trump, but I just can't stomach either of them and I don't like it when people try to tell me that voting for another candidate (as opposed to staying home and not voting at all, for example) is either a waste of a vote or a vote for some other candidate. Just like a lot of people are voting against one of the candidates, I'm voting against both of them.

Re:just one thing to say

[Berkyjay]

We don't live under a parliamentary government where 3rd, 4th, or 5th elected parties get a proportion of the power which they can then use to broker deals and influence the course of government. This is a winner take all democracy....at least separately within the two elected branches. That is the reason we have a two party system. It's not because some malign agency made it that way. It evolved to be this way. You may not like being told that your vote for 3rd party candidates is a throw away vote. But it is. The vast majority of American electoral history is against you on this. At best they serve to focus attention on certain issues that may never get the proper spot light within a major party's platform (something the current 3rd parties are bereft of). At worse, they muddy up the waters and only serve as spoilers for one of the candidates.

Re:just one thing to say

[Coren22]

Clinton has released something like 60,000 emails

Funny, what I read said she only turned over 30k emails, and the FBI found many more emails in their investigation that were not turned over.

So, how does it feel to be paid by the Clinton campaign to astroturf for her?

The funny thing is, when you work in government office, those aren't your emails, they are official records. Therefore, setting up a 60 day retention would be highly illegal, but let's just give her a pass for trying to cover up all her crimes.

Re: just one thing to say

[Coren22]

As someone who lives in Maryland, which has gone Democrat by a wide margin for many years, my intention is to vote Johnson. I am not voting for him because I honestly want him to win, frankly I don't want any of the candidates to win, I am voting for him because of the effect it will have on the next election. It is possible that if a third party gets enough of the vote, that the next election will have three parties at the debates instead of two.

Re:just one thing to say

[Coren22]

Yeah, because committing federal felonies (incorrect destruction of official records) is totally cool!

https://www.archives.gov/about...

The fact is that she used a private server to facilitate the destruction of official records, because she didn't have enough control over the State email servers to implement the same there. This is a major felony, but I guess you don't really care, and would just rather not have politicians who are accountable.

Re: just one thing to say

[Coren22]

As opposed to Bill Clinton that just had a chat with the AG before all charges were dropped against Hillary?

Re:just one thing to say

[Coren22]

You know, I'll bet there are people who won't get that your post is sarcasm.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

I do find it amazing that Johnson is polling in the double digits, if only he could get the magical 20% so he gets invited to the debates. That would make for some entertaining television.

Re: just one thing to say

[Dishevel]

I do not want to destroy government.
I want to destroy the establishment.

(vague, unproven things proven on twitter)

What vague unproven things on twitter?

From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was top secret at the time they were sent; 36 of those chains contained secret information at the time; and eight contained confidential information at the time. That's the lowest level of classification.

That?

This is vague and unproven shit on Twitter?
You can decide your vote however you want. If you think that Clinton, Sanders, Johnson, Rubio, Cruz, Bush, or anyone else with a vested interest in the Letter D or R is going to fix shit, you are deluded. Their power does not come from fixing shit. It comes from pointing at broken shit and blaming it on others.
All they want is power for that class. Both the Dems and the Republicans are in that class.
I never called for the destruction of Government, I do not think it is a good idea. Though its powers need to be curbed on the federal level and that power needs to get transferred back to the States and local governments.
I know what Clinton is in government for, and I am against it.
I have no idea why Trump is running, I can guess, but I do not know.

To me it is either vote for what I know is the same shit we had with Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama with a Clinton 2 OR
Try something different.
You go right ahead and think that a win for Clinton 2 will change the way things are done.

Re:just one thing to say

[amicusNYCL]

This is a winner take all democracy....at least separately within the two elected branches. That is the reason we have a two party system.

I don't think that's correct. Presidents have come from 5 different parties. George Washington was not a member of any political party, because they didn't exist then, and the Constitution says nothing about them either. They aren't necessary for the kind of system we have, they came about on their own. In 1832 4 parties got electoral college votes. In the next election a Democrat defeated 4 Whigs who got votes. From 1844 to 1860 either 3 or 4 parties got votes in each election. 1880 had 3 parties with votes, 1884, 1888, and 1892 each had 4, and that went on well into the 20th century. In 1912, for example, the Democratic, Progressive, Republican, Socialist, and Prohibition parties each had candidates in the election. T. Roosevelt formed the Progressive party after leaving the Republican party. In 1968 George Wallace of the American Independent party got 46 electoral votes. The last non-D/R to get electoral votes was in 1972.

After 1972 our elections look very boring. This two-party crap is a new thing for the country. It's not how the system was designed, the Ds and Rs decided to seize power and make it this way. They did that in 1988 to make sure that only they got elected.

It's not because some malign agency made it that way.

Yes it is. The malign agency is the Commission on Presidential Debates. Read the "Criticism" section of the above article. This part sounds pretty malign to me:

At a 1987 press conference announcing the commission's creation, Fahrenkopf said that the commission was not likely to include third-party candidates in debates, and Paul G. Kirk, Democratic national chairman, said he personally believed they should be excluded from the debates.

The vast majority of American electoral history is against you on this.

You have that exactly backwards. It's only the very recent history that is against 3rd parties, and it was manufactured to be this way by those in power in order for them to stay in power.

At worse, they muddy up the waters and only serve as spoilers for one of the candidates.

Considering that the country is supposed to choose between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich, hopefully they spoil both candidates.

Re:just one thing to say

[amicusNYCL]

Johnson could be polling at 50% and they would still find a way to argue that he shouldn't be in the debates. The media needs to grow a set of nuts and get back to actual journalism instead of relaying the day's talking points. The 2 big parties need to be held to task for excluding other candidates from the debates, but the media won't touch that story or else their own debate access and participation and access to the candidates will be ripped away.

Re:just one thing to say

[AutodidactLabrat]

You claim there was a CRIME covered up, Comey said there was NO CRIME.
STop wasting time with your Hatemail!

Re:just one thing to say

[Dishevel]

I claimed no criminal cover up. I only claimed that she lied.
Which I have proved.

Show me in my comments where I alleged a criminal cover up.

Re:just one thing to say

[AutodidactLabrat]

One more time.
NO CRIME.,
What follows from that?
No right to public hearings.
And what follows from that?
Her statements are not relevant.
And thus, NO LIES in any legal sense.

Re:just one thing to say

[Dishevel]

Ok. If you really need to believe that Hillary tells no lies to vote for her, then you can use any convoluted train of though you need so you can justify it.

Just do not try to convince others she does not lie.

wow, completely clueless...

[Anonymous Coward]

So all I have to do to work a high profile "computer specialist" job is just know the right people and show I can type on a keyboard?

This guy has no clue what the fuck he's doing at all.

Re:wow, completely clueless...

[bhcompy]

50% of IT is knowing where to go for help

Re:wow, completely clueless...

[SeaFox]

Seriously. Where do I apply to get these high-end IT jobs that require so little actual knowledge?

Re:wow, completely clueless...

[sexconker]

To be fair, no one knows how to manage Outlook. (Or any full-fledged email service.)
Email, calendaring, and contacts are a nightmare.

And when I say "no one", I'm including Microsoft and Google. Yes, I've used their professional, big contract big dollar solutions.

Re:wow, completely clueless...

[sunking2]

Further proof of the incompetence of most IT organizations.

Re:wow, completely clueless...

[cfalcon]

Apparently, "be willing to lie to congress and the FBI to defend your employer" is under "preferred skills".

Re:wow, completely clueless...

[Dread_ed]

Are you willing to put the survival of your employer above your own and will you do blatantly illegal things for them? Are you socially liberal but psychologically pathological? Have you misplaced your conscience so thoroughly you sometimes wonder if you ever had one? Have you kidnapped an albino child and sacrificed them to Yog-Sothoth over a deep ocean trench? If not, would you for the chance at $50k per year and mediocre benefits?

If so there is one of these jobs waiting for you! Just place the tattered remains of your soul in the receptacle and you're in! Please stay out of the sun for the rest of your life, which should last forever now.

Re:wow, completely clueless...

[techno-vampire]

And a good third of it is knowing the limits of your skills and when you need to go for help.

Re:wow, completely clueless...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's part of it. You have to also speak like you know what you're talking about and have clueless people believe it. You can pretty much make up tech-sounding words and acronyms for this. If the boss doesn't know what you're talking about, they'll assume it's because you're really smart.

Re:wow, completely clueless...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing to be fair about. This guy had no business managing Exchange if he's asking questions like this. A simple search on Google would have given him an answer. If he's asking these sorts of questions he's maybe only slightly above the average help desk person who is answering the main line and reading from scripts and I think that is pushing it.

Not to mention his unprofessional millennial speak "Very VIP, really VERY VIP". 1st rule of being a professional, you don't talk about your shit, especially when you're up to no good. He's a dumbass from the ground up.

I've managed Exchange and Outlook just fine and in a smaller environment (medium size business) it's pretty brain dead for someone with training. Exchange only becomes a nasty beast when you have a large organization and Hillary's personal email server doesn't qualify as that. They really should have been using some sort of Linux solution to start with. Then replacing HRC's email address would have been pretty simple since they'd just have to run a script to edit a bunch of text files. Editing a saved PST or the Exchange DB, if anyone knows Exchange, well good fucking luck with that. Google for some tools and maybe you'll run across something.

Re:wow, completely clueless...

[Darinbob]

You mean like Jen's interview from The IT Crowd?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:wow, completely clueless...

[Third Position]

I don't know where you go to get one. But apparently you go to jail after you get it.

Re:wow, completely clueless...

[Darinbob]

I believe the official definition of a high end IT job is "little actual knowledge".

Re:wow, completely clueless...

[Darinbob]

Additional qualifications: Never indicted.

Re:wow, completely clueless...

[khallow]

Funny that my current attitude concerning Clinton comes from the death of another SA goon.

Re:wow, completely clueless...

[Ambient Sheep]

Not to mention his unprofessional millennial speak "Very VIP, really VERY VIP". 1st rule of being a professional, you don't talk about your shit, especially when you're up to no good. He's a dumbass from the ground up.

Either that, or it wasn't him, but someone who wanted it to look like him...

Re:wow, completely clueless...

[ravenshrike]

The Brits moved out of Benghazi 6 months earlier explicitly because the security situation in the town was completely fucked unless they wanted to invest a shitload more material, soldiers, and money. The ambassador requested more soldiers and a more secure embassy multiple times over the preceding 12 months. Anybody involved paying fucking attention knew damn well that the situation was untenable but either Hillary or the White House found it politically expedient to leave them to hang out to dry. Then they subsequently lied about it in the media.

Re: wow, completely clueless...

[jhoger]

The person who the security situation would have been most obvious to was Chris Stevens. On his word the place would have been shut down. Why blame the SOS when they guy who was on the ground didn't decide to shut it down?

Re:wow, completely clueless...

[Raenex]

I'm going to go with Occam's Razor and just assume the guy was a dumbass with a big mouth who got a kick out of what he was doing.

Re:wow, completely clueless...

[rickb928]

He asked a fairly interesting and reasonable question. I've asked similar ones, focused on recovering mail, not obfuscating it. And I already knew how I would do it, I just hoped for a simpler quicker way.

But, of course, while I was 'just' working for a hospital at the time, I knew I had to recover all that I could for legal reasons.We all know this poor blighter was trapped with a client that demanded criminal behavior 'or else'.

Re:wow, completely clueless...

[rickb928]

It wasn't that long ago that bringing a crashed Exchange server up in less than a half hour was considered a skill. Hearing that at least one of the private servers Hillary used was on Apple hardware, moving from one server system to another is nontrivial. I'm hoping he wasn't trying to keep Exchange running on a Mac server, which is like squeezing toothpaste back into the wrong tube.

He's not without skill. He's stuck with impossible tasks.

Re:wow, completely clueless...

[rickb928]

" since they'd just have to run a script to edit a bunch of text files"

Or ask the Russians for help.

If you're saving your server mail files in test files, you. are. doing. it. wrong.

It's called encryption. Your assailants will use it to receive the data they stole from you.

Re:wow, completely clueless...

[khallow]

Here, there's inadequate protection of the ambassador and his staff before the attacks, a feeble response to the attacks while they were ongoing, and the reprehensible lies after the attack laying blame for the attacks on a YouTube video.

Re:wow, completely clueless...

[Grishnakh]

Further proof of the incompetence of most IT organizations.

Not necessarily. If they've been tasked with using Outlook/Exchange, there's nothing they can do about it.

You're probably assuming that the IT organization is incompetent if it can't choose the best tool for the job. That's not true: from what I've seen of IT, they frequently have zero say about what tools they get to use, and instead it's the non-technical higher-ups that make those decisions, usually based on how much they're wined and dined by sales reps.

You can't call someone incompetent if they do a poor job using tools they didn't pick. That's like complaining that a plumber is incompetent because he wasn't able to fix your leak with the table saw you required him to use.

Re:wow, completely clueless...

[Coren22]

Outlook is easy. Unfortunately, there is nothing called Outlook Server, so perhaps you mean Exchange?

I have to say though, most of those things he asked about are trivial, all of them should NEVER be done.

VIP

[jvanber]

Very VIP, and I mean, Very, Very, Very VIP.

Re:VIP

[Darinbob]

Kato Kaelin?

Re:VIP

[ravenshrike]

Brian Boitano?

Re:VIP

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

To me that's the number one reason it seems completely faked. Who talks like that, as if somehow that means you will get a better quality of help?

Hes either a retard tech or its manufactured somehow. I am not a donal trump fan, but if someone were to find similar posts on technet then i might be more inclined to believe this. However the timing is just too convenient for trump.

There is a lot at stake here for the entire world to base solely on reddit "evidence".

Someone could have known his handle before hand, created the account back in the day and posted that because they knew about Benghazi and emails being requested. Or whatever, i am not following it that closely, but the "very very VIP" line strikes as a clear planted statement. No one talks that way, certainly not personal information about their clients when posting on tech forums.

If hes a retard though, then all bets are off. Someone will subpeona reddits logs, i know they have given logs out in the past.

Re:VIP

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, someone planned to set hillary up for an email scandal years in advance, and just had the reddit posts sitting around all that time without using them.

Re:VIP

[jittles]

To me that's the number one reason it seems completely faked. Who talks like that, as if somehow that means you will get a better quality of help?

Probably the same kind of person who asks where the ATM Machine is located. People who work for the department of redundancy department. There are people like this all over the place, who use acronyms without even thinking about what they actually mean.

Re:VIP

[JustBoo]

All wrong. It was Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky in the Lincoln bedroom with a lead cigar. And Hillary watched. Hillary watching is one of the last secrets the Clitons have. ( *I could be wrong about the "last" secret thing. )

Re:Stick a fork in....

[Game Genie]

OTOH Trump doesn't hide that he's a flagrant racist and that's totally cool.

Sounds like a job for regex

[wierd_w]

Of course, pointing out that email archival and retention guidelines apply to everyone regardless of so called "VIP" status is clearly not going to be well received. The VIPs never get treated like normal users. Cause of the specialness of their nature, being magical and all.

So, obviously they need more protection, so they can evade the purpose of the archival copies for legal proceedings. This is not destruction or tampering with evidence, this is all about the danger of libel, and the need for anonymity of the VIP. Totally.

Now then, using a regex to replace Hillary@clinton.org to XXXXXXX@XXXXXXX.XXX (which is the exact same number of characters, and thus won't break a binary if it is sensible) inside a .PST is pretty straight forward, and something a high level admin should be able to accomplish in a few minutes.

But this guy had to ask reddit.

Clearly he is incompetent, and that is what we should be dogging here. /s

(Oh gawd the /s !!)

Re:Sounds like a job for regex

[innocent_white_lamb]

(which is the exact same number of characters, and thus won't break a binary if it is sensible)
 
That would break any database that uses checksums to verify the data integrity.
 
Do PST files do that? I have no idea. I guess one could set up a sacrificial account/file and try it and see if it explodes or not.

Re:Sounds like a job for regex

[wierd_w]

I don't think psts do, but don't quote me on that. Just export one, mangle it real good, then see if it imports.

If not, try something else.

Re:Sounds like a job for regex

[techno-vampire]

Now then, using a regex to replace Hillary@clinton.org to XXXXXXX@XXXXXXX.XXX (which is the exact same number of characters, and thus won't break a binary if it is sensible) inside a .PST is pretty straight forward, and something a high level admin should be able to accomplish in a few minutes.

You don't even need a regex because you're looking for a fixed string. All it takes is to rename the file and use one line of sed, outputting a file with the original name. Trivial, especially if you have it run late at night from a shell script while nobody's using their email.

Re:Sounds like a job for regex

[wierd_w]

No, regex is appropriate because you are also dealing with message bodies, where variations in capitalization are possible.

Still a one liner from the console though.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[isotope23]

She's been playing by Animal Farm -

All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others....

I seem to remember when Americans were begin snooped on, the argument for doing so pretty much always devolved to -

"You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide."

Seems to me politicians should be held to that standard BEFORE the average citizen is.....

Full transparency for politicians before we have our rights violated.

Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[mi]

OTOH Trump doesn't hide that he's a flagrant racist and that's totally cool.

Donald Trump does not hide it, that's true. That's because he, by all appearances, is not racist.

But, if you accuse him of racism, you have ample evidence, don't you? Let's see it, shall we? Be sure, though, to include only the things Trump actually said or did — not somebody else paraphrasing and otherwise engaging in hearsay...

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[Game Genie]

He was on Face the Nation YESTERDAY talking up racial profiling.

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[mi]

He was on Face the Nation YESTERDAY talking up racial profiling.

Quotes? What did he say?

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[RobotRunAmok]

Racial profiling, like "I bet the guy who blew up the bomb in Chelsea is more likely to answer to the name 'Akbar' than he is 'O'Toole', so let's search the hookah bars before the Irish pubs, we ain't gotta lot of time," that kind of racial profiling? That's not racism, that's common sense allocation of resources in a crisis.

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[Anonymous Coward]

"Frogs" is racist? It's either speciesist, if you're talking about the amphibians, or nationalist, if you're talking about French people.

But it ain't easy being green.

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[msauve]

You seem to have a problem with words. He did no such thing. He was talking about profiling, period. And, giving the example of the profiling done (with very successful result) by Israeli security. That's statistical profiling. While it may result in an ethnic or racial group undergoing more scrutiny, it's done because of statistical likelihood, not any sort of "ism." But, unlike the US, they don't deliberately avoid profiling a group just because it's ethnic or racial or national.

Let's see - if we look at the most recent terrorist incidents, we find a large number associated with radical Islam and middle-eastern states, and none associated with radical Christianity or Finland. So, which should factor most into generating a blip on the terrorist RADAR?

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[Pseudonym]

No, that's wasting resources that could be spent on actually catching criminals and (more importantly) preventing crime.

United States, meet Robert Peel. Robert Peel, meet the United States. You have a lot to talk about.

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[quantaman]

OTOH Trump doesn't hide that he's a flagrant racist and that's totally cool.

Donald Trump does not hide it, that's true. That's because he, by all appearances, is not racist.

But, if you accuse him of racism, you have ample evidence, don't you? Let's see it, shall we? Be sure, though, to include only the things Trump actually said or did — not somebody else paraphrasing and otherwise engaging in hearsay...

Spent years suggesting that a black president wasn't born in the US, despite a ton of excellent evidence to the contrary.

Said a judge of Mexican heritage wasn't fit to judge him due to his heritage.

While speaking about illegal immigrants has focused pretty exclusively on those of Mexican ethnicity, has also engaged in broad (and inaccurate) generalizations about that group.

Has proposed banning members of a religion from the US (very similar to racism).

Regularly stereotypes blacks "you've got nothing to lose", suggesting that they're one monolithic underclass.

Extreme reluctance to reject or disavow David Duke or other white supremacists, same with racist memes he happens to retweet (accidental or not).

Now I don't know if he's personally racist or now, but many of the things he says and does are quite racist.

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[mi]

Spent years suggesting that a black president wasn't born in the US, despite a ton of excellent evidence to the contrary.

How is that racism?

Said a judge of Mexican heritage wasn't fit to judge him due to his heritage.

I did ask for actual quotes didn't I? And yet, you chose to paraphrase... What are you trying to slip here, uhm?

What Trump actually said, was that the judge — a Mexican racist himself ("La Raza" member) — may have a conflict of interest. If it is Ok to suspect, that an All-white jury may be unfair to a Black defendant, why is it "racist" to suspect, a Mexican may be unfair to a White one?

Has proposed banning members of a religion from the US (very similar to racism).

Not racism. Stick to the topic.

Regularly stereotypes blacks "you've got nothing to lose", suggesting that they're one monolithic underclass.

Never heard of it. Actual quotes, please.

Extreme reluctance to reject or disavow David Duke or other white supremacists

Why is every Republican supposed to "disavow" Duke — except to play into the opponents trap of accepting some guilt (sort of like disavowing beating of one's wife)?

Would Bernie Sanders disavow Lenin? Has Hillary Clinton disavowed Al Sharpton, who, unlike Duke, actually encouraged racial violence and is responsible for at least one Jew getting killed by a Black mob? No, she not only didn't disavow the asshole, she actively sought his endorsement and attended a rally at his organization.

but many of the things he says and does are quite racist.

So far, the number of actual racist quotes is a perfect zero... Keep trying...

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[quantaman]

Spent years suggesting that a black president wasn't born in the US, despite a ton of excellent evidence to the contrary.

How is that racism?

It's an example extra layer of scrutiny applied only when the candidate is black. One only needs see the relative disinterest with which the birthers treated the fact that the exact scenario they were speculating about applied directly to Cruz.

Said a judge of Mexican heritage wasn't fit to judge him due to his heritage.

I did ask for actual quotes didn't I? And yet, you chose to paraphrase... What are you trying to slip here, uhm?

Nothing, I just don't want to waste time.

What Trump actually said, was that the judge — a Mexican racist himself ("La Raza" member) — may have a conflict of interest.

Which was dumb, despite the fact they kept confusing different "La Raza"s. But more to the point lots of white judges are members of ethnic professional groups, no one accuses them of being racist, so only making it an issue when it's a Mexican judge in a group for Mexican judges is racist.

If it is Ok to suspect, that an All-white jury may be unfair to a Black defendant, why is it "racist" to suspect, a Mexican may be unfair to a White one?

Judges, unlike juries, have specific training on how to deal with biases. And there's no reason to think that a Mexican would have a negative stereotype about a German.

Has proposed banning members of a religion from the US (very similar to racism).

Not racism. Stick to the topic.

Muslim and Arab are highly correlated, particularly in the minds of Islamaphobes.

Regularly stereotypes blacks "you've got nothing to lose", suggesting that they're one monolithic underclass.

Never heard of it. Actual quotes, please.

Meh, why not.

Notice the stream of negative stereotypes and a false claim of 58% black youth unemployment.

He's not even talking to a black crowd, he's making his "outreach" to a white crowd.

Why is every Republican supposed to "disavow" Duke — except to play into the opponents trap of accepting some guilt (sort of like disavowing beating of one's wife)?

If you're explicitly asked about it? Yes.

If David Duke and other white supremacists have repeatedly and enthusiastically endorsed you unlike anyone else in decades? Definitely yes.

There's a reason Duke and the other white supremacists continue to support Trump so much, he refuses to convincingly say they're wrong.

Would Bernie Sanders disavow Lenin?

Not sure, there's a reason I didn't support Sanders.

Has Hillary Clinton disavowed Al Sharpton, who, unlike Duke, actually encouraged racial violence

It was a lot more BLM than anti-Semitism, the anger was the perception that the life of a black child was treated as secondary to the life of the white (and Jewish) driver who had killed him.

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[quantaman]

Holy Shit. Talking point central there. Do you get your "ammunition" from Daily Kos or straight from Soros?

I got it from watching the news. But even if I did get it from talking points so what? Just because an argument has been repeated doesn't make it wrong, talking points are only an issue when they're misleading or when the speaker is just repeating them and doesn't really understand.

The problem in US politics isn't the reliance on talking points, it's too many people saying too many different dumb things. If they actually stuck to the same talking points debunking them would be a lot easier.

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[amicusNYCL]

I did ask for actual quotes didn't I? And yet, you chose to paraphrase...

What Trump actually said, was that the judge ... may have a conflict of interest.

I like how you call him out for paraphrasing Trump, and then follow that up by paraphrasing Trump.

Even so, if part of your argument involves bringing up the definition of racism as a way to claim that someone isn't technically racist, then you might want to consider choosing another battle to fight.

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[Raenex]

But more to the point lots of white judges are members of ethnic professional groups, no one accuses them of being racist, so only making it an issue when it's a Mexican judge in a group for Mexican judges is racist.

What white judges are members of white advocacy groups? Why is it so outrageous that a judge who is part of a Latino advocacy group would have a conflict of interest in ruling on a political candidate with outspoken and controversial views on Latino immigration?

Honestly, the judge should have recused himself if he had any integrity. Though if he had any integrity, he probably wouldn't be a part of that organization.

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[Mashiki]

FYI the media is lying to you. He never used racial profiling, he said profiling. CNN started it, NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, the papers(wapo, etc) all ran with it.

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[blach]

Your [sic] take someone whose resume includes Harvard law prof, State Senator, and US Senator, ...

Barack Obama was never a Harvard Law Professor

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[inhuman_4]

Just to clarify your post. CNN didn't make the claim that he was talking about racial profiling. They quoted him, with quotation marks, saying the words "racial profiling" even though he never said those words. This isn't something they misinterpreted, took out of context, or spun. This is a quote that CNN fabricated out of whole cloth. And the rest of the media jumped on and started quoting using CNN as a source, even though many of them had their own reporters at the event and could have, should have, fact checked with their own people and discovered was false.

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[Anonymous Coward]

Spent years suggesting that a black president wasn't born in the US, despite a ton of excellent evidence to the contrary.

How is that racism?

It's an example extra layer of scrutiny applied only when the candidate is black. One only needs see the relative disinterest with which the birthers treated the fact that the exact scenario they were speculating about applied directly to Cruz.

I know the answer is "no", but do you realize that McCain's eligibility was challenged in the same manner? Despite what revisionists have been trying to tell you, in the 2008 pre-election, Hillary Clinton challenged both McCain and Obama on the claim that neither were "Natural Born Citizens" in accordance with the Constitutional requirement. McCain showed the certificate that he was born to two US service members in a Panamanian hospital while they were on deployment, asked the Supreme Court if that was enough, and they said "yes." Obama stalled and delayed, giving the appearance of hiding something, released newspaper clippings, and then eventually showed a birth certificate after taking enough time that any politically connected individual could've bought favors to fake one.

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[mi]

It's an example extra layer of scrutiny applied only when the candidate is black.

False. The scrutiny comes from the candidate's father being a non-citizen and the murky accounts of the candidate's birth. Donald Trump has questioned Ted Cruz's eligibility too — right or wrong, the scrutiny is not racist. Fail.

But more to the point lots of white judges are members of ethnic professional groups

Citations?

no one accuses them of being racist

False. White judges are suspected of bias against non-White defendants all the time. Whether the suspicions are grounded or "dumb", they aren't racist. Fail.

Notice the stream of negative stereotypes

Sorry, I do not see a stream of negative stereotypes — maybe, you should've posted actual quotes, as requested.

If David Duke and other white supremacists have repeatedly and enthusiastically endorsed you unlike anyone else in decades? Definitely yes.

Unlike Hillary's endorsement by Sharpton, Duke's endorsement of Trump was completely unsolicited. If you begin rejecting all such "endorsements", you may not have time to talk about anything else — it is a strategic mistake for a politician to hand off the initiative to the opponents this way.

It was a lot more BLM than anti-Semitism

It was not — he was talking about diamonds being sent from South Africa to Crown Heights, for example. He was not "for Blacks", he was "anti Jews" — and stirring up rioters. You give me an example of David Duke doing anything like it...

But even if it were "BLM" — that alone is as racist as it gets. It really is mind-boggling, that the same person in the same post would attack one politician for "stereotyping" Blacks and defend another doing the same (with murderous results too)...

However you spin it, Al Sharpton is certainly no lesser racist, than David Duke. And yet, Clinton actively sought his endorsement — but you still accuse Trump of racism over unsolicited endorsement by Duke? How do you walk around with so much hypocrisy on you — does it not interfere with regular bodily functions?

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[mi]

I like how you call him out for paraphrasing Trump, and then follow that up by paraphrasing Trump.

I'm not trying to prove anything here, he is. He has to offer evidence — I don't, my job is to simply plant reasonable doubt about his. A lawyer should know this better than us, laymen...

Even so, if part of your argument involves bringing up the definition of racism as a way to claim that someone isn't technically racist

Technically right is the best kind of right .

Arguing without defining terms is fruitless and stupid... My opponent seemed to be suffering from the common mind-virus of the Left, which leads them to think, most incorrectly, that racism is "White's prejudice against other races". Setting him straight early in the debate is the beginning of healing...

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[cyberchondriac]

He never once said anything about race, so you've just provided the perfect example of how the media and the "never-trumps" paraphrase, exaggerate, and lie to change the narrative. He's talking about terror profiling: that would include a whole slew of behaviors, markers and properties.
On top of that, only an idiot would still think all islamic terrorists = arabic or persian and that it's about race. Adam Ghadan is perfect example: he was Californian born, son of a jewish doctor, quite "white", and joined Al Qaida. He would've matched the profile. You have Islamic radicals from the Philippines and elsewhere in Asia, as well, and from every hemisphere of the planet.

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[whipnet]

Wow, has /. finally turned the corner? I avoided this place because of it liberal douce-baggery and one-sided conversations for years. Refreshing to see an opposing view for once here.

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[amicusNYCL]

my job is to simply plant reasonable doubt about his

My mistake, I thought you were trying to have a rational debate. I didn't realize you were just trolling the other guy.

Technically right is the best kind of right

Haha, yeah it sure is, and totally makes your point very well. "The person I support said that 1.7 billion people who belong to a certain religion should not be allowed entry into the country based solely on that fact. Since religion is not a race, this is not racism, therefore the person I support totally does not have the same moral and ethical failings that racists have because he is discriminating against a large percentage of the world's population based on their religion instead of their race, which is totally different thinking and has nothing in common with any other form of bigotry or irrational intolerance."

I would award you a debate point, but you already pointed out that you're just here to insert FUD into other peoples' arguments.

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[mi]

My mistake, I thought you were trying to have a rational debate. I didn't realize you were just trolling the other guy.

False dilemma. I'm not "trolling" him — I'm defending Trump against accusations of "racism".

therefore the person I support totally does not have the same moral [...]

Blah-blah-blah. No, therefore this is not evidence of racism. Period. Nothing else.

religion instead of their race, which is totally different thinking

It is entirely different thinking, yes. Race is something we are born with. Religion is something we absorb growing up and even later in life. This makes the two traits very different and discrimination based on one is, indeed, totally different from the other. It may still be wrong, but it is totally different, yes.

I forked the discussion on banning Muslims into a separate subthread. If you wish to discuss that, be my guest. But it has nothing to do with racism.

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[hoggoth]

#6 is a doozy:

"To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective."

This would never work in the USA, when would they get to use all those military toys?!

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[amicusNYCL]

it has nothing to do with racism.

Discriminating based on race has nothing to do with discriminating based on religion. They're both discrimination, they're even both federally-protected classes, but really they have nothing to do with each other. Just like a board made of pine has nothing in common with a board made of cedar.

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[JillElf]

We have become so damned politically correct (and self-righteously proud of it), that we waste resources on hassling people that are not just unlikely but highly unlikely to be the criminal or the terrorist. (Ooh, look, see we groped a 90 year old granny and a two year as well as the twenty year old from the Middle East. We are really sorry we groped the guy.) Did the TSA really need to pull me out of line just before boarding to have me remove my cat from his carrier so that the agent could feel him up? The agent also patted down the inside of the carrier (which had already been sent through the x-ray machine) and ignored the zippered pouches on the outside of it. Security theater at its finest.

When bombings and other terrorist activities are being carried out on a regular basis by gingers (former ginger here), it only makes sense to look at them FIRST when another bomb goes off if the bomber was so inconsiderate as to not leave an obvious calling card. It also makes sense to look at other characteristics that previous KNOWN bombers may have in common and use those as well to do a quick narrowing of the suspect pool. If a number of middle-aged Irish women who worked in sewing sweatshops and whose husbands ran off with English hussies started bombing English tea shops, that's the logical place to start looking when the next tea shop is bombed UNLESS there is a reasonable cause not to (say a witness reporting Milo leaving a backpack at the scene then mincing off).

The same goes for regular criminal stuff. A beat cop should be aware of what goes on his watch and what looks out of the ordinary. I spent part of my childhood in the south. There were certain neighborhoods that were (and sadly remain) very segregated. Seeing someone that didn't fit in was, sometimes, the sign that something wasn't on the up and up. If you saw a white guy in a midlife crisis car in certain areas, it probably wasn't to hand out copies of the Watchtower. It's reasonable profiling to keep an eye on him and to stop him if he has a broken headlight. If the drug runners use a certain route, at certain times, in certain types of vehicles, with certain types of drivers I would expect the police to stop a car with a broken headlight if it matched most of the criteria. Yes, the broken headlight then gets them up close and personal with vehicle and driver and MAY lead to something more than a simple ticket (hey, that white dude had some crack, who'd of thunk) but it doesn't involve stopping anyone just because they are black/white/latino/whatever.

And your seriously think that you can substitute offering rewards for information? Not saying that rewards don't work sometimes but I wonder how many deliberately false leads the police end up chasing because

1) making your ex's life a living hell is so totally worth it

2) this guy's family is from Afghanistan so he must have done it

3) nothing like ruining a competitor by having the cops raid him on the evening news

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[D00MSlayer]

Wow.. you got to be one of THE BIGGEST trump apologist I've ever seen.

First:

Trump's complete ignorance of the fact that Obama's mother was a US Citizen when he was born, and the push that he's not an American on the fabrication that he was born in Kenya, only for the sole fact that his father was Kenyan, was purely motivated by his mixed race.

Second:

What Trump actually said, was that the judge — a Mexican racist himself ("La Raza" member) — may have a conflict of interest. If it is Ok to suspect [washingtonpost.com], that an All-white jury [wikipedia.org] may be unfair to a Black defendant, why is it "racist" to suspect, a Mexican may be unfair to a White one?

You will need to provide substantial proof that the judge is racist before you can make a statement like that.

That Judge is apart of a group called "San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association", not the "La Raza" association you're thinking of.
http://www.snopes.com/judge-cu...

Third:

Has proposed banning members of a religion from the US (very similar to racism).

Not racism. Stick to the topic.

That's pretty much racist. It impacts a wide swath of individuals classified as Muslim, which is directly attributed to anybody from the Middle East, who's appearances are starkly contrasted to caucasians.

There have been numerous attacks on Sikhs who were believed to be muslim because they "looked like a muslim." The only similarity is the skin color.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/14/...

Fourth:

Trump's Real Estate business that he ran with his father were biased against black renters

https://www.documentcloud.org/...

That happened in 1973. He took over his father's business in 1971.

Fifth:
Trump stated that he wouldn't disavow David Duke because he didn't know who he was or what he was about.

Except that was a lie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

He clearly knows who David Duke is, unless it helps his agenda to feign ignorance.

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[dywolf]

I'm defending Trump against accusations of "racism".

Birds of a feather flock together and all that.

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[mi]

was purely motivated by his mixed race.

Could you offer some proof of this — something the rest of us, who do not have your powers of telepathy, can verify on their own? Something, that makes Trump's suspecting Obama's eligibility uniquely different from Clinton suspecting same? Or suspecting that McCain or Ted Cruz may not be eligible either?

You will need to provide substantial proof that the judge is racist before you can make a statement like that.

That judge has just awarded a scholarship to an illegal immigrant . Is it not fair to suspect, he may be biased against someone, who wishes to deport such illegal immigrants?

White judges are suspected of bias against Black defendants all the time (as are White juries) — why is it "racist" to suspect a Latino judge of similar bias against other races?

That Judge is apart of a group called "San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association", not the "La Raza" association

Distinction without difference. Any attempts to promote people based on their race automatically discriminates against other races and is thus racist — by definition.

That's pretty much racist.

"Pretty much" does not count.

directly attributed to anybody from the Middle East, who's appearances are starkly contrasted to caucasians.

The biggest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia, which is about as far from the Middle East as is the US. Fail.

That happened in 1973. He took over his father's business in 1971.

So, he inherited a problem from his father. Big deal. Hillary Clinton's father was racist too

Except that was a lie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

A YouTube clip with some talking-head talking about Trump is not proof, sorry. Maybe, he really forgot, who it was. Or, maybe, he lied. But that's not racism either way.

As for "disavowing" David Duke — wake me up, when Hillary Clinton "disavows" Al Sharpton, who is no less a racist than David Duke... Except she would not do that, because, whereas Duke's endorsement of Trump was unsolicited, Hillary actively sought Sharpton's. Maybe, if Trump ever went to a Duke's rally, you'd have had a point...

Fail.

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[D00MSlayer]

Could you offer some proof of this — something the rest of us, who do not have your powers of telepathy, can verify on their own? Something, that makes Trump's suspecting Obama's eligibility uniquely different from Clinton suspecting same [factcheck.org]? Or suspecting that McCain [nytimes.com] or Ted Cruz [factcheck.org] may not be eligible either?

They were ALL being racist. He wasn't the only one. Being that Obama was the first real non-white nominee, everyone was playing the race card against him.

That judge has just awarded a scholarship to an illegal immigrant [theamerica...omparty.us]. Is it not fair to suspect, he may be biased against someone, who wishes to deport such illegal immigrants?

You are citing a source, self-described as: "The American Freedom Party (AFP) is both a political party and activist organization dedicated to the interests vital to the preservation and continuity of ethnic European communities within the United States of America."

Fail. extremely biased source who's objective is white European purity in the USA.

White judges are suspected of bias against Black defendants all the time [google.com] (as are White juries [wikipedia.org]) — why is it "racist" to suspect a Latino judge of similar bias against other races?

Show me proof that he's biased against other races. And not from your sketchy white supremacist websites. Give me clear court cases where he made his sole decision based on someone's race. Proof or GTFO.

The biggest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia, which is about as far from the Middle East as is the US. Fail.

The Middle East has nearly 400 million muslims spread apart in the various countries in the area. That is nearly double of what Indonesia has.

My point still stands.

A YouTube clip with some talking-head talking about Trump is not proof, sorry. Maybe, he really forgot, who it was. Or, maybe, he lied. But that's not racism either way.

You are being willfully ignorant and down-right avoiding the fact that Trump lied through his teeth about Duke. That youtube video is Trump himself, not some talking-head pundit or whatnot paraphrasing him. Matt Lauer asked Trump about the reform party and their troubles, and Trump's first comment was "You got David Duke just joined. a bigot, a racist, a problem."

HE CLEARLY KNOWS HIM.

If Trump cannot remember who David Duke is, who joined the reform party he was running for in 2000, then he is not fit to be POTUS. His memory is clearly terrible. Maybe he has alzheimers? Maybe he has dementia? Who knows, but he very blatantly blew off the idea of condemning a man who he claimed he didn't know about, yet 15 years earlier he did. He could have easily said "I condemned him 15 years ago, and I am again today." But he didn't because of his known popularity with white nationalists.

As for "disavowing" David Duke — wake me up, when Hillary Clinton "disavows" Al Sharpton, who is no less a racist [breitbart.com] than David Duke... Except she would not do that, because, whereas Duke's endorsement of Trump was unsolicited, Hillary actively sought Sharpton's [nypost.com]. Maybe, if Trump ever went to a Duke's rally, you'd have had a point...

You using brietbart for a source like that is like me using the Huffington Post. You'd obviously dismiss anything sourced from a "liberal news source"

If all of your citations come from sites like brietbart, theamericanfreedomparty.us, or other OBVIOUS biased, partisan sources, you have no foundation for a legitimate argument.

FAIL

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[mi]

They were ALL being racist.

So, Hillary Clinton is a racist too, in your opinion?

Trump lied through his teeth about Duke.

Even if he did, lying is not racist. I already explained several times here, why any disavowals of David Duke would've been a mistake for Trump.

Show me proof that he's biased against other races.

Whether he is or not, it is not racist to suspect him of being. Unless you are willing to "disavow" all suspicions of White judges being biased against non-White defendants.

The Middle East has nearly 400 million muslims spread apart in the various countries in the area.

Dude, however you spin it, "Muslim" does not mean "Arab" and religion is not race...

He could have easily said "I condemned him 15 years ago, and I am again today."

If condemned him back then, why is he being asked to condemn him again? Who else should he condemn — and would he have the time to talk about anything else, if he undertook to disavow each and every character, his opponents wish him to disavow?

Still waiting for Clinton to disavow Al Sharpton the anti-Semite. And Seddique Mateen — the homophobe and Taliban-supporter. and Lezley McSpadden, whose sole claim to fame is raising a robber-son...

If all of your citations come from sites like brietbart, theamericanfreedomparty.us, or other OBVIOUS biased, partisan sources, you have no foundation for a legitimate argument.

They may be partisan, but the information is still valid. You obviously wish to extricate yourself from an inconvenient argument... You have my permission to bugger off — I do not wish to repeat myself for your sake.

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[D00MSlayer]

So, Hillary Clinton is a racist too, in your opinion?

No because she never specifically questioned his birthplace, but some of her campaign staff forwarded around the birther e-mails when it started. Which while they may not directly be racist, it attributed to Obama's race issue and fueling the racist fire, per se.

Even if he did, lying is not racist. I already explained several times here, why any disavowals of David Duke would've been a mistake for Trump.

Whether he is or not, it is not racist to suspect him of being. Unless you are willing to "disavow" all suspicions of White judges being biased against non-White defendants.

If condemned him back then, why is he being asked to condemn him again? Who else should he condemn — and would he have the time to talk about anything else, if he undertook to disavow each and every character, his opponents wish him to disavow?

The problem is that he lied about knowing David Duke. He did himself in on that subject by saying he didn't know who David Duke was. Regardless if he disavowed him or not, him lying about it is much worse because there's clearly a recording of him 15 years ago saying the complete opposite.

Dude, however you spin it, "Muslim" does not mean "Arab" and religion is not race...

Tell that to half the country. I'm sure they'll totally be in agreement with you. /s

Still waiting for Clinton to disavow Al Sharpton the anti-Semite [wikipedia.org]. And Seddique Mateen [theguardian.com] — the homophobe and Taliban-supporter [heavy.com]. and Lezley McSpadden [washingtonpost.com], whose sole claim to fame is raising a robber-son...

Nobody will give a shit about her disavowing Al Sharpton except for alt-right trolls such as yourself.
There's no reason to disavow Mateen, because he wasn't the one who shot up the club, his son did. He cannot be wholly responsible for what his son did. He condemned the actions that his son had taken. I'm also guessing that you like to call quick to call him a political enemy for his quote: “Hillary Clinton is good for United States versus Donald Trump, who has no solutions,”
And last but not least, Lezley McSpadden already has to deal with the grief of losing her son. Millions of people make mistakes, but nobody should die over petty theft. The fact that you believe she should be disavowed because of her son's poor decisions speaks volumes to your insipid and completely tasteless opinions.

They may be partisan, but the information is still valid. You obviously wish to extricate yourself from an inconvenient argument... You have my permission to bugger off — I do not wish to repeat myself for your sake.

You're a walking, talking, somehow-functioning dictionary of logical fallacies. Nobody will take you seriously if you don't present a proper argument.

Run along now, troll. Your echo chamber awaits.

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[D00MSlayer]

So, Hillary Clinton is a racist too, in your opinion?

No because she never specifically questioned his birthplace, but some of her campaign staff forwarded around the birther e-mails when it started. Which while they may not directly be racist, it attributed to Obama's race issue and fueling the racist fire, per se.

Even if he did, lying is not racist. I already explained several times here, why any disavowals of David Duke would've been a mistake for Trump.

Whether he is or not, it is not racist to suspect him of being. Unless you are willing to "disavow" all suspicions of White judges being biased against non-White defendants.

If condemned him back then, why is he being asked to condemn him again? Who else should he condemn — and would he have the time to talk about anything else, if he undertook to disavow each and every character, his opponents wish him to disavow?

The problem is that he lied about knowing David Duke. He did himself in on that subject by saying he didn't know who David Duke was. Regardless if he disavowed him or not, him lying about it is much worse because there's clearly a recording of him 15 years ago saying the complete opposite.

Dude, however you spin it, "Muslim" does not mean "Arab" and religion is not race...

Tell that to half the country. I'm sure they'll totally be in agreement with you. /s

Still waiting for Clinton to disavow Al Sharpton the anti-Semite [wikipedia.org]. And Seddique Mateen [theguardian.com] — the homophobe and Taliban-supporter [heavy.com]. and Lezley McSpadden [washingtonpost.com], whose sole claim to fame is raising a robber-son...

Nobody will give a shit about her disavowing Al Sharpton except for alt-right trolls such as yourself.
There's no reason to disavow Mateen, because he wasn't the one who shot up the club, his son did. He cannot be wholly responsible for what his son did. He condemned the actions that his son had taken. I'm also guessing that you like to call quick to call him a political enemy for his quote: “Hillary Clinton is good for United States versus Donald Trump, who has no solutions,”
And last but not least, Lezley McSpadden already has to deal with the grief of losing her son. Millions of people make mistakes, but nobody should die over petty theft. The fact that you believe she should be disavowed because of her son's poor decisions speaks volumes to your insipid and completely tasteless opinions.

They may be partisan, but the information is still valid. You obviously wish to extricate yourself from an inconvenient argument... You have my permission to bugger off — I do not wish to repeat myself for your sake.

You're a walking, talking, somehow-functioning dictionary of logical fallacies. Nobody will take you seriously if you don't present a proper argument.

Run along now, troll. Your echo chamber awaits.

*Fixed open quote bracket. it was bothering me.*

Re:Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....)

[meta-monkey]

It's an example extra layer of scrutiny applied only when the candidate is black. One only needs see the relative disinterest with which the birthers treated the fact that the exact scenario they were speculating about applied directly to Cruz.

That's retarded, it's an extra layer of scrutiny applied only when the candidate is your political opponent.

Nobody was saying "hur dur he must have been born in Kenya because he's black!" They asked the question because for 16 years his book publicist had "born in Kenya" on his bio, and then all of a sudden he's running for president and it's "oh, whoops, we meant Hawaii." That's a reasonable question.

After the cloth didn't wipe it...

[unixisc]

Reminds me of a joke in the early 90s after Bill Clinton got elected and Hilary was suspected of being the real power running things:

What is the Bill Clinton's email address?
president@whitehouse.gov

What is Al Gore's email address?
vicepresident@whitehouse.gov

What is Hilary Clinton's email address?
root@whitehouse.gov

Re:After the cloth didn't wipe it...

[banjonz]

Not disagreeing with your comment, but maybe you should check out other uses of the word 'root' in Australasian and possibly UK English.

Re:After the cloth didn't wipe it...

[unixisc]

Translation: you didn't get the joke. And to think I was posting this on a site where one would think that most people would know Unix conventions

I won't ruin this joke by explaining it, beyond stating that this has nothing to do w/ US/UK/Australian/Canadian/NZ English

Re:After the cloth didn't wipe it...

[dbIII]

It's ten times funnier in English instead of 'merkin so it doesn't matter if you know about mail server conventions or not.

Can't afford experts-exchange?

[cdsparrow]

And at least use a throw-away email when you are doing shady stuff... WTF?

Re:Stick a fork in....

[rmdingler]

Yes. What a conundrum... a loose cannon formerly known as a reality star who's probably not even a billionaire, a pathological liar with a sense of entitlement, or a throwaway vote to a weak third party candidate.

Is it possible, somewhere behind the curtain, there's a cabal that's decided the power of the US Presidency must be reduced even if by ridicule?

Re:Stick a fork in....

[Moheeheeko]

I'm expecting Mr. Combetta to be committing suicide by shooting himself in the back twice within the week.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[reboot246]

What a display of abject stupidity!

Re:Stick a fork in....

[quantaman]

This is finished. There's no way she wins the election, and I say that as one of her supporters.

Somehow I doubt this.

Here is clear evidence of trying to hide something. This leaves no room for doubt.

And that evidence is... that her IT guy used Reddit?

That he was looking into ways to sanitize sensitive information before sending it out?

That they changed the email retention policy on a private server a couple years after Clinton left the State Department?

Just because a story has the words "Clinton" and "email" doesn't mean it contains incriminating evidence.

Ooh boy

[RightwingNutjob]

The Clinton smokescreen is at it again. Just wait for the new parade of excuses.

"Secretary Clinton never directly instructed Mr. Combetta to delete her emails."
"Secretary Clinton had no knowledge about the day-to-day management of her IT systems"
"Secretary Clinton never even read her own emails"
"Secretary Clinton was too busy dodging bullets in Kosovo to be deleting her emails"
"Secretary Clinton relied on Secretary Powell's judgement in drafting her team's procedures on use and retention of email"
"I'd rather be emailing with Hillary than tweeting with Donald"

Fucking pathetic. To anyone who still doesn't realize that Trump and Hillary have the exact same MO down to the micron, explain this. Go ahead. Explain to the class how Hillary is anything other than a less successful liar and a less successful real estate developer than Trump. Maybe she gets points on being a little better polished. A little/ That's it.

Vote Johnson. I don't care what Aleppo is either given more important priorities this November.

Re:Ooh boy

[stinerman]

Fucking pathetic. To anyone who still doesn't realize that Trump and Hillary have the exact same MO down to the micron, explain this.

I think in terms of their lying there's a difference in degree. Clinton has said what she said. Trump would claim that he had never used email. Or that email doesn't actually exist. And no one would actually call him on it.

Re:Ooh boy

[RightwingNutjob]

What exactly are you getting at AC? We should have found an even higher grade idiot of the female persuasion?

Re:Ooh boy

[RightwingNutjob]

Clinton lies through her teeth and contradicts herself about everything. Trump lies through his teeth and contradicts himself about everything. Trump "gets away with it" somehow, but Clinton doesn't? She just got away with it all the way to the nomination, (and State before that, and the Senate before that). But ah, I see. She's the press's favored candidate, so when she gets called bullshit on just like Trump does, she's the one who's treated unfairly.

Re:Ooh boy

[JustNiz]

>> Explain to the class how Hillary is anything other than a less successful liar and a less successful real estate developer than Trump.

Well for a start you could consider the hundreds of millions of $ in "donations" still going to the Clinton foundation from countries like Saudi, then add in the unnecessary wars she's started as Secretary of State and the people that died in them, then look at the 50 or so people around the Clintons that have died mysterious circumstances when they became problems to Bill/her, then look at what everyone who's ever worked with her says about her off the record, then wonder how/why she clearly has both the Attorney General and the FBI in her pocket (hint: HSBC funneled $80 million to the Clinton foundation from seceret swiss bank acocunts while James Comey was on he board of directors of HSBC, later he shielded the Clintons from another classified info breach involving Loretta Lynch's law firm, and Loretta Lynch "coincidentally" brokered the HSBC settlement after they admitted "wilful criminal conduct" then when she magically became Attorney General she let HSBC off the hook for evading over $100 million in taxes).

Re:Stick a fork in....

[RoccamOccam]

She has a plan. It's the same plan that she always uses. As Peggy Noonan recently wrote, the Clinton Scandal Ritual is to:

Lie, deny, revise, claim not to remember specifics, stall for time. When it passes, call the story “old news” full of questions that have already been answered. “As I’ve repeatedly said . . .”

I would love it but

[JustNiz]

I would love if this will be the thing that stops Hillary, but she's as slippery as a greased weasel. She's already got the FBI and the Attorney General in her pocket so there's really no one left to prosecute her.

If this story gets any traction at all, watch how quickly she will throw this guy and anyone else standing near him under the bus without a second thought.

Re:I would love it but

[Tablizer]

She's already got the FBI and the Attorney General in her pocket

Get some evidence in your pocket, dear MindReader.

What the fuck happened to innocent-until-proven-guilty? Personal speculation is free and plentiful on the Webtubes; we have enough of that already.

Re:I would love it but

[JustNiz]

Are you kidding? Are you denying Comey let her off for her "Extremely careless" misuse of classified information?
Here's why (all public record):
After the the Senate said HSBC served "drug kingpins and rogue nations", they funneled $80 Million into the Clinton Foundation from Swiss bank accounts.
FBI director James Comey was on the HSBC board of directors at the time, and also shielded the Clintons from another classified information scandal involving Loretta Lynch's law firm.
As Attorney General, Loretta Lynch brokered the HSBC settlement after HSBC admitted "wilful criminal conduct". Its executives (including James Comey) were never prosecuted. She went on to let HSBC off the hook for evading over $100 million in taxes.
Seeing the circle yet?

Re:I would love it but

[Tablizer]

The Clintons do NOT get income nor salary from the Clinton Foundation.

After the Senate said...

The Senate? DC politicians are a POOR source of accurate news (either party).

Re:I would love it but

[AmiMoJo]

Considering the amount of stuff Trump has done, one thing like this isn't going to take her down.

Re:I would love it but

[jittles]

I would love if this will be the thing that stops Hillary, but she's as slippery as a greased weasel. She's already got the FBI and the Attorney General in her pocket so there's really no one left to prosecute her.

If this story gets any traction at all, watch how quickly she will throw this guy and anyone else standing near him under the bus without a second thought.

I wouldn't be surprised if she receives a presidential pardon after the election, regardless of the outcome.

Re:I would love it but

[JustNiz]

I can't see Trump ever doing that, but I'd be surprised if Obama didn't, on his last day.

Re:I would love it but

[Tablizer]

Sorry, I don't trust NYpost at all, based on being caught spinning and lying way too many times in the past. I'd bet a paycheck against their general accuracy.

bravery under fire

[PopeRatzo]

An army of reddit users

Oh, OK. It might as well be an "army of Anonymous Cowards from Slashdot". For a second, I thought this was real.

Re:bravery under fire

[PopeRatzo]

Though I think original with 4chan, unsure.

The prosecution rests.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[RoccamOccam]

Just a quick list of scandals from which she has recovered (source: http://www.redstate.com/califo...):

• Watergate - Hillary was fired from the staff of the House Judiciary committee investigating the Nixon Watergate scandal in 1974 by her supervisor, Democrat Jerry Zeifman, because she was a liar. Hillary "conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
• Hillary’s ‘missing’ law firm billing records during the Watergate scandal. When the records mysteriously turned up in the White House in 1996, they showed Hillary met repeatedly with key figures in the scandal.”
• Whitewater.
• Travelgate - Hillary allegedly fired seven employees and gave the positions to her Arkansas friends in a scheme to award a White House airline contract to a Clinton friend.
• Filegate - The Clintons illegally obtained FBI files on political adversaries.
• Selling access to the Lincoln Bedroom -- a fundraising scandal, which NBC's Jim Miklaszewski described as the most expensive bed and breakfast in North America. Some of the 958 visitors who slept at the White House during Clinton's first term. Steve Jobs paid $150,000, and Steven Spielberg paid $200,000.
• Cattle Futures Scandal.
• The Clintons' speaking fees.
• Benghazi
• Emailgate
• Selling Access to the Secretary of State -- the Clinton Foundation's pay for scandal.
• Faintgate

Re:Stick a fork in....

[BlueStrat]

OTOH Trump doesn't hide that he's a flagrant racist and that's totally cool.

Found the SJW.

Because, wanting to control the borders and who/what enters like every other nation does is "racist".

Because, not allowing many thousands of unvetted (asking them "are you a terrorist?" is not vetting) Muslim military-aged men from Syria to be shipped into the US is "racist".

I won't be voting for either Trump or Hillary. Both, I'm certain, have more than earned prison cells & orange pantsuits if the legal system actually worked and Rule of Law was still a thing in the US.

Strat

To Paraphrase Captain Bligh . . .

[Kunedog]

The lies will continue until trust in Hillary improves.

Oh that's not all

[Crashmarik]

Once they tracked down his username they found out a few other things about him

Apparently email isn't the only thing he has trouble deleting https://archive.is/gIDN2

Taste In Porn is interesting https://archive.is/Ct3eY https://archive.is/m78jo
I could see how working with Hillary could induce Bondage fantasies

Here's the rest of his stuff on Reddit

http://archive.is/KYaF0 http://archive.is/TCbPU http://archive.is/OoSMr http://archive.is/OoSMr http://archive.is/MjyK3 http://archive.is/lDzk0 http://archive.is/o4hrr http://archive.is/o4hrr http://archive.is/cfCeL http://archive.is/mYXp3 http://archive.is/kTDoF http://archive.is/iOjnh http://archive.is/TaYXV http://archive.is/EgZJR http://archive.is/MU0TL http://archive.is/WBG4m http://archive.is/HHHQi http://archive.is/Sq21A http://archive.is/zmpKK

Re:Oh that's not all

[Anonymous Coward]

Same Gmail.

Re:Oh that's not all

[jittles]

Once they tracked down his username they found out a few other things about him

Apparently email isn't the only thing he has trouble deleting https://archive.is/gIDN2

Taste In Porn is interesting https://archive.is/Ct3eY https://archive.is/m78jo I could see how working with Hillary could induce Bondage fantasies

Here's the rest of his stuff on Reddit

http://archive.is/KYaF0 http://archive.is/TCbPU http://archive.is/OoSMr http://archive.is/OoSMr http://archive.is/MjyK3 http://archive.is/lDzk0 http://archive.is/o4hrr http://archive.is/o4hrr http://archive.is/cfCeL http://archive.is/mYXp3 http://archive.is/kTDoF http://archive.is/iOjnh http://archive.is/TaYXV http://archive.is/EgZJR http://archive.is/MU0TL http://archive.is/WBG4m http://archive.is/HHHQi http://archive.is/Sq21A http://archive.is/zmpKK

I thought his username was "StoneTear"? Those are all "StormTear" posts.

Re:Oh that's not all

[Crashmarik]

As someone else pointed out same gmail

Re:Oh that's not all

[bill_mcgonigle]

Reported to ICANN for an invalid WHOIS.

Good form, but ICANN cares about doing a good job about as much as the FBI.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[Gen-GNU]

I'm sorry. For the sake of brevity, I did not provide a detailed list of all the things Donald Trump has said or done that in my opinion make him a worse option. I will refrain from doing so now, but if you would like a list, I refer you to anything Trump has said, ever. Full stop.

I do not believe that voting for the only viable candidate that is not named Trump is "abject stupidity", merely the only rational choice in a very distressed election cycle.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[alvinrod]

Let's just get rid of both the Republican and Democrat candidates this year. The Green and Libertarian parties are a good enough substitute for both and as much as you might disagree with some of their stances, their candidates aren't morally bankrupt idiots. Otherwise I think I'm just going to write in Caligula's horse this year.

Has slashdot comments too

[NotInHere]

Seems there is a slashdot user named stonetear as well.

https://slashdot.org/~stonetea...

His comments:

https://slashdot.org/comments....

on Tuesday April 16, 2002, (archived link)

The IIS patches aren't on liveupdate, you have to go get them

on Thursday January 24, 2002, (archived link)

I'm contracted to a state government, and let me tell you, everyone here saves EVERYthing for cover-your-ass purposes.. it's really sad to see every little memo back to 1997 in someone's inbox taking up PHAT amounts of disk space on the GroupWise server ... sigh

Thursday July 19, 2001, (archived link)

Gasbag Joe Liberman ... LOL right on! I just moved from Michigan, and he's one quack I'm not sorry to see gone. Well everyone knows that the liberal agenda includes removing any personal responsibility or blame for your actions from you, and putting them in the lap of big scary corporations and 'the internet' and such. Blah. ;) ST

Note: I do think clinton should win, but I'm still doing this, and if its just for transparency purposes.

Re:Has slashdot comments too

[whipslash]

Nice find. Archived links are nice but trust me, those comments aren't going anywhere.

Re:Has slashdot comments too

[NotInHere]

The no deletion policy of slashdot is part of why I prefer it over reddit. Everything slightly controversial gets deleted on that page. But better safe than sorry :)

Awesome that you stick with it!

Re:Has slashdot comments too

[whipslash]

Yep! Updated summary with your contribution.

Re:Has slashdot comments too

[JustNiz]

>> Note: I do think clinton should win

Wow. just wow. I mean how seriously fucking corrupt does she have to be before you people finally get it?

Re:Has slashdot comments too

[tgv]

I have no direct stake in the matter, and I think "HRC" is not to be trusted at all, but did you ever listen to Trump speak? He's got the intelligence of a 14 year old. And the temper too. But there is no other choice, so Hillary it is.

Re:Has slashdot comments too

[JustNiz]

So you would rather pick a known/proven corrupt criminal than someone with interpersonal issues. I see.

Re:Has slashdot comments too

[tgv]

Proven crimes are petty. And Trump isn't corrupt? Haha. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Re:Has slashdot comments too

[bloodhawk]

>> Note: I do think clinton should win

Wow. just wow. I mean how seriously fucking corrupt does she have to be before you people finally get it?

It isn't that she isn't corrupt, it is just the alternative is too horrifying to consider. Rather known predictable corrupt than a corrupt clueless liar that has the potential to send the world back 50 years.

Re:Has slashdot comments too

[NotInHere]

She is the lesser of two evils. In an ideal world, she would be persecuted for all the crimes she and her family commited, and she would be banned from public offices, but as the alternative is even more horrible, I think she should become president.

Trump wants to make peace with russia, that's nice, but he also wants to charge protection money from the western countries, and he didn't really get the message about climate change. The horrible TTIP deal, all this paperwork can be reversed, but if the USA is going to continue pollution, or even expand it, this will have an irreversible and unstoppable impact on global climate.

Re:Has slashdot comments too

[SadButResolved]

But has he committed Treason and caused millions of deaths? No? Then yes we are voting for that one.

Re:Has slashdot comments too

[tgv]

That's such a polarized view.

First, you don't, or rather, shouldn't vote for a person based on your interpretation of that person's image, but rather on how you think he or she would represent your views (in this case as a president).

Second: treason? Millions of deaths? You surely must know you're exaggerating.

Re:Has slashdot comments too

[Sibko]

He's already deleted the reddit comments, although they've been archived plenty enough already that it doesn't matter.

Re:Has slashdot comments too

[JustNiz]

I haven;t seen any evidence that Trump is corrupt at all. I'll happily agree that the chance that he isn't on some level is low, but not even close to the scale that she is.

Show me the hundreds of milions of bribe $, show me the wars that he's started, show me the endless lies to congress. All things that are beyond refute about Hillary.

I'll take Trump over Hillary ANY DAY.

Re:Has slashdot comments too

[JustNiz]

You surely must know that As a US Senator, Clinton voted for the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, which has resulted in up to 175,172 civilian deaths (from violence alone) and a total of 242,000 deaths when combataAs Secretary of State Clinton was a forceful advocate for escalating US military operations in Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. She also presided over the expansion of drone attacks that have killed hundreds, if not thousands of civilians (up to 90% not being the intended targets), while reinforcing US commitments to dictatorships in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Morocco and elsewhere. Ints are included.
Her policies are pretty much the reason that IS even exist. How many people have they killed?

Re:Has slashdot comments too

[JustNiz]

> Proven crimes are petty.

Wow what are you smoking?

Re:Has slashdot comments too

[whipslash]

Yeah I was referring to his Slashdot comments

Re:Stick a fork in....

[dagrichards]

Please read Saint Regan's testimony about Iran-Contra ... you may find a few I don't recalls there. There were BTW some rather public statements about personal mails being redacted from the trove. I'm sure Scooter Libby could recount some episodes of obfuscation and information mis management. Are we under the impression that Next President Clinton is the only politician to mis handle information? If that is really the best scandal you can come up with... well its just does not rise any where near the appropriate level. If the voters will return Boy George to White House after falsifying intelligence and sending the US to an unnecessary and permanent war.... wellI I don't think an email server is going to cut the controversy mustard.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[Third Position]

I just hope the old battle-axe doesn't croak before Trump has the opportunity to trounce her.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[isotope23]

You seriously would vote for someone to uphold the "rule of law" who it seems has no respect for the law???
Seriously amazing. So you are fine with one set of rules for the "elite" and one set for everyone else eh?

Trump may be slime, but at the moment I don't think there is any sort of definitive proof he's broken the law,. If there were it almost certainly would have come
out by now and be front page headlines for every news organization in the US....

Here's a thought how about the DNC replaces her with someone who has NOT attempted to break the law? Failing that how about someone who doesn't have a paper trail showing they tried??????

Re:Stick a fork in....

[Mr D from 63]

This is finished.

This won't even be reported by most mainstream news, unless of course it gets so much attention they simply can't avoid it . Those that do will minimize it or repeat whatever response lines the Clinton campaign puts forth.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[Anonymous Coward]

Do racists give time, money, and space to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition?

Donald Trump has been rich and active for decades. Suddenly he runs against the Democrats and he's a racist.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[Gen-GNU]

Wow, I will try to respond rationally. According to all polls, the margin between Hillary and Trump is within a few percentage points. While I am not a fan of either candidate, I do feel that the country would be far, far worse off if Trump is elected. If I vote for a third party candidate, I am giving up the small voice I have to try to block Trump.
The current system we have for voting in the United States is a first past the post election system. To understand why I (and others) mathematically can't vote for third parties without hurting themselves, I refer you to this video.

I hope that will help you understand why I would vote for a candidate I don't love, over one I detest. Or you can continue in your ignorance to consider me a "fucking asshole", and go about your day.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[tnk1]

At this point, I cannot even imagine America with Trump in charge. I can't even think about it.

With Hillary, I can at least envision it. The usual political bullshit. Standard corrupt action and hubris. Bill dicking bimbos in the WH again. Mediocre government with the usual infighting.

I hate both of them, but Trump actually scares me, where Hillary only makes me angry and frustrated. And to be honest, I am not as much afraid of Trump himself, as I am that this country could actually elect someone like Trump. He's still going to lose, but this is the only opponent that Hillary should be able to curbstomp, and she's totally not doing so. Or so the pollsters would have us believe.

Maybe she needs to take this election off to recover from her illnesses and let Tim Kaine get elected President. I could possibly even vote for him.

Why do I think

[Snotnose]

That if HRC doesn't win in November, she'll be in jail a year from November?

Get a DOJ not paired with the dems, and HRC's defenses fall apart. She's done too much, she either pardons herself or goes to jail.

Re:Why do I think

[phantomfive]

That if HRC doesn't win in November, she'll be in jail a year from November?

No point wasting scandal-time on those without power.

Re:Why do I think

[PapayaSF]

That if HRC doesn't win in November, she'll be in jail a year from November?

You're assuming she'll survive her Parkinson's or whatever it is she's got.

Re:Why do I think

[AmiMoJo]

Unlike that scammer Trump, with his fake universities and dodgy real estate deals that actually stole people's money.

Clinton's mistake is not doing enough. Trump is almost a parody of himself, there is just so much shit he has done it just rolls of him like water off a duck's back. It would be major news if he said something not outrageous.

No sh!t they're trying to hide something

[rsilvergun]

that's why you do in politics. You also constantly try to dig up dirt. So far nobody's got any real dirt on Clinton. Meanwhile Bush Jr deleted 22 million emails. Nobody gives a damn about that and nobody gives a damn about this.

Re:No sh!t they're trying to hide something

[khallow]

So far nobody's got any real dirt on Clinton.

Aside from the Obama administration who has an interest in protecting Clinton. And it's just national security felonies. No big deal.

Meanwhile Bush Jr deleted 22 million emails.

Because that's all the same once you ignore the differences such as Clinton's grossly negligent mishandling of classified information or intentional bypassing of State Department IT. And that Bush didn't do it, but rather the Republican National Committee.

I'm tired of people blowing off Clinton's long train of scandals and crimes with the same old rationalizations: "you can't prove it" and "Bush/some other Republican did it too".

Re:No sh!t they're trying to hide something

[jittles]

So far nobody's got any real dirt on Clinton.

Aside from the Obama administration who has an interest in protecting Clinton. And it's just national security felonies. No big deal.

Meanwhile Bush Jr deleted 22 million emails.

Because that's all the same once you ignore the differences such as Clinton's grossly negligent mishandling of classified information or intentional bypassing of State Department IT. And that Bush didn't do it, but rather the Republican National Committee. I'm tired of people blowing off Clinton's long train of scandals and crimes with the same old rationalizations: "you can't prove it" and "Bush/some other Republican did it too".

My response to people who say "So and so did it too is" go ahead and prosecute that person, too! If the statute of limitations has not run, I'd be more than happy to see another dishonest politician in prison.

Re:No sh!t they're trying to hide something

[khallow]

Damn right. The Obama administration is so dead-set on protecting Clinton that they went back in time to the dawn of the entire common law system to invent some nonsense about criminal wrongdoing being matters of intent and harm.

I get you're valiantly trying to be sarcastic here, but yes, that is part of the problem. Gross negligence in handling of US classified information is a felony which doesn't require intent.

I expect goobers on Twitter and Facebook to throw around the term "gross negligence", but I expect better on Slashdot. Really, arguing for gross negligence in infosec is virtually unwinnable, since it's an absolute. When ACME car company knows their airbags catch on fire but don't do a recall, resulting in deaths, then their complete and knowing lack of action caused harm that they are liable for.

Yet another "You can't prove it" excuse from the Clinton apologists. And "absolute"? Unlike gross negligence, murder is genuinely absolute yet despite that people do it all the time and routinely get caught too.

When a handful of emails are incidentally sent to a secured and private system, despite obvious and consistent intent to avoid them ending up there, you have established neither complete negligence nor the harm that negligence is intended to address.

Not even remotely the scenario here. First, it's the lion's share of Clinton's email. Second, there was no attempt to avoid having classified information on this server, including classified information that Clinton did not have the authority to declassify. Nothing was ever done nor appropriate parties informed about the presence of classified documents on a server not authorized to have them. Third, security on her email server was very amateur. We have in this story posts on Reddit asking what to do about server issues. We have people who thought turning the server off was an appropriate response to an intrusion attempt.

There's plenty more where that came from.

Re:No sh!t they're trying to hide something

[khallow]

Well, if other politicians have committed crimes then by all means let's throw those people in jail. But if you're using this as an excuse to protect your pet politician, and let's face it, that's the current outcome no matter what point you think you're making, then you're just another thug using accusations of "hypocrisy" to protect crimes which are far worse than hypocrisy.

Re:No sh!t they're trying to hide something

[Citizen of Earth]

I'm tired of people blowing off Clinton's long train of scandals and crimes with the same old rationalizations: "you can't prove it" and "Bush/some other Republican did it too".

The importance of them using the second rationalization is that they are agreeing with you that Hillary did it and that it is indeed wrong. You could respond, "Thank you for confessing that I am right!"

Why would Clinton's supporters abandon her now?

[mi]

and I say that as one of her supporters.

When NY Times called her a "congenital liar" in 1996, the only question was, whether "congenital" was the right term — the "liar" was deemed quite apropos.

Fast forward 20 years to 2016, her loyal supporters — such as yourself — beg her to, please, stop lying .

So, her being a liar is well-known and perfectly established — and has been for many years. Presumably, all those lies have not been enough to dissuade her from supporting her until recently. Why are you abandoning her now, when she needs you most?

Re:Why would Clinton's supporters abandon her now?

[coaxial]

Very clever finding notorious hack Bill Saffire commenting on his own column, and painting it as some sort of third party endorsement of his original column that history has shown is a pack of fail. Lest we forget The Starr Report. Lest we forget the final Travelgate report. Lest we forget the transparently political climate.

You need to troll much harder kid. I remember this shit.

Re:Why would Clinton's supporters abandon her now?

[mi]

Yes, that's the spirit! Brush off all the lies — by smearing those, who bring them up, if necessary.

Whatever it takes, stick to your champion until the end, however bitter. If only other Clinton-supporters were as iron-willed as you, she'd have had no problem going through that glass ceiling without even so much as a headache...

Re:Stick a fork in....

[Anonymous Coward]

The "Birther" movement appeared during the primary season of 2008, when Obama was fighting Clinton for the nomination. It was pushed by Doyle, the Clinton campaign manager, and Blumenthal, Clinton's long time friend, employee, and personal hatchetman. It was pushed so hard that a news agency actually sent a reporter to Kenya to investigate it.
The Clinton campaign also revealed a picture of Obama dressed up in "Kenyan" garb, as part of this effort, and Obama personally called Clinton out for this "disgusting" attack on him.
When interviewed, Clinton said she didn't know about his birth or religion. Not exactly shooting down the birther rumors her campaign spread, is it?

So while Trump may have not been correct when that she - to whit, Hillary Clinton - personally spoke those exact words. But since her CAMPAIGN did push those rumors, and she is well known as a micromanager, and a dirty and vindictive fighter, it is very hard to believe that she didn't know about the claims her campaign was making trying to get her elected.

Of course, the ACTUAL originator of the Birther claims was a guy that produced a book jacket biography for Obama's first book that was never written. That bio explicitly claimed that Obama was born in Kenya. The writer that produced that book jacket biography that was sent to the publishers? No one seens to know who it was, but it initials were B.O. and it's rumored he was last spotted at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[cfalcon]

> Trump isn't winning shit.

Well, he's winning in some of the polls. And he won the nomination versus a field of over a dozen Republicans, some of whom spent all their money attacking him.

So... you SURE he won't win? I've been hearing everyone saying Trump was about to wash out since he announced.

Re:Because Reddit is a great source of detective w

[NotInHere]

That's why governments (counting police as part of the government) usually employ professionals who do this as their day jobs. The whole process is bound to certain rules, like the rule of no punishment without a court ruling, or the presumption of innocence, and it is usually better than an investigation done by an angry mob of laymen. But sometimes this system doesn't work, for example when it affects someone higher up. I can totally understand the government employees who refrain from investigating their higher ups. In a democracy you have the press and public to take over that task.

Re: Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....

[JBell4]

Proof? Like the federal convictions for racial profiling in housing after extensive investigations proved equally qualified buyers/renters were allowed access by skin color? Or like his father being arrested at kkk rallies in the 30s and also being convicted of racial animus in housing situations?

Re:Stick a fork in....

[J053]

Watergate - Hillary was fired from the staff of the House Judiciary committee investigating the Nixon Watergate scandal in 1974 by her supervisor, Democrat Jerry Zeifman, because she was a liar [foxnews.com]. Hillary "conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

Except that Zeifman was not her supervisor, and she wasn't fired http://www.snopes.com/politics...

Re:Stick a fork in....

[rworne]

Unless you are in one of the battleground states, you do not have much of a voice. See how the electoral college works. If she's up 10-15% in the polls in your state on election day, your voice will be a tad louder voting for a candidate of your choice, rather than the "lesser of two evils".

For example: if you happen to live in California, you won't be blocking anybody. HRC is going to win unless we finally have that megaquake and all the costal cities fall into the ocean.

Re:Which race are Muzzies?

[unixisc]

Yeah, since he's mentioned the Boston Marathon bombings, among other things, and in one speech, mentioned the nationalities of terrorists who were White Muslims

Re:Because Reddit is a great source of detective w

[GrumpySteen]

"Combetta, who was granted immunity by the Justice Department during its investigation of Clinton's private server after he deleted a large number of emails."

The guy is already telling the Justice Department what he knows in return for immunity. Reddit isn't accomplishing anything with their amateur-hour 'investigation' other than harassing and stalking stalk one of the key people who is actually helping the investigation.

But I suppose you forgot that part of the summary.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[ArylAkamov]

He should avoid doing bench presses for awhile too.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[phantomfive]

as much as you might disagree with some of their stances, their candidates aren't morally bankrupt idiots

I think that's probably not true. If they attracted the focus of other candidates, you would quickly find them morally bankrupt also.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[thegarbz]

The problem with most of the minor parties is that behind the occasional great ideal lives a world of incredible stupidity that would end society as we know it.

Well at least that's how it typically happens in most places.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yeah. Don't you know how this works? In every election, the Republican candidate is Literally Hitler.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[Anonymous Coward]

There is evidence, reported on CNN of all places, that people involved with her primary campaign against Obama were spreading the birth certificate story to the press. May not have come directly from her, but some of her subordinates were involved early on. What she never does is take responsibility for those working for her.

She uses her minions as deflection. Just look at her explanation for any classified information that may have been in her e-mails -- she trusted that those that worked for her knew what they were doing.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[bigfinger76]

Thanks for the lesson kid, but most of us here are aware of how it works. Or at least aware enough to not take political advice from an AC.

Re:Because Reddit is a great source of detective w

[ArylAkamov]

Depends on if he told this about this or tried to hide it.

I guess we will find out. Immunity can be rescinded.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[ArylAkamov]

Except it was Hillary's campaign that made it up. You forgot that part.

"Trump isn't winning shit.", said nervous man for the tenth time this election.

Re:Because Reddit is a great source of detective w

[bigfinger76]

Sure, it's a bit of a garbage fire, but I'm enjoying the light.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[PapayaSF]

Here's a thought how about the DNC replaces her with someone who has NOT attempted to break the law? Failing that how about someone who doesn't have a paper trail showing they tried??????

Too late. Ballot deadlines have passed. I believe early voting has started in some places. The DNC just can't call up 50 states and tell them to change the name on the ballots.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[Pseudonym]

Donald Trump has been rich and active for decades. Suddenly he runs against the Democrats and he's a racist.

No, he's been accused of racism in various forms for decades. Displacing minority residents through the abuse of eminent domain, exploiting foreign undocumented workers... it's all there. Look it up.

You're only hearing about it now because the private sector and public sector are held to different standards. Oh, and because for the first time his lack of concern for anyone but himself might negatively affect middle-class white people.

FTFY

[drainbramage]

Additional qualifications: Hardly ever indicted.

Amazon wish list of

[kevstar31]

Here is his amazon wish list: page 1: http://archive.is/AMPUH page 2:http://archive.is/ZQtEr

Stonetear on slashdot?

[damn_registrars]

At first I would have said no way, as there are approximately 3 non-conservatives on slashdot - and I'm one of them - today. Then I clicked the link and realized that the StoneTear here hasn't posted in over 13 years. This puts that user as having passed around the exodus of "liberals" from slashdot, so there is a remote chance that it could be the same person that is suspected of being a Clinton staffer.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[RoccamOccam]

Snopes story questioned: https://medium.com/@amuse/why-...

Re:Stick a fork in....

[jcr]

This leaves no room for doubt.

So what?

When Comey laid out all. of. the. elements. necessary for conviction of thousands of counts of espionage act violations, and then recommended not prosecuting someone that he knows bloody well is guilty, it was made perfectly clear that this administration won't prosecute a Clinton.

The only way she ever sees justice is if she loses the election, and I wouldn't count on Trump to do the right thing, either.

-jcr

Re:Stick a fork in....

[adamchou]

+1

Re:Stick a fork in....

[jcr]

Trump isn't the only alternative. I'm supporting Johnson/Weld, because I like having a clear conscience.

-jcr

Re:Which race are Muzzies?

[unixisc]

Uh, that's precisely the point I was making. Muslims don't belong to any one race, nor do they preclude belonging to any particular race. There are White Muslims as well - not only from parts of the ex Soviet Union, as well as ex Yugoslavia and Albania - there are also Western converts to Islam, who are even more suspicion worthy than some people who may be Muslims just by accident of birth.

Your 1.2 definition just muddies the water further. For instance, take Turks & Iranians. They have a common history and to an extent, culture, and even to an extent, origin - both having cultures based around the Khorasan region of medieval Iran. But they are 2 very different racial, linguistic and ethnic groups. And your definition 1.3 is not applicable to religion, or else, White Catholics and Black Catholics would be described as belonging to the same race.

Not to be pedantic, but the term you were looking for is 'bigot' - if you wanna imply somebody who's biased against any group of people just b'cos of any particular attribute. You did yourself no favors by trying to redefine the meaning of 'race'. As for the term 'Mohammedan', it may be archaic, but by no means is it any more racial than describing my above Black and White Catholics as a racial group. My reason for using it is the same reason that Muslims are pissed off by people using it - the implication that they are a cult. Which they are, if one applies all the attributes of a cult, except for the one about numbers: the only reason people don't think of them as a cult is there being more than a billion of them

Serious question

[Anonymous Coward]

How long until Paul shoots himself twice in the back of the head?

Re: Is Donald Trump racist (Re:Stick a fork in....

[quantaman]

Maybe Mi's just partisan, ever think of that?

It's quite possible, and it's possible that he's picked up some of the racially charged beliefs of his "team".

Being on the left I know I have to fight the urge to negatively stereotype blue collar workers and poor rural folk who could be categorized as "rednecks".

Re:Which race are Muzzies?

[Pseudonym]

Congratulations, you can read a dictionary. What the dictionary didn't tell you is that "race" isn't actually a thing, which is why the term "racial profiling" doesn't actually refer to "race".

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), "racial profiling" refers to the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin.

It's a confusing term, to be sure. So are terms like "hacker" and "dial-up", but we can cope because we're adults and we're not completely stupid.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[quantaman]

She has a plan. It's the same plan that she always uses. As Peggy Noonan recently wrote, the Clinton Scandal Ritual is to:

Lie, deny, revise, claim not to remember specifics, stall for time. When it passes, call the story “old news” full of questions that have already been answered. “As I’ve repeatedly said . . .”

That's every politician's plan, Obama dealing with Reverent Wright is one of the only examples of a politician dealing with a scandal head on, everyone else just stays low key and waits until something else catches the media's attention.

Clinton's problem is that there's an election campaign so there's nothing else interesting going on besides Clinton v. Trump. As long as no other Clinton news comes up the media is going to talk about emails.

She just needs to start flooding the airwaves with press conferences until everyone finds something else to talk about and moves on.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[Raenex]

I was going to vote Johnson until he made it clear that he's a politically correct Democrat in Libertarian clothing, getting into a hissy fit because an interviewer used the term "illegal immigrant". I never did like his goofball expressions, but I was willing to vote 3rd party, but fuck it.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[frnic]

You do know that despite Trumps comments, the vetting process currently takes an average of several years.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[StillAnonymous]

Aw man, I liked this guy too. Until I saw that video.. What a fucking idiot.

"How's that supposed to work? Are they supposed to be dragged from their homes..?"

Uh, yes. That's how it would work for me or anyone else if we were wanted for a crime and refused to cooperate. We'd be dragged from our homes. Now why are a specific group of people supposed to be treated differently?

This clown either drank the PC kool-aid, or he's owned, just like the majority of them.

Thanks for the link, btw.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[Mashiki]

You do know that despite Trumps comments, the vetting process currently takes an average of several years.

You mean like those 800 people who were in the US and "mistakenly" granted US citizenship? Or the illegals and their supporters who are simply bottom feeding pieces of shit.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[KeensMustard]

Well, there's worse things than breaking the law.

He probably has broken the law - the other day I heard him spruiking his business interests at a media event supposedly for him to renounce his previous claims about Obama and his place of birth - in my country there are laws to prevent conflicts of interest, which it seems there aren't in the US otherwise he would certainly have broken those laws. And there are ongoing investigations into his business connections which, if the allegations are true, would dwarf Clintons wrongdoings.

But regardless, there are worse things than breaking the law. His attitudes on nuclear prolifieration, in particular, his suggestion that South Korea and Japan ought to acquire nuclear weapons, his attitude that nothing can or should be done to ensure that Wahabbists (like ISIS) do not acquire nuclear weapons. His refusal to rule out detonating nuclear weapons in Europe, His claim that being unpredictable is a good approach in a nuclear standoff.

There was talk amongst Republicans that Trump might be suffering from a mental illness. He appears to genuinely believe he is qualified to lead a country. I'm not a fan of Hillary by any means. But she doesn't seem to be doing or planning or saying anything that would materially damage or embarrass the United States, if she were elected. Trump seems to embarrass and denigrate the country every time he opens his mouth.

Reddit?

[jandersen]

The thing that caught my eye here was the mention of Reddit - is that a good forum to discuss techie things? Maybe I'll have to go and check it out - I always just dismissed it as yet another social media thing.

Oh, Clinton and Trump, yeah right, what's the fuss? Clinton is without doubt the most evil, criminal mastermind in history (based on hearsay on the gossip channels), and Trump is the spoiled son of a family that made it's fortune from brothels and gambling, apparently (if one can believe this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...). To be honest, I don't think it is only the political classes in the US that are sick - from the noises, it sounds like the whole nation is in the grip of severe, mental illness. I hope I'm wrong - I think any sane person would dismiss the more obviously stupid noises and look up fact for themselves, like what are the track records of the two candidates, what have they achieved that is relevant to the job they are applying for and so on. I mean, those things are in fact quite important, since the President holds real power, unlike some other heads of state. Has anybody of you guys with the loud voices even thought about what qualifications are desirable in a president? Or does it just boil down to "whatever seems to fit the description of our candidate"?

The world is going through a very difficult time, and it is going to get worse before it gets better. Globalisation means that things like nations and capitalism are beginning to lose their relevance, and climate change means that we are going to see major conflics over mass migration, among other things. Terrorism is only a small symptom of what is likely to come, if we don't get some things sorted out rather urgently, so I would suggest that people take the issue of who governs the most powerful nation on the planet a little more seriously; this isn't a cheap "reality show".

Re:Stick a fork in....

[anarcobra]

I agree with the AC. By voting for someone you hate only a little bit less than the opposition you send a message that their policy isn't important and they just have to be slightly less bad than the opposition.
If people actually voted for a third party it would do a lot to keep the two big candidates from going this much off the rails.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[cold fjord]

I mean... he just fucking lied about Hillary making up the Birther argument right on camera. Lied. Straight lied his ass off. Not just the usual half-baked shit he throws off.

McClatchy: Clinton Advisor Sid Blumenthal Shopped Around Birther Rumors in 2008
Clinton’s 08 Campaign Manager Acknowledges Volunteer Sent Around Birther Email
Former DC Bureau Chief: Clinton Surrogate Pitched Me ‘Birther’ Story In 2008

Re:Stick a fork in....

[KozmoStevnNaut]

I propose a "none of the above" option on the ballot. If it gets the majority vote, all parties must put up a new candidate on a new ballot.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[jcr]

Tell me: what does a Hillary shill get for lying on /. like this?

-jcr

Re:Stick a fork in....

[BlueStrat]

You don't have to dig deep to find the nuggets with this guy. If the man suggests a judge of (half) mexican descent should recuse himself from a case because of his heritage... that man might be a rednec...er racist.

I'm sure that the judge's membership in an openly racist organization, La Raza, had nothing at all to do with it. Or is it now racist to complain about racists when said racist is one of the 'protected' class?

BTW those military age Syrian men will be vetted, rest assured its still really fucking hard to get here.

Bullshit. There's no way TO vet them! There are no records to check. There isn't even a way to check that they've given their correct name, FFS!

Every single murder committed by these 'refugees' is directly the fault of those pushing to bring these 'refugees' here. Meanwhile, Coptic Christians who are suffering genocide at the hands of these same animals in Syria and elsewhere, and who DO have verifiable paper trails and Coptic priests there to vet them, are being left to be brutally murdered...men, women, and children alike.

The US is turning into everything it used to stand against. It cannot long exist.

Strat

Strat

Re:Stick a fork in....

[Rockoon]

Trump is going to win by a landslide, and the media will be "shocked."

Then one of these two parties self-destructs.

Great

[ThatsNotPudding]

"When Fascism Came To Town, aka President Trump"

Re:Stick a fork in....

[bytesex]

The statements that he made about Europe (detonating nuclear devices there, NATO withdrawal, etc) are nothing unlike what every single US president in recent memory including Obama has ever said. I mean, I'm not particularly in favor of the man, but this seems a bit like this: http://cdn.someecards.com/some...

Re:Stick a fork in....

[jittles]

Trump may be slime, but at the moment I don't think there is any sort of definitive proof he's broken the law,. If there were it almost certainly would have come out by now and be front page headlines for every news organization in the US....

Well I suspect that Trump University is a case of massive fraud against its students and, if any Federal Financial Aid was granted, the tax payers. Trump just donated his beach front resort to the Florida AG's reelection campaign and magically the fraud charges against the University were dropped the next week. I say throw them both in jail.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[Daetrin]

Trump may be slime, but at the moment I don't think there is any sort of definitive proof he's broken the law

...you mean aside from having to pay a fine to the IRS for breaking the law in what was probably an attempt to bribe an attorney general?

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

And oh look, while trying to find details of that i found a whole list of other illegal things he's done/proposed doing:

http://www.pajiba.com/politics...

If there were it almost certainly would have come out by now and be front page headlines for every news organization in the US

These things do float to the top of the headlines every so often, but generally they're quickly forgotten about. I'm not sure why that is exactly. Because Trump's supporters don't care when he does something illegal or immoral? Because he does so many of them that nobody can stay focused on just one long enough for it to become a real issue? I have no idea.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[dbIII]

This is finished. There's no way she wins the election, and I say that as one of her supporters. Here is clear evidence of trying to hide something. This leaves no room for doubt.

Whether this is real or not it's lazy birther shit part two instead of going after one of the many real issues that Hillary could be tackled on.

Seriously guys - it's office fucking procedures and virtual storage of paperwork instead of something actually serious like probably taking bribes from Pfizer and generally abusing her position of Secretary of State (eg. when she asked spooks to get the credit card details of diplomats from allied countries for possible framing and leverage). That would take actual work but going on about email is the lazy way out.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[rickb928]

"I'd rather vote for a student of the Grand fucking Wizard of the KKK."

You have that choice...

Muslims vs. Arabs

[mi]

Muslim and Arab are highly correlated, particularly in the minds of Islamaphobes.

You aren't offering any evidence about other people's minds. But Muslims and Arabs are distinctly different groups of people — your claim of there being a high correlation is false. With the most recent terror-attacks in the US perpetrated by Afghans, even the less educated among us know it.

The top three Muslim countries in the world — Indonesia, Pakistan, India — aren't Arabic at all. Plenty of Arabs are Christian and some are members of lesser-known religions.

Unlike Christianity, which, famously, "renders Caesar's to Caesar", Islam prescribes Theocracy as the only government order suitable to the faithful. The religion is inherently incompatible with the First Amendment.

With 51% of Muslims — of all races — already in the US favoring Sharia, an attempt to stop any further increases in their numbers may be reasonable. But even if it is not, the thought is not racist.

Re:Muslims vs. Arabs

[dywolf]

Source for the BS statistic: the arse of the bigot known as Pamela Gellar.

Re:Muslims vs. Arabs

[mi]

Source for the BS statistic: the arse of the bigot known as Pamela Gellar.

Ah, yes, I too wish, we had something more reliable. But we don't. Pew Research, for example, has very detailed information about world-wide Muslims' preference for Sharia. They cover many different countries but, for some reason, not the US — their detailed, 8-page collection of statistics about American Muslims does not contain the one particular bit, which they have for so many other countries.

It is almost as if Pew wished to hide something...

But, hey, if your only objection is to the source of data, which you suspect of bias, what is your ball-park estimate? Say, it is not 51%, but only 40%... Does that change anything I said above?

Re:Stick a fork in....

[Yunzil]

"Clear evidence" being some shit on reddit?

This would be the same reddit that identified the wrong people for the Boston marathon bombing?

I guess the standards for 'clear evidence' have fallen pretty far.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[Yunzil]

You seriously would vote for someone to uphold the "rule of law" who it seems has no respect for the law???

Yes.

Trump said he wants to make it easier to sue people if they say bad things about him. He said we should have just taken Iraq's oil in defiance of international law. Even if you think Clinton disregards the law, Trump has no respect for any law, Constitutional or international.

Trump may be slime, but at the moment I don't think there is any sort of definitive proof he's broken the law,

No, but he has a court date over the Trump U scam.

"Hasn't broken the law that I know of" is a pretty thin reason to vote for someone who would probably destroy the country.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[Yunzil]

When Comey laid out all. of. the. elements. necessary for conviction of thousands of counts of espionage act violations

Um, no, that's not what happened. Is this a fever dream you had? Have you been drinking Trump wine?

Re:Stick a fork in....

[MachineShedFred]

Yeah, except that apparently she hates press conferences and refuses to do them. I imagine holding a press conference is rather difficult when you know that every question coming to you is one you don't want asked, and you really don't want to answer.

Fighting for your beliefs

[mi]

Wow, has /. finally turned the corner?

Well, no thanks you, quitter. Stand up and fight for your beliefs — it is not like you have to endanger your life or a limb even.

They found the Boston bombers too ?!

[ripvlan]

Isn't this the same group that "found" the Boston Bomber? Mob rule mentality with "that looks like what I want" Causality and Causation.

It'll be interesting to hear if there's any truth to this. Although "Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see." (E.A.Poe)

Re:They found the Boston bombers too ?!

[eric_harris_76]

No.

Anything else we can help you with?

Re:They found the Boston bombers too ?!

[ripvlan]

oh sorry - forgot to put :-P in the post.

Re:They found the Boston bombers too ?!

[eric_harris_76]

Oh. Never mind. (I use "Golly" to flag facetious/sarcastic/whatever statement.)

Re:Stick a fork in....

[Raenex]

Actually, a true Libertarian would object to the concept of "illegal immigrant" too, and would insist that people have the right to do what they want, rather than give the government more and more power.

I am not a "true" Libertarian. Neither is Gary Johnson. I have a Libertarian bent. I believe we have a national right to control our borders that we should enforce, just like every other nation.

Gary Johnson may not have made the best articulation of the issue, but he's sticking to his principles.

No, he made it clear he's sticking to politically correct bullshit, as it was offending hispanics that was his main concern. This is from the same "Libertarian" who thinks you should force Christian bakers to make cakes for gay weddings, and Jewish bakers should be force to make Nazi cakes. Does that sound Libertarian to you?

Re: Stick a fork in....

[cunina]

Jill Stein wants to give Edward Snowden a cabinet position. Gary Johnson doesn't know what Aleppo is. They're moral people, but they just might be idiots. And even so, I agree with you. Eliminate the Republicrats.

Ethics of banning a religion

[mi]

Discriminating based on race has nothing to do with discriminating based on religion.

Full agreement.

They're both discrimination

That's meaningless — discrimination in itself is neither illegal nor reprehensible. I discriminate against assholes, for example.

they're even both federally-protected classes

That federal protection applies to US citizens and residents. It is not applicable to those seeking to move in. For example, Federal government has a "visa lottery", which allocates certain number of winners to different countries — this is not illegal.

Just like a board made of pine has nothing in common with a board made of cedar.

No, the difference between race and religion is much greater than your clumsy attempt at sarcasm implies.

While race is about superficial traits like skin color or shape of the eyes, that people are powerless to amend anyway, religion is a collection of (deeply held) beliefs — such as a belief, that the only just and acceptable way of life is under a Theocracy. It is perfectly valid for people abhorring such a belief — and an American President is, actually, oath-bound to abhor this one — to discriminate against people holding it.

The First Amendment makes it illegal for the government to single out existing Muslims Americans, yes. But it is not obviously wrong to not want any more people holding such opinions come in. Even if somehow you convince me, any such ban would be illegal, thinking about it is neither immoral nor unethical.

Re:Ethics of banning a religion

[amicusNYCL]

That federal protection applies to US citizens and residents. It is not applicable to those seeking to move in.

So would you say that denying entry to people based on their religion is in line with American ideals? In other words, would you consider it to be an "American" thing to do, as opposed to un-American?

such as a belief, that the only just and acceptable way of life is under a Theocracy.

If people believed that then I would wonder why they would voluntarily move to a country that is not a Theocracy. That would seem to be against their beliefs.

Re:Ethics of banning a religion

[amicusNYCL]

I'm actually inclined to agree with your sentiment. If anyone expressing a sincere religious belief were denied entry, I think that our country would be better for it. I don't think that's in keeping with the ideals that we claim to hold, but I do think our country would see a net positive if we simply denied entry to anyone who checked any box other than "None" under the religion question.

Re:Ethics of banning a religion

[mi]

So would you say that denying entry to people based on their religion is in line with American ideals?

I would say, it depends on the religion. One of the major aspects of Islam is Sharia and the (world-wide) Theocracy. Both directly contradict the US Constitution — holding any religion with such tenets is valid grounds for suspicion and extra scrutiny.

If people believed that then I would wonder why they would voluntarily move to a country that is not a Theocracy.

For its higher level of living — "it is the economy, stupid".

The percentage of Muslims preferring Sharia in the US is often-cited as 51%. The number for Canada is 60%, the U.K. — 40%. The problem is real...

If anyone expressing a sincere religious belief were denied entry, I think that our country would be better for it

Then you are a fool. Sadly, an alternative to religion is not the cheerful agnosticism, or the sophisticated atheism. Absent a coherent religion of some kind, the void is filled by dark superstitions (think "bad omens", witch-burning, and black cat-chasing), that are worse than even Islam.

Re:Ethics of banning a religion

[amicusNYCL]

I would say, it depends on the religion.

So we shouldn't discriminate for some religions, but we should for other religions. Who gets to make the list of which religions are allowed?

One of the major aspects of Islam is Sharia and the (world-wide) Theocracy.

Cool story. But the entire Muslim world does not live under sharia law. Even the most populous Muslim country doesn't require sharia for everyone. Some Muslim-majority countries (such as Turkey, 95% Muslim) are secular. Somehow the Muslims aren't trying to overthrow everything. Maybe you're not qualified to talk about the major aspects of their religion.

Both directly contradict the US Constitution

Right, which is why we'll never have those laws here, which is why it's stupid to keep people out on the basis that they follow a religion where you believe that they want to live under those laws. If someone wants to live under sharia they aren't going to move the US any sooner than they would move to Japan. They have a range of options available that they can choose from, from sharia for everyone to all Muslim and no sharia.

For its higher level of living — "it is the economy, stupid".

Oh. So their religion teaches them that they can sacrifice their beliefs if they earn more money? You've studied a brand of Islam that I'm not very familiar with, but I'm glad that you're here to educate me about what's important to Muslims. Apparently they all want to live under sharia law, unless the economy there sucks, then they'll go live somewhere that is diametrically opposed to sharia and would violently resist it, but maybe they could make it happen anyway.

The percentage of Muslims preferring Sharia in the US is often-cited as 51%.

By who, you?

The problem is real...

Is it? Let's assume that 51% figure is accurate, for the sake of discussion. There are around 3.3 million Muslims living in the US. If 51% of them want sharia law, then about 1.6 million people in the US want sharia law. There are around 320 million people living in the US. My calculator tells me that about 0.52% of the US population wants to see sharia law here. Now, I don't have numbers right in front of me which say how many people in the US would vote against sharia law, but I think the problem is less real than you would like to believe.

Absent a coherent religion of some kind, the void is filled by dark superstitions (think "bad omens", witch-burning, and black cat-chasing), that are worse than even Islam.

That's one of the stupidest things I've read.

Tell me, do you believe that earthquakes and volcano eruptions are caused by vengeful gods, do you think there's an angry god shaking the earth and making fire shoot out of mountains? Because I don't believe that. And I have to say, that my lack of belief in a supernatural reason for things like earthquakes and volcanoes somehow did not get replaced with witchcraft and black cats. I actually think there's a scientific reason for it, believe it or not. I don't reach for a millennium-old book to teach me about things that we've only learned over the last couple hundred years. We aren't the nomadic tribal people that used to need a book of morals to keep everyone from killing each other or dying because they ate shellfish that was sitting out for a day because they didn't know that micro-organisms existed. It's pretty obvious that you shouldn't kill or steal from people. If you require the threat of divine punishment, or the promise of divine reward, to keep you from doing things that you know are wrong then I think you're the problem. So maybe you're right, maybe anyone who believes in that kind of crap should be kept out of the country.

Re:Ethics of banning a religion

[amicusNYCL]

The percentage of Muslims preferring Sharia in the US is often-cited as 51%

I feel the need to point out something else about that 51% figure. If 51% of American Muslims want sharia law, then in order for that to pass a vote America would have to be 100% Muslim.

Pro tip for Hillary

[MichaelSmith]

Wipe that email server. Remove the disk and cut it up with angle grinder.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[KeensMustard]

So, are there references for when Obama said that being unpredictable was good in a n unclear stand off?

Is there a quote form Mitt Romney saying that Japan and South Korea should develop nuclear weapons?

Is there a quote from Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or indeed any of the other Republican candidates, saying the it's inevitable that Saudi Arabia gets nuclear weapons and nothing can be done about it?

Re:Stick a fork in....

[bigfinger76]

Neat find, but I'm not fact-checking every AC comment. It's not a fallacy - the well is poisoned if you haven't noticed.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[bigfinger76]

you send a message that their policy isn't important

I wanted to vote third-party this year, but I made the mistake of checking out the candidates' 'policy', and here I am.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[Raenex]

If my $100 (or however much) can buy me a cake, anybody's $100 should be able to buy one.

It still can. Just buy it from another baker who will gladly take your money.

That you (well, the bakery owner) care so much on how a cake will be used is actually YOU being politically correct, being one getting offended.

Yeah, not ME, the BAKER, and I'm not voting for the baker to hold office.

The ones being less Libertarian here are the bakery owner and supporters, not the gay couple.

No, the gay couple was offended that somebody wouldn't bake them a cake, and instead of doing the Libertarian thing and buying their cake elsewhere, they FORCED the baker to make it for them using the power of the government. You don't understand Libertarianism.

Both Crap

[bobbutts]

I distrust and dislike both the candidates. They're both terrible and should be in jail, but that ship has sailed. So look at the party platform. For me, the GOP is delusional and the Dem is pretty good.

Re: Nice try at historical re-writes

[Jesus H Rolle]

[...] spitting on troops returning from Vietnam..... Contemporary source? Newspaper account, police report, personal letter, note in a personnel record? As far as I can tell, there is no documentation of this happening at the time. Only after John Rambo complained about the spitting did veterans start remembering it. Memory is notoriously unreliable.

Re:Stick a fork in....

[Pseudonym]

Unless you are in one of the battleground states, you do not have much of a voice.

You might want to keep a close eye on 538. This election, there may be some "battleground states" that haven't been battleground states in a very long time...

Ding! Reality!

[damn_registrars]

Sometime during the administration of Bush Jr. this site took a hard turn to the right. I don't know if it got caught up in post-9/11 hysteria and never came back to earth or if something else happened but the voice became notably conservative. Did the front page drive the dominant voice to go conservative, or the other way around? It's hard to tell which was cause and which was effect.

The simple fact though is that several times a week we see conservative FUD on the front page; various articles telling us why we should hate the Clintons, or hate Obama, or hate anything that can be tied to "liberal" politics, or hate and of a variety of other such things. When was the last time there was something on the front page that was critical of a conservative politician or viewpoint? Similarly when the discussion starts up, the non-conservative views are quickly suppressed by the majority conservative views here. Eventually a conservative editor comes around and down-moderates the non-conservative view into oblivion to further drive home the point of whose viewpoint is welcomed here and whose is not.

Frankly anyone who is more liberal than Genghis Khan is labelled a communist here (by people who of course refuse to attain even the simplest grasp of communism).

Re:Stick a fork in....

[Citizen of Earth]

Maybe the Trump presidency with Republican House and Senate will be willing to prosecute her if she loses the election.

Wow. Low level Computer geek refuses to be baited

[AutodidactLabrat]

by red scare liars
Seriously, Trey, after the debacles of your Benghazi SEVENTH investigation, do you think anyone would allow you free access?
You already have been informed that the 5th Amendment protections are in force, that your limited grant does not cover all questions (vitiating a 5th Amendment defense) and you are surprised that you can't get what you want?
You ignorant chump, you have NO, repeat ZERO credibility.
Justice will not prosecute for you, and you have no legal power to enforce any claim of Contempt absent a judicial warrant
Give it up clown!

Re:Stick a fork in....

[bill_mcgonigle]

Then one of these two parties self-destructs.

Why not both?

But don't worry - the CIA hasn't lost an election since '76.