The General Election

[knapplc]

 

That's fine for Lynch to say. If there's an indictment, Obama will pardon Clinton before the FBI spokesperson is done reading the announcement. There's zero chance she sees jail time for any of this.

Agree and then Biden will step forward to take Hillary's place? I wonder what would actually happen if there is an indictment after the nomination and prior to the GE. Can the party 'take back' the nomination, does the VP become the nominee, can the party insert Uncle Joe in Hillary's place without a delegate vote ? Anybody know what would happen? Of course if the indictment occurred prior to the convention, the delegates could still go wt Bernie or insert Joe or someone else.

 

 

Clearly the Republicans are trying to manipulate this so any indictment comes at the worst time possible for Clinton. But I don't think they can fully manipulate the FBI into doing their wishes, and in general such agencies are supposed to be non-partisan.

 

I also think that if there isn't an indictment by now, there won't be. The final (and NINTH!) Benghazi report was issued amidst zero fanfare last week and nothing came of it. This email kerfluffle, while it makes fun headlines for people who hate Hillary, won't ever lead to criminal allegations. If it did, we'd see similar allegations against Colin Powell & Condi Rice, both of whom admitted they've done the same thing as Clinton.

 

The email thing is this year's Swift Boat. It's a lot of election-year sound & fury, but it'll signify nothing.

 

This is all juicy & fun to discuss, but the reality is no major political brand is going down for something petty like email shenanigans. That isn't the reality we live in.

[Red Five]

You don't get to be rich by spending your $12k on a Tebow helmet, you get to be rich by spending other people's $12k on a Tebow helmet.

 

[BigRedBuster]

You don't get to be rich by spending your $12k on a Tebow helmet, you get to be rich by spending other people's $12k on a Tebow helmet.

 

OK...I know it doesn't look good and far be it for me to defend Trump.

 

However, the $12,000 went to the Susan G. Komen organization which is a very goo organization doing a lot of good work. It's basically a donation from the foundation.

 

Which.....that's what I would expect a foundation to do.

[funhusker]

 

You don't get to be rich by spending your $12k on a Tebow helmet, you get to be rich by spending other people's $12k on a Tebow helmet.

 

OK...I know it doesn't look good and far be it for me to defend Trump.

 

However, the $12,000 went to the Susan G. Komen organization which is a very goo organization doing a lot of good work. It's basically a donation from the foundation.

 

Which.....that's what I would expect a foundation to do.

 

Yes, but if he kept the helmet for himself, or gifted it to a friend, he could owe a penalty to the IRS. It's a whole lot of "not a big deal" but it is a glimpse into why he doesn't want to reveal his taxes. If reporters can find out silly things like this through back channels, imagine the fun they would have with the front door wide open.

[Red Five]

gbr

[Red Five]

 

 

You don't get to be rich by spending your $12k on a Tebow helmet, you get to be rich by spending other people's $12k on a Tebow helmet.

 

OK...I know it doesn't look good and far be it for me to defend Trump.

 

However, the $12,000 went to the Susan G. Komen organization which is a very goo organization doing a lot of good work. It's basically a donation from the foundation.

 

Which.....that's what I would expect a foundation to do.

 

Yes, but if he kept the helmet for himself, or gifted it to a friend, he could owe a penalty to the IRS. It's a whole lot of "not a big deal" but it is a glimpse into why he doesn't want to reveal his taxes. If reporters can find out silly things like this through back channels, imagine the fun they would have with the front door wide open.

 

Exactly. Its not really anything on its surface, but paints another picture on how he "deals".

[AR Husker Fan]

Clinton's lead over Trump narrows to 9 points: Reuters/Ipsos

Clinton is more popular among men and women, young people and minorities, college graduates, and people who live on incomes that are both lower and higher than the national average. Trump has an edge among whites, people with lower levels of education, older Americans and retirees, and he leads among people who frequently attend church.


Overall, voters have increasingly sided with Clinton since mid-May, when the two were about even in the poll.

LINK

[Danny Bateman]

Clinton's lead over Trump narrows to 9 points: Reuters/Ipsos

 

Clinton is more popular among men and women, young people and minorities, college graduates, and people who live on incomes that are both lower and higher than the national average. Trump has an edge among whites, people with lower levels of education, older Americans and retirees, and he leads among people who frequently attend church.

 

 

Overall, voters have increasingly sided with Clinton since mid-May, when the two were about even in the poll.

LINK

 

What's the deal with that? I've never understood how he did so well with evangelicals during the Republican primary.

 

Here's another weird stat...

 

[HuskerNation1]

Bnilhome-

 

You need to update that 4400% you keep throwing out.

 

It's currently closer to a growth of 3500% (4400 = 700 to 31000, 3500 = 700 to 25000)

 

That isn't to say dramatic growth didn't happen under Obama's time in office, but it is also dishonest to say the US isn't doing anything. ISIS numbers are shrinking, territory is being taken back by the Iraqi army; sadly many people think this is why there is and will be an uptick in random attacks around the world. Fighters are leaving the failing "caliphate" and taking their fight home with them. We are physically fighting what we can, but this war is going to be won by intelligence (focusing on ISIS recruiting, finances, weapon supply). As far as keeping American civilians safe, it will be a war the public won't see, so many will assume nothing is being done.

 

Back to the growth under Obama. The only thing that Obama could have pushed for (hindsight being 20/20) was to keep a strong military presence in Iraq and swiftly toppling the Syrian govt and have a large presence there also. I don't honestly know if that would have been a better alternative.

 

Are you really arguing about whether ISIS has grown 3500% or 4400% under Obama's tenure? The point is still the same.

 

Second, I do think it's a 4400% growth as the fighters when from 700 up to 31,500 for a difference of 30,800. It's the 30,800 that you divide by 700 to arrive at 4400%.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

I think that's a smart choice on her part. The midwest was less favorable to Trump in the primaries and Ben Sasse has been one of the leaders in the #NeverTrump campaign. The 2nd district was also one of the few districts to go from red to blue in the 2014 midterms.

 

 

Trump is doing the same in Maine where he can win some of the partial electoral votes. Smart for both of them to fight for every EV.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

One rule of thumb I've always had.

 

If someone has to constantly tell me how smart or how great they are....well....I'm not buying it.

 

Or focus on how bad someone is (as Obama pointed out his entire first term about Bush), I'm not buying that either. There is no need for any politician to put others down to make themselves appear better.

 

 

You must be thinking of your generic libtards.

 

Obama generally avoided blaming the Bush administration and quickly established a good ongoing rapport with both George W. and Poppy Bush.

 

It actually drove liberals crazy how Obama refused to go into attack mode. He's gotten a little better at it in his lame duck status.

 

Unlike most recent outgoing Presidents, Obama could be a huge asset to his party in the general election.

 

 

What are you smoking? Even the most average political observer heard the jokes on late-night shows regarding how Obama spent his entire first term blaming Bush. The Bush's have a rapport with Bill Clinton, but not Obama. I do agree that Obama can help Hillary as she is a terrible candidate.

[HuskerNation1]

There is no reason Gary Johnson shouldn't be on the debate stage. He's seriously a good guy.

 

I think if we are going to allow more than Trump in the debate stage, it should be Johnson and Stein. Johnson naturally pulls from Trump while Stein will pull from Hillary's base. I don't see either Trump or Hillary being in favor of just one of these 3rd party candidates getting on stage if it will hurt their own chances.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

That's fine for Lynch to say. If there's an indictment, Obama will pardon Clinton before the FBI spokesperson is done reading the announcement. There's zero chance she sees jail time for any of this.

Agree and then Biden will step forward to take Hillary's place? I wonder what would actually happen if there is an indictment after the nomination and prior to the GE. Can the party 'take back' the nomination, does the VP become the nominee, can the party insert Uncle Joe in Hillary's place without a delegate vote ? Anybody know what would happen? Of course if the indictment occurred prior to the convention, the delegates could still go wt Bernie or insert Joe or someone else.

 

 

Clearly the Republicans are trying to manipulate this so any indictment comes at the worst time possible for Clinton. But I don't think they can fully manipulate the FBI into doing their wishes, and in general such agencies are supposed to be non-partisan.

 

I also think that if there isn't an indictment by now, there won't be. The final (and NINTH!) Benghazi report was issued amidst zero fanfare last week and nothing came of it. This email kerfluffle, while it makes fun headlines for people who hate Hillary, won't ever lead to criminal allegations. If it did, we'd see similar allegations against Colin Powell & Condi Rice, both of whom admitted they've done the same thing as Clinton.

 

The email thing is this year's Swift Boat. It's a lot of election-year sound & fury, but it'll signify nothing.

 

This is all juicy & fun to discuss, but the reality is no major political brand is going down for something petty like email shenanigans. That isn't the reality we live in.

 

 

I don't see Hillary's violation of duties as SOS on the same level as the swift boat against Kerry. One pertains specifically to a candidate's recent job performance, while the other is tied to events from the past. The closer and more likely swift boat comparison would be having a very public and visible campaign starting around August or September by the many women Bill abused and tying it to Hillary's role of trying to cover up or defame these women.

[funhusker]

 

Bnilhome-

 

You need to update that 4400% you keep throwing out.

 

It's currently closer to a growth of 3500% (4400 = 700 to 31000, 3500 = 700 to 25000)

 

That isn't to say dramatic growth didn't happen under Obama's time in office, but it is also dishonest to say the US isn't doing anything. ISIS numbers are shrinking, territory is being taken back by the Iraqi army; sadly many people think this is why there is and will be an uptick in random attacks around the world. Fighters are leaving the failing "caliphate" and taking their fight home with them. We are physically fighting what we can, but this war is going to be won by intelligence (focusing on ISIS recruiting, finances, weapon supply). As far as keeping American civilians safe, it will be a war the public won't see, so many will assume nothing is being done.

 

Back to the growth under Obama. The only thing that Obama could have pushed for (hindsight being 20/20) was to keep a strong military presence in Iraq and swiftly toppling the Syrian govt and have a large presence there also. I don't honestly know if that would have been a better alternative.

 

Are you really arguing about whether ISIS has grown 3500% or 4400% under Obama's tenure? The point is still the same.

 

Second, I do think it's a 4400% growth as the fighters when from 700 up to 31,500 for a difference of 30,800. It's the 30,800 that you divide by 700 to arrive at 4400%.

 

Try reading my post again. I said it was still a dramatic increase, and I understand the math. That is why it is currently a 3500% increase and decreasing (esitmates have ISIS currently at 25,000). But as others have pointed out, that percentage that you keep throwing around, although currently incorrect, needs to be put into context.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

Bnilhome-

 

You need to update that 4400% you keep throwing out.

 

It's currently closer to a growth of 3500% (4400 = 700 to 31000, 3500 = 700 to 25000)

 

That isn't to say dramatic growth didn't happen under Obama's time in office, but it is also dishonest to say the US isn't doing anything. ISIS numbers are shrinking, territory is being taken back by the Iraqi army; sadly many people think this is why there is and will be an uptick in random attacks around the world. Fighters are leaving the failing "caliphate" and taking their fight home with them. We are physically fighting what we can, but this war is going to be won by intelligence (focusing on ISIS recruiting, finances, weapon supply). As far as keeping American civilians safe, it will be a war the public won't see, so many will assume nothing is being done.

 

Back to the growth under Obama. The only thing that Obama could have pushed for (hindsight being 20/20) was to keep a strong military presence in Iraq and swiftly toppling the Syrian govt and have a large presence there also. I don't honestly know if that would have been a better alternative.

 

Are you really arguing about whether ISIS has grown 3500% or 4400% under Obama's tenure? The point is still the same.

 

Second, I do think it's a 4400% growth as the fighters when from 700 up to 31,500 for a difference of 30,800. It's the 30,800 that you divide by 700 to arrive at 4400%.

 

Try reading my post again. I said it was still a dramatic increase, and I understand the math. That is why it is currently a 3500% increase and decreasing (esitmates have ISIS currently at 25,000). But as others have pointed out, that percentage that you keep throwing around, although currently incorrect, needs to be put into context.

 

 

I did read your post and I think I posted my additional thoughts in a different reply...my bad. I don't think the context around removal of territory matters when discussing the bottom line result that ISIS has exploded in the last 7 years. It went from being a beaten down terror group in 2008 to one that had a few successes here and there, and when the leader of the free world blinked and took a path of pacification, ISIS became emboldened and began to spread. It's now a movement that has spread across the world with more fighters joining because they have witnessed the successful attacks over the past 7 years. For Obama to be criticized from Dianne Feinstein is telling...

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/23/feinstein-obamas-policies-are-making-isis-issue-worse-not-better/

 

I agree that intelligence is key, and after the Orlando attacks most new outlets were reporting that we do not have enough intelligence officials to keep up with all the leads and areas of concern. In my mind the primary job of the federal government is to keep its citizens safe, and I would rather my tax dollars go to beefing up our intelligence than to other initiatives.