Clinton has Bigger Issues than Election Math

[angrychair]

This is a serious situation with very real consequences for the Democratic Party:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/271387-fbi-director-i-am-closely-involved-with-clinton-email-investigation

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/271194-final-batch-of-clinton-emails-released

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0VW2DG

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/27/468366616/investigation-into-clinton-emails-continues

On edit: Why is she so willing to drag the Democratic Party through this, especially if she thinks she will be the nominee? Is it worth it? Why not address it head on and clear the board before running for office? Why make your entire potential time in office about you and your legal problems???
Please don't insult my intelligence or your own by making excuses or spinning tales of "vast right-wing conspiracies" or laughable attacks on news sources. That is bullshit. What is happening is real. There are real federal judges. Real FBI agents. Real IGs. Real reports from real intelligence agencies. Real Justice department attorneys.

[revbones]

1. If you actually get any Hillary supporters to respond

I'll be surprised.

That said, I'm assuming the responses will be typical:

1. The emails weren't classified at the time (not true)
2. Colin Powell did it (doesn't excuse it)
3. *crickets*

[scscholar]

2. You should misstype it as "maths"...

Or, you'll get hate mail. Get hate mail.

[MADem]

3. Your first link debunks your assertion--did you read it? Your 2nd link is a right wing rag-site.

The money quote:

Chabot went on to quote White House press secretary Josh Earnest as saying Clinton is "not a target of this investigation and that it's not trending in that direction." He also mentioned President Obama's comments about not seeing any "national security implications" in Clinton's emails.

Oh, well. And dragging in right wing sources, here? Bad form. That's NOT bullshit. We know enough here to actually CONSIDER the source.

[angrychair]

4. ROFL

always the source with you people. Get over it. That meme has become absurd at this point.
Admit it's the content you don't like, not the publication.
I'll debate content but not source. If you can prove the content wrong, from more than one counter-source, I'll listen.
Not sure what Josh is talking about there, she is most definitely a component of the investigation. I think that is a very poor attempt at splitting hairs. Considering he has zero exposure to on-going investigations and even if he did he could not legally say anything if he did. Its would appear to be more about political ass covering than fact.

[MADem]

6. "Always the source with YOU PEOPLE?"

If, by "YOU PEOPLE" you mean Democrats and members of Democratic Underground, yeah, that's true. As a group we have NEVER had a high tolerance for hate sites, for virulently anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, or anti-progressive links such as that one you proffered.

I have found that wingnuts are the people most likely to like wingnut sources--they usually confirm their biases and their anti-Democratic hatred. That source you're boasting about has shit all over Sanders, too. I won't link to their ugly screeds, but you can read all about how Bernie is a racist and how he's cheated on his campaign donations at that VERY SITE you're praising here.

So--maybe you DO need to "consider the source." If you don't want to be disregarded, that is.

I don't need to "get over it." I suspect, from your tone, that you might, though.

I don't care what "you'll debate."

You'll debate nothing with me if I regard your sources as garbage. And anyone--regardless of whether they support Clinton or Sanders--would be well advised to skip the Right Wing Shit of the sort you're touting.


Annnnnnnndd.....for someone who didn't CARE about sources, I notice that you EDITED your first post to get rid of that Hate Site Free Beacon Reference.

You DO know, don't you, that even though you edited before the thirty minute mark, that ANYONE who wants to look at the original post of yours can still do so? The only way you can get rid of that ugly, ugly post is to delete it outright.

[angrychair]

7. The content was in-line with other sources i quoted

In this case I don't see the need to be so worked up.
I don't disagree about certain sources but trying to weed out what is or isn't a good source here is a Gordian Knot sometimes.
I can list a dozen sites that one person or the other said the same thing as you:
AP
Reuters
NYT
Washington Post
Seattle Times
The Hill
Vox
Fox
MSNBC
ABC
CBS
NBC
If there is a master list of approved authors and websites somewhere than point me to it.

I will happly stop using the single site you are upset about, which I assume is free beacon. It was not my intention to distract from the actual issue. Sadly, it doesn't change the reality of your candidate's situation.

[PonyUp]

11. The source gets attacked, and then when you present a liberal source, this happens:

[MADem]

14. No, it wasn't--and that's why you deleted it.

Anyone can read the thread and click on the links--and even see your edited comments.

As for a "Master List" here's a pro tip--so long as you don't link to right wing hate sites, you'll be just dandy. If you start using Free Beacon, Breitbart, Daily Caller -- all of the sites that are supporting Cruz, or Trump, or Rubio -- you're going to get a little pushback. And it will be deserved.

[ellennelle]

21. ah, so

the hill, reuters, and npr are ok, is that your point?

and if so, what is your beef again?

[MADem]

29. No. My point is that the Free Beacon isn't.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&info=1&address=12511395957

[SidDithers]

8. Any port in a storm, eh?...nt

Sid

[angrychair]

12. Be more specific Sid

With all due respect, Innuendo and riddles can be tiresome. Thanks!

[MADem]

13. Really!

Why even play that hand?

smh!

[angrychair]

15. What hand is that MADem?

I changed the source. I asked you if there was a master list somewhere. Please be more specific?

[ellennelle]

19. say what?

the hill, reuters, and npr?

i realize they're not amy goodman, but hey, don't get her started about all this! (i highly recommend you check out her interviews with lee fang on hillary's emails and other problems, btw.)

so actually, scooter libby was not a target of the plame investigation either. once upon a time.

also, these emails may well have not been classified when she received them, but they were then reclassified, but never secured as such on her email account. this is a big problem, regardless of any risk or repercussions; there is a law about this.

look, i'm as sick of these damn emails as bernie is, but here's the thing. there is smoke; the GOP is more than happy to keep fanning this fire till the cows come home, or she is defeated or impeached, whichever comes first. to my mind, and to angry chair's very good point, why in the world would we risk so much on such a risky candidate?

it's like throwing in with jonathon edwards knowing of his paternity suit! which both he and his wife did, by the way, and still campaigned intensely. as if it would not take down the election and the party if it broke.

see where we're going with this? why provide them with all this fodder, however specious some of it might be?

[MADem]

38. Excuse me--the FREE BEACON is a right wing hate site.

The poster EDITED QUICKLY when he got caught.

If you want to see his original post, just punch the thread info button (lower left corner of his post) and you can see for yourself.

Even when people edit before the 60 minute mark (and there are no obvious signs of editing), those edits are still there for DUers to see.

No one ever said that Scooter was not a target that I remember, but maybe, if the Free Beacon were around then, they would have said this.

smh.

[Faux pas]

5. Kickin' for the truth!

[LexVegas]

9. ...

[NWCorona]

24. Have a look at the email I posted below.

[AzDar]

10. K & R

[warrprayer]

16. Kick

And rec

[stupidicus]

17. she should have, but her supporters love her warmongering, opposition to single-payer

etc.

[Trust Buster]

18. I got a chuckle out of the OP claiming that Hillary has a math problem.

Bernie Sanders supporters are taking the Rubio approach. You know, the approach that claims the second place is winning....LOL

[ellennelle]

25. sad

are you at all familiar with:

1) the numbers of states and delegates that remain until DC votes in mid-june?

2) how bernie and hillary stack up in the polls in these contests, going forward?

i suspect from your snide remark that you have no clue about these annoying details, so permit me to enlighten.

first, there are 4051 total pledged delegates in the dem primary.

clinton has 633 thus far, totallying 15.6%.

bernie has 414 thus far, totaling 10.2%.

now you may well be a math whiz, but those numbers do not even whisper a clear winner here, let alone scream it.

but, this is the key datum: 74.2% of pledged delegates, and 34 more states, remain.

so, keep your boots on, pardner; we're in for a bit of a ride.

and second, there is a graph of recent polling for the states going forward (apologies; can't embed), but it's easy to share the bottom line. out of those 34 states going forward, hillary only leads in 4. and CA is not one of them.

math is just a bunch of symbols representing values assigned to real things, in this case, voter's preferences. may i humbly suggest you make sure your math adds up?

[noiretextatique]

28. Waste of time

There is a thread right now about Hillary and the Clinton Foundation's role in the rw coup in Honduras. I am sure it will be met with same.

[Trust Buster]

32. Are you familiar with the following numbers ?

On Super Tuesday which represented a wide swath of this nation, the worst Hillary did with the African American vote was the 71% share she received in Oklahoma ?

Or that she won all the demographics yesterday including the Hispsnic vote ? In Texas she beat Bernie by 46% of the Hispanic vote.

The Republicans have tried to win recent presidential elections against those sorts of statistics and have failed miserably.

These numbers I posted are now historical math that will continue into the future. Hillary isn't the one with the election math problem. Bernie is.

[zentrum]

20. Very well said.

Your words about her entire time in office being all about her legal issues is one of the primary problems with her having decided to run again. Again

It's baffled and amazed me from the day she announced.

I think this is something that all her supporters really need to stop sweeping under the rug—it could derail everything for this election. She is not the best the Democrats could have done, even putting aside Bernie, whom I support.

[erlewyne]

23. Thanks zentrum

I AM VOTING FOR BERNIE SANDERS ON THE IDES OF MARCH

Yes, Very well said.

She is not the best the Democrats could have done, even putting aside Bernie, whom I support.

[zentrum]

30. Wow, Fateful Day.And I'll be joining….

…you in April!

[ellennelle]

27. could not agree more

[zentrum]

31. You know, I ...

..still think we could have had Warren if it hadn't been for the Clinton/DNC Machine.

Then we could have had it all: The first woman President (self-made, unlike HRC, who did it based on a powerful husband), someone with a national profile, a great speaker, warm, attractive and very progressive. Would have protected SS and expanded the ACA to single payer. Financial regulation.

[NWCorona]

22. To all the Hillary supporter's who call this nothing

because no emails were marked at the time sent. Can you explain this email?

It's looking like it might be curtains.


https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb29thWeb/O-2015-08632FEB29/DOC_0C05781477/C05781477.pdf

[seaotter]

26. More reasons is Hillary had any integrity, she would drop out.

[zentrum]

34. That's it.

Hey seaotter—My grandmother danced with Louis Armstrong once. It was in a winter resort in Aspen, where his band was playing. Probably the late 40's. It was a gutsy thing for both of them to do in that era (she was white).

[seaotter]

35. Great story!! Keep passing that one down in your family!

Love it!

[zentrum]

37. For sure.

She loved and listened to his music until the end.

[randome]

33. There's only part of your post that is true: you are angry.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[NWCorona]

36. Have a look at the email I posted.