The Hillary Clinton thread

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Jun 02, 2016 7:18 pm

Max Peck wrote:
Rip wrote:
What if you break them for Russia's benefit?

If he had done it for Russian benefit would he not have ran straight to Russia? No need for all that handing stuff off to reporters if that was his game. By that logic Hillary broke them for Donald Trump's benefit.

Anonymous Bosch · Post by **Anonymous Bosch** » Thu Jun 02, 2016 7:26 pm

Rip must've been asleep at the wheel, but this struck me as sufficiently amusing to be worth a mention:

Mildly amusing troll, or ominous harbinger?

Breitbart.com wrote:Huffington Post Removes Article Claiming Hillary Clinton Will Be Indicted

The liberal publication Huffington Post removed an article on its website Sunday claiming that the FBI plans to pursue an indictment against Hillary Clinton on federal racketeering charges.

HuffPo freelance contributor Frank Huguenard, a scientist and public speaker, posted an article on the site’s blog entitled “Hillary Clinton to be Indicted on Federal Racketeering Charges”.
Frank Huguenard wrote:The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States Federal Law passed in 1970 that was designed to provide a tool for law enforcement agencies to fight organized crime. RICO allows prosecution and punishment for alleged racketeering activity that has been executed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise.

Activity considered to be racketeering may include bribery, counterfeiting, money laundering, embezzlement, illegal gambling, kidnapping, murder, drug trafficking, slavery, and a host of other nefarious business practices.

James Comey and The FBI will present a recommendation to Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the Department of Justice, that includes a cogent argument that the Clinton Foundation is an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors to individuals, corporations and even governments both foreign and domestic.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Jun 02, 2016 8:31 pm

Anonymous Bosch wrote:Rip must've been asleep at the wheel, but this struck me as sufficiently amusing to be worth a mention:

Mildly amusing troll, or ominous harbinger?

Like everything in Huffpo's "The Blog" section, it's an opinion piece. The author byline lists him as a "Scientist, Film Maker, and Speaker."

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:07 am

AP Analysis: In Trump takedown, Clinton finds her message

Hillary Clinton may have found her message.

Wrapped in the guise of a foreign policy speech, Clinton delivered a political thrashing of Donald Trump on Thursday that was unquestionably a standout moment for a candidate who has often struggled to focus her White House campaign. Clinton's sharply targeted remarks served notice on the presumptive Republican nominee that she's prepared for a bruising general election fight, one that's centered squarely on his competency to serve as commander in chief. "He is not just unprepared - he is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility," Clinton said. She cast Trump as dangerously thin-skinned, someone who might plunge the nation into war over a perceived slight. She repeatedly referred to her White House rival by his first name only - a knowing dig at a billionaire businessman whose closest advisers reverentially call him "Mr. Trump."

For Clinton, who has acknowledged her weakness as a campaigner, it was a confident and well-timed performance. Though she has struggled for months to shake Democratic primary rival Bernie Sanders, Clinton is poised to clinch the nomination in the coming days and secure her place in history as the first woman ever put forward by a major U.S. political party. But the long primary season has come at a cost. Sanders has been unrelenting in his criticism of Clinton's judgment and transparency, evaporating much of the goodwill she accrued with Americans during the four years she spent outside the political arena as secretary of state. Some of Clinton's own supporters also worry that she's failed to articulate a clear rationale for her own candidacy and will struggle to counteract Trump's ability to command the spotlight. Clinton's takedown of Trump on Thursday should quiet those critics, at least for now. Gone was the wonky, meandering policy speech Clinton has delivered to lukewarm reviews in primary campaign appearances. Instead, she was focused and direct, lacing her remarks on the Islamic State group and Iranian nuclear accord with bumper sticker-worthy slogans about Trump. "This isn't reality television. This is actual reality," Clinton said as she chided the real estate mogul and political novice for his lack of experience on the world stage. And in a line likely to be repeated by Clinton and Democrats between now and November, she warned that electing Trump would be a "historic mistake" for the nation.

To be sure, Clinton will face tough questions in the months ahead about her own foreign policy record. She was a leading proponent of U.S. military engagement in Libya, which succeeded in ousting a brutal dictator but left the country vulnerable to extremist groups. And she'll continue to have to answer for her vote in support of the Iraq war, which Sanders has repeatedly held up as a sign of poor judgment. He did so again on Thursday. But the speech suggested Clinton will be far more at ease responding to a Republican challenger than she has been at confronting Sanders in the Democratic primary, where she's had to avoid turning off his young, liberal supporters. On Thursday, she made no attempt to appeal to Trump's backers or even show the slightest sign of respect for the Republican nominee. The result? Clinton succeeded in generating the same kind of attention Trump receives for his frequent rallies and news conferences: Her remarks were widely carried on the television news networks. Despite Clinton's standing as the Democratic front-runner, that is a basic benchmark she has struggled to reach. Trump has no such problem.

Trump himself appeared to be watching Clinton, too. He took to Twitter midway through the speech to remark that his likely Democratic opponent "doesn't even look presidential." There was notable silence from many other Republicans, some of whom made similar arguments about Trump's temperament and inexperience during the GOP primary. A handful of Republicans even praised the likely Democratic nominee. "I have to say, Hillary is giving a hell of a good speech on national security - taking down the Donald while making a convincing case," Eliot Cohen, a foreign policy official for Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, wrote on Twitter.

For Clinton's strong showing to have lasting impact, it will need to be more than just a one-off moment. Some of Trump's primary rivals had fleeting success in rattling the supremely confident businessman and in raising issues that appeared to give voters momentary pause. But those arguments were rarely made in a sustained fashion and in some cases came too late to change the trajectory of the Republican race. If Clinton plans to avoid those same mistakes, she now has the message she needs in hand.

Fitzy · Post by **Fitzy** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 12:26 pm

So Secretary Clinton makes a well reasoned argument that Trump is not qualified to be president. There are certainly many ways he could have responded, including showing where she is wrong, if she is. Instead he responds with, "Nu-uh, and you're ugly too."

Am I misreading that?

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 12:47 pm

Hillary destroyed Trump in that speech. I wouldn't be surprised if his grandkids aren't dizzy right now, she him so hard. The sad thing is, everything she said is easily backed up by videos of Trump himself.

Fitzy wrote: Am I misreading that?

There is no way to argue against something that can be easily proven. Trump just got pwned (can I use that? I'm going to use that).

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:01 pm

It's hilarious to hear this being called significant, when, as Hep said, Trump has made everything perfectly clear from the beginning.

Given that this was all common knowledge already, I can't help but think this will have no effect on the support he receives from voters.

Kurth · Post by **Kurth** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:35 pm

GreenGoo wrote:It's hilarious to hear this being called significant, when, as Hep said, Trump has made everything perfectly clear from the beginning.

Given that this was all common knowledge already, I can't help but think this will have no effect on the support he receives from voters.

Nothing of substance matters at this point. In a Popehat post commenting on the Trump U case and the ridiculous and inappropriate claims that Judge Curiel is biased, Ken wrote:

Look, in the modern political climate I could burn ten thousand words on this and people who support Trump wouldn't buy it and people who oppose Trump would buy it even if the only word was "dildo."

I think that about sums it up, sadly.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 2:05 pm

Trump's image is a winner who can beat down his opponents into submission.

Hillary needs to show Trump is a loser and unable to live up to the image he sells. She can fight back and humiliate Trump in ways his Republican primary opponents couldn't (or wouldn't).

I do not believe no one can be persuaded on Trump. But Hillary will have to defeat Trump's image, not his substance.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 2:28 pm

His image is veneer thin. He's a good business man because he says he's a good business man on tv. A lot.

Even the most circumstantial review of his business dealings will show a mediocre business man at best, IF you are seriously biased in his favour.

I'm not sure how you work to discredit someone who's response to substantive criticism is to talk about how ugly someone is or the size of his dick. And people love him for it.

It's mindboggling. It's what I expect out of voting via text on Big Brother, not deciding who should be leader of the free world. And of course, if Trump has his way, America will no longer be leader of the free world. I'm not being rhetorical. Trump is literally advocating a reduction in America's role in the world. So there's that.

TheMix · Post by **TheMix** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 3:10 pm

Zarathud wrote:Trump's image is a winner who can beat down his opponents into submission.

Hillary needs to show Trump is a loser and unable to live up to the image he sells.

I disagree. Not with the sentiment, just with the word choice. I don't think that she will be able to show he is a loser. Not in the winner/loser sense. Because he isn't. Clearly he's done all right for himself.

I think that what she will need to show is that he is a con man; a scam artist; that his image is a lie; and that he himself is the ultimate LIAR. That's the label that he's putting on her (well, after "crook"). If she can show that those labels actually are a better fit for him, then she may be able to shake some of his support. Maybe.

Anonymous Bosch · Post by **Anonymous Bosch** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 3:39 pm

Positive developments for my favoured candidates of 2016, Chaos & Ugliness.

The Trump vs. Clinton Showdown Is Already Getting Ugly:

VICE News wrote:Feisty zingers, murder accusations, and Twitter wars could be the new benchmark for general election campaigning, if the last 24 hours of feuding between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are any indication of what's to come.

After Clinton delivered a scathing speech on Thursday in which she lambasted her Republican rival's foreign policy platform as "dangerously incoherent," Trump hit back by retweeting a supporter who accused Clinton of killing the four Americans who died in the 2012 attack on the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.

Later in the evening, at a rally in San Jose, California, Trump said Clinton should be jailed for using a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.

"I will say this, Hillary Clinton has got to go to jail," Trump said. "Folks, honestly, she's guilty as hell."

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 3:43 pm

There's a fringe element in every group. But I don't think I've ever seen them in such large clumps before. It's almost like they're communicating with each other, organizing themselves.

But that...that can't be...right?

milo · Post by **milo** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 3:51 pm

Trump said Clinton should be jailed for using a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.

Did he actually state why he wanted her incarcerated? From the quotes I saw online, I thought it was just a general desire motivated by her allegedly mendacious comments about him during her foreign policy speech.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 3:59 pm

This is Trump we're talking about. The list of insanity that comes out of his mouth is matched only by the number of false claims he utters on an hourly basis.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 4:54 pm

Not only was Hillary's speech great but so was her follow up tweet and post.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 4:55 pm

Rick Perry goes Hannibal.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:33 pm

Clinton's been through half a dozen slogans so far, none of them resonant. It looks like she's finally closing in on a winning approach:

"You Could Do Worse"

or maybe

"The Lesser Evil"

Anonymous Bosch · Post by **Anonymous Bosch** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:45 pm

milo wrote:
Trump said Clinton should be jailed for using a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.
Did he actually state why he wanted her incarcerated? From the quotes I saw online, I thought it was just a general desire motivated by her allegedly mendacious comments about him during her foreign policy speech.

I heard some of the audio on the radio last night, and the context was crystal clear. Here's how CNN put it:

CNN wrote:Trump calls for Clinton to be jailed

San Jose, California (CNN) — Donald Trump on Thursday called for his likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton to be imprisoned.

"I will say this, Hillary Clinton has got to go to jail," Trump told supporters here as he slammed Clinton's foreign policy speech earlier in the day in which Clinton called Trump dangerous and "temperamentally unfit" to be president.

"Folks, honestly, she's guilty as hell," Trump said of the Clinton's use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state.

Trump has previously accused Clinton of breaking federal law, but his comments on Thursday are his most direct call yet for Clinton to face jail time over her use of private email to conduct official State Department affairs.

The FBI is investigating Clinton's use of a private emails to determine whether anyone improperly handled classified information.

At a news conference earlier this week, Trump declined to say whether he believes Clinton's private email use amounted to a felony.

Trump also suggested Thursday that if Clinton is not indicted over her email use, he would direct his attorney general to investigate her.

"Five years' statute of limitations, if I win. Everything is going to be fair but I'm sure the attorney general will take a very good look at it," Trump said.

I suspect Trump's simplistic rejoinder may be more effective than Clinton's prolix polemical soliloquy, but it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. The notion of one presidential candidate publicly calling for the other to be jailed is amusingly captivating to say the least.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:03 pm

What is this Benghazi thing? If Trump's allegations are true, someone should probably investigate it.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:11 pm

Anonymous Bosch wrote: I suspect Trump's simplistic rejoinder may be more effective than Clinton's prolix polemical soliloquy, but it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. The notion of one presidential candidate publicly calling for the other to be jailed is amusingly captivating to say the least.

"it will be fair", the future leader of the free world assures us with regard to the investigation of his political opponent that he will insist on when he arrives in the white house.

This guy is just a petty tyrant. On the plus side, at least he's not hiding it from us.

Fitzy · Post by **Fitzy** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:02 pm

Anonymous Bosch wrote: I suspect Trump's simplistic rejoinder may be more effective than Clinton's prolix polemical soliloquy, but it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. The notion of one presidential candidate publicly calling for the other to be jailed is amusingly captivating to say the least.

Trump's rhetoric is that of a schoolyard bully. I believe you could put his words in Eric Cartman's mouth and no South Park fan would blink. Or the reverse, I can easily see Trump screaming, "RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!" In this case, calling for her jailing will appeal to those who already hate her, but how does this help him win over people who are undecided? Meanwhile, her speech very clearly laid out an argument as to why he would be a dangerous president. There is room to disagree, but I suspect undecided people will pause to at least listen.

And on the idea that Clinton is "crooked", I think Republicans need to reread the Boy Who Cried Wolf. There are serious parallels.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:27 pm

Anonymous Bosch wrote:
CNN wrote:Trump calls for Clinton to be jailed

San Jose, California (CNN) — Donald Trump on Thursday called for his likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton to be imprisoned.

"I will say this, Hillary Clinton has got to go to jail," Trump told supporters here as he slammed Clinton's foreign policy speech earlier in the day in which Clinton called Trump dangerous and "temperamentally unfit" to be president.

"Folks, honestly, she's guilty as hell," Trump said of the Clinton's use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state.

Plus, she talks like a fag and her shit's all retarded.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:39 pm

Clinton wrote:Every lesson from our history teaches us that we are stronger together. We remember that every Memorial Day. This election is a choice between two very different visions of America. One that’s angry, afraid, and based on the idea that America is fundamentally weak and in decline. The other is hopeful, generous, and confident in the knowledge that America is great – just like we always have been. Let’s resolve that we can be greater still. That is what I believe in my heart.

I went to 112 countries as your Secretary of State. And I never lost my sense of pride at seeing our blue-and-white plane lit up on some far-off runway, with “The United States of America” emblazoned on the side. That plane – those words – our country represents something special, not just to us, to the world. It represents freedom and hope and opportunity.

I love this country and I know you do too. It’s been an honor and a privilege to serve America and I’m going to do everything I can to protect our nation, and make sure we don’t lose sight of how strong we really are.

Trump wrote:I watched Hillary’s thing today, it was hard, it’s like taking Sominex. To watch her is like Sominex. Have you ever heard of Sominex? Sleep all night. Bing!

TheMix · Post by **TheMix** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:44 pm

Was he trying to say that she put him to sleep? Why would that be hard? That sounds pretty easy to me.

Anonymous Bosch · Post by **Anonymous Bosch** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 10:26 pm

Fitzy wrote:And on the idea that Clinton is "crooked", I think Republicans need to reread the Boy Who Cried Wolf. There are serious parallels.

Until the FBI announces the results of their investigation, that remains to be seen. In the meantime, Trump calling for Clinton to be jailed and branding her as "crooked" is clearly intended to reinforce her biggest weakness in the polls:

Politico.com wrote:Clinton's polling quagmire

The month of May hasn't been kind to Hillary Clinton — or to her poll numbers.

...

Clinton’s ratings on trustworthiness were already woeful: A Fox News poll two weeks ago found just 31 percent of voters think Clinton is honest and trustworthy, while nearly two-thirds said they don’t think she is. And overall, her numbers are significantly worse than Trump’s scores on the same question. Among independents, nearly 80 percent don’t think she’s honest and trustworthy. Even among Democrats, a third don’t find her trustworthy.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 11:06 pm

OTOH, it appears it's time for Rip to remind us that it's too early for the polls to be meaningful.

Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton has opened up a double-digit lead over Republican rival Donald Trump, regaining ground after the New York billionaire briefly tied her last month, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday. The shift in support comes as Clinton steps up her attacks on the real estate mogul's policy positions, and as Trump fends off criticisms of his eponymous university and the pace at which he doled out money that he raised for U.S. veterans. Some 46 percent of likely voters said they supported Clinton, while 35 percent said they supported Trump, and another 19 percent said they would not support either, according to the survey of 1,421 people conducted between May 30 and June 3. Trump had briefly tied Clinton in support among likely U.S. voters in mid-May, raising expectations for a tight race between the two likely contenders in November's presidential election.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 1:28 pm

In theory, it might be possible for Clinton to sew up the nomination today. It appears that there are exactly enough pledged delegates in play in the Puerto Rico primary to put her over the top.

Puerto Ricans frustrated by the island's economic crisis voted Sunday in the U.S. territory's Democratic presidential primary and local elections, as front-runner Hillary Clinton drew closer to securing the number of delegates needed to win her party's White House nomination. After a blowout victory Saturday in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Clinton was just 60 delegates short of the 2,383 needed to win the Democratic nomination and advance to the November general election, according to an Associated Press count. There were 60 pledged delegates at stake in Puerto Rico. Clinton would need to win more than 85 percent of the vote to get them all.

But voters' focus was mostly on the island's economic crisis. Clinton and her rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, have visited Puerto Rico and pledged to help as the San Juan government tries to restructure $70 billion worth of public debt the governor has said is unpayable. "This is one of the most important political moments for Puerto Rico," said Emanuel Rosado, a 29-year-old Clinton supporter and one of the first to arrive as a voting center opened. "I'm taking action as a result of the economic crisis." Two weeks before the primary, Sanders criticized a rescue deal, negotiated by U.S. House leaders and the Obama administration, as having colonialist overtones. In a letter to fellow Senate Democrats, Sanders said the House bill to create a federal control board and allow some restructuring of the territory's $70 billion debt would make "a terrible situation even worse." "We won't have a voice or a vote in it," said Marcos Valdez, a 20-year-old university student and first-time voter who supports Sanders and opposes a control board. "It won't represent the interest of our people." Clinton has said she has serious concerns about the board's powers, but believes the legislation should move forward, or "too many Puerto Ricans will continue to suffer." Nearly 2.9 million people are registered to vote. Turnout was expected to be high given that Puerto Ricans also were narrowing down their choice for the next governor, as well as senators, representatives and mayors.

While they can participate in presidential primaries, Puerto Ricans do not vote in the November presidential election.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 11:16 pm

Clinton chokes in Puerto Rico, getting a pathetic 2/3 of the popular vote. Sad!

If I understand my Bernie Math (and I like to think that I do), then Clinton is now losing by 576 (28 delegates, plus the 548 superdelegates that should be supporting Bernie anyway).

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 11:39 pm

Max Peck wrote:Clinton chokes in Puerto Rico, getting a pathetic 2/3 of the popular vote. Sad!

You forgot to call her "Crooked Clinton", you Trump-wannabe.

If I understand my Bernie Math (and I like to think that I do)

I think at the moment you understand Bernie Math, it changes so you no longer understand it. Some quantum physics thing, probably.

then Clinton is now losing by 576 (28 delegates, plus the 548 superdelegates that should be supporting Bernie anyway).

Don't forget, there's also a margin of error of 10% of those pledged delegates, so she's really only got 1627 delegates.

Yes, I made the mistake of starting to read a Seth Abramson article before realizing who had written it.

Nate Silver yesterday revealed that, on average, Democratic primary polling 21 days or less before the 2016 primaries and caucuses has been off by 10.6%.

That’s not a typo: 10.6%.

We can therefore conclude that the 54% to 46% lead that Hillary Clinton has over Bernie Sanders in pledged delegates is in fact a statistical dead heat, with a possibility that Sanders is actually ahead of Clinton in pledged delegates.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 12:27 am

Defiant wrote:
Max Peck wrote:Clinton chokes in Puerto Rico, getting a pathetic 2/3 of the popular vote. Sad!
You forgot to call her "Crooked Clinton", you Trump-wannabe.

I'm working on my post-Trump linguistic skills, so that I can blend in come the Brave New World. It isn't as easy as you'd think -- not only do you need to learn the terminology (it's supposed to be "Crooked Hillary"), but the tough part is shrinking your vocabulary and abandoning things like grammar and complete sentences. I believe that people who use Twitter have a huge leg up on me. Huge!

Defiant wrote:I think at the moment you understand Bernie Math, it changes so you no longer understand it. Some quantum physics thing, probably.

Bernie Math is pretty straight forward, given that there is but one fundamental axiom to consider: "Bernie is winning! #FeelTheBern" The proofs are complex, but they're manageable once you grasp that the real component is nullified by the axiom and therefore only the imaginary component is significant. Since you can discard the real component, it is then possible to apply a discrete wishlet transform to the imaginary component, resulting in whatever real value is required (i.e. a+bi = f(b) = x, where x is the predetermined result). It's really quite simple, when you think about it.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:29 pm

They haven't provided the specific breakdown (I'm guessing more superdelegates have come out in support of her), but the AP just called it for Clinton.

AP count: Clinton has delegates to win Democratic nomination

Hillary Clinton has commitments from the number of delegates needed to become the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee for president, and will be first woman to top the ticket of a major U.S. political party. An Associated Press count of pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses and a survey of party insiders known as superdelegates shows Clinton with the overall support of the required 2,383 delegates. Now the presumptive nominee, she will formally accept her party's nomination in July at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

Yup, last night the AP delegate tracker was showing Clinton with 2355 (1807 delegates + 548 superdelegates) and Sanders with 1563 (1517+46).

Tonight?

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:38 pm

Max Peck wrote:

That graphic they use for Trump is creepy as hell.

(the picture, not the numbers...although those are as well)

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:00 pm

Skinypupy wrote:That graphic they use for Trump is creepy as hell.

(the picture, not the numbers...although those are as well)

And I'm pretty sure that I've never seen Sanders looking that happy. Maybe they hired the sketch artist from the Tom Brady trial.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:15 pm

Max Peck wrote:
Tonight?

Totally premature. There are 813 delegates left, and Sanders only needs 814 of them!

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:38 pm

Oddly, nothing from the Sanders campaign...

Fitzy · Post by **Fitzy** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 6:56 am

Max Peck wrote: Oddly, nothing from the Sanders campaign...

The Sander's campaign prepared all of their stuff for complaining about the media calling Clinton the winner today, before California finished voting. Therefore they could complain that the media cost them California.

They were caught unprepared for the early announcement and are currently scrubbing NJ from the press releases.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:08 am

I'll just point out here that my wife, who isn't a Clinton, would already have been jailed if she publicly shared some of the email that goes by her desk. She'd probably avoid long jail sentences, but she'd definitely be cuffed and spend a bit of time in the lockup. Now, on the other hand, if she went to work and set up an external email server to put all of those government emails on -- the feds would not be NEARLY as lenient.

However, if you are a Clinton ruling class bitch, apparently the rules are different than for us working class peasants. That's all I'm saying. Pretty much think that lines up with what Trump said about her going to jail.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:28 am

msduncan wrote:However, if you are a Clinton ruling class bitch

Stay classy, msd.

raydude · Post by **raydude** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:40 am

msduncan wrote:I'll just point out here that my wife, who isn't a Clinton, would already have been jailed if she publicly shared some of the email that goes by her desk. She'd probably avoid long jail sentences, but she'd definitely be cuffed and spend a bit of time in the lockup. Now, on the other hand, if she went to work and set up an external email server to put all of those government emails on -- the feds would not be NEARLY as lenient.

However, if you are a Clinton ruling class bitch, apparently the rules are different than for us working class peasants. That's all I'm saying. Pretty much think that lines up with what Trump said about her going to jail.

Interesting that you mention wife and bitch in the same post. As an exercise in empathy, imagine how you would feel if someone associated the adjective with your wife instead.