US Presidential Contenders

[Buster's Uncle]

“We are not going to vote for the demon named Hillary because they are threatening us with the devil named T rump. We will vote for a saint no matter what, and if that saint is not Bernie Sanders, then we will vote for the saint named Jill Stein,” said Bill Taylor, a Philadelphia activist who is helping to plan four days of demonstrations in support of Mr. Sanders at the Democratic convention this month.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/jill-stein-the-green-partys-presumptive-presidential-nominee-makes-inroads-1467413879

As I keep saying -

half the people harbor such an irrational hatred they'd consider a dangerous circus clown or staying home rather than admit she's barely even evil on a lesser-of-two-evils choice

This is not a slam on the target of said irrational hatred, and it IS a slam.

[Rusty Edge]

My state will go Democrat regardless. Every 4 years they find enough democrats to turnout for president and make a difference.  The rest of the time they can't be bothered.

[Lorizael]

Today I woke up pondering that Drumpf might not be at all racist, and is simply a manipulative race baiter.

That doesn't make me feel any better.

I've always been under the impression that [Sleezebag] isn't sincerely xenophobic but merely opportunistically so. Like, he probably kinda sorta believes this stuff whenever he happens to be spouting it, but not vitriolically, and he gets that people eat it up.

“We are not going to vote for the demon named Hillary because they are threatening us with the devil named [Sleezebag]. We will vote for a saint no matter what, and if that saint is not Bernie Sanders, then we will vote for the saint named Jill Stein,” said Bill Taylor, a Philadelphia activist who is helping to plan four days of demonstrations in support of Mr. Sanders at the Democratic convention this month.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/jill-stein-the-green-partys-presumptive-presidential-nominee-makes-inroads-1467413879

Sigh. If you're only going to vote for saints, you won't be voting.

[Unorthodox]

Okay. New Ad. Reminds me of the one he was using to try to secure the nomination. What do you think?

! No longer available

Better.  Too long. 

[Unorthodox]

However, I'm willing to believe they were either not classified at the time or improperly marked as unclassified at the time just based on my experience.  I consider this dismissively, myself.  I very highly doubt anything will come of it, aside from maybe someone getting in trouble for improper marking. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-email-comey.html?_r=0

The inspector general, I. Charles McCullough III, said that the emails contained information that was classified at the time they were sent but were not marked classified, and that the information should never have been sent on an unclassified system.

I'm sure there will be conspiracy theories about how the whole thing was rigged. 

[Rusty Edge]

"government official could have faced administrative sanction for such conduct."

Not familiar with the jargon. What would administrative sanction mean in the context of the State Department?

[Buster's Uncle]

I should think not a darn thing with a political appointee at the top, short of dismissal.

[Unorthodox]

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

Coupled with the info out of the state department months ago when they were classifying the emails:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/us/clinton-emails-routine-practice.html

those emails were classified because they contained what is called “foreign government information” — a vast category of information, gathered through conversations and meetings with foreign counterparts that are the fundamentals of diplomacy, but which had to be protected when the emails were released.

“Department officials of necessity routinely receive such information through unclassified channels,” said the letter, dated May 2 and written by the assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, Julia Frifield.

“For example, diplomats engage in meetings with counterparts in open settings, have phone calls with foreign contacts over unsecure lines, and email with and about foreign counterparts via unclassified systems.”

The letter went on to say that using “foreign government information” in unclassified emails “does not amount to mishandling the information.”

Probably paints a fairly decent picture of what the info was, and why it was handled via unclassified means. 

Whether this changes in the future is a good question. 

[Spacy]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-comey-no-charges-appropriate-000000895.html

FBI recommends no charges against Clinton, although she was "extremely careless" in handling of classified documents.

[Buster's Uncle]

Bakrama appeared with Mrs. Clinton in Charlotte this afternoon - I didn't see but one segment of the local (Charlotte) evening news, but the entire time was live camera of Airforce One just sitting there on the runway.

[Rusty Edge]

-nearly-tied-with-clinton]http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/286541-poll-[Sleezebag]-nearly-tied-with-clinton


Ballot Box feed 

July 05, 2016, 03:54 pm
Poll: [Sleezebag] within 1 of Clinton nationally
By Mark Hensch

Donald [Sleezebag] is within a single point of Hillary Clinton nationwide, according to a new poll.

Clinton has 41 percent to [Sleezebag]'s 40 percent, a Morning Consult survey released Tuesday said.

Another 19 percent don’t know or have no opinion on who they back in a head-to-head match-up.
Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, keeps her slim lead when pollsters also ask about Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson.

In that scenario, Clinton has 38 percent support to 37 percent for [Sleezebag], the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, and 11 percent for Johnson.

Morning Consult conducted its poll of 2,001 registered voters via interviews from June 30 to July 4. It has a margin of error of 2 percentage points.

The last version of the same poll, from late June, showed Clinton at 44 percent and [Sleezebag] at 39 percent."

----------------------

Good to see Gary back in double digits.  I'm assuming the 3 point drop for Hillary since the last poll is thanks to Bill schmoozing with the Attorney General.

[Buster's Uncle]

I assume that's margin of error stuff and nobody inclined to vote for her cares.

I don't trust that poll - something about those numbers smells wrong.

[Kirov]

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/05/thatcher-reagan-blair-clinton-brexit-T rump-boris-johnson/

I can still see the unthinkable happening.


*happening, I think

[Buster's Uncle]

Can't help worrying.  That's rational, I think.

[Rusty Edge]

I assume that's margin of error stuff and nobody inclined to vote for her cares.

I don't trust that poll - something about those numbers smells wrong.

Your instincts may be correct. Upon digging , it seems that they are an international consulting company, which originated in Chicago, but now headquarted in London and traded on the stock exchange there. When I went to the site, I found various articles of political news nature, congressional races, pending laws etc. I also found an ad that asked  me 5 questions about the election. Something like-

1) Will Hillary be the next President? (yes/no/unsure)
2) Who will you vote for ?  ( [Sleezebag]/Hillary/Bernie/ Other/unsure)
3) How do you think of yourself? ( Dem/Independent/GOP/other )
4) state/city?
5) e-mail
6) would you be willing to participate in future polls by e-mail?

YEs, I subscribed out of curiosity. I'm curious to find out if they're building a database, or polling directly. Or if the survey I took was unrelated to the company itself, and just an ad. I'll know more over time.