POTUS Election 2016- a Fresh Start

[Evo]

Let's please keep this civil and within the rules. This is Current News Events, not Politics, so if you have an article posted in the current news in a mainstream source, you may post it to be discussed as long as you stay within the guidelines. This replaces the old POTUS thread.

Starting a thread
1) Provide a clear statement of purpose
2) Link to a reputable news agency reporting the event
3) The event must be current and reasonably news worthy for a general population
4) No opinion, op ed, humor or editorial stories

General
1) Politeness and respect for others is essential
2) Show reasonable effort to provide sources for any factual claims
3) Clearly state an opinion as such and not asserted as fact

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/must-read-current-events-guidelines.113181/

 

[Borg]

I'll just be glad when it's over. I think that isn't an uncommon feeling, given the amount of stress that people are feeling about it.
People are so stressed by this election that the American Psychological Association has coping tips

 

[Evo]

@Borg I just hope that this country can heal afterwards.

 

[Evo]

Please realize this is no longer politics or government, this is the Current News Events forum. If it's not in a current news article, it can't be posted here. If it's about economics, you might want to try GD. You'd THINK the budget would be the news with the election a few weeks away.

 

[Astronuc]

Independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin holds event in Boise
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/67ab9577-ff0b-323c-a51b-e89f63302c4d/independent-presidential.html

It would be interesting if he took several states.

 

[Evo]

Independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin holds event in Boise
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/67ab9577-ff0b-323c-a51b-e89f63302c4d/independent-presidential.html

It would be interesting if he took several states.

The serious problem with these independents is that they pose a danger to the actual election of the two actually viably electable candidates and can have potentially VERY BAD outcomes.

 

[jim hardy]

This one this election, i mean ,

might raise everyone's awareness of electoral college

http://www.politico.com/magazine/thepeoplewhopickthepresident/2016

Tear up your countdown calendar: The 2016 election will not end on Nov. 8. In fact, it'll carry on until mid-December, when 538 members of the Electoral College huddle in their respective state capitals and cast the only ballots with the power to formally elect the next president.Because they have rarely deviated from the will of the voters—and never changed the outcome of an election—this constitutional process remains an obscure and anonymous relic of the Founding Fathers. But for six weeks, this assortment of party insiders, donors and, in some cases, fringe activists will be the most powerful force in American democracy. And most Americans will never know who they are.They include people like Tim Dreste, who was convicted of inciting violence against abortion providers in the 1990s and still wants them to fear him, and Monica Acosta-Zamora, the Texas Democrat who despises Hillary Clinton but became an elector to help a jailed friend. They also include Sybrina Fulton—Trayvon Martin’s mother—and Chris Christie’s dad, Wilbur. There’s a 93-year-old granddaughter of slaves and a 19-year-old Republican activist. Others still are Bernie Sanders supporters and political trailblazers, a motorcycle lobbyist and a Powerball winner.Though voters will cast ballots for Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and several third-party candidates on Election Day, their votes will actually elect partisan slates of Electoral College members. The smallest have just three, and the largest, California, has 55. Republicans and Democrats in each state choose a set of electors—and if their candidate wins the popular vote on Election Day, their slate of electors gets picked to cast ballots in December.These members are largely bound—by law and by oath—to uphold the will of the voters. And throughout history, few have deviated from that path.But 2016 is an upside-down year featuring deeply unpopular candidates. A few electors have already threatened to break from Trump or Clinton and vote their conscience—even if that means bucking the will of their state's voters.

interesting array of electors follows that article .

old jim

 

[Astronuc]

This one might raise everyone's awareness of electoral college

interesting array of electors follows that article .

old jim

Interesting and disturbing. The electors seem to be folks who are highly motivated to participate deeply in one of the parties and in the process.

Also - https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.htmlEvan McMullin on the this election. He makes some good points.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/evan-mcmullin-2016-presidential-race-42997139

If he wins Utah, he will be the first representative from a third party or alternative to win a state since George Wallace in 1968.

 

[jim hardy]

The electors seem to be folks who are highly motivated to participate deeply in one of the parties and in the process.

I guess that's in line with fundamentals of representative government , ie republic ?
We democratically select representatives (electors)who elect the president.

okay, that's the way it is.

This year might be more interesting than even 2000 .

 

[mheslep]

It would be interesting if he took several states.

How so? The chances of an electoral deadlock are small, last time was 192 years ago.

 

[mheslep]

ABC's Stephanopolous interviewed both McMullin (today, per Astronuc's post above) and Green Party candidate Jill Stein back in August. I find a comparison of the interviews interesting and instructive about the media, given Stein is likely taking votes from Clinton, and McMullin taking votes from Trump.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-clinton-earned-vote-jill-stein/story?id=41538685
Video Title: Trump, Clinton "Have Not Earned Our Vote", says Jill Stein.
Intro video clip from Hollywood actress Silverman to Democrats at DNC Convention that voting for other than Clinton is "ridiculous".
Stein interview questions, my summary:
Q1: Why Jill Stein?
Q2: Doesn't a vote for you help elect Trump?
Q3: Doesn't a vote for you help elect Trump (like Nader with Gore v Bush)?
Q4: "You are saying things that no other candidate [is] willing to say," that is, you want to disarm the police, i.e. aren't you a nut job?
Q5: Aren't you "far from being able to win the race", i.e. hopeless?
The broadcast Stein responses include no singular attacks on Clinton. There is no air time where Stein mentions the name "Clinton". If she did, those responses did not make it out of the editing room.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/evan-mcmullin-2016-presidential-race-42997139
Video Title: "Evan McMullin Says GOP Leaders are 'Putting Party Over Principle'"
McMullin interview questions, my summary:
Q1: 1st Candidate to possibly win a state since George Wallace, i.e. a hopeful candidate.
Q2: Utah officials have been very critical of Trump. Would a public endorsement from Sen Lee help...
Q3: What is your movement?
Q4: Seems like there will be a "civil war" in the GOP no matter what happens?
Q5. Is it fair to compare a President Clinton to a President Trump?
The broadcast McMullin responses include several direct attacks on Trump.

 

[Evo]

THE GEORGE W. BUSH WHITE HOUSE ‘LOST’ 22 MILLION EMAILS
BY NINA BURLEIGH ON 9/12/16 AT 7:31 AM

For 18 months, Republican strategists, political pundits, reporters and Americans who follow them have been pursuing Hillary Clinton’s personal email habits, and no evidence of a crime has been found. But now they at least have the skills and interest to focus on a much larger and deeper email conspiracy, one involving war, lies, a private server run by the Republican Party and contempt of Congress citations—all of it still unsolved and unpunished.

Clinton’s email habits look positively transparent when compared with the subpoena-dodging, email-hiding, private-server-using George W. Bush administration. Between 2003 and 2009, the Bush White House “lost” 22 million emails. This correspondence included millions of emails written during the darkest period in America’s recent history, when the Bush administration was ginning up support for what turned out to be a disastrous war in Iraq with false claims that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and, later, when it was firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons.

Like Clinton, the Bush White House used a private email server—its was owned by the Republican National Committee. And the Bush administration failed to store its emails, as required by law, and then refused to comply with a congressional subpoena seeking some of those emails. “It’s about as amazing a double standard as you can get,” says Eric Boehlert, who works with the pro-Clinton group Media Matters. “If you look at the Bush emails, he was a sitting president, and 95 percent of his chief advisers’ emails were on a private email system set up by the RNC. Imagine if for the last year and a half we had been talking about Hillary Clinton’s emails set up on a private DNC server?”

continued...

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

 

[jim hardy]

Snopes has an interesting piece on that story. They say it's part true.

WHAT'S TRUE: Roughly 22 million White House e-mails exchanged via private servers during the G.W. Bush administration were deleted instead of being archived in accordance with the Presidential Records Act.

WHAT'S FALSE: As opposed to being permanently "lost," an undetermined number of the e-mails were subsequently recovered (though they have not yet been released to the public).
........
Stanzel and other Administration officials, speaking on background, say the accounts were established in an attempt to stay on the right side of the Hatch Act, which requires rigorous separation of official government activity from overt political work, like fundraising. "[Some] White House staff members have duties that require them to interface regularly with political organizations," Stanzel says, and therefore they needed separate equipment to stay on the right side of the law.

http://www.snopes.com/g-w-bush-lost-22-million-e-mails/
so Hillary was not the first to comingle what shouldn't have got comingled. Understandable.

But i think ms Burleigh showed her colors when she buried this side of the story
https://www.wired.com/2009/12/22-million-emails-found/

White House computer technicians have found 22 million e-mails that were believed to have been lost during President George W. Bush’s administration, according to the Associated Press.

The discovery was announced Monday by the National Security Archive and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, which filed lawsuits against the Executive Office of the President, or EOP, over the e-mails in 2007.

 

[Evo]

Snopes has an interesting piece on that story. They say it's part true.http://www.snopes.com/g-w-bush-lost-22-million-e-mails/
so Hillary was not the first to comingle what shouldn't have got comingled. Understandable.

But i think ms Burleigh showed her colors when she buried this side of the story
https://www.wired.com/2009/12/22-million-emails-found/

That's from 2009. Where are the e-mails? It says they would be available to the public shortly.

What the story shows is that it is not true that Clinton is the only one to use a private email server, she is not the first, she is not the only or first to be accused of "missing" emails the RNC was millions times worse. Read on.

The Bush Administration admitted that in reviewing documents requested by Democrats for their investigations, it discovered that as many as 50 of its staffers may have violated the Presidential Records Act. The staffers, the White House said, were using e-mail accounts, laptops and BlackBerries provided by the Republican National Committee for official executive branch communications rather than the exclusively political work for which they were intended. Because the RNC had a policy until 2004 of erasing all e-mails on its servers after 30 days, including those by White House staffers, and because some of those staffers may have deleted e-mails on their own, the White House said it could not assure Congress that they have not violated the PRA, which requires the retention of official White House documents. The White House officials who may have broken the law include senior adviser Karl Rove, his deputies and much of their staffs.

The White House says it is trying to recover the e-mails. "Some official e-mails may have been potentially lost," says Scott Stanzel, a deputy White House spokesman, "We will do everything practical to retrieve them." Stanzel and other Administration officials, speaking on background, say the accounts were established in an attempt to stay on the right side of the Hatch Act, which requires rigorous separation of official government activity from overt political work, like fundraising. "[Some] White House staff members have duties that require them to interface regularly with political organizations," Stanzel says, and therefore they needed separate equipment to stay on the right side of the law.

In plain terms, some 22 million e-mails had been deleted, though the White House described them as "lost" or "missing" — another apparent point of comparison between the Bush and Clinton e-mail scandals. However, at least some of the 22 million "lost" Bush administration e-mails (unlike Clinton's 30,000) were eventually "found."

To put it more accurately, a large number (it's unclear exactly how many) of the messages were recovered from backup storage systems by technicians as a result of a deal struck between the federal government and two nonprofit groups that sued for release of the e-mails via the Freedom of Information Act. It may be impossible, ultimately, to restore all of the deleted e-mails due to funding limitations, and to date none of the recovered messages has been made public because they're still under review, but the fact remains that not all of them were permanently lost.

As in Clinton's case, the Bush administration e-mails were sought as evidence in government investigations. No no charges were filed and no criminal wrongdoing was found in regard to Clinton's handling of e-mails. Bush aides were found in contempt of Congress for not complying with subpoenas in the U.S. attorney firings investigation, but no punishment was handed down.

 

[russ_watters]

CNN(/Clinton) has found a way to generate a second news cycle out of literally nothing (Trump saying he won't do something) by first reporting the nothing as a national crisis last week and now correcting themselves and re-reporting (?) that the nothing is in fact nothing:
No Need for Suspense: Election Law Doesn't Care if Trump (or Clinton) Concede
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/24/politics/donald-trump-election-concession-law/index.html

I wonder if they teach this in journalism school?

Now it is Clinton's turn to give a speech saying it doesn't matter if Trump concedes or not. I think it would help her with that air of inevitability she's pushing now.

 

[russ_watters]

continued...

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

Terribly written "news article", but I'm struggling to find relevance to the thread. I do find it interesting though that they don't bring up Bush's mishandling of classified information.

What the story shows is that it is not true that Clinton is the only one to use a private email server...

Has anyone, anywhere, ever thought that?

Since the "article" implies rather than making coherent points, I've had to figure out for myself what they are after. So my other takeaway is that the author believes Clinton's IT manager should be in jail. On that, the author and I agree.

 

[jim hardy]

What the story shows is that it is not true that Clinton is the only one to use a private email server, she is not the first, she is not the only or first to be accused of "missing" emails the RNC was millions times worse. Read on.

I read both of them .

Bush admin turned the emails over to national archives. Why they're not out in public i don't know.
There's an inference that Cheney intentionally got rid of some. Others simply timed out and were dropped after thirty days automatically by the mail handler..

Your points are quite so, except for 20 million is only 606 times 33,000.
But i won't nitpick further.

My point was "Mud is mud be it red or blue."

 

[NTL2009]

continued...

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

I'm having trouble seeing the relevance of this to the current 2016 election (which I believe are the rules for this thread?).

When we go to the voting booth this year, we can only deal with the information we know at the time. This 'revelation' was unknown to us when it might have affected our vote - Bush is not on the ballot in 2016. And two wrongs don't make a right (though I disagree that these are equivalent wrongs anyhow).

What we do know is that the State department considered the two matters to be different. And politifact considers the claim that 'it was the same as predecessors' to be 'mostly false'.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...y-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/

So what do we know that is relevant to the 2016 election? We know that HRC lied to the public, and lied about lying to the public ("short circuited"?) about how she handled sensitive info. Had the FBI asked her about her public statements, she'd either have had to come clean, or she'd be guilty of lying to the FBI. Why did the FBI not ask her to confirm/deny her public statements? That seems like a routine part of any investigation.

We know that HRC repeatedly misleads the public with selective, out-of-context quoting of the FBI statements, and the main-stream media does not call her out on it. She says "the FBI found no evidence" that her server was hacked. OK, they did say that. But follow the next sentences, and the context becomes clear, these hackers are too sophisticated to leave evidence behind, the lack of evidence isn't meaningful - (from a transcript of Comey's statement) "But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account."

Comey also said: "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

So, she acted unreasonably and was "extremely careless" with sensitive info. And this article:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...bi-investigation-security-clearance/86709410/

indicates that HRC could probably not hold a security clearance given these reports. The POTUS technically does not need a security clearance, but I the idea that they could not obtain one should be a major concern for any voter.

And now we have evidence that the HRC campaign has rigged elections - Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to step down after it was found the DNC was acting to rig the primary for HRC and against Bernie. HRC couldn't even fight an almost unknown Senator from Vermont w/o 'help'?

And we have evidence that high level members of the HRC campaign (people who visited the White House and met with Obama numerous times) have paid people to incite violence at Trump rallies, so they could point to how Trump stirs up violence. This wan't denied, people were fired.

And now we have evidence that HRC/DNC controls the press - the New York Times (the 'newspaper of record' ) ran stories by them for approval and accepted edits from them before publication. Aren't you afraid of a political party that has that sort of control over the press?

We have two flawed names on the ballot. Trump is a big question mark in many ways, but HRC has proven herself to be unfit for the office. I have to vote against what we know about HRC, grit my teeth and give the businessman a chance. How I wish Carly Fiorina was on the ballot!

 

[russ_watters]

Link title on CNN:
"Trump Walks out of 1990 CNN Interview" (note the present tense)
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/24/media/trump-1990-walkout/index.html

Then there's a video of the 1990 walkout, with the caption "Donald Trump made news last week when he abruptly walked away from two local television interviews..."

By this, clearly they mean Trump invented a time machine, went back in time and walked out of the 1990 interview. How he did it or how the interviewers did not notice that the 45 year old Trump had been replaced by his 71 year old self isn't discussed in the article.

Is this news? I don't even know anymore.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
Is this news? I don't even know anymore.

Is anything coming out, really "news"?

Within the last few days, I've "re-followed" both of my sisters on Facebook. Both are Trump supporters, and I've been anxiously waiting for what they view as "important news".
The sister I've been discussing in my last few posts, shared yesterday, that Trump has the endorsement of 88 retired admirals and generals.

I considered it a personal jab, as she had previously, privately texted me; "I have been watching the corruption of the Clintons unfold for years. I don't have to dissect every breath they take. If you want to see America, the country you were a soldier for, get flushed down the toilet due to their corruption you are going against your own values regarding "top secret" information. Denying its existence puts our democracy at risk. It's too bad. Haiti was robbed. Money was donated to the Clinton foundation for haitis relief and it never got to them. The rich STEALING from the poor, its unconscionable."

We had been discussing the fact, that I was privy to "secret" information, whilst a submariner in the USN, and the fact that I've never shared any of that information, over the last 33 years. Though, my information was, as far as I can remember, all classified as "NOFORN".

NOFORN: Distribution to non-US citizens is prohibited, regardless of their clearance or access permissions (NO FOReign National access allowed). [wiki]​

Which, in my mind, had my sister telling me, in other words; "You are a patriot, and Hillary is a traitor. How can you support her?"

Which had me respond, to her above attack with; "I dissect everything. But dissecting laundry lists consumes a lot of my time. Since I've dissected nearly all of your items, and found them to be mostly untrue, but you won't believe me, I'm afraid I'm going to stop researching them."

Which is sad, because two of her stories were really interesting. As I mentioned before, my eyebrows really got a workout, when I read that one article.

I suppose, it goes back to the parable of "The boy who cried wolf"

ps. I of course researched, and found that Mrs. Clinton, aka Hillary Brussel Sprouts, has the endorsement of 110 retired generals and admirals.
But, I also checked out the wiki "endorsements list" of the two candidates, and decided, that endorsements are kind of irrelevant.

pps. hmmmm... I think I'll now ask my sister, if she likes brussel sprouts, as, that question makes about as much sense, as this election.

 

[Electron Spin]

Looks like I'm in a nest of low-information voters, some anyway.

Go ahead, vote down ticket people.

She started out as a bag lady for the rose law firm, now look..Ha!

 

[Evo]

Link title on CNN:
"Trump Walks out of 1990 CNN Interview" (note the present tense)
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/24/media/trump-1990-walkout/index.html

Then there's a video of the 1990 walkout, with the caption "Donald Trump made news last week when he abruptly walked away from two local television interviews..."

By this, clearly they mean Trump invented a time machine, went back in time and walked out of the 1990 interview. How he did it or how the interviewers did not notice that the 45 year old Trump had been replaced by his 71 year old self isn't discussed in the article.

Is this news? I don't even know anymore.

I have no idea what that is about, he did walk out on two local news interviews recently, but they appear to be impromptu.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...cism-claims-interview-questions-a7374371.html

 

[Kevin McHugh]

That's from 2009. Where are the e-mails? It says they would be available to the public shortly.

What the story shows is that it is not true that Clinton is the only one to use a private email server, she is not the first, she is not the only or first to be accused of "missing" emails the RNC was millions times worse. Read on.

How are Bush's actions in 2009 current events? If he did something illegal, doesn't justify Hillary doing something illegal. This priniple applies in general.

 

[Evo]

How are Bush's actions in 2009 current events? If he did something illegal, doesn't justify Hillary doing something illegal. This priniple applies in general.

It's talking about Clinton that is current news. It's that millions of people think Hillary is the only politician to have used private e-mail servers and not followed protocol. If you watched the 2nd Presidential debate where Trump threatens to appoint a special prosecutor and put her in jail, it's this kind of nonsense that is pushing this kind of idea and this article makes it clear that private email server use and lack of protocol is not only not unprecedented, it's been far worse. I think this article will wake a lot of people up.

Anyway, she's only been found to be careless, not criminal, as far as the email is concerned and the witch hunt needs to stop.

 

[NTL2009]

It's that millions of people think Hillary is the only politician to have used a private e-mail servers and not followed protocol. If you watched the 2nd Presidential debate where trump threatens to appoint a special prosecutor and put her in jail, it's this kind of nonsense that is pushing this kind of idea and this article makes it clear that private email server use and lack of protocol is not only not unprecedented, it's been far worse.

Anyway, she's only been found to be careless, not criminal, as far as the email is concerned and the witch hunt needs to stop.

I'm not sure that millions think she is the only politician to do so. Do you have a source for that?

Describing the act of appointing a special prosecutor as 'nonsense' sounds like opinion to me. Some additional outside evaluation may well be in order, considering that the FBI allowed her to do her own sorting of the evidence (when does that happen? Shouldn't the FBI grab all the evidence, and do their own sorting?). And then we find that the deleted (and wiped clean with Bleach-Bit) emails (after being partially recovered through other means) did include sensitive government business. It sure sounds fishy. Witch hunt? Sounds more like a soft investigation to me, based on letting her handle the evidence, so that's fact-based, not opinion.

The only reason given by the FBI for not recommending criminal charges was that he had no "clear evidence of intent" (again, a carefully worded report, so I would take that to mean he did have evidence of intent, just not clear evidence). IOW, no email surfaced that said - "good thing we have our own server so this is not found in a FOI request". But put 2 + 2 together, and it sure seems likely that is exactly why it was done. Setting up a server takes an intentional act.

And for the record, she was found to be "extremely careless" with sensitive information. Not "careless", not "somewhat careless", not "very careless" - but "extremely careless", in an extremely carefully worded report. Context and full quoting can be important.

 

[Evo]

I'm not sure that millions think she is the only politician to do so. Do you have a source for that?

Trump claims to have millions of followers. You yourself posted that no one else in the state Department used a private email server.

 

[NTL2009]

Trump claims to have millions of followers. ...

But how do we know what those millions of supporters think on a subject as specific as that? I think we are getting into shaky territory to make claims/assumptions on that front.

You yourself posted that no one else in the state Department used a private email server.

I did? Where?

And if I did say that somewhere (I don't see it), are you parsing words as carefully as HRC does? The issue was she was "extremely careless" with sensitive info, and did not act reasonably. She lied to the public about it. Whether someone else did or did not specifically use a private server, or did or did not follow all protocol is a bit of a distraction. It doesn't justify what she did. It stands on its own.

 

[Evo]

I did? Where?

LOL! Seriously? You don't remember what you posted just a few hours ago?

I'm afraid that ends us discussing things. I only discuss things with people that can remember for more than a few hours, but feel free to carry on.

 

[NTL2009]

LOL! Seriously? You don't remember what you posted just a few hours ago?

I'm afraid that ends us discussing things. I only discuss things with people that can remember for more than a few hours, but feel free to carry on.

Yes, seriously. I looked back and I didn't see it. Maybe you are misinterpreting something I said? Maybe I misspoke? Can you simply point it out?

Recall from your starting post:

1) Politeness and respect for others is essential

So why not just point it out, rather than "LOL! Seriously?"?

 

[Evo]

Yes, seriously. I looked back and I didn't see it. Maybe you are misinterpreting something I said? Maybe I misspoke? Can you simply point it out?

Recall from your starting post:
So why not just point it out, rather than "LOL! Seriously?"?

It's here.

And politifact considers the claim that 'it was the same as predecessors' to be 'mostly false'.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...y-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/

 

[Astronuc]

(Reuters) Former Secretary of State Powell will vote for Clinton: Newsday
https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-secretary-state-powell-vote-clinton-media-reports-194910357.html

Powell, who made the announcement at an event hosted by a Long Island business group in Woodbury, New York, said Republican Donald Trump was "not qualified" and had sold Americans a "bill of goods" that he could not deliver, Newsday said.

"He has insulted America in one way almost every day," Powell said of Trump, according to the newspaper.

"He has insulted Latino Americans. He has insulted African-Americans. He has insulted women. He has insulted his own party. He has insulted our allies around the world one by one. He has insulted veterans," Powell said.

"She is smart. She is capable. She was a good secretary of state," Powell said, according to Newsday.

"She is balanced, she has temperament and no matter what anyone says she has stamina ... I think she is fully qualified to serve as the president of the United States and will serve it with distinction," Powell was quoted as saying by Newsday.

Sounds like an endorsement to me.
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/colin-powell-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president-1.12504956
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ounces-vote-hillary-clinton-article-1.2844684

 

[jim hardy]

astro's newsday link includes this paragraph
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/colin-powell-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president-1.12504956

In hacked emails from Powell’s private account that were made public in September, Powell, a retired four-star general said “everything [Clinton] touches she kind of screws up with hubris.” In another email, Powell said he would “rather not have to vote for” Clinton but that “she is a friend I respect.”

sounds to me less than enthusiastic .

 

[NTL2009]

Let's see if we can clear this up and move forward (multi-quoting got awkward, allow me to copy/paste the relevant lines)...

Evo said: It's that millions of people think Hillary is the only politician to have used a private e-mail servers and not followed protocol.​

NTL2009: I'm not sure that millions think she is the only politician to do so. Do you have a source for that?​

Evo said: Trump claims to have millions of followers. ...​

NTL2009: But how do we know what those millions of supporters think on a subject as specific as that? I think we are getting into shaky territory to make claims/assumptions on that front.​

Evo said: You yourself posted that no one else in the state Department used a private email server.​

NTL2009: I did? Where?​

Evo said: LOL! Seriously? You don't remember what you posted just a few hours ago? ... It's here.

And politifact considers the claim that 'it was the same as predecessors' to be 'mostly false'.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...y-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/

OK, so first, you threw me with the wording that "You yourself posted that no one else in the state Department used a private email server.", versus 'some of that info was included in the link that you posted'. So I was serious when I said "if I did say that somewhere (I don't see it),".

Second, I posted that article to validate that what HRC did was not the same as her predecessors. Some HRC supporters want to make it out to just be 'business as usual'. You apparently are trying to parse that down to some specifics about the private server (rather than the general extreme carelessness HRC exhibited) and what people think or don't think, and I don't see the point (other than maybe distraction).

Hopefully, we can move forward to current events.

 

[NTL2009]

OK, so here is a current event. I am hearing in the main stream media how HRC is far ahead in the polls. But there are some highly respected polls showing a very tight race. I don't seem to hear as much about these.

http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-tracking-poll-most-accurate-presidential-poll/

for the 2004, 2008 and 2012 elections IBD/TIPP's average prediction for the final presidential vote margin was the most accurate, with a difference of a mere 0.9% between our predictions and the final outcomes for all three years.

http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-tracking-poll-most-accurate-presidential-poll/

IBD shows HRC just 1 point ahead, very close in the past with Trump in the lead at times.
http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/

And Rasmussen also has HRC at just 1 point ahead...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct26

 

[jim hardy]

Is a Michael Moore video newsworthy ? And PF worthy ? If not, delete this post with no hard feelings.

It's all over the radical right sites and some foreign newspapers
closest to "reputable" coverage i could find was a transcript at megyn kelly's site
edit by mod: completely taken out of context, see post below (not you Jim)
which is not surprising given US media blitzkrieg on Trump

i believe Moore is not a Trump supporter
but he gives an interesting talk explaining Trump's appeal to the latent anger in some voters which i believe is relevant to this election and not understood in some circles.
After all my generation was raised on Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" , Woodward & Bernstein , endless protest movements, Archie Bunker, exaltation of the working class ...
So suitability of this one i leave up to mentors. It's your sandbox and I'm a guest.
Could be it'll make mainstream news in a day or two.

Warning, contains some f-words


transcript at that megyn kelly link above

old jim