Obama barely won Florida over Romney (closest margin last election). So I wouldn't read too much into polling there other than Florida is a pretty ####ed up place.
Honestly the US Electoral system is so screwy. So I looked at an interactive one and played the what happens if Trump wins Florida.
So based on current polling it would be at 200 to 192 for Clinton then I gave Trump Georgia, and SC just cause
I gave Vi to Trump as well.
I gave Clinton OH and PA So at that point I was sitting at Clinton 264 and Trump 236 which would mean that Trump would need to sweep Arz, NV, Col and IA he would also need to steal a state to off set the NE.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
First debate will be interesting. Trump camp is working the public on how the entire debate system is rigged and dirty and unfair to explain away any poor performance.
The Following User Says Thank You to ernie For This Useful Post:
Because I have dealt with dozens of preservation orders in my professional life and know exactly how preservation orders work. The same goes with FOIA requests. The language is very specific and identifies exactly what information must be preserved. If there is any ambiguity it the responsibility of legal counsel to get clarification to make sure the preservation order is complied with. Anything that happens to information prior to receiving a preservation order, like deletion, even if it affects the timeline specified, is completely legal because you were under no control to retain information.
Quote:
It's certainly a different degree of suspicious, but I do not accept that it must be honest just because it wasn't specifically forbidden under a specific investigation.
I don’t see anything suspicious about it. Operationally, data gets deleted every single day. Especially emails. If there was truly a larger concern the rules would have been drafted to prevent the use of non-departmental equipment. The fact that these rules were changed after the fact says the government recognized their error and have corrected. But without that previous directive there was nothing to preclude the existence of this system nor clear controls on how it was to be managed.
Quote:
I have previously contended that destruction of any documents is a violation their duty to preserve records. The discovery of this Reddit request seems to support the theory that they were actively hiding something.
That was your interpretation of what the reddit question was. I didn’t read it that way at all. It was not a request for how to destroy or hide information, but a request to eliminate addresses and identifying information that provide insight into the emails themselves. I would like to have more information on what the intent was. If it was to share information that is going down one avenue. As I stated earlier, this is quite common is e-discovery where redaction is used. If it was to obfuscate the email address, this is down another avenue and focused on anonymization. Neither of which are illegal, and are actually practices used in maintaining confidentiality of information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gozer
PRN, who you suggested were Clinton allies, appear to have stayed on the Clinton payroll* and stonewalled the investigation.
I don’t know where this allies angle came from. They were a third party entrusted with provisioning a specific service on behalf of the Clintons. They were no more an ally than my yard guy is to me. They provided a service and were expected to do so in a professional and legal manner.
They also didn’t stay on the Clinton payroll. They were a contractor. That means they had a contract to provide specific services. As long as those services were active and they were providing support as outlined by the contracted statement of work, they would be paid for said services. I would say the minute the email server was shut down the contract was rendered complete and the firm’s services were no longer required. Or are you suggesting that when you contract a guy to shovel your snow all winter that he can continue to bill you through July and August, for services you did not need, nor used?
Any stonewalling during this investigation would have been a result of the contractor not wanting to disclose their negligence in the deletion of files after receiving the preservation notice. This would have been to protect themselves from possible legal action from those who contracted their services, and then from criminal prosecution.
Quote:
The IT guy appears to have accepted all the blame.
And so he should have. He deleted the files and it appears he did so by his own volition. He also followed that up with a pretty transparent attempt to delete his tracks. Fortunately, he received immunity for his testimony.
Quote:
It could be the truth...it could be that the guy with immunity was the fall-guy. Hardly an exotic concept or fanciful notion.
Occam’s razor. The timeline presented by documents discovered by the Examiner showed the IT guy acted on his own volition. I don’t see a conspiracy there.
Quote:
The court of public opinion does not need to meet the standards of criminal court.
The court of public opinion is irrelevant as they usually don’t know what they are talking about or privy to all the details. While we are not privy to the details I have been through this process, including working with the FBI during investigations, and I can say that this is pretty consistent with things I have witnessed in the past. The FBI does not shield high level officials, even if there is belief out there that they do because of bad Hollywood movies. There are times where the evidence just doesn’t point to wrong doing, and the feds have to back off. In other cases there is a contractor that ends up being the party responsible for the action and the case falls apart.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Because I have dealt with dozens of preservation orders in my professional life and know exactly how preservation orders work. The same goes with FOIA requests. The language is very specific and identifies exactly what information must be preserved. If there is any ambiguity it the responsibility of legal counsel to get clarification to make sure the preservation order is complied with. Anything that happens to information prior to receiving a preservation order, like deletion, even if it affects the timeline specified, is completely legal because you were under no control to retain information.
You can make an argument from authority all day, I don't accept it.
These are public records - they are not hers to destroy.
So a GOP billionaire has pledged two million to register Latinos to vote in Florida and defeat Trump. Hillary also looks to still have a five point lead there if Monmouth is to be believed. She still looks to have a pretty solid grip on the road to 270.
You can make an argument from authority all day, I don't accept it.
Waaaait a damn minute. You asked him why he was so sure of X, and his response was "because I have tons and tons of experience with this stuff". That's not an argument from authority, it's a perfectly valid answer to your question.
Granted, I have no idea how a college professor (instructor? I'm unclear) has the experience he's talking about, but taking him at his word, and acknowledging his obvious bias in favour of Clinton, you can't just dismiss an expert opinion outright.
I mean, if your doctor says, "don't worry about the symptoms you just described to me, they're perfectly expected", and you ask him how he can be so confident, do you reject his argument from authority when he responds "because I deal with people with your condition on a regular basis"? Of course not.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
You can make an argument from authority all day, I don't accept it.
These are public records - they are not hers to destroy.
That's the whole point of a private server and the grey legal status at that time, legally the emails were saved on the public servers they originated from or were sent to, that, at that time got around the need to save them.
In Clinton's defence every politician every where has been trying to get around this problem, we use emails instead of phone calls these days but that precludes the kind of candid conversations people need to have to get things done.
It doesn't indicate anything dreadful just a desire not to have the 'God Biden's a numpty' conversations get out.
We do the same thing in child care, you know the kids can, quite rightfully, get all their files to read, but that means you tend to have all the difficult conversations with other professionals over the phone so that the kid doesn't read your candid opinion of whether their mums a crack ho or the like.
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Hmm this should go over well....and yes this is real.
Donnie Jr: Refugees are no good (but let me go ahead and lift this photo from a refugee)
Quote:
Donald Trump Jr's tweet comparing Skittles to refugees has caused a furore on social media. In a new development, the man who took the photo of the Skittles has revealed himself to be a former refugee.
David Kittos, 48, from Guildford, UK, woke up to find an image he had posted to Flickr in January 2010 had become embroiled in a political controversy.
"This was not done with my permission, I don't support his politics and I would never take his money to use it," Mr Kittos told the BBC.
"In 1974, when I was six-years old, I was a refugee from the Turkish occupation of Cyprus so I would never approve the use of this image against refugees."
Quote:
David Kittos, who does not follow Twitter, was alerted to the use of the image by friends.
A keen photographer, he told the BBC he originally took the picture in his home studio: "I was just experimenting with something called off-camera flash.
"This was six years ago when there were no Syrian refugees at the time and it was never done with the intention of spreading a political message.
"I have never put this image up for sale. This was not done with my permission, I don't support Trump's politics and I would never take his money to use it."
Mr Kittos' personal history means he is particularly dismayed by his image being used in a debate around accepting refugees.
"I am now a British citizen but I am Greek-Cypriot by birth and in 1974 I was a refugee because of the Turkish occupation.
"I was six years old. We lived in the area of Cyprus that is now under Turkish military control. We had to leave everything behind overnight. Our property and our possessions."
Not sure if this is a sidetrack on this thread or not, but Elizabeth Warren should be running for something. This was exactly what Bernie was looking to change, and I'm sure the reason why he had no chance to be the Democratic nominee, too many $$$ at stake for the 1%.
You can make an argument from authority all day, I don't accept it.
These are public records - they are not hers to destroy.
You asked for what makes me so certain, I gave you the answer. If you have experience that counters that, fill your boots and point out here I am wrong.
The records in question were not public records. That is actually the point of a private server. They do not fall under the auspices of the government nor the regulations that apply to the department. Obama's amendment to the FRA has greatly changed how thes servers will work, but at the time this was a private system and nothing on it was considered public record.
Wow this election is horrible and both candidates are just terrible choices.
At the end of the day it just feels like from here that no matter who is elected the States is going to go through a drop both internationally and domestic.
I really doubt that. I have no doubt Clinton is going to be a perfectly adequate president at the very least.
And really the "both candidates are terrible" storyline is just so overblown in this election IMO. It's a very common meme that's almost never true.
Here's a Rowan Atkinson sketch making the exact same claim during Reagan v. Carter.
Same was said about Gore v. Bush, but in retrospect Al Gore is not actually at all particurarly terrible or dumb.
The "both candidates are terrible" storyline is an intellectually lazy hyperbole that only serves Trump in this election. It would be a real shame if it again helped the worse candidate to victory.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
I mean, if your doctor says, "don't worry about the symptoms you just described to me, they're perfectly expected", and you ask him how he can be so confident, do you reject his argument from authority when he responds "because I deal with people with your condition on a regular basis"? Of course not.
You're right - an argument from authority is not inherently fallacious.
But it is still an argument from authority and I don't recognize his/hers.
I am asking, implicitly, to pressent an argument I can accept. 'Cuz I know better' doesnt cut it, especially since I have asked him to support his claims and expressed frustration with his unwillingness to do so.
I leave it to you to decide who is providing a better argument. I'm sure New Era doesn't give two shakes what I think.
The Following User Says Thank You to Gozer For This Useful Post:
