[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Sanji Himura]

More Hillary Emails, 1,262 of them, have just been dumped at 2 am this morning. The vast majority of them are classified "Confidential", the State Department's lowest classification level, but 68 emails were labeled "Secret".

Some emails were of interesting note, such as one from Clinton to top advisor Jake Sullivan in June of 2011 on how to send secure information over non-secure channels . The information in question involved talking points that have since been redacted by the State Department. “They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax. They’re working on it. If they can’t, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” she wrote in that email. Another email stated that she was (ironically) surprised that a State Department official "used a personal account if he is at State."

Fox news (which I won't include the link here) has reported that the official in question, John Godfrey, used a personal account to send a memo on Libya policy after the fall of Muammar Qaddafi. Fox also notes that another message includes a condolence email from the father of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl following the Benghazi incident. After seeing the email, Clinton directed her assistant Robert Russo to "pls [sic] prepare [a] response." Bergdahl was released in May of 2014 as part of a prisoner swap. He faces court-martial for desertion in August.

The department released the emails today after failing to meet a court-ordered deadline to release 82% of Clinton's 55,000 pages of emails.

The FBI is investigating the scandal that has dogged Clinton since she launched her campaign last year.

Source

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Worse than carpet bombing from B-52s? Worse than cluster bombs?

No, the context was missed, I believe he is saying that the Drone usage is far worse from a humantarian point under Obama, than Bush. And with the extended use and basically unknown war on Terror to most of the public that has still taken part in Pakistan, Obama is a far bigger abuser of Drones than Bush. However, I will say, Drones were fairly a new thing when Bush was leaving office anyways. Who's to say he wouldn't have used them as much as Obama.

 

[mustafur]

Worse than carpet bombing from B-52s? Worse than cluster bombs?

Atleast people can see what is killing them, so yes.

 

[Sanji Himura]

A brief education on assassinations involving the USA:

The notion that the U.S. can execute its own citizens anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield, without a legal determination of guilt and without firm and public standards is repugnant to our democracy. Both the Constitution and international law prohibit the use of lethal force against civilians outside of armed conflict except in very narrow circumstances: as a last resort to prevent an imminent attack that is likely to cause death or serious physical injury. A targeted killing policy under which names are added to a "kill list" after a secret bureaucratic process and remain there for months at a time appears not to be limited to imminent threats.

Allowing the use of warlike tactics far from any battlefield — using drones or other means — turns the whole world into a war zone and sets a dangerous example for other countries which might feel justified in doing the same. If the U.S. claims it can kill suspected enemies of the U.S. anywhere — using unmanned drones or otherwise — then other countries will regard killing their enemies within our borders as justified. We wouldn't be okay with the prospect of other countries executing their suspected enemies within U.S. borders.

The targeted killing of individuals who are suspected — but not proven — to be guilty of crimes also risks the deaths of innocent people. Over the last decade, we have seen the U.S. government wrongly imprison hundreds of men as terrorists based on weak, wrong or unreliable evidence, only to eventually free them. The consequence of such mistakes is far greater when the end result is death; there is no recourse for killing the wrong person.

A program of targeted killing far from any battlefield, without charge or trial, violates the constitutional guarantee of due process. It also violates international law, under which lethal force may be used outside armed conflict zones only as a last resort to prevent imminent threats, when non-lethal means are not available. Putting people on a "kill list" for months at a time is clearly not limited to last resort or imminent threats.

No one knows what the standards are for being placed on the list because the government has not disclosed them. We do know that people on the list are suspects who have not been found guilty of any crimes.

The secrecy and lack of standards for sentencing people to death, resulting in a startling lack of oversight and safeguards, is one of our prime concerns with this program. We don't know how many people are on the government's kill lists — we don't even know how many Americans are on the lists. And equally troubling, we don't know on what basis people are added to the list. How much evidence does the government have before it adds a name to the kill list? Who reviews that evidence? The government should not be imposing the death penalty on the basis of standards that are secret.

According to government officials, the C.I.A. and the Pentagon maintain lists of suspected terrorists linked to Al Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing, but the inclusion of Americans on those lists must be approved by the National Security Council.

It's impossible to know because the list is secret. In response to a question about the procedures used to order lethal strikes against U.S. citizens abroad, White House Terrorism advisor John Brennan suggested that "dozens of U.S. persons who are in different parts of the world" were "very concerning." It is unclear how many of these citizens are on the kill list.

Why should being a U.S. citizen be a shield? Once you decide to fight against America, don't you give up that protection?

There are very narrow circumstances under which the government is authorized to use lethal force against a person without due process. If a U.S. citizen takes up arms against the U.S. on a battlefield, or if he poses an imminent threat off the battlefield, citizenship will not protect him. But the government appears to be claiming the authority to use lethal force against U.S. citizens who are merely suspected of terrorist crimes, even if they are civilians far from any battlefield.

*All emphasis added are mine.

https://www.aclu.org/frequently-ask...ently-asked-questions-about-targeting-killing

 

[Swagger897]

The whole drone and unmanned aircraft topic already un-nerves me, but at least with them they are more precise and accurate (when the target is properly identified) than dropping several thousand pounds of unguided bombs.

 

[FoolKiller]

precise and accurate

With all the precision of a building-destroying explosion.

There's a saying, "Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades." Imagine 100 hand grenades. Within a 100 feet only counts in bombs. That's precision.

 

[Swagger897]

With all the precision of a building-destroying explosion.

There's a saying, "Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades." Imagine 100 hand grenades. Within a 100 feet only counts in bombs. That's precision.

I hope you do realize why i put both words there.

Its been proven and practiced putting JDAMs into a building via windows.

I've yet to see 50 CBUs doing the same feat.

 

[Danoff]

With all the precision of a building-destroying explosion.

There's a saying, "Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades." Imagine 100 hand grenades. Within a 100 feet only counts in bombs. That's precision.

"Bullets... ...are imprecise. I heard you control your explosions..." - The Specialist

(I got that from the Corolla Show)

 

[Biggles]

Explain to me how much understanding would be necessary to be able to accept:

1. Commiting war crimes.
2. Siding with terrorists/our enemies in multiple local civil wars.
3. Giving air support to Saudi Arabia against a country that we have no quarrel with.

War crimes need to be over simplified. Attacking a banned target and killing volunteer aid workers is simplistically wrong.

Choosing your enemies and allies should be simple. Don't arm the guys you are fighting against in other territories.

Every US President since the Second World War, & presumably before, has killed civilians & committed "war crimes" (and I guarantee that the next President, whoever it ends up being, will do the same). The only difference would be the scale on which it was done. And US Presidents have also had a long history of arming the guys they're "fighting against in other territories". So you might have to take a look at something bigger than any particular individual President - there just might be something more systemic involved.

He has made some odd choices in this campaign. Either he is playing politics and acting hawkish on Iran just to get primary votes or he is not who people hoped for. If he's just playing the game then he misses the honesty that drew this people to his father. If he's being honest them he definitely isn't what those people want.

So, Rand Paul has abandoned his principles even before becoming President. Funny how that works.

If your honestly going to take blame off Obama at this point for what he is doing in the middle east with Drones etc, then you have to hold the same standard with Bush especially considering it was basically all Cheney's doing anyway as Bush had basically no real control in his term anyway.

No doubt media wise Obama has done it smarter but I would argue from a humanitarian point of view the drone usage is significantly worse.

I'm not "taking the blame off Obama" I'm saying what he is doing doesn't rise to the same level as the Bush administration's full scale war in Iraq. And killing a few hundred people in drone strikes isn't, by any realistic reckoning, "significantly worse" than starting a war that results in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people & destabilizes an entire region.

AND ... if you've got a choice between two candidates one of whom is going start World War III & the other merely kill a few hundred people (immorally) using drone strikes, I think I'd go for the latter option! That's really all I'm saying.

Foolkiller lives in a country where he has the choice of voting for a Republican quasi-libertarian who doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting the Republican nomination, or going straight to a Libertarian Presidential candidate who doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Presidency. Fortunately, I live in a country where I can help elect a government that says it will stay out of foreign wars & then actually does that. It's one of the advantages of living in a country that isn't "exceptional".

If you are looking for the peaceniks - other than Rand Paul - amongst the current Republican candidates then your choices are restricted to Trump and maybe Christie.

Don't make me laugh.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If you are looking for the peaceniks - other than Rand Paul - amongst the current Republican candidates then your choices are restricted to Trump and maybe Christie.

One wants to escalate against ISIS and involve Iran, the other wants to fly Air Force One over the Spratly Islands on the first day of his Presidency to "show them what we're about". I remain unconvinced that either of them are Woody Guthrie.

 

[FoolKiller]

Every US President since the Second World War, & presumably before, has killed civilians & committed "war crimes" (and I guarantee that the next President, whoever it ends up being, will do the same).

I never said Obama was alone in this. I said he wasn't better than any others.

Bush had the prison and water boarding issues. Obama knowingly attacked a hospital housing patients and doctors without giving them advanced notice to clear out, as well as purposely bombed people trying to help people injured in bombings. There is one issue Obama faces that others didn't: a prominent and respected aid organization is taking them to court over it.

The only difference would be the scale on which it was done. And US Presidents have also had a long history of arming the guys they're "fighting against in other territories".

Which means he doesn't get a pass on ISIS anymore than the people that armed the Taliban.

So you might have to take a look at something bigger than any particular individual President - there just might be something more systemic involved.

If it is systemic then everyone is excused or part of the problem. Again, not making Obama's war better.

So, Rand Paul has abandoned his principles even before becoming President. Funny how that works.

I don't know if it's that or people painted his dad on him and ignored that he openly said he wasn't his dad and didn't agree with him on everything. There are a lot of quotes he made while working on his dad's campaign that he gets attributed to, but he was actually speaking on behalf of his dad and not staring his own feelings.

Ultimately, no one really knows.

I'm not "taking the blame off Obama" I'm saying what he is doing doesn't rise to the same level as the Bush administration's full scale war in Iraq.

You might have to take a look at something bigger than any particular individual President - there just might be something more systemic involved.

Just keeping the playing field level.

And killing a few hundred people in drone strikes isn't, by any realistic reckoning, "significantly worse" than starting a war that results in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people & destabilizes an entire region.

Um, it's been a few hundred children and a few thousand people total.

AND ... if you've got a choice between two candidates one of whom is going start World War III & the other merely kill a few hundred people (immorally) using drone strikes,

But that isn't the choice. That's how the media makes it look.

Don't make me laugh.

If you've been paying any real attention you would notice that Trump is less hawkish than most of the Republicans.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm

He opposed going into Iraq and Syria, thinks we just ousted Assad to likely get a worse leader, and that we should deal with direct threats only and avoid getting entangled in "humanitarian" endeavors.

His major hawkish issue is keeping Iran and North Korea from maintaining nuclear programs.


At least he recognizes and accepts that North Korea is a nuclear armed state.

 

[Dotini]

If the following article is correct, then Hillary Clinton is finished as a politician and as a candidate for office.

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/smoking-gun-email-suggests-hillary-committed-a-crime/

The latest batch of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department early Friday contain what may be the smoking gun that forces the Justice Department to charge the former secretary of state with a crime, according to former federal prosecutor Joseph diGenova.

“This is gigantic,” said diGenova. “She caused to be removed a classified marking and then had it transmitted in an unencrypted manner. That is a felony. The removal of the classified marking is a federal crime. It is the same thing to order someone to do it as if she had done it herself.”

Edit: Add another citation
http://nypost.com/2016/01/08/hillary-ordered-one-of-her-flunkies-to-break-the-law/

 

[Dennisch]

Even the Democrats are paving the way with velvet for the Trump.

 

[Sanji Himura]

If the following article is correct, then Hillary Clinton is finished as a politician and as a candidate for office.

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/smoking-gun-email-suggests-hillary-committed-a-crime/

The latest batch of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department early Friday contain what may be the smoking gun that forces the Justice Department to charge the former secretary of state with a crime, according to former federal prosecutor Joseph diGenova.

“This is gigantic,” said diGenova. “She caused to be removed a classified marking and then had it transmitted in an unencrypted manner. That is a felony. The removal of the classified marking is a federal crime. It is the same thing to order someone to do it as if she had done it herself.”

Edit: Add another citation
http://nypost.com/2016/01/08/hillary-ordered-one-of-her-flunkies-to-break-the-law/

I mentioned this particular email at the top of the page. The emphasis that it was a smoking gun to charge Hillary with a crime wasn't there.

 

[Dotini]

Some emails were of interesting note, such as one from Clinton to top advisor Jake Sullivan in June of 2011 on how to send secure information over non-secure channels . The information in question involved talking points that have since been redacted by the State Department. “They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax. They’re working on it. If they can’t, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” she wrote in that email. Another email stated that she was (ironically) surprised that a State Department official "used a personal account if he is at State."

Right you are!

 

[IforceV8]

If the following article is correct, then Hillary Clinton is finished as a politician and as a candidate for office.

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/smoking-gun-email-suggests-hillary-committed-a-crime/

The latest batch of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department early Friday contain what may be the smoking gun that forces the Justice Department to charge the former secretary of state with a crime, according to former federal prosecutor Joseph diGenova.

“This is gigantic,” said diGenova. “She caused to be removed a classified marking and then had it transmitted in an unencrypted manner. That is a felony. The removal of the classified marking is a federal crime. It is the same thing to order someone to do it as if she had done it herself.”

Edit: Add another citation
http://nypost.com/2016/01/08/hillary-ordered-one-of-her-flunkies-to-break-the-law/

You might want to fact check your "sources". The website owned by the talking reptile Laura Ingraham and the guy who has been making false claims about the Clinton's since 1998 amounts to nothing more than click bait.

NY Post? The National Enquirer didnt pick up the story?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Even the Democrats are paving the way with velvet for the Trump.

Even after this?

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-...from-trump-rally-after-silent-protest/7078932

 

[Dotini]

You might want to fact check your "sources". The website owned by the talking reptile Laura Ingraham and the guy who has been making false claims about the Clinton's since 1998 amounts to nothing more than click bait.

NY Post? The National Enquirer didnt pick up the story?

It's being carried by CNN now.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-2016/index.html
Washington (CNN)The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee released a scathing statement Friday, calling on Hillary Clinton to "come clean" after the State Department released an email in which she asked an aide to send information on a non-secure system after attempts to send the document securely failed.

Sen. Chuck Grassley said the email, released at about 1:30 am Friday morning along with about 3,000 other emails from Clinton's State Department tenure, is "disturbing," and "appears to show the former Secretary of State instructing a subordinate to remove the headings from a classified document and send it to her in an unsecure manner."

 

[Dennisch]

Even after this?

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-...from-trump-rally-after-silent-protest/7078932

Unknown muslima sent out vs Presidential candidate possibly breaking the law.

Hmm.

 

[Sanji Himura]

You might want to fact check your "sources". The website owned by the talking reptile Laura Ingraham and the guy who has been making false claims about the Clinton's since 1998 amounts to nothing more than click bait.

NY Post? The National Enquirer didnt pick up the story?

Besides, I did report the dump roughly 24 hours prior to Dotini's post. I didn't report on the Ingram story intentionally for that reason.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Trump vs Clinton. Reality show fodder at it's best.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Trump vs Clinton. Reality show fodder at it's best.

Best reality show ever!

 

[Swagger897]

He's gonna have so much content if it doesn't pan out for him though..

 

[Chrunch Houston]

There once was a presidential candidate that some believed was born in a foreign country to an American mother.

Now there is a presidential candidate that was born in a foreign country to an American mother.

What am I missing?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

oops

 

[mustafur]

I fail to see why it matters though, aslong as they are a full citizen.

Im not a liberal by any means but I hope Sanders wins it.

 

[Johnnypenso]

There once was a presidential candidate that some believed was born in a foreign country to an American mother.

Now there is a presidential candidate that was born in a foreign country to an American mother.

What am I missing?

He wasn't born in a foreign country mate, he was born in Canada, American's Hat

I fail to see why it matters though, aslong as they are a full citizen.

Im not a liberal by any means but I hope Sanders wins it.

It matters because Constitution. And you'd be a socialist if you voted for Sanders, or at least you'd be voting socialist.

 

[Sanji Himura]

There once was a presidential candidate that some believed was born in a foreign country to an American mother.

Now there is a presidential candidate that was born in a foreign country to an American mother.

What am I missing?

Natural born citizenship, as applied in the Constitution, comes from the concept that all citizens of England, regardless of where they are actually born, are subjects of the British monarchy.

How does this apply to Cruz and Obama? Simple, they did get citizenship from their mothers. In Cruz's case in particular, his mother was also trying to apply for citizenship in Canada to live with his father. Under Canadian law, to apply for citizenship, you have to be a resident for five years. He was born in her third year of residency, hence, she was a united States citizen when Ted was born.

Here is an interesting write up from the Washington post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...01/07/why-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/

 

[CodeRedR51]

Im not a liberal by any means but I hope Sanders wins it.

Myself, my brother, one of my aunts, and at least a couple of my cousins are voting for Sanders.

Edit: I assume my brother's wife is too.

 

[Dennisch]

The only way Sanders has a chance is for Hillary to funk it up royally and she has to pull out of the race. It's sad.