2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

[The Romulan Republic]

So what are you suggesting? That we need to start pandering to bigotry, start shunning Muslims and other minorities from our ranks, in order to win? Because that's sure what it sounds like.

Yes, of course white racism is a serious issue. But we will not deal with it by saying "Yes, you racists are right, let's keep the darkies out." Even leaving the moral implications aside, we will never be better at that game than the Republicans, and if we were, we would deserve to lose.

If we follow that course, it hardly matters who wins. If we do that, we won't be the Democratic Party any more. We'll be collaborators.

[Gandalf]

Perhaps.

Though if we're not just conceding 2020 off the bat, then we really need to sort our shit out in 2-3 years, tops, because then the Presidential campaign will be starting up again in earnest.

Don't concede it, but just be aware that it takes something special to get a president out after one term. By 2019 that should be clear enough, one way or the other.

[Iroscato]

Welp, maybe Trump will get bored/thrown in the clink/choke on his own ego on the golfing course and Pence will have to step in as POTUS. The Dems would have to bring their A-game of suck to lose against that. Like they did last time.

Wait...

Ah, we're fucked.

[FireNexus]

So what are you suggesting? That we need to start pandering to bigotry, start shunning Muslims and other minorities from our ranks, in order to win? Because that's sure what it sounds like.

Yes, of course white racism is a serious issue. But we will not deal with it by saying "Yes, you racists are right, let's keep the darkies out." Even leaving the moral implications aside, we will never be better at that game than the Republicans, and if we were, we would deserve to lose.

If we follow that course, it hardly matters who wins. If we do that, we won't be the Democratic Party any more. We'll be collaborators.

No, I'm suggesting that we need to stop pretending that the demographic shifts which will allow us to occupy the moral high ground and win are complete. We can't be certain of two massive unfounded wars and a looming financial crisis to make the white racist working class willing to hear us out this time.

I'm not saying "keep the darkies out". I'm saying don't give them any low-hanging fruit, like being led by someone with ties to an organization that is undeniably anti-white.

We fucking tried it your way and we lost. Badly. I don't like t any more than you do, but I like losing and letting them actually keep the darkies out and start deporting people even less. Occupying the moral high ground here is mutually exclusive with occupying state houses and all three branches of federal government. Sometimes you have to hold your nose and close your god damn eyes.

[Lost Soal]

You know they will yell Nation of Islam regardless of weather there are ties or not and nothing you say will change their minds, just look at Obama is muslim. How far do you go to mitigate that before you just decide to avoid anyone who isn't a straight white male.

[FireNexus]

You know they will yell Nation of Islam regardless of weather there are ties or not and nothing you say will change their minds, just look at Obama is muslim. How far do you go to mitigate that before you just decide to avoid anyone who isn't a straight white male.

As much as I dislike it, at this juncture I go all the way to straight white male. We've already sentenced ourself to a massive rollback of progressive priorities. The longer we lose by occupying the moral high ground, the worse it will get.

[Khaat]

Well, as Lincoln said*, "the moral high ground isn't where the work gets done. I read that on the Internet somewhere."

This one really is his (and relevant to the current issue): "Our government rests in public opinion. Whoever can change public opinion, can change the government, practically just so much." --December 10, 1856 Speech at Chicago

*Seriously? Obviously he didn't.

[Simon_Jester]

My opinion is that the issue should be played by ear.

A black candidate who's actually, you know, a good candidate (like Obama) is preferable to a white candidate who isn't. White racists will vote against them, but minority turnout is likely to go up dramatically to compensate. We know that can happen because it did happen, it's how Obama was able to decisively trounce two Republican presidential candidates who were considerably more mainstream than Trump and got comparable turnout. With racists (Trump included) hollering about his birth certificate all the way.

A female candidate who's dynamic and whose primary qualification for the job is something more inspiring than "it's my turn now" is preferable to a male candidate who lacks that advantage.

[Patroklos]

To me is seems like a bad idea to simply accept that we have nowhere to go but down for the next six years. Its one thing to recognize long odds. Its another to preemptively accept defeat (as much as I'm sure Patroklos would like us to, given his political sympathies).

You don't have to accept you are going nowhere, its simply assessing your current position from a stand point of harsh reality. This is not the time for Democrats strategically to wallow in self pity, avoid assigning the harsh blame, and pretending business as usual (part of that usual, btw, is declaring anyone with the slightest political difference a racist/sexist/homophobe/whatever which I see you are dead set on continuing) should have worked and will next time. The time for that was last week. Resting your hopes on pretending the structural realities of the next too Congressional election cycle don't exist and wishful thinking on a Trump self destruct (neither of which you control) is a recipe for either complacency or misapplication of efforts.

This applies to anything really. You can't build a foundation on fantasy.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know they will yell Nation of Islam regardless of weather there are ties or not and nothing you say will change their minds, just look at Obama is muslim. How far do you go to mitigate that before you just decide to avoid anyone who isn't a straight white male.

As much as I dislike it, at this juncture I go all the way to straight white male. We've already sentenced ourself to a massive rollback of progressive priorities. The longer we lose by occupying the moral high ground, the worse it will get.

We didn't lose by supporting women and minorities. We lost (barely, and not the popular vote) on a wave of anti-establishment/anti-trade deal sentiment. That's not to say that bigotry didn't play a role, but its always been their, and it alone wasn't what pushed Trump over the top.

But sure, throw women and minorities under the bus and convince yourself that its the lesser evil. You won't win the white male vote just by being bigot lite. You will only lose black, female, gay, and latino voters.

What you are arguing is morally bankrupt as well as practically dubious, and if the Democratic Party follows the path you have been suggesting, I will be bidding the Democratic Party adieu, and urging Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard to create a new progressive party.

[Lost Soal]

1. How much public impact does the DNC Chairman have? Your not asking for the public to vote for him, unless he remains a Rep a well, so what effect does his race actually have on the voting public?
2. Trump didn't win because he attracted huge additional numbers to him, he got fewer votes than the last two, however turn out for Clinton was well down. Why? Undeniably voter suppression played a part with new restrictions and thousands of voters being purged within a few weeks of the election.

[The Romulan Republic]

Valid points both.

Note that I don't think the Democratic Party will go the route FireNexus suggests. If they were inclined to, Keith Ellison wouldn't be a favoured candidate for DNC Chair.

But I find the argument that they should so horrifying, so repellent, so illogical, so cowardly and hypocritical. So utterly opposite of what we should be doing now.

And if it came to that, I probably would go third party. Because "We're only collaborators with white supremacism, not real white supremacists", is a little too much evil in my lesser evil.

[The Romulan Republic]

In the end, we lost because a distrusted candidate who for many embodied a despised establishment failed to mobilize high enough turnout, particularly from young voters.

The obvious conclusion, then, is to give people something new and genuine that they can be excited about, something they can believe in.

It is not to become Republican lite and stick to nice safe white men.

[MKSheppard]

Instant loss of security clerance followed by being moved to a non-classified project. For most people this means janitor work or in one case I heard about, a mechanical engineer racking leaves out front since he could not pass into secure spaces unless your private rather than goverment in which case it's instant termination instead. Regardless of if your doing yardwork or fired a in depth investigation would be launched and if it were determined anyone had access to said files or had the possibility of said access to files then you will be charged.[/]

Unless your a Clinton as we covered at the time, in the classified world seeing Clinton not getting charged was like seeing someone run down a half dozen school children because they ignored a bus's stop sign get off without so much as a manslaughter charge.

Again we've covered all of this, the failure to prosecute is going to go down in case law classrooms. Still waiting on the various contractors cases who are sighting Clinton case as an example.

Hi there Mr Bean.

Isn't it current practice that if say a system has just one TS/SAP piece on it; everything on that system is considered TS/SAP level classification? I'm not exactly sure on the exact ins and outs of how collective classification works.

What would happen to you if you did this, then?

http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-di ... materials/

As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton routinely asked her maid to print out sensitive government emails and documents — including ones containing classified information — from her house in Washington, DC, emails and FBI memos show. But the housekeeper lacked the security clearance to handle such material.

In fact, Marina Santos was called on so frequently to receive emails that she may hold the secrets to emailgate — if only the FBI and Congress would subpoena her and the equipment she used.

Clinton entrusted far more than the care of her DC residence, known as Whitehaven, to Santos. She expected the Filipino immigrant to handle state secrets, further opening the Democratic presidential nominee to criticism that she played fast and loose with national security.

Clinton would first receive highly sensitive emails from top aides at the State Department and then request that they, in turn, forward the messages and any attached documents to Santos to print out for her at the home.

Among other things, Clinton requested that Santos print out drafts of her speeches, confidential memos and “call sheets” — background information and talking points prepared for the secretary of state in advance of a phone call with a foreign head of state.

“Pls ask Marina to print for me in am,” Clinton emailed top aide Huma Abedin regarding a redacted 2011 message marked sensitive but unclassified.

In a classified 2012 email dealing with the new president of Malawi, another Clinton aide, Monica Hanley, advised Clinton, “We can ask Marina to print this.”

“Revisions to the Iran points” was the subject line of a classified April 2012 email to Clinton from Hanley. In it, the text reads, “Marina is trying to print for you.”

Both classified emails were marked “confidential,” the tier below “secret” or “top secret.”

Santos also had access to a highly secure room called an SCIF (sensitive compartmented information facility) that diplomatic security agents set up at Whitehaven, according to FBI notes from an interview with Abedin.

From within the SCIF, Santos — who had no clearance — “collected documents from the secure facsimile machine for Clinton,” the FBI notes revealed.

Just how sensitive were the papers Santos presumably handled? The FBI noted Clinton periodically received the Presidential Daily Brief — a top-secret document prepared by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies — via the secure fax.

A 2012 “sensitive” but unclassified email from Hanley to Clinton refers to a fax the staff wanted Clinton “to see before your Netanyahu mtg. Marina will grab for you.”

Yet it appears Clinton was never asked by the FBI in its yearlong investigation to turn over the iMac that Santos used to receive the emails, or the printer she used to print out the documents, or the printouts themselves.

As The Post first reported, copies of Clinton’s 33,000 allegedly destroyed emails still exist in other locations and could be recovered if investigators were turned loose to seize them. Higher-ups at the Justice Department reportedly have blocked them from obtaining search warrants to obtain the evidence.

It also appears the FBI did not formally interview Santos as a key witness in its investigation.

This is a major oversight: Santos may know the whereabouts of a missing Apple MacBook laptop and USB flash drive that contain all of Clinton’s emails archived over her four years in office.

In 2013, Hanley downloaded Clinton’s emails from her private server to the MacBook and flash drive.

“The two copies of the Clinton email archive (one on the archive laptop and one on the thumb drive) were intended to be stored in Clinton’s Chappaqua and Whitehaven residences,” the FBI said in its case summary.

But Hanley says the devices were “lost,” and the FBI says it “does not have either item in its possession.”

In addition to Abedin, Santos worked closely with Hanley at Whitehaven and could shed light on the mystery — if only she were asked about it.

When a Post reporter confronted Santos at her DC apartment Friday, she would say only, “I don’t speak to reporters.”

According to a 2010 profile in The Philippine Star, close Clinton friend Vernon Jordan recommended Santos to the Clintons after she worked part-time for him.

Bill Clinton gave a speech in Manila as part of his foundation and took time to visit with the family of the “mayordoma [housekeeper] of his Washington, DC, home — Marina Santos.”

He was quoted as describing Santos as the “wonderful woman who runs our home in Washington, without whom Hillary will not be able to serve as secretary of state.” The article ended remarking, without a hint of irony: “Marina now runs his house so that he and his wife can better serve interests higher than their own.”

Santos could turn out to be the Betty Currie of the Clinton email scandal. Currie was the secretary for President Clinton. She also came recommended by Jordan, and became famous as a central witness in the Monica Lewinsky scandal for her handling of gifts given to Clinton’s mistress.

Investigators had sought the gifts, allegedly hidden under Currie’s bed on orders from Clinton, as evidence.

The State Department and Clinton campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

Paul Sperry, a former DC bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily and a Hoover Institution media fellow, is the author of “Infiltration.”

This is the kind of spillage incident that makes security officers want to commit suicide.

[Q99]

I do think Ellison is likely to get it, unless these alt-right rumblings of his NoI ties are true and get traction in the mainstream press. But Dean has proven his ability to do what we need in the time period in question, and everything went to shit for the DNC downballot after he left (was likely booted at the insistence of Hillary Clinton for not taking sides in 2008 and, in her mind, costing her the nomination). Proven track record of winning so hard he got a black guy with the middle name Hussein elected with majorities in both houses of congress vs "Sanders likes him" is no contest from my perspective.

And I honesty don't expect Sanders to even live to see 2020, so I wouldn't be betting the farm on him being the new voice of the Democratic Party.

Hillary's loss pretty much killed the chance of Bernie being a major player in the long term. The Democrats will be too busy playing defense rather than anyone being able to set policy much.

Even if he's around in 2020, we'll have new names gaining visibility.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't know about that. Even if the party is on defence (which in my opinion is a mistake, as it is simply conceding any gains off the bat and letting Trump and the Republicans pick their battles and take yet more ground), the Democrats still have to have a direction and a strategy in mind. And if anything, I'd think Sanders' credibility has been bolstered by the Democratic establishment utterly face-planting after they failed to win white working class voters in states where Bernie was strong, and failed to get high youth turnout (the core Bernie demographic). The support for Ellison (a pro-Sanders, Sanders-backed progressive) for DNC chair is a sign of that, I suspect.

It also helps that the Democratic establishment has an excellent scape-goat in Comey, which means their is less of a temptation to try to blame Bernie for "dividing the party" or weakening Clinton.

That said, I'm not convinced another Bernie run in 2020 is the best approach. I'd like to see some younger faces (I'll repeat my support for Tulsi Gabbard, although their are others).

That said, I would expect Bernie to remain influential among the progressives at least, and for his endorsement to be hotly sought-after by progressive candidates.

[MKSheppard]

https://www.docdroid.net/1CJRtOg/201608 ... h.pdf.html

Miller&Chevalier
Barry J. Pollack Member
202-626-5830
bpollack@milchev.com

August 16, 2016
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND U.S. MAIL

The Honorable Loretta E. Lynch
Attorney General of the United States
Office of the Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear General Lynch:

As you are aware, on November 29, 2010, the United States Department of Justice announced it was commencing an investigation of potential crimes committed by WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange. As recently as March 15, 2016, the Department of Justice in a publicly filed court document confirmed that this "investigation continues to this day." See Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Manning v. U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 15-cv-01654-APM (D.D.C.), DE 12 at 1, 11. On May 19, 2016, in a subsequent publicly filed pleading, the Department reiterated the on-going nature of the investigation. See Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Manning v. U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 15-cv-01654-APM (D.D.C.), filed May 19, 2016, DE 16 at 1 ("[T]he FBI's ongoing investigation is focused on any civilian involvement in Manning's leak of classified records published on WikiLeaks, and not on an investigation of Manning herself"). There are three distinct components of the Department currently conducting the investigation(s): the Criminal Division, the National Security Division, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. See, e.g., Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, et al., 12-cv-127 BJR (D.D.C.), Memorandum Opinion dated March 4, 2015, DE 40, at 1, 4.

As Mr. Assange's criminal defense counsel in the United States, I have repeatedly sought information from the Department of Justice regarding this now nearly-six-year-old investigation. Despite the fact that the Department has continually publicly confirmed through court filings and statements to the press that it is conducting an on-going criminal investigation of Mr. Assange, the Department has provided me no substantive information whatsoever about the status of the investigation. Two developments during the pendency of this investigation cause me to write to you to ask that you publicly announce the closure of the criminal investigation with no criminal charges.

First, in January 2015, the Attorney General revised the Department's regulations with respect to obtaining evidence from and charging members of the news media. The revised policy noted, "The Department's policy is intended to provide protection to members of the news media from certain law enforcement tools, whether criminal or civil, that might unreasonably impair newsgathering." See United States Attorneys' Manual, 9-13.400, "Obtaining Information From, or Records of, Members of the News Media; and Questioning, Arresting, or Charging Members of the News Media." The new policy states: "No member of the Department shall present information to a grand jury seeking a bill of indictment, or file an information, against a member of the news media for any offense which he or she is suspected of having committed in the course of, or arising out of, newsgathering activities without first providing notice to the Director of the Office of Public Affairs and obtaining the express authorization of the Attorney General. 28 C.F.R. 50.10(f)(3)."

Second, last month, the Department publicly announced it was closing its criminal investigation of the handling of classified information by Hillary Clinton. The Department did so the day after FBI Director Comey recommended against prosecution, stating that "no reasonable prosecutor" would pursue the case. In his statement, and in subsequent testimony before Congress, Director Comey made it clear his conclusion was based on the necessity of proving criminal intent. Director Comey noted that responsible prosecutors consider the context of a person's actions. Criminal prosecution is appropriate only when a person was knowingly violating the law and was intending to aid enemies of the United States or was attempting to obstruct justice.

The pending criminal investigation of Mr. Assange is plainly based on his newsgathering and reporting activities. WikiLeaks has published information out of a single overriding motivation: its belief that the information being published is newsworthy. The extensive third-party media coverage of information published by WikiLeaks confirms that WikiLeaks' assessment in this regard was correct. WikiLeaks' intent was lawful. It was not to aid enemies of the United States or to obstruct justice; it was to inform the public about matters of great public interest.

Under the circumstances, there is no legitimate basis for continuing the Department's lengthy criminal investigation of Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks. Doing so chills the newsgathering and reporting of WikiLeaks and other media organizations, improperly allows the Department to evade its responsibilities to disclose information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act premised on the open investigation, and has resulted in what the United Nations has deemed to be the unlawful detention of Mr. Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for more than four years.

For all of the reasons above, please promptly inform me of the conclusion of the Department's criminal investigation of Mr. Assange. Specifically, please publicly announce: 1) there are no pending charges against Mr. Assange under seal, or, if there are, they will be promptly dismissed; and 2) the continuing criminal investigation of which he is a target will be closed immediately with no criminal charges being brought.

Thank you.
Sincerely,

Barry J. Pollack

[Dragon Angel]

As much as I dislike it, at this juncture I go all the way to straight white male. We've already sentenced ourself to a massive rollback of progressive priorities. The longer we lose by occupying the moral high ground, the worse it will get.

We didn't lose by supporting women and minorities. We lost (barely, and not the popular vote) on a wave of anti-establishment/anti-trade deal sentiment. That's not to say that bigotry didn't play a role, but its always been their, and it alone wasn't what pushed Trump over the top.

But sure, throw women and minorities under the bus and convince yourself that its the lesser evil. You won't win the white male vote just by being bigot lite. You will only lose black, female, gay, and latino voters.

What you are arguing is morally bankrupt as well as practically dubious, and if the Democratic Party follows the path you have been suggesting, I will be bidding the Democratic Party adieu, and urging Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard to create a new progressive party.

I feel somewhat vindicated with my condemnation of the NCGOP fundraising. Because I knew at some point, the liberal discourse would eventually fall into this "let's court the straight white male first and foremost" bullshit.

Yes, the answer to Hillary failing with her "keep it to the center, try to appeal to more and more Republicans" strategy is ... to go even further right on it. And people wonder why the left in this country is spineless and a total failure.

People can say what they want about Sanders and if he'd have been more effective, but golly gee we sure have trouble remembering the history of the last fucking week huh.

[Simon_Jester]

I feel somewhat vindicated with my condemnation of the NCGOP fundraising. Because I knew at some point, the liberal discourse would eventually fall into this "let's court the straight white male first and foremost" bullshit.

Yes, the answer to Hillary failing with her "keep it to the center, try to appeal to more and more Republicans" strategy is ... to go even further right on it. And people wonder why the left in this country is spineless and a total failure.

People can say what they want about Sanders and if he'd have been more effective, but golly gee we sure have trouble remembering the history of the last fucking week huh.

(points up)

Yeah, what she said.

EDIT: To expand on that now that I don't have something to take out of the oven... Basically, while the Democrats can afford to be a center-left party, they're not going to win without both "center" and "left." Looking back, Obama has been a model for successful Democratic politicians. He has a background and demeanor that convince most on the center (NOT the right) that he is a sensible, levelheaded, 'presidential' person. At the same time, he convinced many on the left that he was willing to fight for them, and has in fact done so, if not as hard as some would have liked.

Sanders had the second qualification to a moderate degree but it is questionable whether he had the first. Clinton was marginal on the first (mostly due to massive legacy negatives from the Great Smear of the '90s and '00s and on), and largely ineffective at the second.

To rally and recoup their losses, Democrats will need to pick candidates that are strong on both qualifications, regardless of their race, color, or creed. Americans will turn out and vote for diverse candidates- Clinton winning the popular vote proved that, as did Obama winning two elections in veritable landslides. But we need to remember the importance of being a center-left party.

[snip maid allegations]

This is the kind of spillage incident that makes security officers want to commit suicide.

I'll ask again.

Do you think we're going to be better off in this regard, with the president-elect? Has he historically shown respect for proper channels and regulatory procedures regarding sensitive information and secrets?

Because if I had to bet, my money's on Trump spending half the year living in a penthouse in some tower named after himself, where the duty hooker has easy access to a smorgasbord of carelessly handled classified information.

[Flagg]

As much as I dislike it, at this juncture I go all the way to straight white male. We've already sentenced ourself to a massive rollback of progressive priorities. The longer we lose by occupying the moral high ground, the worse it will get.

We didn't lose by supporting women and minorities. We lost (barely, and not the popular vote) on a wave of anti-establishment/anti-trade deal sentiment. That's not to say that bigotry didn't play a role, but its always been their, and it alone wasn't what pushed Trump over the top.

But sure, throw women and minorities under the bus and convince yourself that its the lesser evil. You won't win the white male vote just by being bigot lite. You will only lose black, female, gay, and latino voters.

What you are arguing is morally bankrupt as well as practically dubious, and if the Democratic Party follows the path you have been suggesting, I will be bidding the Democratic Party adieu, and urging Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard to create a new progressive party.

I feel somewhat vindicated with my condemnation of the NCGOP fundraising. Because I knew at some point, the liberal discourse would eventually fall into this "let's court the straight white male first and foremost" bullshit.

Yes, the answer to Hillary failing with her "keep it to the center, try to appeal to more and more Republicans" strategy is ... to go even further right on it. And people wonder why the left in this country is spineless and a total failure.

People can say what they want about Sanders and if he'd have been more effective, but golly gee we sure have trouble remembering the history of the last fucking week huh.

No shit. The thing is, if we go by the Howard Dean 50 state strategy, you don't court the bigots, the ignorant shits, or the homophobes, but you do court the rational conservatives and ask for their vote. That is shockingly effective.

But instead we had the Obama "Cling to Religion and their guns" remark (which is accurate in a very small percentage of conservative morons, it just sounded incredibly snobbish and offended the non doomsday preppers who go to church regularly and may own some guns, and Hillary's "deplorables" comment was also accurate, but when practicing politics the goal is to get people to support you as opposed to alienating them).

So I don't have a problem with courting the straight right male voter, but you do it by emphasizing what the Democrats have in common with them rather than arrogantly dismissing them or worse, changing the party to make it more regressive.

[Flagg]

I feel somewhat vindicated with my condemnation of the NCGOP fundraising. Because I knew at some point, the liberal discourse would eventually fall into this "let's court the straight white male first and foremost" bullshit.

Yes, the answer to Hillary failing with her "keep it to the center, try to appeal to more and more Republicans" strategy is ... to go even further right on it. And people wonder why the left in this country is spineless and a total failure.

People can say what they want about Sanders and if he'd have been more effective, but golly gee we sure have trouble remembering the history of the last fucking week huh.

(points up)

Yeah, what she said.

[snip maid allegations]

This is the kind of spillage incident that makes security officers want to commit suicide.

I'll ask again.

Do you think we're going to be better off in this regard, with the president-elect? Has he historically shown respect for proper channels and regulatory procedures regarding sensitive information and secrets?

Because if I had to bet, my money's on Trump spending half the year living in a penthouse in some tower named after himself, where the duty hooker has easy access to a smorgasbord of carelessly handled classified information.

Dude, do not engage. Unless you like pictures of charts unrelated to the discussion. Yeah, he does that. But i'm the shitposter.

[Simon_Jester]

Sorry, I actually had, like, a paragraph I was working on in reply to Dragon Angel. But then I had to get something out of the oven and basically just hit 'submit.' Lazy of me, I guess.

But I'm going to just keep asking him the question until it's really obvious he's not prepared to address a simple and direct question. Same goes for Bean.

Anyone who's talked about this email issue more than, oh, three times really should be willing to step up and affirm whether or not they specifically believe that Donald Trump would have been a more competent and responsible handler of classified information had he been Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. And whether they expect Trump to be competent and responsible with classified information while in the White House.

[Lonestar]

This is the kind of spillage incident that makes security officers want to commit suicide.

President-elect Chucklefuck wants his kids to have TS/SCIs so man it's a good thing we kept HRC out if we're concerned about spillages.

[His Divine Shadow]

Who gives a fuck about qualifications, honestly? From the perspective of the average voter that is. I mean Trump won, he ain't got none but he still won. I remember thinking what the big deal was when people tried to shit on Bernie with that earlier on during the primaries. People don't want someone who understands the system and can fine tune it, they want someone who destroys it and is not tainted by it.

[Dragon Angel]

Who gives a fuck about qualifications, honestly? From the perspective of the average voter that is. I mean Trump won, he ain't got none but he still won. I remember thinking what the big deal was when people tried to shit on Bernie with that earlier on during the primaries. People don't want someone who understands the system and can fine tune it, they want someone who destroys it and is not tainted by it.

Yeah, a lot of the problems I have with any predicting of what will work in the coming years is that, by last week's very example, almost every model of prediction we have used is now flawed, if not completely outdated. Relying on them again without overhauling them will only lead to walking right off a cliff.