US Election Discussion Post weekend edition 29/10/16

Written By: - Date published: 5:14 am, October 29th, 2016 - 152 comments
Categories: us politics, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: , ,

This week we are trialling something new. In order to free up Open Mike and Daily Review for other conversations we are asking that all discussion, posting of links etc on the US election goes in the daily dedicated thread rather than OM or DR.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

There will continue to be author-written posts on the US election as well, usual rules apply there too.

152 comments on “US Election Discussion Post weekend edition 29/10/16 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Michael 1
    29 October 2016 at 6:09 am

    I was a Bernie supporter and quite anti-Hillary.

    But now I have to say, I’ve really come around on Hillary.

    Before I was just anti-Trump, and seeing Hillary as the lesser of two evils, but now I’m more convinced that a Hillary presidency can be effective. While I have major concerns over foreign policy still, I think that with a Democratic congress and a progressive movement led by Sanders and Warren, Hillary can get some things done that will ensure positive change.

    **A few things that I think can definitely happen**
    – Passing immigration reform that will ensure undocumented immigrant families aren’t deported.
    – Heavy spending on new infrastructure to stimulate the economy and repair crumbling infrastructure.
    – Appointing progressive judges to the Supreme Court that will overturn Citizens United and protect abortion rights, and ensure stricter gun control.
    – Going further than Obama on climate action.
    – Progressives in the Senate can block any overly Wall St-friendly appointments
    – A cabinet that will be 50% women and the most diverse in history.
    – TPP, at least in current form, will not pass.

    **A few things that have a chance of happening if Congress aligns**
    – Passing paid parental leave and more affordable childcare.
    – Raising the minimum wage to $12 an hour and eliminating subminimum wages, but I don’t think $15 will happen nationally unfortunately.
    – Ensuring the wealthy pay more in taxes.
    – Making tertiary education more affordable.
    – Equal pay for women.

    • Karen 1.1
      29 October 2016 at 10:12 am

      +1 Michael.
      The key to some progressive policies getting through is a Democratic majority in the Senate, and having Warren and Sanders in positions to put pressure on Clinton will be very important.

  2. Andre 2
    29 October 2016 at 6:09 am

    Oh dear. Jill Stein gets a lot of mileage out of purity and principle politics. But it seems that behind the facade, she’s happy to play the game too.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/26/jill-stein-s-ideology-says-one-thing-her-investment-portfolio-says-another.html?via=FB_Page&source=HuffPoFacebook

    • Colonial Viper 2.1
      29 October 2016 at 1:14 pm

      That smacks of desperate smearing of Jill Stein, I’m afraid.

      Stein and her husband jointly invest in large generic mutual funds which cover all sectors of the economy, including oil and gas, etc. So do most people.

      What are you going to say next – because Stein flies and uses a car she’s a moral sell out to the environmental cause?

      • Andre 2.1.1
        29 October 2016 at 2:03 pm

        It’s quite difficult to avoid flying or using a car.

        It’s very easy to find environmentally and socially responsible mutual funds to invest in. Did it myself, coz it’s the right thing to do, without the added motivation of being the leader of a group that spends a lot of time publicly being holier-than-thou.

        • weka 2.1.1.1
          29 October 2016 at 2:24 pm

          I agree on the ethical investments (see below). Flying and driving though, there are still ethical choices to be made that are relatively easy. One doesn’t have to be absolute about it, one can make choices to do it less, to change one’s life over time to rely on it less etc.

      • weka 2.1.2
        29 October 2016 at 2:21 pm

        I had a good read through of the online commentary on this yesterday.

        1. some of the funds are in generic investments where Stein would have little control over where the money went. She would still easily know that those funds were likely to be being invested in fossil fuels and corporate banking. She didn’t have to invest in that way.

        2. some of the funds were directly into investments where she would have control, and those funds also are in things she is actively against. Again, there is choice here.

        The general consensus seems to be that she invested her money for the best return at the expense of ethical investment. Yes, that is what most people do. Most people support fossil fuels and big banking. Stein doesn’t, except at the personal financial level.

        It’s a fuck up on her part. If the Green MPs in NZ were doing this, they should be criticised too. It’s not going to surprise me if some of them do, because as you say, most people do. It’s still worthy of criticism and ethical analysis.

        If she has something like $3.5M worth of investments, how much of a return does she actually need? At that level, one could easily invest in lower $ return and higher ethical return and still make money to live on. Unless one was being greedy. The only rationale I could see for choosing higher $ return would be if the returns were funding her political campaign, but then there is still an issue there of ethical compromise undermining the political ethics and message.

        Myself, I just put it in the ‘anyone running for president in the US is going to be corrupt somewhere along the line, (it’s a requirement of the job)’ bracket. It doesn’t mean she doesn’t do good things in general, but she is not above criticism either.

        Always interesting to see who supports a 2%er doing status quo, pro-capitalist actions when they don’t need to.

        • Andre 2.1.2.1
          29 October 2016 at 2:28 pm

          “corrupt somewhere along the line” seems a bit harsh in this case. I’d put it as “flawed in some way”.

          • weka 2.1.2.1.1
            29 October 2016 at 3:07 pm

            In Stein’s case I was thinking corrupt as in morally questionable rather than dishonest or bribable etc, but fair enough. Maybe somewhere between corrupt and flawed then.

        • Karen 2.1.2.2
          29 October 2016 at 2:51 pm

          I had a closer look at Jill Stein a few months back and decided that, although she has done some really good things in environmental terms she wasn’t someone I would be voting for if I had a vote in the US elections. She has some unfortunate baggage (mostly financial) and some of her views on various issues are not ones I could could ever support. I was not, therefore, at all surprised to read about these investments.

          Politicians always end up having a “the ends justify the means” situation. In the end it comes down to who gets hurt and who benefits, and that ends up a judgement of personal values for the politician and the voter.

          • weka 2.1.2.2.1
            29 October 2016 at 3:12 pm

            “and some of her views on various issues are not ones I could could ever support.”

            Me too, but that’s true of everyone running, so how does one vote? Likewise the point of who gets hurt. For me it’s pragmatics. Clinton to keep Trump out, out of necessity for preserving the remaining power we have. Or Stein to support a change in values at the political level away from R/D (despite her flaws and problematic stances on things).

            I agree that politicians always end up having a “the ends justify the means” situation. That’s a good way of putting it, better than my attempt above by calling them all corrupt.

            • Pasupial 2.1.2.2.1.1
              29 October 2016 at 6:23 pm

              Ovid’s maxim; “Exitus acta probat”, is often translated as; “the ends justify the means” (and attributed to Machiavelli). However, it does not mean that; the intended results excuse any action, nearly the opposite in fact. The problem is “probat” being translated as “justify”, which is only accurate if you use an archaic version of the word (prove might be better, but that has shifted meaning too). It might be better to say that; the results demonstrate the worth of those actions used to achieve them.

              Anyway, this is all a bit of an irrelevant aside, but I’ve typed it now. I don’t actually expect anyone to stop using the phrase as a glib way to excuse their failings.

  5. Pasupial 5
    29 October 2016 at 8:26 am

    New emails surface sending the Republic machine into overdrive condemning Clinton. But where were they discovered, and what do they actually say in the contents?

    “In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation,”… I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.”

    Comey added: “Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant and I cannot predict how long it will take to complete this additional work

    ”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/28/fbi-reopens-hillary-clinton-emails-investigation

    Gee, do you think you could vague that up a bit?

    • joe90 5.1
      29 October 2016 at 8:58 am

      Of course Trump’s saying that his faith in the FBI and DOJ has been restored because, well, now that they’re focusing on Clinton again they aren’t as corrupt as he’s spent months saying they were.

      Then there’s this.

      New emails tied to the FBI's Clinton inquiry were discovered during the investigation into Anthony Weiner's sexting https://t.co/FMHEkn03B0— The New York Times (@nytimes) October 28, 2016

      (I’ve done my ten NYT freebies for the month so I’ve not read the article and I can’t be arsed with a work-around)

    • joe90 5.2
      29 October 2016 at 9:21 am

      What to make of this?.

      Pete Williams has sources saying not about Clinton world w/holding emails. Not about Podesta emails. Not emails from Clinton.— Sam Stein (@samsteinhp) October 28, 2016

      1. FBI not reopening the investigation.2. Comey legally had 2 inform Congress, because he testified they had finished reviewing evidence,— Kurt Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) October 28, 2016

      If we don't hear more from Comey, we just have to conclude that he was trying to swing election. And *that* should be the story.— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) October 28, 2016

  6. Richard Rawshark 6
    29 October 2016 at 9:16 am

    Perhaps the FBI has a plan, and that plan is to immediately arrest the winner and force a new Election? IDNK but both these contenders are seriously flawed, perhaps the ebst thing would be to disqualify them both at a late stage and get a new one going for the sake of humanity?

    Probably need more coffee, it’s early.

  8. Andre 8
    29 October 2016 at 10:16 am

    Seth Meyer on Trump and the GOP

    https://youtu.be/zkSm1Pgyy7w

  10. Morrissey 10
    29 October 2016 at 11:20 am

    On WikiLeaks, Journalism, and Privacy:
    Reporting on the Podesta Archive Is an Easy Call
    by Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept, October 14 2016

    FOR YEARS, WIKILEAKS has been publishing massive troves of documents online — usually taken without authorization from powerful institutions and then given to the group to publish — while news outlets report on their relevant content. In some instances, these news outlets work in direct partnership with WikiLeaks — as the New York Times and The Guardian, among others, did when jointly publishing the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs and U.S. diplomatic cables — while other times media outlets simply review the archives published by WikiLeaks and then report on what they deem newsworthy.

    WikiLeaks has always been somewhat controversial, but reaction has greatly intensified this year because many of its most significant leaks have had an impact on the U.S. presidential election and, in particular, have focused on Democrats. As a result, Republicans who long vilified the group as a grave national security threat have become its biggest fans (“I love WikiLeaks,” Donald Trump gushed last night, even though he previously called for Edward Snowden to be executed), while Democrats who cheered the group for its mass leaks about Bush-era war crimes now scorn it as an evil espionage tool of the Kremlin.

    The group’s recent publication of the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta has been particularly controversial because it comes less than a month before the election; it included all sorts of private and purely personal exchanges along with substantive, newsworthy material; and it was obtained through actions that were likely criminal (hacking). Compounding the intensity of the debate is the now standard Democratic campaign tactic of reflexively accusing adversaries of being tools or agents of Moscow.

    As a result, it’s worth reviewing a few crucial principles and facts about the journalistic process….

    Read more…
    https://theintercept.com/2016/10/13/on-wikileaks-journalism-and-privacy-reporting-on-the-podesta-archive-is-an-easy-call/

  11. Richard Rawshark 11
    29 October 2016 at 12:55 pm

    http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/politics/new-emails-in-clinton-case-came-from-anthony-weiner%E2%80%99s-electronic-devices/ar-AAjxsUE?li=BBv6TfA&ocid=spartandhp

    So here’s an pretty good educated guess at what happened.

    Hillarys used her press secretary and access to personal information to feed through her email server classified information on her opponents for her press secretary to use.

    Now as her press secretary’s dumb assed husband like sending pics of his willy he got investigated and her phone had the trail and information on it has come to light.

    If Hillary indeed sent her press secretary highly classified personal information to use to help her presidential campaign she is up shit creek without a paddle unless she can bury it and influence the FBI.

    Or not. but that would be a pretty good educated guess I think.

    • Lanthanide 11.1
      29 October 2016 at 1:08 pm

      Currently available information says:
      – The emails were not sent by Clinton
      – The emails are not from her server
      – The emails are not ones that were withheld from the earlier investigation

      It appears it might be something someone sent to (or by) this aide with commentary or extra information about the server situation, but they don’t appear to be emails that Clinton herself had anything to do with.

      So far it looks like this whole thing has been blown up out of proportion, because Comey’s letter is very sparse on actual information, and so Trump, the press (and the public) have projected their own ideas into the vacuum.

      • Richard Rawshark 11.1.1
        29 October 2016 at 1:35 pm

        Not enough info yet L, IMHO there is initially after these things are announced, a shit storm of subterfuge, misdirection and playing down of the issue.

        As the story develops the truth comes out, my past experiences lead me to believe the truth has to be squeezed out of these people till there is none left, they roll on the misgiving, what the people don’t know were not telling them.

      • Macro 11.1.2
        29 October 2016 at 1:52 pm

        Exactly so. This is IMHO nothing more than a beat up by Comey (a Republican of long standing who has had it in for the Clinton’s for as long as he has been around). With Trump having little more than a 20% chance of winning at this stage, Comey is attempting to increase the odds. This is not the only instance in the States where incumbent political officials have attempted to influence the outcome of an election in their favour. Just yesterday an Attorney General was sent to jail for such an offence.

        • Richard Rawshark 11.1.2.1
          29 October 2016 at 1:59 pm

          OH come on 20%, give him his due, it’s going to be closer come election day than that, just remember there’s a professor who’s never been wrong on the election result since 84, using a set of indicators that have nothing to do with polls who’s just doubled down on Trump.

            • Richard Rawshark 11.1.2.1.1.1
              29 October 2016 at 2:21 pm

              So how accurate do you think that site and it’s polls are, where do there vested interests lay, IE who owns it what do they vote.

              • Lanthanide …
                29 October 2016 at 5:20 pm

                They aren’t “their” polls. They’re a poll aggregator. They take all published polls and analyse them in as impartial and scientific fashion as they can.

                So far their record is 50 out of 50 states accurately predicted in 2012, and 49 out of 50 in 2008, alongside predictions for US house and senate seats (which I don’t know their precise record on, but have no reason to suspect they’re less accurate than their presidential predictions).

                They’re owned by ESPN, although they used to be owned by The New York Times.

                • Richard Rawshark …
                  29 October 2016 at 5:30 pm

                  Ok cheer L, hadn’t heard of the site and it’s name was a bit weird , like something out of a tool song.

        • Colonial Viper 11.1.2.2
          29 October 2016 at 3:51 pm

          This is IMHO nothing more than a beat up by Comey (a Republican of long standing who has had it in for the Clinton’s for as long as he has been around).

          Firstly, Comey is a political appointee of Barack Obama. If he wants a job next term he has to stay close to Hillary. Trump will never select him as FBI director.

          Secondly, it is clear that Comey was a pretty good FBI director, until Russian President Vladimir Putin got to him and turned him into a Russian double agent.

          • Richard Rawshark 11.1.2.2.1
            29 October 2016 at 5:33 pm

            I just watched a video of Comey in front of senators completely exonerate Hillary. You confuse me by saying that CV, as he looks to have been under the microscope for his actions.

    • Colonial Viper 11.2
      29 October 2016 at 1:09 pm

      For the FBI to announce their 180deg turn around on the investigation just before the election suggests that something so big is in the works that the Clinton machine influence has hit its very limits.

      What to watch for: any further circumstantial evidence that the Deep State has decided to turn against Clinton – for whatever reason.

      • Lanthanide 11.2.1
        29 October 2016 at 1:17 pm

        It’s not an “180deg turn around on the investigation”.

        The investigation was not officially closed. Comey made testimony to congress saying all relevant information had been reviewed. New information that may be relevant to the case has been uncovered, and so he has alerted congress that his previous testimony is now out of date and needs to be corrected.

        All evidence so far suggests this has been a massive over-reaction. That of course will still damage Clinton’s campaign.

        • Colonial Viper 11.2.1.1
          29 October 2016 at 3:53 pm

          The key point is that Comey previously declared that “no reasonable prosecutor” would charge Hillary Clinton based on the evidence available at that time.

          Now there is new evidence.

          • Lanthanide 11.2.1.1.1
            29 October 2016 at 3:59 pm

            Yes, and presently its not known if the new evidence is relevant, because it hasn’t been investigated yet.

            • Colonial Viper 11.2.1.1.1.1
              29 October 2016 at 6:41 pm

              I am almost sure that Comey knows that there is new *relevant* evidence in the pile, and that amongst them there are a few sticks of pure dynamite.

              I say that because otherwise he would not have needed to formulate and send his painfully vague cover-arse letter to Congress about amending his recent testimony.

              Because: sooner or later, this “dynamite” evidence is going to go off with a bang, and members of Congress are going to be interrogating Comey about his previous testimony.

              If the new email haul is all about weddings, yoga classes and duplicates of existing known emails, the issue would never be raised.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                29 October 2016 at 6:51 pm

                I am almost sure that Comey knows that there is new *relevant* evidence in the pile, and that amongst them there are a few sticks of pure dynamite.

                Translation: being clueless won’t stop me from rejecting the outcome if I don’t like it.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  29 October 2016 at 6:58 pm

                  You missed out adding anything relevant.

                  Comey clearly knew that his notification letter to Republican Congressional heads would cause a media firestorm at this stage of the election cycle.

                  But he did it anyway because he came to the conclusion that he absolutely had to, and could not wait 11 days.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    29 October 2016 at 7:01 pm

                    Suuuuuurrrrrrrrre.

                    What I mean to say is: your opinion is irrelevant, because if Comey says there’s new evidence against Clinton you’ll read far too much into it, and if he says there isn’t you’ll accuse him of lying.

                    Just another reader who’s had a gutsful of your shit, CV.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      29 October 2016 at 7:21 pm

                      Your opinion that my opinion is irrelevant is itself irrelevant, but I welcome you to continue to hold it.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      29 October 2016 at 7:26 pm

                      Don’t piss in my pocket: you support a man who wants to jail his political opponents.

                    • Peter Swift …
                      29 October 2016 at 7:33 pm

                      “you support a man who wants to jail his political opponents.”

                      It’s a pattern. Think Putin, who remarkebly keeps running out of opponents as they either get incarcerated or wind up dead in suspicious circumstances.
                      Though he can, which gets some gushing, speak unscripted for hours before going off to fight bears and tigers with his shirt off.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      29 October 2016 at 7:35 pm

                      More irrelevancies? Keep on going, you are on a roll.

                      Now, can you make your point?

                    • Peter Swift …
                      29 October 2016 at 7:38 pm

                      “Now, can you make your point?”

                      Already did. Have a look behind you. It’s right there in the back of the net.

                  • Richard Rawshark …
                    29 October 2016 at 7:54 pm

                    CV, do you not think the bloody lot of them are as bent as a Uri Gellar spoon?

                    To think Putin an example of virtue is naïve in the extreme.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      29 October 2016 at 9:22 pm

                      I don’t think of Putin as an “example of virtue”. I think of Putin as a leader who put together the team which pulled his entire country back from the very brink of deliberate implosion and then went on to rebuild the nation bit by bit.

                  • TheExtremist …
                    30 October 2016 at 4:41 am

                    “But he did it anyway because he came to the conclusion that he absolutely had to, and could not wait 11 days.”

                    I am frankly sickened by this. From a person that has spent the last three fucking weeks questioning why all of a sudden woman would come forward and complain that Trump had sexually abused them you have the goddamned audacity to say this guy should be taken seriously because he had to say something that couldn’t wait.

                    That is straight up fucking bullshit.

              • Lanthanide …
                29 October 2016 at 9:02 pm

                Actually the opposite is true: he’s doesn’t know what is in this, and is sending that letter to cover is arse for any eventuality.

                Given that sources have already said that emails were not from Clinton, not from her server and not anything that was withheld from earlier in the investigation, it does make it difficult to imagine there’s going to be anything specifically damaging to her.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  29 October 2016 at 9:25 pm

                  Can I contrast something in what you wrote and ask you to compare your own statements? I have my own opinion but am interested in your view

                  Firstly

                  he’s doesn’t know what is in this, and is sending that letter to cover is arse for any eventuality.

                  Then

                  sources have already said that emails were not from Clinton, not from her server and not anything that was withheld from earlier

                  • Lanthanide …
                    29 October 2016 at 10:00 pm

                    Pretty easy, CV. New information comes to light – write letter in case of any eventuality.

                    More information comes to light, which is shared with the media. I don’t know who the sources are, but I’d have thought they would have said it was Comey if he were the source.

                    Also, the fact that he was so vague about the issue, lends more credence to it not being immediately clear what the emails may mean – that is, they’re not a clear smoking gun, and may require further questioning of other involved individuals to determine how relevant they are.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      29 October 2016 at 10:26 pm

                      But how confident are you that someone has already gone through the thousands of new emails which allowed them to ascertain that none of them are from Hillary, that they did not go through her server, and they included no materials that were witheld from the previous investigation?

                      I don’t know who the sources are, but I’d have thought they would have said it was Comey if he were the source.

                      Which Federal organisation has had the access required to evaluate all these emails? Clearly it is the FBI. Is it not. The source does not need to have been Comey personally.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      29 October 2016 at 10:57 pm

                      I’m not confident of anything.

                      The point is, though, I’m looking for all available information and drawing conclusions from it.

                      You’re speculating on a wet dream.

                • Richard Rawshark …
                  30 October 2016 at 7:42 am

                  I think many of CV’s talking points are valid, he like myself is sceptical of bullshit.

                  here’s a few points I think others need to take in perspective.

                  Donald trumps and egotistic wanker, However, without doubt Hillary is a master of dirty politics, has an army of media and government support behind her, and there is without doubt dirty politics coming on, now the sweet old lady m,ay not be everyone’s immediate thought, but facts show the truth.

                  Take the Heralds piece on Clintons lies..

                  http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11738420

                  Fact check. good facts check them out..

                  You circumvent the watchers (security) for what purpose?

                  Nothing OK about what she did, and knowingly, then there is the 250m the Clintons made in a couple years.

                  If one National MP was doing that you’d be over it alike flys on shit.

                  I too, am marvelled how suddenly all these women appear just before the election when he’s been campaigning for how long?

                  Take a step back from your horror of sexual assault and breathe a minute between your hysteria at anyone who says, is this true?

                  General reply L, not directed or aimed at you. your comment just incurred my general reply on the thread.

      • joe90 11.2.2
        29 October 2016 at 1:32 pm

        The FBI didn’t announce anything, they wrote a fucking letter to congressional leaders about the Clinton email investigation.

        This is competent ratfucking by the GOP.

    • Poission 11.3
      29 October 2016 at 1:16 pm

      Thousands of emails have been discovered.

      The problem for clinton is for so called unimportant emails that were deleted off her servers are in deed confidential (read government classified) on the recipients devices.

      Then she would have indeed lied to both FBI and congress and be liable to a semester or two in some mid western federal gulag.

      http://www.businessinsider.com.au/fbi-re-opening-investigation-into-hillary-private-e-mail-server-2016-10?r=US&IR=T

      • Lanthanide 11.3.1
        29 October 2016 at 1:19 pm

        No, thousands of emails have been taken from Abedin’s and Weiner’s accounts. That’s what happens when you’re looking to see if someone has had inappropriate communication with minors – you go through *all* of their correspondence.

        No one has said thousands of emails are related to the FBI’s investigation of Clinton.

        How many emails have you got in your personal inbox (assuming you don’t delete any)? How many of those hundreds/thousands of emails are about any 1 particular topic? A very small number, I would suggest.

        • Poission 11.3.1.1
          29 October 2016 at 1:27 pm

          The preliminary reading of the emails by FBI investigators,required them to brief Comey , and in turn his requirement to brief the oversight committee
          ( and u turn) which suggests the correspondence was not discussing which deli has the best baloney sandwich.

          The problem is obvious.

        • lprent 11.3.1.2
          29 October 2016 at 3:12 pm

          I have emails going back to 1986 in my mail system.

          About 30% in automated spam trap folders that I don’t both cleaning out and about 20% in automated logging folders (notifications of backups etc) that I also don’t clean out.

          God knows what else in in there because I barely manage to read more than 30% of the emails under normal circumstances. Mostly I read the subject line, who it is from, and direct to the “learn to recognise spam” folders or ignore it.

          Space is cheap.

  12. joe90 12
    29 October 2016 at 1:25 pm

    Clinton on the latest emails.

    BREAKING: Hillary Clinton addresses FBI director's revelation of new review related to private email server case. https://t.co/vSxftfXcIZ— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) October 28, 2016

    https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/792142514471907329

    • Richard Rawshark 12.1
      29 October 2016 at 1:43 pm

      yep the usual move on, nothing to see here, and remember vote Hillary, if you don’t our voting machines will.

    • marty mars 12.2
      29 October 2016 at 5:55 pm

      Yep joe – now clinton has the audacity to ask the for the following

      “Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is calling on the FBI to release more information about its review of emails that may be related to its investigation into her private server.”

      and

      “”Let’s get it out,” said Clinton, hours after the FBI announced it was reviewing newly discovered emails to see if they are relevant to its closed investigation into her private email server.”

      and

      “She said the American people deserved to have as much information as possible before they voted in less than two weeks.”

      and

      “”The [FBI] director himself has said he doesn’t know whether the emails referenced in his letter are significant or not. I’m confident whatever they are will not change the conclusion reached in July.””

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/85870023/fbi-to-review-newly-discovered-emails-related-to-hillary-clintons-private-email-use

      This is classic deep state machine logic politics – now that machines can mostly win at chess we should expect these very very devious ruses to come along where the deep state pretends to do something so that it can actually do the opposite and then claim it did neither but rather a 3rd option not even on the radar.

      Clinton obviously has something unspeakable to hide otherwise she wouldn’t ask for everything to be revealed. She knows the deep state is deep and a state and that it can cover ANYTHING up. I’m shocked trump and his acolytes have fallen for this deep state 101 play – shows they aren’t fit for office.

    • Richard Rawshark 13.1
      29 October 2016 at 1:44 pm

      The Democratic Coalition Against Trump

      I just pissed my pants laughing.

      • Richard Rawshark 13.1.1
        29 October 2016 at 1:49 pm

        The coalition of anti, anti trump, reversed, will, I have been assured from my sources lay charges relating to the security of the USA be laid with the CIA that the DOJ are accusing the FBI of interfering with the CIA’s oversight of the FBI investigation into whether the DOJ is interfering with an FBI investigation of the C..,

        I think you get what’s coming…

      • joe90 13.1.2
        29 October 2016 at 1:49 pm

        Have you always had urinary incontinence problems?.

        • Richard Rawshark 13.1.2.1
          29 October 2016 at 1:56 pm

          Only when I hear there is actually a thing called “The Democratic Coalition Against Trump”

          Real democratic that.

          • Pasupial 13.1.2.1.1
            29 October 2016 at 6:28 pm

            I’m sure that the name is funny in your own head, but you might have to explain it to the rest of us.
            Do you mean that coalitions are undemocratic?
            Or is it the being against political opponents?

            • Richard Rawshark 13.1.2.1.1.1
              29 October 2016 at 7:37 pm

              NO that a group of people form against someone, I find that funny as democracy is not about stifling expression but allowing it and letting the people decide, yet over in the states anti campaigns are allowed.

              So hence forth I am the founding member of the Coalition against John Key.

              memberships open everyone who wants rid of Key please join.

              And lastly because I read the post in seriousness till I got to the point where it said the Coalition against Trump had laid a complaint with the DOJ and all seriousness vanished. it looks ridiculous, is this how they campaign over there? It’s like watching children squabble.

  16. Andre 16
    29 October 2016 at 3:42 pm

    Uh-oh. They caught the 32nd case of in person voter fraud (out of over a billion votes cast), red-handed in the act. She’s a Trump supporter.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/voter-fraud-donald-trump-iowa_us_5813e775e4b0390e69d075a4

    • Colonial Viper 16.1
      29 October 2016 at 4:00 pm

      Democrats are way better at voter fraud than that. They’ve had practice for years. Ref: Project Veritas videos.

      • Andre 16.1.1
        29 October 2016 at 4:06 pm

        I guess we’ll see if any arrests come out of those videos. Or whether it ends up like James O’Keefe’s mate David Daleiden and the “Planned Parenthood sells baby parts” videos. Y’know, where the grand jury convened to consider charges against Planned Parenthood looked at all the evidence, decided Planned Parenthood were not guilty and indicted Daleiden instead.

  17. Chooky 17
    29 October 2016 at 6:36 pm

    FBI is running scared of wikileaks…even more scared than it is of the Clintons

    ‘Gingrich on what the FBI October surprise means for Clinton’

    • Colonial Viper 17.1
      29 October 2016 at 6:47 pm

      Thanks for the link Chooky. Hannity is too often under-rated IMO.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 17.1.1
        29 October 2016 at 6:58 pm

        LOL

      • marty mars 17.1.2
        29 October 2016 at 7:54 pm

        hannity does a cameo in a trump election video – yeah he’s really under-rated alright – wonder how much he had to pay trump to get in that ad – maybe he’s going for a cut of the monetising of trumpies supporters.

      • TheExtremist 17.1.3
        30 October 2016 at 4:50 am

        Hannity is too often under-rated IMO

        All I have is….. wow.

        • Pasupial 17.1.3.1
          30 October 2016 at 10:14 am

          People may see Hannity as a mere paid shill, when in fact he is a committed propagandist for the very worst impulses of anti-socialists. I guess you could call that being under-rated.

    • marty mars 17.2
      29 October 2016 at 7:52 pm

      ” the clinton family business is in fact a corporation engaged in organised crime”

      gingrich is unhinged

      like this lot starting from don on down

      “Donald Trump really is building a wall. But his supporters are going to pay for it.

      “I want to show you something very special,” the candidate says in a video out Thursday. “I am dedicating this wall right here in Trump Tower to a select group. . . . They chipped in whenever and however they can.”

      In a QVC-worthy pitch, Trump continues: “The wall has only space for 2,000 more supporters. Contribute today . . .”

      It was an undignified position for a presidential candidate less than two weeks before the election, selling off naming rights to a Trump Tower wall for contributions of $49 or more. And the symbolism was unhelpful: Such walls of names bring to mind the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and others that honor the fallen.”

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/newt-gingrich-alex-jones-and-the-other-bricks-in-trumps-wall-of-shame/2016/10/28/bb652aee-9d09-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html?utm_term=.00eeddb51916

      • Colonial Viper 17.2.1
        29 October 2016 at 8:10 pm

        ” the clinton family business is in fact a corporation engaged in organised crime”

        A little hyperbolic perhaps, and we need to recognise that not all unethical/immoral/corrupt activities are definitively criminal in nature, but I think Gingrich’s comment is heading in the right direction.

        • marty mars 17.2.1.1
          29 October 2016 at 8:15 pm

          nah he is short on some major neural connections – like trump and a lot of trump supporters – driven to the depths with irrational hatred and undisguised self interest

          • Tony Veitch (not the partner-bashing 3rd rate broadcaster 17.2.1.1.1
            29 October 2016 at 9:30 pm

            What I found most disturbing was the reference to Richard Nixon – that he was elected with huge popular support – and 18 months later was being impeached!

            I think, if she wins, Hillary’s time as president will be beset with major problems!

            • Colonial Viper 17.2.1.1.1.1
              29 October 2016 at 9:39 pm

              major with a capital M

            • marty mars 17.2.1.1.1.2
              29 October 2016 at 9:54 pm

              yeah – as the twilight’s last gleaming at the end of empire for the states unfolds it will become very problematic – clinton will have it tough but not as tough as trump whether he wins or loses. He just hasn’t got a hope and would/will make so many bad calls that he really would be the last pres. But I suspect he’ll end up as a money making schmoozer (sorta like a las vegas evangelical act) or in Jail.

              • Colonial Viper …
                29 October 2016 at 10:05 pm

                I’m mystified by what you mean. IMO Clinton is simply going to profiteer from her time in the Oval Office, corrupt the institutions of the Federal Govt further, and focus on furthering the agenda of a tiny free market globalist elite.

                • marty mars …
                  29 October 2016 at 11:10 pm

                  Yes I know your opinion. No doubt clinton will have problems, some major. Trump whether pres or as a carnival sideshow drumming up money will/would be worse simply because he hasn’t got good decision making skills imo. If he did get to pres he would definitely profiteer from his time in the Oval Office, corrupt the institutions of the Federal Govt further, and focus on furthering the agenda of a tiny free market globalist elite which includes him and his 0.1% buddies – so yep I agree with you there.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    29 October 2016 at 11:19 pm

                    Come now, marty mars, that’s a cheap rhetorical trick you used there.

                    I came to those conclusions about what Hillary Clinton is likely to do based on how she sold out the office of the Secretary of State.

                    Now, Trump benefitted from the tiny free market globalist elite yes – but he is not a member of that club. He is not a DC insider, he is not an investment banking insider, he is not a military industrial surveillance complex insider, he is not a Bilderberger.

                    Clinton on the other hand, is.

                    As for profiteering from the Oval Office.

                    What you need to understand is that for the Clintons, their elected public life is utterly central to their ability to make millions of dollars a month.

                    For Trump, he makes his millions a month from private enterprise. So IMO he has no need to use the Oval Office to make (what to him is) small $$$.

                    • marty mars …
                      29 October 2016 at 11:37 pm

                      trump is a billionaire isn’t he. He is a DC insider – photos show he knows them well – hell even that nice shot of him buddy buddy with clinton was on here recently, or he will become one soon enough – he couldn’t survive DC without being one – the maverick pose is another lie. He is/has owed wall st and the bankers money and favours – you don’t get to billionaire without that happening imo. He wants to bomb the families of suspects and distribute the nukes so I’m sure the military etc insiders will love him to bits, even more than they do now.

                      trump needs the money, that much is obvious and he’ll do whatever to get it – just watch his monetising campaigns – they’ll come thick and fast.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      29 October 2016 at 11:57 pm

                      BTW I probably have a narrower definition of being a DC insider than you do.

                      By “DC insider” I don’t mean a big rich donor who gets invited to pay $10,000 for a dinner seat at a Clinton fundraiser, or someone who adds celebrity pizzazz.

                      People like that are simply the glamourous trimmings to the DC political set.

                      I do mean someone who is a power player in the halls of Congress, in the halls of the White House, someone who gets knocks on the door from Fortune 500 corporate lobbyists, someone who understands the networks and levers of how things get done in DC and often pulls those levers themselves.

                      That’s the Clintons to a tee.

                      trump needs the money, that much is obvious and he’ll do whatever to get it – just watch his monetising campaigns – they’ll come thick and fast.

                      Forbes: Trump net worth falls US$800M to US$3.7B

                      http://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferwang/2016/09/28/the-definitive-look-at-donald-trumps-wealth-new/#1aa590cc7e2d

                    • marty mars …
                      30 October 2016 at 12:09 am

                      Yeah I’m sure our definitions differ. To fit yours you have to be ELECTED or at least do a dc job. Trump hasn’t so under your def he could NEVER be a dc insider could he?

                      So the whole thing is moot and spin.

                      Trump is a liar – we’ll see some truth when he released his tax returns lol sorry IF HE ever does.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      30 October 2016 at 12:19 am

                      Trump’s tax return is of limited relevance to how he will conduct himself in the Oval Office. After all, the IRS apparently has no issues with his tax return.

                      Hillary’s behaviour as Sec State however is of incredibly high relevance to how she will conduct herself in the Oval Office.

                      And yes, Trump does lie at times. Or at least grossly exaggerate/embelish.

                      Let me ask you a question – do you believe that Hillary Clinton has ever lied to the FBI or lied to Congress about her handling of government emails and confidential information?

                    • TheExtremist …
                      30 October 2016 at 4:59 am

                      “I do mean someone who is a power player in the halls of Congress, in the halls of the White House, someone who gets knocks on the door from Fortune 500 corporate lobbyists, someone who understands the networks and levers of how things get done in DC and often pulls those levers themselves.”

                      Not bad for someone who was, just recently, about to be felled by Parkinsons, Cerebral Palsy, Alzheimer.

                      Get your fucking story right dude. One second shes at deaths door and the next shes fucking ringing every bell on Wall Street.

                    • marty mars …
                      30 October 2016 at 7:47 am

                      @cv I think everyone lies in some way shape or form. Personally the emails are yesterdays news for me – irrelevant to the job ahead for clinton.

                    • Chooky …
                      30 October 2016 at 9:39 am

                      +100 CV re Trump:

                      …”he is not a member of that club. He is not a DC insider, he is not an investment banking insider, he is not a military industrial surveillance complex insider, he is not a Bilderberger.

                      Clinton on the other hand, is…

                  • Tony Veitch (not the partner-bashing 3rd rate broadcaster …
                    30 October 2016 at 4:33 am

                    I don’t think a Trump presidency will be any less problematic than a Clinton one! So I agree with you, Marty!

                    Hey, we might be about to witness the last American election. Post election, we could see events in the good old US of A which will make the Russian event of 1917 seem like a picnic in the park!

                    Hows that for a flight of fancy – ‘the pitchforks are coming, the pitchforks are coming!’

                    When 70% of the population can’t find $1000 in savings, that’s some pretty serious inequality!

                    My. we live in momentous times!

  18. Richard Rawshark 18
    29 October 2016 at 8:00 pm

    The USA will implode into massive civil war, just like Osama bin Laden probably wanted.

    Well it’s a possibility.

    I wonder if the good old US of A actually has even thought about that.

    They are fighting amongst themselves, a sure sign the stress has gotten to it’s leadership.

    • Colonial Viper 18.1
      29 October 2016 at 10:21 pm

      The US is already in the middle of a cultural civil war.

      Worth while remembering that Osama Bin Laden was CIA trained and funded. Until when…we cannot be sure.

  19. Richard Rawshark 19
    29 October 2016 at 8:05 pm

    Specially for you CV. Be afraid Hillary supporters, be very afraid

    I actually have a survival kit prepped now ready to hit a cave nearby when the missiles come.., oh to live in interesting times..

    We can rebuild a better world than this.., there is no other way.

    http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/professor-who%e2%80%99s-predicted-30-years-of-presidential-elections-correctly-is-doubling-down-on-a-trump-win/ar-AAjxYGu?li=BBqdg4K&ocid=iehp

    • Colonial Viper 19.1
      29 October 2016 at 10:19 pm

      I’ve also been following the comments of this professor. I agree with you that we need to be (mentally and physically) ready for all eventualities. I predict a very rough 20 year period ahead. If its not some stupid war with China/Russia it is going to be climate change biting very hard. Or some crazy combo.

      • Richard Rawshark 19.1.1
        30 October 2016 at 8:03 am

        Yep and after careful mulling it over I can’t wait. this planet is Fubar due to the complete disorder of western democracy. It will never be a good planet while the west and it’s industrially backed politicians keep running it behind the façade of a democratic process.

        We see it in NZ with Key coming here and how attituides have changed since he did.

        People have become extremely selfish money centered and greedy take the candidate Trump as an example, but here we have an example of greed on display, for Hillary it’s fed in disguise from the likes of Coke Cola favours for power private emails, wealth accumulation.

        Stories of charities bringing in 2.5m and spending 200k on the people who the charity is for, not to mention the absolute poisoning by business of the planet we live in .. for what?

        Bring on the anarchy or a government leader who may talk a lot of hot air, but has said the right things if you actually listened instead of assumed.

        AKA take your business to China i’ll slap a 35% tariff on it.

        Well that’s NOT bowing to big business so he gets my vote, and if he wrecks the planet and poor old Keys 50 million becomes fire starters i’d be happier than a pig rooting.

    • Pasupial 19.2
      29 October 2016 at 10:38 pm

      I find Lichtman to be entirely unconvincing, except maybe to himself. This was him in August (trying to have it both ways depending on the audience?):

      “Every election is basically a referendum on the incumbent party,” Lichtman said. “If it does a good job, their candidate gets reelected. If it does a bad job, their candidate gets thrown out.”

      Lichtman added his model currently predicts Clinton will win about 52 percent of the vote because eight of the test statements are true.

      http://dailybruin.com/2016/08/15/experts-predict-clinton-win-during-hammer-museum-lecture-2/

      Nate Silver gave a rundown of the model’s 13 criteria (some of which are quite subjective), and how it has performed in practice back in 2011. His main criticism was that:

      the formula is not actually all that accurate. Although it may have gotten the winners right, it does not do particularly well at accounting for their margin of victory.

      http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/despite-keys-obama-is-no-lock/

      • Nic the NZer 19.2.1
        29 October 2016 at 10:58 pm

        “the formula is not actually all that accurate. Although it may have gotten the winners right, it does not do particularly well at accounting for their margin of victory.”

        Nate Silver is claiming that the model must have the mechanism of being additive in its components then. But why should the model be additive, maybe there are not a set of independent weighted factors which can be added together to forecast the election outcome. If there were Nate Silver’s job would be much simpler. That is not a valid criticism of a model which is consistently right, its just saying the real world is more complex than simplistic additive forecasting models (and the model may reflect that).

        • Pasupial 19.2.1.1
          29 October 2016 at 11:35 pm

          Gore did not win in 2000 thus invalidating the claim of infallibility. That he did win the popular vote did not get him back into the white house. Also the model developed in 1981 had 12 keys, that is now up to 13 – thus it is not the same model.

          My opinion is that Lichtman’s reliability in prediction is only slightly better than that of Paul the octopus.

          • red-blooded 19.2.1.1.1
            30 October 2016 at 12:54 pm

            And let’s remember these comments from the man himself:
            “The second qualification is Donald Trump. We have never seen someone who is broadly regarded as a history-shattering, precedent-making, dangerous candidate who could change the patterns of history that have prevailed since the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860.

            I do think this election has the potential to shatter the normal boundaries of American politics and reset everything, including, perhaps, reset the keys to the White House. Look, I’m not a psychic. I don’t look at a crystal ball. The keys are based on history. And they’re based on a lot of changes in history, they’re very robust. But there can come a time when change is so cataclysmic that it changes the fundamentals of how we do our politics, and this election has the potential — we don’t know yet, but it has the potential.”

  20. Andre 20
    30 October 2016 at 7:42 am

    “Republicans want voters to believe Clinton is just as bad as Trump, Maher said, “and in pursuit of that goal, they have one very powerful ally: lazy people.”

    http://www.salon.com/2016/10/29/watch-bill-maher-millennials-cant-tell-trump-clinton-apart-but-have-100-kinds-of-dance-music/

  21. dv 21
    30 October 2016 at 8:19 am

    This is sort of funny. BUT ironic its a Tump supporter committing the fraud.
    And interesting it was picked up.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/us-election-2016/85880951/Trump-supporter-charged-with-voting-twice-after-fearing-first-vote-would-be-changed

    Rote told Iowa Public Radio that she cast her first ballot for Donald Trump but feared it would be changed to a vote for Hillary Clinton.

    “I wasn’t planning on doing it twice – it was spur-of-the-moment,” Rote told the radio station. “The polls are rigged

    Polk County Auditor Jamie Fitzgerald told the Register that it was the first time in 12 years he could remember having to report possible voter fraud.

    “I think it shows that our voting system works in Iowa, that we’re able to catch it,” Fitzgerald told the paper, adding that the reported instances could have been honest mistakes but “that’s not for me to decide.”

    • Richard Rawshark 21.1
      30 October 2016 at 8:28 am

      They have thing called a straight vote over there, so if you straight vote Democrats , it should tick Hillary for president and democrat as party.

      For Trump voters there has been many reports of them selecting straight Republican but the president selection changes to Hillary. it’s above somewhere in a link on another post.

      If Trump voters don’t check the ticket before handing it over for recording, well. I mean the sitting party over there really fucks with elections look at Bush and Gore..

      they both do it.. democracy it’s a freacking façade..

      then here, we have fat guts Jerry would throw all his staff and the airport worker under the bus to save his fat fucking arse and job all for the fucking tuck shop.

      If I had 20 people with guns i’d invade the behive tomorrow and force a new election.

      That’s how serious politics and the façade of it have become.

      • Adrian Thornton 21.1.1
        30 October 2016 at 9:05 am

        Have to say, I like the idea of invading the beehive, one glaring problem with that idea though…
        Labour as they stand today, are not, in my view worth getting arrested for (and I have no problem in standing up and being arrested for the right cause), I mean they aren’t exactly what you would describe as inspirational in any kind of political or socially/economically transformative way, or in any way at all, now that I think about it.

      • Pasupial 21.1.2
        30 October 2016 at 10:06 am

        RR
        You may feel that way, and I understand the frustration of having limited avenues to change the world for the better as one person in the middle of nowhere (geopolitically speaking). However; out of respect for the site, and forum it gives for semi-free discussions, could you please refrain from calls for armed revolution (however hypothetical)?

        • Richard Rawshark 21.1.2.1
          30 October 2016 at 10:19 am

          Fair enough, though I really do want to shout take the power back, chuck on some..

          Rage against the machine

          and kick fat Gerries arse out of town.

          Which is half my problem their are no vents anymore, we used to protest, they have fucked us so hard, we whimper our disdain and they carry on like it’s a board game.

          • Adrian Thornton 21.1.2.1.1
            30 October 2016 at 11:16 am

            The main problem with kiwi’s today is that we don’t shout loud and hard at things that matter, unless of course it is some sort of escapism in the form of sport (the new state religion). There is a movie about Richie McCaw but will probably never be a movie about Helen Kelly, someone who dedicated their lives to the people of this county, we have out sense priorities as a country all fucked up…
            example…
            I would expect the leader of the NZ Labour party to be absolutely outraged and seething with tears of indignation at the commodification of human housing to the point where citizens are forces to live in cars, where students are who seek to gain higher education are left with outrageous debt, where real wages for most workers have stagnated for 25 years, the same workers are expected to compete with countries with no workers rights, and living costs at less than 1/4 of ours, oh that’s right Labour was in power and let these things happen as well, and now a Labour Party with up and coming stars like Stuart Nash, little hope for real any change to the status quo even if they get in power…
            So I agree 100% – Rage against the machine.
            Turn Labour Left.

            • Richard Rawshark 21.1.2.1.1.1
              30 October 2016 at 12:13 pm

              I gave labour the benefit of having no nuts too come out and say outright they will turn the tide of oppression, as the current voting public are so drunk on house price rises they can’t see the woods for the tree’s.

              Their fear of losing is driving their policies instead of policies that drive voting, but not in all cases, there housing policy is quite good always has been. However, any whimpers of restructuring business, employment laws or taxes is met with slumps in polls and they shit themselves, mainly because they do it in half measures instead of just going all out.

              They should really look into Trumps success, if not for Trump himself, what it meant and what he proposed would have wiped Hillary out.

              • Pasupial …
                30 October 2016 at 12:35 pm

                The last political group to rage against the machine in Aotearoa would have been the Internet/ Mana party. But that didn’t work out so well last election (though they did get more votes than in 2011, but that did not translate into any seats in parliament with our flawed version of proportional representation). The MANA movement is still around, and likely to be a contender for the Maori seats. The IP not so much – and it’s difficult not to compare Dotcom to Trump in this context.

                Yes, the modern Labour party does seem a bit spineless (or as they might say; a broad church). But there is always the chance that the Greens, or even NZF might lend them a backbone in coalition.

  22. Morrissey 22
    30 October 2016 at 8:23 am

    The United States’ political class hates and fears democracy:
    Here’s one more item to add to the mountain of evidence.

    http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/

    • Adrian Thornton 22.1
      30 October 2016 at 9:52 am

      +100 Morrissey, heard that one yesterday.
      It is almost beyond belief that a politician running for the president of the USA can be caught on tape openly saying ‘We should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win’ about a democrat election process in a foreign country, and it doesn’t make the worlds headlines… if that isn’t manufacturing consent in action and in real time right in front of all our eyes, I don’t know what is.

  23. Chooky 23
    30 October 2016 at 9:41 am

    +100 Morrissey…says it all really

  24. Adrian Thornton 24
    30 October 2016 at 9:42 am

    I notice that of course Clinton has nothing to say about the Standing Rock/Dakota Access Pipeline standoff where the state has deployed dogs and militarized police against the peaceful protesters, where 127 were arrested by police, some armed with AR 15 assault rifles and wearing full battle dress for crying out loud…
    No just like Obama,(and Trump of course) silent, we might as well just go ahead and rename the US democratic party ‘The Corporate Defense League of America'(copyright).
    You can be sure that if Sanders had been running against Trump, he would have spoken out loudly on this issue.
    Such a shame, such a lost opportunity for the Democrats to reestablish some desperately needed credibility back into the now openly exposed poisoned and poisonous world of US politics/media…but no they (the DNC) chose to back Clinton, thereby exposing the heart of the DNC to be corporate/wall st. shills just like the candidate they enabled all along, unsurprising but still disappointing and sad.

    • Richard Rawshark 24.1
      30 October 2016 at 10:14 am

      That’s because the democrat elite have been taken over and it’s run by an inner circle?

      This is how they roll keeping the circle member in the white house, wouldn’t surprise me if a group that formed for that reason wouldn’t have split and members in both parties to cover eventualities.. raegan bush Clinton bush Obama Clinton.. you know…

    • Pasupial 25.1
      30 October 2016 at 12:20 pm

      in Georgia, a voting machine has been removed from service after complaints that it flipped votes intended for Hillary Clinton to Trump.

      Some voters in Texas, which began its early voting period this week, have experienced problems casting their ballots… Shannon Lackey, the elections administrator at Randall County, said… personal hypothesis is that voters, so accustomed to touch screens in their everyday lives, hit the machine’s button after indicating their choices, inadvertently “deselecting” their preferred vote…

      the Randall County woman behind the viral Facebook post never alleged corruption, and she made it clear that she was able to correct her vote before officially casting the ballot.

      Lackey! What a name for an elections administrator.

      Anyway, the problem with Trump’s rigging allegations is that the voting systems are administered by the individual states. These are three quarters Republican controlled (especially Texas, and Georgia too for that matter). Thus you would expect any rigging to favour the Republican candidate.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_state_legislatures

      That said, those voting machines are a nightmare for electoral transparency. I hope that in NZ we stick with paper ballots than can be scrutinized and recounted by laymen unfamiliar with computer programming (if the manufacturers are even disposed to provide access to their proprietary software).

  26. Lanthanide 26
    30 October 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Right, so it seems Comey, nor anyone else at the FBI, haven’t actually read any of the emails because they don’t have a warrant to read them.

    So that suggests the earlier sources about the emails definitely not being to/from Hillary etc, may not be true.

    It also does mean that there’s no indication that they are serious new evidence.

    Comey should have just put that in his letter – “as yet we don’t have the warrants to be able to read the content of the emails, so this letter is just a ‘heads up'” or words to that effect. Would have considerably lessened all this drama.

    As of Saturday night, the FBI had still not gotten approval from the Justice Department for a warrant that would allow them to read any of the newly discovered Abedin emails, and therefore are still in the dark about whether they include any classified material that the bureau has not already seen.

    “We do not have a warrant,” a senior law enforcement official said. “Discussions are underway [between the FBI and the Justice Department] as to the best way to move forward.”

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wrote-bombshell-letter-to-congress-before-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

  27. joe90 27
    30 October 2016 at 1:28 pm

    Remember, this is all about this man having less than a $1000 in the bank.
    /

    Guy chants "Jew-S-A" in front of press pen pic.twitter.com/2yqgA6dD4k— Nick Corasaniti (@NYTnickc) October 29, 2016

    https://twitter.com/NYTnickc/status/792510299232284672

  28. Sacha 28
    30 October 2016 at 3:06 pm

    A write-in candidate emerges: http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/queen-offers-to-restore-british-rule-over-united-states

    Addressing the American people from her office in Buckingham Palace, the Queen said that she was making the offer “in recognition of the desperate situation you now find yourselves in.”

    “This two-hundred-and-forty-year experiment in self-rule began with the best of intentions, but I think we can all agree that it didn’t end well,” she said.

  29. Karen 29
    30 October 2016 at 3:31 pm

    David Fahrenthold has done some fantastic investigative journalism on Trump’s charity credentials. Some appalling behaviour by Trump:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-boasts-of-his-philanthropy-but-his-giving-falls-short-of-his-words/2016/10/29/b3c03106-9ac7-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html

  30. Adrian Thornton 30
    30 October 2016 at 4:33 pm

    Interesting piece on the different ways the media/public have handled Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct as opposed to Bill Cosby’s similar deviant behavior ….

    http://www.steynonline.com/7573/the-questions-that-were-never-put-i

    • joe90 30.1
      30 October 2016 at 5:01 pm

      I suppose you think Steyn’s Eurabia nonsense is interesting, too.
      /

    • Andre 30.2
      30 October 2016 at 5:08 pm

      Sigh. A piece that starts with “The 6’8″ gummi worm that runs the FBI…” isn’t likely to be packed with rational analysis, but anyhoo

      First up, Bill isn’t running for president, Hillary is.

      In the 90s, there was quite a media frenzy every time any hint of another Bill Clinton allegation came to light. The American public by and large got bored with it, so when Hillary even described Bill as “a hard dog to keep on the porch” it was kind of “meh”. The evidence that came out at the time made it seem everything Bill was involved in was consensual (although morally serious abuses of the power Bill had).

      The most credible allegation of non-consensual activity (the rape of Juanita Broaddrick) didn’t get wide publicity until 1999, by which time Clinton sex fatigue had well and truly set in. Broaddrick herself gave a deposition that she had not been raped, which would make any serious investigation and prosecution extremely difficult, no matter how credible her subsequent allegations were.

      For more info,

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations

      Compared with the allegations against Cosby…

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_allegations

      Not really very similar, either in quality or quantity.

    • Siobhan 30.3
      30 October 2016 at 8:55 pm

      Reply to Andre..
      “In an election year when Bill Clinton’s policies and personal indiscretions have faced intense scrutiny, Hillary Clinton is beginning to shape the role her husband would play in her administration, zeroing in on economic growth and job creation as crucial missions for the former president.

      Mrs. Clinton told voters in Kentucky on Sunday that Mr. Clinton would be “in charge of revitalizing the economy, because, you know, he knows how to do it,” especially “in places like coal country and inner cities.” On a campaign swing this month before the West Virginia primary, she said her husband has “got to come out of retirement and be in charge” of creating jobs.”

      So yeah, not President…but not exactly walking around rearranging the White House furniture.

  31. Andre 31
    30 October 2016 at 7:19 pm

    Oh boy! Get your triple-strength tinfoil hat on before reading this one.

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/10/28/the_kim_dotcom_theory

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.