My 2nd choice would be Jill.

why

Facebook

The longer I stay on the Hillary train, the more she seems like the obvious choice tbh.

Welcome back

mods DO NOT MOVE

Anyone have an opinion in my stance on Clinton's warmongering? Especially with Russia?

Not sure what your stance is exactly.

Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on October 23, 2016, 04:02:53 PM

So... the FBI saying they had nothing chargeable means nothing now. Some guys online says she's guilty lets just skip over the investigation that's already done and just string her up

His statement straight up declares that crimes were committed, but they won't do anything about it.

Quote

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

He does not say there is "nothing chargeable", and in fact spends all of the above discussing the various criminal failings of Clinton's administration. His response is that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." And remember, neither intent nor quantity matter in the crime; he is, for all intents and purposes stating that crimes were committed but they could not win the case despite such blatant evidence. And the DoJ deferring to the FBI, despite that they have the final say, allows neither to accept responsibility for not going forward.

Can't wait to see how Charlie doesn't respond to this.

Glad I gave up on this show or I would be pissed.

garbage team

I'm not surprised this site didn't even last a week, but this might just save it

If there's one thing that's proven to boost activity, it's megathreads that dissuade people from making regular threads.

Quote from: Maverick on October 20, 2016, 09:22:50 PM

Quote

Set in 2024, Logan and Professor Charles Xavier must cope with the loss of the X-Men at the hands of a corporation led by Nathaniel Essex. With Logan's healing abilities slowly fading and Xavier's Alzheimer's hampering his memory, Logan must defeat Essex with the help of a young girl named Laura Kinney, a female clone of Wolverine.

Aw, gay.

I never liked X23

She probably won't be very similar to her comic book version in this one.

I feel like that article might as well have just said "I have a tiny penis."

One of the things I really don't get is how Hillary supporters smear Trump for blatantly lying/ignoring facts. Hillary's exactly the same; Trump is just more obvious about it.

Not that I'm saying they're qualitatively equal as candidates, but the section on national debt boiled down to the moderator noting "your plan will increase debt-to-GDP to 86pc" and Hillary replying "No it won't".

The only difference between this and Trump saying "wrong" all the time is that Clinton is willing to couch it in rhetoric.

It's nothing new. Both sides have selective hearing and will believe literally anything their candidate says. It amazes me honestly.

Quote from: Maverick on October 19, 2016, 10:20:20 PM

I saw the movie and wasn't impressed.

Is the book better?

Exponentially better.

I'll put it on the list

Why do you think Rubio could beat Hillary when he wasn't even the runner up in his own party

There was a negative correlation in polls between how candidates did in the primaries and how they would do against Hillary. He was consistently a strong debater (aside from his gaffe with Christie), and I think he would have really brought it to Hillary and run a better campaign.

Cruz, Carson, and Bush would've gotten rekt however.