Hillary might start WWIII, so in that sense a lot worse president than Obama.

The one thing I wonder though, couldn't you just delete all the apps and data? He knew he was going to die doing this especially since he himself called 911, so maybe he tried covering up his past?

Anarchist Memes on Facebook highlighted this issue with a lovely "Fuck the Police".

DALLAS -- Dallas Police Chief David Brown has confirmed at least 10 police officers were shot and at least three were killed in an attack by two snipers in downtown Dallas at a protest of officer-involved shootings across the country.

"Tonight it appears that two snipers shot ten police officers from elevated positions during the protest/rally," Brown wrote in a statement. "Three officers are deceased, two are in surgery and three are in critical condition. An intensive search for suspects is currently underway. No suspects are in custody at this time. We ask that any citizen with information regarding the shootings tonight call 214-671-3482."

The shot officers include both Dallas police and DART officers.

It remains an active-shooter situation. Police have asked everyone to get to safety and avoid downtown Dallas.

There will be a news conference in the next half-hour to update the situation.

The shots were fired as the march was moving down Lamar Street near Griffin before 9 p.m.

An officer at the scene told News 8's Marie Saavedra the shooter has a rifle.  She described several volleys of quick bursts of gunfire.

A bystander who was at the scene told News 8 the shooter stood by as the rally passed him, then opened fire on officers.

Another bystander, Richard Adams, said the protest was "a lovely, peaceful march," until they were walking down Commerce Street near the Bank of America building parking garage when he heard what sounded like "a bunch of firecrackers going off."

"Everybody just stopped -- 'Run, run for your lives!' Women with children and babies and everybody was chaotically running. And then, maybe I was a half-a-block away, calming down a little bit when we heard it again. [...] There must have been five times tonight -- whenever we thought we were safe, people said 'Run, people were shot!'"

The shooting took place near El Centro College. it has announced classes are cancelled on Friday.

You know who else was predicted to win by polls? Bernie Sanders.

At the very least she should never hold a security clearance again, which has the effect of disqualifying her from any position of public power.

When I reported on the update last week, the description on the announcement read: "Every new title published from Microsoft Studios will support Xbox Play Anywhere ..."

Since then, a subtle difference has crept in. Can you spot it? "Every new title published from Microsoft Studios that we showed onstage at E3 this year will support Xbox Play Anywhere ..."

Quote from: Icy on July 07, 2016, 01:26:34 PM

As an uninformed American, what're their stances on the recent British hullabaloo?

May was for Remain, but quietly so. Probably because she could position herself as a 'unity' candidate whichever side won.

Leadsom was for Brexit.

Quote from: gats on July 07, 2016, 12:22:39 PM

So you want a terrible person to be elected in spite? Regardless of the ramifications?

I don't really care. He won't be allowed to do anything drastic anyway.

WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, on Tuesday said “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against Hillary Clinton for her handling of classified information as secretary of state. The F.B.I.’s recommendation will have an enormous impact on the presidential election.

Mr. Comey said the F.B.I. is not recommending charges against Mrs. Clinton to the Justice Department. But he said Mrs. Clinton and her staff were “extremely careless” in their use of email.

The statements by Mr. Comey concluded an investigation that began a year ago when the inspector general for the intelligence agencies told the Justice Department that he had found classified information among a small sampling of emails Mrs. Clinton had sent and received.

The inspector general, I. Charles McCullough III, said the emails contained information that was classified at the time they were sent but were not marked classified, and the information should never have been sent on an unclassified system.

The discovery of Mrs. Clinton’s email practices grew out of a request by the House Select Committee on Benghazi for communications between Mrs. Clinton and other officials surrounding the September 2012 attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

As lawyers for the State Department gathered materials, they discovered that Mrs. Clinton had used a personal, non-government address for her email and routed the messages through a server, kept in her home in Chappaqua, N.Y.

After a negotiation between the State Department and Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers, she agreed to turn over 55,000 pages of email from her time as secretary of state. She withheld email – roughly half the total number of messages – that she said touched on personal issues, from yoga classes to the flower arrangements for her daughter’s wedding.

The State Department turned over to the House committee roughly 800 emails pertaining to Benghazi. Mrs. Clinton asked the department to release the remaining trove of emails, which set off a complicated, politically charged process of vetting each one to determine whether it contained classified information.

The C.I.A., the State Department, and other agencies reviewed the emails, designating hundreds of them with varying levels of classification.

Mrs. Clinton has asserted that she did not send or receive any information marked classified at the time it was sent. But about two-dozen emails were designated “top secret,” the highest level of classification, and Mrs. Clinton’s critics say she jeopardized national security.

Several of those pertained to the C.I.A.’s drone program in Pakistan, which is a covert program, though it is widely reported in the Pakistani and American news media.

And it has also yet to be determined whether homosexual marriages establish a healthy growing environment for a child.

Quote from: 卐ANUDDA SHOAH卐 on June 29, 2016, 09:02:39 PM

That'll go up once Hillary's indicted.

She won't be, but considering how unlikable she is, and how she's had her best few weeks and he's had his worst, yet he's still close? Yeah, it shouldn't be this close.

How do you predict a general election with Donald Trump?

We can think of a few basic approaches. One of them is to assert that precedent doesn’t apply to this election and that Trump’s case is sui generis. It’s not clear where that leads you, however.

If Trump is “unpredictable,” a phrase we heard used to describe him so often during the primaries, does that mean his chances of defeating Hillary Clinton are 50/50? If that’s what you think, you have the opportunity to make a highly profitable wager. Betting markets put Trump’s chances at only 20 percent to 25 percent instead.

In fact, despite (or perhaps because of) the unusual nature of his candidacy, the conventional wisdom holds that Trump is a fairly substantial underdog. In contrast to 2012, when there were frequent arguments over how solid President Obama’s lead in the polls was, there hasn’t been much of a conflict between “data journalists” and “traditional journalists” on this question of Trump’s chances. Nor has there been one between professionals who cover the campaign and the public; most experts expect Trump to lose, but so do most voters.

But should this seeming consensus give us more confidence — or make us nervous that we’re underestimating Trump again?

Giving Trump a 20 percent or 25 percent chance of becoming president means that Clinton has a 75 percent to 80 percent chance. That might seem generous given that, under ordinary circumstances, the background conditions of this election (no incumbent running and a mediocre economy) would seem to suggest a tossup. Are Clinton’s high odds justified on the basis of the polls? Or do they require making heroic assumptions about Trump, the same ones that got everyone, emphatically including yours truly, in trouble during the primaries?

The short answer is that 20 percent or 25 percent is a pretty reasonable estimate of Trump’s chances based on the polls and other empirical evidence. In fact, that’s quite close to where FiveThirtyEight’s statistical models, which are launching today, have the race. Our polls-only model has Trump with a 19 percent chance of beating Clinton as of early Wednesday afternoon. (The forecasts will continually update as new polls are added.) Our polls-plus model, which considers economic conditions along with the polls, is more optimistic about Trump, giving him a 26 percent chance.

Still, Trump faces longer odds and a bigger polling deficit than John McCain and Mitt Romney did at the same point in their respective races. He needs to look back to 1988 for comfort, when George H.W. Bush overcame a similar deficit against Michael Dukakis to win. Our models are built from data since 1972, so the probabilities we list account for elections such as 1980, 1988 and 1992, when the polls swung fairly wildly, along with others, such as 2004 and 2012, where the polls were quite stable.

If the middling economy is one silver lining for Trump, another is his swing state polls, which don’t seem to be as bad for him as his national polls. They aren’t good by any means, either, but whereas Trump trails Clinton by 6.7 percentage points in our average of national polls, according to our polls-only model, he’s down 4.8 points in our adjusted polling average of Ohio, 5.7 points in Florida, 3.9 points in Iowa, and 2.0 points in Colorado, for instance.

Again, we don’t mean to suggest that these are great numbers for Trump; the Florida result, for example, would represent the worst loss by a Republican there since 1948. Nonetheless, and somewhat in contrast to the conventional wisdom, our model suggests that Trump is more likely to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote than the other way around. (Though the chances of either scenario are small.)

Some of this may be because we just haven’t had all that much swing state polling; it’s possible we’ll see leads for Clinton in the mid- to high single digits as these states are polled more often. Just this morning, for example, the firm Evolving Strategies published a set of polls in swing states showing Clinton leading Trump by 10 percentage points, on average. If there are more numbers like those, the model will adjust accordingly.

But there’s another potential explanation, which is that Trump is badly underperforming in red states, presumably as a result of having failed to consolidate the Republican base. That may put some traditionally red states into play for Clinton. For instance, Arizona, Missouri, North Carolina and the 2nd Congressional District of Nebraska4 are all tossups, according to the polls-only model. (Polls-plus has Trump narrowly favored in these places.)

Some of these states could be useful to Clinton. Arizona, in particular, could help Clinton put together some winning maps based on Western or heavily Hispanic states, even if she loses much of the industrial Midwest. Others, such as Missouri, are probably more superfluous. They could potentially add to Clinton’s Electoral College margin, but they aren’t likely to be tipping-point states that make the difference between her winning and losing.

That goes doubly for states such as Texas, Utah, Kansas and Alaska, where polls have often shown a single-digit margin for Trump and have occasionally even had Clinton winning. Republicans are used to racking up huge numbers of votes in these states, bolstering their standing in the national popular vote. If Trump wins Texas by only 6 percentage points instead of 16, that will hurt his popular-vote margin without affecting his Electoral College odds much.

Is the reverse also true? Is Trump overperforming in blue states, relative to how a Republican usually does? It depends on where you look. The Northeast was Trump’s strongest region in the primaries, and he’s gotten relatively good numbers — although he still trails Clinton — in polls of New Jersey, Connecticut and Maine. (He also leads Clinton in one poll of Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, which would be worth one electoral vote.5) However, he’s losing by typical margins in New York and California, where he has vowed to compete.

Overall, the polls so far suggest a slightly less polarized electorate and a somewhat wider playing field than we’ve gotten used to in recent years. That’s a potentially refreshing change, although it may prove to be ephemeral as both Clinton and Trump have room to grow with their party bases and could gain ground in traditionally blue and red states as a result.