Perfect Coin-Toss Record Broke 6 Clinton-Sanders Deadlocks In Iowa (marketwatch.com) 634
schwit1 writes: While it was hard to call a winner between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders last night, it's easy to say who was luckier. The race between the Democrat presidential hopefuls was so tight in the Iowa caucus Monday that in at least six precincts, the decision on awarding a county delegate came down to a coin toss. And Clinton won all six, media reports said.
Did they spin when they landed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazingly, the coin tosses weren't done intelligently. They weren't called in the air, they weren't videotaped closely enough to show which side was up or that the coins were not double-headed, etc...
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy--just that it was a really stupid way to decide an election. Obviously the state should count all of the coin-toss delegates and split them between the tied candidates. They can't do that retroactively for this election but should change the rules for the next one.
Re:Did they spin when they landed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously the state should count all of the coin-toss delegates and split them between the tied candidates.
Isn't that process up to the democratic party?
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously the state should count all of the coin-toss delegates and split them between the tied candidates.
Isn't that process up to the democratic party?
Yes, I meant the Democratic party for the state, since it's the Democratic caucus. Technically it would also not be state wide so much as next-step-in-the-hierarchy wide--these were the *local* delegates, so it gets distilled through a couple of layers.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Isn't that process up to the democratic party?
Exactly... Heads I win. Tails you lose...
Re:Did they spin when they landed? (Score:5, Interesting)
It is. The DNC has their way of conducting their nominating process, which is different from what the RNC does. For example, the RNC has no "super delegates" to try to steer the nomination towards the establishment's chosen favorite, like the DNC does.
(Hillary already had over 300 of these so-called super-delegates lined up before the first vote was cast, which is more than 15x what she won in Iowa.)
Re:Did they spin when they landed? (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as both candidates had a representative present, and neither objected, the tosses were fair enough, particularly for government work.
Stupid Americans fooled again (Score:5, Interesting)
The coin toss is just a typical media misdirection, the real story is in the voting machine fraud and the vote count fraud.
Those who understand how the world really works knows The Rothschilds has already picked Clinton (see cover of the 2016 Januaray editions of the Economist).
Clinton voter fraud in Polk County, Iowa Caucus [c-span.org]
Voter Fraud and 'Missing' Precincts: How Clinton Stole Iowa [russia-insider.com]
Caucus chair and Clinton precinct captain do not conduct actual count of Clinton supporters and deliberately mislead caucus
Imagine how many other precincts used similar tactics. The fact that even C-SPAN calls it outright voter fraud should leave Americans with no illusions: The Democratic nominee has already been chosen.
But wait, it gets worse:
Sanders's camp says that the Iowa Democratic Party has informed the campaigns that the caucus results from 90 precincts are missing.
â" John Wagner (@WPJohnWagner)
February 2, 2016
That's right: Caucus results from 90 precincts are missing. Clinton is certainly talented at misplacing/deleting things that she doesn't want people to read.
Hillary Clinton receives $200,000/hour to speak to Goldman Sachs behind closed doors (and no transcripts of what she says are allowed, of course). Do you really think this election hasn't already been bought and paid for?
"Democracy" is fun.
Re:Did they spin when they landed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously the state should count all of the coin-toss delegates and split them between the tied candidates. They can't do that retroactively for this election but should change the rules for the next one.
Odd, changing the counting rules retroactively is an option when the democratic establishment dislikes the "winner".
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.desmoinesregister.c... [desmoinesregister.com]
So it doesn't seem like those six really mattered, in the end....
Butterfly Ballot not Supreme Court decided 2000 (Score:5, Insightful)
The supreme court selected Republican Establishment George Bush instead of the people's popular vote?
No. The US Supreme Court said that the Florida government officials empowered before the election to make decisions regarding counts and recounts and submission deadlines would have their decisions stand.
Plus there is the pesky detail that the newspapers did their own recounts afterwards and found that Bush would still have won.
Plus there is that other pesky detail that the "popular vote" was never the agreed upon criteria for selecting a President. It was always the electoral college and both sides designed their campaigns with that in mind, not the popular vote. If the popular vote was the goal then both sides would have run very different campaigns.
It is a false urban myth that Gore would have won the recount. The election was "stolen" from Gore not by the Florida Governor nor the Florida Secretary of State nor the Florida Supreme Court nor the US Supreme Court. It was "stolen" by the Democratic Party officials who designed and deployed the butterfly ballot that confused Democratic voters into accidentally voting for Pat Buchanan. Gore lost due to his party's error. Painful but true. To say otherwise is denial.
Re: (Score:3)
Everything that you say is correct; however, it's a risky proposition for the Republican party to focus on it, because it papers over the dire straits in which the party finds itself.
I'm not American, so this is an outsider's perspective. I think that the Republican party does focus on the truth that Bush won the election over Gore and that he won it fare-and-square. In doing that, they ignore the more salient truth: since 1992, the Republican party has won the popular vote for president exactly once.
That i
Re:Butterfly Ballot not Supreme Court decided 2000 (Score:5, Insightful)
if Gore had demanded a statewide recount then he would likely have won (there would have been less of a reason for the courts to step in)
Demanding a state-wide recount would not have changed the fact that Gore was trying to override the process already in place and agreed to, determined by the people who had the authority to determine the process, and would have pushed the second Florida vote certification past the date of the Electoral College. That would have disenfranchised every Florida voter.
The fact remains, SCOTUS did not "pick a winner", they told the loser that he had already had his recount and they could not overturn the constitutionally recognized authority of the Florida legislature to determine the process for selecting electors for the Electoral College in the state of Florida.
Re: (Score:3)
Delusional winger bullshit. With the right to vote must come the right for your vote to be counted,
They were, twice, in the timeframe allocated to do so, in the manner determined by the Florida legislature, who had the sole authority for making such decisions. The result was certified by the Florida Secretary of State, in the manner prescribed by state law.
It is delusional to pretend that pushing the certification of the Florida results past the date the electoral college meets to cast their votes is NOT an attempt at disenfranchising every voter in Florida. You claim that there is a right for every vo
Re:Butterfly Ballot not Supreme Court decided 2000 (Score:4, Informative)
They found one standard that if it had been applied in only the D heavy districts of Florida would have given the win to Gore. All other standards and recount areas gave the win to Bush.
Such a counting procedure is so obviously biased that only the most partisan give it any weight. Only the most openly partisan newspapers even took part in the 'find a way that Gore would have won' search.
Re: (Score:3)
And it's all utterly meaningless. The difference between the largest numbers there is less than a thousand votes total. That is an amazingly small number for the state of Florida. And all those small numbers obscured truth that these differences in counts were too small to matter. Neither candidate clearly won, neither candidate stole the election from the other. Recounts were essentially meaningless and the only fair thing would have been to have a runoff. Even a coin toss would have been fairer than
Re:Butterfly Ballot not Supreme Court decided 2000 (Score:4, Insightful)
it could have gone either way depending on the counting standard.
Well, d'oh. If you change the electoral process you can get different results. Like "let's count as votes for Gore ballots that aren't marked in any way as a vote for any presidential candidate" would probably result in a different answer. This isn't much different than the "let's look at every butterfly ballot and see if there is even the slightest dimple or depression or mark on any chad that hasn't been dislodged" standard that was applied in Dade County. "Poke hole in piece of paper which has pre-scored holes you just punch out" is way too hard.
Or the "let's throw out every absentee ballot from someone who registered using a form with a pre-filled-in voter id." Yes, that was one of the legal challenges. The Republican election official for one county had filled in the voter id number for people registering for absentee ballots, the Democrat had not. That should invalidate someone's vote, shouldn't it?
Or "let's throw out every military absentee where the military didn't properly postmark the ballot". People on active duty military service don't deserve to vote, do they?
Yes, changing the counting rules after the ballots are cast is a good way of changing the results. Not very honest, not very ethical, but it works -- if you can get the courts to go along with it.
Re:Oh you mean just like when (Score:4, Informative)
It was a tie, statistically speaking. People for some reason despise that concept. There can be no tie, just more and more recounts will decide it, until the original ballots are shredded from too much handling. The margin of error was larger than the difference in votes. So 50 different recounts would have had 50 different results. A toin coss would have been equally fair and much less controversial (mathematically). So yes, I agree - get over it, nothing was stolen.
Speaking as a decline-to-state voter with no party affiliation, that whole affair just proves there are far too many whiners in both parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously the state should count all of the coin-toss delegates and split them between the tied candidates
Isn't that basically what already happens? I thought I read last night that the Iowa Democratic caucus splits the votes based on the percentages, and the percentages were close enough that Clinton and Sanders would each be getting the same number of delegates.
Re: (Score:3)
They didn't land, they used the all new Acme electronic coin toss simulation booth. With all of the trouble and insecurity of real coins Acme is proud to produce it's new product that will ensure a fair decision every time with the latest security measures* to make sure nobody interferes with the result.
* - Source code and testing units are NOT available.
They should have used Schrodinger's cat . . . (Score:3)
Then both Bernie and Hillary could both claim to have won . . . and lost . . . at the same time. Now looking over at the Republican corner . . . I think that the folks who have lost, are the American citizens.
Wouldn't it be cool, if some guy managed to crawl out of the Washington political poop, and declare himself as "socially liberal, fiscally conservative", and get people emotionally enthused about this election? The way I see it now, folks are just looking for the "least worse candidate".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You know, it probably doesn't make much difference, we would do better picking by lot.
SSN 000-35-2462 ..... Report to DC, you are the new president!
Seriously, you will NEVER convince me this will produce worst results. As long as it was a truely random selection of the population from ages 25-60
Hey, anybody that can... (Score:5, Funny)
Play the futures market as well as Hillary, can arrange to have a perfect 6 out of 6 in a simple coin toss contest..
Can I see that coin again?
Re:Hey, anybody that can... (Score:5, Interesting)
She did...and made $100k on $10k investment in a day.
Re:Hey, anybody that can... (Score:5, Funny)
And she weighs the same as a duck.
Riding Bill's coattails ... (Score:3)
She did...and made $100k on $10k investment in a day.
Funny how only the governor's wife gets invited into such investment opportunities.
Her fortune and her career and her fame are all from riding Bill's coattails. And she's the choice of modern feminists? I guess modern feminist leaders really are just democratic party stooges.
Seems Bill isn't the only Clinton ... (Score:5, Funny)
97% odds against either winning all flips fairly (Score:2, Interesting)
If the coins and flips were fair, the odds against either candidate winning all flips is 97%.
Given that Clinton did win all six flips, the odds that the flips were fair is ... hmm?
Re:97% odds against either winning all flips fairl (Score:5, Insightful)
Low probability things do happen.
Re: (Score:3)
Low probability things do happen.
In coin flips and Options trading when it benefits Hillary, they SURE do. I always wondered why she didn't hit the Power Ball Lottery myself...
Re: (Score:3)
I'd look elsewhere for caucus fraud (and there are already reports coming out). A conspiracy to cheat the coin tosses would be huge and impossible to keep quiet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm reminded of Bush-Gore. Where the sole R representative in the ballot counting room had been a D 3 years earlier. They tried to close the doors and were barely stopped from flat stealing the election.
It's easy to cheat on a coin toss, if the people aren't really who they say they are.
Re:97% odds against either winning all flips fairl (Score:4, Funny)
I'm reminded of Bush-Gore. Where the sole R representative in the ballot counting room had been a D 3 years earlier
You think they can't convince a simple coin to vote their way when they've already had a representative that was a d3?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Given that Clinton did win all six flips, the odds that the flips were fair is ... hmm?
So are you are implying that:
1) Hillary rigged the coin toss in 6 physically disparate locations in which the need for the coin toss could not have been predicted before hand?
Or
2) HIllary rigged the coin toss in all precincts prior to the caucus on the off chance that she and Bernie would poll as a dead heat?
And by Hillary I don't mean her personally, but people in her campaign or associated with her campaign that wanted to see her win. Hell it could even had been Trump supporters for all the sense that ri
Re: 97% odds against either winning all flips fair (Score:2)
The odds for Hillary were always 100% - Bernie doesn't believe in money.
Re: 97% odds against either winning all flips fair (Score:5, Funny)
So I guess that money really did decide this election! /rimshot
Re: (Score:2)
You know, it depends on how you flip it, which apparently you can do without having any ill intent.
Years ago in playing some games with co-workers, a coin toss was part of something. I would occasionally get about 8-10 in a row.
People used to kind of freak out, because I'd flip the same thing a bunch of times and they said it was statistically impossible. I said I just flipped the coin and they could see me do it.
Much later I saw things [dailymail.co.uk] which suggested if you know how to flip it, you can control the outc
Probability (Score:4, Interesting)
It is a 1 in 64 chance of it happening. The odds are not all that bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Must have been the new NFL type coin flip... (Score:3)
Would put it past them (Score:3)
I have absolutely no trouble imagining the Clinton campaign giving its people loaded coins. Not that I have proof that that's what happened.
SubjectsInCommentsAreStupidCauseTheSubjectIsTFA (Score:2)
That's one perk for establishment candidates... (Score:2)
Control over the money supply.
Silver side (Score:2)
Can a Hillary supporter step up and explain? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why on Earth would anyone ever actually vote for Hillary Clinton? She is a horrid shitstain of a human being who belongs in prison. She is power-mad and worse, part of a dynasty. We don't need that shit in America. So, who are you people who support her? More importantly, WHY do you support her? How can you possibly reward her lawbreaking with an election to the highest office in the land? The arguments I've seen so far are that she's a woman so women should vote for her, and voting Hillary is a kind of protest vote against Trump. Look, there's already Sanders for people who want to throw their votes away, you don't need two protest candidates. I am really geniunely curious how so many of you out there can support her.
Oh, and for anyone who doesn't think it was a big deal: what if Senator Ted Cruz kept his own private email server that was promptly rooted by several foreign countries, and routed classified emails through there? Kind of puts the right perspective on Hillary's crimes, don't you think?
Re:Can a Hillary supporter step up and explain? (Score:5, Interesting)
On a side note, I'll vote for her before Trump or Cruz, but as it stands now none of those three have my vote.
Re: (Score:3)
Those are all reasons to not vote for Machiavelli.
Re:Can a Hillary supporter step up and explain? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a Clinton supporter but my 2 cents: Her supporters like progressivism and are willing to turn a blind eye to the shenanigans. They aren't principled. At least not in a moral sense.
The most common answer that I hear: "It's time for a woman to be president."
I didn't know that genitals were a qualification for any job other than porn.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your "They aren't principled. At least not in a moral sense." is an example of what is wrong with politics today, and you should be ashamed of posting it. Everyone, including Hillary Clinton, agrees that using a private email server was a bad idea. Obviously it makes complying with all of the document retention rules that were in force harder, but that is not the same thing as impossible. At the time she had it setup that was a fairly common practice, one done by other department heads and her predecessor.
O
Re:Can a Hillary supporter step up and explain? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hillary is patting herself of the back for running her own server.
Think of the alternatives. On the one hand she's under investigation for the server, on the other she's under indictment because she is unable to hide her email trail of malfeasance.
The investigation is much better then letting anybody actually get her emails.
Re:Can a Hillary supporter step up and explain? (Score:5, Informative)
Your "They aren't principled. At least not in a moral sense." is an example of what is wrong with politics today, and you should be ashamed of posting it.
Ok, let's look at your argument.
On the classification side of things, there is not a lot of solid information about whether something bad was actually done or not. Yes there are seven email threads (twenty-some emails in all) that contain information that is now considered classified. So far no-one with any knowledge of those emails directly has commented on whether that information was classified when those emails were sent. We have heard that those emails did not have classified markers on them, but that again does not mean that the information was not classified at that time.
In other words, she committed a felony right there by creating and maintaining the server right here since classified information was sent repeatedly and corrective action not taken.
It's also worth noting here that there's a lot more than a handful of "email threads". We have spy satellite data [washingtontimes.com] stripped of its classified information - that's a felony for whoever did that. We have people, particularly, Sidney Blumenthal without a clearance given access to this information. That is a felony right there. And then we have Clinton instructing [hotair.com] an aide to strip classified markings from an email. That is a felony right there.
And it's worth noting that this particular email setup has already allowed Clinton to evade FOIA requests [nytimes.com]. I believe that is a felony as well.
So, saying people who support Hillery Clinton are not morally principled is an example of unprincipled partisanship. Please wait for facts before accusing anyone, let alone making accusations about their supporters. There is plenty to legitimately disagree about in the actual issues in the campaign, without resorting to unsubstantiated mud-slinging.
Fuck you. This sort of weaseling is exactly why I agree that Clinton supporters are remarkably unprincipled. Notice that you aren't arguing that Clinton didn't commit these crimes, but rather that we can't prove it.
Re: (Score:3)
Demonstrably false. If the person had reason to believe the material should be classified then they are obliged to treat it as classified.
Given that we know some e-mails were SCI-level intelligence, there is reasonable suspicion she should have believed it should be treated as classified.
If you disagree, is she really competent to be reading classified material in the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Can a Hillary supporter step up and explain? (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy enough:
I'm not a supporter, but I can see the reason.
1. She is what the democrat establishment wants as a nominee. She seems inevitable, so why not toss your support behind the supposed winner?
I do not think she would be that big of a deal if there were another viable "mainstream" candidate in the ring on the D side. Sanders may appear viable now, but he might not have that appeal in a general election. I do not think Sanders appeals to the bulk of rank and file moderate democrats. It's the radical left wing carrying him at this point.
2. She has a "D" next to her name. No matter how bad the candidate, party loyalists would rather hold their nose than to pick a candidate (even a possibly better one) in the opposite party. Not that I am claiming it exists here, but it can.
3. She's untouchable. It's pretty much assumed she'll walk away with at most a fine from this, if not a full, possibly preemptive pardon. it does not matter if she looks dirty, it comes with being a Clinton. It's expected of them.
4. Nothing will pull the democrats together more than the prospect of losing the White House for the next 4-8 years with all those aging Supreme Court justices waiting to keel over.
It's not just the Democrats going through this now. The Republican Party wants its chosen candidates and they get Trump and Cruz instead. Both parties are having to fight popular sentiment to get their candidates in the general election.
Watching both parties try to thwart popular opinion is proving to be quite entertaining, but not nearly as entertaining as a Trump vs Sanders in the general election will be.
Re: (Score:3)
We understand the problem is your broken perception but don't know what to do about it except keep explaining. Someday you will wake up.
That's Odd (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder where this video of Sanders winning a coin toss [youtube.com] came from then.
Re:That's Odd (Score:4, Funny)
in at least six precincts [...] Clinton won all six
Never get the facts get in the way of a good story.
"in at least six precincts" (Score:3)
In "at least" six precincts, what does that mean exactly? To me that implies that there were more precincts where they had to decide by coin toss, which means there could have been another 6 where Sanders won. Anyone can cherry pick a sub group of tosses out of a bigger total that came out with an unlikely result..
Re:Gotta wonder (Score:5, Funny)
Who cares, Hillary has already reached her term limit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Gotta wonder (Score:5, Funny)
Gotta wonder who provided the coins?
What difference [pounds desk] at this point, does it make?
Re: Gotta wonder (Score:5, Funny)
"Heads Hillary Wins, Tails Bernie Loses"
So what's the problem?
Re:Gotta wonder (Score:5, Funny)
Who do you think provided the coins? The big banks! And who created the coins? The establish-MINT.
Wake up, sheeple!
Re:Gotta wonder (Score:5, Informative)
NEVER [xkcd.com] say those last three words again!
Re:Gotta wonder (Score:5, Funny)
Obama.
He brought change.
(Ba-dum tsh!)
The story is wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Posting this here so it gets more views.
The story is wrong. There were many more coin flips than just the 6 reported and Sanders won his fair share of them. The coin flips are a result of precincts that have an odd number of delegates to the Iowa State Democratic Convention. Say the precinct has 5 delegates and the vote between Clinton and Sanders was a tie. The precinct then sends 2 delegates for Clinton and 2 delegates for Sanders and the 5th delegate is decided by the coin flip. IIRC from the story I heard on NPR there are something like 11,000 delegates to the Iowa State Democratic Convention and it is at that convention where the actual delegates to the Democratic National Convention are selected. So with 11,000 delegates to the state convention the results of a few coin flips aren't going to change much.
Re: (Score:3)
ROTFL like it matters to them, ALL the candidates are their man.
Re: Hah! (Score:3)
Re: Hah! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Hah! (Score:4, Insightful)
3-3 is 20 times as likely as 6-Hillary. This sub-1% result is possible, but it sure seems fishy. Personally I think the fix is in, and Hillary wins no matter what at the convention, but it will be fun to see how it plays out.
Re: (Score:3)
For a homework assignment in a statistics course, half the class was asked to record the actual results of 100 coin tosses while the other half was asked to fake the same results by writing down what they thought might be a reasonable random sequence of heads and tails. With only a quick glance at a student's homework, the professor was able to determine whether the statistics were real or faked, with 90% accuracy! The giveaway clue was the occurrence of runs of 5, 6 or even 7 consecutive heads or tails. These are likely to occur in actual sequences, contrary to some naive intuitive notions about randomness.
Re: (Score:3)
Especially considering the semi-rigging that is the 'super-delegates' that the DNC nomination process [wikipedia.org] features. Between having a close ally as the party chairman to rig the debates in your favor (severe limitation on number, scheduling for times when people will be watching other things or not watching TV at all), and then swing extra votes from the establishment behind you at the nominating convention, it's still a lock even with Bernie Sanders wildly outperforming.
Re: Hah! (Score:4, Interesting)
There are 2^6 possible ways the coin tosses could have gone down (eg toss A for hillary, toss B for bernie, etc). Of these 64 scenarios, only one results in Hillary winning all six tosses. Thus the odds are 1/64.
Compare this to a scenario in which each party wins exactly three of the six flips. Of the 64 possible scenarios, twenty of them result in a 3-3 split (you can write it all out to confirm). so the odds of a 3-3 split are 20/64.
So the odds of hillary winning all six coin tosses are 20 times less likely than the odds of a 3-3 split! she basically won the lottery (or somebody had their thumb on the scale).
Re: Hah! (Score:5, Informative)
Odds of 1 in 56 will win you $2 in Mega Millions when buying a $1 ticket. So yes, she basically "won the lottery", or least "won in the lottery". Not in the way that most people think of when you say winning the lottery, though.
Re: (Score:3)
How is it any less likely then any other combination?
By having only one way it can happen. There's 6 ways you can get 5 heads in 6 tosses, etc.
Re:Hah! (Score:5, Funny)
6 coin flips and all for one person, I am going to call B.S.!
Calling Bernie Sanders? How's that going to help?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:She will ether be president or prisoner. (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless Hillary runs the next 'Justice' department she will go to federal prison.
Don't get between her and the oval office, unless your insurance is paid up.
Who are you kidding? She's not getting charged for ANY of this.
At worst she gets dinged for some "process crime" like Sandy Berger did when he got caught with classified documents stuffed down his pants. There is no way the Obama administration lets her get charged on this unless she's ticked them off and they just want to throw her under the bus out of spite. They may be liberal progressives in the Whitehouse, but I don't see them as vindictive enough to do that to Hillary and blow up the democrat party in the process. Now if Joe Biden was running, then I can see the administration feeding Hillary to the sharks, but right or wrong he bowed out so the Hill is all they really have.
Now if you had worked for Hillary during this time, you better be lawyered up already. You can bet that if there is enough to charge *somebody* here (and I firmly think there is) then I'd fully expect Hillary to be throwing as many others under the bus as necessary to avoid getting perpwalked. She will then plea bargain this down to some minor (non felony) crime and be out on bond seconds after the judge announces the amount. Now if you are Huma Aberdime (sp?) (AKA, Mrs Anthony Weiner AKA Carlos Danger) you best be thinking about how an orange jumpsuit is going to look with your hair color and who's going to be watching the home front (Keeping your husband off of Social Media under assumed names) while you are away...
Re: (Score:3)
If a republican wins, she wears orange. The dirt that Bill had on them has gone past it's 'use by' date.
Not sure if Sanders would help her evade justice. More than likely he would. Be he doesn't stand a chance in the general, unless the R's really fuckup. If he stands a chance, so does a 3rd party.
Re: (Score:2)
If a republican wins, she wears orange.
Not so. She gets a preemptive pardon. If her nomination is in danger, Biden remains on standby.
Re:She will ether be president or prisoner. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure Obama puts that kind of stain on his record for someone he doesn't like or trust.
The push point will come when a FBI agent recommends indictment. Which should be soon.
Re: (Score:3)
Getting Biden into the general would be some fancy footwork by the DNC at the convention given he's not been on the primary ballot anywhere. I'm not saying they cannot do it, but somebody would have to get Bernie Sanders to pull a Vince Foster disappearing act to make it happen or there would be lawsuits upon lawsuits in protest from all his supporters.
The only way she gets pardoned is if she has been found guilty. That takes either a trial and a conviction or a guilty plea. A trial would take years to
Re:She will ether be president or prisoner. (Score:5, Funny)
Biden remains on standby.
You mean he'd be.. *snigger* he'd be... *snort*
Sorry. Ahem. He'd be - oh, wait, wait...
*dons sunglasses* 8) ...Biden his time?
YEEEAAAH
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty sure insurance doesn't pay off in case of "suicide".
Taking the contention seriously for a minute: I can cite from personal knowledge that it did in at least one case I know of. I think the policy was of long enough standing that a "no suicide" provision timed out. Don't know if that was due to that particular policy or some regulation, but the claim did get paid.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty sure you're wrong. Life insurance generally comes with a no-pay provision for suicide that runs out after a specified time, typically two years.
Re:She will ether be president or prisoner. (Score:5, Insightful)
In terms of "classified" documents being found on it, so far, no one has said if any of them were ever "classified" at the time they were sent.
Yes, they have. Items sitting on the server in her house were from SAP material (above-top-secret stuff) that by its very definition is classified. We're talking about actual, current, operational intelligence - the sort of stuff that involves moles in foreign governments, satellite imagery from NRO systems, that sort of thing. The State Department has just said that there are over 20 emails just in this latest small batch that can't even be released in any sort of redacted form because the classified material in them is so sensitive. When she got the SoS gig, she signed the usual federal paperwork that says that if she becomes aware of classified material existing in channels that aren't appropriate (as in, government-controlled secure access systems) regardless of whether or not it is so "marked," that she is criminally liable for its mishandling if she doesn't immediately involve security personnel to secure it. She completely blew off that requirement.
She also didn't release any of them to the public, without them going through the proper channels
No, what she did was have her own personal staff (people without clearances!) go through 60,000-some emails and decide BEFORE ANYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT GOT A LOOK AT THEM which were or weren't "work related." Which means that even among the emails they eventually passed along, her non-cleared personal employees at her foundation were pawing through what we now know were SAP-level documents. Further, she took everything and burned it to some USB drives, and gave at least one to her NON-CLEARED lawyer, who then put it in his own personal safe. Crimes, again, at several points along the way.
In other words, all the steps have been followed.
No, they haven't. She explicitly went about conducting official government business, including the handling of Special Access Program material, on a non-secured private server in her home - all for her personal convenience and so that she could avoid FOIA requests looking at her government correspondence. So the very first step that should have been followed never was, right there. She never even had State set her up with a secure mail account in the first place. You understand that, right? She never even COULD have followed the rules because she chose to avoid even the very first step of following the rules. Then she failed the next requirement, which was to turn over ALL of her government-related records at the time she left office - again, something she chose not to do, and she had to get subpoenaed for the information and dragged the process out for years after she left office before delivering the information after she'd had her own staff handle it, destroying over half of it. That's another violation of the required process. The archivists at State are the ones who are supposed to decide what is, and isn't relevant from a record-keeping point of view. She deliberately prevented that step. She then stripped off all of the meta data and other header information from all of the emails she DID deliver, and provided them as context-less printouts, on 50,000 pieces of paper. And that's just her getting started on doing it all wrong.
Until someone comes out and says that document so and so was classified at the time it was sent and was known or should have been known to be classified by the person sending it and/or receiving it, nothing wrong has occurred that crosses into any type of criminal offence of state secrecy laws.
This has already been established. You're not paying attention. Inspectors General from multiple intelligence agencies have said that there was at-the-time classified material (including the holy grail, SAP-level material) running around on a non-secure computer in her house.
Re: (Score:3)
http://news.yahoo.com/kerry-used-private-email-send-clinton-now-classified-222700568--politics.html
"There was no indication that the information in Kerry's email was considered classified at any level at the time it was sent or if Kerry, then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Re:She will ether be president or prisoner. (Score:4, Informative)
If it's SAP, it's born classified. It doesn't matter how it's marked, or if markings have been removed by her or anyone who sent it to her. If it's on her personal server, and she knows it's there, she's a felon. It's that simple.
Re: (Score:3)
Who had their own privately managed server that they used to conduct all department business other than HC?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
All your vote are belong to Hillary?
update - there were other tosses which Sanders won (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, one in 32 odds. The chance that a coin tossed one time lands with the same face up is 1 in 1. The chance that a coin tossed two times lands with the same face up is 1 in 2, etc.
A little over two standard deviations.
However, as Washington Post notes, "see the update below: there were other tosses which Sanders won."
The update states:
Update: The initial 6-for-6 report, from the Des Moines Register missed a few Sanders coin-toss wins. (There were a lot of coin tosses!) The ratio of Clinton to Sanders wins was closer to 50-50, which is what we'd expect.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re:update - there were other tosses which Sanders (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, one in 32 odds. The chance that a coin tossed one time lands with the same face up is 1 in 1. The chance that a coin tossed two times lands with the same face up is 1 in 2, etc.
I'd check your math, it's 1 in 64.
If a coin is tossed once, you can have 2 results
H
T
If a coin is tossed twice, you have 4 potential results:
HH
HT
TH
TT
etc...
Re:update - there were other tosses which Sanders (Score:5, Interesting)
The coins could all have been heads OR they could all have been tails. There are 64 possible outcomes, but 2 are sufficient. 1/32 is correct.
I still don't see it. There is a 1/32 chance that *either* of the two candidates would have won all of the coin flips, but only a 1/64 chance for 'only Clinton' or 'only Sanders'
Re: (Score:3)
You can't prove that it was corruption in action. All you can do is estimate the likelihood. But from other considerations I've say that the likelihood was a lot higher than 64 to 1.