Support NeoGAF

[brainchild]

From what I can see, the intelligence community isn't divided on this point. The ICIG determined that the emails were top secret by mid-August. A second review involving the CIA and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency confirmed that conclusion earlier this month. So the official opinion of the Inspector General for the intelligence community, along with the CIA and NGIA, is that the material in Clinton's email was top secret. On the other hand, we have mixed messages from the AP's anonymous sources--and APK can tell you how much confidence we should place in the AP's anonymous sources.

One important point I haven't seen discussed. According to the AP article you quoted from earlier, the 40 emails reviewed by the ICIG were a random sample of emails provided by Clinton to the State Department. If that's correct, then it raises the possibility that those 40 emails were representative of the other 30,000ish. If so, then we could expect as many as 1,500 of Clinton's emails to contain top secret material. So it's not enough to point to some anonymous sources who disagree about these two specific emails, even if we take those sources as authoritative with respect to those two emails.

Forgot to talk about this.

That is an extremely small sample size. If it's in any way indicative of a similarly proportioned amount when factoring all 30k+ emails, then HOLY SHIT what a colossal fuck up.

Also, if the CIA and NGIA are onboard with the IC, then I'd say the IG was right on this one.

So what happens now? Any updates on the investigation?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Pretty sure there is disagreement. Enough to say that the opinion is far from unanimous.

Not unanimous among anonymous sources, surely (we can't really say how far from unanimous they are without polling them). Among the CIA, NGIA--at least the parts formally tasked with making the determination--and the ICIG, there is no disagreement.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Not unanimous among anonymous sources, surely (we can't really say how far from unanimous they are without polling them). Among the CIA, NGIA--at least the parts formally tasked with making the determination--and the ICIG, there is no disagreement.

We don’t really know. The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community reviewed a 40-email sample of the 55,000 pages and found that four out of the 40 contained classified information that "should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system." These four emails have yet to be released to the public.

One of the memos said the State Department had inadvertently released classified information to the public in one of the thousands of Clinton emails the department put online earlier this year. However, neither the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community nor the State Department will say which email has the classified information. Journalists have been digging through the emails and have yet to flag anything that seems like a revelation of sensitive information.

What’s more, none of these emails were marked "classified." Without a label, it’s nearly impossible to prove whether Clinton or someone who emailed her passed along classified information, whether willfully or negligently. We don’t know if the sender knew the information was classified, where they got their information from, or who declared the information classified in the first place.

Does this mean Clinton was wrong to say there was no classified material in her email?

Not necessarily. As backwards as it may seem, these two assertions -- Clinton’s claim that she did not have any classified information in her email and the inspector general’s claim that she did -- could both be partially accurate. This is primarily because the State Department disputes whether the information was classified.

Agencies regularly disagree about whether information should be classified, even arguing over lines within the same document, said Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive. If the intelligence community declares something classified from its perspective, that does not automatically trump the State Department’s own decision that the same piece of information is not classified.

This seems to say otherwise.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Forgot to talk about this.

That is an extremely small sample size. If it's in any way indicative of a similarly proportioned amount when factoring all 30k+ emails, then HOLY SHIT what a colossal fuck up.

Also, if the CIA and NGIA are onboard with the IC, then I'd say the IG was right on this one.

So what happens now? Any updates on the investigation?

No although she will be asked about this tomorrow, at the debate and finally testify about it at the Benghazi Panel.

We will probably get more leaks between now and those two dates.

 

[brainchild]

This seems to say otherwise.

So the State Department disagrees. I'd say their opinion should be seriously considered as well.

However, this whole "there's no way to know without markings" notion is complete bullshit. There are protocols and contingencies in place just for incidents like these, which is why the IC/CIA/NGIA were able to be a determination about it.

It might be difficult to prove that someone knowingly disseminated classified information without markings, and thus difficult to incriminate the people responsible, but when there are protocols that basically spell out how to interpret situations like these, it basically boils down to incompetence.

However, regardless of who knew what, the referral to the Executive Branch has been made. Any information that could potentially compromise National Security should not be on a private anything, and needs to be in the government's possession immediately.

No although she will be asked about this tomorrow, at the debate and finally testify about it at the Benghazi Panel.

We will probably get more leaks between now and those two dates.

Ah, OK. Thanks. I found it weird that there wasn't any more recent news about it.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

So the State Department disagrees. I'd say their opinion should be seriously considered as well.

However, this whole "there's no way to know without markings" notion is complete bullshit. There are protocols and contingencies in place just for incidents like these, which is why the IC/CIA/NGIA were able to be a determination about it.

It might be difficult to prove that someone knowingly disseminated classified information without markings, and thus difficult to incriminate the people responsible, but when there are protocols that basically spell out how to interpret situations like these, it basically boils down to incompetence.

However, regardless of who knew what, the referral to the Executive Branch has been made. Any information that could potentially compromise National Security should not be on a private anything, and needs to be in the government's possession immediately.

Well, given that we just had an article which stated they determined something about drones in pakistan (something that is openly written about) was considered classified. I would question just what metric is used to make these determination. Is referring to Area 51 classified even though we all know it exists? Probably.

The point is, it's a thousand shades of gray and it goes beyond Clinton to the root of how these agencies have dealt with each other since their inception. You can hand wring all you want over private servers but we're still dealing with theories and smoke. No one has found that piece of evidence we keep hearing about that will blow our minds.

 

[brainchild]

Well, given that we just had an article which stated they determined something about drones in pakistan (something that is openly written about) was considered classified. I would question just what metric is used to make these determination.

I think that's fair, but it's also important to note that there are levels to government classification. Not everything is top secret, and not every stray classified document warrants a referral from the IG.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Hell, look at how much of the stuff in wikileaks postings were considered secret or classified but were nothing more than idle chatter.

 

[Metaphoreus]

This seems to say otherwise.

Sure, we've got the intelligence community saying, "Hey, guys, this intelligence-community generated material over here is top secret, OK?" and State saying, "Nuh uh!"

I should add that the State Department's own Inspector General (i.e., the guy who makes sure the State Department is doing what they're supposed to be doing) agrees with the ICIG on the four emails (two secret, two top secret) found in the 40-email sample. The revelation that those emails had been uncovered was made jointly by the two IGs.

Hell, look at how much of the stuff in wikileaks postings were considered secret or classified but were nothing more than idle chatter.

Whether the information should have been classified is of no importance. The only relevant questions are whether it was and whether Clinton (or whomever sent it to her) knew that it was. Otherwise, it's like you're arguing that people be allowed to commit crimes so long as the crimes committed shouldn't have been crimes in the first place.

 

[brainchild]

The point is, it's a thousand shades of gray and it goes beyond Clinton to the root of how these agencies have dealt with each other since their inception. You can hand wring all you want over private servers but we're still dealing with theories and smoke. No one has found that piece of evidence we keep hearing about that will blow our minds.

A referral from the ICIG about classified information (even if not unanimously classified) that is no longer completely within the government's possession is not "theories and smoke".

This is not speculation, it has already happened. Yes, there's a lot more to it, but this is not some insignificant and trivial matter.

EDIT:

Also, the classified material is said to have come from the IC. I have a hard time believing that the IC aren't able to determine if their own material is classified or not by their own definition.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Whether the information should have been classified is of no importance. The only relevant questions are whether it was and whether Clinton (or whomever sent it to her) knew that it was. Otherwise, it's like you're arguing that people be allowed to commit crimes so long as the crimes committed shouldn't have been crimes in the first place.

Which at this point all signs point to no considering none were marked or referred to as classified.

A referral from the ICIG about classified information (even if not unanimously classified) that is no longer completely within the government's possession is not "theories and smoke".

This is not speculation, it has already happened. Yes, there's a lot more to it, but this is not some insignificant and trivial matter.

EDIT:

Also, the classified material is said to have come from the IC. I have a hard time believing that the IC aren't able to determine if their own material is classified or not by their own definition.

Sounds like a problem with the way the government works. But like I've been saying, we're still waiting for that smoking gun or egregious piece of information that shows she did something horrible and/or criminal. Fast and furious was a more obvious wrongdoing than whatever this is so far.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Oh god the concern trolling...

Again what did Clinton do? The great crime is people sending her information they shouldn't have? And perhaps not telling the whole truth about dates. Oh the humanity!

 

[brainchild]

Which at this point all signs point to no considering none were marked or referred to as classified.



Sounds like a problem with the way the government works. But like I've been saying, we're still waiting for that smoking gun or egregious piece of information that shows she did something horrible and/or criminal. Fast and furious was a more obvious wrongdoing than whatever this is so far.

Oh god the concern trolling...

Again what did Clinton do? The great crime is people sending her information they shouldn't have? And perhaps not telling the whole truth about dates. Oh the humanity!

I don't see anyone talking about crimes in here but you guys...

Anyway, the biggest issue for Hillary in all of this is opting into the facilitation of an unclassified system capable of transmitting classified (top secret, in fact) information. She should not have done this, nor should any government official have done this. Is it incriminating? In this case, no. In fact, it was pre-approved, but that's not the point.

An even bigger potential issue is the current location of the personal server and thumb drive. The potential information on both the server and the thumb drive is still classified to this day and should have been turned over to the security officials the moment the breach in protocol was discovered. If Hillary does not comply with this, it can indeed be incriminating on the grounds of impeding a federal investigation conducted by the Executive Branch, and prolonging a potential compromise of National Security.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I don't see anyone talking about crimes in here but you guys...

Anyway, the biggest issue for Hillary in all of this is opting into the facilitation of an unclassified system capable of transmitting classified (top secret, in fact) information. She should not have done this, nor should any government official have done this. Is it incriminating? In this case, no. In fact, it was pre-approved, but that's not the point.

An even bigger potential issue is the current location of the personal server and thumb drive. The potential information on both the server and the thumb drive is still classified to this day and should have been turned over to the security officials the moment the breach in protocol was discovered. If Hillary does not comply with this, it can indeed be incriminating on the grounds of impeding a federal investigation conducted by the Executive Branch, and prolonging a potential compromise of National Security.

You just said there was no breach in protocol then said the moment the breach in protocl occurred. You really are trolling hard. If she doesn't comply with this and that. Is there ANYTHING the powers that be that want from her that she hasn't willfully provided? I don't recall anyone asking for the Patraeus e-mails do you?

 

[brainchild]

You just said there was no breach in protocol then said the moment the breach in protocl occurred. You really are trolling hard. If she doesn't comply with this and that. Is there ANYTHING the powers that be that want from her that she hasn't willfully provided? I don't recall anyone asking for the Patraeus e-mails do you?

Let's try this again, shall we?

I never said that Hillary was responsible for the breach of protocol. The person responsible for that would have been whoever sent the emails. However, once the breach was discovered, all relevant private servers and devices that contained the information should have been turned over to the government. According to the IG, this has not happened. Do you have more up to date information that confirms that she turned over these materials to the officials?!

 

[Metaphoreus]

Let's try this again, shall we?

I never said that Hillary was responsible for the breach of protocol. The person responsible for that would have been whoever sent the emails. However, once the breach was discovered, all relevant private servers and devices that contained the information should have been turned over to the government. According to the IG, this has not happened. Do you have more up to date information that confirms that she turned over these materials to the officials?!

I'm pretty sure the FBI now has her server and the flash drive with all of her work emails. Or were you thinking of something else?

EDIT: Yeah, that was all done over a month ago.

 

[brainchild]

I'm pretty sure the FBI now has her server and the flash drive with all of her work emails. Or were you thinking of something else?

No, that was it. If the government has the materials, it's safe to say that it's no longer considered to be a compromise of National Security. So that removes that concern.

The only other major issue is the fact that she elected to be involved in a process where something like this could happen. It's not incriminating, but it isn't good for her reputation.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Which at this point all signs point to no considering none were marked or referred to as classified.

I agree that that fact is consistent with a lack of knowledge that the materials were classified. It doesn't prove it, but it doesn't contradict it, either.

Oh god the concern trolling...

Again what did Clinton do? The great crime is people sending her information they shouldn't have? And perhaps not telling the whole truth about dates. Oh the humanity!

We now know she provided the classified information to other people through unsecure channels. She gave the server--at least some of the contents of which were able to be recovered by the FBI--to Platte River Networks in June 2013. They remained in possession of the server until last month, when they turned it over to the FBI. She gave a flash drive with copies of all of her work emails to her attorney, who kept it until last month, when he turned it over to the FBI. Whether this was done knowingly is the only question we have on this (i.e., knowing that she was giving them classified information).

Beyond that, Clinton is responsible for having set up a private server to which classified material was somehow transmitted. It might also make sense to hold her accountable for the Department of State during her tenure having been so lax in dealing with such materials. If she specifically instructed or requested the sender(s) of classified materials to send such materials in that way, then of course, she should be held responsible for that. (Of course, we don't have any evidence that that occurred, but it is possible, and is no doubt one question the FBI is considering.)

And then there's the string of lies stretching over the last six months or so.

No, that was it. If the government has the materials, it's safe to say that it's no longer considered to be a compromise of National Security. So that removes that concern.

Well, it removes the concern going forward, assuming the FBI isn't hooking the server up to the Internet. There's still the question whether Clinton's server--and the classified information contained on it--was compromised in the past. Given that current Secretary of State John Kerry takes for granted that his unsecured emails are being read by the Russians and Chinese, it doesn't take a right-wing conspiracy (of any vastness) to conclude that the contents of Clinton's server were likely long ago divulged to foreign nations' intelligence operations.

 

[brainchild]

I agree that that fact is consistent with a lack of knowledge that the materials were classified. It doesn't prove it, but it doesn't contradict it, either.



We now know she provided the classified information to other people through unsecure channels. She gave the server--at least some of the contents of which were able to be recovered by the FBI--to Platte River Networks in June 2013. They remained in possession of the server until last month, when they turned it over to the FBI. She gave a flash drive with copies of all of her work emails to her attorney, who kept it until last month, when he turned it over to the FBI. Whether this was done knowingly is the only question we have on this.

Beyond that, Clinton is responsible for having set up a private server to which classified material was somehow transmitted. It might also make sense to hold her accountable for the Department of State during her tenure having been so lax in dealing with such materials. If she specifically instructed or requested the sender(s) of classified materials to send such materials in that way, then of course, she should be held responsible for that. (Of course, we don't have any evidence that that occurred, but it is possible, and is no doubt one question the FBI is considering.)

And then there's the string of lies stretching over the last six months or so.



Well, it removes the concern going forward, assuming the FBI isn't hooking the server up to the Internet. There's still the question whether Clinton's server--and the classified information contained on it--was compromised in the past. Given that current Secretary of State John Kerry takes for granted that his unsecured emails are being read by the Russians and Chinese, it doesn't take a right-wing conspiracy (of any vastness) to conclude that the contents of Clinton's server were likely long ago divulged to foreign nations' intelligence operations.

Let me just say that I appreciate the thoroughness of your posts. You are ON TOP of this shit. Admittedly, I have not been keeping up with all of the updates regarding the emails, so I thank you for providing this information.


If it turns out that Hillary instructed (even in a general way) anyone in the state department to send her those emails on the private server, she will be nailed to a cross without a chance of redemption. I can't fathom her being that stupid.

Also, I did not know about the other potential compromises. The truth is that there's no telling just how many people have seen those materials at this point. The extent of this compromise could definitely affect the outcome.

I'm definitely keeping my eyes peeled for any updates regarding the emails in light of all of this news.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Anyway, the biggest issue for Hillary in all of this is opting into the facilitation of an unclassified system capable of transmitting classified (top secret, in fact) information. She should not have done this, nor should any government official have done this. Is it incriminating? In this case, no. In fact, it was pre-approved, but that's not the point.

The state.gov email system is also an unclassified system from memory. My gmail is "capable of transmitting classified information", the question is whether any classified information was knowingly transmitted through unsecured means. All signs point to no, and again from memory, there are a bunch of emails directing people to call her via secured lines to discuss things.

Had she used a state.gov email and gotten a boatload of FOIA requests for her emails the same process would be occurring before any of those were released, where invariable some information would likely be post-hoc classified.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I agree that that fact is consistent with a lack of knowledge that the materials were classified. It doesn't prove it, but it doesn't contradict it, either.

Lack of knowledge or the State Dept having different justifications and standards for what they deem classified?

For the moment, the facts stand on their own.

Let me just say that I appreciate the thoroughness of your posts. You are ON TOP of this shit. Admittedly, I have not been keeping up with all of the updates regarding the emails, so I thank you for providing this information.


If it turns out that Hillary instructed (even in a general way) anyone in the state department to send her those emails on the private server, she will be nailed to a cross without a chance of redemption. I can't fathom her being that stupid.

Also, I did not know about the other potential compromises. The truth is that there's no telling just how many people have seen those materials at this point. The extent of this compromise could definitely affect the outcome.

I'm definitely keeping my eyes peeled for any updates regarding the emails in light of all of this news.

Given that we're on Benghazi investigation #32 3 years later I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

I'm just glad we moved past 'you said March instead of February therefore incompetence'.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Lack of knowledge or the State Dept having different justifications and standards for what they deem classified?

For the moment, the facts stand on their own.

The State Department doesn't get to second-guess what other agencies have classified. Only the agency that has classified some material has the authority to declassify it or downgrade its classification (see section 3.1(b) here; note also the procedure described in 1.8, by which someone outside of the originating agency can challenge the agency's classification--the procedure described is not to merely ignore the originating agency's classification, as you suggest Clinton or her aides could have done). In this case, the material was classified by the CIA and NGA (which is apparently the acronym used for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency) (see the "derived from" language at the bottom of page 1 here (PDF)). Consequently, the State Department had no authority to declassify the material that somehow found its way into Clinton's email.

I'm just glad we moved past 'you said March instead of February therefore incompetence'.

I thought this was ivysaur's position. Has he commented lately?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

The State Department doesn't get to second-guess what other agencies have classified. Only the agency that has classified some material has the authority to declassify it or downgrade its classification (see section 3.1(b) here; note also the procedure described in 1.8, by which someone outside of the originating agency can challenge the agency's classification--the procedure described is not to merely ignore the originating agency's classification, as you suggest Clinton or her aides could have done). In this case, the material was classified by the CIA and NGA (which is apparently the acronym used for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency) (see the "derived from" language at the bottom of page 1 here (PDF)). Consequently, the State Department had no authority to declassify the material that somehow found its way into Clinton's email.

I'm not suggesting they've done anything. Just looking at the facts as they stand.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I'm not suggesting they've done anything. Just looking at the facts as they stand.

Then, I think we're in agreement. The question at this point is who knew what, when; and not whether the information in the emails was classified to begin with. Am I understanding you right?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Then, I think we're in agreement. The question at this point is who knew what, when; and not whether the information in the emails was classified to begin with. Am I understanding you right?

Doesn't seem like you're understanding me at all.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Doesn't seem like you're understanding me at all.

Is "looking at the facts as they stand" code for, "stop talking to me about this, vote for Hillary"? Or would you care to further explain whatever it is I'm not understanding?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Is "looking at the facts as they stand" code for, "stop talking to me about this, vote for Hillary"? Or would you care to further explain whatever it is I'm not understanding?

The facts of the situation right now seems pretty clear and until something changes there's really not much left to explain. You can rest assured there's plenty of people searching for "the truth" so I'm sure it's only a matter of time before we either get nothing or something.

But if you wanna write me an essay about how Hillary is guilty of treason, feel free. You can vote for whoever you want.

 

[Metaphoreus]

The facts of the situation right now seems pretty clear and until something changes there's really not much left to explain. You can rest assured there's plenty of people searching for "the truth" so I'm sure it's only a matter of time before we either get nothing or something.

But if you wanna write me an essay about how Hillary is guilty of treason, feel free.

I wouldn't do that.

I understand what treason entails.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I wouldn't do that.

I understand what treason entails.

If you play the semantics game hard enough, treason could be just about anything.

 

[noshten]

About the NH and Iowa results and current polling data,

New Hampshire polls are a leading indicator to national polls. Voters are more engaged and more informed in New Hampshire than they are nationally. As the primary season progresses, voters continue to become better engaged and informed, until the actual voting takes place, when the voters are presumably as informed as they ever will be.
In other words, if a candidate is doing better in New Hampshire polls than he is in national polls, that suggests that as voters become more informed, they will continue to slide toward that candidate. At so the candidate will do well in the voting booth, at which point all voters are highly informed (relatively speaking, at least). On the other hand, if a candidate is doing better nationally than he is in New Hampshire, that suggests that the candidate may not hold up to scrutiny, that he may be trading primarily on name recognition, etc. His support is superficial.

The litmus test of this then becomes Iowa. If a candidate is doing better in New Hampshire polls than he is in national polls, and that candidate does well in Iowa, that provides very powerful evidence that this increase in information works to the benefit of that candidate.

You might call this something like "the momentum of information". This hypothesis, by the way, has been confirmed by other researchers.

 

[Black Republican]

NBC/WSJ Poll

Spoiler

NBC/WSJ poll on GOP race:
Trump 21 (+2 since July)
Carson 20 (+10)
Rubio 11 (+6)
Fiorina 11 (+11)
Bush 7 (-7)
Kasich 6 (+3)
Cruz 5% (-4)

NBC/WSJ poll on natl Dem race
Hillary 42%
Sanders 35%
Biden 17%

W/o Biden
Hillary 53%
Sanders 38%

 

[Y2Kev]

Carson SURGING!

 

[FiggyCal]

Ben Carson never ceases to surprise. What a champ!

Also. lol @ Bush in single digits.

 

[Owzers]

Jeb!

What if Jeb is polling so poorly because he's listed as "Bush" instead of his actual name with exclamation mark?

 

[FiggyCal]

Jeb!

What if Jeb is polling so poorly because he's listed as "Bush" instead of his actual name with exclamation mark?

Jeb! isn't his real name. It was a nickname he earned in Florida from cutting taxes.

 

[Diablos]

NBC/WSJ Poll




NBC/WSJ poll on natl Dem race
Hillary 42%
Sanders 35%
Biden 17%

W/o Biden
Hillary 53%
Sanders 38%

The Uncle Joe surge is coming. I can feel it in my bones.

GOP ticket... hmm.. Rubio/Fiorina 2016?

I'm happy to see Jeb! in single digits. Thank you, Dubya!

 

[Plinko]

Every time I see those Carson numbers I shake my head. I can't even.

I think it's quite clear that no matter how crazy the things these people say, nothing will really hurt them in the primary unless they say something that appears moderate or further left. It has to be complete far-right crazy. I thought Carson's anti-Muslim comments would hurt him, and then the poll comes out showing 51% of Americans agree. I mean, what? What planet am I on? I am absolutely convinced that Trump is starting to fall a bit because he's saying some moderate things. His tax plan is a prime example of this.

I'm stumped at how this general election is going to go. I still stand by my statement that Hillary is a terrible candidate and doesn't energize voters in the least. She has been around forever and is the democratic equivalent of Jeb!

Because of that, I genuinely believe Trump, Carson, and Rubio all have a legitimate chance at beating her in a general election. You guys on here have brushed that possibility off for months, but I really think you need to start considering the possibility.

 

[FiggyCal]

Every time I see those Carson numbers I shake my head. I can't even.

I think it's quite clear that no matter how crazy the things these people say, nothing will really hurt them in the primary unless they say something that appears moderate or further left. It has to be complete far-right crazy. I thought Carson's anti-Muslim comments would hurt him, and then the poll comes out showing 51% of Americans agree. I mean, what? What planet am I on? I am absolutely convinced that Trump is starting to fall a bit because he's saying some moderate things. His tax plan is a prime example of this.

I'm stumped at how this general election is going to go. I still stand by my statement that Hillary is a terrible candidate and doesn't energize voters in the least. She has been around forever and is the democratic equivalent of Jeb!

Because of that, I genuinely believe Trump, Carson, and Rubio all have a legitimate chance at beating her in a general election. You guys on here have brushed that possibility off for months, but I really think you need to start considering the possibility.

I wrote it before, but I had an assignment about whether or not the Qur'an and Sharia law are compatible with the U.S. constitution and most everyone said no. Which isn't to say that they weren't wrong, but that even young, progressive people felt this way and that perhaps it's not the craziest thing he's ever said.

And I think a lot of people really downplay the extent of Islamaphobia in the U.S.

 

[Diablos]

LOL Ben Carson. Does he take Lunesta and a muscle relaxant before he goes on television?

 

[Black Republican]

LOL Ben Carson. Does he take Lunesta and a muscle relaxant before he goes on television?

women really like his voice though

 

[NeoXChaos]

Every time I see those Carson numbers I shake my head. I can't even.

I think it's quite clear that no matter how crazy the things these people say, nothing will really hurt them in the primary unless they say something that appears moderate or further left. It has to be complete far-right crazy. I thought Carson's anti-Muslim comments would hurt him, and then the poll comes out showing 51% of Americans agree. I mean, what? What planet am I on? I am absolutely convinced that Trump is starting to fall a bit because he's saying some moderate things. His tax plan is a prime example of this.

I'm stumped at how this general election is going to go. I still stand by my statement that Hillary is a terrible candidate and doesn't energize voters in the least. She has been around forever and is the democratic equivalent of Jeb!

Because of that, I genuinely believe Trump, Carson, and Rubio all have a legitimate chance at beating her in a general election. You guys on here have brushed that possibility off for months, but I really think you need to start considering the possibility.

Diablosing much?

Carson and Trump? No chance

Rubio? Yes

 

[noshten]

Just more indication that Al Gore, Biden, Kerry entering the race will be a major hurdle for Clinton rather than Sanders. I've been a proponent of Elizabeth Warren entering the race, not sure what all this talk of Biden, Gore and Kerry is - they are pretty much the same ilk as Hillary with their own baggage

 

[Diablos]

women really like his voice though

For real?

 

[BertramCooper]

Every time I see those Carson numbers I shake my head. I can't even.

I think it's quite clear that no matter how crazy the things these people say, nothing will really hurt them in the primary unless they say something that appears moderate or further left. It has to be complete far-right crazy. I thought Carson's anti-Muslim comments would hurt him, and then the poll comes out showing 51% of Americans agree. I mean, what? What planet am I on? I am absolutely convinced that Trump is starting to fall a bit because he's saying some moderate things. His tax plan is a prime example of this.

I'm stumped at how this general election is going to go. I still stand by my statement that Hillary is a terrible candidate and doesn't energize voters in the least. She has been around forever and is the democratic equivalent of Jeb!

Because of that, I genuinely believe Trump, Carson, and Rubio all have a legitimate chance at beating her in a general election. You guys on here have brushed that possibility off for months, but I really think you need to start considering the possibility.

You're Diabolsing hard here.

Trump and Carson have no shot. At all. Hillary probably gets close to 400 EC votes if she's running against Trump.

Rubio could give her a challenge. Absolutely. But Trump or Carson? Not a fucking chance.

 

[Diablos]

You're Diabolsing hard here.

Trump and Carson have no shot. At all. Hillary probably gets close to 400 EC votes if she's running against Trump.

Rubio could give her a challenge. Absolutely. But Trump or Carson? Not a fucking chance.

And you are Aaron Strifing.

 

[Coriolanus]

Otherwise, it's like you're arguing that people be allowed to commit crimes so long as the crimes committed shouldn't have been crimes in the first place.

That's usually how stuff gets decriminalized, tho.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

is anyone watching the Ben Carson interview now?..

What....the....fuggg

 

[Tarkus]

Just wanted to say that the discussion on the previous page (100 ppp master race) was high quality stuff. Sourced information, civil discussion with cool-headed arguments from both sides -- an excellent read guys. Thank you!

 

[noshten]

Bern needs to knock some sense in these republicans