Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Zymologist]

First of all - thanks for correcting my "two"

Second - much as I would like to deny that such is occurring, the range of polling is suspicious, especially when left-leaning sources have polls that lean left and right-leaning sources have polls that tend to lean right. Rasmussen is a good case in point - being off the "aggregate" to the right almost all the time. Quinnipiac is off the aggregate to the left almost all the time.

But there is another dynamic at play: the polling methodology. There is a clear difference between robo-polls and people-polls. There is a clear difference between polls that include cell phones and polls that exclude them. These are comparatively new dynamics and the pollsters do not yet seem to know how to adjust for them.

That is one of the reasons I tend to prefer using aggregators like FiveThirtyEight and RealClearPolitics. Their aggregate numbers, historically, have been some of the most accurate numbers out there. It's odd to me; it would seem to me the aggregate of flawed polls would be a flawed aggregate - but that's the lovely world of statistics for ya!

Personally, I wouldn't touch any of 'em with a ten-foot poll.

[carpedm9587]

Personally, I wouldn't touch any of 'em with a ten-foot poll.

I see what you did there...

[guacamole]

LGM is not back. I have no idea if he's still kicking or not. We gave a blanket amnesty to just about everybody when we rebooted, but he hasn't returned.

The only atheists I recall offhand dying are win_ace, bandecoot, and formerfundy.

Maybe I'm thinking of FF.

[Cerebrum123]

Personally, I wouldn't touch any of 'em with a 29 and a half foot poll.

Figured I would make your post more appropriate for the season.

[carpedm9587]

Figured I would make your post more appropriate for the season.

You're a mean one...

(I really wanted a "laugh in your hand" emoji...)

[rogue06]

Clinton undertook security training on how to handle classified information. She was given secure government email addresses. She was also a top leader in the US Government who dealt with secrets and security on a daily basis. She chose to use a private server. She chose to place someone incompetent in charge of it. She allowed it to be stored in an unsecure location without proper firewalls, and she sent out classified information in emails without using any encryption or even labeling the emails properly.

She should have known better. She did know better. She chose to ignore her training and the tools available to her and recklessly use her own server. That is the exact definition of grossly negligent.

Don't forget that she even coached aides in how to remove classified labels so they could send it unsecured.

[Sparko]

Don't forget that she even coached aides in how to remove classified labels so they could send it unsecured.

I forgot about that.

But the liberals have two choices: She was too criminal to be POTUS or she was too incompetent to be POTUS

[firstfloor]

"Controversy swirled over the mechanics of the Alabama Senate election after the state supreme court intervened at the eleventh hour to give election officials a green light not to preserve electronic ballot records that could form the basis of a recount."

[RumTumTugger]

I imagine, given the amount of voter suppression that Republicans have put into place, that all polling agencies will be having great trouble predicting the outcome, because so many black and Latino voters won't realize they've had their voting rights taken away from them until they actually turn up to the polls on voting day and are denied a vote.

Did you even read the law that the New York times linked to? I thought not.

From the the link about Alabama voter ID laws you apparently failed to check.

A voter who is required to present valid photo identification but who does not do so will be allowed to vote a provisional ballot as provided for by law.

In addition, a voter who does not have a valid photo ID in his or her possession at the polls shall be permitted to vote if the individual is positively identified by two election officials as a voter on the poll list who is eligible to vote and the election officials sign a sworn affidavit so stating.

Voter suppression? I think not.

btw are you and that New York Times Writer saying that the blacks and latinos are to stupid to know what it is they will need? How racist of both of you.

[carpedm9587]

Don't forget that she even coached aides in how to remove classified labels so they could send it unsecured.

Source, please?

[Zymologist]

Source, please?

Yeah, I've seen that claim before but don't remember the source. I'm curious too.

[Cow Poke]

Source, please?

I'm gonna guess....

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-d...ed-classified/

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...rking-n2101680

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ommon-practice

[carpedm9587]

Did you even read the law that the New York times linked to? I thought not.

From the the link about Alabama voter ID laws you apparently failed to check.

A voter who is required to present valid photo identification but who does not do so will be allowed to vote a provisional ballot as provided for by law.

In addition, a voter who does not have a valid photo ID in his or her possession at the polls shall be permitted to vote if the individual is positively identified by two election officials as a voter on the poll list who is eligible to vote and the election officials sign a sworn affidavit so stating.

Voter suppression? I think not.

btw are you and that New York Times Writer saying that the blacks and latinos are to stupid to know what it is they will need? How racist of both of you.

Not too stupid - simply lacking the base documentation required to get the Voter ID. And individuals are commonly known to polling personnel in rural districts (which are predominantly Republican), but not so much in urban districts (which are predominantly Democrat).

Look, the whole voter ID initiative is a solution in search of a problem. While there are clear problems with registration rolls (e.g., dead people not being consistently removed, relocated people appearing on more than one voter roll, etc.), study after study has shown minimal incidence of actual voter fraud, not enough to impact elections and certainly not enough to justify the widespread disenfranchisement that these laws will create. Far more people will be deied the vote with these laws in place than the number of "fraud" incidents they will reduce - by orders of magnitude.

Meanwhile, voter ID laws are most likely (again shown to be true) to disenfranchise the poor and ethnic minorities because they are the ones more likely to lack the base documentation (e.g., birth certificates, etc.). And these groups are known to vote heavily Democratic. While it makes sense that a party would do everything it legally can to ensure a win, disenfranchising voters is simply unethical and unpatriotic. Unlike many on the left, I do not apply the term "racist" because I do not believe the strategy is driven by a desire to target black and other minority people. But that is its unintended effect, in the general cause of suppressing the Democratic vote.

The same was essentially true of "Operation Red Map," it was a systematic approach to ensure Republican dominance even in places where Democractic votes were overwhelmingly large by cracking and packing districts. The Democrats did it in Maryland, and the Republican did it in Minnesota, Texas, and several other states. In Minnesota, where almost 60% of the vote went Democratic, more than 60% of the seats went Republican, largely due to this effect.

Anything that disenfranchises voters is, IMO, an unpatriotic act - whether it is done by the right (Texas, Minnesota, Voter ID laws, etc.) or Democrats (Maryland, etc.).

[Cow Poke]

Not too stupid - simply lacking the base documentation required to get the Voter ID. And individuals are commonly known to polling personnel in rural districts (which are predominantly Republican), but not so much in urban districts (which are predominantly Democrat).

Look, the whole voter ID initiative is a solution in search of a problem. While there are clear problems with registration rolls (e.g., dead people not being consistently removed, relocated people appearing on more than one voter roll, etc.), study after study has shown minimal incidence of actual voter fraud, not enough to impact elections and certainly not enough to justify the widespread disenfranchisement that these laws will create. Far more people will be deied the vote with these laws in place than the number of "fraud" incidents they will reduce - by orders of magnitude.

Meanwhile, voter ID laws are most likely (again shown to be true) to disenfranchise the poor and ethnic minorities because they are the ones more likely to lack the base documentation (e.g., birth certificates, etc.). And these groups are known to vote heavily Democratic. While it makes sense that a party would do everything it legally can to ensure a win, disenfranchising voters is simply unethical and unpatriotic. Unlike many on the left, I do not apply the term "racist" because I do not believe the strategy is driven by a desire to target black and other minority people. But that is its unintended effect, in the general cause of suppressing the Democratic vote.

The same was essentially true of "Operation Red Map," it was a systematic approach to ensure Republican dominance even in places where Democractic votes were overwhelmingly large by cracking and packing districts. The Democrats did it in Maryland, and the Republican did it in Minnesota, Texas, and several other states. In Minnesota, where almost 60% of the vote went Democratic, more than 60% of the seats went Republican, largely due to this effect.

Anything that disenfranchises voters is, IMO, an unpatriotic act - whether it is done by the right (Texas, Minnesota, Voter ID laws, etc.) or Democrats (Maryland, etc.).

Then poor people should be able to board airplanes and enter federal buildings without showing ID, yes? Or - let anybody try to enter the office of one of these anti voter ID representatives or senators without proof of who they are....

[rogue06]

Source, please?

Source: Bombshell: In Email, Hillary Ordered Aide to Strip Classified Marking and Send Sensitive Material

The State Department waited until the middle of the night to execute its belated, court-ordered release of the latest tranche of Hillary Clinton's emails -- the ones she and her attorneys didn't unilaterally delete with no oversight, that is. Fox News notices a significant exchange that may point to criminal conduct:

The latest batch of emails released from Hillary Clinton's personal account from her tenure as secretary of state includes 66 messages deemed classified at some level, the State Department said early Friday. In one email, Clinton even seemed to coach a top adviser on how to send secure information outside secure channels. Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has repeatedly maintained that she did not send or receive classified material on her personal account. The State Department claims none of the emails now marked classified were labled as such at the time they were sent. However, one email thread from June 2011 appears to include Clinton telling her top adviser Jake Sullivan to send secure information through insecure means. In response to Clinton's request for a set of since-redacted talking points, Sullivan writes, "They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it." Clinton responds "If they can't, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure." Ironically, an email thread from four months earlier shows Clinton saying she was "surprised" that a diplomatic oficer named John Godfrey used a personal email account to send a memo on Libya policy after the fall of Muammar Qaddafi.

[*bolding in original*]

...

(3) Her final justification -- which is legally irrelevant, as Hillary herself has personally attested -- is that none of the sensitive material that she wrongfully transmitted through her unsecure server was "marked classified" at the time. Again, this is meaningless, especially when it comes to highly secret material that she was obligated to recognize and protect as soon as it was produced. But the email chain referenced above includes an instruction from Hillary Clinton to a State Department aide (who now works on her campaign) to strip classified information -- it remains redacted to this day -- of its classified markings ["identifying heading"] and "send nonsecure." Ed Morrissey, who posts a screen shot of the exchange, reviews the relevant criminal statute and thinks this looks like a smoking gun:

00000000000000ars2.jpg



Source

© Copyright Original Source

I would suggest going to the original source (click the link above) since it contains numerous hyperlinks and much more detail.

Source: Clinton asked aide to remove classified markings more than once

A year before Hillary Clinton apparently asked one of her top aides to remove the classification markings from a sensitive document and send it to her over an unsecured network, she pushed the same aide to remove a different document from the State Department's classified system and email it to her without markings.

The pair of email exchanges hint at the pattern of disregard for record-keeping practices that landed Clinton and her staff under investigation by the FBI this summer for potentially mishandling classified information.

The more recent email, written in June 2011, was made public Friday by the State Department in an overnight dump of documents lacking subject fields or other distinguishing headers.

In that email, Clinton asked Jake Sullivan, one of her top advisers, to remove the markings from a set of seemingly classified talking points and send it to her "nonsecure" after State Department staff were too slow to send the document over a secure fax line.

But in Feb. 2010, Clinton had made a similar demand of Sullivan after drafts of a diplomatic statement were made on the agency's classified network.

"It's a public statement! Just email it," Clinton wrote after Sullivan informed her of the delay she would face in receiving the document until it was converted to an unclassified format.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

If you don't like those there are many others.