Ray Jay wrote:Fate:

Uh, right. He's one of their cronies.

More than that, he's one of those independent directors of CGI that Ricky claims is making sure that they follow the straight and narrow.

Reading rickyp on this is worse than listening to Carville, Begala, et al. It's not just an insult to anyone with a brain cell, it's also painful. At least with the Clinton lackeys, I know they know better than the spin they spew. With rickyp, well . . . it's sad to think he doesn't know better.

fate

Some have benefited plenty. Name your stakes and I'll expend the effort to prove it

Ah. So I have to prove a negative.
Here's the thing. Your the one who says theirs been quid qua pro. The absence of any evidence that there is ... and your failure to produce any evidence, proves the negative.

Surely there's more on Brietbart and Hot Air than the "circumstantial evidence". Something that can actually make a case.

rickyp wrote:fate

Some have benefited plenty. Name your stakes and I'll expend the effort to prove it

Ah. So I have to prove a negative.

Not what I said. Then again, how rare for you to misrepresent what others say . . . NOT.

I'm willing to prove my case if you're willing to pay for my effort. Otherwise, do it yourself. I don't actually believe you are as stupid as your posts.

Here's the thing. Your (sic) the one who says theirs been quid qua pro (sic). The absence of any evidence that there is ... and your failure to produce any evidence, proves the negative.

Actually, no. An absence of evidence does not mean a crime has not been committed.

Again, I would invite you to consider one little fact: Hillary destroyed evidence AFTER being subpoenaed:

Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton failed to provide any new documents to the congressional panel investigating the Benghazi terrorist attacks, instead notifying the committee that she has “wipe[d] her server clean,” the lead investigator announced. “After seeking and receiving a two week extension from the Committee, Secretary Clinton failed to provide a single new document to the subpoena issued by the Committee and refused to provide her private server to the Inspector General for the State Department or any other independent arbiter for analysis,” Representative Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), the chairman of the select committee investigating the attacks, announced Friday evening. “We learned today, from her attorney, Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server,” he continued. “While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/41 ... oel-gehrke

Now, I know this is really inconvenient for your "she's as pure as the driven snow" narrative, but the truth is she is better than Nixon because she was smart enough to destroy the evidence.

Surely there's more on Brietbart and Hot Air than the "circumstantial evidence". Something that can actually make a case.

I get it. It doesn't matter that Ron and Nicole's bodies lay there and all the evidence points to OJ--unless there's video, you'll vote to acquit.

Fate

An absence of evidence does not mean a crime has not been committed

And an absence of evidence has never stopped you from drawing conclusions that hive onto your peculiar world view.

Fate

I'm willing to prove my case

I believe you are willing.
I don't believe you have any evidence. Therefore you make your standard dodge that your time is too valuable to actually find anything to support your assertions.My guess is you've invested a lot of time, without result. I'm certain thats the case for the thousands of right wing critics of Hillary who have probably invested thousand of hours in an equally fruitless search.
No one, outside of hard core conspiracy enthusiasts, believes Hillary was ever influenced in any way by charitable contributions to CGI because there is no evidence of any actions she took.
On the other hand its clear that large donations to politicians Pacs and Super Pacs always seem to affect the policies of politicians.
I include Hillary in this...
Its also clear that Pacs and Super Pacs are a way for family, friends and allies of the candidates to enrich themselves. I include Hillary in this.........(Well, friends and allies, i think her family is okay without being hired by PAcs.)
Hillary is a politician like any other. But the unique position she has of having a husband who has had a very successful post presidential career and who has, at the same time, generated much good in battling the effects of poverty and ignorance around the world cannot be used to paint a picture of graft or corruption. Because there is no evidence of graft or corruption.
If there are critics of the CGI's spending or methods, or results, that's fair. Since the fund has continued to be popular as a site for charitable giving by CEO's looking for results ... I'll guess they have made evaluations that their money is being well used. And, in a free society, I think they should be free to choose their charities, don't you?

Fate

An absence of evidence does not mean a crime has not been committed

And an absence of evidence has never stopped you from drawing conclusions that hive onto your peculiar world view.

Fate

I'm willing to prove my case

I believe you are willing.
I don't believe you have any evidence. Therefore you make your standard dodge that your time is too valuable to actually find anything to support your assertions.My guess is you've invested a lot of time, without result. I'm certain thats the case for the thousands of right wing critics of Hillary who have probably invested thousand of hours in an equally fruitless search.
No one, outside of hard core conspiracy enthusiasts, believes Hillary was ever influenced in any way by charitable contributions to CGI because there is no evidence of any actions she took.
On the other hand its clear that large donations to politicians Pacs and Super Pacs always seem to affect the policies of politicians.
I include Hillary in this...
Its also clear that Pacs and Super Pacs are a way for family, friends and allies of the candidates to enrich themselves. I include Hillary in this.........(Well, friends and allies, i think her family is okay without being hired by PAcs.)
Hillary is a politician like any other. But the unique position she has of having a husband who has had a very successful post presidential career and who has, at the same time, generated much good in battling the effects of poverty and ignorance around the world cannot be used to paint a picture of graft or corruption. Because there is no evidence of graft or corruption.
If there are critics of the CGI's spending or methods, or results, that's fair. Since the fund has continued to be popular as a site for charitable giving by CEO's looking for results ... I'll guess they have made evaluations that their money is being well used. And, in a free society, I think they should be free to choose their charities, don't you?

Since the fund has continued to be popular as a site for charitable giving by CEO's looking for results ... I'll guess they have made evaluations that their money is being well used.

This assumes that they care about the results. I'm sure many of them do, but for every one of those there will be several more who are just donating for tax purposes and make their choices based more on the social cachet they can gain and the contacts they can make.

rickyp wrote:Fate

An absence of evidence does not mean a crime has not been committed

And an absence of evidence has never stopped you from drawing conclusions that hive onto your peculiar world view.

Nice dodge.

The fact that there is not enough evidence to convict Mrs. Clinton is, in part, due to the fact that she destroyed it.

It was subpoenaed. She destroyed it.

These days liberals see that as "Presidential."

Fate

I'm willing to prove my case

I believe you are willing.
I don't believe you have any evidence.

Then put your money where your keyboard is. I'm not doing your work for free.

Hillary is a politician like any other.

No, she's the biggest crook to run for President in four decades. That makes her unique.

And, in a free society, I think they should be free to choose their charities, don't you?

1. It's not a free society. Our government just banned trans-fats with no authority to do so. Under Obama, whatever he and his agency heads have decided is "best" for America becomes the rule of law, no matter what anyone else wants.

2. Many of the countries donating to the CGI are not "free societies" in any sense of the word. Try being gay in Saudi Arabia. It's not like Canada.

3. Some of these situations appear to be conflicts of interest--at the very least. Many liberal have acknowledged that. If you don't believe me, google it, or better yet, bet me.

Fate

1. It's not a free society. Our government just banned trans-fats with no authority to do so. Under Obama, whatever he and his agency heads have decided is "best" for America becomes the rule of law, no matter what anyone else wants

.
The FDA doesn't have the authority to ban trans fats? You sure?
Seems odd that you support moving heaven and earth to protect America from terrorism by ISIS but when people need protection from stuff that is actually killing them its "hands off".

Today FDA acting commissioner Stephen Ostroff said the move “is expected to reduce coronary heart disease and prevent thousands of fatal heart attacks every year.” It’s extremely difficult to isolate the role of a single nutrient in a fatal heart attack, and this estimation may be optimistic given the currently modest national consumption of trans fats. In the late 1990s, at peak trans fat intake, Walter Willett at the Harvard School of Public Health calculated the effect to be at least 30,000 premature deaths annually. CDC director Thomas Frieden later endorsed an estimate of 50,000. But if Ostroff is right, and there is still much public-health ground to be won through this ban, fine. There is no coherent health argument for a high-trans-fat diet.

Anyway, the ban was close to moot. Since labeling requirements, public education and marketing had forced most foods (85%) to eliminate the use of trans fats.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi ... ts/395972/

(Notice hoiw I linked to a source to provide support for my claim Fate? That's what you could try and do to convince us that your assertions regarding Clinton are accurate. )

Fate

The fact that there is not enough evidence to convict Mrs. Clinton is, in part, due to the fact that she destroyed it.

Its amazing how every time there are scandalous assertions about Clinton she manages to somehow destroy all the evidence. BenGhazi, Vince Foster, File Gate, Cattle futures, Loot Gate, Jorge Cabrera, Norman Jung and now this...
The pattern is the same. And each has fallen apart due to a lack of evidence. There's a pattern. If its because she has such a good team eradicating the evidence you gotta hand it to her. On the other hand, perhaps the pattern suggests an inability to find evidence because there isn't any in the first place, and innuendo serves a political purpose.

Sass

This assumes that they care about the results. I'm sure many of them do, but for every one of those there will be several more who are just donating for tax purposes and make their choices based more on the social cachet they can gain and the contacts they can make

.
I agree that there's a certain amount of the second in much of the decision to donate - especially to CGI.
And I'm certain that Bill, Chelsea and the staff of CGI really take advantage of this. I'll bet when State made a trade arrangement that might have favored American companies Bill or one of his staff, was on the phone to those companies asking about a donation right away, without ever mentioning the trade deal. ....He is slick Willy.

But to suggest that actual policies are changed because of a donation, is ludicrous. The lines that could be drawn would be direct and yet the benefits to Hillary from a donation to CGI so small that they would be inconsequential. Even if Chelsea and Bill are well paid by the foundation, they don't get commissions or a percentage.
Most of Bills money he makes speaking. I was at Ron Reagan's first private speaking engagement when he retired from the Presidency. No one complained then about how a former President made a living from their previous role. Why now that Bill has perfected the game?

I thought this thread was about the Republican Nomination for 2016...

Real Clear Politics polling averages have the following current positions:

Bush - 12.7%
Walker - 11.7%
Rubio - 10.7%
--------
Carson - 9.7%
Huckabee - 8.7%
Paul - 8.0%
Cruz - 6.5%
--------
Christie - 4.5%
Perry - 3.5%
Trump - 3.2%
Fiorina - 1.8%
Santorum - 1.8%
Kasich 1.7%
Graham 1.3%
Jindal 0.8%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -3823.html

All very close. I had a kind of a view of three clumps looking at the graph but it seems that people are moving between them as well. Christie was a front runner, and then slipped into the second group, but is now some way behind them and close to the outsiders. On the other hand, Carson was in the middle group but is within a short jump of the top three - who had narrowed somewhat (perhaps due to the rash of other announcements?)

But in Iowa, Walker is well ahead on his own (Iowa is not a million miles away from Wisconsin I suppose) in the high teens. Then there is a chasing group of Rubio, Huckabee, Paul, Bush and Carson hovering around 8-10% (although they have bunched together recently. Cruz was with them but has slipped to under 7%. The rest are hanging around under 5%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -3823.html

In New Hampshire, it's Bush ahead at the moment on 15%, Walker having slipped from the lead to join Paul and Rubio on 10-12. For some inexplicable reason Trump is on 8, and the rest are on 5s or less.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -3350.html

And South Carolina (which has seen far fewer polls), Bush and Walker are neck and neck at 13-14. Graham is the local boy up on 11%. Cruz, Carson, Huckabee, Rubio, Paul & Christie circling around each other at the 6-8 level.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -4151.html

Of course a snapshot and the trends of the past are perhaps meaningless, especially 6 months from the first group of primaries and any number of "events" yet to come. But it looks to me at this early stage as if the main runners are Walker & Bush and perhaps Rubio (although he is weaker in the early states), with Carson, Huckabee and Paul hanging in there.

Something tells me Walker has a very good chance, especially as some of the wackier ones drop out.

I think it's a little odd that they put Paul below both Huckabee and Carson. Granted, none of those three are exactly likely to win, but you'd have thought that Paul has a much better chance than either of the others.

Do you announce for horse races on your off time, Owen? That was enjoyable to read.

Sassenach wrote:I think it's a little odd that they put Paul below both Huckabee and Carson. Granted, none of those three are exactly likely to win, but you'd have thought that Paul has a much better chance than either of the others.

Well, these are the polls, not the betting.

The way I see it, Paul has a section of the vote, and while it's not exactly the same as for his father, it's similar. They are pretty committed, but he will find it hard to break out of that. So, he will be in that second tier of candidates for as long as he runs, but I don't think he has any chance. On the other hand, the others are all competing for wider constituencies - it's just that it is too crowded for them. One will end up being the main "moderate" candidate, and one the main "traditional" candidate. Those two could be any of about half a dozen or so, but whoever gets into that zone will end up ahead of Paul.

Just my opinion, but.

bbauska wrote:Do you announce for horse races on your off time, Owen? That was enjoyable to read.

I thought it would be more fun (and relevant) than another spirally debate about Hillary Clinton. She already has her own thread for that stuff.

So what do you thing, bbauska - will Walker & Bush be the top two come next spring?

danivon wrote:So what do you think, bbauska - will Walker & Bush be the top two come next spring?

I'm astounded Walker is doing as well as he is. The only thing he's known for is breaking unions in Wisconsin. I can't think of any other reason we know his name. I guess that gets you front runner status in the GOP? But that will only get him so far I think. Bush, Rubio, Paul and even Cruz have more well-rounded reputations.

danivon

The way I see it, Paul has a section of the vote, and while it's not exactly the same as for his father, it's similar

Interestingly of all the potential candidates he polls best against Clinton. Probably his appeal to Independents and non-Clinton Dems.
But he would still lose based on polling to date.
Bush is -5
Walker - 6
Rubio -4
Paul -3.6
Cruz -7.7
Christie -10.7
Carson -11

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... _race.html