It's more about female voters not liking Cruz and Trump--that's why I exempted Rubio. Young female voters like Sanders and are offended with the notion that they should vote for Hillary just because she is female. But Sander's policies and persona are appealing to womens' generally more nurturing nature. In general, Republicans have a tougher time with women with the focus on self-reliance, less of a social net, being more interventionist with the military, support of 2nd Amendment, etc. Trump with his feud with Megan Kelly and other comments about women is not helping himself. Cruz's inflexibility and go it alone approach, talking about guns all the time, character issues, lack of compromise on abortion--none of these play well with women. Rubio, on the other hand , is good-looking and non-threatening, more of a compromiser--so I don't think there would be as much of a gap with female voters.

freeman3 wrote:It's more about female voters not liking Cruz and Trump--that's why I exempted Rubio. Young female voters like Sanders and are offended with the notion that they should vote for Hillary just because she is female. But Sander's policies and persona are appealing to womens' generally more nurturing nature. In general, Republicans have a tougher time with women with the focus on self-reliance, less of a social net, being more interventionist with the military, support of 2nd Amendment, etc. Trump with his feud with Megan Kelly and other comments about women is not helping himself. Cruz's inflexibility and go it alone approach, talking about guns all the time, character issues, lack of compromise on abortion--none of these play well with women. Rubio, on the other hand , is good-looking and non-threatening, more of a compromiser--so I don't think there would be as much of a gap with female voters.

Generally, I think this is right. I do think there are some women who actually pay attention to the issues. ;)

Of course, there are a lot of men who aren't paying attention to the issues either.

National Debt? Middle East in flames? Trade policy?

But, back to the superficial: if Cruz were the best candidate in the world, he'd be a tough sell to those who grade on appearances because he has a naturally dour look. Rubio is, as you said, non-threatening and naturally "friendly" in appearance." For some, it always gets to the "Who would I want to have a beer with" test.

I was reading a book on persuading/influencing people the other day and the guy claimed that people make judgments ( yes,no,maybe ) within 4 seconds of meeting another person. I have seen studies indicating that people with no knowledge of an election can pick the winner just by looking at photos of the candidates with an accuracy rate much higher than 50 percent. Women can look at photos and agree on which men will make better fathers. It seems reasonable to believe that those who were better at quickly and accurately sizing people up tended to survive to reproduce...

So yes appearance is superficial but it's not just skin deep. We project what people will be like very quickly. More knowledge of the person can change that first impression, but we never get to know politicians very well. I'll just say this--it did not take me 4 seconds to realize that Jeb was not going to be president of the United States.

Back to Hillary. I am watching Special Report (nightly newscast on FOX News). General Michael Hayden, former NSA and CIA head said that he would "lose respect" for intelligence agencies of different countries if they had not penetrated Clinton's email server. He said if a similar situation with even ONLY private emails were possible with regard to Sergei Lavrov, he would move heaven and earth to get into it. He said that's what countries do to each other. Intelligence, he said, "is r-rated. It's for adults."

He said Comey is incredibly principled--and he didn't always get along with Comey.

I think Hillary's clock is ticking--her criminal clock.

Sass

I'm not convinced that there's an awful lot of women out there who would cast their vote for Hillary just because she's female.

They'll vote for her because of her policies. That's why Sanders votes will switch to support Hillary when she has the nomination 100%.

In every presidential election year from 1980 - 2008 women have outnumbered men in voting Democratic and the same is true for men outnumbering women voting Republican.[1] From 1980 forward there is a definitive difference in partisanship between male and female voters.[7] The following data was gathered by the Center for American Women and Politics from 13 different sources ranging from October 1994 – September 1996. The various polls (Gallup, CBS, Times Mirror Center, Time, CNN) all found women and men to divided, ranging from 10-25 percentage points, on all of the following issues [8]
Increased role of government
U.S. military intervention
Healthcare and welfare
Firearms restrictions
Affirmative action to achieve racial equality

They may not trust her to the extent they trust Sanders. But when the choice is Trump or Hillary ....

Fate

National Debt? Middle East in flames? Trade policy?

Your concerned about the National debt and you support Ted Cruz?
The Tax Policy Centre said about his tax plans

The plan would also be a large tax cut, which would increase the federal government’s deficit by over $3.6 trillion on a static basis

Fate

I would encourage her to run on a semi-socialist platform. That will surely appeal to a broad spectrum of the . . . Left.

Yes? And if 51% like the policies....(See women voters...) She's in...
Against Trump she'll have a 10 point advantage with women, a 90% advantage with Blacks and a 75% advantage with Hispanics...
How does she lose?

By the way, her presumptive opponent on health care...

Donald Trump said he ideally would want the United States to have a single-payer healthcare system such as that in Scotland or Canada, but it wouldn't work in the U.S. because of state borders.

"I want to see a private system without the artificial lines with every state," Trump said during the Fox News GOP primary debate. "If I am negotiating in New York or California I have one bidder.

"

Someone needs to explain to Donald that the provinces run the single payer system in Canada.

Fate

Back to Hillary. I am watching Special Report (nightly newscast on FOX News).

Of course you are ...

Fate

General Michael Hayden, former NSA and CIA head said that he would "lose respect" for intelligence agencies of different countries if they had not penetrated Clinton's email server.

You mean the guy who said this?

No, not at all — it was us. It was our intelligence estimate. I raised my right hand when [CIA Director George Tenet] asked who supports the key judgments of this national intelligence estimate.
I actually spoke to Leon Panetta much later. He was coming to take my job at CIA and I said, "Leon, I've looked at a lot of the things you've written while you've been out of government. You said that we buckled under pressure with regard to the Iraqi [national intelligence estimate], the weapons of mass destruction." And I said, "Leon, that was us. We were wrong. It was a clean swing and a miss. It was our fault."

Bully for him for admitting his incompetence..

Nothing is happening with Hillary's emails, because of commentators like Hayden.
When you have actual evidence ...
Until then its about whether it will irreparably damage her...Another damning commentator on Fox means nothing.
This does:
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/19/ ... mails.html

rickyp wrote:Fate

Back to Hillary. I am watching Special Report (nightly newscast on FOX News).

Of course you are ...

It's actually a very straight news show for the first half hour. There is then one a somewhat humorous segment, then two "panel" segments, usually with 2 conservatives and a liberal.

You've likely never seen it, but you believe you know what it's all about.

Fate

General Michael Hayden, former NSA and CIA head said that he would "lose respect" for intelligence agencies of different countries if they had not penetrated Clinton's email server.

You mean the guy who said this?

No, not at all — it was us. It was our intelligence estimate. I raised my right hand when [CIA Director George Tenet] asked who supports the key judgments of this national intelligence estimate.
I actually spoke to Leon Panetta much later. He was coming to take my job at CIA and I said, "Leon, I've looked at a lot of the things you've written while you've been out of government. You said that we buckled under pressure with regard to the Iraqi [national intelligence estimate], the weapons of mass destruction." And I said, "Leon, that was us. We were wrong. It was a clean swing and a miss. It was our fault."

Bully for him for admitting his incompetence..

That had NOTHING to do with hacking Hillary's server. All you did there was re-establish this truth: you are a shallow-minded jackass.

Nothing is happening with Hillary's emails, because of commentators like Hayden.

You dismiss his expertise (NSA, CIA) and substitute? Oh yeah, the "expertise" of an idiot in Canada.

What he said was there is little doubt some country accessed her private, unsecured server. That's based on his EXPERIENCE. You know nothing.

And, there is something going on. The AG testified yesterday that the FBI is still investigating. She said their investigation will be reviewed by career attorneys to determine if prosecution is warranted. Again, the FBI doesn't assign 150 agents for NO REASON.

When you have actual evidence ...

Oh, there is evidence. Whether or not there's enough to convict is the only question. Only a moron would pretend there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

Until then its about whether it will irreparably damage her...Another damning commentator on Fox means nothing.

You may not even have an IQ.

He's not "a commentator." He is an intelligence expert. He is offering expert opinion. It would be like you commenting on making ridiculous comments. He knows what he's talking about. When it comes to being foolish, so do you.

fate

Oh, there is evidence

And yet Hayden offered none...

Fate

He's not "a commentator." He is an intelligence expert

He's paid for his appearances as a "Fox News Insider". Call him a contributor or a commentator.... he's a paid talent. If he gave the wrong opinions consistently he wouldn't have a job.
Same way Sarah Palin was a paid contributor based on her expertise.

Is he an expert? I guess so, though by his own admission he failed at his job and contributed immeasurably to the biggest foreign policy mistake in the US in a very long time. (The invasion of Iraq, and its subsequent disastrous occupation and the resulting destabilization of the entire Middle East.)
So, he has been wrong before, and offers conjecture with no supporting evidence.... It suits the narrative of Fox...

Fate

Oh, there is evidence. Whether or not there's enough to convict is the only question

Sure.

rickyp wrote:fate

Oh, there is evidence

And yet Hayden offered none...

You remain as ignorant as ever--congrats.

He was giving his expert insight into what he would be doing if he was heading a foreign intelligence operation. He was saying it would be dereliction of duty not to crack Hillary's server. And, the converse is clearly true: it was malpractice to have said server.

Fate

He's not "a commentator." He is an intelligence expert

He's paid for his appearances as a "Fox News Insider". Call him a contributor or a commentator.... he's a paid talent. If he gave the wrong opinions consistently he wouldn't have a job.
Same way Sarah Palin was a paid contributor based on her expertise.

Yes or NO: Would Michael Hayden be considered an "expert" on matters of intelligence and spying if he were testifying in a court of law?

Answer the question.

Would you be considered an expert in those areas?

Is he an expert? I guess so, though by his own admission he failed at his job and contributed immeasurably to the biggest foreign policy mistake in the US in a very long time. (The invasion of Iraq, and its subsequent disastrous occupation and the resulting destabilization of the entire Middle East.)
So, he has been wrong before, and offers conjecture with no supporting evidence.... It suits the narrative of Fox...

This is sheer jackassery. Making a mistake in estimating the rightness or wrongness of a decision has nothing to do with analyzing the value of an intelligence target.

It's like saying, "The officer estimated the vehicle's speed incorrectly so why should we take his word for it that this is a murder?"

You are being fatuous.

Fate

Oh, there is evidence. Whether or not there's enough to convict is the only question

Sure.

Yes or NO: would the FBI assign 150 agents to investigate something for which there was NO evidence?

Answer the question.

Fate

Making a mistake in estimating the rightness or wrongness of a decision has nothing to do with analyzing the value of an intelligence target.

Actually he admitted to making the wrong estimates of Iraq's WMD.
A pretty substantial blunder.
And contained within that were wrong estimates of the value of intelligence sources like "Curveball."
If he were called as an expert witness in a trial, i'm sure that his credibility would be attacked by the opposing attorney. With some justification.
But we digress.

Fate

Yes or NO: would the FBI assign 150 agents to investigate something for which there was NO evidence?

Depends what you think they are investigating.

The FBI is conducting a general inquiry into the security of Clinton’s private email server. But law enforcement officials have said Clinton herself is not the target of the inquiry, and it is not a full-blown criminal investigation.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -clinton-/

I get it that the media you read doesn't offer this truth... it doesn't fit their narrative.
When pressed, most of the so called experts can't back up their claims.
For instance: This interview with Michael Flynn which ends:

TAPPER: But you don't have evidence that that happened.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/02/1 ... -ad/208573

And where is the source for the 150 agents investigating claim anyway? All i see is the conservative media echo chamber at work? Where's the official who can back this claim up?

rickyp wrote:Fate

Making a mistake in estimating the rightness or wrongness of a decision has nothing to do with analyzing the value of an intelligence target.

Actually he admitted to making the wrong estimates of Iraq's WMD.
A pretty substantial blunder.
And contained within that were wrong estimates of the value of intelligence sources like "Curveball."

You're a fool. Russia, Britain, Israel, and almost every intelligence agency made the same assessment.

And, it has NOTHING TO DO with whether Hillary's unsecured server was an inviting target for virtually every nation of the world. That was Hayden's point which you sought to obscure with sheer stupidity. It nearly worked.

If he were called as an expert witness in a trial, i'm sure that his credibility would be attacked by the opposing attorney. With some justification.
But we digress.

No, you digress. Don't drag anyone else down with you.

Fate

Yes or NO: would the FBI assign 150 agents to investigate something for which there was NO evidence?

Depends what you think they are investigating.

That's not an answer.

The FBI is conducting a general inquiry into the security of Clinton’s private email server. But law enforcement officials have said Clinton herself is not the target of the inquiry, and it is not a full-blown criminal investigation.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -clinton-/

Nope, nice try. Firstly, the FBI is a law enforcement agency.

Second, the AG testified yesterday--as I said. Now things are a bit more clear:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch confirmed to Congress Wednesday that career Justice Department attorneys are working with FBI agents on the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email practices and the handling of classified material.

Legal experts say the assignment of career Justice Department attorneys to the case shows the FBI probe has progressed beyond the initial referral, or "matured," giving agents access to the U.S. government’s full investigative tool box, including subpoena power for individuals, business or phone records, as well as witnesses.

In other words, it's a criminal investigation.

MacMahon who recently represented CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling, who was convicted of leaking intelligence to a New York Times reporter and is now serving a three- and-a-half-year prison sentence, said the pairing of FBI agents and Justice Department attorneys generally reflects the fact that the investigation has moved beyond an initial inquiry.

“As a general matter, a U.S. attorney is assigned as an FBI investigation progresses. The partnership with the U.S. attorney allows the FBI to use the investigation tools of the U.S. government, including subpoenas for evidence, business or phone records, as well as witnesses. And you need (a) U.S. attorney to convene a grand jury.”

It is not publicly known whether any of those actions have been taken. But an intelligence source close to the FBI probe said the career professionals at the bureau "will be angry and walk off if no indictment recommendation is followed through."

I get it that the media you read doesn't offer this truth... it doesn't fit their narrative.

I get that you only read old news that agrees with you. Try to catch up.

When pressed, most of the so called experts can't back up their claims.

More jackassery. Flynn is not in the FBI. He is not investigating. He merely looks at what is PUBLIC RECORD (the thousands of released emails) and gives his opinion BASED ON HIS EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE.

You have neither. You have hope. Good luck with that.

You didn't answer the question, so I won't answer yours.

Your posts on this are an insult to your keyboard, which is smarter than what it is being forced to produce.

Oh, and just in case you want to argue or continue your flim-flammery:

You may recall that when the FBI referral was initially made by the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community last year it was described by the New York Times as a criminal investigation. That description was not supposition on the part of the NY Times, it was confirmed by unnamed sources believed to be inside the Justice Department. Other news organizations got the same confirmations when they asked.

A day later the story had changed. The NY Times was forced to back away from the description of a “criminal investigation” after DOJ clarified they had received a “security referral.” A spokesperson for the IG’s office told me the difference between a security referral and a criminal referral last year. A security referral involves possible mishandling of classified information, in this case sending highly classified material over an unclassified email system. That differs from a criminal referral which is generally directed at a specific individual.

Natually, Clinton’s allies in the media swarmed over the error by the NY Times but even a security referral to the FBI is premised on possible criminal conduct, meaning that in the end the result of either referral could be a recommendation for prosecution. It certainly sounds as if some career staff at the FBI already think that is warranted.

Fate

I get that you only read old news that agrees with you. Try to catch up

.

So you quoted from FOX News (of course) and they put a spin on it.
Here's an alternative report of the same hearing for you...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the ... ion-219733

The take aways.

Lynch didn't say anything new about the inquiry, except to confirm that she has yet to receive any request from her staff to act one way or another on the case.
It's unclear whether the FBI inquiry, which began as a look at a potential counterintelligence breach, is now focused on Clinton personally, her staff or others.

Different than Fox huh?

Fate

Flynn is not in the FBI. He is not investigating. He merely looks at what is PUBLIC RECORD (the thousands of released emails) and gives his opinion BASED ON HIS EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE

His unsupported and unsubstantiated opinion, which is then often reported as if it actually contributed something of substance.
Your listening only to the Conservative echo chamber Fate.

rickyp wrote:Fate

I get that you only read old news that agrees with you. Try to catch up

.

So you quoted from FOX News (of course) and they put a spin on it.
Here's an alternative report of the same hearing for you...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the ... ion-219733

The take aways.

Lynch didn't say anything new about the inquiry, except to confirm that she has yet to receive any request from her staff to act one way or another on the case.
It's unclear whether the FBI inquiry, which began as a look at a potential counterintelligence breach, is now focused on Clinton personally, her staff or others.

Different than Fox huh?

No, they just missed a fine point: career prosecutors would not be reviewing the case if there was not a criminal investigation. That's not difficult to grasp--unless you're in the tank for Hillary.

And, it is possible that they are investigating someone other than Hillary. However, it is impossible that they are not investigating a possible criminal act.

What you fail to grasp is that Fox's reporters, like Catherine Herridge, are among the very best. This isn't a commentator. This is a reporter. She's good.

Fate

Flynn is not in the FBI. He is not investigating. He merely looks at what is PUBLIC RECORD (the thousands of released emails) and gives his opinion BASED ON HIS EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE

His unsupported and unsubstantiated opinion, which is then often reported as if it actually contributed something of substance.
Your listening only to the Conservative echo chamber Fate.

You disregard the facts. You disregard the experts. You go to an out-of-date politi-fact and put your hands over your eyes and ears. You're an immature know-nothing.

Actually, you remind me of no one so much as Trump: repeat the same old saws over and over again and refuse to acknowledge evidence.