The Hillary Clinton thread

[Defiant]

I do wonder if there's a good resource for distinguishing between good sources and non-good sources online. It would be very useful.

(Not as in CNN vs Fox News, but CNN or Fox News as opposed to something not composed of journalists at all. Something like that would be very beneficial for Google or Facebook to implement)

[Scoop20906]

Yeah it would be great. But everytime someone sets up a system then people then manage to game the system.

I think we are stuck until we develop AI's to perform the journalism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rip]

Individuals who listed their employers as the U.S. Department of Defense or major branches of the military, or who say they’re retired from one of those, have contributed a total of $972,709 to both nominees so far this year. Clinton has claimed $771,471 of the contributions, or nearly 80 percent.

Members of the military giving three times as much to Clinton as to Trump

DoD employees != members of the military. Thanks for playing.

[Defiant]

Individuals who listed their employers as the U.S. Department of Defense or major branches of the military, or who say they’re retired from one of those, have contributed a total of $972,709 to both nominees so far this year. Clinton has claimed $771,471 of the contributions, or nearly 80 percent.

Members of the military giving three times as much to Clinton as to Trump

DoD employees != members of the military. Thanks for playing.

Individuals who listed their employers as the U.S. Department of Defense or major branches of the military, or who say they’re retired from one of those

Nice try. Thanks for playing.

[Scoop20906]

Individuals who listed their employers as the U.S. Department of Defense or major branches of the military, or who say they’re retired from one of those, have contributed a total of $972,709 to both nominees so far this year. Clinton has claimed $771,471 of the contributions, or nearly 80 percent.

Members of the military giving three times as much to Clinton as to Trump

DoD employees != members of the military. Thanks for playing.

Even if what you are saying is true (which some reading would prove it wasn't) what was your point?

Is there a difference between DOD employees and members of the military I wasn't aware of?

I've worked with both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rip]

Individuals who listed their employers as the U.S. Department of Defense or major branches of the military, or who say they’re retired from one of those, have contributed a total of $972,709 to both nominees so far this year. Clinton has claimed $771,471 of the contributions, or nearly 80 percent.

Members of the military giving three times as much to Clinton as to Trump

DoD employees != members of the military. Thanks for playing.

Individuals who listed their employers as the U.S. Department of Defense or major branches of the military, or who say they’re retired from one of those

Nice try. Thanks for playing.

But the text of the link says "Members of the military giving three times as much to Clinton as to Trump" which is patently false. So what are the numbers for people who entered a major branch of the military without needlessly tossing in DoD employees to get the misleading headline that was obviously desired?

[RunningMn9]

Who wants to point out that a significant portion of DoD employees are also former military?

[Max Peck]

Individuals who listed their employers as the U.S. Department of Defense or major branches of the military, or who say they’re retired from one of those, have contributed a total of $972,709 to both nominees so far this year. Clinton has claimed $771,471 of the contributions, or nearly 80 percent.

Members of the military giving three times as much to Clinton as to Trump

DoD employees != members of the military. Thanks for playing.

Individuals who listed their employers as the U.S. Department of Defense or major branches of the military, or who say they’re retired from one of those

Nice try. Thanks for playing.

But the text of the link says "Members of the military giving three times as much to Clinton as to Trump" which is patently false. So what are the numbers for people who entered a major branch of the military without needlessly tossing in DoD employees to get the misleading headline that was obviously desired?

All major branches of the armed forces – including the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard – have favored Clinton to a much greater degree than GOP nominee Donald Trump. Members of the Army have contributed more than other branches of the service this cycle, giving a total of $191,712 to the two presidential hopefuls, 72 percent of which went to Clinton.

Meanwhile, it’s the Air Force that has given the largest portion of its contributions to Trump, though it still favors Clinton by a lot. Trump received 39 percent of the $110,711 given to the two candidates by people connected to the Air Force.

(Our analysis includes donors giving more than $200; candidates don’t have to provide identifying information about smaller donors to the public.)

If this seems surprising, consider this: Up until the primaries were over, the military favorite was Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), who received $374,600. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) came in a close third after Clinton.

“People assume the military leans Republican, but I think that has fundamentally changed in the 21st century,” retired Rear Adm. Jamie Barnett said.

Barnett, who has contributed $600 to Clinton campaign so far this cycle, also said that since a single person in the Oval Office can commit the country to war, those in uniform are certainly willing to put some money on the line to help elect a leader they believe has the right skill set. “The last thing we want to see is our men and women in uniform going into a war we don’t need” due to ego, lack of judgment or some other personal flaw, Barnett added.

Retired members of the military seem particularly aghast at the thought of a Trump presidency, based on their contributions this cycle. Of the $135,392 that came from former service members so far, only 2 percent has gone to the brash businessman’s campaign.

Which was too difficult for you, clicking on the link or reading all those words?

[Rip]

Individuals who listed their employers as the U.S. Department of Defense or major branches of the military, or who say they’re retired from one of those, have contributed a total of $972,709 to both nominees so far this year. Clinton has claimed $771,471 of the contributions, or nearly 80 percent.

Members of the military giving three times as much to Clinton as to Trump

DoD employees != members of the military. Thanks for playing.

Even if what you are saying is true (which some reading would prove it wasn't) what was your point?

Is there a difference between DOD employees and members of the military I wasn't aware of?

I've worked with both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, DoD employees are more interested in how much money is being spent on new toys, while military members are more concerernd with benefits for military people and whether the POTUS is using them effectively and/or endangering them needlessly.

Basically members of the military are putting their lives on the line. DoD employees are more concerned with who is bringing them pork. More importantly DoD employees are fair better compensated and have more money for giving to campaign that actual military members who are more concerned with surviving on the crumbs they are given.

If I was going to mix anyone in with military members it would be veterans but that would be a varied bunch and there would be no way of knowing whether they were more influenced by their service or by whatever career/life they have lead after leaving.

[GreenGoo]

There's a pretty huge difference between members and employees. As Max said, some employees (a not insignificant amount) are former members who have the unique position to have good insight into both viewpoints.

I didn't read the article and don't want to get into supporting one side or the other, just wanted to throw in my 2 cents.

[Rip]

Individuals who listed their employers as the U.S. Department of Defense or major branches of the military, or who say they’re retired from one of those, have contributed a total of $972,709 to both nominees so far this year. Clinton has claimed $771,471 of the contributions, or nearly 80 percent.

Members of the military giving three times as much to Clinton as to Trump

DoD employees != members of the military. Thanks for playing.

Individuals who listed their employers as the U.S. Department of Defense or major branches of the military, or who say they’re retired from one of those

Nice try. Thanks for playing.

But the text of the link says "Members of the military giving three times as much to Clinton as to Trump" which is patently false. So what are the numbers for people who entered a major branch of the military without needlessly tossing in DoD employees to get the misleading headline that was obviously desired?

All major branches of the armed forces – including the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard – have favored Clinton to a much greater degree than GOP nominee Donald Trump. Members of the Army have contributed more than other branches of the service this cycle, giving a total of $191,712 to the two presidential hopefuls, 72 percent of which went to Clinton.

Meanwhile, it’s the Air Force that has given the largest portion of its contributions to Trump, though it still favors Clinton by a lot. Trump received 39 percent of the $110,711 given to the two candidates by people connected to the Air Force.

(Our analysis includes donors giving more than $200; candidates don’t have to provide identifying information about smaller donors to the public.)

If this seems surprising, consider this: Up until the primaries were over, the military favorite was Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), who received $374,600. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) came in a close third after Clinton.

“People assume the military leans Republican, but I think that has fundamentally changed in the 21st century,” retired Rear Adm. Jamie Barnett said.

Barnett, who has contributed $600 to Clinton campaign so far this cycle, also said that since a single person in the Oval Office can commit the country to war, those in uniform are certainly willing to put some money on the line to help elect a leader they believe has the right skill set. “The last thing we want to see is our men and women in uniform going into a war we don’t need” due to ego, lack of judgment or some other personal flaw, Barnett added.

Retired members of the military seem particularly aghast at the thought of a Trump presidency, based on their contributions this cycle. Of the $135,392 that came from former service members so far, only 2 percent has gone to the brash businessman’s campaign.

Which was too difficult for you, clicking on the link or reading all those words?

It also only reflects only donations over $200 which is far more than most enlisted military people are going to have to contribute.

More importantly it uses this data to indicate military people favor Clinton which is utter hogwash. They aren't Trump fans by any means but they prefer Johnson over Clinton by a wide margin.



You see a little more support among the officers which is probably where all of the $200 plus donations are coming from.

[Scoop20906]

Individuals who listed their employers as the U.S. Department of Defense or major branches of the military, or who say they’re retired from one of those, have contributed a total of $972,709 to both nominees so far this year. Clinton has claimed $771,471 of the contributions, or nearly 80 percent.

Members of the military giving three times as much to Clinton as to Trump

DoD employees != members of the military. Thanks for playing.

Even if what you are saying is true (which some reading would prove it wasn't) what was your point?

Is there a difference between DOD employees and members of the military I wasn't aware of?

I've worked with both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, DoD employees are more interested in how much money is being spent on new toys, while military members are more concerernd with benefits for military people and whether the POTUS is using them effectively and/or endangering them needlessly.

Basically members of the military are putting their lives on the line. DoD employees are more concerned with who is bringing them pork. More importantly DoD employees are fair better compensated and have more money for giving to campaign that actual military members who are more concerned with surviving on the crumbs they are given.

If I was going to mix anyone in with military members it would be veterans but that would be a varied bunch and there would be no way of knowing whether they were more influenced by their service or by whatever career/life they have lead after leaving.

That's a pretty cynical view of DOD employees. How long did you work as one or with them? If you don't mind sharing that personal information.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scoop20906]

There's a pretty huge difference between members and employees. As Max said, some employees (a not insignificant amount) are former members who have the unique position to have good insight into both viewpoints.

I didn't read the article and don't want to get into supporting one side or the other, just wanted to throw in my 2 cents.

I guess my point is why is one types donation any meaningful difference than the other.

Also, the number of armed forces members greatly outnumbers the number DOD employees.

It just seems like a disrespectful comment from someone. I can only imagine that comment comes from someone who has worked in the DOD and has first hand knowledge. Because if they didn't have that experience I have to question why they would make such a comment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scoop20906]

Lol $200 is a lot more than I contributed to either candidate.

Glad to see you read the article.

Maybe you can find us an article that shows the donation break down below $200.

Or you could write a polite request to the article's author for us. I'd be interested to learned what the breakdown is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RunningMn9]

The DoD is the largest employer in the country with 742,000 but that's only a little more than half of active duty military at 1.3M.

Not sure if those DoD numbers count contractors (probably not since we aren't DoD civilians).

[Scoop20906]

The DoD is the largest employer in the country with 742,000 but that's only a little more than half of active duty military at 1.3M.

Not sure if those DoD numbers count contractors (probably not since we aren't DoD civilians).

Wow, thanks for the corrections. I thought it be a third of active duty and not half. Hard to know if they include contractors. I'd doubt the too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RunningMn9]

The numbers specifically call out DoD civilians. Contractors are not DoD civilians and aren't technically employed by the DoD.

[Defiant]

Maybe you can find us an article that shows the donation break down below $200.

Campaign finance law only require turning in full information on voters who donate over $200 to a campaign, so that's probably not available.

[Scoop20906]

Maybe you can find us an article that shows the donation break down below $200.

Campaign finance law only require turning in full information on voters who donate over $200 to a campaign, so that's probably not available.

Thanks Defiant.

So the author of the article didn't skew the data to prove their point. They just presented the available data.

Well, I actually learned some things there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rip]

Individuals who listed their employers as the U.S. Department of Defense or major branches of the military, or who say they’re retired from one of those, have contributed a total of $972,709 to both nominees so far this year. Clinton has claimed $771,471 of the contributions, or nearly 80 percent.

Members of the military giving three times as much to Clinton as to Trump

DoD employees != members of the military. Thanks for playing.

Even if what you are saying is true (which some reading would prove it wasn't) what was your point?

Is there a difference between DOD employees and members of the military I wasn't aware of?

I've worked with both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, DoD employees are more interested in how much money is being spent on new toys, while military members are more concerned with benefits for military people and whether the POTUS is using them effectively and/or endangering them needlessly.

Basically members of the military are putting their lives on the line. DoD employees are more concerned with who is bringing them pork. More importantly DoD employees are fair better compensated and have more money for giving to campaign that actual military members who are more concerned with surviving on the crumbs they are given.

If I was going to mix anyone in with military members it would be veterans but that would be a varied bunch and there would be no way of knowing whether they were more influenced by their service or by whatever career/life they have lead after leaving.

That's a pretty cynical view of DOD employees. How long did you work as one or with them? If you don't mind sharing that personal information.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I spent years in Shipyards while in the Navy, I worked around bunches of them. The first sub I was on was also a precom unit so we had DoD employees riding all the time. It was actually my intention when I got out to become one, but other opportunities availed themselves and since I didn't really want to work for the government any longer I jumped on them.

That said I don't see it as cynical. If I had went on to become a DoD employee I would have looked out for my interests first as well. I'm sure at the DoD, just like the Justice Department and IRS it is professionally expedient to be seen as politically on the same team as whoever is in the Oval Office.

[Scoop20906]

Thanks for sharing Rip.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rip]

That said, I haven't worked with any for some time and I am certain they care more about the safety and welfare of the people in the armed forces far more than your average Joe on the street. They are predominately good people and are a key part of what makes our military superior to those with far more manpower.

[Scoop20906]

That said, I haven't worked with any for some time and I am certain they care more about the safety and welfare of the people in the armed forces far more than your average Joe on the street. They are predominately good people and are a key part of what makes our military superior to those with far more manpower.

That was my feeling when I worked with the DOD as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Max Peck]

More importantly it uses this data to indicate military people favor Clinton which is utter hogwash. They aren't Trump fans by any means but they prefer Johnson over Clinton by a wide margin.

No, they quoted one individual who said that military people favour Clinton, but they also quoted this guy:

Of course, history has shown that campaign contributions don’t necessarily reflect the results at the polls. Despite Obama’s victory in contributions from the military, 2012 Gallup data showed that veterans preferred Romney by 24 points over Obama.

Ramapo College Professor Jeremy Teigen, who studies military and politics, warned that while Clinton — and before her Obama — may be more popular with members of the military who donate to candidates, “that does not mirror the partisan voting tendencies of the military overall. We know, for instance, that the officer ranks trend substantially toward the GOP while the enlisted ranks trend less so but still toward Republicans.”

That Republican leaning has become more pronounced since the draft ended in the 1970s, Teigen said. “Now that the military is entirely self-selected, mostly male, and somewhat more likely to come from conservative social contexts, the men in the armed forces vote for Republican candidates and identify with the Republican Party more than not,” he said. (Teigen noted that less is known about the political leanings of women in the military.)

If you're going to critique an article, try reading it first instead of just scanning snippets of it.

[Defiant]

Crap, more e-mails.

Email Leak Reveals Clinton Ignored Calls for aid From Nigerian Prince

[Scoop20906]

30,001 emails deleted now. Funny


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[em2nought]

with lyrics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ6m6TL6Zqk

[gbasden]

Fuck right the hell off.

[gilraen]

gbasden beat me to it.

[stessier]

What did you expect? People would have posted similar things in the Trump thread had Hillary won.

[raydude]

What did you expect? People would have posted similar things in the Trump thread had Hillary won.

We don't have to rely on hypotheticals. We could go back to seeing what folks did here when Obama won over McCain. I do not recall ungracious winning, but I could be wrong.

[stessier]

What did you expect? People would have posted similar things in the Trump thread had Hillary won.

We don't have to rely on hypotheticals. We could go back to seeing what folks did here when Obama won over McCain. I do not recall ungracious winning, but I could be wrong.

McCain was not Trump. You really don't think someone wouldn't have posted a dumpster fire being put out or similar?

[raydude]

What did you expect? People would have posted similar things in the Trump thread had Hillary won.

We don't have to rely on hypotheticals. We could go back to seeing what folks did here when Obama won over McCain. I do not recall ungracious winning, but I could be wrong.

McCain was not Trump. You really don't think someone wouldn't have posted a dumpster fire being put out or similar?

Someone on this board? No. Sadly we'll have to wait 4 years to see if I am wrong.

[GreenGoo]

What did you expect? People would have posted similar things in the Trump thread had Hillary won.

We don't have to rely on hypotheticals. We could go back to seeing what folks did here when Obama won over McCain. I do not recall ungracious winning, but I could be wrong.

Sarah Palin was the fly in the ointment. If there wasn't gloating over her having cost McCain the election, I'd be very surprised.

I'm ok with people gloating over the win. Drumpf was an underdog and had been treated as an impossible candidate. It's natural to do "I told you so's" and losing gracefully is not easy, especially for Americans (I don't think anyone would argue with the characterization that Americans don't like to lose ).

That said, don't try to sell me on Drumpf now. Nothing has changed as far as his ability to lead, govern, or have a coherent thought in his head. He's a shit stain of a human being, with no experience governing, bad instincts and a fragile ego. Putting him in the white house doesn't change that.

You got what you wanted. Drumpf won. I accept it and I don't begrudge some victory dances. Again, that doesn't mean he's qualified so don't try to convince me after the fact. I heard all the same arguments before the election, and they failed to convince me then. That hasn't changed.

My wife and I lost sleep last night. We have never lost sleep over an American election before. Not even when you re-elected Bush after going into Iraq (for no apparent reason other than you wanted to).

You might not give a shit what a foreigner thinks. That's fair. But consider the fact that what's good for America is typically good for Canada. And what's bad for America is typically bad for Canada. We wouldn't be tossing and turning if we thought the good times were going to roll.

Here's hoping we're wrong, when all evidence indicates we're not. Good luck.

Cheers.

P.S. Would it hurt to spend some money on education? Multi-degree Drumpf supporters not withstanding of course.

[raydude]

P.S. Would it hurt to spend some money on education? Multi-degree Drumpf supporters not withstanding of course.

Kind of hard to do that when there's talk of removing an entire Dept. of Education. And considering Kansas has tried the 'tax cuts to let the good times roll' twice and failed - only to cut back on schooling - I do not have high hopes that Trump's 'tax cuts to let the good times roll' plan will be any better.

[hepcat]

Crap, more e-mails.

Email Leak Reveals Clinton Ignored Calls for aid From Nigerian Prince

Ah, Monday. The good old days.

[Blackhawk]

I wonder if her career will ever recover from this, or if she'll just quietly retire.

[hepcat]

If you're Usain Bolt and you get beaten in a race by Rip Taylor, you retire.

[El Guapo]

Yeah there's nowhere to go from here.

[gilraen]

There's plenty of good she can do without being a politician.

Despite Trump campaign covering the Clinton Foundation in mud for the past 18 months, it does great things around the world, and Hillary can continue working on causes that are important to her.