There are specific laws pertaining to the Clinton email situation too.

Gross negligence (regardless of the outcome) for example is a breach of the applicable law.

Election model is up and running. It's moderately more optimistic than Silver.

This is just the outcome of a single simulation, but how great would that be.

Hillary winning most of the deep south would be completely insane.

Pure fantasy.

What odds would you be willing to lay against hil > 450 electoral votes?

No, they get an administrative slap on the wrist. In this case a ticket.

No, just no. Is there a dead person? If no, there isn't a murder charge. If yes, then ask was it premeditated? If yes, charge with first degree murder. If no, then ask was the death caused by an intentional act? If yes, charge with second degree murder. If no, then ask was it caused by gross negligence? if yes, charge with manslaughter. If no, rule an accident.

In the case of the great email scandal, ask if anyone who wasn't allowed access to classified material gained access to said material? If no, welp that's it folks***. If yes, ask if unauthorized access was caused by gross negligence on Hillary's part. If yes, feel free to indict.

***This is where reality ends.

the 47 of them who still care were always going to be too #triggered by the microaggression of having to go outside to vote anyway. the rest will fall in line. not sure how many of the latter are left, though; Bernie really did need to drop out two months ago to max his vote-EV

what odds do you want?

Also, it seems like a lot of the irritating SE Trump supporters have taken their ball and gone back home.

Blue hue of Kentucky, keep on shining.

To be fair, he has also backed off his promise to randomly shoot people on 5th Ave.

The law literally requires something bad to happen before you can punish someone for it, so yes. Why is this so hard for you guys? Read the ****ing statute, it's like a paragraph long. Doing that last spring would've saved y'all a bunch of disappointment.

"randomly"

Sort by per capita GDP growth, become expert? There's no question that Mexico has suffered a lot from competition from lower-wage countries that can compete more effectively than they used to be able to in the U.S. markets. Nor is it all that surprising that the much poorer countries in the rest of Latin America are growing faster than solidly middle-income Mexico.

Like, the main policy argument here seems to be that high food prices are good for Mexicans, and it's good for lots of Mexicans to be engaged in small-scale farming. WHY? What positive developments do you expect to come out of that? What country has ever become wealthy by doing anything other than reducing the amount of labor devoted to agriculture? What's the plan?

You should read up on the economic history of India. Their policies are stuff you would love: extreme skepticism of MNEs, lots of regulations, import-substitution industrialization, quotas on agricultural imports, all that stuff. The results, of course, have not been great.

The US still protects the hell out of its agriculture.

Destroying small farms, not just poor farm labor but land owning farmers, is not the same story as new and better things attracting people to the cities.

Why not leave the Platonic realm?

There is mixed analysis on the events as a whole. I grant you that you'll find some winners and suggestions that the economy as a whole won by a very small amount. But, find some analysis that the poor in Mexico and working class in the US haven't lost badly.

You're still strawmanning. I don't claim any possible trade pact anywhere is bad.

I still haven't gone much into what I think is a huge problem because I don't think most of you care, but shifting industry to the developing world combined with weak environmental rules and enforcement is a disaster.

How much credit is deserved for believing in science when you act as if you don't?

And again, the answer could be regulation and enforcement, but that's not what the people who actually wrote all of these deals want.

So we all agree that her behavior is just as bad as if classified info had gotten into the wrong hands? We're all equally as shook by her actions as we would have been if all else was equal but classified info actually fell into the wrong hands? We all feel equally about what this means about her capacity to be POTUS when compared with the scenario involving all else being the same minus the info remaining out of the wrong hands?

If we agree the indictment / gross negligence shouldn't fit only because of factors outside of her control happening / not happening after she exposed classified info, I think we should agree on the first paragraph.

While we might want our legal system to focus exclusively on SklanskyConsequences of actions, different punishments depending on actual consequences of actions is not something just cooked up for the Hillary Clinton case. Sort of a widespread feature of our legal system.

If Republicans had a) not nominated the almost literal WOAT candidate and b) had the sense not to pound the Clinton criminal conspiracy drum for the 100th time and, instead, argued how the competency and experience candidate ran her email system at state like a careless rank amateur this actually could have done some real damage.

But.....candidate Trump, the breathless indictment fairy hopes we've seen in this thread, and the House launching the Beeennnnnnghaaazzziii Part 8 scandal that 80% of the country has no interest in and here we are, Hillary wins in a walk.

As someone who was part of the OPM breach, I wish she'd have kept my personal info on her servers rather than government servers.

Low Key's excuse-making is getting more and more hilarious.

The good thing is that Republicans can't attack her for what she did that was actually wrong because they want more secrecy, dodging FOIA is something they respect, and the stuff she wanted to hide was stuff they like.

The GOP had the option of focusing on the judgment and wisdom of her actions, you know, a solid single. That wasn't enough, they tried to stretch it to a triple by just running across the infield. And now they think it has to be a conspiracy that they got called out.

All I'm saying is that she wasn't indicted under (f), the gross negligence one, because there's no evidence she permitted any information she was entrusted with to be lost.

uh, but she permitted it to be removed by the mere existence of her server not being on government grounds. Chessmate.

30:1. Alternatively I'd take Hil 450 vs. TRUMP 450 (inbetween = no action) at evens

This, good sir, is a bold prediction. One that would surely break US politics.