Hillary blames Comey

Originally posted by lemon lime
Why do you think so many experts and pundants who believed Trump couldn't win were proven wrong?

There's a difference between those who work at controlling a narrative and those who believe (or don't believe) a false narrative. Some are easily influenced by what they see in the news and some aren't.
Are you suggesting most news sources had bent over backwards to support Trump and dump on Hillary?

It turns out that the news sources that bent over backwards to support Trump, like Breitbart and Facebook viral stories, had more influence than the MSM, probably because their followers are what we now so beautifully describe with the euphemism "low-information voters."

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]The birther issue may have started with a few Clinton supporters who refused to give up after Clinton herself had conceded the 2008 nomination, however the Democrats dropped it years ago...

Wrong. It came directly from the Clinton camp while she was still campaigning for the nomination. It was only dropped after Obama had been nominated. Whether ...[text shortened]... dals and controversies seem to end... constant blowback from a biased press, and battle fatigue.[/b]

This is just conspiracy theory nonsense. The whole thing was always a total red herring because even if Obama had been born in Kenya it wouldn't have made any difference to his eligibility to be President as his mother was a citizen and he had been resident for at least fourteen years. Clinton will have known that and while it might have helped during the nomination campaign, it could hardly have been any use to her after the event. You're trying to accuse her of things she has no interest in doing.

Originally posted by DeepThought
This is just conspiracy theory nonsense. The whole thing was always a total red herring because even if Obama had been born in Kenya it wouldn't have made any difference to his eligibility to be President as his mother was a citizen and he had been resident for at least fourteen years. Clinton will have known that and while it might have helped ...[text shortened]... use to her after the event. You're trying to accuse her of things she has no interest in doing.

The birther stuff is nonsense but you are incorrect as to Presidential eligibility; the Constitution requires that the President be a "natural born citizen". That would not be satisfied by later residence as that is a separate Constitutional requirement.
.

Originally posted by DeepThought
This is just conspiracy theory nonsense. The whole thing was always a total red herring because even if Obama had been born in Kenya it wouldn't have made any difference to his eligibility to be President as his mother was a citizen and he had been resident for at least fourteen years. Clinton will have known that and while it might have helped ...[text shortened]... use to her after the event. You're trying to accuse her of things she has no interest in doing.

Yes, she dropped the birther angle (in 2008) after Obama got the nomination. I already said that, so what's your point?
Whether or not Obama is technically a citizen or not is moot. He has been the president of the US for the past eight years, and will soon not be the president.

He won't need to be hiding out on a golf course anymore.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The birther stuff is nonsense but you are incorrect as to Presidential eligibility; the Constitution requires that the President be a "natural born citizen". That would not be satisfied by later residence as that is a separate Constitutional requirement.
.

I got that from an article talking about it on the BBC website, possibly this one [1]. Looking at the Wikipedia page [2] near the bottom it mentions Ted Cruz whose actual circumstances are similar to Obama's alleged ones and no legal challenges against his right to stand were successful so it seems unlikely that any legal challenge to Obama standing would have been successful even if he had been born in Kenya.

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35244080
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause

Originally posted by DeepThought
I got that from an article talking about it on the BBC website, possibly this one [1]. Looking at the Wikipedia page [2] near the bottom it mentions Ted Cruz whose actual circumstances are similar to Obama's alleged ones and no legal challenges against his right to stand were successful so it seems unlikely that any legal challenge to Obama standing wou ...[text shortened]... uk/news/election-us-2016-35244080
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause

It's doubtful any legal challenge would be successful on technical grounds involving both standing and the political question doctrine. However, I think Larry Tribe accurately states what either an originalist or one who believes in original intent would say:

In his emails to the Guardian, Tribe discussed Cruz’s own approach to constitutional issues, noting that under “the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the supreme court – an ‘originalist’ who claims to be bound by the historical meaning of the constitution’s terms at the time of their adoption – Cruz wouldn’t be eligible because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and 90s required that someone be born on US soil to be a ‘natural born’ citizen.”
He added: “Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice for a genuine originalist. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would clearly have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/11/laurence-tribe-ted-cruz-donald-trump-citizen-president

Obviously the same argument would apply to a hypothetically born in Kenya Obama.

I should say it is my opinion your characterization is wrong, the issue is unsettled and reasonable minds have taken different positions.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It turns out that the news sources that bent over backwards to support Trump, like Breitbart and Facebook viral stories, had more influence than the MSM, probably because their followers are what we now so beautifully describe with the euphemism "low-information voters."

So you figure what, that voters can get good (high) information from low information sources?

We have people right now wandering around in the streets upset, screaming and crying and causing havoc because the inevitable victory of their beloved candidate didn't happen. Somehow their 'high' information sources got it wrong. Do you honestly think experts and pundits typically end up with egg on their faces when relying on good data?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Yes, she dropped the birther angle (in 2008) after Obama got the nomination. I already said that, so what's your point?
Whether or not Obama is technically a citizen or not is moot. He has been the president of the US for the past eight years, and will soon [b]not be the president.

He won't need to be hiding out on a golf course anymore.[/b]

After a little digging, according to snopes.com [1] the earliest known internet posts regarding the birther movement is here [2], dated 1/3/2008 and this one dated 5th of March [3]. The Clinton staff who circulated the email did so in April of that year [3]. So it appeared on a right wing site first and the birther movement did not originate with the Democrats after all.

[1] http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-started-birther-movement/
[2] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1978110/posts?page=391#391
[3] http://alanpetersroundup.blogspot.co.uk/2008/03/freedoms-enemies-obama-story.html
[4] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8478044/Birther-row-began-with-Hillary-Clinton-supporters.html

see also

[5] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article102354777.html

Originally posted by DeepThought
After a little digging, according to snopes.com [1] the earliest known internet posts regarding the birther movement is here [2], dated 1/3/2008 and this one dated 5th of March [3]. The Clinton staff who circulated the email did so in April of that year [3]. So it appeared on a right wing site first and the birther movement did not originate with the D ...[text shortened]... e also

[5] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article102354777.html

Okay, so apparently it first showed up somewhere else. But a Clinton operative made sure it didn't stay out of sight, and gave it legs so that it would get national attention. It's difficult to believe Mz Clinton didn't know about it and would have disapproved that message, because of how it fits the Clinton's MO (Bill and Hillary) for the past 30 years.

In my opinion (I concede opinions are arguable) Hillary didn't help Obama's so called legacy, and Obama didn't provide a platform of success Hillary needed to be the next act to follow. Bush senior got in following Reagan's success, and Hillary failed to get in due to Obama's failure. In spite of what some politicians may believe, many ordinary citizens (of any country) have very long memories.

Originally posted by lemon lime
So you figure what, that voters can get good (high) information from low information sources?

We have people right now wandering around in the streets upset, screaming and crying and causing havoc because the inevitable victory of their beloved candidate didn't happen. Somehow their 'high' information sources got it wrong. Do you honestly think experts and pundits typically end up with egg on their faces when relying on good data?

Not sure what you're talking about. FiveThirtyEight, the most well-respected poll aggregator, gave Donald Trump a 30% chance to win based on an aggregate of polls and their model (by comparison, they gave Romney 9% chance to win). The polls showed a significant but not insurmountable lead for Clinton, and an historically large number of undecided voters. As it turns out, Donald Trump won much more of those undecided voters than Clinton did. The polls weren't wrong, they just didn't measure what polls don't measure, i.e. what voters' preferences will be in the future. Polls can only ask people what they intend to vote; they are not mind-readers.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Okay, so apparently it first showed up somewhere else. But a Clinton operative made sure it didn't stay out of sight, and gave it legs so that it would get national attention. It's difficult to believe Mz Clinton didn't know about it and would have disapproved that message, because of how it fits the Clinton's MO (Bill and Hillary) for the past 30 years. ...[text shortened]... t some politicians may believe, many ordinary citizens (of any country) have very long memories.

Clearly not long enough to remember the 2008 economic crisis.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Not sure what you're talking about. FiveThirtyEight, the most well-respected poll aggregator, gave Donald Trump a 30% chance to win based on an aggregate of polls and their model (by comparison, they gave Romney 9% chance to win). The polls showed a significant but not insurmountable lead for Clinton, and an historically large number of undecided voters ...[text shortened]... be in the future. Polls can only ask people what they intend to vote; they are not mind-readers.

Not sure what you're talking about.

ditto

Originally posted by no1marauder
It would be useless now and would have been politically bad during the campaign.

More like it would bring comparisons to Bill's firing of Sessions and questions about it?