PDA

View Full Version : So, the debate...


Rand al'Fain
09-26-2016, 08:29 PM
Trump, really has nothing of substance to say. All he does is attack Clinton. And cannot shut up for more than a few seconds.

Davian93
09-26-2016, 09:43 PM
Yup...but its working because people are stupid.

Kimon
09-26-2016, 09:48 PM
Trump, really has nothing of substance to say. All he does is attack Clinton. And cannot shut up for more than a few seconds.

Does Trump remind anyone else of Falstaff?

Terez
09-26-2016, 11:32 PM
I slept through it. Wasn't even tempted to wake up early to watch it.

GonzoTheGreat
09-27-2016, 03:06 AM
Yup...but its working because people are stupid.Which sort of raises the question of why no one ever before got the bright idea of using Trump's Tactics. Or, if someone did, how that was countered then and why that method isn't used now.

Kimon
09-27-2016, 07:03 AM
Which sort of raises the question of why no one ever before got the bright idea of using Trump's Tactics. Or, if someone did, how that was countered then and why that method isn't used now.

George Wallace is probably the most obvious high profile example, and, like Trump, was a blend of populism and racism. The dems kicked Wallace out of their party and disavowed him, something which the republicans (some did, but mostly just the few remaining New England republicans - the Bushes, Romney, Collins, and Weld - who now is the Libertarian VP candidate) should have done with Trump. But Wallace was still always very popular in the South - Alabama, for instance, defected in '64, and turned on LBJ. This was the beginning of the shift of Dixie en masse from the democratic to the republican party. In '68 he ran independent, and lost again, but won Alabama again - the last 3rd Party candidate to win a state. And he still didn't go away. He was governor of Alabama again from '71-'79 and then from '83 - '87.

The cancer that is eating away at the American body politic is the same cancer that has always been slowly killing us - the South. We'd be far better off as a country if we would but excise the rot.

Davian93
09-27-2016, 08:12 AM
Which sort of raises the question of why no one ever before got the bright idea of using Trump's Tactics. Or, if someone did, how that was countered then and why that method isn't used now.

Well, I dont think the Red Army is something we should count on this time around to "counter" these tactics....

Southpaw2012
09-27-2016, 11:49 PM
A liberal buffoon vs. a lying crook. What did you expect to see?

Weird Harold
09-28-2016, 01:14 AM
A liberal buffoon vs. a lying crook. What did you expect to see?

Which is which? :p

Nazbaque
09-28-2016, 01:35 AM
Which is which? :p

Is this like one of those knights and knaves puzzles? The liberal buffoon truthfully claims to be a liberal buffoon and calls the lying crook a lying crook again truthfully while the lying crook lies and claims to be liberal buffoon and calls the liberal buffoon a lying crook?

GonzoTheGreat
09-28-2016, 03:17 AM
A liberal buffoon vs. a lying crook. What did you expect to see?
As I have been advising Americans for years now: vote third party.
If enough of you do that, then your politics will change. Until that time, you will never have a chance of voting for a candidate who is actually worthy of your vote.

Kimon
09-28-2016, 06:56 AM
As I have been advising Americans for years now: vote third party.
If enough of you do that, then your politics will change. Until that time, you will never have a chance of voting for a candidate who is actually worthy of your vote.

Third party candidates tend to be kooks, Gonzo.

GonzoTheGreat
09-28-2016, 07:09 AM
Third party candidates tend to be kooks, Gonzo.
Which is different than Trump, how, exactly?

Nazbaque
09-28-2016, 08:13 AM
Which is different than Trump, how, exactly?

Kooks Gonzo not crooks. The difference is in the level of malevolence. And the American voters are exactly the kind of cowards who won't take a chance on an unknown even over someone who is definitely going to screw them over.

fdsaf3
09-28-2016, 11:42 AM
The cancer that is eating away at the American body politic is the same cancer that has always been slowly killing us - the South. We'd be far better off as a country if we would but excise the rot.

No, the cancer as you call it is this bullshit mentality of moral superiority that people of all political persuasions have. This view that you've expressed is no better for political discourse than anything Trump has ever said. But because of some warped view you have that "SOUTH BAD; CONSERVATIVES RACIST; SOUTHERNERS CONSERVATIVE AND RACIST", you feel comments like this are justified. And you know what's worse than this idiotic world view? We somehow live in a world where not only do people feel comfortable expressing these views, no one calls them out on it.

I used to think people expressing views like yours and various things Trump has said came from a place of exaggerating viewpoints to capitalize on raw emotions. Now I'm not so sure. It's legitimately scary to me that it seems people like you actually believe the garbage that you spew. Not as an exaggeration, not as hyperbole, but legitimate belief.

And that's terrifying.

The good news is that I have figured out how to fix this problem.

Step 1: Create a moderate-centric discourse which publicly confronts and vigorously shouts down people expressing these extreme attitudes. It has to be not ok to say things like "we should eliminate the South". People who express these kinds of views (conservative, liberal, or any other political stripe) need to be called out for it.

There is no step 2. That's how simple this solution is. Political discussion is necessary, and viewpoints across the spectrum are needed to produce the best solutions to complex problems. I firmly believe that. The caustic belief of moral superiority that, frankly, I get a lot more from lefties than conservatives, needs to stop. Your liberal beliefs are not inherently better or make you a better person than someone who has conservative ideals. I don't know where that mentality comes from, but it's really obnoxious.

Kimon
09-28-2016, 12:29 PM
Kooks Gonzo not crooks. The difference is in the level of malevolence. And the American voters are exactly the kind of cowards who won't take a chance on an unknown even over someone who is definitely going to screw them over.

Do you think that Obama was a bad president? Bill Clinton?

There have been bad dem presidents - like Jimmy Carter. But even he was well-intentioned, he just was unskilled in persuading (or manipulating) congress, and that shortcoming was exacerbated by a poor economy and embarrassing diplomatic ventures abroad. And he at least came into office with some experience, as he had been governor of Georgia. But no foreign policy experience, nor any experience working with congress, both of which were problems. He was a good man, but inexperienced, and stubborn. Any dem will have trouble working with a republican controlled congress, but Jimmy (as would have Bernie) had trouble dealing even with his own party. Trump, Bernie, Johnson, and Stein would all be awful presidents, albeit varying degrees of awful. I think that both Bill and Barack were good presidents, and while Hillary isn't as charismatic as either of them, which is a legitimate shortcoming for a politician, she still serves as a continuation of the policies of two good presidents.

Kimon
09-28-2016, 12:31 PM
Step 1: Create a moderate-centric discourse which publicly confronts and vigorously shouts down people expressing these extreme attitudes. It has to be not ok to say things like "we should eliminate the South". People who express these kinds of views (conservative, liberal, or any other political stripe) need to be called out for it.


Divorce and eliminate are two very different things.

Nazbaque
09-28-2016, 01:15 PM
Do you think that Obama was a bad president? Bill Clinton?

There have been bad dem presidents - like Jimmy Carter. But even he was well-intentioned, he just was unskilled in persuading (or manipulating) congress, and that shortcoming was exacerbated by a poor economy and embarrassing diplomatic ventures abroad. And he at least came into office with some experience, as he had been governor of Georgia. But no foreign policy experience, nor any experience working with congress, both of which were problems. He was a good man, but inexperienced, and stubborn. Any dem will have trouble working with a republican controlled congress, but Jimmy (as would have Bernie) had trouble dealing even with his own party. Trump, Bernie, Johnson, and Stein would all be awful presidents, albeit varying degrees of awful. I think that both Bill and Barack were good presidents, and while Hillary isn't as charismatic as either of them, which is a legitimate shortcoming for a politician, she still serves as a continuation of the policies of two good presidents.

And your point is?

Kimon
09-28-2016, 02:53 PM
And your point is?

That, at least in my opinion, it's not both parties that are bad, just the one.

Nazbaque
09-28-2016, 03:16 PM
That, at least in my opinion, it's not both parties that are bad, just the one.

And this applies to my comment how exactly?

Besides, the fact that you keep thinking in terms of parties is part of the problem too.

Kimon
09-28-2016, 03:40 PM
And this applies to my comment how exactly?

Besides, the fact that you keep thinking in terms of parties is part of the problem too.

It was a response to this:

And the American voters are exactly the kind of cowards who won't take a chance on an unknown even over someone who is definitely going to screw them over.

In my opinion the dems are fine, and in most circumstances (excepting rare situations - like Teddy Roosevelt) are vastly preferable to third party options, who usually tend to be kooks. Moreover, hence my references to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, dem presidents neither have nor are likely to "screw them over".

Rand al'Fain
09-28-2016, 04:18 PM
It was a response to this:



In my opinion the dems are fine, and in most circumstances (excepting rare situations - like Teddy Roosevelt) are vastly preferable to third party options, who usually tend to be kooks. Moreover, hence my references to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, dem presidents neither have nor are likely to "screw them over".

Andrew Jackson.

Kimon
09-28-2016, 07:24 PM
Andrew Jackson.

Jackson was arguably the worst president in the history of the Union, and also the one responsible for the disgusting mascot that the party possesses, since he was, accurately, a jackass. The democrats were, however, quite different then from what they are now, and certainly most dems neither claim that man as one of their own, nor feel anything for him, or his presidency, except contempt. The only modern dem president that one could argue has "screwed us over", is LBJ with Vietnam, but he also gave us the Civil Rights Act, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Jackson's "screw 'em all" style of populism also is somewhat topical considering his enmity both for the Bank (a style of populism employed recently by both Bernie and Trump) and for the Indians (just Trumpesque obviously on this one, although Trump's racism, with the odd exception of his chosen invective against Elizabeth Warren, has obviously shifted elsewhere). That infamous 1824 election, which gave birth in its aftermath to the Democratic Party, also was idiosyncratic not just for its egregiously corrupt denouement, but also for the fact that it was the last (and one of only three such one-party elections following the collapse of the Federalists) election we've had that was contested truly without political parties. That's something to keep in mind for those who've been lauding the idea of an election without political parties as a potential utopia.

Nazbaque
09-28-2016, 09:47 PM
It was a response to this:



In my opinion the dems are fine, and in most circumstances (excepting rare situations - like Teddy Roosevelt) are vastly preferable to third party options, who usually tend to be kooks. Moreover, hence my references to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, dem presidents neither have nor are likely to "screw them over".

And how does that affect what I said? If offered a choice clearly worth voting for then people usually do and they should. But when the choices are all kooks or crooks, they are so scared of taking a chance on the unknown that they might as well get on their knees and stick up their bare asses.

Kimon
09-28-2016, 10:15 PM
And how does that affect what I said? If offered a choice clearly worth voting for then people usually do and they should. But when the choices are all kooks or crooks, they are so scared of taking a chance on the unknown that they might as well get on their knees and stick up their bare asses.

Not sure how many different ways I can say the same thing, Naz. Neither Johnson nor Stein are unknowns. Both are clearly unqualified for the job, and both are kooks. Trump is both a kook, and a crook. Hillary Clinton is neither a kook nor a crook. And she's clearly the most qualified candidate running. Moreover, unless one thinks that either Bill or Barack were bad presidents, there's not anything of substance from a policy standpoint that one should take issue with when considering whether Hillary is worth voting for. She's not the lesser of two evils. She's clearly the best of all four options. You can disagree with that assessment, but keep in mind those other options are an amateur racist idiot (Trump), an amateur nut (Stein), and a nitwit (Johnson). Now if Weld was on the top of that Libertarian ticket instead of Johnson, then there would be a truly reasonable alternative. But he's not.

Nazbaque
09-28-2016, 10:49 PM
Not sure how many different ways I can say the same thing, Naz. Neither Johnson nor Stein are unknowns. Both are clearly unqualified for the job, and both are kooks. Trump is both a kook, and a crook. Hillary Clinton is neither a kook nor a crook. And she's clearly the most qualified candidate running. Moreover, unless one thinks that either Bill or Barack were bad presidents, there's not anything of substance from a policy standpoint that one should take issue with when considering whether Hillary is worth voting for. She's not the lesser of two evils. She's clearly the best of all four options. You can disagree with that assessment, but keep in mind those other options are an amateur racist idiot (Trump), an amateur nut (Stein), and a nitwit (Johnson). Now if Weld was on the top of that Libertarian ticket instead of Johnson, then there would be a truly reasonable alternative. But he's not.

The unknown isn't the person, but their term as president.

Frenzy
09-28-2016, 11:37 PM
Manoman i wish Weld was on the top of that ticket :/

GonzoTheGreat
09-29-2016, 03:21 AM
Step 1: Create a moderate-centric discourse which publicly confronts and vigorously shouts down people expressing these extreme attitudes. It has to be not ok to say things like "we should eliminate the South". People who express these kinds of views (conservative, liberal, or any other political stripe) need to be called out for it.
All right, I understand that. Now look at what it actually means:

One extreme is the "no racism at all" crowd.
Another extreme is the "bring back chattel slavery" Confederate flag worshippers.
The moderate-centrics are those who want to return to the Jim Crow laws with occasional lynchings of uppity niggers.

Is that really the kind of compromise you stand for, or do you admit that sometimes one extreme or another is better than abandoning all ideals?

Davian93
09-29-2016, 09:16 AM
Jackson was arguably the worst president in the history of the Union, and also the one responsible for the disgusting mascot that the party possesses, since he was, accurately, a jackass. The democrats were, however, quite different then from what they are now, and certainly most dems neither claim that man as one of their own, nor feel anything for him, or his presidency, except contempt. The only modern dem president that one could argue has "screwed us over", is LBJ with Vietnam, but he also gave us the Civil Rights Act, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Jackson's "screw 'em all" style of populism also is somewhat topical considering his enmity both for the Bank (a style of populism employed recently by both Bernie and Trump) and for the Indians (just Trumpesque obviously on this one, although Trump's racism, with the odd exception of his chosen invective against Elizabeth Warren, has obviously shifted elsewhere). That infamous 1824 election, which gave birth in its aftermath to the Democratic Party, also was idiosyncratic not just for its egregiously corrupt denouement, but also for the fact that it was the last (and one of only three such one-party elections following the collapse of the Federalists) election we've had that was contested truly without political parties. That's something to keep in mind for those who've been lauding the idea of an election without political parties as a potential utopia.

Jackson was awful but I'd throw James Buchanan out there as "worst of all time'. He almost destroyed the country and was one of the major reasons the Civil War started when it did.

That takes nothing away from Jackson's awfulness. Granted, Henry Clay's idiocy didnt help given how it strengthened the idea of a "Corrupt gov't establishment" among Jackson's supporters.

Funny how things never change.

Ozymandias
09-29-2016, 02:17 PM
The only modern dem president that one could argue has "screwed us over", is LBJ with Vietnam, but he also gave us the Civil Rights Act, Medicare, and Medicaid.



Don't forget that LBJ also screwed over his original "constituents" by passing Civil Rights.

One might argue that his ability to dick over EVERYONE is actually a point in his favor.

GonzoTheGreat
09-30-2016, 03:24 AM
Actually, I think that LBJ screwed Vietnam over worse than he did the US soldiers he sent out there to rape and butcher. Sure, some of those soldiers got killed by disgruntled Vietnamese, but I don't think that as a group they got the bad end of the bargain.

Terez
09-30-2016, 08:17 AM
Divorce and eliminate are two very different things.
You said "excise the rot". I'm not going to get on fdsaf's moral high horse here but it is a pretty naïve thing to say. For one thing, the majority of black people in this country live in the South. For another thing, even white people in the South are ever-evolving; as someone from MS I have seen it and continue to see it firsthand, quite aside from myself. For another thing, the mentality of the South is not limited to the South; it exists everywhere in rural America and even in urban America to some extent.

Daekyras
09-30-2016, 04:48 PM
I watched that debate the other day.

I have no dog in this fight so as a completely impartial observer:

1. Trump looked and sounded like an idiot.
2. Clinton comes across as a president in waiting.
3. Trump was under prepared.
4. Clinton won the debate by a wide margin.

Kimon
09-30-2016, 04:58 PM
You said "excise the rot". I'm not going to get on fdsaf's moral high horse here but it is a pretty naïve thing to say. For one thing, the majority of black people in this country live in the South. For another thing, even white people in the South are ever-evolving; as someone from MS I have seen it and continue to see it firsthand, quite aside from myself. For another thing, the mentality of the South is not limited to the South; it exists everywhere in rural America and even in urban America to some extent.

I certainly can't deny that there is a lot of truth to your critique of my clearly less than serious suggestion, and you're also right about the sticks in the North as well. Hell, just consider James Carville's quip about middle Pennsylvania looking a lot like Alabama. That same joke works for rural Michigan and Illinois. Nonetheless, I do think that we'd be happier, and better off (at least in the North and West - the South would likely collapse as quickly as Kansas did), if we could go our separate ways. The Union (Northeast) could become a progressive European style democracy. Dixie (South and Plains) could become a theocracy. California could decide whether they (presumably bringing with them then at least Oregon and Washington) wanted to join the Union, or just go independent. Texas could do the same, albeit independent or Dixie.

That Canada joke about Trump works for a reason. A lot of us in the North feel more affinity for Canada than we do for the South...

fionwe1987
09-30-2016, 06:49 PM
As a noncitizen who is nevertheless interested in the outcome of this election, I find the equivalency in describing both the candidates, here and elsewhere, baffling. Hilary is many things that are less than nice, but it really shouldn't even be a contest with that orange skinned monstrosity in the mix. The debate proved exactly that, and the fact that Hilary's most telling (and cleverest by a mile) attack only drove Trump into further spasms of sexist idiocy all week should prove to anyone who has a lick of sense that keeping him away from the presidency should take priority over suddenly deciding to change the political system of the United States.

Want strong third party candidates? Start the fight for that years before the election.

ShadowbaneX
10-01-2016, 09:28 AM
As a noncitizen who is nevertheless interested in the outcome of this election, I find the equivalency in describing both the candidates, here and elsewhere, baffling. Hilary is many things that are less than nice, but it really shouldn't even be a contest with that orange skinned monstrosity in the mix. The debate proved exactly that, and the fact that Hilary's most telling (and cleverest by a mile) attack only drove Trump into further spasms of sexist idiocy all week should prove to anyone who has a lick of sense that keeping him away from the presidency should take priority over suddenly deciding to change the political system of the United States.

Want strong third party candidates? Start the fight for that years before the election.

Third party will never happen unless the two main party candidates are Space-Hitler and Mecha-Bin Laden (...and even then).

The reason why Trump is still in this race is that there's a large number of people in the US that view politicians as the problem. Trump, as a non-politician, is obviously the solution.

fionwe1987
10-01-2016, 12:21 PM
The reason why Trump is still in this race is that there's a large number of people in the US that view politicians as the problem. Trump, as a non-politician, is obviously the solution.
Yeah. But the issue is, it isn't politicians that are the problem as much as the system they inhabit. And even if they were, a moron like Trump isn't the solution.

Nazbaque
10-01-2016, 12:41 PM
Isn't Trump a politician now? And aren't all people who move in the political circles politicians even if they personally never run for an office?

Rand al'Fain
10-01-2016, 07:00 PM
Isn't Trump a politician now? And aren't all people who move in the political circles politicians even if they personally never run for an office?

And therein lies the crux of the problem (though it's more about "establishment" versus "not establishment, though the point remains the same). Trump is the stereotypical rich, old, white, Protestant, lying through his teeth, blustering, male that political caricatures couldn't do much better at portraying. Yet a number of the populace eats it up.

Some, and this is their words and not mine, hope he gets in so that he's impeached immediately so his Vice President takes over...

And that's from the more sane(ish) supporters. Without getting into the white-hooded or goose-stepping ones.

Ozymandias
10-03-2016, 02:16 PM
. But because of some warped view you have that "SOUTH BAD; CONSERVATIVES RACIST; SOUTHERNERS CONSERVATIVE

Part of the issue is that there is a lot of justification for that view. Look at voter ID laws, which were (during Jim Crow era) and still are one of the main ways to keep minorities from effectively voting; every Dixiecrat state (minus NC) has some kind of identification. And so do their traditional allies in Congress, the Mountain West states. That isn't a coincidence.

No one actually thinks ALL Southerners are racist, or even conservative. But as far as generalizations go, its fairly accurate. Besides which, at its core, to be conservative is to be reactionary, and to want to preserve the existing order. That means maintaining a status quo which was built by and for straight white men.

The recent turn in the last few Presidential election cycles to anti-intellectual populists, who are ignorant and proud of it, doesn't help with the image. Fine, Trump supporters may only be a relatively small percentage of "conservative" voters, but if the silent majority stays silent, they get branded with the same brush. As every op ed piece written in the last year has said, this is not a normal election cycle. Normally, if you don't like Hillary, you vote GOP. But a vote for Trump is effectively a vote against the basis of the multi-ethnic democracy the USA represents, and I can and do claim the right to judge Georgians or Mississippians for voting heavily for him.

Nazbaque
10-04-2016, 09:50 AM
This calls for a food analogy! Liberals are the type of people that always go for something new and trendy no matter what it is. Even if it tastes like crap they eat it up because it's trendy. Conservatives like the good old fashioned dishes that have proven themselves time and again. They are loyal to those fine old recipes. So loyal in fact that if they can't find one of them on the menu they rather eat their own actual shit in which there are at least traces of that good honest food.

Hillary isn't trendy enough for the liberals and the conservatives would rather eat Trump's shit than vote for a woman.

Ozymandias
10-04-2016, 12:34 PM
This calls for a food analogy! Liberals are the type of people that always go for something new and trendy no matter what it is. Even if it tastes like crap they eat it up because it's trendy. Conservatives like the good old fashioned dishes that have proven themselves time and again.


Hah. That's actually pretty accurate. Of course, by extension, it means we'd still be eating all our food boiled if we were conservative because we never tried anything new.

With the possible exception of abortion, I don't think conservatives have been on the ethical side of ANY social issue in the history of this country. And before that blows up... I just mean that there are ethical qualms around abortion, to a degree that there aren't with plain evil issues like Jim Crow or being against gay marriage.

Nazbaque
10-04-2016, 01:04 PM
Well you can't say they are on the ethical side when both sides have unethical points.

Kimon
10-04-2016, 03:55 PM
This calls for a food analogy! Liberals are the type of people that always go for something new and trendy no matter what it is. Even if it tastes like crap they eat it up because it's trendy. Conservatives like the good old fashioned dishes that have proven themselves time and again. They are loyal to those fine old recipes. So loyal in fact that if they can't find one of them on the menu they rather eat their own actual shit in which there are at least traces of that good honest food.

Hillary isn't trendy enough for the liberals and the conservatives would rather eat Trump's shit than vote for a woman.

Obama made this joke at the correspondents' dinner...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-mocks-republican-field-at-whcd-a-bunch-of-you-wrote-in-paul-ryan-for-your-dinner-choice/article/2590047

President Obama mocked the Republican Party's despair over its remaining 2016 presidential field, joking at the White House Correspondents' dinner that a number of guests "wrote in Paul Ryan" for their entree choice.

"Guests were asked to check whether they wanted steak or fish, but instead, a whole bunch of you wrote in Paul Ryan," Obama said to laughter Saturday night. "That's not an option, people. Steak or fish. You may not like steak or fish, but that's your choice."

Davian93
10-04-2016, 08:20 PM
I'm well aware that Obama doesn't write any of those jokes but he has incredible comic timing...I will miss that once he's out of office.

GonzoTheGreat
10-05-2016, 03:33 AM
With the possible exception of abortion, I don't think conservatives have been on the ethical side of ANY social issue in the history of this country.
I haven't properly studied it, but weren't they opposed to Prohibition before Liberals made that into the law of the land?

And it is even possible that some of them were against eugenics before they stole that from the Liberals as well.

Ozymandias
10-05-2016, 12:20 PM
I haven't properly studied it, but weren't they opposed to Prohibition before Liberals made that into the law of the land?

I thought about this, but I am not certain that this is a clear cut issue between social conservatives and liberals in the way we think of it. My high level understanding of it was that it was an issue that received support from tons of people (obviously, since they managed to actually amend the Constitution), including social Progressives who were liberal, and highly religious folks who thought drinking led to sin.

But again, I don't know enough about the demographics of the Prohibition movement to be sure.

Well you can't say they are on the ethical side when both sides have unethical points.

I don't think this is right. Most abolitionists in 1860 were probably virulent racists by our standards, but they were certainly morally correct in opposing the institution of slavery.

And just because Hillary Clinton is a lying sleazy politician, doesn't mean she isn't vastly a more ethical person than Donald Trump.

Nazbaque
10-05-2016, 03:10 PM
I was referring to the question of abortion. Sometimes one side of an argument is morally pure though the people usually have some other flaw, sometimes the other sides is conciderably more shady than the other and sometimes people can't decide which side is worse even for themselves. I've thought about the ethics of abortion a great deal, but I've yet to come across anyone who was willing to discuss it without losing their temper.

Kimon
10-05-2016, 03:54 PM
I thought about this, but I am not certain that this is a clear cut issue between social conservatives and liberals in the way we think of it. My high level understanding of it was that it was an issue that received support from tons of people (obviously, since they managed to actually amend the Constitution), including social Progressives who were liberal, and highly religious folks who thought drinking led to sin.

But again, I don't know enough about the demographics of the Prohibition movement to be sure.


There is obviously a danger here of over-generalizing, but the prohibition movement tended to be mostly driven by the Republicans (especially progressive, WASPy Republicans), and opposed by the Democrats. It was to an extent also anti-Catholic, and anti-immigrant (anti-Irish, anti-Italian, anti-German). Wilson, for instance, vetoed it in 1919, but his veto was overturned by Congress, and FDR repealed it. Still, probably easier to think of it as anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant than as really a progressive vs conservative, or as republican vs dem issue.

Ozymandias
10-06-2016, 11:07 AM
I was referring to the question of abortion. Sometimes one side of an argument is morally pure though the people usually have some other flaw, sometimes the other sides is conciderably more shady than the other and sometimes people can't decide which side is worse even for themselves. I've thought about the ethics of abortion a great deal, but I've yet to come across anyone who was willing to discuss it without losing their temper.
Ah, well in that case, you are sort of making my point. Both Pro Life and Pro Choice advocates have good and bad points in their corner. I find that pro-life folks tend to be preachy and extremely hypocritical (like most religious people) and that sort of weakens the entire platform… but that doesn’t mean that advocating for fetal rights isn’t right. Side note: I use double negatives way too often. Contrast that with something like marriage rights, which is just one group of people (mainly pro-life folks, I’d imagine there is a very strong correlation there) trying to deny recognition and benefits to another group of people.

Nazbaque
10-06-2016, 01:14 PM
Ah, well in that case, you are sort of making my point. Both Pro Life and Pro Choice advocates have good and bad points in their corner. I find that pro-life folks tend to be preachy and extremely hypocritical (like most religious people) and that sort of weakens the entire platform… but that doesn’t mean that advocating for fetal rights isn’t right. Side note: I use double negatives way too often. Contrast that with something like marriage rights, which is just one group of people (mainly pro-life folks, I’d imagine there is a very strong correlation there) trying to deny recognition and benefits to another group of people.

Mostly what is wrong with the pro-life stance is that people don't go with it to the end. They are forcing life on a person yet they don't in any way make sure they will enjoy it at least on an average basis. Further they are limiting the mother's freedom by several months until she gives birth and the results of this limitation might effectively ruin the rest of her life. So why is the baby more important than the mother?

But then should any mother in any circumstances be allowed to abort a baby? While I see that sometimes it's a case where a person should just face the consequenses and take responsibility there is a practical difficulty. The pregnancy won't go dormant so that people can debate the case.

In the end ending a life isn't exactly right, but if you are going to force a life on the child and pregnancy on the mother then you have duties to both of them and failing in those duties just means you're a hypocrite.

Kimon
10-08-2016, 08:10 AM
Assange (and Putin) attempting a Hail Mary...

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37595047

The excerpts include comments made at an event sponsored by Goldman Sachs in October 2013 in which Mrs Clinton spoke of the need to consult Wall Street over financial reform.
"The people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry," Mrs Clinton said.
At another speech presented to a Brazilian bank in 2013, she spoke of her "dream" for a common trade market.
"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere," Mrs Clinton said.
The leak comes after the US accused Russia of a cyber attack against political organisations intended to influence the presidential election.

There's nothing surprising here, though considering the antagonism for free trade, this obviously would normally have been at least somewhat helpful for Trump, except of course for the constant flood of these sorts of reveals from Trump...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html


“I did try and f--- her. She was married,” Trump says.

Trump continues: “And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’”

“I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married,” Trump says. “Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.”

At that point in the audio, Trump and Bush appear to notice Arianne Zucker, the actress who is waiting to escort them into the soap-opera set.

“Your girl’s hot as s---, in the purple,” says Bush, who’s now a co-host of NBC’s “Today” show.

“Whoa!” Trump says. “Whoa!”

“I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her,” Trump says. “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.”

“And when you’re a star, they let you do it,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

“Whatever you want,” says another voice, apparently Bush’s.

“Grab them by the p---y,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

It is more than a bit depressing that a video of Trump saying something like this is so unsurprising. The furniture shopping bit is a somewhat creative tactic at least.

Southpaw2012
10-09-2016, 07:46 PM
What Trump said is disgusting and disgraceful, and if he were smart he would pull out. But he won't, so it doesn't matter. That being said, it's interesting how much the liberal media, aka the media, is going after Trump for these comments, yet ignore all the accusations that have been made over the years against Bill Clinton for sexual harassment. Trump is disgusting, but if Clinton goes after him for that, it's fair game to go after her husband who she has stood by time and time again.

Davian93
10-09-2016, 08:05 PM
What Trump said is disgusting and disgraceful, and if he were smart he would pull out. But he won't, so it doesn't matter. That being said, it's interesting how much the liberal media, aka the media, is going after Trump for these comments, yet ignore all the accusations that have been made over the years against Bill Clinton for sexual harassment. Trump is disgusting, but if Clinton goes after him for that, it's fair game to go after her husband who she has stood by time and time again.

Apparently there's a tape out there of him using the N-word too...so that'll be fun if its tue.

Southpaw2012
10-09-2016, 08:27 PM
Apparently there's a tape out there of him using the N-word too...so that'll be fun if its tue.

And it doesn't matter. Everyone knows who and what Trump is, just like they should know what Clinton is. Both the Clinton's are crooks, and if Hillary was anyone else she would've been indicted. That was evident by what the FBI said, their reworking of the statute, and all the loops they jumped through to ensure she wouldn't be indicted.

The debate tonight is already a joke. What are we learning? Trump's an ass and Clinton is a lying crook? Bring back Pence and Kaine, two respectable men who are trying to cover for their crooked partners.

Rand al'Fain
10-09-2016, 08:27 PM
Donald sniffles after every sentence. No denying that now.

Yeah, I'm past the point of caring of what is said anymore.

Davian93
10-09-2016, 08:32 PM
Donald sniffles after every sentence. No denying that now.

Yeah, I'm past the point of caring of what is said anymore.

He's probably high on cocaine.

Rand al'Fain
10-09-2016, 08:39 PM
Watching DBZ Kai from last night. Far better than this farce of a "debate".

Kimon
10-09-2016, 08:58 PM
And it doesn't matter. Everyone knows who and what Trump is, just like they should know what Clinton is. Both the Clinton's are crooks, and if Hillary was anyone else she would've been indicted. That was evident by what the FBI said, their reworking of the statute, and all the loops they jumped through to ensure she wouldn't be indicted.

The debate tonight is already a joke. What are we learning? Trump's an ass and Clinton is a lying crook? Bring back Pence and Kaine, two respectable men who are trying to cover for their crooked partners.

Southpaw, the problem with trying to argue for equivalency here is that these issues with Bill Clinton have been discussed ad nauseam, and anyone that feels strongly, in a negative sense, about Bill's philandering are already strongly supportive of Trump, and the rest of us don't care, and just think that all this was nonsense back in the 90s. Indeed there are myriad interviews with Trump from the previous decades saying that those same allegations were nonsense. As for your latter point, the problem is that while Trump is a misogynistic pig, and a racist, Hillary is not a crook. The email issue, just like Benghazi, is stupid. She's not a great candidate, and she is clearly divisive, but she's not a crook. And she is clearly the only qualified person running. Do we like her as much as Elizabeth Warren. No. Why people like Bernie, on the other hand, continues to mystify me, but that is an entirely different matter. If the Bernie crowd isn't willing to vote for her, so be it, but even Bernie looks like Winston Churchill next to Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. As for Pence and Kaine. Kaine is boring, but decent. I don't particularly like the fact that he was pro-life, but he has at least demonstrated a willingness to support the law, and not try to impose his own religious beliefs on the rest of us. Pence on the other hand is a theocrat. The Republicans had reasonable options they could have chosen during their primary (Kasich, Bush, and Rubio - I don't personally like any of those men as regards their policies, but at least they were reasonable and decent men), but instead they chose Trump. It's not like it was a secret that this was the man they were choosing. He's a pig and a con-man. They knew it, and now they're stuck with him.

If they want a different option they should just convince Johnson to step down and let Weld run as the Libertarian presidential candidate instead of VP. Heck, even I find Weld impressive. That fact, and the fact that you like Pence, probably would keep you from wanting Weld, however. He's definitely of the Rockefeller crowd.

Kimon
10-09-2016, 09:04 PM
Watching DBZ Kai from last night. Far better than this farce of a "debate".

It was really awkward for the first few minutes. I imagine a lot of people tuned in to see how scorched earth Trump would really go. It's actually slightly less of a train wreck than I was expecting.

Davian93
10-09-2016, 09:05 PM
Trump is flailing tonight...really badly.

Kimon
10-09-2016, 09:11 PM
Jesus Christ. Does this man not have any concern for civilian casualties? If we conducted that kind of attack on Mosul we would massacre civilians that are essentially hostages of ISIS. There's a reason why we have trouble with the Russians and the way the are conducting their operations.

Davian93
10-09-2016, 09:18 PM
Jesus Christ. Does this man not have any concern for civilian casualties? If we conducted that kind of attack on Mosul we would massacre civilians that are essentially hostages of ISIS. There's a reason why we have trouble with the Russians and the way the are conducting their operations.

He couldn't even find Mosul on a map...

Rand al'Fain
10-09-2016, 09:26 PM
He couldn't even find Mosul on a map...

He'd look for it on a Taco Bell menu.

Davian93
10-09-2016, 09:33 PM
He'd look for it on a Taco Bell menu.

He strikes me as a Del Taco type of guy...

Davian93
10-11-2016, 11:24 AM
Trump is now down 11 points in the latest polls and sinking fast. And apparently there's more damaging dirt out there to the point where he's making threats to "go personal" on more attacks of Clinton should those new tapes be released.

Also, Trump supporters are calling Paul Ryan a Democrat now. Seems like things are going well on the SS Trumptanic. Full speed ahead, right Donald?

Brita
10-11-2016, 03:49 PM
Trump is now down 11 points in the latest polls and sinking fast.

Thank the Lord.

Rand al'Fain
10-11-2016, 05:24 PM
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/179/267/109.jpg

ShadowbaneX
10-11-2016, 06:16 PM
Yeah. But the issue is, it isn't politicians that are the problem as much as the system they inhabit. And even if they were, a moron like Trump isn't the solution.
Most of the people rabidly for Trump can't tell the difference between the system and the politicians...and if they can they believe that the system is fine, it's the people running in that are the problem.

They know that at some time in the past things were fine (they couldn't point to an exact time though) and life was good. Then the Politicians got involved and screwed everything up. America is great if they get someone into the White House that will stop serving minority and/or foreign interests, and just let America be America again.

Ozymandias
10-12-2016, 02:45 PM
What Trump said is disgusting and disgraceful, and if he were smart he would pull out. But he won't, so it doesn't matter. That being said, it's interesting how much the liberal media, aka the media, is going after Trump for these comments, yet ignore all the accusations that have been made over the years against Bill Clinton for sexual harassment. Trump is disgusting, but if Clinton goes after him for that, it's fair game to go after her husband who she has stood by time and time again.

This has been replied to but I'll add my two cents

One, the allegations against Bill Clinton were most certainly NOT ignored. There was a Congressional investigation that was widely covered, which is far more serious. That his alleged crimes (and I for one think he did sexually assault a bunch of women) happened before the internet does not mean that less attention was paid to it, or it was considered less serious, but the internet is an echo chamber and all noise is louder now than 20 years ago.

Two, and this has been said so often, but lets repeat it: Bill Clinton is not a candidate for President. He could murder someone tomorrow in cold blood and that would not make Hillary Clinton on whit more or less qualified to be POTUS. I think Hillary Clinton is a liar and a power hungry narcissist, in I would have voted for McCain or Romney over her, but she's eminently qualified for the job and understands, at the very least, the responsibilities, duties, and decorum of a President.

Third, and knowing you, this is a distinction that will not be understood, but the right wing conspiracy media has ignored a very important fact. Bill Clinton is an alleged rapist, and even beyond that conjecture, it is still only conjecture that Hillary had any part in hiding that or coercing his victims into silence. Even if you believe those allegations to be true, and believe that Hillary is complicit, there is still a massive difference between that and Trump's situation. Trump has admitted that he is a sexual predator, in his own words. That makes a world of difference. I'm a strong supporter of a woman's (or man's) right to be believed when s/he makes an accusation of unwanted contact with someone (though obviously burden of proof should rest in favor of the accused). But even that is just duty to give a hearing to, compared to a statement from an actual predator himself.

Kimon
10-12-2016, 03:51 PM
That his alleged crimes (and I for one think he did sexually assault a bunch of women) happened before the internet does not mean that less attention was paid to it, or it was considered less serious, but the internet is an echo chamber and all noise is louder now than 20 years ago.


All of the charges against him are tenuous. Paula Jones sued him for sexual harassment, not rape. How much truth there was to her allegation is ephemeral, but the fact that he paid her off to make her go away isn't evidence of guilt so much as an attempt to shut her up. She doesn't seem particularly credible, but that doesn't mean that her accusations were simply extortion (though this still seems what is really going on in all three of these cases). The Juanita Broaddrick thing, the actual rape allegation, is much older, from '78. She gave sworn testimony in '98 saying that nothing had happened, then in '99, changed her story again when talking to Ken Starr. She seems even less credible than Paula Jones. Kathleen Willey is another sexual assault accusation (groping), and again, even Ken Starr apparently didn't find her credible, and he was looking for any bs charges he could even remotely try to pin to Bill, so when even Ken Starr thought it was too transparently bs...

And let's be blunt, none of these allegations was what caused the impeachment, it was Monica Lewinsky. And while that was arguably perjury, it was also consensual. Bill came out the winner in all that nonsense for good reason, because all the allegations seemed like bs. Seemed that way then. Still seems that way now.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37612453

Davian93
10-12-2016, 08:34 PM
Two women have now come forward saying Trump sexually assaulted them...per a New York Times report that just broke.

He, of course, denies the allegations and has threatened to sue.

Personally, I doubt the NY Time swould place itself in a situation that would leave them open for libel so I would imagine they vetted the story pretty well and feel that both women are credible enough for them to publish.

And it begins....

Davian93
10-12-2016, 08:49 PM
A 3rd woman has come forward now...interesting.

Kimon
10-12-2016, 09:00 PM
A 3rd woman has come forward now...interesting.

From a marketing standpoint, he still might emerge from this circus disturbingly well. He and the Breitbart crowd do seem to be going scorched earth on FoxNews as well as all the establishment republicans, and positioning themselves to build a rival cable empire for the tin foil crowd.

Kimon
10-12-2016, 09:09 PM
There are also stories coming out about his shenanigans at the Miss Teen USA pageants...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/timeline-of-trumps-creepiness-while-he-owned-miss-universe-w444634

Mariah Billado, Miss Teen Vermont 1997 told BuzzFeed, "I remember putting on my dress really quick because I was like, 'Oh my god, there's a man in here.'" Three other teenage contestants from the same year confirmed the story. The former pageant contestants discussed their memories of the incident after former Miss Arizona Tasha Dixon told Los Angeles' CBS affiliate that Trump entered the Miss USA dressing room in 2001 when she was a contestant.
"He just came strolling right in," Dixon said. "There was no second to put a robe on or any sort of clothing or anything. Some girls were topless. Others girls were naked. Our first introduction to him was when we were at the dress rehearsal and half-naked changing into our bikinis."
Dixon went on to say that employees of the Miss Universe Organization encouraged the contestants to lavish Trump with attention when he came in. "To have the owner come waltzing in, when we're naked, or half-naked, in a very physically vulnerable position and then to have the pressure of the people that worked for him telling us to go fawn all over him, go walk up to him, talk to him, get his attention..."

How did his Republican opponents fail to unearth this stuff?
When he bought the Miss Universe pageant family, Trump told Stern in 2005, the pageant was "a sick puppy." The relative hotness of contestants had seriously deteriorated in the preceding years, he explained to Stern, because the judges had begun placing a greater emphasis on brains over beauty. "They had a person that was extremely proud that a number of the women had become doctors," Trump said. "And I wasn't interested."

Davian93
10-12-2016, 09:54 PM
Shows what utter amateurs they all are compaired to Team Clinton.

I mean, 90% of this crap isn't even well hidden. I mean, this is basic opposition research. Shows what an utter clown car the GOP was in the past year.

It also didn't help that they were so fractured and several of them (like Cruz for example) tried to use Trump to knock out the others not realizing he was the strongest candidate for their base of crazies.



But, on the other hand, it sure is hilarious to watch from the outside.

Frenzy
10-12-2016, 11:10 PM
But, on the other hand, it sure is hilarious to watch from the outside.

i don't want Drumpf to come in 2nd in this election, i want him to come in 3rd. Go Johnson! :p

Davian93
10-13-2016, 08:40 AM
Apparently we're up to 5 women including some People magazine reporter.

If the accusations are all BS, its pretty ballsy given how that opens them up to massive lawsuits and all.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the next week or so on how many others come forward and how much, if any, corroboration there is for the accusations.

Brita
10-13-2016, 08:56 AM
Just goes to show you how many assaults are unreported, and how many offenders do simply get away with it.

Why? Because if a rich, powerful narcissistic grabbed me by the pussy- there is no way I would ruin my life by reporting it. Even though a pussy grab is clearly an assault and incredibly offensive, it pales in comparison to what the perpetrator, the justice system and social media would do to me afterwards.

And until that changes, very little will change.

ETA: the offender doesn't even need to be rich or powerful actually. It could be any loser with a sense of entitlement and the repercussions of reporting it would still pile misery on top of misery. In Canada (not sure about the US) the accuser must testify in court. That means cross examination, which means character annihilation. The accused does not need to testify. If they choose not to (which most do for obvious reasons) no other "dirt" can be brought up during cross examination to "discredit" the offender. So it really becomes a trial of the victim, and not of the accused. Jian Ghomeshi: case in point.

Davian93
10-13-2016, 10:37 AM
I remember reading a study that said over 90% of rapes/sexual assaults went unreported overall.

How scary is that to think about?

On your other point, its basically SOP for any defense attorney to attack the victim and put the victim on trial in such cases. Clearly she was asking for it. Clearly she had it coming. I mean, look how she was dressed, look how she acted.

My wife went through a very very nasty sexual harrassment litigation against a former employer years ago. Her POS supervisor never physically did anything (not for lack of trying) but he was super freaky. He tried to barge into her hotel room a couple times right after she relocated to Germany for a job (this was right before we met actually). He sent her repeated photos of his junk. He used to graphically joke about her body (and the things he wanted to do to her) with his fellow supervisors and managers. It was pretty graphic and disgusting and we got to see it all after the discovery motions and supoenas. It dragged on for 3 years before she won both the initial arbitration (woohoo for BS restrictive employment agreements and mandatory arbitration over a courtroom), their immediate appeal where they claimed the female arbitrator (WHO THEY PICKED) was biased due to her own gender and when she finally "won" her complaint. By "winning" i mean, she got a smallish cash settlement (3 years salary...of which she saw 40% after her attorney's cut) and she has never worked in that industry again since then as a result. Not official blacklisting but basically de facto blacklisting after the fact...all for being the victim and actually saying/doing something about it. Her boss wanted to fuck her and she said no...so clearly it was her fault.

And yes, they continually tried to put her on trial. They tried to say she dressed slutty (she didn't and never has), they called her all sorts of names in court and in their emails (who the hell emails crap like that in a workplace?!?) and the dumbass supervisor was the only employee who didn't attend the mandatory sexual harassment training they held the week AFTER they fired her...they only held the training as a CYA for themselves knowing full well she'd likely sue and the dumbass didn't attend.

Brita
10-13-2016, 10:53 AM
It takes a very brave person to come forward with a sexual assault/sexual harassment case.

That's why it makes me SOOOOOO angry when people say the accuser is just "looking for attention" or "angry at being dumped" or "trying to cash in on fame".

People who say that have no idea how awful the process is for the victim. They are oblivious to the hell of shame and frustration that is rained down on any who dare come forward. Not only are they oblivious, THEY ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!

Davian93
10-13-2016, 11:03 AM
It takes a very brave person to come forward with a sexual assault/sexual harassment case.

That's why it makes me SOOOOOO angry when people say the accuser is just "looking for attention" or "angry at being dumped" or "trying to cash in on fame".

People who say that have no idea how awful the process is for the victim. They are oblivious to the hell of shame and frustration that is rained down on any who dare come forward. Not only are they oblivious, THEY ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!

It was 3 years of hell...all to get 40% (before taxes) of the salary she should have earned there anyway. Oh, and she never should have paid taxes on it since it was an overseas job but we got to pay taxes on the settlement which was super fun.

It was pure hell and at the end of all it, she still got screwed even winning.

GonzoTheGreat
10-13-2016, 11:04 AM
That's why it makes me SOOOOOO angry when people say the accuser is just "looking for attention" or "angry at being dumped" or "trying to cash in on fame".
Trump gave those poor women who were willing to accuse Bill Clinton a ringside seat. Obviously he's a good guy.

Davian93
10-13-2016, 11:05 AM
Trump gave those poor women who were willing to accuse Bill Clinton a ringside seat. Obviously he's a good guy.

The same women he utterly destroyed in the press at the time of the initial accusations?

Brita
10-13-2016, 12:43 PM
Trump gave those poor women who were willing to accuse Bill Clinton a ringside seat. Obviously he's a good guy.

Obviously. I mean such a selfless act done in the name of justice- he is almost a hero.

p.s. Bill Clinton is also shady as f*** when it comes to these matters

Davian93
10-13-2016, 01:01 PM
Big Dog is very shady too...but of course, he's not the one running for president.

Trump's accusations make Big Dog seem like a harmless amateur in the "molest/assault women" department.

fionwe1987
10-13-2016, 02:25 PM
There's now a video where he looks at a little girl and says he'll be dating her in 10 years. :eek:

I find the very idea that he's being put in a contest with Hillary Clinton an utter insult. Wake the fuck up America. Politicians aren't saints. But you DO NOT elect lecherous pussy grabbers in response. You don't even consider it.

Nazbaque
10-13-2016, 03:29 PM
.... So just out of curiosity. How many votes would a candidate get if they were a virgin?

Davian93
10-13-2016, 09:00 PM
There's now a video where he looks at a little girl and says he'll be dating her in 10 years. :eek:

I find the very idea that he's being put in a contest with Hillary Clinton an utter insult. Wake the fuck up America. Politicians aren't saints. But you DO NOT elect lecherous pussy grabbers in response. You don't even consider it.

Yeah but she deleted an email so like both sides are bad...so vote Republican.

fionwe1987
10-13-2016, 11:55 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ45VLgbe_E

This speech will go down as a major contributor to Trump's loss.

Davian93
10-14-2016, 12:21 PM
That was an awesome speech by the First Lady.


Speaking of speeches, his speech yesterday was just littered with blatant antisemitism and other dog-whistle attacks...way way worse than his dog whistles during the last debate. I guess that's what "unshackled" means to Trump.

During the debate, he stuck with repeatedly emphasizing the name "Sidney BLUMENTHAL" and now he's off spouting Inforwars conspiracy theories of worldwide banking cabals and other common Alex Jones type garbage that is all anti-Semitic.

Its a disgusting path he's gone down to say the least...but again, Hillary deleted an email so both sides are bad.


Meanwhile, at Trump HQ:

http://i.imgur.com/buBjj6u.png?fb

Sarevok
10-14-2016, 03:55 PM
Saw a report on Dutch tv this week with a totally different viewpoint: interviews with some people in a small town depending on oil industry who were supporting Trump, not because of the whole "Make America great again" or "Scary Mexicans" thing, but because he was more in favour of letting oil companies do their thing again than Hilary, who's more pro-green. I guess they figured a few embarrasments for the USA were worth it when it meant they could keep their families fed. Can't really fault them for that logic. :/

Davian93
10-14-2016, 04:03 PM
Saw a report on Dutch tv this week with a totally different viewpoint: interviews with some people in a small town depending on oil industry who were supporting Trump, not because of the whole "Make America great again" or "Scary Mexicans" thing, but because he was more in favour of letting oil companies do their thing again than Hilary, who's more pro-green. I guess they figured a few embarrasments for the USA were worth it when it meant they could keep their families fed. Can't really fault them for that logic. :/

Oil drilling was at an alltime high before the Saudis decided to try and flood the world market with cheap oil in an effort to punish Iran and Russia while also driving out US drillers using fracking (and its higher production costs).

Their jobs going away has nothing to do with Obama, Hillary or any Democrat.

Same with the coal industry dying off. Sure, EPA has implemented some laws on environmental codes but super cheap natural gas along with a drastic drop in the cost of sun and wind power is why Appalachia coal mining has collapsed more than anything.

Its much easier to believe in a conspiracy though...especially when a racist snake-oil salesman is telling you it'll all be okay just so long as you vote for him instead of that evil woman.

Kimon
10-14-2016, 04:17 PM
Saw a report on Dutch tv this week with a totally different viewpoint: interviews with some people in a small town depending on oil industry who were supporting Trump, not because of the whole "Make America great again" or "Scary Mexicans" thing, but because he was more in favour of letting oil companies do their thing again than Hilary, who's more pro-green. I guess they figured a few embarrasments for the USA were worth it when it meant they could keep their families fed. Can't really fault them for that logic. :/

A lot of this is also driven by concerns over the future of the Supreme Court. For many conservative voters there are two primary voting issues - the 2nd Amendment and overturning Roe v Wade. The former, guns, should be a non-issue. We on the left might prefer to ban all guns (I at least would), but all we're trying to achieve is to go back to the assault weapons ban and introducing actual background checks. There should be room for reasonable compromise here. Roe is a more legitimate, and schismatic, philosophical divide. For those who view abortion as murder it is a massive philosophical difference from the pretty much universal support of the left for Choice. So long as Trump continues to promise that he'll nominate conservative justices, many conservative voters will overlook everything else, even if many of those same voters are holding their noses, and otherwise disgusted by his misogyny.

Weird Harold
10-14-2016, 07:11 PM
We on the left might prefer to ban all guns (I at least would), but all we're trying to achieve is to go back to the assault weapons ban and introducing actual background checks.

(my highlighting)

Why?

A Serious question; the lapsed assault weapons ban did nothing but ban a few cosmetic features and did nothing to reduce gun crime. Why fight to reimpose a ban that didn't work?

Nazbaque
10-14-2016, 07:18 PM
(my highlighting)

Why?

A Serious question; the lapsed assault weapons ban did nothing but ban a few cosmetic features and did nothing to reduce gun crime. Why fight to reimpose a ban that didn't work?

The same reason Hitler and Stalin fought over Stalingrad. Vanity.

Kimon
10-14-2016, 07:34 PM
(my highlighting)

Why?

A Serious question; the lapsed assault weapons ban did nothing but ban a few cosmetic features and did nothing to reduce gun crime. Why fight to reimpose a ban that didn't work?

Why fight against it? Probably because it demonstrates that such bans are constitutional, and hence that the 2nd Amendment is not sacrosanct. Mind you, I want to ban them all, or at least all hand guns, and all gun shows...

I despise the 2nd Amendment, but I'm willing to try to find a middle ground. Why can't they? What is so bad about agreeing to even just background checks?

Nazbaque
10-14-2016, 07:47 PM
Why fight against it? Probably because it demonstrates that such bans are constitutional, and hence that the 2nd Amendment is not sacrosanct. Mind you, I want to ban them all, or at least all hand guns, and all gun shows...

I despise the 2nd Amendment, but I'm willing to try to find a middle ground. Why can't they? What is so bad about agreeing to even just background checks?
Oh their point is fairly easy to understand. Think on why they want to have guns in the first place and you'll see why they refuse to find middle ground.

Kimon
10-14-2016, 08:12 PM
Oh their point is fairly easy to understand. Think on why they want to have guns in the first place and you'll see why they refuse to find middle ground.

Yes, that's why I pointed it out as one of the two most obvious wedge issues.

Nazbaque
10-14-2016, 08:21 PM
Yes, that's why I pointed it out as one of the two most obvious wedge issues.

So why were asking the questions if you already knew the answers?

Kimon
10-14-2016, 08:34 PM
So why were asking the questions if you already knew the answers?

This is stupid Naz. Knowing that something is a wedge issue doesn't mean that you can't question or lament the fact that it is.

Nazbaque
10-14-2016, 08:39 PM
This is stupid Naz. Knowing that something is a wedge issue doesn't mean that you can't question or lament the fact that it is.

Oh so you do understand why they can't look for a middle ground. You were just being a drama queen about it.

Frenzy
10-15-2016, 12:32 AM
A lot of this is also driven by concerns over the future of the Supreme Court. For many conservative voters there are two primary voting issues - the 2nd Amendment and overturning Roe v Wade. The former, guns, should be a non-issue. We on the left might prefer to ban all guns (I at least would), but all we're trying to achieve is to go back to the assault weapons ban and introducing actual background checks. There should be room for reasonable compromise here. Roe is a more legitimate, and schismatic, philosophical divide. For those who view abortion as murder it is a massive philosophical difference from the pretty much universal support of the left for Choice. So long as Trump continues to promise that he'll nominate conservative justices, many conservative voters will overlook everything else, even if many of those same voters are holding their noses, and otherwise disgusted by his misogyny.

i got into a very long debate with someone on FB about this yesterday. He's a 1-issue voter (2nd Amendment) and i linked him to several articles & opinion pieces from conservative sources discrediting Drumpfs alleged 2nd Amendment cred & his potential Supreme Court nominees, and my friend STILL will vote for the rapey cheeto because Johnson doesn't stand a chance.

We're in California. Any vote not for Clinton is pointless. So i questioned why my friend trusted the former democrat who can't wrap his brain around the 1st amendment to protect the 2nd yet thinks the Libertarian & former republican would not uphold constitutional rights. i pointed out he could vote for his issue without endorsing an alleged child rapist con artist lying sack of rabid weasel droppings.

My friend is a 1st generation immigrant, came to the US with his parents as a child, fleeing a totalitarian regime.

My friend has two young daughters.

My friend has been seriously drinking the drumpf kool-aid.

i just don't get it.

GonzoTheGreat
10-15-2016, 02:53 AM
Why fight against it? Probably because it demonstrates that such bans are constitutional, and hence that the 2nd Amendment is not sacrosanct.
Is there anything in the later Amendments which would support such a limitation?

All the 2nd really says about the right to bear arms is that it "shall not be infringed". If that means anything at all, then it means that bans on weapons are unconstitutional.
Which, of course, also means that convicted felons in prisons would also have full rights to have any arms they want to have. Banning them from having weapons is as illegal as taking the guns away from any other American.

I know that's completely unworkable. But I do not see on what grounds the law could be interpreted in such a way that I'm wrong, apart from "we don't want the law to mean what it says". But if the lawmakers and courts get such latitude to interpret the Constitution anyway, then no weapons bans would be illegal, and all guns could be outlawed without changing the Constitution.

Nazbaque
10-15-2016, 07:17 AM
i got into a very long debate with someone on FB about this yesterday. He's a 1-issue voter (2nd Amendment) and i linked him to several articles & opinion pieces from conservative sources discrediting Drumpfs alleged 2nd Amendment cred & his potential Supreme Court nominees, and my friend STILL will vote for the rapey cheeto because Johnson doesn't stand a chance.

We're in California. Any vote not for Clinton is pointless. So i questioned why my friend trusted the former democrat who can't wrap his brain around the 1st amendment to protect the 2nd yet thinks the Libertarian & former republican would not uphold constitutional rights. i pointed out he could vote for his issue without endorsing an alleged child rapist con artist lying sack of rabid weasel droppings.

My friend is a 1st generation immigrant, came to the US with his parents as a child, fleeing a totalitarian regime.

My friend has two young daughters.

My friend has been seriously drinking the drumpf kool-aid.

i just don't get it.

It's fear. Young as he was his mind settled on a simple explanation on why he didn't have to be afraid in his new country. He can protect himself with a gun. Most likely the old demons still haunt him and the weapon is now something like a security blanket. His mind is stuck in hiding behind a wall and the foundation of that wall is: "Weapon - 2nd Amendment - Republican". The crucial point is that he is still afraid. Until he learns courage that wall will stay up. Trying to show him that there is nothing to fear or that his actions won't lead to the results he wants is pointless. Rational arguments won't reach him. He is too afraid to take a look outside the wall.

Kimon
10-15-2016, 07:28 AM
Is there anything in the later Amendments which would support such a limitation?

All the 2nd really says about the right to bear arms is that it "shall not be infringed". If that means anything at all, then it means that bans on weapons are unconstitutional.
Which, of course, also means that convicted felons in prisons would also have full rights to have any arms they want to have. Banning them from having weapons is as illegal as taking the guns away from any other American.

I know that's completely unworkable. But I do not see on what grounds the law could be interpreted in such a way that I'm wrong, apart from "we don't want the law to mean what it says". But if the lawmakers and courts get such latitude to interpret the Constitution anyway, then no weapons bans would be illegal, and all guns could be outlawed without changing the Constitution.

Prior to Heller (2008) the 2nd Amendment's interpretation was much looser, allowing for a much wider range of limitations. Heller overturned the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975. Both Heller and the earlier Firearms Act had been in essence, specific to DC only, but created precedent for extension of their rulings throughout the country, as Heller did with the McDonald ruling in 2010. The Firearms Act had however completely banned residents of DC from owning any handguns, automatic or semi-automatic weapons, or to possess any un-registered firearms. Even after Heller, DC still has a ban on so-called assault weapons, and a requirement that all guns be registered, something which is not required in many jurisdictions. Such bans were always deemed constitutional until Heller, and Heller was decided by a 5-4 decision. Scalia is gone. Who is chosen to replace him will have a massive effect on a number of recent controversial (i.e. 5-4 rulings) rulings. Many of us on the left want Heller, McDonald, and Citizens United gone. Many on the right not only want to ensure that those recent 2nd Amendment rulings stay in place, but also think that they are very close (2 appointments) to overturning Roe.

Ozymandias
10-15-2016, 03:25 PM
I forget where I read it, or when (so.... not very helpful) but there was a super interesting article about how a decades long push by the NRA at all levels of the federal judiciary has resulted in ever broadening interpretations of the 2nd Amendment and what it covers. Should point out that one of the themes was that its all perfectly legal, and not even related to money (except in the sense that it takes money to fund so many lawyers), merely a concerted effort to establish precedent in ever expanding circles. Very interesting look into how the interpretation of law changes over time

Davian93
10-15-2016, 03:36 PM
Now Trump is demanding drug tests before the next debate and is claiming Hillary was on drugs during the 2nd debate.

You know, the red faced constantly sniffing guy who acted and seemed like he was on cocaine the first two debates is claiming that his calm and collected opponent was on drugs instead.


Projection much?

Kimon
10-15-2016, 03:42 PM
I forget where I read it, or when (so.... not very helpful) but there was a super interesting article about how a decades long push by the NRA at all levels of the federal judiciary has resulted in ever broadening interpretations of the 2nd Amendment and what it covers. Should point out that one of the themes was that its all perfectly legal, and not even related to money (except in the sense that it takes money to fund so many lawyers), merely a concerted effort to establish precedent in ever expanding circles. Very interesting look into how the interpretation of law changes over time

This?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/06/how_the_nra_perverted_the_meaning_of_the_2nd_amend ment.html

Weird Harold
10-15-2016, 04:35 PM
Many of us on the left want Heller, McDonald, and Citizens United gone. Many on the right not only want to ensure that those recent 2nd Amendment rulings stay in place, but also think that they are very close (2 appointments) to overturning Roe.

I'm not particularly against effective "gun control" such as the 1934 firearms act that "banned" fully automatic firearms and "Destructive devices" by regulating and taxing them rather than a flat ban.

I'm against efforts to restore the assault weapons ban because it does nothing but concentrate on cosmetic differences -- every weapon affected by the ban was re-designed and back on the market functionally unchanged in a matter of months.

I plan to vote against the background checks question on the Nevada ballot for the same reason -- the proposed legislation won't do what the proponents claim it will; it will just add more red-tape and unreasonable burden on law-abiding gun owners without affecting a single criminal's ability to get a gun.

FWIW, I'm also opposed to any attempt to repeal Roe V. Wade. Or any other attempt to dictate decision between a doctor and patient. Especially on Political or Religious grounds instead of Medical grounds.

ShadowbaneX
10-15-2016, 09:22 PM
Now Trump is demanding drug tests before the next debate and is claiming Hillary was on drugs during the 2nd debate.

You know, the red faced constantly sniffing guy who acted and seemed like he was on cocaine the first two debates is claiming that his calm and collected opponent was on drugs instead.


Projection much?

I expect him to be performing with Tupac in the near future.

GonzoTheGreat
10-16-2016, 04:01 AM
Now Trump is demanding drug tests before the next debate and is claiming Hillary was on drugs during the 2nd debate.

You know, the red faced constantly sniffing guy who acted and seemed like he was on cocaine the first two debates is claiming that his calm and collected opponent was on drugs instead.


Projection much?
He may be worried that he might win after all. Or maybe he's curious to see what happens when he passes the test (showing that he does have enough drugs in his system to generate a positive outcome).

Or perhaps he has invested in a "drug tests for politicians" corporation, and wants to see a good return on that investment.
Most extreme for now: he hopes it will catch on, and intends to take the whole Republican Party down with him; gambling on Democrats not using drugs.

Southpaw2012
10-17-2016, 02:12 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/37683119?client=safari

Unsurprising to anyone but liberals who deny the crookedness of Clinton and her goonies. We've known for awhile about the Benghazi lies and coverup, but this is even more evidence. Unreal. I don't blame people for not voting for Trunp, but it's pure stupidity to vote for Clinton with blinders on.

Kimon
10-17-2016, 04:04 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/37683119?client=safari

Unsurprising to anyone but liberals who deny the crookedness of Clinton and her goonies. We've known for awhile about the Benghazi lies and coverup, but this is even more evidence. Unreal. I don't blame people for not voting for Trunp, but it's pure stupidity to vote for Clinton with blinders on.

There's not much here Southpaw. It would have been helpful if you had at least bothered to link the only pertinent points.

Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy asked the bureau to unclassify the message so it could be archived, "never to be seen again".
He made the request in relation to an email about the 2012 attacks on the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
But the FBI said it did not change the classification level.
The email in question described reports in November 2012 that Libyan police were arresting suspects in the attack of two months earlier, which left Ambassador Christopher Stephens and three other Americans dead.

It should be noted, however, that this email isn't actually from Patrick Kennedy...

The 100-page FBI document published on Monday says an unnamed FBI official was "pressured" in summer last year to change the classified Clinton email to unclassified.

The official said he had received a call from a colleague - whose name is also redacted - at the FBI's International Operations Division.
The colleague said he had been contacted by Mr Kennedy asking him to change the email's classification level in "exchange for a 'quid pro quo'".
The State Department, the document says, offered to "reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more agents in countries where they are presently forbidden".

Here is Kennedy's personal connection to what happened at Benghazi.

Mr Kennedy, who has spent more than four decades at the State Department, was already a lightning rod for Republican criticism.
He oversaw both diplomatic security during the 2012 attacks in Benghazi and the records and IT departments during Mrs Clinton's use of a private email server.

The reference to a "quid pro quo" makes this looks far worse, but the actual "quid" here is just the re-classfication, with the "quo" being apparently an offer by Kennedy, and only reported secondhand, of allowing the insertion of clandestine FBI agents. That actually would seem a conflict with the CIA or NSA, but either way this isn't quite what one typically has in mind when one uses that loaded phrase. It was not a monetary bribe, nor one that would have in any way have financially benefited the agent being asked to alter the classification.

There is also this:

The email in question was among some 100 messages recovered from Mrs Clinton's private email server that the FBI would ultimately designate as classified.

I'm not quite sure how to take this closing statement. It could potentially refer to this newly released email from the FBI official, but the "in question" certainly leaves the implication that it is a reference to the actual email about which Kennedy was making his "quid pro quo" request, which suggests either that he was complaining about the fact that the FBI altered the classification of the email, and was merely requested that they not do so (as that change, presumably to classified from unclassified, hence his request that they unclassify it, perhaps again, would have made the Secretary, Hillary, and himself, since Benghazi was under his purview, look bad, albeit perhaps through no fault of her own), or that the FBI agreed with Kennedy, and decided to change the classification following his request.

Regardless...

The FBI and State Department engaged in a review of the former secretary of state's emails as they were being made ready for public release.
FBI Director James Comey concluded in his investigation Mrs Clinton had been "extremely careless" in handling the classified material.

Comey, a Republican, knew about this, and still didn't think anything criminal took place. This whole issue is political Southpaw.

ShadowbaneX
10-17-2016, 04:44 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/37683119?client=safari

Unsurprising to anyone but liberals who deny the crookedness of Clinton and her goonies. We've known for awhile about the Benghazi lies and coverup, but this is even more evidence. Unreal. I don't blame people for not voting for Trunp, but it's pure stupidity to vote for Clinton with blinders on.
Oh, no. People aren't voting for Clinton with blinders on, they're voting for Clinton because they see the alternative.

You know what I really love though? The insinuations about the left-wing that are the start of most of your posts as if your political position has somehow made you more enlightened to the ways of the world. That's really the cherry on top.

Sei'taer
10-17-2016, 09:10 PM
Man, I don't miss these threads.

Terez
10-18-2016, 04:17 AM
Man, I don't miss these threads.
Me neither.

GonzoTheGreat
10-18-2016, 06:58 AM
Man, I don't miss these threads.
It's quite easy not to miss them, seeing as how they stay near the top of the board the whole time, isn't it?

Davian93
10-18-2016, 02:02 PM
So...someone at State made a classification challenge to the FBI and the original classification decision was upheld?

Um...that happens probably 1000 times per day across the Executive Branch. People are encouraged to challenge classification decisions. As someone who has made classification decisions probably 8 billion times in my career (slight exaggeration), this doesn't really sound like much of anything. People challenge this sort of thing all the time and each Agency has differing standards and Classification Guides to make these types of decisions. Especially given that both FBI and State are saying it isn't anything and Comey is hardly a Clinton supporter and he felt it wasn't anything to be concerned about.

Nazbaque
10-18-2016, 02:12 PM
So...someone at State made a classification challenge to the FBI and the original classification decision was upheld?

Um...that happens probably 1000 times per day across the Executive Branch. People are encouraged to challenge classification decisions. As someone who has made classification decisions probably 8 billion times in my career (slight exaggeration), this doesn't really sound like much of anything. People challenge this sort of thing all the time and each Agency has differing standards and Classification Guides to make these types of decisions. Especially given that both FBI and State are saying it isn't anything and Comey is hardly a Clinton supporter and he felt it wasn't anything to be concerned about.

So this is like wildly searching the ground for anything to throw at a threat and they can't even find a stone?

Davian93
10-18-2016, 02:16 PM
So this is like wildly searching the ground for anything to throw at a threat and they can't even find a stone?

Basically. Its really not a big deal.

But then neither is the whole email thing to begin with. For one, the classification decisions were made after the fact and honestly, probably 90% of the stuff ever discussed at the SecState level could be classified at the Confidential level. So for them to go back after the fact and classify 50-60 emails isn't really a scandal at all. Even the ones that were classified at the Secret level aren't a major concern. That sort of ex post facto classification occurs quite often...usually to prevent something sensitive from being FOIA requested.

So for the idiots saying "She had to know it was classified when reading the email!!!"...they're either deliberately lying or just idiots.

Or both.

Kimon
10-18-2016, 08:28 PM
Not that this will get much coverage, although Rachel Maddow is, somewhat surprisingly, talking about this right now, alongside the stifling tedium of the circus that this election has become, but the lead up to the actual vote (at least for those that don't vote early by mail, like I just did today) looks like it's going to coincide with the final push into Mosul.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37699233

Some 700,000 people are believed to remain in the city in northern Iraq, where up to 5,000 IS fighters face the advancing government-led coalition.
News that the nearby town of Qaraqosh had been liberated was later denied by a government commander.
But the US-backed coalition say they have driven IS out of 10 villages.
Government troops are moving up from the south while their Kurdish allies are approaching from the east in a two-pronged campaign which began on Monday.
US President Barack Obama has sought to allay concerns about an exodus of civilians from the area, saying "plans and infrastructure" are in place for dealing with a potential humanitarian crisis.

Asked by reporters in Washington if IS was using civilians as human shields, Pentagon spokesman Navy Captain Jeff Davis said "absolutely".
"They are being held there against their will," he said on Tuesday. "We have not seen any change in the last day of people leaving or fleeing."

One can't help but wonder just how messy this will become from a humanitarian standpoint, and also, how much coordination or competition there will really be between the Kurds and the Iraqi Govt/Shia militias for who will enter the city first, and thus perhaps who will essentially conquer and hold it. Considering the the city is Sunni, probably for the best if it's the Kurds that take the city. Of course, if the Kurds do take the city, any illusion of a future with a united Iraq is probably gone. That too would probably be for the best.

This endgame against ISIS feels eerily similar to the competing interests at the close of WWII. Certainly we've seen much the same problem play out with Aleppo (there with Assad and the Russians increasing their activity out of anxiety that it must be they, and not either the Turk-puppets or the Kurds that take that city), just as it will later with Raqqa.

Rand al'Fain
10-19-2016, 09:13 AM
Not that this will get much coverage, although Rachel Maddow is, somewhat surprisingly, talking about this right now, alongside the stifling tedium of the circus that this election has become, but the lead up to the actual vote (at least for those that don't vote early by mail, like I just did today) looks like it's going to coincide with the final push into Mosul.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37699233





One can't help but wonder just how messy this will become from a humanitarian standpoint, and also, how much coordination or competition there will really be between the Kurds and the Iraqi Govt/Shia militias for who will enter the city first, and thus perhaps who will essentially conquer and hold it. Considering the the city is Sunni, probably for the best if it's the Kurds that take the city. Of course, if the Kurds do take the city, any illusion of a future with a united Iraq is probably gone. That too would probably be for the best.

This endgame against ISIS feels eerily similar to the competing interests at the close of WWII. Certainly we've seen much the same problem play out with Aleppo (there with Assad and the Russians increasing their activity out of anxiety that it must be they, and not either the Turk-puppets or the Kurds that take that city), just as it will later with Raqqa.

One thing is for sure, the battle for Mosul will be a brutal one. And ISIS has no qualms about a scorched earth policy. I have a bad feeling the civilian casualties will be horrifyingly high.

Kimon
10-19-2016, 11:24 AM
One thing is for sure, the battle for Mosul will be a brutal one. And ISIS has no qualms about a scorched earth policy. I have a bad feeling the civilian casualties will be horrifyingly high.

Agreed. The situation is also further complicated by the demographics, however. This is a Sunni city. They won't like being occupied by either the Kurds (who at least are Sunni) or especially by the Shia militias sent from the Iraqi govt in Baghdad. Just as we have seen the Russians and Assad increase their attacks on Aleppo, destroying the tenuous armistice, and doing so out of fear that the rebels (basically the Turk backed FSA, which is increasingly indistinguishable from al Nusra) would take the city first. If that happens it would undermine any hope of Assad reuniting Syria once this civil war finally ends, as it is the second most important, after Damascus, city in Syria. And it is not a city that would naturally wish to align with their Shia warlord - Assad. The same could well play out in Mosul. It is probably still the second most important city in Iraq, though like Aleppo, whether it will recover from its multiple sackings during the civil war, is unclear. It is also a city, like Aleppo, that has no natural alignment with their so-called govt. Mosul is Sunni. Bad enough if the Kurds take the city. At least they are Sunni. But the Shia militias? That is little different from the city being conquered by Iran.

Davian93
10-19-2016, 11:46 AM
One thing is for sure, the battle for Mosul will be a brutal one. And ISIS has no qualms about a scorched earth policy. I have a bad feeling the civilian casualties will be horrifyingly high.

One of the reasons the attack was announced beforehand (despite Trump's lack of understanding on that) was to allow for civilians to try and flee before they got killed in the cross fire and as human shields.

Supposedly Al Baghdadi is making a last stand in Mosul...hopefully that's true and he goes down with the ship.

Kimon
10-19-2016, 12:00 PM
One of the reasons the attack was announced beforehand (despite Trump's lack of understanding on that) was to allow for civilians to try and flee before they got killed in the cross fire and as human shields.

Supposedly Al Baghdadi is making a last stand in Mosul...hopefully that's true and he goes down with the ship.

The BBC is suggesting a logistic nightmare already underway...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37701235

Some 5,000 people have crossed the border into Syria in the last 10 days, the aid agency Save the Children says.
They have arrived at the al-Hol refugee camp where conditions are already reported to be filthy and overcrowded.
Up to 1.5 million civilians are thought to still be in Mosul, and up to 5,000 IS fighters.

The UN is preparing for what it fears could be the biggest man-made humanitarian crisis in recent times.
Refugee camps are being built in the south, east and north of Mosul in preparation for a flood of people fleeing the city. The UN says it expects at least 200,000 in the coming days and weeks.

Mosul residents had been told by the Iraqi government that it might be safer to stay in the city while the operation is under way - with fears IS fighters have booby-trapped roads and placed snipers on routes in and out.
But there are also fears that IS militants could use residents as human shields by moving into their neighbourhoods, and concern that the group may even use chemical weapons.
Residents, reached by telephone by Reuters news agency, confirmed that IS was trying to prevent people from fleeing the city and had directed some of them towards buildings likely to be targeted by air strikes.

Al-Hol was built to house 7,500 people but currently holds 9,000 refugees.
Save the Children says as well as the 5,000 people who have arrived in the last 10 days, there are 1,000 more waiting at the border.
The UN has disputed these numbers and says that some of the new arrivals may be Syrian.
It says says the camp received 912 people in the last 24 hours and is expecting a further 3,000 people who were dropped off by smugglers and are being cleared by security.
The camp is being expanded to eventually take in 50,000 people, but Save the Children says the camp currently has just 16 latrines, is littered with waste and faeces, and has no clean water.

Davian93
10-19-2016, 12:09 PM
Oh, its 100% going to be a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions...think Rwanda in the 1990s for how bad it'll be from a refugee standpoint.

Tens of thousands will die...and that's if we're lucky and its tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands.

Sukoto
10-19-2016, 11:44 PM
Would someone please punch Donald Trump in the face? Says he'll 'keep us in suspense' about whether or not he'll accept the results of the election.

Almost there... breathe.

Rand al'Fain
10-20-2016, 12:03 AM
Would someone please punch Donald Trump in the face? Says he'll 'keep us in suspense' about whether or not he'll accept the results of the election.

Almost there... breathe.

He is very bigly on suspense. Because he is not a loser. Ever. Now excuse Mr. Trump, he's late for his cheeto bath with images of Putin on his horse overlooking him.

Davian93
10-20-2016, 08:23 AM
Trump got clobbered in the debate last night. It was like pistol whipping a blind kid it was so bad.


Anyone still voting for him should have their head examined.

Tomp
10-20-2016, 08:35 AM
Do you guys think there's any risk for gun violence in those states that allows for weapons in election halls?

GonzoTheGreat
10-20-2016, 08:48 AM
Do you guys think there's any risk for gun violence in those states that allows for weapons in election halls?
Surely not. Black Lives Matter, so Clinton's supporters won't start anything.

Davian93
10-20-2016, 11:15 AM
Do you guys think there's any risk for gun violence in those states that allows for weapons in election halls?

Yes.


Back to the debate for a bit more...I think Chris Wallace did a very good job and earned a lot of respect for his overall neutrality. He did lob Trump a couple of softballs last night and Trump utterly refused to take them but overall he defied the expectation of what a "foxnews reporter" would do during a debate. For that, he is to be commended.

Trump did ok for the first 30 min or so...he was quite subdued instead of acting like a coked up freak like he did in the first two. Honestly, I thought he was probably on a valium or maybe something like methadone or oxy to be so subdued. Then he just completely melted down as he simply CANNOT ever let a jab go. She needled him a couple times and he just lost it completely. He was almost a caricature of Alec Baldwin playing Donald Trump on SNL. It was embarrassing to watch and his utter refusal to say he'd accept the election results was pathetic and terrifying at the same time. Along with several other just outright flubs, he should be sunk completely. He needed a massive victory and he got hammered instead.

But hey, he was up at 4am tweeting about his victory in the debate so I guess it's all good.

Kimon
10-22-2016, 08:09 PM
Meanwhile in Mosul...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37742805

Turkey has insisted that its forces cannot remain idle during the fight to drive so-called Islamic State militants from the Iraqi city of Mosul.
PM Binali Yildirim said it might be necessary to take action because Iraq and the US had not kept their promises.
He said both countries had allowed Shia militias and Kurdish separatists to take part in the operation.

Well, yeah, those do happen to be the only options if the city is to be liberated from ISIS...

Correspondents say Mr Abadi's refusal to countenance the prospect of Turkish involvement in the Mosul offensive could upset Turkish President Recip Tayyip Erdogan, who has warned of sectarian bloodshed if the Iraqi army relies on Shia militias to retake Mosul, which is mostly a Sunni Muslim city.
Mosul was once part of the Ottoman empire and Turkey sees the city as squarely within its zone of influence.

...unless, of course, we just let Erdogan annex all of Northern Iraq and declare himself Caliph.

Nazbaque
10-22-2016, 08:54 PM
...unless, of course, we just let Erdogan annex all of Northern Iraq and declare himself Caliph.

He can't be Caliph, he is no good.

Rand al'Fain
10-22-2016, 10:28 PM
He can't be Caliph, he is no good.

And he sucks at rocking the Casbah!

ShadowbaneX
10-22-2016, 10:51 PM
And he sucks at rocking the Casbah!
Speaking of rocking the Casbah, it looks like the Trump Hotel brand is undergoing some changes. Looks like they've lost some revenue over the passed few months for some reason. They're going to change themselves to Scion, to see if they can perk things up a bit.

Kimon
10-24-2016, 04:43 PM
Erdogan isn't playing particularly coy here...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37751579

In a speech in Bursa on 22 October, Mr Erdogan referred back to the immediate post-World War One period, commenting that "we did not voluntarily accept the borders of our country".
He noted that one of modern Turkey's greatest mistakes was "the weakening of our cultural connections".
"With total ignorance," he said, people asked "what business does Turkey have in Iraq, Syria and Bosnia? [But] these geographies are each part of our soul."
In part, this was a powerful attack against the secular regime that had previously ruled modern Turkey. But, equally, it also sent a signal of where Turkey's abiding interests lie.
The Turkish media has been awash with maps showing Turkey's widening horizons. This "irredentist cartography and rhetoric," according to the analyst Nick Danforth, offers a fascinating insight into Turkey's current foreign and domestic policy concerns.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi warned of a possible military confrontation if they became involved. "We are ready for them," Mr Abadi said. "This is not a threat or a warning, this is about Iraqi dignity."

Rand al'Fain
10-24-2016, 06:09 PM
Great. So Erdogan is basically going to provoke war with Syria, and possibly by extension, Russia?

Is it too late to evict Turkey from NATO?

Kimon
10-24-2016, 07:39 PM
Great. So Erdogan is basically going to provoke war with Syria, and possibly by extension, Russia?

Is it too late to evict Turkey from NATO?

Just as we've seen through his actions in Syria, here too, considering the importance of Mosul, and the fact that it is a Sunni city, he clearly does not want to see it annexed either by the Kurds or by the Shia govt in Baghdad. Letting ISIS hold it, just as seemingly has been his stance throughout the Syrian Civil War, is obviously preferable to him to either letting the power of the Kurds or the Shia increase. But the city is clearly going to fall. It's just a question of to whom. The problem is that trying to stop him, and to defend the interests of the Kurds might well push him not into war with Russia, but into alliance, with him voluntarily leaving NATO. At least while he's in NATO we can exert some influence over him.

Hopefully this quagmire, along with Libya, at least teaches us not to repeat this same mistake, of attempting to plant and nurture democracies again - at least not for another 30 years. We obviously didn't learn this lesson permanently after Vietnam, so one can't reasonably hope for the lesson to hold for longer than a generation.

GonzoTheGreat
10-25-2016, 03:33 AM
Suppose that while Turkey is still part of NATO a war erupts between Turkey and Iraq. After the Bush invasion, the USA has pledged to protect Iraq from foreign aggression (a promise aimed at Iran, most likely). This means that the USA would have to support Iraq in such a war. But, since Turkey is also a NATO member, the USA would also have to support Turkey.
While this is (at the moment) still a theoretical problem, it is definitely not a new one. Just an issue that is getting more and more likely to become real every month. So, what is the USA going to do when this war actually begins?

Daekyras
10-25-2016, 07:43 AM
Suppose that while Turkey is still part of NATO a war erupts between Turkey and Iraq. After the Bush invasion, the USA has pledged to protect Iraq from foreign aggression (a promise aimed at Iran, most likely). This means that the USA would have to support Iraq in such a war. But, since Turkey is also a NATO member, the USA would also have to support Turkey.
While this is (at the moment) still a theoretical problem, it is definitely not a new one. Just an issue that is getting more and more likely to become real every month. So, what is the USA going to do when this war actually begins?

Depends on who invades.

Nazbaque
10-25-2016, 08:41 AM
Suppose that while Turkey is still part of NATO a war erupts between Turkey and Iraq. After the Bush invasion, the USA has pledged to protect Iraq from foreign aggression (a promise aimed at Iran, most likely). This means that the USA would have to support Iraq in such a war. But, since Turkey is also a NATO member, the USA would also have to support Turkey.
While this is (at the moment) still a theoretical problem, it is definitely not a new one. Just an issue that is getting more and more likely to become real every month. So, what is the USA going to do when this war actually begins?

The legally correct path depends on the fine print of the agreements. AFAIK both the NATO agreement and the pledge to Iraq are defensive in nature. If Turkey invades Iraq USA would have to defend Iraq or betray the pledge. This eventuality SHOULD also lead to Turkey's expulsion from NATO as they ignored another member's pledge of protection. And if Iraq attacks a NATO country they betray the conditions of peace and the pledge becomes void. Pax Americana. They could go to war in a purely political sense without any actual bloodshed or destruction, though it might be that even a declaration of war or a provocation is enough to decide which side USA is on.

This is much like what it means to be a good parent when your children fight. The one who is at fault gets punished. If both are at fault, both get punished. So is USA going to be a good parent? And of course ineffective punishments as well as excessive punishments are also marks of bad parents.

GonzoTheGreat
10-25-2016, 08:55 AM
Turkey already has soldiers inside Iraq, and the Iraqi government is complaining about that.
Suppose someone shoots at those Turkish soldiers, and Erdogan then interprets that as an attack on a NATO member. What happens next?

Nazbaque
10-25-2016, 09:31 AM
Turkey already has soldiers inside Iraq, and the Iraqi government is complaining about that.
Suppose someone shoots at those Turkish soldiers, and Erdogan then interprets that as an attack on a NATO member. What happens next?

Erdogan's interpretation isn't the one that matters. I think legally Iraq would be the one under attack, but in the end everyone will chooce the side they want to be on if they want to get involved at all. Will NATO fall apart over this, is the big question for us who live far away.

Davian93
10-25-2016, 12:13 PM
To be fair to Erdogan, we didn't have these sorts of issues in the region when the Ottoman Turks ran things...so, there's that.

Granted, they committed genocide and did all sorts of horrible things to maintain their power.

Davian93
10-25-2016, 12:17 PM
Erdogan's interpretation isn't the one that matters. I think legally Iraq would be the one under attack, but in the end everyone will choose the side they want to be on if they want to get involved at all. Will NATO fall apart over this, is the big question for us who live far away.

NATO wouldn't fall apart if Turkey left. It wouldn't be the first time we've had a realignment in NATO. We added Spain and Greece after military dictatorships collapsed, France pulled out of NATO's joint commands under De Gaulle and its never been an issue. Turkey leaving would have been a huge blow in the 1980s but now with Russia being a 3rd rate regional power at best, losing Turkey and control of the Dardanelles isn't the blow it once was. Hell, we have two other NATO countries on the Black Sea in Romania and Bulgaria these days. If Turkey wants to cut off their nose to spite their face, I say let them.

Southpaw2012
10-25-2016, 12:50 PM
Democrats have the dead and the illegal voting. One of few things I agree with Trump on is the election being rigged. Democrats have been caught on tape admitting this crap. The whole voter ID issue is absurd, and it's clear it's so illegals and the dead can vote. It's pure stupidity to think otherwise.

Davian93
10-25-2016, 01:09 PM
Democrats have the dead and the illegal voting. One of few things I agree with Trump on is the election being rigged. Democrats have been caught on tape admitting this crap. The whole voter ID issue is absurd, and it's clear it's so illegals and the dead can vote. It's pure stupidity to think otherwise.

No they dont...unless, of course, you are referring to the scenario as follows:

1. Gets early voting ballot or absentee ballot via mail.
2. Fills out and mails prior to election day as required.
3. Dies before election day but AFTER mailing ballot.

Otherwise, the "dead" or "illegals" voting is basically a non-existent issue in this country...and they've done dozens of studies that prove that. Now...if you want to talk about massive potential voter fraud, there are those very interesting studies done that showed voting was way way up in certain republican districts that only used electronic voting machines in 2008 and 2012 in swing states that stood out as red flags when people reviewing the data looked at it. But lets not talk about that and pretend that in-person voting fraud and "the dead" voting is a real concern that needs resolution.

Interesting link on the myth of voting fraud: https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud

Nazbaque
10-25-2016, 02:31 PM
NATO wouldn't fall apart if Turkey left. It wouldn't be the first time we've had a realignment in NATO. We added Spain and Greece after military dictatorships collapsed, France pulled out of NATO's joint commands under De Gaulle and its never been an issue. Turkey leaving would have been a huge blow in the 1980s but now with Russia being a 3rd rate regional power at best, losing Turkey and control of the Dardanelles isn't the blow it once was. Hell, we have two other NATO countries on the Black Sea in Romania and Bulgaria these days. If Turkey wants to cut off their nose to spite their face, I say let them.

Left is one thing. Kicked out is something else. And I don't mean the strategic elements, but the diplomatic relations between members. And what I'm really wondering about is how many will quit NATO if Turkey is allowed to stay.

Davian93
10-25-2016, 02:33 PM
Left is one thing. Kicked out is something else. And I don't mean the strategic elements, but the diplomatic relations between members. And what I'm really wondering about is how many will quit NATO if Turkey is allowed to stay.

Yeah, I could see the issue being worse if Turkey is allowed to stay. I mean, what does that say about the rest of NATO if an increasingly autocratic POS like Erdogan is allowed to stay in the club. So good point there and I apologize for missing what you meant originally.

Nazbaque
10-25-2016, 02:55 PM
Yeah, I could see the issue being worse if Turkey is allowed to stay. I mean, what does that say about the rest of NATO if an increasingly autocratic POS like Erdogan is allowed to stay in the club. So good point there and I apologize for missing what you meant originally.

Nothing to apologize for Dav:). Politics are deep waters with hidden currents. I'm probably overly cynical with my views on this anyway. Finland is not a member, but we dance on the fine line between joining and cooperation. If Russia pulls too much shit we damn well will join and if we do join Russia will start pulling shit. If NATO bickers itself apart it won't look good for us. Ukraine all over again.

Davian93
10-25-2016, 04:10 PM
Nothing to apologize for Dav:). Politics are deep waters with hidden currents. I'm probably overly cynical with my views on this anyway. Finland is not a member, but we dance on the fine line between joining and cooperation. If Russia pulls too much shit we damn well will join and if we do join Russia will start pulling shit. If NATO bickers itself apart it won't look good for us. Ukraine all over again.

I wonder how poorly Russia would handle it if Finland wanted to join NATO. I don't think that would go over well to be honest. I wouldn't be stunned to see Sweden join NATO at some point and Finland would be a logical extension of that but just like Ukraine, I think Finland moving further to the West when it comes to alignment could be something that might set Russia and Putin off.

Rand al'Fain
10-25-2016, 06:47 PM
I wonder how poorly Russia would handle it if Finland wanted to join NATO. I don't think that would go over well to be honest. I wouldn't be stunned to see Sweden join NATO at some point and Finland would be a logical extension of that but just like Ukraine, I think Finland moving further to the West when it comes to alignment could be something that might set Russia and Putin off.

Both are already leaning more and more towards NATO and the West. Due in large part to Russia flying more and more unannounced military jets over their countries.

Nazbaque
10-25-2016, 06:49 PM
I wonder how poorly Russia would handle it if Finland wanted to join NATO. I don't think that would go over well to be honest. I wouldn't be stunned to see Sweden join NATO at some point and Finland would be a logical extension of that but just like Ukraine, I think Finland moving further to the West when it comes to alignment could be something that might set Russia and Putin off.

It's a balancing act we've been performing for decades. A lot of people say we should join and others say we are too close to being full members. I think what we do now is exactly what we should do. We don't join fully and the Russians don't blow their top, but we stay on the verge of joining to make them tread lightly. We rely on NATO's existance very heavily, but official membership is a line we musn't cross.

fionwe1987
10-26-2016, 01:46 AM
Democrats have the dead and the illegal voting. One of few things I agree with Trump on is the election being rigged. Democrats have been caught on tape admitting this crap. The whole voter ID issue is absurd, and it's clear it's so illegals and the dead can vote. It's pure stupidity to think otherwise.

Is this a parody account? :confused:

I find the whole "rigged" election crap beyond absurd. There have been rigged elections in this country, where African American voters have been turned away for the flimsiest of reasons. And at a time when Republicans are seeking to reinstate insane voter ID laws to replicate these past disenfranchisements, it is particularly unseemly for them to also whine about imaginary voter fraud directed against them.

The greatest shams of American democracy, gerrymandering and racially biased voter ID laws, are both pushed strongly by the Republican Party. Neither of those actions will be helping Democrats this election. Republicans are just being anticipatory sore losers.

Davian93
10-26-2016, 08:17 AM
Is this a parody account? :confused:

I find the whole "rigged" election crap beyond absurd. There have been rigged elections in this country, where African American voters have been turned away for the flimsiest of reasons. And at a time when Republicans are seeking to reinstate insane voter ID laws to replicate these past disenfranchisements, it is particularly unseemly for them to also whine about imaginary voter fraud directed against them.

The greatest shams of American democracy, gerrymandering and racially biased voter ID laws, are both pushed strongly by the Republican Party. Neither of those actions will be helping Democrats this election. Republicans are just being anticipatory sore losers.

Like many complaints of the GOP, I tend to chalk this one up to projection on their part. They tend to think everything is rigged...likely because they're actively trying to rig it themselves whether it be by gerrymandering, elimination of early voting, ridiculous voter ID laws that target minorities and college students, etc. etc.

Its kinda like if you have a significant other who is always accusing you of cheating...she or he is probably doing that because they're a cheater and assume everyone is just like them.

Kimon
10-28-2016, 12:39 PM
Comey apparently wants his legacy to be as a partisan hack.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37805525

And this is why we likely won't see another cross-aisle major appointment in future administrations.

Davian93
10-28-2016, 01:05 PM
What utter garbage and what a blatantly obvious attempt to try and swing the election.

Nazbaque
10-28-2016, 01:50 PM
What utter garbage and what a blatantly obvious attempt to try and swing the election.

I kinda liked the phrase "No one is above the law". Can that be used against Trump?

Rand al'Fain
10-28-2016, 02:30 PM
I kinda liked the phrase "No one is above the law". Can that be used against Trump?

The guy could use a wake up call or 10.

On a related note;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kbryz0mxuMY&t=2s

Kimon
10-28-2016, 04:22 PM
Comey is beyond incompetent...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-email.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — A new trove of emails that appear pertinent to the now-closed investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server was discovered after the F.B.I. seized at least one electronic device shared by Anthony D. Weiner and his estranged wife, Huma Abedin, a top aide to Mrs. Clinton, federal law enforcement officials said Friday.

The F.B.I. is investigating illicit text messages that Mr. Weiner, a former Democratic congressman from New York, sent to a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina. The bureau told Congress on Friday that it had uncovered new emails related to the Clinton case — one federal official said they numbered in the tens of thousands — potentially reigniting an issue that has weighed on the presidential campaign and offering a lifeline to Donald J. Trump less than two weeks before the election.

In a letter to Congress, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said that emails had surfaced in an unrelated case, and that they “appear to be pertinent to the investigation.”

Mr. Comey said the F.B.I. was taking steps to “determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.” He said he did not know how long it would take to review the emails, or whether the new information was significant.

Huma Abedin had a security clearance, so even if any of these new emails were classified, they would be just like the others between Hillary and Huma (her top aide) from before. So the only potentially legitimately new, not to mention potentially criminal material here is about Antony Wiener sexting this 15-year old, which wtf, but not cause to try to sabotage the election by insinuating the FBI into a political hatchet job once again.

Davian93
10-28-2016, 06:18 PM
Maybe the Dems shouldn't have nominated literally the worst person in the history of their party, eh?

Kimon
10-28-2016, 06:33 PM
Maybe the Dems shouldn't have nominated literally the worst person in the history of their party, eh?

She is an awful candidate, but still a better one than Bernie. I'd still take paranoid over stupid. That said, assuming she still wins, I really hope she doesn't try to run for re-election.

Davian93
10-28-2016, 06:34 PM
She is an awful candidate, but still a better one than Bernie. I'd still take paranoid over stupid.

I was thinking Biden actually...he would have been a better option.

Kimon
10-28-2016, 06:35 PM
I was thinking Biden actually...he would have been a better option.

Elizabeth Warren...

As for Joe, it sounds like he has already been offered Sec of State

Davian93
10-28-2016, 06:44 PM
Elizabeth Warren...

As for Joe, it sounds like he has already been offered Sec of State

Biden/Warren would have been the ideal ticket...

I dont know that Trump will let Biden be his SecState...I think Vince McMahon or Jesse Ventura likely have better shots.

Kimon
10-28-2016, 07:30 PM
Biden/Warren would have been the ideal ticket...

I dont know that Trump will let Biden be his SecState...I think Vince McMahon or Jesse Ventura likely have better shots.

Hell, Trump might turn it into a reality show with has-been politicians (Chris Christie and Rudy Giuliani) and b-list celebs (Scott Baio). Or just go with nepotism, and give it to Ivanka.

Davian93
10-28-2016, 07:36 PM
Hell, Trump might turn it into a reality show with has-been politicians (Chris Christie and Rudy Giuliani) and b-list celebs (Scott Baio). Or just go with nepotism, and give it to Ivanka.

Scott Baio would be ecstatic to hear someone say he was b-list...


More like d-list...he's the middle of the week in a small town strip club, C-section scar showing stripper of washed up 1980s television actors.


I'm sure Donald "gives it to Ivanka" on a nightly basis.

Nazbaque
10-28-2016, 08:21 PM
I thought he'd hold a beauty pageant for it. Four times. Miss secstates 2016-2019. "Four more secstates" will be his second term campaign slogan.

GonzoTheGreat
10-29-2016, 03:39 AM
Mr Comey said the FBI would investigate if the newly discovered emails contain classified information.He's going to investigate pictures of Weiner's wiener to see whether or not that's classy?

Is Comey a Republican, by any chance?

Kimon
10-29-2016, 09:00 AM
Is Comey a Republican, by any chance?

Yes.

Obama appointed a few Republicans to important positions in an attempt, completely unrequited, of reaching out to the Republicans and trying to convince them that we could try to work together for the benefit of the country. It's also why with Obamacare he pushed for a version that mirrored the one that Romney, a Republican, had made for Massachusetts, and which had its origins in a Republican thinktank. It was the version put forth by the Heritage Foundation as a counter-proposal to the Universal Health Care that Hillary Clinton (and to a lesser extent her husband) tried to push through back in '93. And just as that attempt to reach out to the Republicans was a pointless endeavor, so to clearly was trying to give them a few key positions. Jeb Bush ensured that his brother won back in 2000, and now it looks like Comey (along with Wikileaks and other Republican/Russian hatchetmen) are trying to ensure that we're stuck this time with Trump.

To play the devil's advocate, it would have also looked shady if Comey waited until after the election to drop this bombshell. He has to move very fast though if he is going to have any chance of looking non-partisan here, and release all of these emails between Hillary and Huma, and make clear, which should be obvious, that these new emails are exactly like the thousands of already known emails between the two. The only criminal activity here is by Anthony Weiner. One could also point out that Hillary and Huma's friendship does make a lot of sense. Both are very intelligent women who made the mistake of marrying philandering perverts.

GonzoTheGreat
10-29-2016, 09:47 AM
Both are very intelligent women who made the mistake of marrying philandering perverts.
Then again, Hillary had the good sense to pick a clever and competent one.

Kimon
10-30-2016, 09:50 AM
So...

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37815558

The FBI was advised by the US justice department not to inform Congress of a new inquiry into Hillary Clinton's email use, officials say.
Justice department officials said the move would be inconsistent with rules designed to avoid the appearance of interference in an election.
FBI Director James Comey acted independently when he briefed lawmakers in a letter on Friday.

There is also this...
In a poll taken after the furore broke out on Friday, there is further evidence of the race tightening in Mr Trump's favour.
The ABC News/Washington Post survey suggests he is now only trailing Mrs Clinton by one point, at 46-45%.
About a third of likely voters say they are less likely to support the Democrat, following Mr Comey's disclosure.

GonzoTheGreat
10-30-2016, 10:23 AM
Maybe the FBI could put Comey on the Most Wanted list?
That'd be a step towards making this election The Greatest Farce ever, which is what Trump promises to do.

Kimon
10-30-2016, 07:34 PM
Maybe the FBI could put Comey on the Most Wanted list?
That'd be a step towards making this election The Greatest Farce ever, which is what Trump promises to do.

Something like this?

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37819311

The Democratic leader in the US Senate says the head of the FBI may have broken the law by revealing the bureau was investigating emails possibly linked to Hillary Clinton.
Harry Reid accused FBI director James Comey of violating an act which bars officials from influencing an election.

In a letter, Mr Reid accused Mr Comey of practising double standards with the intention of helping one political party over another.
He said Mr Comey may have violated the Hatch Act, which bars officials from using their position to influence an election.
"Through your partisan actions, you may have broken the law," he said.
Mr Reid also accused Mr Comey of withholding "explosive information about close ties between Donald Trump, his top advisers, and the Russian government".
"The public has a right to know about this information. I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public," Mr Reid said.

Davian93
10-30-2016, 10:01 PM
If he gave it to the GOP first like has been suggested, its most definitely a massive violation of the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act is no joke...federal employees do not even hint about their political inclinations at work. Even jokes are frowned upon...especially during an election. And that's at my level which is well below the "political appointee" level. Its something that everyone knows better than to do and we all get annual refresher training on the "this is what is not allowed" so ignorance is no excuse.

Comey very clearly intended to influence the election and for that, he should be fired immediately. He wont be of course since trying to get rid of him would look like a partisan attack by Obama to silence him...even after the election, it would look like retribution regardless of it being 100% the right thing to do.

Comey is an utter joke and he should be ashamed of his actions.

Sukoto
11-01-2016, 09:24 PM
I tend to agree with the Obama administration when they claim Comey's actions are not an attempt to influence the election. He really is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, and not at all by choice. He's not the one who decided to use his personal e-mail server to communicate at the highest levels of government, nor did he decide it was a good idea to try sexting with minors. He just got stuck investigating all that sh!t during an election year. This is just classic CYA behavior, that may or may not have any bearing on the election.

Don't get me wrong, I think Trump is disgusting. I could never vote for him. But I don't think Comey is disgusting, and I seriously doubt he supports Trump.

Kimon
11-01-2016, 09:59 PM
I tend to agree with the Obama administration when they claim Comey's actions are not an attempt to influence the election. He really is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, and not at all by choice. He's not the one who decided to use his personal e-mail server to communicate at the highest levels of government, nor did he decide it was a good idea to try sexting with minors. He just got stuck investigating all that sh!t during an election year. This is just classic CYA behavior, that may or may not have any bearing on the election.

Don't get me wrong, I think Trump is disgusting. I could never vote for him. But I don't think Comey is disgusting, and I seriously doubt he supports Trump.

One's impression of the seriousness of this situation is likely inevitably wrapped within one's impression both of Hillary, and whether this whole issue of using a private email server mattered. It seems a situation to me that warranted nothing more than a change in law to disallow the practice in the future. That, as it happens, essentially seems also to have been Comey's stance, as he found nothing criminal in what Hillary did. It is also a question however of what exactly one thinks Hillary did was wrong. Was it using the private server, or sending "classified" materials using a private server. If the former, which is my opinion (and there only because her intent was to limit oversight and intrusion into her emails - i.e. due to her paranoia and obsession with maintaining secrecy, something which she doesn't, and shouldn't really have much legitimate expectation to, this is, after all, the price for serving the public in so prominent a role), then simply changing the law to ensure that no one can do the same seems the extent of what should be done, while one can't realistically find her at fault for what she did. If the latter, if it is the so-called "classified" nature of the emails that is what is really bothering you, then I think one needs to take a hard look at just how fluid, and disingenuous these classifications are. We know that at least some of these emails were changed, altering their classifications after the fact. That was what was behind the so-called, and blatantly misnomered "quid pro quo" issue that Southpaw tried to raise many pages ago. Comey was forced to admit over the summer that there was nothing here, but did so in a way that would paint what she did as bad as possible, hence his claim of "extremely careless" actions, something which considering just how vague and seemingly fluid the classified status of these emails was, seemed blatantly partisan. Comey's phrasing, and his handling of this matter, both then and now, is highly suspect.

There are two even more egregious issues in the present circumstances, however. For one, neither we, nor even he (at least at the time of his memo to Congress, a memo which he knew would be immediately promulgated for partisan use), know what is in any of these emails. Moreover, these emails were from Weiner's computer, so, while some of them could be Huma's, far more likely that they are all his. Even if they found Huma's as well, she already turned over her emails. So if there is anything here from Hillary, it almost certainly is emails that the FBI already has looked at when they previously closed this case back in the summer.

He either mishandled the situation through his own incompetence, or intentionally sought to use this situation in an effort to sabotage the election.

Now, mind you, I'm obviously a democrat, and I think that both this and Benghazi are beyond retarded, and just another in an endless string of republican witch-huntings against the Clintons. So I'm obviously somewhat predisposed to think the worst of republicans, and to think they are lacking in ethics. I won't claim to be unbiased, even if I do still think that I'm right.

This however is the opinion of the Younger Bush's top ethics lawyer, Richard Painter, a Republican:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/on-clinton-emails-did-the-fbi-director-abuse-his-power.html?_r=0

But it would be highly improper, and an abuse of power, for the F.B.I. to conduct such an investigation in the public eye, particularly on the eve of the election. It would be an abuse of power for the director of the F.B.I., absent compelling circumstances, to notify members of Congress that the candidate was under investigation. It would be an abuse of power if F.B.I. agents went so far as to obtain a search warrant and raid the candidate’s office tower, hauling out boxes of documents and computers in front of television cameras.

The F.B.I.’s job is to investigate, not to influence the outcome of an election.

Such acts could also be prohibited under the Hatch Act, which bars the use of an official position to influence an election. That is why the F.B.I. presumably would keep those aspects of an investigation confidential until after the election. The usual penalty for a violation is termination of federal employment.

That is why, on Saturday, I filed a complaint against the F.B.I. with the Office of Special Counsel, which investigates Hatch Act violations, and with the Office of Government Ethics. I spent much of my career working on government and lawyers’ ethics, including as the chief White House ethics lawyer for George W. Bush. I never thought that the F.B.I. could be dragged into a political circus surrounding one of its investigations. Until this week.

It is not clear whether Mr. Comey personally wanted to influence the outcome of the election, although his letter — which cast suspicion on Mrs. Clinton without revealing specifics — was concerning. Also concerning is the fact that Mr. Comey already made unusual public statements expressing his opinion about Mrs. Clinton’s actions, calling her handling of classified information “extremely careless,” when he announced this summer that the F.B.I. was concluding its investigation of her email without filing any charges.

But an official doesn’t need to have a specific intent — or desire — to influence an election to be in violation of the Hatch Act or government ethics rules. The rules are violated if it is obvious that the official’s actions could influence the election, there is no other good reason for taking those actions, and the official is acting under pressure from persons who obviously do want to influence the election.

Absent extraordinary circumstances that might justify it, a public communication about a pending F.B.I. investigation involving a candidate that is made on the eve of an election is thus very likely to be a violation of the Hatch Act and a misuse of an official position. Serious questions also arise under lawyers’ professional conduct rules that require prosecutors to avoid excessive publicity and unnecessary statements that could cause public condemnation even of people who have been accused of a crime, not to mention people like Mrs. Clinton, who have never been charged with a crime.

This is no trivial matter. We cannot allow F.B.I. or Justice Department officials to unnecessarily publicize pending investigations concerning candidates of either party while an election is underway. That is an abuse of power. Allowing such a precedent to stand will invite more, and even worse, abuses of power in the future.

Southpaw2012
11-02-2016, 10:09 PM
One's impression of the seriousness of this situation is likely inevitably wrapped within one's impression both of Hillary, and whether this whole issue of using a private email server mattered. It seems a situation to me that warranted nothing more than a change in law to disallow the practice in the future. That, as it happens, essentially seems also to have been Comey's stance, as he found nothing criminal in what Hillary did. It is also a question however of what exactly one thinks Hillary did was wrong. Was it using the private server, or sending "classified" materials using a private server. If the former, which is my opinion (and there only because her intent was to limit oversight and intrusion into her emails - i.e. due to her paranoia and obsession with maintaining secrecy, something which she doesn't, and shouldn't really have much legitimate expectation to, this is, after all, the price for serving the public in so prominent a role), then simply changing the law to ensure that no one can do the same seems the extent of what should be done, while one can't realistically find her at fault for what she did. If the latter, if it is the so-called "classified" nature of the emails that is what is really bothering you, then I think one needs to take a hard look at just how fluid, and disingenuous these classifications are. We know that at least some of these emails were changed, altering their classifications after the fact. That was what was behind the so-called, and blatantly misnomered "quid pro quo" issue that Southpaw tried to raise many pages ago. Comey was forced to admit over the summer that there was nothing here, but did so in a way that would paint what she did as bad as possible, hence his claim of "extremely careless" actions, something which considering just how vague and seemingly fluid the classified status of these emails was, seemed blatantly partisan. Comey's phrasing, and his handling of this matter, both then and now, is highly suspect.

There are two even more egregious issues in the present circumstances, however. For one, neither we, nor even he (at least at the time of his memo to Congress, a memo which he knew would be immediately promulgated for partisan use), know what is in any of these emails. Moreover, these emails were from Weiner's computer, so, while some of them could be Huma's, far more likely that they are all his. Even if they found Huma's as well, she already turned over her emails. So if there is anything here from Hillary, it almost certainly is emails that the FBI already has looked at when they previously closed this case back in the summer.

He either mishandled the situation through his own incompetence, or intentionally sought to use this situation in an effort to sabotage the election.

Now, mind you, I'm obviously a democrat, and I think that both this and Benghazi are beyond retarded, and just another in an endless string of republican witch-huntings against the Clintons. So I'm obviously somewhat predisposed to think the worst of republicans, and to think they are lacking in ethics. I won't claim to be unbiased, even if I do still think that I'm right.

This however is the opinion of the Younger Bush's top ethics lawyer, Richard Painter, a Republican:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/on-clinton-emails-did-the-fbi-director-abuse-his-power.html?_r=0


They could reopen the case prior to the election and get trounced by the Democrats, or open it after she's elected and then be trounced by Republicans for sitting on it. An article I saw earlier today said that Comey reopened this case after around 100 FBI agents threatened to quit if he didn't. The Clinton's have been corrupt for the past 25 years. The argument that this is a witch hunt is getting old. Benghazi wasn't a joke, and the lies she told about the videotape have been proved. The fact she was dealing with confidential information on a private server is no laughing matter as well. It's actually pretty amazing that people still try to defend this awful awful person. It's one thing to oppose Trump, as I certainly do, but to defend Hillary is just saying that you like her for the fact she's a female.

Southpaw2012
11-02-2016, 10:10 PM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/02/fbi_sources_tell_fox_news_indictment_likely_in_cli nton_foundation_case.html

Davian93
11-02-2016, 10:36 PM
Well, if you can't trust unnamed sources from a Foxnews hack, who can you trust.


Maybe Trump's 13 year old rape victim will be safe enough to schedule another press conference soon or will she get more death threats like she did today?

Davian93
11-02-2016, 10:37 PM
They could reopen the case prior to the election and get trounced by the Democrats, or open it after she's elected and then be trounced by Republicans for sitting on it. An article I saw earlier today said that Comey reopened this case after around 100 FBI agents threatened to quit if he didn't. The Clinton's have been corrupt for the past 25 years. The argument that this is a witch hunt is getting old. Benghazi wasn't a joke, and the lies she told about the videotape have been proved. The fact she was dealing with confidential information on a private server is no laughing matter as well. It's actually pretty amazing that people still try to defend this awful awful person. It's one thing to oppose Trump, as I certainly do, but to defend Hillary is just saying that you like her for the fact she's a female.

You'd think if she was so corrupt that after 25 years of constant investigations, they would have gotten her on something.

Or...maybe its all a bunch of BS as usual.

Kimon
11-03-2016, 06:57 AM
An article I saw earlier today said that Comey reopened this case after around 100 FBI agents threatened to quit if he didn't.

So? This then would have offered a chance to weed out a few dozen partisan hacks. This email issue is a political issue, not a legal one. The fact that the FBI is involved is ridiculous. Had she sent those classified emails on a govt account it would have obviously been legal, since both she and the recipients had security clearances. And many of these so-called classified emails weren't even classified when she sent them, only altered to become classified after the fact, which undermines any claim of there imperative sensitivity. It's just dumb. How can you blast one side for simply using a private account, but not care that the other side is actually working with the Russians and Wikileaks?

Southpaw2012
11-03-2016, 03:29 PM
The liberal NYT confirmed Trump isn't working with the Russians, so that's a non-issue. As for the classified info, that is not true. Oh, and then there's this. The FBI has no horse in this race. The pay-to-play scheme is exploding as well. It's literally playing dumb to make the claim that Clinton is clean. You can't honestly believe there's nothing going on, unless you're just saying that to make the case that she'd be better than Trump. I definitely can't argue that he would be better. I only see two positive points to a Trump presidency:

1. His Supreme Court list is strong.

2. His outlandish use of executive power will wake Democrats up to why that's a bad thing.

And then there's this.


http://ijr.com/wildfire/2016/11/727443-fbi-sources-give-odds-hillarys-email-hacked-by-five-foreign-govts-and-risked-us-national-security/

Southpaw2012
11-03-2016, 03:33 PM
You'd think if she was so corrupt that after 25 years of constant investigations, they would have gotten her on something.

Or...maybe its all a bunch of BS as usual.

She was grossly negligent, yet Comey rewrote the statute to ignore that, and simply labeled it as extremely careless. Basically pulled a John Roberts with Obamacare. They've gotten her on many things, but when you have a highly influential president who sticks his nose in everything, and a corrupt state and justice department, it's tough to nail a family that's been in power for as long as the Clintons have been.

Ozymandias
11-03-2016, 03:52 PM
1. His Supreme Court list is strong.

2. His outlandish use of executive power will wake Democrats up to why that's a bad thing.

And then there's this.


So... Obama's use of executive power isn't out of line with what Bush did. Moreover, in the face of an overt and explicit promise by the GOPto block any and all compromise on major issues, there isn't much other way to run a country than by executive order. The obstruction of the last few Congress' have been far out of line with any historical precedent.

And as far as Comey goes, the issue isn't even whether Clinton is guilty of anything. It's long standing department policy to keep the Bureau out of politics, for obvious reasons, and in both his initial letter to Congress and his more recent announcement of re-opening his investigation, he violated that principle. Yes, he was going to be yelled at either way, because that is the state of politics in this country. In that case, the obviously proper decision is to stick with precedent; it's WHY precedent exists.

Kimon
11-03-2016, 06:10 PM
The liberal NYT confirmed Trump isn't working with the Russians, so that's a non-issue.

This is why citations are needed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html?_r=0

I assume that this is the article you are referring to? Read it. It does not confirm that Trump isn't working with the Russians, it merely says the following:

WASHINGTON — For much of the summer, the F.B.I. pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead — which they ultimately came to doubt — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.

Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.

That is not confirmation of a lack of a link, only that the FBI, likely due to present leadership therein, is unwilling to connect the dots, or at least not willing to connect those dots beyond his advisors, most notably beyond Manofort, who was forced out because these Russian (especially to Putinist Ukrainians) ties were too obvious to ignore, and necessitated his ouster.

The F.B.I.’s inquiries into Russia’s possible role continue, as does the investigation into the emails involving Mrs. Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, on a computer she shared with her estranged husband, Anthony D. Weiner. Mrs. Clinton’s supporters argue that voters have as much right to know what the F.B.I. has found in Mr. Trump’s case, even if the findings are not yet conclusive.

“You do not hear the director talking about any other investigation he is involved in,” Representative Gregory W. Meeks, Democrat of New York, said after Mr. Comey’s letter to Congress was made public. “Is he investigating the Trump Foundation? Is he looking into the Russians hacking into all of our emails? Is he looking into and deciding what is going on with regards to other allegations of the Trump Organization?”

Mr. Comey would not even confirm the existence of any investigation of Mr. Trump’s aides when asked during an appearance in September before Congress. In the Obama administration’s internal deliberations over identifying the Russians as the source of the hacks, Mr. Comey also argued against doing so and succeeded in keeping the F.B.I.’s imprimatur off the formal findings, a law enforcement official said. His stance was first reported by CNBC.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, responded angrily on Sunday with a letter accusing the F.B.I. of not being forthcoming about Mr. Trump’s alleged ties with Moscow.

“It has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisers, and the Russian government — a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity,” Mr. Reid wrote. “The public has a right to know this information.”

F.B.I. officials declined to comment on Monday. Intelligence officials have said in interviews over the last six weeks that apparent connections between some of Mr. Trump’s aides and Moscow originally compelled them to open a broad investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Republican presidential candidate. Still, they have said that Mr. Trump himself has not become a target. And no evidence has emerged that would link him or anyone else in his business or political circle directly to Russia’s election operations.

That closing bit is the closest to your assertion, but that is not a confirmation, only reporting on the official stance of the FBI. That, by the way, is responsible journalism, which is why the NYT is still the best source for journalism in America. Although admittedly, the above story isn't particularly illuminating or useful, but instead just long-winded, and mostly superfluous filler. As an aside, it's important to differentiate between the op-ed page and regular reporting. This is just a regular report. Essentially just telling you what the FBI public position is on the matter at present. That doesn't make it liberal. Mind you it's not conservative, like Breitbart or Fox. But not being conservative doesn't make it liberal. It just makes it journalism as opposed to an op-ed piece, which unfortunately is essentially all that we get from all of the cable news networks, including MSNBC, and from online sources like Breitbart and Infowars.

As for the classified info, that is not true.

Based upon what? If you disagree, at least provide a cogent argument.

The FBI has no horse in this race.

Comey's actions certainly are not supporting this premise. His actions seem much more in keeping with a Republican partisan than with an unbiased bureaucrat.

The pay-to-play scheme is exploding as well.

All of the allegations against the Clinton Foundation have been groundless. There is even less basis for conspiratorial thinking here than with Benghazi or the emails. Here for instance is a recent assessment on this matter:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-claims-evidence-fbis-clinton-foundation-probe-impressive/story?id=43282736

So, here's the allegation that you are parroting:

On the campaign trail today, Donald Trump touted allegations about the Clinton Foundation that reliable sources say are false and ill-informed.

“It was reported last night that the FBI is conducting a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s pay-for-play corruption,” the Republican presidential nominee said today in Jacksonville, Florida, during his first rally of the day. “The investigation is described as a high priority. It’s far-reaching and has been going on for more than one year. It was reported that an avalanche of information is coming in. The FBI agents say their investigation is likely to yield an indictment.”

but...

ABC News sources, however, indicated those statements — and the Fox News reports they’re based on — are inaccurate and without merit.

The sources acknowledged that the FBI began looking into the Clinton Foundation after the controversial book “Clinton Cash” was published last year. In particular, agents were trying to determine whether donations to the foundation may have been traded for access to Clinton while she was secretary of state.

In February, FBI agents presented their findings to senior FBI officials and prosecutors in the Justice Department’s public integrity section, sources said. But the prosecutors and senior FBI officials agreed that there was no clear evidence of wrongdoing and that a criminal case tied to the Clinton Foundation could not be made, according to the sources.

“It was not impressive,” one source said of the February presentation. “It was not something that [prosecutors] felt they could authorize additional steps for. They were not impressed with the presentation or the evidence — if you could even call it evidence to that point.”

Investigators and higher-ups have continued to discuss the matter, but there has been no change in posture, sources said. Authorities still believe there is no evidence of wrongdoing, and they do not believe there is a sufficient reason to pursue charges, according to the sources.

Addendum:
His Supreme Court list is strong.


This continues to be, at least in my opinion, the real cause not only for the continued support of Trump but also for the endless conspiracy theorizing concerning the Clintons. This is why many, if not nearly all, of the Republicans will still vote for him, even if they find his racism and misogyny either truly disgusting, or just too obvious. Because even with that, and with how unqualified and uncontrolled and uncontrollable his temperament clearly is, that they still find him less dangerous than Hillary not because of Benghazi, or the Clinton Foundation, or these emails, but because they think Hillary might take away their guns and/or loosen restrictions on abortions.

GonzoTheGreat
11-04-2016, 03:16 AM
So... Obama's use of executive power isn't out of line with what Bush did. Moreover, in the face of an overt and explicit promise by the GOPto block any and all compromise on major issues, there isn't much other way to run a country than by executive order.
There is, of course, the alternative of not running the country. Let the USA die.

Why aren't the Democrats willing to stand for their principles and risk the ultimate consequence?
Either the Republicans have the guts to openly commit treason, or they would back down. Give them the choice.

Davian93
11-04-2016, 08:30 AM
If Hillary's camp has anything left in the tank to attack Trump with, today would be the day to do it. Drop it on a Friday and it'll dominate the weekend news cycle leading into election day.

So...she might want to come up with something or I fear her Tuesday next week will be very unhappy.

I give her a 50/50 shot of winning at this point.

Davian93
11-04-2016, 05:38 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/03/media/baseless-fox-news-indictment-report/index.html?iid=ob_homepage_deskrecommended_pool

Even Bret Baier is saying he was wrong to report it...since it was baseless BS.

I wonder if both "intimate sources" were within Trump's campaign...gee, I wonder.

fionwe1987
11-05-2016, 11:55 AM
The fact she was dealing with confidential information on a private server is no laughing matter as well.
Can you clarify something for me? You're aware Colin Powell used his personal email to handle similar material as Clinton did, correct?

The only difference was that Clinton used a private server for her email, as opposed to a public email service like Powell did. We can have a discussion on what that implies, but legally, there is no difference. The "crime" such as it is, is not using the State Departments secure server. Whether your email was hosted by a private server or by Yahoo or Google is immaterial as far as the law is concerned.

So tell me, why does it seem okay that Colin Powell never was and still isn't being called out on his private email use?

Kimon
11-05-2016, 12:11 PM
If Hillary's camp has anything left in the tank to attack Trump with, today would be the day to do it. Drop it on a Friday and it'll dominate the weekend news cycle leading into election day.

So...she might want to come up with something or I fear her Tuesday next week will be very unhappy.

I give her a 50/50 shot of winning at this point.

Trump has been frustratingly under control this past week. Bill Maher yesterday seemed really anxious, and you can't blame him, it's hard to imagine us getting as bad as Russia or Turkey, but Trump is far too similar to the fascist tendencies of Putin and Erdogan. The thought of Trump as president with a Republican controlled House and Senate, and with two or three new supreme court justices selected based upon evangelical bona fides is truly terrifying.

At least Nate Silver still thinks Hillary is going to win, but all the margin for error is gone, as he now consistently has all the toss up states (Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and Nevada) going to Trump. If just one other state defects to the Black Ajah...

Silver also has the Senate race getting anxiously tight (mostly because he's given up on Evan Bayh in Indiana and Kander in Missouri, so if Ayotte somwhow manages to hold on in New Hampshire, which would likely also mean Trump tilting New Hampshire we might be truly FUBAR), so even if Hillary wins the chances of getting any dem nominee for scotus out of the Judicial Committee might evaporate, and instead we'll just have four years of Republican led show trials trying to impeach Hillary on the high crime of using her own email for work.

yks 6nnetu hing
11-05-2016, 12:22 PM
Yay for everyone voting third party. Good for you.

Triple yay for people who base their vote on whether they *like* a candidate based on the ever-hysterical media circus rather than the candidates' actual platform and performance history.

I mean, they're both 70, they both have pretty equal amount of years to leave a legacy. Even a simple Wikipedia comparison would be better than listening to zealots on the one or other news channel pontificate on and on.


(for the record, in my opinion Hillary is the only sane choice)

Rand al'Fain
11-05-2016, 01:05 PM
Trump has been frustratingly under control this past week. Bill Maher yesterday seemed really anxious, and you can't blame him, it's hard to imagine us getting as bad as Russia or Turkey, but Trump is far too similar to the fascist tendencies of Putin and Erdogan. The thought of Trump as president with a Republican controlled House and Senate, and with two or three new supreme court justices selected based upon evangelical bona fides is truly terrifying.

At least Nate Silver still thinks Hillary is going to win, but all the margin for error is gone, as he now consistently has all the toss up states (Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and Nevada) going to Trump. If just one other state defects to the Black Ajah...

Silver also has the Senate race getting anxiously tight (mostly because he's given up on Evan Bayh in Indiana and Kander in Missouri, so if Ayotte somwhow manages to hold on in New Hampshire, which would likely also mean Trump tilting New Hampshire we might be truly FUBAR), so even if Hillary wins the chances of getting any dem nominee for scotus out of the Judicial Committee might evaporate, and instead we'll just have four years of Republican led show trials trying to impeach Hillary on the high crime of using her own email for work.

He was, until trophy wife #3 made the comment of "we must stop cyber-bullying".

She may want to start with her hubby. Who is up at 3am twittering at people and calling them losers.

GonzoTheGreat
11-05-2016, 01:10 PM
He was, until trophy wife #3 made the comment of "we must stop cyber-bullying".

She may want to start with her hubby. Who is up at 3am twittering at people and calling them losers.
Now you are cyber-bullying Trump. You must stop that.

This probably won't make as rich as Melania is. Worth a try, though, I think.

Kimon
11-06-2016, 10:26 AM
Looks like Obama wants his legacy to include crushing ISIS, and wants to add the fall of Raqqa to the imminent liberation of Mosul.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37889133

A US-backed Kurdish and Arab force says it has begun an operation to capture Raqqa, so-called Islamic State's "capital" in Syria.
The Syria Democratic Forces (SDF) will be aided by US-led coalition air strikes.
They have also warned civilians to steer clear of areas where IS militants are present.
The coalition of Kurdish and ethnic Arab militias has been gaining ground in areas to the north of the city.
The offensive was announced at a press conference in Ain Issa, about 50 kilometres (30 miles) away from Raqqa.
"The major battle to liberate Raqa and its surroundings has begun," a spokesperson for the SDF said.
An official in Washington also confirmed the start of the operation, saying forces would first attempt "to isolate Raqqa, to set the stage for an eventual assault on the city itself to liberate it".
Another SDF spokesperson told AFP that heavy resistance is expected. "IS will defend its bastion, knowing that the loss of Raqqa will mean it is finished in Syria," he said.

I still wish we could find a way to use this situation to create a Kurdistan across all of northern Iraq and western Syria. It has, after all, just been the Kurds that have been of any use in dealing with the threat posed by ISIS. That, and it would really piss off that POS Erdogan.

Kimon
11-06-2016, 02:51 PM
I'm surprised that they didn't wait until Wednesday to release this.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37892138

The FBI has found no evidence of criminality in the new batch of Hillary Clinton emails.
In a letter to members of Congress, FBI director James Comey said the agency had finished its review and found nothing to change its position.

Southpaw2012
11-06-2016, 02:59 PM
Well now Comey can rest easy knowing he's back in the Democrat camp. Doesn't change the fact that what she did should've led to indictment in July. Hearing that her foundation used money from Qatar for personal use, it's going to get ugly.

Kimon
11-06-2016, 03:13 PM
Well now Comey can rest easy knowing he's back in the Democrat camp.

No he is not. What could possibly make you think that he is somehow viewed any differently today than he was yesterday? This only confirms that his actions were inappropriate. He likely only yielded to decorum out of fear that he would be prosecuted under the Hatch Act if he did not come clean and admit that there is nothing there prior to Tuesday. And he could and probably should be prosecuted for this. What he did was far more overtly illegal than anything that Republicans have ever tried to assert with the Clintons.

Hearing that her foundation used money from Qatar for personal use, it's going to get ugly.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-foundation-idUSKBN12Z2SL

The Clinton Foundation has confirmed it accepted a $1 million gift from Qatar while Hillary Clinton was U.S. secretary of state without informing the State Department, even though she had promised to let the agency review new or significantly increased support from foreign governments.

Qatari officials pledged the money in 2011 to mark the 65th birthday of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton's husband, and sought to meet the former U.S. president in person the following year to present him the check, according to an email from a foundation official to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign chairman, John Podesta. The email, among thousands hacked from Podesta's account, was published last month by WikiLeaks.

Clinton signed an ethics agreement governing her family's globe-straddling foundation in order to become secretary of state in 2009. The agreement was designed to increase transparency to avoid appearances that U.S. foreign policy could be swayed by wealthy donors.

If a new foreign government wished to donate or if an existing foreign-government donor, such as Qatar, wanted to "increase materially" its support of ongoing programs, Clinton promised that the State Department's ethics official would be notified and given a chance to raise any concerns.

At least eight other countries besides Qatar gave new or increased funding to the foundation, in most cases to fund its health project, without the State Department being informed, according to foundation and agency records. They include Algeria, which gave for the first time in 2010, and the United Kingdom, which nearly tripled its support for the foundation's health project to $11.2 million between 2009 and 2012.

Foundation officials have said some of those donations, including Algeria, were oversights and should have been flagged, while others, such as the UK increase, did not qualify as material increases.

Yeah, this is dumb too. Qatar was a pre-existing donor nation to the Foundation, and gave a new donation to the Foundation, for the health fund, not as a "gift" for personal use to the Clintons, corresponding with Bill's 65th birthday. As much as you and the Republicans want to pretend that everything that the Clintons do is nefarious, there is nothing of substance to any of these allegations.

Nazbaque
11-06-2016, 03:41 PM
Yeah, this is dumb too. Qatar was a pre-existing donor nation to the Foundation, and gave a new donation to the Foundation, for the health fund, not as a "gift" for personal use to the Clintons, corresponding with Bill's 65th birthday. As much as you and the Republicans want to pretend that everything that the Clintons do is nefarious, there is nothing of substance to any of these allegations.

The republican position is that they wouldn't fight anything that isn't evil. They fight the Clintons so the Clintons must be evil.

Ironically if you based a "what is evil?" algorithim on what the republicans are in favour of you'd get much more accurate results though admittedly not perfect.

Davian93
11-07-2016, 08:10 AM
Janet Reno Dead at Age 78...


WHAT DID SHE KNOW!!!???!???!

ShadowbaneX
11-07-2016, 09:41 AM
Where all the incriminating e-mails were. Duh.

Davian93
11-07-2016, 09:43 AM
Well now Comey can rest easy knowing he's back in the Democrat camp. Doesn't change the fact that what she did should've led to indictment in July. Hearing that her foundation used money from Qatar for personal use, it's going to get ugly.

No, he should still be fired for violating the Hatch Act with his initial actions. The correct move would have been to review the supposed new emails and then issue a statement "Hey we found some add'l emails as part of another ongoing investigation but they are merely duplicates of the other ones and our opinion on her lack of culpability or criminal conduct is unchanged". He basically handled the situation as poorly as is humanly possible.

He's either incompetent or a partisan hack...or both. Either way, he has no business being head of the FBI. For one, the head of the FBI should be politically neutral. It was grossly unprofessional for him to give his personal opinion during that July press conference anyway. You simply don't do that.

And before you say "well, how would you know, Dav?" Well, for one, I am a fairly senior manager in a federal agency and I make decisions based on similar regulations all the time. Personal opinion cannot and should not ever come into your decision making. Either you charge them or you don't. You don't give commentary. I either grant a clearance or not or I take it away or I don't. I don't go "Well, you get to keep it but I think you're human garbage". That's grossly unprofessional and you simply DO NOT do it regardless of what you think of someone. That alone was a violation of the Hatch Act IMHO. And my decisions on such access don't change whether we're looking at a political appointee or an entry level employee. We use and apply the same regulations and same risk assessment that we'd always use. If anything, the higher up a person is, the more careful we are to not ever imply any sort of bias into the process because we know the decision will be looked at and scrutinized immensely. But corners are never cut and no one is ever granted access just because of their rank/position.

Comey is an idiot and he will have lots of fun trying to find a job once he's done with gov't service...basically both sides hate him now...one for perceived betrayal and one because he is seemingly incompetent and/or a partisan hack.



As for the Qatar thing...as Kimon already noted, it wasn't used by them personally and it was merely an addition to a previously existing donation arrangement they had. The Clinton Foundation's books have been scrutinized over for years and its all public record since they're a legitimate charity. There's really nothing there.

The Trump Foundation on the other hand....yeah, that's some dirty shifty crap going on there. Like most small charities, its purely a BS tax shield. No surprise given the lack of scruples of the Trump family to begin with. They make the Kennedys look like saints...and that's impressive.

Ozymandias
11-07-2016, 10:23 AM
Triple yay for people who base their vote on whether they *like* a candidate based on the ever-hysterical media circus rather than the candidates' actual platform and performance history.


Can't agree with you on this. I think I would be fully justified in basing my support for Hillary Clinton solely on the fact that Donald Trump is a repulsive human being whose personal tendencies will be dangerous in the White House.

Now, the kind of "I want a President I can sit and have a beer with" attitude from 2008 is outrageous. But there are times when the personal becomes so menacing as to become political.

Plus, its not like party platforms are static, or that performance history is indicative of anything, really. You are voting for an approach to governing, not a specific policy. If you think government is the most effective force for change in society, you vote Democrat. If you think that rich people (a.k.a. "the market") are the best way to drive the economy and that white, straight, Christian men know whats best socially, you vote Republican.

Davian93
11-07-2016, 10:51 AM
Can't agree with you on this. I think I would be fully justified in basing my support for Hillary Clinton solely on the fact that Donald Trump is a repulsive human being whose personal tendencies will be dangerous in the White House.

Now, the kind of "I want a President I can sit and have a beer with" attitude from 2008 is outrageous. But there are times when the personal becomes so menacing as to become political.

Plus, its not like party platforms are static, or that performance history is indicative of anything, really. You are voting for an approach to governing, not a specific policy. If you think government is the most effective force for change in society, you vote Democrat. If you think that rich people (a.k.a. "the market") are the best way to drive the economy and that white, straight, Christian men know whats best socially, you vote Republican.

I don't like Hillary personally but I think she's qualified and I think she'd do a much better job than Trump...so I have zero qualms voting for her.

Well, to be fair, I already voted for her 2 weeks ago (woohoo for voting by mail...Colorado rocks) and I just want this election to be over so I dont need to see another damned commercial.

Also, I can't imagine letting Trump and the "Freedom Caucus" pick a SCOTUS vacancy. That terrifies me. I'm not 100% happy with Merrick Garland but no one can argue he isn't an immensely qualified jurist who would have been a fine SCOTUS pick. The GOP deserves it if/when Hillary withdraws his name and picks the most liberal, far left Justice she can find.

yks 6nnetu hing
11-07-2016, 11:20 AM
Pfft, I bet Hillary would be an excellent person to have a drink with. I happen to know she once had a drinking contest with McCain, which they called a draw afterwards but at first the reports were that she won. Now, how can you not like someone who can put work aside and do shots with a political adversary, then next morning pick work up again like nothing happened. (btw, this story makes me like McCain as a person also). plus, for me personally it's very calming to know that she knows her foreign policy because she's physically been to pretty much every country on the planet. She has a personal experience with these places, not a vague idea of some map (if that)

Rand al'Fain
11-07-2016, 11:44 AM
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/did-donald-trump-watch-the-same-obama-speech-we-all-did-1788612955

I feel the above link more less shows the Trump standard.

Davian93
11-07-2016, 01:15 PM
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/did-donald-trump-watch-the-same-obama-speech-we-all-did-1788612955

I feel the above link more less shows the Trump standard.

If you tell the same lie enough times and you convince your followers that every other news source is lying/biased, you can say/do pretty much whatever you want.


Fun story, yks...I met McCain once when I was stationed in Bosnia. He came though with Fred Thompson (the Law & Order guy who was a Senator before that). McCain was kinda standoffish and a bit of a prick. Thompson was super friendly and talked to everyone.

Kimon
11-07-2016, 04:14 PM
It might be time for us to get cautiously optimistic that we won't actually elect Comb Over Hitler tomorrow.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Nate Silver has North Carolina, Nevada, and Florida all back in the non-fascist column. Maybe due to early analysis of the early voting. Ohio, however, should be ashamed. He unfortunately has the Senate falling into the Shadow...

Ozymandias
11-07-2016, 04:17 PM
To be fair, he never had NC and FL going super far in Trump's direction. They went from being likely Clinton, to tipping Trump (tiny margin) to tipping Clinton.

I love FiveThirtyEight. Never think about any of this stuff, but as Silver & Co point out, the problem for Hillary is that even a minor polling error in one state is likely to carry over to most states. As in, if we're wrong about NC and it goes to Trump (say, 53/47), that probably applies to most of the swing states as well. They're all correlated this year, apparently.

Kimon
11-07-2016, 04:25 PM
To be fair, he never had NC and FL going super far in Trump's direction. They went from being likely Clinton, to tipping Trump (tiny margin) to tipping Clinton.

I love FiveThirtyEight. Never think about any of this stuff, but as Silver & Co point out, the problem for Hillary is that even a minor polling error in one state is likely to carry over to most states. As in, if we're wrong about NC and it goes to Trump (say, 53/47), that probably applies to most of the swing states as well. They're all correlated this year, apparently.

Yeah, one percent in Florida, or any of those purple states, could be huge due to our idiotic electoral college system. I'm still somewhat surprised that the Republicans haven't taken advantage of their control of state legislatures in certain reliably Blue states (most notably Michigan and Pennsylvania, but also Wisconsin) to alter the electoral allocations in those states to proportional instead of all-or-nothing.

Ozymandias
11-08-2016, 10:44 AM
A lot of reasons, all of which are mentioned here:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/10/pennsylvanias_failure_to_alter.html

To summarize:

1 - PA Republicans believed that it might not have done much, and furthermore that while it might deliver a few more electoral votes, it also makes certain GOP-leaning districts vulnerable to massive infusions of DNC cash, which means it isn't in the best interest of those members of the State legislature.

2 - It makes the State as a whole less important nationally and might reduce the visibility and importance of PA in national elections.

3 - (this isn't mentioned) I know you're more likely to find hypocrites on the conservative side of the aisle than the liberal, but its conceivable that some members of the PA State Legislature honestly believed that gimmicking the state to make the national GOP more competitive just wasn't right.

Also worth noting that even the red parts of PA are still more liberal than national GOP politics as a whole. If you are a pro-Choice politician from Western PA who also is pro union and pro gun rights, you might be a Republican there... but you aren't going to find a SUPER welcome home in the national GOP like that.

Kimon
11-08-2016, 07:06 PM
Well, Illinois has done its part - instant calls (not a surprise) for Hillary and Tammy Duckworth.

Will be interesting to see how things develop in North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida. Hopefully the Trump surrogates are delusional with their optimism about Michigan...

Kimon
11-08-2016, 07:26 PM
A lot of reasons, all of which are mentioned here:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/10/pennsylvanias_failure_to_alter.html

To summarize:

1 - PA Republicans believed that it might not have done much, and furthermore that while it might deliver a few more electoral votes, it also makes certain GOP-leaning districts vulnerable to massive infusions of DNC cash, which means it isn't in the best interest of those members of the State legislature.

2 - It makes the State as a whole less important nationally and might reduce the visibility and importance of PA in national elections.

3 - (this isn't mentioned) I know you're more likely to find hypocrites on the conservative side of the aisle than the liberal, but its conceivable that some members of the PA State Legislature honestly believed that gimmicking the state to make the national GOP more competitive just wasn't right.

Also worth noting that even the red parts of PA are still more liberal than national GOP politics as a whole. If you are a pro-Choice politician from Western PA who also is pro union and pro gun rights, you might be a Republican there... but you aren't going to find a SUPER welcome home in the national GOP like that.

Michigan and Pennsylvania both do something slightly more insidious however. They both make it far more difficult to vote by mail than we do in Illinois. In Illinois you simply need to request a mail ballot, but don't have to offer any justification. In Michigan and Pennsylvania you have to either be over 60, out of town, or physically unable to vote in person. The Republicans also like to engineer longer lines in heavily dem precincts by limiting voting districts far beyond what logistically makes sense.

Southpaw2012
11-08-2016, 08:05 PM
Nothing is guaranteed tonight. I mean, the Cubs just came back from a 3 games to 1 deficit to win their first World Series in 108 years. If a meteor came down and destroyed the world it really wouldn't surprise me right now.

Kimon
11-08-2016, 08:18 PM
Nothing is guaranteed tonight. I mean, the Cubs just came back from a 3 games to 1 deficit to win their first World Series in 108 years. If a meteor came down and destroyed the world it really wouldn't surprise me right now.

You should be more confidant than us right now. Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, and Virginia are all looking bad. If Hillary loses Virginia and Michigan then she's giving a concession speech before midnight.

Southpaw2012
11-08-2016, 08:20 PM
You should be more confidant than us right now. Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, and Virginia are all looking bad. If Hillary loses Virginia and Michigan then she's giving a concession speech before midnight.


I did not vote for either, so I'm not too concerned about the presidential race. I'm just as disgusted about Trump as most.

My concern is the Senate.

Kimon
11-08-2016, 08:26 PM
I did not vote for either, so I'm not too concerned about the presidential race. I'm just as disgusted about Trump as most.

My concern is the Senate.

Senate hinges on two factors - Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire, and who the VP is.

This looks like a clean sweep for the Republicans to me. And right now MSNBC is mentioning that Joe Manchin in West Virginia is suggesting that if it's a 50-50 split in the Senate that he might defect to the Republicans. Yup, starting to look really bad.

Southpaw2012
11-08-2016, 08:36 PM
Senate hinges on two factors - Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire, and who the VP is.

This looks like a clean sweep for the Republicans to me. And right now MSNBC is mentioning that Joe Manchin in West Virginia is suggesting that if it's a 50-50 split in the Senate that he might defect to the Republicans. Yup, starting to look really bad.

MSNBC sounds more optimistic than Fox. A lot of skepticism over here...

Kimon
11-08-2016, 08:53 PM
MSNBC sounds more optimistic than Fox. A lot of skepticism over here...

Do you mean more pessimistic? One doesn't speak of something as optimism while freaking the fu@k out. It should be noted global stock markets are also freaking out. They were all expecting Hillary to win in a landslide, and now are terrified of another repeat of England's insane Brexit vote.

They still haven't called Virginia, NC, Florida or Michigan for Trump, but it looks like all four are all but inevitable. Virginia especially is unexpected, even more so than Michigan. I remember being shocked and dismayed back in 2000, wondering how the country could be so stupid. Now I'm just disgusted.

Ivhon
11-08-2016, 09:00 PM
Do you mean more pessimistic? One doesn't speak of something as optimism while freaking the fu@k out. It should be noted global stock markets are also freaking out. They were all expecting Hillary to win in a landslide, and now are terrified of another repeat of England's insane Brexit vote.

They still haven't called Virginia, NC, Florida or Michigan for Trump, but it looks like all four are all but inevitable. Virginia especially is unexpected, even more so than Michigan. I remember being shocked and dismayed back in 2000, wondering how the country could be so stupid. Now I'm just disgusted.

VA breaks left hard late in the counting. It will be blue. DC and surrounding counties take a while and are way blue.

Not sure what's going on in Michigan.

Southpaw2012
11-08-2016, 09:02 PM
Do you mean more pessimistic? One doesn't speak of something as optimism while freaking the fu@k out. It should be noted global stock markets are also freaking out. They were all expecting Hillary to win in a landslide, and now are terrified of another repeat of England's insane Brexit vote.

They still haven't called Virginia, NC, Florida or Michigan for Trump, but it looks like all four are all but inevitable. Virginia especially is unexpected, even more so than Michigan. I remember being shocked and dismayed back in 2000, wondering how the country could be so stupid. Now I'm just disgusted.

I meant optimism as in confident that Trump will pull it off. If any other Republican was running, it would've been called already.

I too am shocked by Virginia. Didn't Clinton have a double digit lead in the polls as late as Sunday?

Southpaw2012
11-08-2016, 09:04 PM
If you loved Obama's use of executive power, you will surely love President Trump...

Kimon
11-08-2016, 09:20 PM
VA breaks left hard late in the counting. It will be blue. DC and surrounding counties take a while and are way blue.

Not sure what's going on in Michigan.

I'm originally form Michigan, so I can explain that one. I'm from Oakland County (the wealthy Detroit suburbs). The dems win Michigan because of Wayne County (Detroit), Oakland, Washtenaw (Ann Arbor), and Macomb (the poorer suburbs). The rest of the state is Republican. When the Republicans win they take Macomb or Oakland. Oakland, being more affluent, and more college educated, seems to be staying blue this time, but Macomb and the sticks are going far more red than usual. The same issue seems at play in Virginia. Looks like the DC suburbs might be just enough to squeak out a victory for Hillary in VA, but maybe not in Michigan. It probably also doesn't help that Michigan has a small Hispanic population, and not much of an African American population (basically just Detroit).

They just called Ohio for Trump...

Kimon
11-08-2016, 09:29 PM
Virginia for Hillary. That's one mortal bullet dodged...

Southpaw2012
11-08-2016, 09:47 PM
Fox just called North Carolina and is about to call Florida.

Kimon
11-08-2016, 10:04 PM
Fox just called North Carolina and is about to call Florida.

Interesting. Neither MSNBC or CNN have called either of those yet. But both, and New Hampshire, are all looking bad. The next big calls though are Michigan, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Michigan especially. Like Virginia, losing Michigan is essentially game over. Wisconsin is also looking bad.

It looks like Trump is going to be president, he'll have a Republican House and Senate (whether he can work with them is another question), and a soon Republican dominated Supreme Court. I think Roe is toast. As is the ACA. Maybe gay marriage. Forget about making more pragmatic drug laws. Forget about doing anything to protect the environment. Forget about trying to fight govt corruption, as any chance of getting rid of Citizens United will be gone as well. The economy will also tank. The DOW is already freaking out.

MSNBC just awarded NC to Trump. Even if Hillary holds Michigan, Wisconsin and New Hampshire are becoming massive problems. The polls were clearly garbage.

Southpaw2012
11-08-2016, 10:07 PM
Interesting. Neither MSNBC or CNN have called either of those yet. But both, and New Hampshire, are all looking bad. The next big calls though are Michigan, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Michigan especially. Like Virginia, losing Michigan is essentially game over. Wisconsin is also looking bad.

It looks like Trump is going to be president, he'll have a Republican House and Senate (whether he can work with them is another question), and a soon Republican dominated Supreme Court. I think Roe is toast. As is the ACA. Maybe gay marriage. Forget about making more pragmatic drug laws. Forget about doing anything to protect the environment. Forget about trying to fight govt corruption, as any chance of getting rid of Citizens United will be gone as well. The economy will also tank. The DOW is already freaking out.

MSNBC just awarded NC to Trump.


Here's a refresher about one of the most misunderstood Supreme Court cases in history.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/20/citizens-united-misunderstood-five-years-free-speech-anniversary-critics-column/22076597/

Kimon
11-08-2016, 10:15 PM
Here's a refresher about one of the most misunderstood Supreme Court cases in history.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/20/citizens-united-misunderstood-five-years-free-speech-anniversary-critics-column/22076597/

Lobbying more than anything is what is wrong with our system. And Citizens United removes all fetters on money in the system. Trump in a way demonstrates the limits of money, as he spent nowhere near as much as Hillary, but lobbying is still just an institutionalized and legalized euphemism for bribery. It is a cancer. Money isn't free speech, it's shouting to drown out all the other voices.

This election also shows the importance of charisma for anyone who doubted its significance. I hope that all this means is the Supreme Court going to hell, but Trump reminds me far too much of Putin and Erdogan. I'm worried about him doing far more than just use the court to take away choice and gay rights.

They've started talking about the margins that Johnson has in all these states on MSNBC. Just saying...

Southpaw2012
11-08-2016, 10:38 PM
Lobbying more than anything is what is wrong with our system. And Citizens United removes all fetters on money in the system. Trump in a way demonstrates the limits of money, as he spent nowhere near as much as Hillary, but lobbying is still just an institutionalized and legalized euphemism for bribery. It is a cancer. Money isn't free speech, it's shouting to drown out all the other voices.

This election also shows the importance of charisma for anyone who doubted its significance. I hope that all this means is the Supreme Court going to hell, but Trump reminds me far too much of Putin and Erdogan. I'm worried about him doing far more than just use the court to take away choice and gay rights.

They've started talking about the margins that Johnson has in all these states on MSNBC. Just saying...

Do you believe in the government having the power to ban books? During oral arguments, Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart claimed the government had the power to ban books if the book(s) advocated against a candidate and was published by a corporation. That led up to Citizens United. So you agree with that? And you should read that article again. Here's another.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/citizens-united-2012-campaign

Yes, Trump is scary, but Hillary is just as scary. She's corrupt and power hungry. We know what to expect from her because she's been crooked for the past 25 years. It's not just her, but the DOJ and State Department in general. I'm willing to give Trump a chance. If he gets a strong cabinet around him, and he listens, it will be okay.

Kimon
11-08-2016, 11:06 PM
Do you believe in the government having the power to ban books? During oral arguments, Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart claimed the government had the power to ban books if the book(s) advocated against a candidate and was published by a corporation. That led up to Citizens United. So you agree with that? And you should read that article again. Here's another.


This isn't the issue, however, with the actual ruling.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/05/21/money-unlimited

I'll provide the main points:

When Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was first argued before the Supreme Court, on March 24, 2009, it seemed like a case of modest importance. The issue before the Justices was a narrow one. The McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law prohibited corporations from running television commercials for or against Presidential candidates for thirty days before primaries.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., summoned Theodore B. Olson, the lawyer for Citizens United, to the podium. Roberts’s voice bears a flat-vowelled trace of his origins, in Indiana. Unlike his predecessor, William Rehnquist, Roberts rarely shows irritation or frustration on the bench. A well-mannered Midwesterner, he invariably lets one of his colleagues ask the first questions.

That day, it was David Souter, who was just a few weeks away from announcing his departure from the Court. In keeping with his distaste for Washington, Souter seemed almost to cultivate his New Hampshire accent during his two decades on the Court. In response to Souter’s questions, Olson made a key point about how he thought the case should be resolved. In his view, the prohibitions in McCain-Feingold applied only to television commercials, not to ninety-minute documentaries. “This sort of communication was not something that Congress intended to prohibit,” Olson said. This view made the case even more straightforward. Olson’s argument indicated that there was no need for the Court to declare any part of the law unconstitutional, or even to address the First Amendment implications of the case. Olson simply sought a judgment that McCain-Feingold did not apply to documentaries shown through video on demand.

Then Antonin Scalia spoke up.

He had long detested campaign-spending restrictions, frequently voting to invalidate such statutes as violations of the First Amendment. For this reason, it seemed, Scalia was disappointed by the limited nature of Olson’s claim.

“So you’re making a statutory argument now?” Scalia said.

“I’m making a—” Olson began.

“You’re saying this isn’t covered by it,” Scalia continued.

That’s right, Olson responded. All he was asking for was a ruling that the law did not prohibit this particular documentary by this nonprofit corporation during those thirty days. If the Justices had resolved the case as Olson had suggested, today Citizens United might well be forgotten—a narrow ruling on a remote aspect of campaign-finance law.

Chief Justice Roberts assigned the opinion to himself.

Roberts did not explicitly call for overturning McCain-Feingold, but he left little doubt where the Court was heading. Referring to the McConnell case, the 2003 decision upholding the law, Roberts wrote, “We have no occasion to revisit that determination today.”

“Today.” To those who know the language of the Court, the Chief Justice was all but announcing that five Justices would soon declare the McCain-Feingold law unconstitutional.

Through artful questioning, Alito, Kennedy, and Roberts had turned a fairly obscure case about campaign-finance reform into a battle over government censorship. The trio made Stewart—and thus the government—take an absurd position: that the government might have the right to criminalize the publication of a five-hundred-page book because of one line at the end. Still, the Justices’ questioning raised important issues. Based on the theory underlying McCain-Feingold, could Congress pass any law to ban a book? And was Stewart right to acknowledge that it did?

Stewart was wrong. Congress could not ban a book. McCain-Feingold was based on the pervasive influence of television advertising on electoral politics, the idea that commercials are somehow unavoidable in contemporary American life. The influence of books operates in a completely different way. Individuals have to make an affirmative choice to acquire and read a book. Congress would have no reason, and no justification, to ban a book under the First Amendment.

The new majority opinion transformed Citizens United into a vehicle for rewriting decades of constitutional law in a case where the lawyer had not even raised those issues.

As the senior Justice in the minority, John Paul Stevens assigned the main dissent to Souter, who was working on the opinion when he announced his departure, on April 30th. Souter wrote a dissent that aired some of the Court’s dirty laundry. By definition, dissents challenge the legal conclusions of the majority, but Souter accused the Chief Justice of violating the Court’s own procedures to engineer the result he wanted.

But Kennedy was extremely receptive to arguments that the government had unduly restricted freedom of speech—especially in the area of campaign finance.

So McCain-Feingold, and two Supreme Court precedents, had to be mostly overruled. The Constitution required that all corporations, for-profit and nonprofit alike, be allowed to spend as much as they wanted, anytime they wanted, in support of the candidates of their choosing.

Stevens was just warming up. His dissent was ninety pages, the longest of his career. He questioned every premise of Kennedy’s opinion, starting with its contempt for stare decisis, the rule of precedent. He went on to refute Kennedy’s repeated invocations of “censorship” and the “banning” of free speech. The case was merely about corporate-funded commercials shortly before elections. Corporations could run as many commercials as they liked during other periods, and employees of the corporations (by forming a political-action committee) could run ads at any time.

Stevens was especially offended by Kennedy’s blithe assertion that corporations and human beings had identical rights under the First Amendment.

In any event, the implications of Citizens United were quickly apparent. In March, 2010, the D.C. Circuit ruled that individuals could make unlimited contributions to so-called Super pacs, which supported individual candidates. This opened the door for Presidential campaigns in 2012 that were essentially underwritten by single individuals.

I apologize for the length of this post, but I needed the distraction, and I really despise Citizens United.

Southpaw2012
11-08-2016, 11:24 PM
Citizens United didn't touch laws regarding individual campaign contributions. That being said, you're against that? If I remember correctly, people spend more on Halloween candy than on political candidates in an election season.

Kimon
11-08-2016, 11:26 PM
Citizens United didn't touch laws regarding individual campaign contributions. That being said, you're against that? If I remember correctly, people spend more on Halloween candy than on political candidates in an election season.

Look at that last quoted section that I attached above. Here it is again:

In any event, the implications of Citizens United were quickly apparent. In March, 2010, the D.C. Circuit ruled that individuals could make unlimited contributions to so-called Super pacs, which supported individual candidates. This opened the door for Presidential campaigns in 2012 that were essentially underwritten by single individuals.

This is the problem.

Returning to the actual election, Pennsylvania even looks like it's going to go red. As for the futures markets, the Dow and Nasdaq Futures are both in panic. The Asian markets, being open, are also not taking tonight well.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dow-futures-plunge-450-points-on-election-turmoil-2016-11-08

People get that Brexit was stupid, don't they? I would have hoped that was obvious, but then we had so many voting for Bernie and Trump.

GonzoTheGreat
11-09-2016, 02:40 AM
Do you believe in the government having the power to ban books?Suppose I wrote a book specifying precisely how one could build a nuclear weapon in one's backyard, or at least how another government (or similar) could do so, would that be banned in the USA, or would it be published there? Suppose I wrote a book detailing how to brew Crystal Meth and a couple of other drugs, would that be banned or would it be allowed?

Do you truly believe that books such as those would not be banned? Yet, if they would be banned, then you admit that your government already has the power to ban books.

Rand al'Fain
11-09-2016, 01:53 PM
This year was, overall, going quite well.
Dragon Ball Super introduces the multiverse and brings back Future Trunks.

CW DC Shows are entertaining.

Young Justice just recently confirmed to return for Season 3.

And hopefully the last ankle surgery I had did the job.

Then Trump is elected, my ankle still hurts, and if Obamacare is repealed, I may not have insurance anymore. Only reason I got any, was because of the law saying I can't be turned down for pre-existing health issues (8 separate surgeries on knees and ankle combined in last 10 years).

My "votes" in state meant didly crap. Even county wise.
And people tell me "oh, you should vote! It could make a difference!"
Nope. No where close. I voted against Trump, my state went 70 f###ing % for him.

I don't have much faith, or patience, left for so many that put in such an unqualified sack of human excrement as President of the United States. Some fools even try and compare him to, say, Teddy Roosevelt. Who would have been personally disgusted with Trump, and punched the Oompa Loompa in the face.

yks 6nnetu hing
11-09-2016, 02:49 PM
I can relate - on a personal level 2016 was really good: Dai and I welcomed our own little minion, I got rid of my burnout AND when I return to work in two weeks time, I'll do so in a new and better function.

On the down side: 2016 was the year of Brexit, Trump, the continuing refugee crisis, Zika and accelerating global warming...