Obstruction aside, I don't recall a president ever facing a witch hunt from day one like Obama was with all the birther and "is he a muslim" BS that was happening on a personal level.
Unfortunately, I think it will look like a walk in the park to what Clinton can look forward to. Trump is going to go all out to mess with her and I don't know if she will handle it with the unflappability that Obama did.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 10-23-2016 at 10:29 AM.
Obstruction aside, I don't recall a president ever facing a witch hunt from day one like Obama was with all the birther and "is he a muslim" BS that was happening on a personal level.
Unfortunately, I think it will look like a walk in the park to what Clinton can look forward to. Trump is going to go all out to mess with her and I don't know if she will handle it with the unflappability that Obama did.
Clinton had has to deal with the same witch hunt as Obama except it's been going on for almost 30 years for her. She'll be fine
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
On domestic affairs, I think Obama did exceptionally well given the absolute travesty of a congress he had.
But on foreign policy, I think he was too weak. Putin is much-empowered, one of the worst atrocities in our lifetimes has happened in Syria, and the world overall is not doing so well.
That said, I think Obama was overall largely successful.
That was their intent - a staged photo of op of her being like the average American.
I don't know if it was staged, but there was really no "mouth agape" moment in the game last night. Hendricks basically dominated the game and the Cubs lead wire to wire.
I don't know if it was staged, but there was really no "mouth agape" moment in the game last night. Hendricks basically dominated the game and the Cubs lead wire to wire.
Haha, come on man, if that wasn't a "Hey Hilary, stand up and hold your coffee all casual then act like you're excited about a moment in the game that a big portion of the country is watching" photo op then I don't know what is.
That was pretty clearly a fake, 'relatable to the population' photo for a candidate who's been repeatedly ridiculed for being rigid, robotic and possibly very ill in the public eye.
It's fine for them to do it, but it pretty clearly is what it is.
Maybe she just walked onto the plane after whatever she was doing, long after the game was done, and someone gave her the phone with the score on it saying 'check this out'.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
No, Congress blocked him on everything. The obstructionism he faced is unprecedented. There's a good reason this has been known as the do nothing Congress.
The original "do nothing congress" was in '48, shown here on the far left for comparison;
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
The Following User Says Thank You to Gozer For This Useful Post:
What's the accusation here? That members of the superpac have communication with members of the campaign in violation of campaign finance law?
If so can you provide a run down on what the law states and how it's been iterpreted in case law and how these emails violate the law
Yes, that is the accusation.
More than communicating, the SuperPACs are creations of the Clinton campaign.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2202
"Jennifer" being Granholm, who led Prorities USA and Correct The Record.
Correct The Record is pouring millions of dollars into online trolls to push a narrative.
I cannot. I'm not filing a brief to the Supreme Court; I'm making information available for you to use as you wish.
I'm not going to reply to many of these kind of comments. Just put me on ignore or get me banned.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
Last edited by Gozer; 10-23-2016 at 05:41 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Gozer For This Useful Post:
What the hell kind of final paragraph is that gozer? You're not being shouted down, you're taking your ball and going home. GGG wasn't even close to rude he just asked a simple question. If there really was campaign coordination with a SuperPAC that would sort of be a big story. Or is the angle that mainstream media is in Hillary's pocket so another one of Hillary's grand criminal acts once again goes unpunished?
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post:
More than communicating, the SuperPACs are creations of the Clinton campaign.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2202
"Jennifer" being Granholm, who led Prorities USA and Correct The Record.
Correct The Record is pouring millions of dollars into online trolls to push a narrative.
I cannot. I'm not filing a brief to the Supreme Court; I'm making information available for you to use as you wish.
I'm not going to reply to many of these kind of comments. Just put me on ignore or get me banned.
I am seriously wondering what the relevant law is here. I am aware losely
That post the person declaring they aren't allowed to direct the super Pac. But based on what I remember on the Colbert superpac the whole thing is a scam that meets the letter of the law but violates the spirit of the law and that the campaigns and super pace are linked.
So my question is based on current law and the way it is currently applied is have laws been broken?
if you are providing the emails as evidence of wrongdoing I would like to here your rational for why they disqualify Clinton.
What the hell kind of final paragraph is that gozer? You're not being shouted down, you're taking your ball and going home. GGG wasn't even close to rude he just asked a simple question.
He asked a simple question, and I gave it a direct, polite, and sourced answer.
He made a second, unreasonable request, and I dismissed it.
I'm not prepared to provide, support, cite, and defend case law for this Byzantine legalese, and expecting me to do so is rude.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
The Correct The Record stuff was covered quite a bit in the media in the primaries, the Wikileaks stuff hasn't brought up anything that hasn't already been covered from what I've read.
Correct The Record split off into its own SuperPAC so that the kind of communication it does can be coordinated, since the law appears to allow that coordination if the activity of the SuperPAC is on the Internet in certain forms. Some think that it falls within the law. Others think that it doesn't.
The scenario hasn't been litigated so no one can say for sure if it is or isn't.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Gozer is right here IMO. We know the law does not allow for collision with a superPAC. It's unreasonable to ask for case law when it's a known issue.
In defense of Clinton however, the only difference between her campaign's superPAC and every other one that has existed is hacked emails. Literally every superPAC communicates with the candidate's campaign.
One could discuss the legal implications, sure. It says nothing of character though
?.. I would like to here your rational for why they disqualify Clinton.
I did not make that claim.
I will say that Bernie (because of honesty) and Trump (because of incompetence) did not engage in this behaviour.
This is fresh meat; Bernie's campaign had proof of other, less ethical accusations of the Clintons/DNC working together to evade these laws. I'm happy to expand if you're unfamiliar.
Working just off your ColberPAC knowledge, you know enough to understand this is in violation of the Federal Elections Commision - regardless of how silly those laws were considered by Colbert. His lawyer explained they couldn't co-ordinate.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
I flicked thru that link but I don't really see anything that looks too compromising. Am I missing some of the context? I mean, one of the bolded sentences was a reference to the McCarthy campaign of 1968, why is that relevant? Then there's bolded sentences later where Spielberg and some other entertainment execs give millions to the campaign - if Hollywood mostly supporting the Democrats has been a secret, I guess my security clearance must be way higher than I thought because it's not news to me.
Nobody is shutting anything down, unless by "shutting down" you mean "unwilling to go over and over the same infertile ground." FFS, emails again? Unless they are in the vein of "Hillary told us to capture and kill fluffy bunnies just for the joy of hearing them scream!", they're too ambiguous to be interesting. Especially since people looking for a pattern will find it, given enough material to look through.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
.jpg)
