The New American Politics thread

[RougeUnderoos]

That LBJ movie is on today at 3:15 on HBO2 and numerous times after that.

This is Shaw. Don't think it makes a difference, but it is.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Azure

I understand completely why people are scared of Trump being President. I tend to agree with them.

I don't understand why anyone would pick Hillary over Sanders.

There is only one politician in the race who has his record to stand by, who isn't corrupt and who hasn't been bought and paid for by big money and special interests.

Everyone is saying Sanders supporters are being stubborn by refusing to vote for Hillary. I think Hillary supporters are delusional for supporting her when there is a much better candidate in the race.

The best candidate is the one who didn't run, and that would be Biden. More than likely he simply did not want to go through the Clinton machine because unlike Bernie who they never really took seriously, even when he started winning, they would have viewed Biden as a major threat and gone after him on day 1. After his son died I'm sure he had no interest in going up against that.

As to Bernie being a "much better candidate", this is where relativity has to come into play, and also how you define "better". In this case "better" has to do with the perception of being more likable or more trustworthy and not necessarily competence to do the job well. And this is mostly because he's going up against an exceptionally skilled liar and a dead-ferret-on-his-head con man. In most other election cycles Bernie would be an after thought.

[nik-]

I still think, depending on how the winds on this email thing blow, that there's a chance Biden jumps in at the convention.

And then proceeds to steamroll whoever the Republicans put forward.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by nik-

I still think, depending on how the winds on this email thing blow, that there's a chance Biden jumps in at the convention.

And then proceeds to steamroll whoever the Republicans put forward.

Well they've been trying to blow those winds for years and years now so maybe one day they'll finally get something to stick.

I doubt Burden jumps in, there's a better chance the #NeverTrump Crew get an independent to run and Ross Perot away Trump's votes.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Well they've been trying to blow those winds for years and years now so maybe one day they'll finally get something to stick.

I doubt Burden jumps in, there's a better chance the #NeverTrump Crew get an independent to run and Ross Perot away Trump's votes.

Are you confusing Benghazi with the email thing?

The email thing is relatively new and now is being investigated by the FBI.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by nik-

Are you confusing Benghazi with the email thing?

The email thing is relatively new and now is being investigated by the FBI.

The email thing started with Benghazi, it's not relatively new at all. It's been rehashed and whined about for years now.

But it is certainly a catastrophic mistake, unforgivable in every sense. How she has not been imprisoned for life by this point is a testament to her friends in Washington pulling strings to save her bacon.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by nik-

I still think, depending on how the winds on this email thing blow, that there's a chance Biden jumps in at the convention.

And then proceeds to steamroll whoever the Republicans put forward.

Rightly or wrongly, I don't think many people actually care about the email thing. It's just kind of a boring scandal. "Hillary used a private email server" just doesn't have the romance of "Hillary was banging the computer guy at her house" or some real scandal you can get your head around or your heart into.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

The email thing started with Benghazi, it's not relatively new at all. It's been rehashed and whined about for years now.

It was discovered during that investigation, but it's not the same thing.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Rightly or wrongly, I don't think many people actually care about the email thing. It's just kind of a boring scandal. "Hillary used a private email server" just doesn't have the romance of "Hillary was banging the computer guy at her house" or some real scandal you can get your head around or your heart into.

Well yeah, there's no argument there, it definitely isn't tabloid material which is unfortunately what gets people's attention.

What it comes down to is that people have accepted the government doing whatever it wants. I'm not even sure what would have to happen these days to have a modern day Watergate level fallout.

I'm pretty sure the president would have to be discovered to be personally killing people. Like just random people.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by nik-

Well yeah, there's no argument there, it definitely isn't tabloid material which is unfortunately what gets people's attention.

What it comes down to is that people have accepted the government doing whatever it wants. I'm not even sure what would have to happen these days to have a modern day Watergate level fallout.

I'm pretty sure the president would have to be discovered to be personally killing people. Like just random people.

You could never have a watergate level fallout because there is no place like the Washington Post in the 1970s to take the story to.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Rightly or wrongly, I don't think many people actually care about the email thing. It's just kind of a boring scandal. "Hillary used a private email server" just doesn't have the romance of "Hillary was banging the computer guy at her house" or some real scandal you can get your head around or your heart into.

According to this poll most people don't even care if she is indicted, which I don't believe personally, but the poll is the poll. (lol at the 8% more likely though)

Most continue to believe likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is a lawbreaker, but half of all voters also say a felony indictment shouldn’t stop her campaign for the presidency.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 43% of Likely U.S. Voters think Clinton should immediately stop campaigning if she is charged with a felony in connection with her use of a private e-mail server while secretary of State. Fifty percent (50%), however, think she should continue running until a court determines her guilt or innocence.

Voters were evenly divided on this question in January, but at that time we didn’t include the name of any candidate.

Among Democratic voters, 71% believe Clinton should keep running, a view shared by only 30% of Republicans and 46% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

Forty percent (40%) of all voters say they are less likely to vote for Clinton because of the e-mail issue, while nearly half (48%) say it will have no impact on their vote. Just eight percent (8%) say the issue makes them more likely to vote for the former first lady.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...en_if_indicted

[FlameOn]

So Bill Clinton just accepted $250k in fees for a speech at a predatory mortgage lending company (Apollo Residential Mortgages) of the same type that put the US into the last subprime housing crisis. This company is currently being investigated and subpoenaed by the New York State department for Financial services for loans that where low-income homebuyers with bad credit can take out risky bond-for-title loans, under which borrowers can lose their entire stake in their homes if they miss a single month's payment.

Was this exact thing not the cause of the housing crisis? Did that not cause trillions of losses? Bill had a direct hand in the deregulation of the financial markets that partially caused that housing price collapse. What do you expect to see here given the speaking fees accepted and that Hillary has decided to put Bill in charge of the economy?
http://time.com/4336918/hillary-clin...inton-economy/

I'd wager a huge growth in financials again with a giant crash at the end of her presidency when the cash out happens. So housing crisis 2.0 some time down the road once she and Bill have made their killing. How is her popularity even remotely as high in the polls as it is now? From what I can tell from the demographics breakdown, her support seems strongest with older than millennials women.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by nik-

Well yeah, there's no argument there, it definitely isn't tabloid material which is unfortunately what gets people's attention.

What it comes down to is that people have accepted the government doing whatever it wants. I'm not even sure what would have to happen these days to have a modern day Watergate level fallout.

I'm pretty sure the president would have to be discovered to be personally killing people. Like just random people.

The real issue is stupidity versus intent, Clinton was dumb not evil, she got no gain from the action, other than having an email system that worked as opposed to the government one that by all accounts was utterly dreadful.

Now, as others have already commented, the Clintons natural instinct to cover up anything may prove to be a bigger problem than the server itself.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The real issue is stupidity versus intent, Clinton was dumb not evil, she got no gain from the action, other than having an email system that worked as opposed to the government one that by all accounts was utterly dreadful.

Now, as others have already commented, the Clintons natural instinct to cover up anything may prove to be a bigger problem than the server itself.

You didn't read the Investigator Generals report or any news lately did you? She specifically set up her personal email for use so she would not be subject to Freedom of Information Act requests on her communications. This is intent and borderline evil just by itself discounting all the other things it would hide.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The real issue is stupidity versus intent, Clinton was dumb not evil, she got no gain from the action, other than having an email system that worked as opposed to the government one that by all accounts was utterly dreadful.

Now, as others have already commented, the Clintons natural instinct to cover up anything may prove to be a bigger problem than the server itself.

That's a patently naive outlook.

Also, your work email server sucks? Too bad, you're conducting state department business, use it. If you insist on not using it, tell someone you're not and get a vetted company to do the hosting.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The legal firm that Trump holds on retainer has to be the richest (and most blessed) firm in America

Donald Trump is a fighter, famous for legal skirmishes over everything from his golf courses to his tax bills to Trump University. But until now, it hasn’t been clear precisely how litigious he is and what that might portend for a Trump presidency.

An exclusive USA TODAY analysis of legal filings across the United States finds that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and his businesses have been involved in at least 3,500 legal actions in federal and state courts during the past three decades. They range from skirmishes with casino patrons to million-dollar real estate suits to personal defamation lawsuits.

The sheer volume of lawsuits is unprecedented for a presidential nominee. No candidate of a major party has had anything approaching the number of Trump’s courtroom entanglements.

Just since he announced his candidacy a year ago, at least 70 new cases have been filed, about evenly divided between lawsuits filed by him and his companies and those filed against them. And the records review found at least 50 civil lawsuits remain open even as he moves toward claiming the nomination at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in seven weeks.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...tles/84995854/

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

You didn't read the Investigator Generals report or any news lately did you? She specifically set up her personal email for use so she would not be subject to Freedom of Information Act requests on her communications. This is intent and borderline evil just by itself discounting all the other things it would hide.

No, that's an inference that could be drawn, all of the official emails are available from the other end, if you will, therefore all in theory would still be available for foi requests, private emails wouldn't be covered by foi requests anyway, the issue is who gets to decide what's what.
As yet though it's still a supposition.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The legal firm that Drumpf holds on retainer has to be the richest (and most blessed) firm in America

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...tles/84995854/

I'm sure it'll be fine; as soon as he takes office, he'll just make an executive order stating that all such lawsuits are null and void. It'll be amazing, just watch, it's going to be fantastic.

[nfotiu]

I think it was a pretty awesome troll job by the PGA tour or whoever runs those WGC events to move the the event from Trump National Dural to Mexico City.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

No, that's an inference that could be drawn, all of the official emails are available from the other end, if you will, therefore all in theory would still be available for foi requests, private emails wouldn't be covered by foi requests anyway, the issue is who gets to decide what's what.
As yet though it's still a supposition.

You might want to stop parroting the Clinton spin, this is not an inference or supposition. Clinton claims she had a server installed out of convenience, but the inspector generals report clearly states that is false within Clinton's own disclosed emails. In a discussion with her deputy chief of staff of operations, she wanted her emails free from FOIA requests/scrutiny and outright requested she not use the government provided email because of this. That is the intent right there and a violation of the law governing US politicians.

The report also finds numerous emails conveniently missing from record that the state department cannot retrieve and Clinton's server has conveniently had deleted. She claims she deleted these as they were "personal". If she had discussions with foreign entitles and she considers these "personal" what other end do we have to retrieve these? Tony Blair cracks down hard on offshore tax evasion and yet when it's found his father participated in the same activity, it's a "personal" matter. She considers all her wall street speeches "personal" so what was in those missing records? Why does she so desperately want her correspondence to be confidential if she has nothing to hide? Given her record, it's naive to think she is clean on this. I can find the exact emails which this was stated from as someone on reddit posted the FOIA reference to it if you wish but the NYT article should suffice.

The 79-page report added considerable new detail about the former secretary of state’s use of the server, as well as her motivation for setting it up. Mrs. Clinton has publicly said the arrangement was a matter of convenience, but emails disclosed in the report made it clear that she worried that personal emails could be publicly released under the Freedom of Information Act. In November 2010, her deputy chief of staff for operations prodded her about “putting you on State email” to protect her email from spam. Mrs. Clinton declined. She replied that while she would consider a using a separate address or device, “I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us...ails.html?_r=0