Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Badger]

Oh, and it should be mentioned the FBI is back on the e-mail scandal again.  I know we all have varying views on the whole thing, but since this is news, I thought it should be mentioned, even though I really don't care one way or another if we bother to discuss it for the 48th time.

[megaplayboy]

It's incredibly vague at this point, though. It may well be nothing really new.

[Nolgroth]

And the bulk of any repercussions may well fall on Huma Abedin for not keeping track of her emails/allowing "Carlos Danger" to have access. That is assuming that there are any actual classified documents in this batch. Huma admitted earlier this year that she sent a bunch of public relations documents to her personal email, so this may simply be a proverbial "mountain out of a mole hill."

 

I was listening to both Fox and MSNBC satellite stations as I drove around last night. Amazingly, both stations pretty well agreed on the factual parts of this turn of events. It was the spin that was put on it that differed. Fox news was talking about how this closed Trump's gap in the polls and MSNBC talked about how this is only a momentary blip on the campaign radar. They sounded like they really wanted to mean it, yet still spent all night with various talking heads, discussing what it means. Both stations did for that matter. Fox made a point of replaying a sound bite from Trump earlier this year where he expressed disdain at the idea of Huma Abedin taking home state secrets to share with her "perv, sleazebag husband." The irony there is very rich, coming from Admiral Harassment himself.

 

Me? I think it amounts to nothing. Clinton is still going to win. The only thing is that she might have an even more embattled presidency than previously considered. It really depends on how far this email thing and the recent WikiLeaks stuff is pressed and whether or not the Democrats pick up some House and Senate seats. 

[Lord Liaden]

I also doubt this development will seriously affect the outcome of the election. By this point most voters have made up their minds; and millions have already cast ballots in advance voting. But the Republicans will press the issue as long and as hard as they can, before and after the election, even if it turns out to be nothing.

 

I've come to the conclusion Clinton will be unable to accomplish anything substantial during her term as President, no matter what the electoral fortune is for the Democratic Party. She now has too little public credibility and apparent moral authority to rally public support for any significant legislation. His reputation for duplicity and whiff of scandal hamstrung her husband during his presidency, and if anything Hillary's reputation has been damaged even worse.

[Iuz the Evil]

She will probably get to appoint 3 supreme court justices. Don't really see how they can stop her, especially if the Dems get a Senate majority. That's not inconsequential.

[Nolgroth]

Well I was going to get some sleep. That idea is shot now. Thanks Iuz.

 

[Ranxerox]

She will probably get to appoint 3 supreme court justices. Don't really see how they can stop her, especially if the Dems get a Senate majority. That's not inconsequential.

 

If the Democrats take over the Senate, they will hold it for only 2 years.  In 2018 the Democrats have a lot more seats than the Republicans to defend so holding onto the Senate would be an uphill battle under any circumstances.  Still, since incumbents have advantages it might be doable.  Unfortunately, Democrats don't come out to vote during non-presidential voting years.  That is why they took such a brutal curb-stomping back in 2010.  

 

So yes she may get to appoint 3 Supreme Court justices, but it is unlikely that all or even most of them will be confirmed by a Democrat controlled Senate.

[Lord Liaden]

She will probably get to appoint 3 supreme court justices. Don't really see how they can stop her, especially if the Dems get a Senate majority. That's not inconsequential.

 

Fair point. But that "if" is still a big "if." The American public isn't enamored of Democrats either, so it remains to be seen whether the election campaign translates to a comparable Congressional upheaval. And of course, Presidential SCJ nominations aren't automatic. Prominent Republicans are vowing to block any Clinton nominee regardless (which is irresponsible, but there it is).

 

It also remains to be seen how much grass-roots Democratic support Hillary will be able to muster. Not only is her personal image tarnished, but the Sanders battle left deep divisions within the part. Some Democrats may find it politically untenable with their own constituents to support Clinton's positions.

[Tom]

It's incredibly vague at this point, though. It may well be nothing really new.

 They found a thing, that was part of another thing, which might relate to an earlier thing.

 

They're thinking about it.  Publicly.

 

'News' 24/7.

 

Until the next thing.

[Old Man]

Comey is taking a lot of heat for disobeying a direct order from his superiors to announce an investigation into copies of email he already has. The timing of the announcement, a Friday afternoon, really makes it look like this was supposed to be a sort of October surprise. We're going to be hearing about emails all weekend long.

 

Unfortunately it really just makes the GOP look even more desperate than they already did. I'm reminded of Clint Eastwood talking to an empty chair.

[Old Man]

She will probably get to appoint 3 supreme court justices. Don't really see how they can stop her, especially if the Dems get a Senate majority. That's not inconsequential.

They may have to kill the filibuster to make that happen. The GOP is already promising to obstruct the confirmation of any justice she nominates. So it's not a slam dunk.

[Iuz the Evil]

They may have to kill the filibuster to make that happen. The GOP is already promising to obstruct the confirmation of any justice she nominates. So it's not a slam dunk.

I agree. And I think they would do that at this point. There's not a lot of disincentive, actually.

[Clonus]

They may have to kill the filibuster to make that happen. The GOP is already promising to obstruct the confirmation of any justice she nominates. So it's not a slam dunk.

Well obviously they will.  They've already used the nuclear option once once on lesser appointments, and the only alternative here would be to let the Supreme Court continue to shrink until a Republican is elected.  But that's assuming they can gain a majority.  Otherwise the Supreme Court will merely shrink.  

[csyphrett]

Comey is taking heat from all sides. A lot of it is why violate investigative rules when you don't know what you got. He's getting heat from Judicial Review which has been trying to do stuff to Clinton for thirty years for being so vague as to be useless.

CES 

[DasBroot]

At least the Clinton campaign is being smart about it - standing in front of it saying 'What do you have? We're confident it won't change the conclusions drawn in July, so spit it out already." is definitely the best way they could have handled  this.

[Lord Liaden]

I heard a news report (on Canadian news, so it's at least less partial) asserting it's long been unofficial US Justice Department policy not to make any disclosures which could directly affect the outcome of a major election, within less than sixty days of the election date. If true, the timing of this announcement does raise questions.

[Pattern Ghost]

It's a no win situation. If they announce now, they're trying to torpedo Hillary. If they wait until after the election, they'll be accused of trying to protect her.

 

Here's the thing: They have to make the announcement at some point. Ultimately, they aren't announcing anything other than that they have some more e-mails related to her case that they're going to look at. It's not exactly an earth shaking or election endangering announcement, so the best time to announce is sooner rather than later as far as trying to maintain an appearance of impartiality.

[Old Man]

The point is that there is nothing to announce. Even if the emails were related to the case, which is not likely, the Director of the FBI isn't supposed to be giving a running play by play of an ongoing investigation. In direct contravention of his superiors' instructions.

[Iuz the Evil]

Comey's going to lose his job about it in the near future. Really stupid move. When your boss tells you to do something, reminds you of policy and precedent, and then you do it anyway?

 

Brush up your resume.

[Badger]

She will probably get to appoint 3 supreme court justices. Don't really see how they can stop her, especially if the Dems get a Senate majority. That's not inconsequential.

 

That is the only thing that made me ever consider Trump, for even 10 seconds.  The idea of a liberal Supreme Court for the rest of my life, gives a feeling of hopeless. (then again the only Supreme Court justice I actually like is Kennedy aka the only one capable of independent thought-conservative or liberal)

[Badger]

If the Democrats take over the Senate, they will hold it for only 2 years.  In 2018 the Democrats have a lot more seats than the Republicans to defend so holding onto the Senate would be an uphill battle under any circumstances.  Still, since incumbents have advantages it might be doable.  Unfortunately, Democrats don't come out to vote during non-presidential voting years.  That is why they took such a brutal curb-stomping back in 2010.  

 

So yes she may get to appoint 3 Supreme Court justices, but it is unlikely that all or even most of them will be confirmed by a Democrat controlled Senate.

 

Unofrtunately, if she wins, I cant vote against Tim Kaine's Senate re-bid. 

[Badger]

 They found a thing, that was part of another thing, which might relate to an earlier thing.

 

They're thinking about it.  Publicly.

 

'News' 24/7.

 

Until the next thing.

 

You reminded me of the Malaysian airplane disappearances.  2 straight friggin weeks of looking at ocean.

[Badger]

Comey is taking a lot of heat for disobeying a direct order from his superiors to announce an investigation into copies of email he already has. The timing of the announcement, a Friday afternoon, really makes it look like this was supposed to be a sort of October surprise. We're going to be hearing about emails all weekend long.

 

Unfortunately it really just makes the GOP look even more desperate than they already did. I'm reminded of Clint Eastwood talking to an empty chair.

 

I might write that empty chair in as my vote. 

[Badger]

It's a no win situation. If they announce now, they're trying to torpedo Hillary. If they wait until after the election, they'll be accused of trying to protect her.

 

Here's the thing: They have to make the announcement at some point. Ultimately, they aren't announcing anything other than that they have some more e-mails related to her case that they're going to look at. It's not exactly an earth shaking or election endangering announcement, so the best time to announce is sooner rather than later as far as trying to maintain an appearance of impartiality.

 

Yeah, this was more or less what I originally thought.

 

Comey's going to lose his job about it in the near future. Really stupid move. When your boss tells you to do something, reminds you of policy and precedent, and then you do it anyway?

 

Brush up your resume.

 

I kind of see it as his Kobayashi Maru. 

[Ternaugh]

Yeah, this was more or less what I originally thought.

 

 

I kind of see it as his Kobayashi Maru. 

 

I kind of see it as his application for the position of Fox News commentator.