megaplayboy

The filibuster is not specifically guaranteed in the constitution. What is guaranteed is the ability of the Senate to write their own procedural rules. So any time a majority decides to change the rules, they technically can do so. They can lower the cloture threshold for SCOTUS appointments and legislation to 51 votes if they want. If the Dems retake the Senate and McConnell continues the obstructionist attitude he held through the previous 8 years, they absolutely should imo. The purpose of government is governance, not throwing a hissy fit until you finally get your way.

Politics has been called "the art of compromise", "the art of persuasion", and "the art of the possible". It's also been said that "Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made." Functional multiparty democratic governance is completely dependent upon good faith and fair dealing between the parties. Without it, things gradually deteriorate and fall apart.

Politics has been called "the art of compromise", "the art of persuasion", and "the art of the possible". It's also been said that "Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made." Functional multiparty democratic governance is completely dependent upon good faith and fair dealing between the parties. Without it, things gradually deteriorate and fall apart.

I suspect the allegations against Trump vis a vis sexual misconduct will make Bill look like a baby faced novice.

Trump now approaching 1/4 of a Cosby Unit. A Cosby Unit is roughly 40-60 accusers. 10 Cosby Units equals roughly 1 Savile, after the notorious Jimmy Savile, who has the dubious/infamous distinction for being the all-time record holder for most alleged sexual assaults/molestations by a public figure or celebrity(450, according to wiki).

Even though hunting is outlawed within the national parks of Zimbabwe, ten men were illegally hunting for elephants last month within the park’s boundaries when they stumbled upon twenty adult Southwest African lions. The pride of lions were not exactly, you know, expecting human visitors, so they immediately attacked the intruders. The attack was so instantaneous that five of the ten men were killed, three severely injured, and two lightly injured. The animals were mostly unhurt. The men who survived the attack ran to a nearby village for medical help where they were promptly arrested. Ah, karma!
 
“The men were visibly traumatized by the attack,” said Commissioner-General Chihuri,“and after seeing their injuries and the remains of their dead comrades, I can see why. These guys were tough criminals carrying ak-47s, but they were literally shred to pieces and devoured by the lions. I have never seen an animal attack reach this level of violence, and I have seen a lot!”
 
Off of yahoo but now I can't find the link.

Note: Admin hat is _off_ for this post.
 
I'm curious about feedback on what I would consider a "different take" on the arguments against Clinton.
 
I'm assuming that Trump's inability to fulfill pretty much any of the requirements for office are obvious at this point...I'm looking to address just Clinton.
 
Full disclosure:  I started out thinking/stating that she was a poisoned candidate -- someone who didn't have the political wherewithal to avoid the pitfalls and accusations that had been leveled at her over the years.   I formally withdraw that statement...and, in fact, reverse it.  But that's not the point of this post.
 
Those who like HRC don't need my encouragement.  This is about those who despise her -- those who think she's gotten away with murder/espionage/etc.
 
Fact: she's been accused of many things.  She's been investigated more than just about any other politician or candidate for the presidency.  
 
Other fact: she hasn't been found in criminal or prosecutable violation of anything.  You know this because she hasn't been prosecuted.
 
Other other fact: her general ratings in any given capacity (First Lady, senator, Secretary of State) at the end of her time in the office have been very good.
 
That's our starting point.
 
Let's go with the apparent belief of those that hate HRC -- that she's gotten away with everything because she's just too powerful.  Too connected.  She has too many friends in power. Leaving aside everything and just taking that at face value, wouldn't that make her the most powerful politician we know of?  She knows that she can get away with anything (according to some, including murder), and she does.  I'm not even going to bother arguing what's been actually found...let's just go with that -- she knows that she can get away with anything she wants and she has done so routinely throughout her career.

Regardless of the validity of that assumption, if we go with that we have to take her as a ridiculously powerful force in politics.  The likes of which we have never seen before.  That's scary.  Particularly if she's out for evil.  So we have to ask ourselves what she's after....and the only thing we have to look at is what she's actually fought for, what she's done.  What she's gone after in her time as First Lady, congresswoman, and Secretary of State.
 
Remember, she knows that she can get away with whatever she wants...since she's been doing that for 30 years.
 
Her record throughout her time in politics has her fighting for child welfare and education first and foremost.  Hmm...doesn't sound so evil.  She's not as far left as Sanders...more left of center than anything else.  But is that a bad thing?

Again, let's assume that everything that's been said is correct and she's actually that good -- she's good enough to get away with everything that she's been accused of, despite years and millions of dollars of concerted effort to investigate her.  If she's that good at getting what she wants...and what she wants is something as innocuous as child welfare and education (and women's rights)....how exactly does that make her unfit?

Her accusers say that she just wants power.  So what?  Let's say that that's all she's after.  If her way of getting power is fighting for (and getting) things that benefit those of us who most need it, is that a bad thing?  Do those of you who hate her think that she's been playing a 30 year "long game" just to get into the White House (again) so that she can show her true colors and kill of the American Dream?

For the record, Audie Murphy, the most decorated US soldier of all time and the closest we've ever come to Captain America IRL, suffered from PTSD. Being "stronger" has nothing to do with susceptibility to PTSD.

For the record, Audie Murphy, the most decorated US soldier of all time and the closest we've ever come to Captain America IRL, suffered from PTSD. Being "stronger" has nothing to do with susceptibility to PTSD.

Yeah, he's got problems on the Foundation front. Bringing up the Clinton Foundation is just an opportunity for her to knock his block off with this stuff.

Hillary was sharp, poised and well-prepared. Trump was incoherent, sputtering and sniffing and frequently interrupting her. He bungled several topics, including the birther issue, his treatment of women, his tax returns and business affairs, and foreign policy. The only time he made a positive foray was on trade.

I was finally informed that I have been certified for admission to practice law in DC(I'm already admitted in MD), and will be sworn in next week. Yay. It only took them 18 frickin' months. But a win's a win.

Trump interrupted Clinton dozens of times, more or less admitted to paying no taxes, and tried to take credit for "settling" the birther issue. The worst debate performance I've ever seen. And I've seen Quayle, Stockdale and Palin debate.

When she gets eyestrain her head just explodes.

Well, based upon the polls and surveys I've seen, the commentary on social media, reports and videotape from Trump rallies, interviews with Trump supporters, a list of Trump endorsers, allies and associates(and their associations), I'd say "half" is roughly in the ballpark. It's a bit more nuanced than Obama's "bitter...cling" and Romney's "47%" comments, because she went on to say that the other half of his supporters have legitimate economic anxieties and concerns. Still, the media is never more reticent than when it comes to calling out the garden variety casual racism of a large minority of white citizens. Probably because they know 1) there will be a vicious backlash to being called out; and 2) they know some friends, family, associates or neighbors who hold such views and calling it out puts them in an awkward position socially.

Why go for a meager 7.62 when you can fire 37mm at 3000 rpm?

I want a refund on that 7 year contract.

I was finally informed that I have been certified for admission to practice law in DC(I'm already admitted in MD), and will be sworn in next week. Yay. It only took them 18 frickin' months. But a win's a win.

If she had more than one boyfriend, then you would have been her go-to goy boy toy.

I was finally informed that I have been certified for admission to practice law in DC(I'm already admitted in MD), and will be sworn in next week. Yay. It only took them 18 frickin' months. But a win's a win.

Oh. My. God.
 
The speech in immigration by trump just physically hurt to watch. The "murdered by an illegal" chain of speakers is absolutely offensive, shocking, and seems to me like a great example of race baiting. Wow

I was finally informed that I have been certified for admission to practice law in DC(I'm already admitted in MD), and will be sworn in next week. Yay. It only took them 18 frickin' months. But a win's a win.