Author Topic: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)  (Read 24118 times)

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #150 on: April 12, 2016, 01:01:37 PM »
That seems to me that is exactly what Steven Aftergood was saying--no evidence has been put forward at this time that would lead one to the conclusion that Mrs. Clinton had committed a crime, so no conclusions can be drawn.  But the proviso "at this time" indicates that the situation could change with more information.

Just note that there is a very big difference between these quotes of his:

"There is no known evidence of criminal intent on Clinton's part"
"at this time, there is no clear evidence that Clinton has broken the law"

and between saying what he seems to indicate in an earlier paragraph:

"nothing revealed to date supports Senate candidate Jack Graham’s assertion that "it’s clear" Clinton violated national security laws."

It seems clear that his position is in line with the former two quotes, namely that there is not enough evidence so far, notwithstanding his admission that he can only comment on what has been officially released to the public. But the fact of certain evidence not being disclosed publicly has nothing to do with whether such evidence exists or not. By being a tricky writer and saying "Hypothetically, the evidence may someday support Graham’s accusation against Clinton" he can get away with simultaneously sounding impartial on the subject and yet appearing to also state that there is no case against her as of now, which he cannot actually know unless he's in on the investigation.

And this is only his personal opinion on the facts released, about which other experts say the opposite anyhow. My position on this is still that we'll have to wait and see what comes of the investigation, and I still believe that it represents a serious danger for Hillary's run. Luckily since Bernie is doing well even if something happens to her that makes her withdraw at least the Democrats can field someone who can win, so it's not that bad a situation any more.

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #151 on: April 14, 2016, 05:48:29 PM »
Quote
My position on this is still that we'll have to wait and see what comes of the investigation, and I still believe that it represents a serious danger for Hillary's run.
It only represents a serious danger to her run if if turns out that there is some serious danger in what they find.  In the meantime, everyone (who cares) is excited about the possibilities, because it could be really, really bad.  Or not.


AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #153 on: April 17, 2016, 07:41:57 PM »
There are a lot of ways to slice the pie.  This site details every sponsored and co-sponsored bill be all members of Congress.  Make of it what you will.  Then there is this tepid assessment of Bernie's record of accomplishment based on his principles.

We can do this all day.  Both were somewhat middling in their accomplishments, but since neither chaired committees their names don't appear on the vast majority of bills they supported or voted for.  Cruz is at the bottom of every list with 0 bills passed into law that he sponsored, but is tied with Trump :).

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #154 on: April 18, 2016, 02:10:12 PM »
Regarding Bernie supporters who won't vote for Hillary, and vice versa, we finally have some data.

Apparently, 25 percent of Bernie supporters say they won't vote for Hillary, while 69 percent say they will.

OTOH, 14 percent of Hillary supporters won't vote for Bernie, while 79 percent say they will.

One thing I wonder is how likely those surveyed are to vote at all.  It's easy to say you won't vote for the other candidate if you probably won't vote at all. :)  Although one would expect enthusiastic supporters to at least vote for their candidate.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #155 on: April 18, 2016, 04:34:03 PM »
Apparently, 25 percent of Bernie supporters say they won't vote for Hillary, while 69 percent say they will.

OTOH, 14 percent of Hillary supporters won't vote for Bernie, while 79 percent say they will.

One thing to remember is that while supporters of both are likely either regular Democrat voters or independents, support doesn't always involve enthusiasm. In a Cruz vs Hillary election cycle, for instance, many Republicans would likely vote from Cruz while despising him, which makes their vote effectively a vote against Hillary more than anything else. In the primaries this is happening to, as I'm quite certain that while Bernie's supporters seem to fervently care about his campaign, a great many of them are probably also voting for him as votes against Hillary rather than specifically for his policies. As such, some of them vehemently against Hillary won't switch to supporting Hillary even if she takes the nomination. Contrariwise, Hillary's supporters probably believe she is a better candidate, has more chance of winning the general, has more experience in power circles and the international stage, and so forth, but don't particularly hate Bernie in any sense. If he were to take the candidacy many of them would no doubt be ok voting him even though they didn't think he was the best choice.

Things are even more divisive between the Cruz and Trump camps. I really wonder how many of each of their supporters would want to vote for the other should their candidate lose in the primaries. In the end hard line D's and R's will probably vote for whichever candidate runs in the general, but of the swing voters I really couldn't guess what they'd do in the cases of Cruz-Clinton, Cruz-Sanders, Trump-Sanders, or Trump-Clinton.

By the way while I'd just like to mention as a reminder that I began the threat not overtly as an anti-Hillary thread but actually as an anti-Jeb Bush thread. I felt Hillary might sabotage the election for the Democrats and hand him the election. Perhaps that theme could still be relevant for anyone deeply concerned about Cruz or Trump winning, but I'm not as concerned about them as I was about Bush specifically. I've since become a Bernie supporter but actually that makes this thread have less relevance since I don't think anything that happens to Hillary will sabotage the election for the Democrats any more.

Greg Davidson

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #156 on: April 18, 2016, 11:16:22 PM »
The mutual favorability of Sanders supporters for Clinton (and Clinton supporters for Sanders) is higher than it was between supporters of Obama and Clinton in 2008.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #157 on: April 21, 2016, 05:48:45 PM »
While 25 percent of Bernie's supporters say they won't vote for Hillary, it has been worse in the past.

Quote
We found two polls taken in June 2008 that asked primary supporters of Clinton who they would support with Obama as the Democratic nominee...In both polls, roughly 60 percent of former Clinton supporters backed Obama, while 40 percent didn’t, either through a vote for Republican nominee John McCain or a vow to do something other than voting for Obama.

This means Clinton can take heart that she is already doing about 10 points better securing the backing of Sanders voters than Obama was doing securing support from Clinton backers...

Subsequent polling data showed Obama did eventually win the support of Clinton backers. By August 2008, polls showed that Obama was winning 70 percent to 76 percent of Clinton supporters. And of course, Obama went on to win in November.

If Trump turns out to be the Republican nominee (which it is looking more and more likely), I don't Hillary has anything to worry about losing Bernie supporters. :)

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #158 on: April 21, 2016, 08:33:01 PM »
It's a tad surprising to me that Hillary supporters were less willing (so it is said) to support Obama than Sanders are to back her this time around.  Hillary has never represented an emotional cause or clear principle that would rally people around her.  I'd have thought Palin would have scared the bejeezus of them enough that they would sign up with full commitment for Obama just to prevent the awfulness of her.  I guess not...

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #159 on: April 21, 2016, 10:35:09 PM »
She does represent a milestone for feminism. I think Warren might have given her a bigger challenge than Bernie did.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #160 on: April 22, 2016, 02:53:45 AM »
She does represent a milestone for feminism. I think Warren might have given her a bigger challenge than Bernie did.

What has Hillary ever really done for feminism?

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #161 on: April 22, 2016, 03:00:32 AM »
Even if you can never point at anything concrete, the first female president is one heck of a symbol, and something that is very imporrant for those willing to vote vagina over policy.

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #162 on: April 22, 2016, 07:05:59 AM »
Is the corollary that voting for Trump is voting for his ("no problem there, I guarantee you") penis?  More likely, since he's not very long on policies.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #163 on: April 22, 2016, 11:38:17 AM »
Even if you can never point at anything concrete, the first female president is one heck of a symbol, and something that is very imporrant for those willing to vote vagina over policy.

At the same time, (and this is arguably something of an issue with Obama as well, but that's done with), is that so long as society is not Color-blind, or "gender-blind" as it is, the "First _____" is going to serve as a role model for many who identify with ____. Potentially for many generations to come. And honestly, I don't think Hillary is someone I want to see obtain that kind of placement in the history books. I'm not sure how most rational people would want to position Hillary in such a way as to be viewed as a role model for their Great-great grandchildren.

So when it comes to voting for "a symbol" I think Hillary is entirely the wrong message. Not that Trump would be better, but as a white male, he'd simply go down in the history books as yet another in a long list of terrible presidents.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2016, 11:47:51 AM by TheDeamon »

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #164 on: April 22, 2016, 12:45:43 PM »
If you are electing a symbol, then there are probably many better candidates, except none of them *are* candidates.  Are you saying that in some ways you would rather have Trump elected and be a terrible President than Hillary elected and be less than ideal?

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #165 on: April 22, 2016, 01:53:49 PM »
If you are electing a symbol, then there are probably many better candidates, except none of them *are* candidates.  Are you saying that in some ways you would rather have Trump elected and be a terrible President than Hillary elected and be less than ideal?
If those were the real options (on a look back basis) of course.  However, on a look forward basis, it appears more likely that we have a complete unknown with Trump, not based on him and his attitudes, but rather based on his actual effectiveness.  He wouldn't enjoy any of the protections that President Obama gets on abuses of executive authority (because NEITHER party will act on a partisan basis to protect him).

Versus.

A completely dishonest and self centered President, who will most likely continue with the Autocratic traditions of the current President and maintain or exceed the overall corruption levels that have been established.  Pretty much a guaranty that we'll all be losers whether she's "effective" or not.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #166 on: April 22, 2016, 04:50:24 PM »
Is the corollary that voting for Trump is voting for his ("no problem there, I guarantee you") penis?  More likely, since he's not very long on policies.

Well, since Trump wouldn't be the first male president,  obviously not.

There are undeniably voters out there who will vote for Clinton whilst overlooking flaws that they otherwise wouldn't,  because she's a woman. The same way some people voted for Obama because he was black.

I'm not judging, mind you,  just pointing it out.  They want to be able to say to their daughters with a straight face that they really can be President. Nothing wrong with that. Also nothing wrong with saying that they're ignoring some vile stuff in order to do it.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2016, 04:53:02 PM by DJQuag »

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #167 on: April 22, 2016, 06:57:52 PM »
Just as you might say that some people will vote for the vagina, it's also clear that others won't vote for her because of that.  When you identify a defining characteristic it's easy to ignore that there is likely a more or less equal opposite.  We'll never know how many votes Obama delivered to McCain because he was black and how many more he might have gotten had he been white.  One reason I think Cruz wouldn't win the election is because his overt religiosity repels as many people as it attracts.  Even Jesus would have to contend with that, were he to make another appearance.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #168 on: April 23, 2016, 11:59:06 AM »
If you are electing a symbol, then there are probably many better candidates, except none of them *are* candidates.  Are you saying that in some ways you would rather have Trump elected and be a terrible President than Hillary elected and be less than ideal?
If those were the real options (on a look back basis) of course.  However, on a look forward basis, it appears more likely that we have a complete unknown with Trump, not based on him and his attitudes, but rather based on his actual effectiveness.  He wouldn't enjoy any of the protections that President Obama gets on abuses of executive authority (because NEITHER party will act on a partisan basis to protect him).

Versus.

A completely dishonest and self centered President, who will most likely continue with the Autocratic traditions of the current President and maintain or exceed the overall corruption levels that have been established.  Pretty much a guaranty that we'll all be losers whether she's "effective" or not.

This has pretty much been my conclusion for a little over a month now. If Trump sticks to his guns through the general election and manages to obtain the Presidency and attempts to govern that way, neither party is likely to support him in Congress.

That means his ability to pass new legislation is near non-existent. Likewise due to not having any major party backing him in Congress. Nobody will be particularly interested in protecting him from the consequences of overstepping his Executive Authority as dictated under the Constitution. You know, that piece of paper Congress loves to ignore in the interest of getting their own party getting a turn at the apple.

Which in turn means a lot of the "Executive Actions" that Obama has been so prone to undertake won't be likely to fly very far for Trump. Congress won't stand for him doing that, and the Media Establishment is likewise far more likely to side with Congress than they are to side with Trump.

But the above supposes that Trump doesn't try to change his stripes partway through all of this. Which could be a big if, as he does actually remain largely an unknown when it comes to the details. I still suspect Trump's run was a (recurring) publicity stunt that has gotten out of hand, and that some of his more outrageous statements were him practically begging voters to vote for anyone but him. (Admitting it was a publicity stunt being a no-go because that exposes him to a legal grey area(with the IRS, at the very least), among other issues--like seriously pissed off (and armed) voters who did support his run who would then possibly make it their mission in life to destroy him and/or his business interests)

Trump having potentially run as a parody candidate aside. There is going to be a lot of dark appeal for a lot of voters with Constitutionalist leanings to vote for Trump in the General Elections because his winning the Presidency is the most surefire way to give Congress a strong incentive to "rediscover" their powers granted to them under the Constitution. Those powers would then be used to roll back a lot of executive powers currently exercised by the President and put them back under the thumb of Congress. Trump being a white male works doubly so for that objective, as race and gender are not issues he can bring forward as reasons why they're obstructing his agenda.

Trump may be a completely terrible candidate, but because he is a completely terrible candidate, he paradoxically becomes a great candidate choice for fixing a lot of long standing issues. Not because of anything he wants to do, but because of what the system("the establishment") will do in response to his being elected. The "burn it down" crowd, when it comes to Trump does have members with some rationale basis for why they're pursuing that option.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #169 on: April 23, 2016, 03:53:38 PM »
The problem with your scenario, TheDaemon, is that the reason Obama used Executive Action so frequently is because Congress is pretty much dysfunctional.  They have done nothing major in the past 6 years except for blocking any initiatives from the White House.

While Congress may come together to strip the White House of it's executive power, that will leave no one with power anymore.  Congress will not be able to agree upon anything, so nothing will get done.

Expect an non-existent government for four years if your scenario comes to pass. :(

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #170 on: April 23, 2016, 04:40:55 PM »
Why wouldn't you expect Trump to use his exaggerated sense of entitlement to bend Executive actions to his fancy?  He can't build the wall, but he can kill trade agreements, block all sorts of Executive programs and send troops to kill the families of people he thinks are not nice, not nice.  Let's see how Congress would try and stop him...

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #171 on: April 23, 2016, 04:46:16 PM »
Why wouldn't you expect Trump to use his exaggerated sense of entitlement to bend Executive actions to his fancy?  He can't build the wall, but he can kill trade agreements, block all sorts of Executive programs and send troops to kill the families of people he thinks are not nice, not nice.  Let's see how Congress would try and stop him...
Reminds of David Weber's books. Constitutional crises are pretty much never a good way to solve a problem.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #172 on: April 24, 2016, 08:38:37 PM »
The problem with your scenario, TheDaemon, is that the reason Obama used Executive Action so frequently is because Congress is pretty much dysfunctional.  They have done nothing major in the past 6 years except for blocking any initiatives from the White House.

There is more than a bit of a disconnect here. Part of the problem with negotiating with the Obama Administration is that they're often very disingenuous negotiators. The Democrats in general are leagues ahead of Republicans in General, and the Obama Administration is in a league unto itself in terms of spin control.

Negotiating with someone who comes to table with a my way or the highway position in fact, regardless of rhetoric claiming otherwise, is someone that will be impossible to compromise with. Not because you're unwilling to compromise, but because they won't. It takes two to tango, and Obama knows that when it comes to spin and rhetoric, his side will win almost every time. As such, he has no reason to compromise, particularly since it has worked for so long and the Republicans have essentially given up.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #173 on: April 24, 2016, 08:50:30 PM »
While Congress may come together to strip the White House of it's executive power, that will leave no one with power anymore.  Congress will not be able to agree upon anything, so nothing will get done.

Expect an non-existent government for four years if your scenario comes to pass. :(

Uh, just because Washington D.C. is gridlocked doesn't mean states can't act on their own over a multitude of matters. Well, until or unless the Federal Government tells them not to, but lately that's been the domain of Democrats rather than Republicans. Particularly as Republicans have been wanting to devolve a lot of Federal powers back to the states. In fact historically that is how most things were done, so you're not exactly creating a convincing (rational) nightmare scenario under a Trump Presidency. But then, nightmares rarely tend to be rational.

The worst case scenario is on the foreign policy front, but after the combined train wrecks of Bush + Obama (either one by themselves wouldn't be bad, but together, they're absolutely terrible) I doubt Trump could screw it up much more unless he deliberately tries to do so. Primary Candidate Trump has self-professed to not having any advisors on foreign policy. President Trump is likely to act more like CEO Trump and take full advantage of specialist knowledge on that front. (Of course, WHICH ones is a valid question)

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #174 on: April 25, 2016, 04:17:03 AM »
Quote
There is more than a bit of a disconnect here. Part of the problem with negotiating with the Obama Administration is that they're often very disingenuous negotiators. The Democrats in general are leagues ahead of Republicans in General, and the Obama Administration is in a league unto itself in terms of spin control.
Many of your comments show a generally objective viewpoint, but I hope you can understand when I say that you betray a blind spot here.  In his abilities to maneuver around and manipulate Congress Obama is a rank amateur compared to Clinton (personally) or Bush II (his minions).

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #175 on: April 25, 2016, 09:08:05 AM »
Quote
The worst case scenario is on the foreign policy front, but after the combined train wrecks of Bush + Obama (either one by themselves wouldn't be bad, but together, they're absolutely terrible) I doubt Trump could screw it up much more unless he deliberately tries to do so. Primary Candidate Trump has self-professed to not having any advisors on foreign policy. President Trump is likely to act more like CEO Trump and take full advantage of specialist knowledge on that front. (Of course, WHICH ones is a valid question)

I wouldn't connect Bush and Obama into a continuum of a slow motion train wreck.  Bush effectively destroyed Iraq from almost every perspective of cultural harmony and government effectiveness.  Obama inherited that mess and didn't turn it around.  To use your metaphor, I'd say instead that he tried to get out of the way of the train, but it didn't help.  As for your fond hope that Trump will suddenly start acting rationally, there's scant evidence to show that he even knows how to do that.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #176 on: April 25, 2016, 11:02:11 AM »
The problem with your scenario, TheDaemon, is that the reason Obama used Executive Action so frequently is because Congress is pretty much dysfunctional.  They have done nothing major in the past 6 years except for blocking any initiatives from the White House.

There is more than a bit of a disconnect here. Part of the problem with negotiating with the Obama Administration is that they're often very disingenuous negotiators. The Democrats in general are leagues ahead of Republicans in General, and the Obama Administration is in a league unto itself in terms of spin control.

Negotiating with someone who comes to table with a my way or the highway position in fact, regardless of rhetoric claiming otherwise, is someone that will be impossible to compromise with. Not because you're unwilling to compromise, but because they won't. It takes two to tango, and Obama knows that when it comes to spin and rhetoric, his side will win almost every time. As such, he has no reason to compromise, particularly since it has worked for so long and the Republicans have essentially given up.

You are absolutely correct here, Daemon, except you have the players mixed-up.  And we have clear evidence of that.

Twice Speaker of the House Boehner made deals with the White House.  Twice these deals were rejected by the House because the deals were not good enough for them.  And twice the House blamed the White House for not compromising.

Think about that for a second.  Two opponents come to a deal.  Probably neither of them like the deal that much, but it is something they both can agree upon, if only by holding their noses, because it was best compromise they could come up with.  Then one side walks away because the deal isn't good enough.

If this was a real estate deal, which side is the one who is unwilling to compromise?  Which side is saying "my way or the highway?"

It was the side who walked away from the deal.

You are correct, Daemon.  You can't negotiate with someone who come to the table with a "my way or the highway" attitude.  And that someone, at least twice and doubtlessly more times, is the Republican House.

The fact that some members blamed the White House only puts icing on the cake, because they didn't even have the guts to admit that they were the ones who were obstructing a compromise.  But, really, what other conclusion can you come to?  If you don't like the deal, you don't like the deal.  But if you then blame the other side for not compromising after they have compromised, then that is pure, unadulterated spin the stinkiest kind.  Or simple self-delusion.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #177 on: April 25, 2016, 11:14:18 AM »
Quote
Uh, just because Washington D.C. is gridlocked doesn't mean states can't act on their own over a multitude of matters. Well, until or unless the Federal Government tells them not to, but lately that's been the domain of Democrats rather than Republicans. Particularly as Republicans have been wanting to devolve a lot of Federal powers back to the states. In fact historically that is how most things were done, so you're not exactly creating a convincing (rational) nightmare scenario under a Trump Presidency. But then, nightmares rarely tend to be rational

I don't know, Daemon.  It sounds pretty nightmarish to me.

A country where you are married in one state, but not another?  A country were you are legally insured in one state, but not another?  A country where one state can pollute another, but can't agree on whether it's pollution or not?  This doesn't sound like a functional country to me.

Perhaps back in the 1700's and 1800's, this could have worked (at least until we had a horrible Civil War to settle a few of these conflicts, including the big one, slavery).  But I really don't see it working well now.  States are too interconnected today.  Heck, countries are too interconnected.  Having laws change every few hundred miles isn't going to work well for very long.  Not in this day and age, when you can pass through a dozen states in a day.

There are plenty of rational nightmares in your scenario. :(

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #178 on: April 25, 2016, 02:59:48 PM »
TheDeamon, I agree with your meta-analysis, though I was painting the probable "nightmare" scenario to correspond to AI's nonsense, and I think its far more likely that a President Trump would actually make deals rather than become autocratic.  I do see executive overreach as the most consequential issue for the protection of our rights and freedoms and I'd expect President Clinton to continue the work of President Obama in creating a Presidential dictatorship.

The reason that Wayward is not correct in his counter is that Congress actually has the power, if it unites, to overcome the executive branch.  It can overturn vetoes and put laws in place against the executive's will, and ultimately it can impeach a President who deliberately violates his duty in office.  The most dangerous thing we have today, is a blindly partisan portion of the Senate that protects executive overreach because it believes that the Ends justify the Means.

None of his nightmares actually occurs if you have a united Congress, they only occur if you have a Congress that can't agree and an executive that can't abuse its authority and act like a King.  And then what, we're left with the "nightmare" in a country that has deep deep divides over what is the correct course of action of not having a SINGLE course shoved down the throats of every person in the country?  How is that a bad thing?

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #179 on: April 25, 2016, 06:21:43 PM »
Quote
I do see executive overreach as the most consequential issue for the protection of our rights and freedoms and I'd expect President Clinton to continue the work of President Obama in creating a Presidential dictatorship.
Well, that explains why you think what I say is nonsense :).

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #180 on: April 25, 2016, 06:45:29 PM »
The reason that Wayward is not correct in his counter is that Congress actually has the power, if it unites, to overcome the executive branch.  It can overturn vetoes and put laws in place against the executive's will, and ultimately it can impeach a President who deliberately violates his duty in office.  The most dangerous thing we have today, is a blindly partisan portion of the Senate that protects executive overreach because it believes that the Ends justify the Means.

None of his nightmares actually occurs if you have a united Congress, they only occur if you have a Congress that can't agree and an executive that can't abuse its authority and act like a King.  And then what, we're left with the "nightmare" in a country that has deep deep divides over what is the correct course of action of not having a SINGLE course shoved down the throats of every person in the country?  How is that a bad thing?

This is why I don't see Trump as a world ending event. I don't see an outcome where at least 2/3rds of Congress doesn't intervene to stop Trump from doing monumentally stupid things.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #181 on: April 25, 2016, 07:01:04 PM »
A country where you are married in one state, but not another?  A country were you are legally insured in one state, but not another?

To be quite callous on this one, that is unquestionably a micro-scale concern in the grand scheme of things. The national economy will be in no form of peril should the above scenario occur, as terrifying as it may be for the people who experience it first hand.

Quote
A country where one state can pollute another, but can't agree on whether it's pollution or not?  This doesn't sound like a functional country to me.

Ever hear of a group known as CARB? It has stricter standards than the Federal EPA requirements, yet most vehicles sold in North America are compliant with CARB requirements. I think you'd find not much dispute in regards to a wide range of pollutants, even between red and blue state Environmental agencies. Besides, federal courts have jurisdiction over disputes between states, so even if Trump managed to abolish the EPA and somehow revoke a laundry list of congressional legislation without the consent of Congress, I think you'd find a majority of states stepping up to fill the void.

Now if you're talking about CO2 being a pollutant, as well as a few other select things, you may have a case there. But you'd have an uphill fight on those as it is today with many people.

Quote
Perhaps back in the 1700's and 1800's, this could have worked (at least until we had a horrible Civil War to settle a few of these conflicts, including the big one, slavery).  But I really don't see it working well now.  States are too interconnected today.  Heck, countries are too interconnected.  Having laws change every few hundred miles isn't going to work well for very long.  Not in this day and age, when you can pass through a dozen states in a day.

Which is why there is a constitutional carve-out explicitly for "interstate commerce" and I highly doubt Trump, or anyone in Congress has any interest in doing anything that could actively harm the national economy.

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #182 on: April 26, 2016, 08:01:12 AM »
Quote
To be quite callous on this one, that is unquestionably a micro-scale concern in the grand scheme of things. The national economy will be in no form of peril should the above scenario occur, as terrifying as it may be for the people who experience it first hand.
Does "micro-scale" mean it is unimportant, even though it may be "terrifying for the people who experience it first hand"?  If it's unimportant, should it not be pushed for or supported so as not to distract ourselves from "macro-scale" threats that may not "terrify" nearly as many people in the US as this issue does?

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #183 on: April 26, 2016, 12:05:42 PM »
Quote
To be quite callous on this one, that is unquestionably a micro-scale concern in the grand scheme of things. The national economy will be in no form of peril should the above scenario occur, as terrifying as it may be for the people who experience it first hand.
Does "micro-scale" mean it is unimportant, even though it may be "terrifying for the people who experience it first hand"?  If it's unimportant, should it not be pushed for or supported so as not to distract ourselves from "macro-scale" threats that may not "terrify" nearly as many people in the US as this issue does?

In this case, kind of. Because "in the grand scheme of things" such an event would be a rallying cry for the already very substantial support base that particular demographic already enjoys. The situation would be unpleasant to go through, but it isn't much different from things they've already experienced(or even still are), and is unlikely to persist for very long after that term of office ends.

...Also, in the case of Trump, he seems to have come out in favor of gay rights recently. So unless you happen to be a gay illegal immigrant that happens to be a Muslim, I think Cruz is likely to be more terrifying than Trump.

...Of course, Trump suddenly becoming pro-gay rights during a Republican Presidential Primary before locking down the nomination also plays well in motivating "the religious right" to show up and vote, against him. Making it yet another possible evidence that he's trying to lose.

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #184 on: April 26, 2016, 03:37:05 PM »
Personally, I think Cruz is actually evil, while Trump is merely flamboyant and narcissistic.  Neither have the kinds of qualities I would hope people are drawn to for their next President.   FWIW, I don't think Trump is "trying to lose", he's just incapable of taking anyone else's rules seriously.  I imagine that if he went to someone's funeral he would find a way to commandeer the scene to make sure he got more attention than the low-energy (aka lifeless) headliner.  Cruz on the other hand thinks that due to Obama we're headed for the apocalypse, so no measures and methods are too extreme.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #185 on: April 26, 2016, 03:53:43 PM »
If he's trying to save us from the apocalypse rather than rush head first towards rapture time, that makes me think better of him.  ;)

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #186 on: April 26, 2016, 04:32:46 PM »
I think rather he's trying to get to front of the line to make sure he gets in.  His father (apocalyptic preacher) has actually claimed that Ted was anointed to be the next President.  It would be fun to put Ted and Donald in a room together and force them to agree which would be President.  I bet they couldn't even agree which one gets to split a cookie in half to share.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #187 on: April 26, 2016, 06:12:00 PM »
I think in that instance Trump would be too busy being outraged that not enough cookies were provided. Also, splitting cookies is a task he pays others to do.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #188 on: April 26, 2016, 06:17:26 PM »
He doesn't need your cookies. Let me tell you something he already has cookies, lots of cookies, very good cookies. /meme

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #189 on: April 26, 2016, 09:45:00 PM »
He doesn't need your cookies. Let me tell you something he already has cookies, lots of cookies, very good cookies. /meme

In that vein, Trump probably wouldn't see a need to split the cookie, as he likely views it as being of questionable origin and thus unfit for his consumption.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #190 on: April 26, 2016, 10:15:49 PM »
I'm now imagining cookie monster spewing crumbs all over the place while Trump calls him disgusting.   ;D

AI Wessex

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #191 on: April 27, 2016, 07:45:37 AM »
But he would be quick enough to apply the 5-second rule and collect the crumbs and sell them as Trump meal.  It looks like over half of the GOP primary voters now would line up for a package.  In future years we'll all wonder how he made so few cookies go so far.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #192 on: August 15, 2019, 06:33:27 PM »
That seems to me that is exactly what Steven Aftergood was saying--no evidence has been put forward at this time that would lead one to the conclusion that Mrs. Clinton had committed a crime, so no conclusions can be drawn.  But the proviso "at this time" indicates that the situation could change with more information.

So while it very well could be that Hillary might be indicted and might possibly be found guilty of a crime, it is also quite possible that nothing will come of it.  And considering how much smoke (aka blatant lies) the Right has blow in the past (Foster's "murder," Birtherism, etc., etc.), I'm not putting any bets on this latest scandal.

Will I be shocked if Clinton is indicted, or even convicted?  No, not really.  Would I be outraged if she isn't indicted or convicted?  Hardly.  Not even surprised at this point.  I trust the Right just about as far as I can throw them--and I have pretty weak arms. :)

Might as well put this here:

Quote
The metadata in Hillary Clinton's emails contained a Gmail address with the name of a Chinese company: "carterheavyindustries@gmail.com" according to documents released by a Senate committee yesterday.

Jeannette McMillian, an attorney for the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG), told Congress that this email with the name of a Chinese company appeared to serve as a "live dropbox" for all of Clinton's emails.

McMillian told Congress that the Carter Heavy Industries email address in the Clinton-email metadata was set up to receive a copy of every email sent and received as they were sent, even if the intended addressee was different.

So her system seems to have had a virus implanted into it that sent each and every email, including the top secret classified ones, to a drop box controlled by a Chinese company. The system had been infected so that every email was sent to this address of a Chinese company, no matter who you actually intended to send it to, or not send it to.

Tens of thousands of emails, including classified information, all sent to China. Chinese intelligence teams must have been ecstatic.


TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #193 on: August 15, 2019, 07:05:52 PM »
I don't know why I'm bothering to respond, but here:

Quote
Frank Rucker, the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) investigator who spotted the anomaly, searched Google for “Carter Heavy Industries” and came up with results for Shandong Carter Heavy Industry Co., Ltd, a Chinese manufacturer of excavators and heavy machinery, according to the documents.

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz was aware of the ICIG’s referral to the FBI but did not address it in his 568-page report on the FBI and DOJ handling of the Clinton-email inquiry.

Horowitz wrote that his office did not find any evidence to contradict the claims of Combetta’s lawyer.

“Accordingly, other than the similarity discussed above between the dummy email address and the name of a Chinese company identified by the former ICIG analyst and former Inspector General McCullough during a Google search, the ICIG and the DOJ OIG are unaware of any information that links Combetta or the dummy email address that he created with the Chinese government or a Chinese-owned company,” Horowitz and Atkinson wrote.

It's a gmail user name. Who knows where he came up with that? Nothing was getting copied to carterheavyindustries.com. Nothing went to an IP in China.

Fake News

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #194 on: August 16, 2019, 07:29:11 AM »
It’s more of a he said she said. Elements within the FBI have clearly colluded woth Clinton as have the DOJ. I guess you can believe whichever one you want.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #195 on: August 16, 2019, 07:55:01 AM »
I found the article you quoted. You left this out:

Quote
Frank Rucker, the ICIG investigator, and Jeanette McMillian, an ICIG attorney, told the FBI about the anomaly on Feb. 18, 2016, at a meeting which included Peter Strzok, who had just taken over as the section chief heading the investigation. Rucker told Congress that Strzok was “aloof and dismissive” and didn’t ask many questions.

So yeah, let’s believe the FBI.

Also something you left out:

Quote
In the letter, Horowitz and Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson write that the Carter Heavy Industries email account was created by Platte River Networks employee Paul Combetta, who managed Clinton’s email server. Combetta allegedly created the Carter Heavy Industries email on Aug. 20, 2012. Combetta then used the email as a “dummy email” in order to transfer messages archived on Clinton’s second private server to the Platte River Networks server in early 2014.

What Combetta did with the email account between 2012 and 2014 and who else had access to it before and after the transfer remains a mystery. Neither the DOJ nor the ICIG inspector generals provide any details on whether the FBI ever examined the matter.

Combetta’s use of this email account is addressed in Horowitz’s report, although it is referred to as a “dummy email” instead of revealing the actual address. Horowitz and Atkinson do not explain how Combetta came to pick the email address. Combetta’s lawyer told Horowitz that the Carter Heavy Industries email was a made-up name and that Combetta had no connection to Shandong Carter Heavy Industry Co., Ltd.

That report tried to hide the actual email address. Guess why.

Computer guys, if you run a server is this how you do a backup? If you admin a email server, do you insert a random email address into every email so it can be sent to offsite accounts? Obviously the answer to both of those questions is a unqualified no.

Combetta has refused to cooperate with the DOJ inspectors, he refused to speak with them in any capacity.

« Last Edit: August 16, 2019, 08:02:18 AM by Crunch »

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #196 on: August 16, 2019, 12:47:08 PM »
NO COLLUSION!

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #197 on: August 16, 2019, 05:14:25 PM »
The right wing media is still doing BUT HER EMAILS for sane and normal reasons, I'm sure.

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019-08-14%20Staff%20memo%20to%20CEG%20RHJ%20-%20ICIG%20Interview%20Summary%20RE%20Clinton%20Server.pdf

Look at page 100.

The email admin created the email address for a specified reason, the investigation corroborated this, didn't find any evidence of intrusion. Just because the right wing media doesn't understand the method this Combetta guy used to move an email archive doesn't imply anything about anything.

There's no evidence of anything being sent to China. That's an inaccurate (and probably bad faith) inference from the hypothetical an analyst came up with, but Combetta's explanation was corroborated by investigation, while there's no shred of evidence to validate the hypothetical.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #198 on: August 16, 2019, 05:36:14 PM »
The right wing media is still doing BUT HER EMAILS for sane and normal reasons, I'm sure.

I'm still on it because of the lies that were told.  When Comey cleared Hillary he failed to mention that the DOJ had already decided that they would not bring charges based on gross negligence (which is in the statute), whether or not it existed.  That gem turned up in Lisa Page's released testimony.

So when he said no reasonable prosecutor would bring the case it was a direct lie, that should be read as "no prosecutor in the head office of Obama's DOJ is willing to apply the law and bring the case."

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #199 on: August 16, 2019, 05:40:09 PM »
Your incredible double standard when it comes to Mueller vs. the multiple investigations into Clinton's emails is noted.