The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Gaoics79 on November 08, 2016, 09:51:08 PM

Title: Holy......
Post by: Gaoics79 on November 08, 2016, 09:51:08 PM
Trump is holding Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Virginia and New Hampshire....

It ain't over obviously, but wow - the blood of many people must be turning cold watching this.

As Wolf Blitzer just noted, this could put the polling industry out of business.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 08, 2016, 10:46:42 PM
It's much closer than I expected.  I'll be stunned if Clinton loses Michigan, which would be the bellwether.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 08, 2016, 11:51:45 PM
News reports back home say they think they might have had a 95% voter turnout in most of Eastern Idaho. So looks like my expectation of low-motivation voters this cycle missed the mark.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Gaoics79 on November 09, 2016, 12:01:41 AM
You can smell it now. Clinton is all but done.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: DJQuag on November 09, 2016, 12:06:43 AM
Brexit part 2, now with nuclear weapons.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: D.W. on November 09, 2016, 12:07:37 AM
Wasn't there suppose to be some voter fraud going on?  Where is my voter fraud?

Worst rigging ever!   :P
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: DJQuag on November 09, 2016, 12:08:03 AM
I mean I think that aspect may have been overlooked. We've had worse presidents, definitely, but Andrew Jackson didn't have his finger on the nuclear button.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: yossarian22c on November 09, 2016, 12:11:05 AM
Well ****.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Fenring on November 09, 2016, 12:14:54 AM
Is it rational to be happy one candidate will lose, even though one is unhappy the other candidate will win?
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Gaoics79 on November 09, 2016, 12:17:39 AM
You just summed up my feeling Fenring. I'm simultaneously elated to see Clinton and her supporters go down in flames and terrified at the prospect of 4 years of Trump as President. I can't even stand to listen to that guy speak.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: JoshCrow on November 09, 2016, 12:18:44 AM
Jesus Christ... this is some serious *censored* right here. I don't think this will be good for anybody - even Republicans.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 09, 2016, 12:26:45 AM
You just summed up my feeling Fenring. I'm simultaneously elated to see Clinton and her supporters go down in flames and terrified at the prospect of 4 years of Trump as President. I can't even stand to listen to that guy speak.

Well, you could hope my postulation from earlier in the year is true, and that in the event he wins, he will try to be successfully impeached (or "forced" to resign) as quickly as possible.

Not sure that Pence would be an improvement though.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Gaoics79 on November 09, 2016, 12:29:29 AM
I'm just relieved that it's not likely going to be a tie. The last thing we need is a repeat of 2000.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: JoshuaD on November 09, 2016, 12:30:34 AM
This election.  :o
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: JoshuaD on November 09, 2016, 12:30:42 AM
I'm just relieved that it's not likely going to be a tie. The last thing we need is a repeat of 2000.

Ditto.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Wayward Son on November 09, 2016, 12:46:47 AM
All I can say is I hope Trump supporters will be happy with their choice.  They got their Supreme Court justice(s); they got an anti-immigrant President; they got Obamacare repealed and taxes cut for the rich and maybe even abortion restricted.

But they are also going to get Donald Trump and all his other decisions.  And that's going to get caught in the craw of every American before he's through. :(
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 09, 2016, 12:47:50 AM
Flipping between the news channels with my mom and nephew and we're all laughing at how the non-Fox stations look like they are reporting on their dog just dying or like it's a funeral dirge and then we switch back to Fox and I wouldn't so much say it's upbeat but they are being normal professionals about it. Hopefully behind the scenes many in the media are getting comfort and support to pull them through these trying times, maybe with group hugs and a lot of hand holding. I do wish them well.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 09, 2016, 12:57:23 AM
I was thinking that a good thing about a Hillary Clinton Presidency is that she will get the blame for the problems just like Trump will get the blame for all the problems on his watch. On the other hand, Democrats don't seem to blame Obama for all the problems we still have, many of which have gotten worse, so I can imagine that Republican Trump supporters won't be keen on blaming Trump either. They'll just say, like with Obama supporters, that the problems were so deep and entrenched that they can't be solved in just four or eight years. Nobody wants to be held responsible or take the blame. That might be harder if Trump wins with a Republican Congress. It's not over though and Hillary could definitely still win. Just saying that so I don't jinx it...
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: D.W. on November 09, 2016, 12:58:55 AM
Mostly because on balance, we think Obama has done a kickass job.  :P 
Too bad more people don't realize that.  They could have voted to at least slow the backslide.  Instead they set up an orange slip and slide down the hill by the looks of it.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDrake on November 09, 2016, 02:39:22 AM
I hope I'm wrong about Trump, and I guess I'm going to find out. I will honor the result.

If Trump does what I fear the most, forcing Muslim Americans to register and maybe taking them to camps like FDR or blackballing them like McCarthy, I will peacefully oppose it.

I hope that his supporters will watch for corruption as diligently as they scrutinized Clinton.

I'm saddened that Johnson has not attained the 5% that might offer us more choices in the future.

I wish that we didn't have "winner take all" states, and that more would follow the example of Maine so that 51/49 splits didn't erase the will of almost half of a state's residents.

I hope that Trump finds experienced technocrats to fill his cabinet and other executive branch positions.

I'm looking forward to a boom in late night comedy humor, as long as they can avoid being bitter and caustic.

I hope bombs aren't falling on Iran prior to this time next year.

And I wish I hadn't stayed up late waiting for Trump to speak, because he's milking this.

I think it is going to be weird to have the most recent foreign born first lady since 1829.

Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDrake on November 09, 2016, 02:40:39 AM
Concession!
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: godsblackestcrow on November 09, 2016, 03:34:45 AM
It was clearly rigged, Deedub.

This was obviously a conspiracy perpetrated by the same all-powerful cabal which has always controlled the destiny of every democratic society: the Stupidati.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: fizz on November 09, 2016, 04:23:25 AM
My comment as an Italian: the silver lining is that at least nobody will be able anymore to mock us for electing Berlusconi. At least he did damages mostly locally...
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 09, 2016, 05:14:10 AM
2016 Trump wins the Presidency

2017 Can he really do that?

2018 I'm glad my district won this year's hunger games.

------------------------------------------

9-11 and 11-9

Very bad numbers for America

------------------------------------------

Cute reddit musings.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 09, 2016, 07:00:54 AM
My hotel room faces west.  I'm going to watch to see if I can see the sun rise out the window.  Good night.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Grant on November 09, 2016, 07:25:39 AM
Heyyyyyyy!  What the heck's going on in here??? I figured you guys would be setting fire to the place.  Welcome to TrumpWorld everybody!  It kinda like Bizzaroworld and definately aint as cool as Westworld cause Trump aint Anthony Hopkins. 
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Grant on November 09, 2016, 08:08:07 AM
You just summed up my feeling Fenring. I'm simultaneously elated to see Clinton and her supporters go down in flames and terrified at the prospect of 4 years of Trump as President. I can't even stand to listen to that guy speak.

I'm trying to be magnanimous and give him the same benefit and respect I gave President Obama, despite my opposition to his policies.  But (gag) Pressasidedent  attajreiakdgjlka elekttktt trtrrrrrrpttppppppppppdt,  (clears throat), he makes it very difficult.  He's so gauche.  It's really kinda embarrassing. 
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Grant on November 09, 2016, 08:15:59 AM
It was clearly rigged, Deedub.

This was obviously a conspiracy perpetrated by the same all-powerful cabal which has always controlled the destiny of every democratic society: the Stupidati.

You know, I think this is why Trump won.  I think all those people go tired of us, people like you and me, telling them they were stupid, and that he couldn't possibly win.  It wasn't policy or race or any of that stuff.  It was simply the less smart kids in class got fed up with the smarter kids in class and together they collectively gave a big "FU".  They hated you and me more then they cared about politics or policy or anything else.  Maybe calling them stupid isn't the best path to take. 
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 09, 2016, 08:36:59 AM
I think a lot of what pushed Trump over the top last night was the "burn it all $%^&ing down" crowd. Electing him was the most surefire way to make the Ivory Tower crowd cry out in despair.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Grant on November 09, 2016, 08:42:52 AM
I think a lot of what pushed Trump over the top last night was the "burn it all $%^&ing down" crowd. Electing him was the most surefire way to make the Ivory Tower crowd cry out in despair.

I agree.  Now the only question is whether "We Tha People" are content to hold the Bastille or want to start guillotining.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: JoshCrow on November 09, 2016, 09:05:35 AM
Canada's immigration website crashed  :D
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 09, 2016, 09:10:32 AM
What they want isn't fully relevant at this point. Trump won. I also don't think his politics fully aligned with theirs. If he's more politically moderate than he campaigned as, this could make for a wild ride in other ways, or not. In reality, this may "ride out" like a "Bill Clinton 2.0" Presidency, only with a Republican spin on it. Which in many respects may be a good thing, depending on the specifics of that "Republican spin."

The US/Mexico "Border Wall" may be one such thing. In some respects, I suspect, hope, and believe, it's never going to be a fully realized physical wall. I think a lot of it is going to be "Virtual" by means of using technology to monitor is very closely.  After all, they'd need to take that step to actually secure the physical construct anyhow. Then it just becomes a matter of enforcing it.

I do think that Trump being in office does significantly increase the odds of meaningful immigration reform happening. The recent reveals with regards to his wife indicate he has a ready, in house(in the same bedroom even) source for referencing just how screwed up our immigration system is in practice. I don't think either party is going to be happy with what he does on that subject, and in that instance, I think that may be a good thing. It's usually a good indicator of a decent compromise being made, and Trump knows business, even if he is a bit partial to Used Car salesman tactics.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Greg Davidson on November 09, 2016, 09:46:03 AM
Trump won because of the actions of all the eligible voters in the US. The majority did not vote for him, and it appears that Clinton may actually have the support of more American voters, but he won in the electoral college and so that's that.

I just hope that every eligible American voter accepts responsibility for what they did in this election.  In the aggregate, the people always get the government that they deserve. 
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: rightleft22 on November 09, 2016, 09:49:01 AM
The world has become a more dangerous place.
Fear won - Terrorism wins - Bin laden wins

Shame on America
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: DJQuag on November 09, 2016, 10:01:33 AM
Hey UK Imma let you finish but the US had the worst political disaster of all time.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 09, 2016, 10:02:27 AM
Trump won because of the actions of all the eligible voters in the US. The majority did not vote for him, and it appears that Clinton may actually have the support of more American voters, but he won in the electoral college and so that's that.

I just hope that every eligible American voter accepts responsibility for what they did in this election.  In the aggregate, the people always get the government that they deserve.

The vote isn't fully counted yet, and the margin was less the a quarter million votes last I checked(~160,000 vote spread according to CNN as of 9:55AM). Don't count the chickens before they're hatched. Trump may be looking like a possible electoral president at present, but that doesn't mean he cannot resume his position as being the winner of the popular vote as well once every vote is tallied.

The "other thing" is neither candidate attained more than 48% of the vote. So there is a 4 to 5% "Swing" in the mix, where you can't say for certain if that group would prefer Hillary over Trump or not. As a member of that particular group, I can tell you I don't care for either option(which is why I voted how I did), but I lean slightly in favor of Trump if I'm only given that binary choice.

In that respect, I think the McMullin vote in Utah(153,722 votes counted(73% of precincts), as of 5:26AM ET) would likewise have gone for Trump over Clinton otherwise, which nearly vaporizes that 160,000 popular vote margin by itself. Going with those Utah numbers, I think the Johnson vote is also a safe bet to go Trump if forced to chose between Clinton or Trump. That would net another 23,749 potential Trump voters in Utah. So I just closed that Popular vote gap by looking at numbers from just one state.

I'll dig a little more and see if I can't find a meta-site that will give raw popular vote numbers for more than just the top 2 on the national level. I'm not going through and tallying it state by state.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: D.W. on November 09, 2016, 10:05:54 AM
As much as I picked on my friends in the Johnson camp, I have to agree.  Anyone who paid attention to his policies wasn't in the Hillary camp anyhow.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Grant on November 09, 2016, 10:06:33 AM

In that respect, I think the McMullin vote in Utah(153,722 votes counted(73% of precincts), as of 5:26AM ET) would likewise have gone for Trump over Clinton otherwise, which nearly vaporizes that 160,000 popular vote margin by itself. Going with those Utah numbers, I think the Johnson vote is also a safe bet to go Trump if forced to chose between Clinton or Trump. That would net another 23,749 potential Trump voters in Utah. So I just closed that Popular vote gap by looking at numbers from just one state.


Mmmmmmm.  Not so sure about that.  I'm a McMullin voter, and if he wasn't available, I would have abstained from the Presidential vote.  I would not have voted for Trump.  I will guess that at least 50 to 75 percent of McMullin voters would have done the same, but that's just a WAG based on the other voters I know. 
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: LetterRip on November 09, 2016, 10:17:21 AM
Here is what I wrote at Quora,

Quote
I’m not at all surprised, I fully expected this result when Clinton got the nomination.

Contrary to the excuses offered (‘blacklash’, ‘misogyny’) there are quite obvious reasons
1. Supreme Court nominations - the evangelicals want Roe V Wade overturned, and many gun owners don’t want any restrictions on the 2A. This made up probably 50% of Trump voters. There was no comparable interest by democrats.

2. Trade agreements - Clinton’s statements about now being against the TPP had zero credibility, noone from either side believed her, and she was fully expected to pass the TPP once in office. While many are skeptical about Trumps actual likelihood of successfully renegotiating trade agreements, and he may do nothing useful on them, he has far more credibility than Clinton does on the matter.

3. Immigration - contrary to the claims of many democrats - it isn’t racism that drives the interest in border control and deportation. Illegal immigrants compete for construction, domestic help, and other jobs dramatically driving down wages in the industries they provide labor for. This labor competition is especially harmful to lower class African Americans and Hispanics (probably a significant percentage of his AA and Hispanic voters). While Trump’s proposals are ridiculous and likely to be totally ineffective - Clinton was almost certainly going to to do amnesty.

4. Clinton and her behaviour during the campaign - there are a large number of people who despise Clinton and most of the population think she lacks integrity, and she has time and again demonstrated a lack of integrity. She lied about her emails, obviously so. Her campaign and the DNC colluded, her campaign and the media colluded. She has a history of deception.

5. Media collusion and manipulation - noone likes being manipulated and the media obviously had been manipulating things to give Clinton the nomination and to give Trump the nomination. When the emails were leaked confirming this it simply reinforced the obvious.

All of this was obvious early on, long before she won the nomination, miraculously Trump was able to shoot himself in the foot enough that he made it a closer contest than it probably would have been.

So while I’m disappointed - for all her flaws I think she is far preferable to Trump - this was a completely unsurprising result to me, one I’ve been expecting and prepared for since before her nomination.

https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-feel-now-that-Donald-Trump-will-be-our-next-president/answer/Tom-Musgrove
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 09, 2016, 10:18:51 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential-election-headquarters

Not quite ideal, but looks like we get the top 5, maybe?

As of 10:07 AM Eastern Time:
Clinton: 59,318,376
Trump: 59,147,808
Stein: 1,198,835
Johnson: 4,020,547
McMullin: 418,311

So the Clinton/Trump margin is 170,568 votes(and evidently, growing)
We'll assuming that of the third party options half of Stein's voters would have gone for Clinton, and the other half remained at home on a Trump or Clinton only choice. We'll then round up to the nearest hundred thousand for simplicity(giving Hillary an additional 822.5 votes) and say 600,000 of Stein's voters would have gone for Hillary(note: I know nothing about Stein, I'm just assuming she was the left-wing third-party option, as I know the other two are right wing)

That brings Hillary up to +770,568 votes against Trump

Now let us look at McMullin and Johnson, we'll be mean here and reflect some of the Never Trump sentiment, and say only 1 in 4 of them will hold their nose and vote Trump in a binary Trump or Hillary choice, the rest will stay home. That still gives Trump an additional 1,109,714 votes. Which we'll round down to 1.1 Million for this comparison.

Last I checked, 1.1 Million is a bigger number than 770,568. So it looks like a VERY probable popular bias in favor of Trump in the popular vote. Even if the raw number says "Hillary gets the popular vote" (with less than half of it)
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: D.W. on November 09, 2016, 10:26:48 AM
LR, I think you take each of those points a little further than I'm comfortable with, but they are all good points / analysis.   :-\
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: scifibum on November 09, 2016, 12:20:17 PM
It was clearly rigged, Deedub.

This was obviously a conspiracy perpetrated by the same all-powerful cabal which has always controlled the destiny of every democratic society: the Stupidati.

You know, I think this is why Trump won.  I think all those people go tired of us, people like you and me, telling them they were stupid, and that he couldn't possibly win.  It wasn't policy or race or any of that stuff.  It was simply the less smart kids in class got fed up with the smarter kids in class and together they collectively gave a big "FU".  They hated you and me more then they cared about politics or policy or anything else.  Maybe calling them stupid isn't the best path to take. 

I think there's a resentment factor in this result for sure.  It's the only way I can make sense of it. 

I thought the Trump campaign was grasping at straws when they speculated about shy/silent supporters, but there they were.  Not talking to pollsters, just waiting to vote.

I'm having a hard time grasping how early voting and exit polls could be so at odds with the result - but I'm trying to resist tinfoil hat territory.  It's difficult.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: godsblackestcrow on November 09, 2016, 06:06:20 PM
Scifi:
Quote
I think there's a resentment factor in this result for sure.
Yes.

Resentment drove the voting choices made by voters this election cycle. But this is nothing new, in and of itself: it is fairly difficult to inspire others with prodigious public policy, but easy enough to inspire others to anger. The adversarial nature of the game makes it more cost effective to establish support by engendering opposition against one's opponent, than by building a platform pretty and sturdy enough to both draw and carry at least a plurality.

Grant:
Quote
I think this is why Trump won.  I think all those people go tired of us, people like you and me, telling them they were stupid, and that he couldn't possibly win.
Well, first and foremost, I'll observe that you don't seem to me as being much like the kind of people who tell others that they're stupid, and I'll point out that I'm not actually like the people who have been saying that he can't win (I won money on this election, which seemed to me to clearly recapitulate the conditions that caused the socially desirable responding bias which confounded polling efforts in Brexit).
Quote
It wasn't policy or race or any of that stuff.  It was simply the less smart kids in class got fed up with the smarter kids in class and together they collectively gave a big "FU".
The second sentence seems to me to be an incredibly apt metaphor for what happened, but I'll note that this that doesn't mean that racism or policy preference has nothing to do with it. After all, less-smart voters have policy preferences too--they're simply less-smart preferences than those of more-smart voters (while I assume that racism is correlated with ignorance, I wouldn't go so far as to assume that racism is as strongly correlated with intelligence--or, in other words: Trump's voters aren't America's best--they're stupid, and they're racist...and some of the racists, I assume, are smart people  ;D).
Quote
They hated you and me more then they cared about politics or policy or anything else.  Maybe calling them stupid isn't the best path to take.
Like I said, you don't strike me as the type to take that tack. And as it happens, I'm not the type to take hate without giving back.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Greg Davidson on November 10, 2016, 09:30:07 AM
The undecideds - those who made up their minds in the 2 weeks before the election - went disproportionately to Trump.  Probably a combination of (1) undecideds ultimately pick change over what they see as more of the same, and (2) a disproportionate focus of media attention on Clinton's weaknesses over Trump's weaknesses due to Comey. Whenever the public directly saw Trump and Clinton (the conventions and the debates), the gap between them went to ~7-8%.  But as the face-to-face disappeared from view, the story of the last two weeks was adverse to Clinton and if that was enough to shift even a quarter of the late deciders, it drove the election.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Fenring on November 10, 2016, 09:55:19 AM
There are a lot of explanations being offered about why Trump won. Maybe it was the 'rednecks' and 'hillbillies', maybe it was the 3rd party votes, maybe it was racism in America showing its ugly head, maybe it was the FBI, maybe it was etc etc. But let's face it, all of these things may have caused a few fluctuations in the final hour, but they are not why Trump won. He won because the DNC threw the game and blew it. Their grand plan of propping up Hillary, and the tactics they used to do it, resulted in nothing more than undermining their own credibility and driving voters to a man hated by probably over half the country. This isn't a bro-Bernie post, but nevertheless I believe firmly he would have beaten Trump. For whatever they're worth, all analyses I read came to the same conclusion months ago.

There is no one to blame here but the Democratic party. For anyone who feels let down by the results of the election, in my opinion it's no mystery who let you down.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: scifibum on November 10, 2016, 11:21:47 AM
We don't know how the opposition to Bernie would have looked.  It never happened.  The opposition to Hillary was already fully baked, and started decades ago.  So I don't think we can safely say that Bernie would have won, even though we can safely say that the opposition would have looked different from what they (continued to) throw at Hillary.

"Socialism" is a bugbear to many voters, and Hillary probably seemed safe to some people who view Bernie as radical.  On the other hand, Bernie would have appealed to some of Trump's voters on the issues of free trade and overturning the establishment.

We might have had more Democrats in the Senate with Bernie, though, and that might actually be the bigger deal in the long term. 
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: scifibum on November 10, 2016, 11:26:35 AM
Quote
There is no one to blame here but the Democratic party. For anyone who feels let down by the results of the election, in my opinion it's no mystery who let you down.

The D turnout was pathetic.  It makes me ashamed.  If you didn't vote just because the candidate wasn't ideal, you suck. 

(Generic you.)
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: rightleft22 on November 10, 2016, 11:37:52 AM
Hillary hasn't owned her narrative since she became first lady of Alabama. The GOP has owned her ass and why DNC thought they could overcome that is a mystery to me.

I think history will show how much our impression of Hillary was manipulated and how easily we bought into it. The american people were hood winked





Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 10, 2016, 11:45:06 AM
One journalist finally gets it:



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-the-unbearable-smugness-of-the-press-presidential-election-2016/

Will Rahn CBS News

"... This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. Had Hillary Clinton won, there’s be a winking “we did it” feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic.

So much for that. The audience for our glib analysis and contempt for much of the electorate, it turned out, was rather limited. This was particularly true when it came to voters, the ones who turned out by the millions to deliver not only a rebuke to the political system but also the people who cover it. Trump knew what he was doing when he invited his crowds to jeer and hiss the reporters covering him. They hate us, and have for some time.

And can you blame them? Journalists love mocking Trump supporters. We insult their appearances. We dismiss them as racists and sexists. We emote on Twitter about how this or that comment or policy makes us feel one way or the other, and yet we reject their feelings as invalid.

It’s a profound failure of empathy in the service of endless posturing. There’s been some sympathy from the press, sure: the dispatches from “heroin country” that read like reports from colonial administrators checking in on the natives. But much of that starts from the assumption that Trump voters are backward, and that it’s our duty to catalogue and ultimately reverse that backwardness. What can we do to get these people to stop worshiping their false god and accept our gospel?

We diagnose them as racists in the way Dark Age clerics confused medical problems with demonic possession. Journalists, at our worst, see ourselves as a priestly caste. We believe we not only have access to the indisputable facts, but also a greater truth, a system of beliefs divined from an advanced understanding of justice.

You’d think that Trump’s victory – the one we all discounted too far in advance – would lead to a certain newfound humility in the political press. But of course that’s not how it works. To us, speaking broadly, our diagnosis was still basically correct. The demons were just stronger than we realized.

This is all a “whitelash,” you see. Trump voters are racist and sexist, so there must be more racists and sexists than we realized. Tuesday night’s outcome was not a logic-driven rejection of a deeply flawed candidate named Clinton; no, it was a primal scream against fairness, equality, and progress. Let the new tantrums commence!..."


It goes on with further very astute insights and self-reflection but I don't feel comfortable copying and pasting the guy's whole article.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: rightleft22 on November 10, 2016, 11:51:25 AM
Its been fun if sad watching the pundits who got everything so wrong explain why they got it wrong...  and why they have it right now. Were listening to the same people who were wrong. wtf

There was one that argued this was election were the people wanted change and there was a small debate which confused what the word change meant. One suggested that America decided to take a step back (make america great again) and though that is a change the word regression might have been better. The other argued that america want to change the establishment politics and she would not believe that his change was influenced by racism and misogyny. (both had valid points but I think it would be a mistake that for the 47% it was all one reason or lack of reason)

What caught my attention was the words "would not believe" and that that was why I think so many pundits got it wrong.
They assumed that the american people would in the end be rational, laugh about the absurd and 'could not believe' otherwise and they created polls that confirmed what they believed.  Trump was a joke and the people would see through him this was 2016 after all...

The pundits assume we live in an age of reason we do not.
We live in the information age where truth and fact are relative. We live in the information age were the information can't be trusted.

A friend of mine said he did not trust the media. I asked him where did he get his information from. He replied social media. Basically he didn't trust the media but trusted the media that he did.  There was a moment when he said the words social media that he realized what he just said  wasn't illogical or well reasoned but it quickly faded.

We pick and chose from the vast amounts of information that comes at us and believe that the conclusions we make are fully our own even though that is seldom the case. We are very easily manipulated and the 'strong man' understands that while the 'will not believers' will continue to be surprised.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Ronald Lambert on November 10, 2016, 11:56:27 AM
Rightleft22, Hillary was first lady of Arkansas. That's why the phenomena of half a dozen people who were about to blow the whistle on Clinton corruption and suddenly turned up dead and were ruled "suicides" (even when some had multiple bullet holes in the back of the head), are called cases of "Akancide"--just Google that term to see all the discussion and documentation of this.

As for why Trump won--an important factor was the low turnout of African-Americans, a demographic the Democrats were counting on. In Detroit, it has been reported that 100,000 fewer African-Americans voted this time than voted in previous presidential elections. That is significant when you realize that the total margin of victory for Trump in the state of Michigan was only 13,225. Maybe more and more African-Americans are coming to realize that Democrats do not really have their best interests at heart. And it is also true that this year Trump got twice the percentage of African-Americans to vote for him as Romney did in 2012. Still single digits, but double the percentage.

I do not wish to defend Trump. I said from the beginning that he is uncouth. Republicans would have been much better off if they had chosen Ted Cruz for their nominee. But at least he has always acted with great familiarity with the intricacies of the law, both domestic and international. Hillary, on the other hand, has always skirted the law, gone from felony to felony, and getting away with it because others cover for her. This is one of the reasons why a former assistant director of the FBI, James Kallstrom, charged that the Clintons are in fact a "crime family" comparable to Al Capone's mafia. Link: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/303458-former-fbi-official-clintons-are-a-crime-family

Whatever unknown quantity Trump might be, we all should be thankful that Hillary's crime family did not gain control of the White House.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 10, 2016, 12:04:01 PM
Quote
Hillary was first lady of Arkansas. That's why the phenomena of half a dozen people who were about to blow the whistle on Clinton corruption and suddenly turned up dead and were ruled "suicides" (even when some had multiple bullet holes in the back of the head), are called cases of "Akancide"--just Google that term to see all the discussion and documentation of this.
Ron, check out this site (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b5aW08ivHU) for an important bit of information.  I did take a look at the site and glanced at an article that listed over 90 so-called suspicious deaths and saw the comment that there is no record of some of the people anywhere on the internet :D.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 10, 2016, 12:09:45 PM
This is all a “whitelash,” you see. Trump voters are racist and sexist, so there must be more racists and sexists than we realized. Tuesday night’s outcome was not a logic-driven rejection of a deeply flawed candidate named Clinton; no, it was a primal scream against fairness, equality, and progress. Let the new tantrums commence!..."

This encapsulates exactly what struck me last night as the biggest irony of all.

Remember folks, the same people who agree with the above quoted material will also be very likely to tell you that "the average Trump voter supported him due to the use of hate, and fear. (and ignorance)"

Now go back and look at the quote again, what does that rhetoric instill in a reader when it comes their view of Donald Trump, or those affiliated with him? Seems to perpetuate a truckload of well, fear, hate, and ignorance of its own.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Ronald Lambert on November 10, 2016, 12:12:33 PM
AI Wessex, just because someone may have put out a bogus list with a few bogus names, does not discredit all the names on the list, many of which do have documentation. You might call this a sort of "false flag" documentation. Or disinformation. It is believed by many that Vince Foster was also a case of "Arkancide," even though it happened in Washington, D.C.

I have been looking into and posting about this for over six months.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 10, 2016, 12:15:58 PM
In Detroit, it has been reported that 100,000 fewer African-Americans voted this time than voted in previous presidential elections. That is significant when you realize that the total margin of victory for Trump in the state of Michigan was only 13,225. Maybe more and more African-Americans are coming to realize that Democrats do not really have their best interests at heart.

It's also possible that the reduced voter turnout in Detroit, might have more to do with the depopulation that has been happening there. Those people possibly still voted, they just happen to live in another city/state now.

It may not account for the full 100,000 but it might account for the 13,000 vote margin.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Wayward Son on November 10, 2016, 12:22:20 PM
There are a lot of explanations being offered about why Trump won. Maybe it was the 'rednecks' and 'hillbillies', maybe it was the 3rd party votes, maybe it was racism in America showing its ugly head, maybe it was the FBI, maybe it was etc etc. But let's face it, all of these things may have caused a few fluctuations in the final hour, but they are not why Trump won. He won because the DNC threw the game and blew it. Their grand plan of propping up Hillary, and the tactics they used to do it, resulted in nothing more than undermining their own credibility and driving voters to a man hated by probably over half the country. This isn't a bro-Bernie post, but nevertheless I believe firmly he would have beaten Trump. For whatever they're worth, all analyses I read came to the same conclusion months ago.

There is no one to blame here but the Democratic party. For anyone who feels let down by the results of the election, in my opinion it's no mystery who let you down.

By the same token, there is no one but the Republican Party (and especially the Republican voters) who are to blame for Trump being elected.

Yes, another Democratic candidate (like Bernie) may have beaten him (although I suspect the Republican smear machine would have labeled him a Communist to prevent that).  But no one would have needed to have beaten him if he wasn't the nominee to begin with.

There were 16 other Republicans running for the nomination.  This was the best the Republican electorate could pick?  :o

Democrats are to blame for not choosing a better candidate to run.  But Republicans are fully, and solely, to blame for choosing Trump as their candidate, and thus, as our President. :(
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Fenring on November 10, 2016, 12:28:50 PM
Sorry, WS, but your argument is simply bizarre. It's not your business who your opposition chooses to run for President. As a Democrat it's your business to choose someone to beat whomever that is. If you can't do that, game over. Blaming them for picking someone who did, in fact, win, is more or less nonsensical. Obviously they were 'right' if the criterion in question is to defeat the Dem candidate. They should have been wrong, but the DNC gave Trump a freebie.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Ronald Lambert on November 10, 2016, 12:34:23 PM
Wayward Son, I would have loved to have Ted Cruz be the nominee of the Republican Party. He would have been ideal. Dr. Ben Carson would have been a good candidate, as well.

As for depopulation accounting for the lower African-American turnout in Detroit, you are talking about 100,000 voting age adults leaving Detroit since 2012. That is not reasonable. It is estimated that 230,000 African-Americans did vote in Detroit this year. Something kept nearly a third from voting. The only reasonable assumption is that they did not WANT to vote. So why did they not want to vote? There are really only two likely reasons--which are not mutually exclusive:

1.) The poor quality of the candidate

2.) The increasing disillusionment among African-Americans with the Democratic Party in general
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 10, 2016, 12:36:51 PM
Digging a little further on the Detroit numbers, and the vote shift in Michigan.

http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/2622000

From April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015 Detroit lost some 36,746 residents. Sadly, that report doesn't give racial information for 2015, so we can't check against that. However:

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2015/09/17/detroit-white-population-rises-census-shows/72371118/

Quote
The new data, paired with the recent estimates of small gains, suggests an increase of more than 14,000 whites since 2010. The latest data put the city’s black population at 79.1 percent and Latino population at 7.2 percent. Both groups saw small declines in 2014, which weren’t considered significant by experts.

Quote
Whites in Detroit made up 10.2 percent of the city’s population last year, a jump of 1.3 percentage points from 2013. The numbers have been increasing since 2010, but experts say this was the first significant increase statistically.

“I think it’s a trend. I fully expect 2015 to be an even bigger jump,” said Kurt Metzger, director emeritus of Data Driven Detroit.

One of the infographics provided in article shows the Black population declining from 587,000 in 2010 to 538,000 in 2014. Although it looks like about half the change happened prior to 2012 if my eyeball is reading it right.

But yeah, the Michigan/Detroit side of things may be due to "Black Flight" from the city, and an increasing number of White people moving into the city. :) As blacks also tend to avoid generally rural areas in preference to urban settings, it's probable that the racial makeup of Michigan is becoming increasingly "less black" over the course of this past decade as they leave the state. Party loyalties among the Black/African American population being what they are, that would tend to translate into fewer Democrats living in state.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 10, 2016, 12:46:55 PM
As for depopulation accounting for the lower African-American turnout in Detroit, you are talking about 100,000 voting age adults leaving Detroit since 2012. That is not reasonable. It is estimated that 230,000 African-Americans did vote in Detroit this year. Something kept nearly a third from voting. The only reasonable assumption is that they did not WANT to vote. So why did they not want to vote? There are really only two likely reasons--which are not mutually exclusive:

1.) The poor quality of the candidate

2.) The increasing disillusionment among African-Americans with the Democratic Party in general

Oh I agree, I think 8 years under Obama has left a LOT of the African-American(/Black) Community rather disillusioned with regards to the Democratic Party. Putting "a Black guy" in the highest office in the land ultimately did nothing to change their situation, in fact, in many respects, their situation is worse now than it was in 2007. Obama did no favors for the DNC on that front, and as other polling data is showing.  The Blacks are starting to cease walking in lockstep with the Democratic Party, as the improved polling for Republicans among Black voters indicates.

If things start to improve for the African-American(/Black community) in significant ways over the next 2 to 4 years, the Democrats are potentially going to have a very big problem on their hands. The Republicans may get the African-American(/Black) voter back after nearly 80 years.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Wayward Son on November 10, 2016, 01:00:54 PM
Sorry, WS, but your argument is simply bizarre. It's not your business who your opposition chooses to run for President. As a Democrat it's your business to choose someone to beat whomever that is. If you can't do that, game over. Blaming them for picking someone who did, in fact, win, is more or less nonsensical. Obviously they were 'right' if the criterion in question is to defeat the Dem candidate. They should have been wrong, but the DNC gave Trump a freebie.

Sorry, Fenring, but it is your reasoning that is truly bizarre.

The question on the ballot was not "Should Hillary Clinton not be President?"  The question was "Who should be President?"

People did not vote against Hillary Clinton. They voted for Donald Trump.

Sure, many people voted for Donald Trump because they disliked Hillary Clinton and wanted someone else.  Nevertheless, it was still Donald Trump they voted for.

And the only reason that he was even on the ballot is because he won the Republican primary. 

He was not the Democrat's choice for an opponent.

You can blame the Democrats for not winning, for not nominating a candidate who could have won--even though the candidate was fully qualified, with years of experience as both a Senator and a Secretary of State, and was one of the most respected women in the world at one time, not so long ago.  But you can't blame them for who did win.

Voters could have voted for any other candidate than Donald Trump.  But, instead, they voted for him.

The Republicans put forth a candidate.  He won.  They were successful.

Now they are going to have to live with the responsibility of that choice.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Fenring on November 10, 2016, 01:05:36 PM
Blame the other side all you like, but the DNC made their own bed.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 10, 2016, 01:07:54 PM
Blame the other side all you like, but the DNC made their own bed.
Sure, but you're claiming that the DNC made the other side's bed, too.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Gaoics79 on November 10, 2016, 01:21:21 PM
Quote
There is no one to blame here but the Democratic party. For anyone who feels let down by the results of the election, in my opinion it's no mystery who let you down.

The D turnout was pathetic.  It makes me ashamed.  If you didn't vote just because the candidate wasn't ideal, you suck. 

(Generic you.)

I want to address this latter point. The idea that one must hold one's nose and vote for a bad candidate to prevent a worse candidate from being elected, is one of the most pernicious and manipulative arguments used by politicians against the populace.

If political parties can count on their subjects to vote for any candidate they field, even if the candidate is poor, all that means is the'll keep fielding poor candidates. It also betrays a sense of entitlement, a sense that they own your vote by virtue of your political or ideological alignment. It also acts as a means of smothering the possibility of new political parties and leaders breaking the two party duopoly. It is by its nature a self-serving and manipulative position.

In my view, so-called strategic voting is an inherently self defeating act that is corrosive to the political process and democratic values. If a candidate is unnaceptable to you, then you should not vote for that person. Clinton was not owed anything by the democratic base. It was for her to make her case to them, to earn their votes and she failed.

The decision NOT to vote is absolutely a valid political act, one that in some cases has the greatest chance of effecting real meaningful change rather than holding one's nose and voting for Tweedle-Dee because his masters tell you he's slighty less offensive than Tweedle-Dum.

One of the nice things about elections is that there's always a new one just around the bend. Maybe next time the Democratic Party will pay more attention to what their electorate actually wants rather than trying to dictate it to them by ramming an unpopular candidate down their throats.

And yeah, the sun will rise on Trump's first day and it's going to keep doing so during his term. Anyone who pretends different is fearmongering. Take your medicine, learn from your mistakes and move on.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Wayward Son on November 10, 2016, 01:49:17 PM
Quote
The idea that one must hold one's nose and vote for a bad candidate to prevent a worse candidate from being elected, is one of the most pernicious and manipulative arguments used by politicians against the populace.

If political parties can count on their subjects to vote for any candidate they field, even if the candidate is poor, all that means is they'll keep fielding poor candidates. It also betrays a sense of entitlement, a sense that they own your vote by virtue of your political or ideological alignment. It also acts as a means of smothering the possibility of new political parties and leaders breaking the two party duopoly. It is by its nature a self-serving and manipulative position.

This assumes that the voters don't have much say in who gets nominated.  But as we've seen, more people voted for Hillary than Bernie during the primaries.  It wasn't "the party's" choice (although those in charge of the party did do what they could to help her).  It was ultimately the primary voters' choice.  The voters' choice.

But the main thing you're missing is that, by not voting for the better candidate, you may end up with the worse candidate.  As in this election.

If you truly believe that both candidates are equally bad, then, sure, go ahead and don't vote.  It doesn't matter which one wins.

But then you can't complain about which one wins, either.

Assuming that this is more than just a philosophical exercise for you, you didn't vote for either candidate.  (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, jasonr.)  Which means that you don't really care that Donald Trump won.  He's just as good as Hillary, and the outcome would be about the same if Hillary won.  Which is fine.  That's your opinion.

But if you have any reservations, like I do, that this might be a disaster for the country, and that Hillary would have been a better choice--well, then you are to blame.

Because now we are going to have to live with that worse choice.  If you had reservations, you did nothing to help avoid that.

Pressuring the party for a better choice is what you do during the primaries.

Avoiding the worse choice is what you do during the general election.

Don't get the two mixed up--or we may keep ending up with Trumps. :(
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: scifibum on November 10, 2016, 02:09:26 PM
Quote
The decision NOT to vote is absolutely a valid political act, one that in some cases has the greatest chance of effecting real meaningful change rather than holding one's nose and voting for Tweedle-Dee because his masters tell you he's slighty less offensive than Tweedle-Dum.

One of the nice things about elections is that there's always a new one just around the bend. Maybe next time the Democratic Party will pay more attention to what their electorate actually wants rather than trying to dictate it to them by ramming an unpopular candidate down their throats.

Next time, the Supreme Court will have 2+ new Trump picks, and over 100 more Trump appointed federal judges, and a slew of new gerrymandering provisions put through by the GOP.  Unless Trump flames out in some huge scandal, this was the worst possible time to strategically not vote.  Because next time we're screwed, now.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 10, 2016, 02:37:32 PM
I guess it's unacceptable to speculate that black people didn't turn out for Hillary Clinton as much as they did for Barack Obama in large part because she's not black and he is. I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that if Hillary were a black woman she'd have gotten the same level of support from black voters as Obama. But I'm not going to suggest that because as I mentioned it is completely unacceptable to suggest that black people might be racist and not only that but according to many definitions of racism it is actually impossible.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: DJQuag on November 10, 2016, 03:13:08 PM
I'll point out that Clinton may have had more votes in the primary, but Sanders performed much stronger in battleground states. Only the wilfully blind could have ever said that Clinton was the stronger general election candidate.

Young people loved Sanders. Antiestablishment voters loved him. His voting record was pristine,  and he had no scandals.

Being labeled a socialist would have hurt him, sure, but it would have almost entirely hurt him with voters who were never going to vote Democrat anyway. Things like free eeucation, improved healthcare, being anti Wall Street, and questioning free trade are things that moderates tend to at least be open to, if not fully behind.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Gaoics79 on November 10, 2016, 03:55:03 PM
Quote
This assumes that the voters don't have much say in who gets nominated.  But as we've seen, more people voted for Hillary than Bernie during the primaries.  It wasn't "the party's" choice (although those in charge of the party did do what they could to help her).  It was ultimately the primary voters' choice.  The voters' choice.

The voter's choice? And who gets to choose what the choice is going to be? Who decides on the menu items for this great buffet of choice presented to the primary voters? Or are you going to tell me that the Clinton family didn't have the slightest inside track in the Democratic Party? I'm to understand that it wasn't Hillary's political connections and pull within the party leadership that paid her way into the heart of the process, but a vast groundswell of rank and file Democrats in love with Ms. Clinton? There are more ways to rig an election than ballot stuffing and just because a voute is free doesn't make it fair or Democratic.

Quote
Next time, the Supreme Court will have 2+ new Trump picks, and over 100 more Trump appointed federal judges, and a slew of new gerrymandering provisions put through by the GOP.  Unless Trump flames out in some huge scandal, this was the worst possible time to strategically not vote.  Because next time we're screwed, now.

I don't mean to completely trivialize your concerns nor suggest that they aren't worthy of concern - but that said boooh hooh hoo. You think that Republicans and conservatives didn't have similar thoughts in 2008 and 2012? You think as a supporter of the Conservative Party in Canada I wasn't apprehensive when Mr. Boy Wonder social justice won a landslide majority government in our last election?

Life goes on. I can pretty well guarantee that the choice of Supreme Court justice won't ruin your life - and by the way, there are plenty more opportunities to change things. The next election is 2 yrs away.

We get the candidates we deserve. I didn't vote in this election because I'm not American. But let it be said that if I could have voted, I wouldn't have. When you vote for garbage, garbage is what you get.

Quote
Pressuring the party for a better choice is what you do during the primaries.

Avoiding the worse choice is what you do during the general election.

Sounds like a recipe for making alot of "less worse" choices. You know what ""pressure" really does the trick? Lost elections.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDrake on November 10, 2016, 04:02:59 PM
I personally won't vote for someone I don't respect. People can go ahead and blame me all day for how I'm responsible for Trump winning, but offered a choice between a turd burrito and a turd sandwich, I'm going to go hungry.

Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 10, 2016, 04:19:36 PM
Since I voted for Trump I guess I basically took the turd sandwich. But I only plan on eating the bread.

I agree with the Democrats who are freaking out and blaming the abstainers for Trump getting elected. If Trump had lost I know I would have been blaming the Bush clan and Romney, George Will and Glenn Beck and all of the other people who helped Hillary win by not making the best of the turd sandwich. And the Democrats are also right that it is about the Supreme Court. There is no way to pretend there wasn't a huge difference between Trump and Hillary because the Supreme Court is, as Joe Biden might put it, a big freaking deal and the difference between Trump and Hillary regarding the Supreme Court will be massive. Basically nothing else they do even comes close to mattering as much as that.

But I can also appreciate the view that if people really do think they are both terrible and there's no real difference that's significant enough to make up for that then it's right not to vote for either one of them.  Perhaps they just don't agree that the Supreme Court is so important that it's worth giving up their soul. I on the other hand do think it's that important. Not that I honestly ever thought Trump was that bad anyway. Having Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in office has really lowered my standards on what is acceptable, regarding personal behavior, in a President.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Wayward Son on November 10, 2016, 04:59:45 PM
Quote
And who gets to choose what the choice is going to be? Who decides on the menu items for this great buffet of choice presented to the primary voters?

As I recall, the Democrats got to chose their candidate from those who decided to run.  The "Party" didn't decide that list; otherwise, Bernie (an independent) probably wouldn't have been on it at all.  The individuals themselves decided whether they should declare to run or not.

If there was someone you felt who should have run but didn't, why didn't you ask them to?

Quote
I'm to understand that it wasn't Hillary's political connections and pull within the party leadership that paid her way into the heart of the process, but a vast groundswell of rank and file Democrats in love with Ms. Clinton?

What you forget, jasonr, is that there are a considerable number of people who actually love Hillary.  She has done some great things in her time.  She has championed some very good causes in her time.  The Clinton Foundation, for all the accusations of it being used by donors to "get in" with the Clintons, has actually done a hellava lot of good.  People do actually love and trust her.

While I don't know if it was a "groundswell," she was a highly qualified candidate and she had a whole lot of support.  It wasn't just the Democratic leadership that got her the candidacy.  She got votes.  More than Bernie did.

So while the leadership may have (gasp!) favored Hillary, she did get the candidacy by getting the most votes.  It may have been tilted in her favor, but it certainly wasn't a foregone conclusion.

Sure, it may not be easy to influence who runs and who wins.  But it's a lot easier than during the general election, when you get votes from all sides, not just the side you prefer.  And while you think not voting sends a message that you want better candidates, it really sends another message, which overrides the one you want to send.

It tells the party that you don't care.

And they can't do anything with voters who don't care.

So make sure that you really don't care before sending that message.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: scifibum on November 10, 2016, 05:08:37 PM
jasonr, I don't think you're getting my point.  The GOP is now in a position to make the next election much harder to win.  This was the year to hold your nose and vote D, if you wanted to have a chance of taking back Congress in the next 4-6 elections. 

It's not about making my life bad.  I'm in great shape, and will likely pay less tax.  That being said, Trump is going to hurt a lot of people if he does what he's claimed he wants to do.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Fenring on November 10, 2016, 05:13:30 PM
While I don't know if it was a "groundswell," she was a highly qualified candidate and she had a whole lot of support.  It wasn't just the Democratic leadership that got her the candidacy.  She got votes.  More than Bernie did.

I'm sorry but I'm going to call you on this. You are trivializing the election process, and are deliberately mangling the issue of how people's minds are made up prior to a vote. After months of paid-for publicity, the party behind her, the media behind her, and all the major money interests behind her, yeah, many people voted the way they were told. New flash: people do that. You want to credit her with that, knock yourself out. All you're doing is worshipping dollars. Bernie had none of that and instead rode on small donations and true grassroots support, and he barely lost. I'm ignoring for the moment the paid-for electoral votes, the party line electoral votes, and the lobbyist electoral votes when I say this, because most informed people know by now that this part of her success had literally zero to do with the will of the people. In the actual popular vote she beat him by such slim margins that it was frankly an embarrassment, and now that ill-earned victory has come home to roost. So again, I say that it's time to lie in the bed made by the DNC.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: DJQuag on November 10, 2016, 05:32:59 PM
Cherry I value you immensely as a voice that isn't in the echo chamber around here. But I have to ask, what in the world did Obama do in his personal life to give you something to grieve against?
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: DJQuag on November 10, 2016, 05:34:40 PM
Sanders would have won this election hands down. Anyone denying that is still swimming in the bubble that had liberals in a circle jerk the day of the election.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: DonaldD on November 10, 2016, 05:45:08 PM
I'm not sure why this is such a big surprise (to those that are so surprised).

Sure, the end result (electoral college-wise) is a huge difference, but the difference in the vote between a Clinton solid win and a Trump solid win is just 1% in the vote, distributed equally across the nation.

So basically, existential stürm und drang on one side or the other, based on a single percentage point swing in actual voters.  I would like to say "good luck to y'all" as it really doesn't affect me, but since Trump is apparently still pretending not to believe in human affected global climate change, then the job of mitigating damage to the planet just got a lot harder for the rest of humanity.

Thanks Obama!
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 10, 2016, 05:48:33 PM
Sanders would have won this election hands down. Anyone denying that is still swimming in the bubble that had liberals in a circle jerk the day of the election.
I hope we don't have too much certainty about things that didn't happen, but that's just another price to pay for things turning out badly.  If only...
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: DJQuag on November 10, 2016, 05:55:55 PM
Al come on.

For a year or more you've dismissed any criticism of Clinton with all the zeal of a Trumper. You and yours *censored*ed up. Own it already. You had liberals and moderates telling you the entire time that, no matter how qualified she was, she was a godawful candidate. And you and yours ignored it. You went along with it because you lived in your bubble and forgot that other people's votes count just as much as yours.

And now we're all going to suffer for it.

A ham sandwich could have beaten Trump. And you chose Hillary *censored*ing Clinton.  Thanks, bro.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 10, 2016, 06:03:14 PM
Obama, had he been caught with the drugs he admits to using, would have surely done some hard time back in that era. Also bragging about how he did inhale because that was the whole point sends a very bad message to children. A felony conviction like the one he would have received for those hard drugs might have made him ineligible to be a lawyer though I'm not sure about that, but if so it would have put him on a far different life path than the one ending up with him being President. As far as I know Trump hasn't used illegal drugs. Bush supposedly did but he didn't brag about it. Romney almost certainly did not and maybe doesn't even drink caffeinated beverages. Obama not getting caught doesn't do much for me as he still did the crime by his own admission.

I understand that's not a big deal to very many people especially now that drugs are being legalized all over the place but having the person in charge of enforcing the nation's laws being essentially an unconvicted felon is a very bad sign, and Obama proved my worries correct because he demonstrated he has no respect for the laws he was charged to enforce, particularly immigration law, and ended up violating it by executive order by going beyond the authority even he admitted he Constitutionally had. And that's not even counting the Larry Sinclair affair which even if you are okay with the gay extramarital affair still is bad because he was using cocaine while he was a politician. There may be no truth at all to that though so perhaps it's not even fair to bring it up even if it was a more credible story than the woman who accused Trump of raping her when she was only 13 that the media ran with, learning nothing from all the fake rape stories people make up all the time which this one also turned out to be though not until after the election for most people and even now I don't see any real mea culpa's from the media. Going back to Obama's drugs, maybe he should look for every person convicted of the same drug crimes he committed that he has the power to pardon and give them the pardons he basically got just by being lucky enough not to get snitched out. I don't necessarily support such an action but by him not pardoning them for the same drug crimes he committed how is that not an admission by Obama himself that those were serious offenses worthy of serving time in prison?

Then there is the kickstarter of Obama's political career, terrorist Bill Ayers who worked hard to assassinate police officers, which NOT coincidentally enough had a massive uptick during Obama's last year thanks to comments Obama made about the police.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Gaoics79 on November 10, 2016, 06:04:55 PM
Quote
jasonr, I don't think you're getting my point.  The GOP is now in a position to make the next election much harder to win.

Au contraire. I know exactly what you are talking about and I know exactly how you feel. When Justin Trudeau won the last election with a majority government (which, by the way, gave him vastly more power than Trump will have even with a Republican Congress and Senate) he promised to reform our electoral system from winner take all to proportionate - a change that many fear will gurantee the Liberal Party's dominance for decades to come! And when Stephen Harper won in 2011 his cancelling of automatic funding of political parties was seen as a fatal blow to the Liberal Party's long term prospects.

I get the dismay of the losing party.

But you have to be careful not to allow fear to manipulate your choice. The long term quality of the candidates you get and respect for the electorate is far more important than the outcome of any one election.

I guarantee you the progressives will get another shot at both the presidency and the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Fenring on November 10, 2016, 06:05:51 PM
cherry, a lot of what you say comes from an interesting perspective, even if I don't agree with all the details and with your conclusions. But I must say your above post is an incredibly weak attack on Obama. I agree that there are things to criticize about his Presidency, but what you've listed doesn't even appear on my radar as being relevant. I really don't know why you even bothered to mention drug use when he was a young man. If that's all you've got then even I would go to bat for Obama in defence of accusations like those.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 10, 2016, 06:06:19 PM
Al come on.

For a year or more you've dismissed any criticism of Clinton with all the zeal of a Trumper. You and yours *censored*ed up. Own it already. You had liberals and moderates telling you the entire time that, no matter how qualified she was, she was a godawful candidate. And you and yours ignored it. You went along with it because you lived in your bubble and forgot that other people's votes count just as much as yours.

And now we're all going to suffer for it.

A ham sandwich could have beaten Trump. And you chose Hillary *censored*ing Clinton.  Thanks, bro.
I have defended her from an onslaught of attacks on her character and record, but have also pointed out that she was a far from perfect candidate.  It was as if any hint of a stain on her disqualified her, and now we have Ron Lambert coming back to remind us that she has had over 90 people killed over her career.  Ron is an outlier in many ways, but it's that kind of vilification coupled with relentless probes and investigations that have not once turned up criminal wrongdoing that really pisses me off.

I don't agree that she was a godawful candidate, but I do agree that she was made to seem that way.  I honestly think she was highly qualified, highly motivated and has a strong sense of purpose that would have been good for the country.  Instead we have Trump, for whom nobody can stand up for his character or record.

I also said several times that I agreed with most of Bernie's positions and if he were the Dem candidate would have voted for him with some enthusiasm.  But I also said that IMO if he was elected he would have gotten virtually nothing done by insisting on his principled stands.  Politics is about practicality, so Clinton was a better fit for the office.

You are right that I didn't see the outcome coming, and I'm still puzzling how it could have happened without anyone with credible standing predicting it.  That's going to take a while to figure out.

In the meantime we have the worst of all possible worlds and will have to live in it.  I don't worry for myself, as I'm semi-retired and not dependent on the government except for SS and Medicare.  Instead, I'll get involved in political action again after many years on the sidelines because of my daughters and granddaughters.  They'll suffer from the election outcome for far more years than I will.  If I owe anyone an apology for helping make this mess, it's them rather than you.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 10, 2016, 06:20:44 PM
I grew up during the Nancy Reagan years of "Just Say No" and I realize I'm old fashioned when it comes to drug use and don't expect many if any people to hold that against politicians the way I do. I've never used illegal drugs myself so I guess I'm too holier than thou to understand the reality of normal people since I'm surely in a very small minority of Americans right now. So I agree it's a weak thing to hold against Obama but my original point was that for me personally the standards of who can be President have taken some very serious beatings by the people who have held the office in recent times. But like I said I realize that's probably just me.

Just as a side note my position on recreational marijuana use is that I'm against it because I believe it will cause a lot more problems than what we're being lead to believe but on the other hand I also believe that Constitutionally it is a States' rights issue and current federal law making marijuana illegal is an abuse of the Commerce Clause. In Obama's case though that only has some relevance because he brags about enthusiastically using every illegal recreational drug he could get his hands on which I would assume includes cocaine and even if you are for everyone's right to use cocaine if they want back then the fact that it was illegal and violent crimes were committed to control the drug trade that means Obama not only had no respect for the law but he helped finance violent criminals which is not nearly the same thing as someone growing some personal marijuana in their back yard for their own use on the weekends.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: DJQuag on November 10, 2016, 06:21:29 PM
Here's a fact for you, Cherry. Cannabis is no and probably less worse then alcohol. There is inherently nothing more wrong with someone coming home after work and smoking a joint to relax. No more then someone drinking a few cans. A pothead ain't doing well. Neither is an alcoholic. It's all the same.
,,
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: DJQuag on November 10, 2016, 06:23:12 PM
Al

There is a difference between *good* candidate and *qualified* candidate.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: DonaldD on November 10, 2016, 06:25:11 PM
Quote
he promised to reform our electoral system from winner take all to proportionate - a change that many fear will gurantee the Liberal Party's dominance for decades to come!
Although completely of no interest to anybody else here, this is not correct: Trudeau only promised to replace the voting methodology, of which there are many, not limited to proportional representation.  Secondly, proportional representation is less likely to lead to a single party gaining dominance, as it will lead to more (will actually almost guarantee) minority governments, giving other parties extra weight within government.

What PR would likely do is guarantee the parliament more closely resembles the will of the voters, at the expense of governmental stability.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: DJQuag on November 10, 2016, 06:26:01 PM
Al

You talk about noone with credibility calling it, but I've been saying for a while that this whole thing reminded me of Brexit. Liberals living in their bubble assuming that it was the whole universe. And here we are.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 10, 2016, 06:44:05 PM
That doesn't help me since I don't drink alcohol either. I could almost pass for a Mormon except I like coffee and tea. "No worse than alcohol" never really cut if for me since I've had three family members die because of drunk drivers and one survived but had her hip fractured which put her in pain and on pain meds basically for the rest of her life. Whenever I hear that Prohibition was a failure I can't help but point out that if we add up all the deaths that would have been caused by the violent crime associated with Prohibition if it was still in effect right now and compared that to all the deaths of innocent people who weren't drinking but died anyway due to drunk drivers there would be tens of thousands more innocent people alive right now with Prohibition. But I'm sure I'm up on a high horse and not in touch with the reality of almost everyone else and that's fine. Like I said it's just my opinion. My point was that when I was younger I had even higher standards than now but with all that's going on, even if my standards are still completely unrealistic, they are much lower than what they were.

I could also mention my asthma growing up as a child which was almost fatal a couple of times and sent me to a hospital once. One night I couldn't breathe so badly that I couldn't sleep and was afraid to anyway so I drank coffee for the first time at age 12 because I understood it could help me stay awake and I found that it actually helped me to breathe as well. It turns out that coffee can help alleviate asthma symptoms.

I will assume when people talk about smoking marijuana nowadays they obviously mean not doing so anywhere near children, or any nonsmokers for that matter, but my experience growing up around house fulls of adults smoking cigarettes like chimneys and always saying with my asthma attacks that "oh it must be allergies this time of year" and "yeah that pollen count is really high" when in fact it was ALWAYS the cigarette smoke and I actually have NO allergies, was that people don't consider the costs to others of their own actions. Hopefully that has changed but it hasn't ever been my experience.

Having said that, some people can certainly handle their alcohol and drugs much better than others. The question becomes, is it worth the damage to the innocent people who aren't using drugs or alcohol but end up being damaged by those who do in order to let those who can use their vices responsibly enjoy them? Maybe it's selfish of me, in fact certainly it is, but since I don't enjoy any of those vices and can only suffer from others being irresponsible about them, then I have to answer no. Unselfishly, I must also answer no for all of the other victims out there like me.  What if there was a way to make certain that innocent people wouldn't suffer for the irresponsible use of vices by others so that people weren't killed by drunk drivers because all cars had breathalyzer ignitions and people weren't harmed by second hand smoke or drug impaired drivers because there was some mechanism to prevent it? Then I'd be fine with it all.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Gaoics79 on November 10, 2016, 07:57:57 PM
Quote
Although completely of no interest to anybody else here, this is not correct: Trudeau only promised to replace the voting methodology, of which there are many, not limited to proportional representation.  Secondly, proportional representation is less likely to lead to a single party gaining dominance, as it will lead to more (will actually almost guarantee) minority governments, giving other parties extra weight within government.

What PR would likely do is guarantee the parliament more closely resembles the will of the voters, at the expense of governmental stability.

Yes yes, you're right of course. Not really the point though. Whatever variation he chose, whether PR or ranked ballots or whatnot, it was predicted that it would NOT benefit political parties other than the LPC, and frankly, you'd forgive me for imagining that the LPC would not select a new voting system purely out of altruistic interest in better representing the will of the people.

The point was that I'm well familiar with the feeling of my side losing an election where much is at stake. And I can think of few things more significant than the method of choosing your leaders.

Yet like we saw after the Conservatives cut public funding for political parties, which was predicted to cripple the LPC, few things in politics are truly game changing.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: DonaldD on November 10, 2016, 08:08:19 PM
Ranked ballots would likely disproportionately benefit the LPC - whereas PR would more than likely solidify the left's grasp on the legislature - both outcomes which would suit the Liberals no doubt.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 10, 2016, 08:14:14 PM
If Hillary had won you can bet the Democrats would have done everything possible to prevent the Republicans from ever gaining power again. Massive legal immigration including refugee populations for quick citizenship along with wide open borders and mass amnesties complete with a path to citizenship for so many new Democrat voting Americans that the Republicans would be done, probably forever, because as the new immigrants establish themselves and assimilate and start turning into Republicans the Democrats can always just flood the country with wave after wave of new voters who will support them for another generation or two. It's unfortunate that Obama in such a deliberate, calculated, and nefarious fashion used the refugee program to target their settlement into battleground states and districts specifically to win elections and power. Now Republicans in self defense must oppose programs which if they hadn't been used for such obvious and underhanded purely partisan purposes could really have done a lot of people around the world a lot of good.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: DonaldD on November 10, 2016, 08:27:19 PM
Gosh then, Cherry, it's a good thing the Democrats haven't had the past 8 years to put those nefarious plans into place - the Republicans would never had stood a chance this election cycle!
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 11, 2016, 12:02:03 AM
Al

You talk about noone with credibility calling it, but I've been saying for a while that this whole thing reminded me of Brexit. Liberals living in their bubble assuming that it was the whole universe. And here we are.
I have to plead guilty to that kind of thinking, because the political system seemed to work that way my whole life up til now.  That doesn't mean that I thought every President was the right choice or did everything the way I wanted it done.  But all of that pales in comparison to what electing Trump means.  This is a disaster of almost unimaginable scope, worse for the US than Brexit will be for the UK.  By that I mean that in the UK all of your government functions today just as it did before the Brexit vote and will continue to do so.  Here Trump will dismantle the institutions of government.  Some people will cheer at first, but the cold hard reality will set in and those who voted for him will become as afraid as the rest of us, but as with Brexit there will be no recourse.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 11, 2016, 12:21:39 AM
Al

There is a difference between *good* candidate and *qualified* candidate.
Semantics, mostly.  Hillary was both qualified and good, as well as willing and able.  The only one of those things that could count against her character is the "willing" part, but since I sincerely believe she has given her entire adult life to public service that is an excusable fault.  Even Mark Twain would have some charitable thoughts about her.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Gaoics79 on November 11, 2016, 05:16:39 AM
Quote
This is a disaster of almost unimaginable scope, worse for the US than Brexit will be for the UK.  By that I mean that in the UK all of your government functions today just as it did before the Brexit vote and will continue to do so.  Here Trump will dismantle the institutions of government.  Some people will cheer at first, but the cold hard reality will set in and those who voted for him will become as afraid as the rest of us, but as with Brexit there will be no recourse.

I'll make a note to check back in with you in a little bit, say in two years. We can then revisit whether Trump has "dismantled the institutions of government". We'll also discuss  whether a "disaster of almost unimaginable scope" has befallen the USA.

I mean for me when I think of "unimaginable disaster" that's a mighty high bar - zombie apocalypse, asteroid impact, alien invasion? Then again, I suppose I have imagined all those things before. So what are we talking about then? Well I wouldn't want to imagine it for you - I'm trying to give your prophecy at least a tiny sliver of chance to come true.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: DJQuag on November 11, 2016, 07:07:25 AM
Al

There is a difference between *good* candidate and *qualified* candidate.
Semantics, mostly.  Hillary was both qualified and good, as well as willing and able.  The only one of those things that could count against her character is the "willing" part, but since I sincerely believe she has given her entire adult life to public service that is an excusable fault.  Even Mark Twain would have some charitable thoughts about her.

It's not just semantics. In this year, in this political climate, if you want to win the Presidency, she was a bad candidate.

Also, and I really can't stress this enough, she lost to Donald Trump.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 11, 2016, 08:21:46 AM
Quote
Also, and I really can't stress this enough, she lost to Donald Trump.
And as I sit in my office this morning the room is bathed in light coming in through the west window.

Jason:
Quote
I mean for me when I think of "unimaginable disaster" that's a mighty high bar - zombie apocalypse, asteroid impact, alien invasion? Then again, I suppose I have imagined all those things before. So what are we talking about then? Well I wouldn't want to imagine it for you - I'm trying to give your prophecy at least a tiny sliver of chance to come true.
I imagine that Giuliani will head the DoJ, so the department won't interfere with state attempts to disenfranchise more non-white voters, stop and frisk won't be challenged and hate crimes will increase without interference.  Other henchmen will take over other departments of the Executive branch and similarly lay off enforcement of environmental laws, BLM oversight, education, energy, health (ACA, CDC and Planned Parenthood), NIH, IRS, etc.  Why do we need those departments, anyway?  They just interfere with people's lives and you have to pay for the yuge tax cuts somehow.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Gaoics79 on November 11, 2016, 09:20:59 AM
Al, I won't dwell on the "unimaginable" part of the proposition, nor mock you too much for beginning your reply with the words "I imagine".

But suffice it to say, it seems from your comment that you and I have a different definition for the word "disaster".
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 11, 2016, 10:48:46 AM
According to the dictionary, the definition of "disaster" I am using is: "an event or fact that has unfortunate consequences."  That seems too mild.  As I recall you are Canadian, so none of what happens will affect you (directly).
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Gaoics79 on November 11, 2016, 03:30:39 PM
We agree that the definition is too mild.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: DonaldD on November 11, 2016, 09:27:45 PM
Quote
As I recall you are Canadian, so none of what happens will affect you (directly).
I guess it depends on what you mean by "directly".  For instance, the USA bailing on its commitments to address climate change very well could lead to the complete collapse of the current international agreements pushing us all back, globally, a good 20 years in our ability to address the projected effects of even mitigated climate change and possibly making it impossible to avoid its worst effects.

At the very least, it will directly make it far more difficult, if not impossible, to implement any level of effective carbon pricing inside Canada if all it means is that the Canadian economy will be falling on its sword while the US economy capitalizes at the expense of Canadians and the rest of the world.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: NobleHunter on November 12, 2016, 01:23:11 PM
If Trump refuses to honor NATO defense agreements, some of our troops might be hung out to dry in the Baltics.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 12, 2016, 03:06:26 PM
If Trump refuses to honor NATO defense agreements, some of our troops might be hung out to dry in the Baltics.

I think NATO is going to be a case of brinksmanship and seeing who calls whose bluff first.

I doubt he'll pull out, or refuse to honor the commitment. But he can try "to get a better deal" for the United States, although I have no idea what form such a deal would take. But with that level of vagueness, the German's agreeing to provide the troops based there with free movie vouchers every 3 months might be declared a win, and he'll move on.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: rightleft22 on November 12, 2016, 09:01:03 PM
spin the win!  something Trump is very good at
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: D.W. on November 14, 2016, 04:38:15 PM
Quote
Sorry, Fenring, but it is your reasoning that is truly bizarre.

The question on the ballot was not "Should Hillary Clinton not be President?"  The question was "Who should be President?"

People did not vote against Hillary Clinton. They voted for Donald Trump.
I personally know people who voted against Hillary Clinton and don't particularly care for Trump.  Then again I know people who seem to be his fans as well.

On the flip side, I did NOT vote for Hillary and voted expressly to reject Trump.  I'm glad the 3rd party candidates did nothing for me or I may have been complicit in getting Trump in office by "throwing away my vote" towards one of them.

Quote
If political parties can count on their subjects to vote for any candidate they field, even if the candidate is poor, all that means is the'll keep fielding poor candidates. It also betrays a sense of entitlement, a sense that they own your vote by virtue of your political or ideological alignment.
This touches on a gut feeling impression I've had of Hillary from the start.  That somehow she felt she was entitled to the position if only the voters would get out of her way and let her have her due.  Now, that may not be true but it's been my impression since she ran the first time. 

The same with Jeb.  Dynastic presidency just bothers me at a gut level regardless of one's qualification.  One of the first things I saw after the results was people suggesting we see Michael Obama run for the office.  Made me cringe and shake my head wondering if my party (or parts of it) had lost their damn minds.

Quote
I grew up during the Nancy Reagan years of "Just Say No" and I realize I'm old fashioned when it comes to drug use and don't expect many if any people to hold that against politicians the way I do
You DO realize your problem is that Obama admitted to it.  If you disqualified all the politicians who did drugs I doubt you'd have enough left to do a roll call let alone govern.  It's a nice principle that it should disqualify someone from holding office but it has no place in reality.  I'm right there with you on being raised by inconsiderate smokers trying to kill me through my asthma/allergies.  They mostly also drink like fish...  Probably for the same reasons as you I frown on drug use and drinking to excess in general, but I don't rank marijuana any more harshly than the other already legal vices people have.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 15, 2016, 06:02:37 AM
Some of the liberals are really learning something from all this.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/mark-judge/chris-matthews-rachel-maddow-ive-never-heard-country-didnt-have-border

He added, "It was a legitimate campaign on those issues. I never heard Hillary railing against these stupid wars, I never heard Hillary railing genuinely against these trade deals...I never heard her really come out with a comprehensive immigration program which included enforcement on illegal hiring...sure, she went out and got Latino votes, but did she ever come out for a sound, workable, progressive, enforceable, immigration policy? No."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And then there's this guy who gives a profanity laced tirade that really hits the mark but it's not quite as offensive since it's with a British accent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs

He makes the point that you don't win arguments by simply hurling insults, and it's well taken.

But the one thing many Democrats are still missing, the thing that matters most, is simply results. The results of Obama's policies have been disastrous, bad for America, bad for a good part of the world, and too many people are feeling the pain of his and the Democrats' bad policy decisions. So they gave Trump a chance and what's going to matter again, more than anything, are results. That's the one thing you can't just talk your way out of or fake.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: D.W. on November 15, 2016, 09:12:21 AM
Yep, still missing that.
From my perspective he's made SLOW progress back from a disaster he inherited.  Am I disappointed it hasn't been faster?  Yep. 

Do I think several things need changed compared to his slow and steady wins the race that I believe Hillary would have continued with?  Yep.  I (we?) still feel that instead of stomping on the accelerator pedal, Trump is going to put the country in reverse and back over a lot of people in the process.  This will get worse for everyone but those at the very top.  Certainly not the vast majority of those who voted for him.

And, the media will continue to convince us that we don't have all we should and we should stay angry, catering to all political persuasions it can pushing that theme in different ways.  Until the economy is in a large boom that benefits all, we will see the most outside of the outsiders having an edge.  That much Trump clued in on.  As he is now on the inside... it's up to the Democrats not to go with an "establishment candidate" and the pendulum will swing back and forth to extremes. 
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: JoshCrow on November 15, 2016, 09:14:47 AM
But the one thing many Democrats are still missing, the thing that matters most, is simply results. The results of Obama's policies have been disastrous, bad for America, bad for a good part of the world, and too many people are feeling the pain of his and the Democrats' bad policy decisions.

Oddly, I'm not familiar with the metrics that indicate it was "disastrous". Most of the metrics I know suggest it was, at worst, somewhat status quo... and at best, a modest step forward.

If the Democrats are learning lessons, what about people who need to overstate the "awfulness" of the other team?
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Fenring on November 15, 2016, 09:20:31 AM
Oddly, I'm not familiar with the metrics that indicate it was "disastrous". Most of the metrics I know suggest it was, at worst, somewhat status quo... and at best, a modest step forward.

I do view parts of it as disastrous, but I'm not necessarily willing to lay the blame on Obama for it. The continuation of W's internal security policies, the surveillance, the drone strikes, the proxy wars - all of this continued or was even augmented under Obama's administration. For all intents and purposes in these areas he was running a Republican administration. In other areas, as JoshCrow mentions, there may have been modest advances. Likewise, I view as utterly disingenuous most reports put out about job growth and employment, which I believe use every trick in the book to make things look better than they are. And yet, again, I'm not sure Obama is to blame for this, as he inherited not only a financial disaster but also a crumbling economic system on a broader scale. One man can't be expected to grapple with that and come out ahead. That doesn't mean one man can't, but it takes a certain kind of leader to make bold changes, and we haven't seen a leader like that for a while.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 15, 2016, 10:27:47 AM
This guy spells out a bunch of them. Some I don't agree with but most of them are legit disasters and there are others that aren't even on the list such as the Flint water supply.

http://www.martinoauthor.com/list-obama-failures/


IRS targets Obama’s enemies, Benghazi, Spying on the AP, ATF “Fast and Furious” scheme, VA, New Black Panthers Voter Intimidation, The hacking of Sharyl Attkisson’s computer, Obama’s LIES about the Affordable Care Act, “I’ll Pass My Own Laws” - phone and pen, NSA Spying on American People, Disaster with the Arab Spring, Crimea, Leaving Iraq too soon and letting ISIS take over, Syrian Red Line, ISIS “JV”, Iran Nuclear Deal (this is a BIG one!), Traded 5 Taliban Prisoners For Deserter Bergdahl, Waging war by attacking Libya without Congressional approval, Paying ransom to Iranian for hostages and lying about it, spreading the border wide open, trillions more in debt with no infrastructure improvements to show for it, Racial Division at all-time high,  Disrespect for Cops, Constant disregard for the Constitution with more unanimous Supreme Court decisions against him than any President in history (to my knowledge), Price of healthcare has drastically risen for those purchasing it, Highest percentage of Americans on Food Stamps and Medicaid, Record 92,898,000 Americans over 16 years not working, Lowest Labor Force participation rate of 62.7%, Refusing to Listen to CIA/FBI that there is no way to properly vet certain immigrants from Muslim nations, Colorado EPA Disaster, Worst economic recovery since the depression with anemic GDP numbers, and let's not forget his lies about giving them American people five days to see his proposals and offer feedback before they are put into action and showing the debate about healthcare on TV instead of having it behind closed doors and making us wait until after the bill is passed to find out what's in it.

It just goes on and on and on with this guy.

I'm also adding the Fukushima nuclear disaster. There was a window of a few days when Obama should have mobilized every military resource, in fact every resource, at his disposal to help Japan keep water on those reactors. That was key. It wouldn't have been easy but he didn't even try. And yes Japan didn't ask but that was a time when he should have insisted. That was a time when the world needed leadership and he showed none. Instead he didn't do anything to stop the irradiation of basically the entire Pacific Ocean not to mention all of our forces stationed in Japan. I mean that is literally a disaster.

If you say there was nothing he could do, I mean we could go into all the logistics of it and talk about the resources of our military and what it would take to keep water on those reactors and I find it impossible to believe that we couldn't have done it. We go in by sea, establish a beach head, and get pumps and hoses going from the ocean up to the reactor. One destroyer has enough juice to power a small town. Get the whole fleet up there. Do helicopter drops of water on the reactors if need be. Get forest fire fighting equipment from the U.S. over there to help. Put our military including the Army Corps of Engineers to work clearing the roads. Treat it like it is life and death and preventing a nuclear meltdown is on the line, which it was. Instead, Obama had his Rudy Giuliani moment of opportunity to demonstrate real leadership and he just didn't step up. If there was nothing he could do then he wasn't the right man for the job. We needed someone who could do something. But we didn't have that person. All we had was Obama.

A far as I know, we still don't have a world plan in place to deal with such a nuclear disaster if it happens again. That's just ridiculous. Obviously, relying on the country that was just struck by a tsunami is absurd, as it would be if they got hit by a terrorist attack or even in the case of Russia just have an accident. Work should be done to establish such a quick reaction force and have all nuclear powers join together to contribute personnel, material, expertise, and get a plan in place because it's only a matter of time before it happens again.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: NobleHunter on November 15, 2016, 10:51:29 AM
I do view parts of it as disastrous, but I'm not necessarily willing to lay the blame on Obama for it. The continuation of W's internal security policies, the surveillance, the drone strikes, the proxy wars - all of this continued or was even augmented under Obama's administration. For all intents and purposes in these areas he was running a Republican administration. In other areas, as JoshCrow mentions, there may have been modest advances. Likewise, I view as utterly disingenuous most reports put out about job growth and employment, which I believe use every trick in the book to make things look better than they are. And yet, again, I'm not sure Obama is to blame for this, as he inherited not only a financial disaster but also a crumbling economic system on a broader scale. One man can't be expected to grapple with that and come out ahead. That doesn't mean one man can't, but it takes a certain kind of leader to make bold changes, and we haven't seen a leader like that for a while.
It also takes a certain kind of support to make bold changes. Given that the GOP has no stomach for bold changes and a willingness to prevent them, I don't think Obama could have made bold changes.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Fenring on November 15, 2016, 11:01:51 AM
It also takes a certain kind of support to make bold changes. Given that the GOP has no stomach for bold changes and a willingness to prevent them, I don't think Obama could have made bold changes.

Yes. But I believe that a certain kind of leader can generate that support, rather than merely requiring it. Obama turned out not to be that guy, although the reasons for that are unclear. I wouldn't expect of any given politician that they could be that guy either, but I think such an animal can certainly exist, even if it's rare.

The optimist in me thinks that at some point an enlightened decision might be made by the right leader to trust the populace and embark on a big reform. The pessimist in me thinks the reform will only happen at a crisis moment when no other action is possible any more.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: NobleHunter on November 15, 2016, 11:22:26 AM
I think there needs to be a willingness to offer support. I think that willingness was lacking in the GOP. They seemed more interested in prevent Obama from making significant accomplishments than making effective change.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: JoshCrow on November 15, 2016, 05:50:04 PM
This guy spells out a bunch of them. Some I don't agree with but most of them are legit disasters and there are others that aren't even on the list such as the Flint water supply.

Cherry, while there were a few scattered items where I might agree with you (Syria "red line", which was a PR disaster), most of the things on that list can be classified as "bad world events" that happened from 2009-2016, for which the degree of attribution to Obama's leadership ranges from "maybe, in a certain light" to "are you kidding me?". Some don't even make sense at all (disrespect to cops?) and others are actually the fault of people at state/municipal levels of government (Flint).

And then there's your wild divergence into Fukushima, where I literally have no idea what to make of it... you are suggesting the US should ram support into foreign countries without an ask? I thought you were someone who believed in reigning in spending... now you want the US to put out fires around the world? Excuse me, but you can't have it both ways man.

I would posit that you have created, in essence, an impossible standard that you will hold up for a D president, but (I suspect) not for an R president. Time will tell. I look forward to your critique of Trump's failures in this regard when a bad thing happens in the world.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 15, 2016, 06:46:24 PM
Has Obama even OFFERED them all the help they could possibly use? Fukushima is STILL spilling out radioactive contamination all these years later. That is a massive disaster. It's not Obama's fault it happened of course, but just like with Bush and Katrina, the failure of an effective response is telling. And we can't just say it's Japan's problem because really, it isn't just their problem. If Obama had put literally a trillion dollars worth of resources into solving the Fukushima pollution problem would it have been a lot less of a problem than what we have now? Because he's spent trillions of dollars and we pretty much have nothing to show for it. I bet we could have contained it years ago for less than fifty billion. Maybe instead of invading Libya with special forces we'd all be better off if he had invaded Japan with nuclear accident response teams and construction assistance to help them clean up that mess.

If terrorists had set off a dirty nuke in Japan or successfully attacked one of their nuclear plants, is this all we would do to protect them and ourselves from the radiation? We should have treated this much more seriously than we did. Does anyone really think that Obama did everything he possibly could have to help them? All of the billions we've wasted on Obamacare could have been spent much more constructively and would have done much more good for the health of Americans if they would have been spent cleaning up that nuclear site and minimizing the pollution from it. If Japan could have done it, then they just didn't. So what, we should shrug our shoulders and say, oh well? It needed to get done. It still needs to get done. People are freaking out about global warming and carbon emissions when the entire Pacific Ocean is getting irradiated and our food supply poisoned. That's just a ridiculous assignation of priorities.

Even the left admits Obama's failure here, perhaps not so much giving him the responsibility to help mitigate the disaster at the site in Japan, but certainly for downplaying the danger to Americans which is another failure on Obama's part and one over which he had complete control.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/09/24/how-obama-made-fukushima-worse/
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 15, 2016, 10:05:56 PM
Cherry, you are beating a tiny drum,  but don't give up hope that every bad thing Trump does can be blamed on Obama. You could get lucky.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: noel c. on November 16, 2016, 05:44:53 AM
Hello... it's been awhile.

I cannot spend much time here, but had to stop by to see how everyone was weathering the storm. Ornery should provide an excellent barometer of the Trump trauma, and I must admit... you all seem to be doing fine. In reading through most of the posts, I noticed something almost entirely missing from this thread that Cherry has lightly touched upon; the reaction of liberal "journalists" to a reality show that is now the United States Presidency.

During the primary season I was struck by the unified effort of news outlets to saddle the Republican Party with a nominee who voted for John Kerry in 2004, called Bush II a conspirator in 911, and accused "W" of orchestrating a WMD deception to facilitate the vendetta execution of Saddam. There is more, but you see the pattern?

The Democratic Party salivated at the prospect of a Trump candidacy, and candidly, he is probably the only one of the original seventeen Republican contenders that should have lost to Ms. Rodham. A worse nominee than Donald can hardly be imagined with a single exception; "Hillary". Ongoing congressional investigations into the Clinton email security breach, foundation scam, and Benghazi fiasco will in my opinion ultimately lead to criminal charges, and conviction of more than just the Clintons. It is all part of the national disgust surrounding self-styled D.C. elites who have made an art of feeding at the public trough.

I have two questions directed to any Democratic Party loyalists willing to answer:

- Is it a mistake for contemporary professional journalists to play the game of kingmaker?

- I understand how conservatives ended up with Donald, but how/why did liberals end up with Hillary?


 
Cherry, you are beating a tiny drum,  but don't give up hope that every bad thing Trump does can be blamed on Obama. You could get lucky.

Al, if Donald follows Barry's template he has at least four years before he must take responsibility for anything that goes bad during his tenure. Wasn't it WJC who said Obama needed to start acting like he was responsible for the result of his policies, including the "craziest thing he had ever seen... Obamacare."

http://freebeacon.com/politics/bill-clinton-takes-shot-obama-economy/

Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: D.W. on November 16, 2016, 09:58:15 AM
- Is it a mistake for contemporary professional journalists to play the game of kingmaker?

Absolutely.  I firmly believe their neglect in covering Sanders early on despite the support he was gathering cost him the nomination.  People go on and on about how he lost the vote.  My opinion is people didn't realize he had enough support to be a credible alternative.  The narrative that Hillary WAS the nominee was just taken for granted.  All Sanders was seen as was a gauge on the party for how far left the platform had to go... under Hillary.

That, in turn, (again IMO) cost the Democratic party the election.


- I understand how conservatives ended up with Donald, but how/why did liberals end up with Hillary?

She has been laying the groundwork for this building up the campaign machine and making the connections needed for years.  The feeling one gets is that the establishment felt they owed her the nomination.  It was "her turn".  I also feel that she believed this as well.  The whole thing to me, reeked of entitlement and quid pro quo.  That said, her politics don't bother me much.  We could do a lot worse... But that's how we got here.

Well that and the party wanted to be seen as not only the party to elect the first black president but the first woman as well.  They wanted to PROVE that our party is the champion to take down racism and sexism.  We got a bit wrapped up into that even if she herself seemed to be conscious of this pit trap and tried to cautiously avoid bashing people over the head with it.

An old white man, who votes his principles rather than voting with the party, which he wasn't even a part of (even if ideologically he followed their talking points)...  well he never had a chance.  Accept he almost did... despite every possible maneuver the party and their media associates could do to maintain control.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 16, 2016, 10:34:02 AM
Quote
Al, if Donald follows Barry's template he has at least four years before he must take responsibility for anything that goes bad during his tenure. Wasn't it WJC who said Obama needed to start acting like he was responsible for the result of his policies, including the "craziest thing he had ever seen... Obamacare."

http://freebeacon.com/politics/bill-clinton-takes-shot-obama-economy/
Welcome back, Noel.  As ever, nothing would give me more pleasure than responding to your typically deprecatory comments drawn from your vast store of misleading information, so I will say nothing.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Wayward Son on November 16, 2016, 04:38:53 PM
I still question how professional journalists played "kingmaker" in this election by reporting on Trump.

From the start, everything I saw reported about Trump made him a less desirable candidate, even worse than the other candidates (in spite of the vigorous contest to the bottom :) ).

So while "all publicity is good publicity" still holds true somewhat, I can't imagine any scenario where professional journalists decided that the best way to get Trump to win was to publish and talk about every gaff, stupidity, lie and hypocrisy he said.  ???

If you try to make a candidate look bad, how is that supposed to make him win?

 
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Fenring on November 16, 2016, 04:43:51 PM
I still question how professional journalists played "kingmaker" in this election by reporting on Trump.

From the start, everything I saw reported about Trump made him a less desirable candidate, even worse than the other candidates (in spite of the vigorous contest to the bottom :) ).

I think you misunderstood the comment. The kingmaking was done by way of sidelining Bernie and giving the nomination to Hillary, which in turn handed Trump the victory.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: yossarian22c on November 16, 2016, 08:49:50 PM
You're right, the media was so in the bag for Clinton that her email server was a top story in the news for over a year, despite being very similar to what every SoS had ever done (maintain a private email in addition to their .gov email).  The "media" was so in the bag for Clinton they just couldn't help but cover non-stop the technical minutia of classification law and which side of the rules/law line Clinton's server fell on.

The only real flaw in the media coverage is that they were too slow (as I think DW pointed out) to recognize that Bernie actually had a chance of beating her.  I don't really attribute that to anything nefarious on their part, just confirmation bias and laziness in digging into the details of the campaign.  Clinton also did a masterful job of putting off and scheduling debates at times when they were likely to have the least impact.  She didn't want to give Bernie the free air time, and he wasn't crazy enough for the media to broadcast every single rally live.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Fenring on November 16, 2016, 10:20:44 PM
yossarian, you only need to look at leaked emails outlining how news networks were running copy by the DNC for content to realize it's not some weird conspiracy theory. Of course they ran the story about the emails, they are also running a business and if they don't run huge stories they'll be overrun by their competitors. That fact is completely incidental to whether they colluded with the DNC or not.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Gaoics79 on November 17, 2016, 05:26:10 AM
Quote
If you try to make a candidate look bad, how is that supposed to make him win?

Well they were the ones who gave Trump his megaphone. Yes, they thought they were making him look bad because they were showcasing his "gaffes". What they didn't realize until it was too late was that a substantial portion of the American electorate a) Didn't care about the gaffes; b) Was hearing something else in what Trump was saying that media types were deaf to (basically a dog whistle); and 3) Their increasingly negative and hostile coverage was in of itself fuel for Trump's supporters.

I think alot of people are going to conclude (and have concluded) rightly that the media did play kingmaker in this election, directly, by energizing Trump's campaign with billions of dollars of free advertising.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 17, 2016, 06:24:06 AM
Quote
If you try to make a candidate look bad, how is that supposed to make him win?

Well they were the ones who gave Trump his megaphone. Yes, they thought they were making him look bad because they were showcasing his "gaffes". What they didn't realize until it was too late was that a substantial portion of the American electorate a) Didn't care about the gaffes; b) Was hearing something else in what Trump was saying that media types were deaf to (basically a dog whistle); and 3) Their increasingly negative and hostile coverage was in of itself fuel for Trump's supporters.

I think alot of people are going to conclude (and have concluded) rightly that the media did play kingmaker in this election, directly, by energizing Trump's campaign with billions of dollars of free advertising.

Pretty much exactly, during the Primaries, I know a lot of the popular draw for Trump was that the Media was perceived as hating him. For most of those people, that probably carried Trump through the general election. I don't know so much that the gaffes were "dog whistles" so much as they were demonstrations of his being human, that he had flaws and was unafraid to show them. Much like America itself, yeah, we're not perfect, never have been, but we as a nation, have accomplished amazing things that we have every right to be proud of. We also have more than a few things to be ashamed of, but it is part of our heritage all the same.

In many respects, I think Glenn Beck was more eerily prescient than he wants to think about, as I think he hasn't (yet) recalled his comments about "the next American President" after Obama's win(during his run on Fox News as I recall).

He compared two skyscrapers in NYC, IIRC. One if them was a sleek ultra-modern  building with a nearly flawless mirrored glass facade(which he compared to Obama). The other skyscraper was more of a checkerboard patchwork of many different styles and types of windows. It had it's own kind of unique appeal, but it wasn't your typical expectation for a building. That was the one he pointed to and said "the next President will be a lot like that building."
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: noel c. on November 17, 2016, 06:30:21 AM
Jason is right.

Hillary's "deplorables" put a big finger in the eyes of the media who shared essentially the same public trust rating that she did.

News outlets knew exactly what they were doing, because polls are the bread and butter of political maneuver in a modern campaign... the media just outsmarted itself by half.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 17, 2016, 09:38:50 AM
I'm amused by the emerging narrative from people on the far right that the media was on Hillary's side (lie #1) and that "real Americans" were too smart to be fooled into believing that Trump was dishonest (lie #2).  Therefore, they voted for the only honest candidate (lie #3) and will take American back from those fascist-communist-socialist deceivers (false hope #1) and return it to the people (false hope #2) who will make America great again (false hope #3) under a President who will bring good wages, jobs and prosperity back to the blue collar workers (false hope #4) who actually never had any such thing (true statement #1). 

More likely the federal government will become more like the seemingly effortless reality TV spectacle that they ultimately believed in than the complicated and messy process that it actually is.  Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, EPA, Energy, Education will all become things seen receding in the rear view mirror of their lives.  Believe in whatever phony facts you want, but those are things you will feel directly.  Then say, "I'm glad I voted for him."
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: D.W. on November 17, 2016, 10:22:23 AM
I'd have to dispute lie #1.  First in the primaries, she was the favorite.  As much as they acknowledged Sanders was even competing.  In the general they were only "out to get her" in so far as to keep things interesting.  A blow out is hard to keep people interested in.  So... email, email, email.  It's not like they relented for a second about what Trump was saying or what "his party" was saying about him.  Or who tried to distance themselves from him every time he opened his mouth. 

Did "the media" hurt Hillary?  In as much as she allowed them to by avoiding them... ya.  But only because they feared being boring news because everyone knew who the next president would be. 

Was that enough to tip things against her?  Seems likely now.  I don't think that was the expectation by any of them at the point.  It's more of an, "Oh *(^%$!  Did we do that?", than an evil/partisan plot against her.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 17, 2016, 10:41:53 AM

> D.W.

>  It's more of an, "Oh *(^%$!  Did we do that?"

The media on getting Trump elected:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya2xifdO_l0
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: rightleft22 on November 17, 2016, 11:12:19 AM
Quote
Well they (media) were the ones who gave Trump his megaphone. Yes, they thought they were making him look bad because they were showcasing his "gaffes"

Of course the media reported Trumps “gaffes” it’s good TV, it was and is good business. The media give the people what they want even if, maybe especially if it upsets them... We couldn’t and can’t take our eyes off the car crashing into the wall which is why we will hit that wall.   

Quote
News outlets knew exactly what they were doing

Only I think in as much with respect to ratings, other than that I very much doubt they understood what was happening.

It is true that most media (social and ‘business’) assumed people would reason past the absurd and rise above the rhetoric of fear, hyperbole and shaming. 
This assumption seems reasonable to me. We want to believe we as a people have evolved to be reasonable, good, strong and not so easily fooled by the smoke and mirrors.
And it’s understandable that the “media” failed to realize the movement wasn’t/isn’t about reason… and or wasn’t able to get ‘the people’ to understand.

Enough with this blaming media!

In today electronic web of connection and sudo information, WE ARE the Media.
We watch it, we create and participate in it. We fail to discern the difference between News, editorial and opinion and to often allow opinion to become the news we react to.

Men like Trump know how easily OUR failure of discernment can be manipulated. 
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: LoverOfJoy on November 17, 2016, 11:15:49 AM
I get my news through the internet so my perception may be skewed but my impression is that it's more than just the media giving Trump a megaphone. It's also that there was such reduced coverage for all the rest of his opponents and when they DID cover his opponents, it seemed they were always asking for a response to something Trump said. It seemed pretty clear that many candidates wanted to get their message out but the media always shifted toward what asking the candidate what they felt about Trump's antics. Many candidates tried to quickly answer and get back to their message but so many interviewers that I watched wouldn't let it drop and kept bringing it back to Trump. Eventually, some of the candidates tried to mirror Trump and say outrageous things about him...but while that might get a blip in the news, it never really helped them as it always came across as reactionary.

The media quickly chose to give certain candidates a near media blackout and others an emphasis on their response to Trump's statements.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 17, 2016, 11:30:20 AM
Quote
Did "the media" hurt Hillary?  In as much as she allowed them to by avoiding them... ya.  But only because they feared being boring news because everyone knew who the next president would be.
Another reason that the media was NOT favoring her is that she presented something like 200 different detailed policy positions on her web site and in speeches, but I can't recall a single one of them being reported in any depth by any online media.  The media made it a fashion and beauty contest, which she couldn't win against even a 72 year old rival in her own party and an airbrushed orange colored opponent in the other party.

The media was slow to pick up on Sanders for reasons we've discussed many times, but the narrative that the media was somehow in her corner doesn't stand up to scrutiny.  That they were complacent about her even they now admit.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Fenring on November 17, 2016, 11:40:58 AM
The media was slow to pick up on Sanders for reasons we've discussed many times, but the narrative that the media was somehow in her corner doesn't stand up to scrutiny.  That they were complacent about her even they now admit.

It's been pretty much proven that the DNC was trying to make Sanders lose, and that certain media sources were colluding with the DNC. It can perhaps be asserted that we don't know how much they were colluding, because of course it's all a matter of total actions taken. Did they do a few things here and there to help Hillary, or was it more systematic? That much we can only speculate about based on indirect evidence, but that they were helping her - no, it's not really controversial as I see it.

Typically when one suggests collusion behind the scenes such insinuations are branded as "conspiracy theories", but in this case it seems to me that denying the collusion is the tinfoil hat position, where you'd have to assert that all the evidence from leaked emails must somehow be a conspiracy to make it look like there was collusion.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: rightleft22 on November 17, 2016, 11:41:22 AM
Quote
The media quickly chose to give certain candidates a near media blackout and others an emphasis on their response to Trump's statements.

If the word “chose” implies conscious intent and I think that that is arguable.

Trumps rhetoric was is polarizing and as such got attention. The failure of the other candidates to push past that rhetoric says more about our society and the impact of the “information age” then it does about media. 

I started a thread about truthful hyperbole because I noticed how debate after debate the candidates failed to push past it. Like the many media pundits the candidates perhaps felt that reasonable people would see pass the hyperbole for like it was and when they didn’t, didn’t know what to do.
Like the pundits the candidates failed to realize this happening was a backlash against reason. Reason becoming a tool of elites.


Quote
The media made it a fashion and beauty contest
WE made it a fashion and beauty contest

Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Gaoics79 on November 17, 2016, 12:23:54 PM
Quote
I'm amused by the emerging narrative from people on the far right that the media was on Hillary's side (lie #1)

I don't so much as consider it a "narrative" as undisputable fact. This is particularly true if we're talking about the contest between Clinton and Trump.

Quote
and that "real Americans" were too smart to be fooled into believing that Trump was dishonest (lie #2). 


No idea what this even means.

Quote
Therefore, they voted for the only honest candidate (lie #3)

This is a bit of a mischaracterization. I don't actually think that most people saw Trump as more "honest" per say. A better word would be "authentic".

Quote
and will take American back from those fascist-communist-socialist deceivers (false hope #1) and return it to the people (false hope #2) who will make America great again (false hope #3) under a President who will bring good wages, jobs and prosperity back to the blue collar workers (false hope #4) who actually never had any such thing (true statement #1). 

Agreed mostly on all that with the caveat being that sometimes a false hope or shall we say, a foolish hope, holds more appeal than 0.0 or nearly 0.0 hope, which is basically what Clinton was selling. In my experience, if you promise someone the faint possibility of a big payoff (like say with a lottery ticket for a $1,000,000 draw) you are going to create alot more enthusiasm and excitement than promising a moderate chance of a modest payoff (like say $50). Even if the $50 payoff is much more likely to occur and the $1,000,000 is just a pipe dream - no politician ever did badly to aim high.

By the way regarding your last statement, you're saying blue collar workers never had good jobs or prosperity?
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Wayward Son on November 17, 2016, 12:36:06 PM
There is one other factor we should consider before blaming the media for Donald Trump.

On Feb. 1, Donald Trump came in second in the Iowa primary.  Only 3 candidates got double-digit support.

On Feb. 9, he was first in New Hampshire, among 5 candidates with double-digit support.

On Feb. 20, he was first in South Carolina, among three with double-digit support.

On Feb. 23, he was first, among three with double-digit support.

Then on Super Tuesday, he was in the top three, too.

From the start, Donald Trump was one of the major contenders for the Republican nomination.

So ask yourself, what would be your conclusion if the media did not report on what Donald Trump, one of the main contenders, was saying? ;)

The media was obliged to give Donald Trump air time.  I won't argue whether they went overboard or not--he did say outrageous, and thus entertaining, things, which helped ratings--but they had to.  It would have been irresponsible for them not to.

It was the voters--first the Republican voters, in the primaries, then the voters in the general election--who bought what he said.  And they bear full responsibility.

And thank you, jasonr and TheDaemon, for agreeing that it was not "the media's" intention of getting Trump elected as the Republican nominee.  While the media may be a kingmaker, in that without the media's reporting, no one can gain the support they need.  But that doesn't mean that the person "the media" wants elected gets elected.

As Fox likes to say, they report, we decide.  And the decision lies solely on us.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Fenring on November 17, 2016, 12:44:05 PM
There is one other factor we should consider before blaming the media for Donald Trump.

I personally don't blame them for it at all. They were just doing their bidding.

Quote
And thank you, jasonr and TheDaemon, for agreeing that it was not "the media's" intention of getting Trump elected as the Republican nominee.  While the media may be a kingmaker, in that without the media's reporting, no one can gain the support they need.  But that doesn't mean that the person "the media" wants elected gets elected.

I think the media may well have been attempting to help sabotage some of the other candidates, more so than outright trying to help Trump win. I think that initially there was a big target painted on Jeb's forehead and various parties went all-in on him. After that if may have been Carsen and Fiorina. It was a hit job, rather than a puff job for Trump. He just happened to come out of it as the last man standing since he was a useful wrecking ball for the media to use to knock down opponents that seemed like potential threats. The DNC leaks showed they thought Rubio might be a legit threat, but I wasn't seeing him targeted as much until later on in the primary season.

This is still them playing kingmaker, but just not specifically with the agenda to make Trump the king.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: rightleft22 on November 17, 2016, 02:45:33 PM
Quote
I think the media may well have been attempting to help sabotage some of the other candidates, more so than outright trying to help Trump win

When you use the word like ‘the media’ is it global as in all forms of media conspired to sabotage ...
What about social media?

Who is this media?
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Fenring on November 17, 2016, 02:49:37 PM
What about social media?

Who is this media?

Yes, why don't you go find out who this media is, it's a good idea. Private companies are owned by someone, and run by someone, and answer to someone. They don't just privately each do their own thing any more than the big banks do, and that analogy can be extended quite a bit since there are many similarities. Even Facebook is owned by someone.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: rightleft22 on November 17, 2016, 03:01:05 PM
Media is business and one outlet may have different intentions then another and discerning those intentions is the responsibility of the consumer.

When I hear people making blank statements of ‘the media’ conspiring to do this or that I can’t help but wonder they are trying to duck responsibly. 
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Fenring on November 17, 2016, 03:15:19 PM
Conspiracy also doesn't have to involve any intent to conspire. If I'm a powerful man, and I privately contact three different news stations and tell them how I want them to dress a topic, and they do it, there is a coordinated effort there which could be called a conspiracy even though the media networks themselves are not intending to conspire. They're just doing what they're individually told to do, but the net effect is a "they" that are pushing a similar narrative.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: noel c. on November 17, 2016, 03:58:37 PM
WS,

Do you believe the "media" had any preference regarding the outcome of the Republican primary?
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 17, 2016, 05:02:54 PM
Quote
By the way regarding your last statement, you're saying blue collar workers never had good jobs or prosperity?
With the unions from the end of WWII until the late 70's, yes.  Otherwise, not so much and certainly not before WWII.
Quote
I think the media may well have been attempting to help sabotage some of the other candidates, more so than outright trying to help Trump win

When you use the word like ‘the media’ is it global as in all forms of media conspired to sabotage ...
What about social media?

Who is this media?

The right wing media certainly gave Donald every bit of fawning attention it could, but I will admit that so-called reputable right wing media tried to reject him, but Trump ran over them. 

It goes without saying, which means I have to say it, the people who voted for Trump wanted him and they got him.  So did we.

Quote
Do you believe the "media" had any preference regarding the outcome of the Republican primary?
Yes.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: noel c. on November 17, 2016, 05:18:48 PM
Al,

I would still like WS to respond, but since you are engaging me; Who do you think the aggregate news establishment wanted to win the Republican primary, and why?
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Greg Davidson on November 17, 2016, 10:29:24 PM
Negative news coverage of Hillary's emails outweighed all of the coverage of actual adverse actions and actual crimes which Donald Trump actually (see, where actually paid fines) and likely committed (first trial starts November 28th). And of course we will never hear anything about those emails again, because despite being the biggest adverse story about Clinton for over a year, there never was a real issue there. It's just another round of the Ground Zero Mosque, something big right before the election and then never heard from again.

And for all the concerns about potential corruption in the Clinton Foundation, there's going to be far less concern on the right for the actual corruption that is unavoidable with Trump as President while his children run his business. I care less about this - if the only bad thing that happens from the Trump Administration is that he enables his family to siphon off a few billion dollars trading on his name, I'd call that the good scenario
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Fenring on November 17, 2016, 10:52:49 PM
That's the thing, Greg. The email issue wasn't negative news coverage, it was just plain old news coverage whose effects harmed her. I make this distinction between some 'news' segments are designed to smear candidates, while others are merely picking up a hot story that all networks are going to carry. I very much doubt you'll be able to find me many CNN clips where the talking heads insinuated that the email thing made Hillary look guilty. On FOX News, sure. There is obviously a shady line separating running hot news stories with running stories that are there to be negative press. When the major networks reported on Trump during the early primary season they were out to make him look bad, but they failed spectacularly apparently. They weren't just covering big stories, they were creating big stories, sometimes out of nothing, to show off how outrageous he was. At the end of the day it probably did get them viewers, but it wasn't a current event in the world that the public had a 'right' to know. It was a smear job gone wrong. Similarly, I'm sure a lot of what FOX ran about Hillary was a smear job. But the email issue was such big news that it would have been almost unthinkable for everyone not to run with it. And yes, whether or not she was guilty, it was a major story.

So when discussing who got what benefits from MSM networks, tell me: how many puff pieces about Bernie did you ever see on MSNBC or CNN? How many dismissive statements about Hillary? Few, and fewer? Even the editorializing of "Bernie has no chance" was a smear job, as that kind of claim was being made far before they could have legitimate numbers to back it up. It was a con to make people believe he had no chance, so that they could avoid 'wasting their vote' by going over to Hillary.

The press was playing kingmaker from the get-go on both sides of the fence, and, anticipating where noel is going with his question to AI, I do think it was happening in regards to the GOP candidates as well.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 18, 2016, 12:25:53 AM
Al,

I would still like WS to respond, but since you are engaging me; Who do you think the aggregate news establishment wanted to win the Republican primary, and why?
I don't think they pick winners; they go for eyeballs.  They would have been fine if Trump had not won the nomination, as long as they got good ratings.  That doesn't apply to FOX, which clearly wants a Republican to win and liked Trump because he would liven up their puny reportage.  They had an uneasy time adjusting to him, but that they gave him $$billions in free air time says it all.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: noel c. on November 18, 2016, 01:08:20 AM
Al,

Possibly I misunderstood you. Are you saying that, collectively, American journalism had no preference on the outcome of the Republican primary... that as a group they are apolitical except when marginalizing an committed socialist in favor of a faux-socialist allied with Wallstreet?

I noticed in school that certain majors attracted a predictable social-change mindset in disproportion to the student body norm. These included law, education, and journalism. Does that comport with your experience?
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 18, 2016, 08:37:51 AM
As I've said, nothing would give me more pleasure...
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDrake on November 18, 2016, 11:24:16 AM
I think coverage is neither fair nor nefarious. I think that it is unlikely that leadership at a network gets in a room and says "who are we going to get elected today?" I also think that journalists have always tried to synthesize facts into a coherent narrative - that's why they call it a story.

Some attempt to be respectful and compassionate to different points of view, others don't. BBC comes to mind. You can tell the reporter and the outlet have a bias. This morning I listened to a story about an independent candidate in China where the reporters were being harassed by plainclothes thugs while trying to get an interview. I'm sure China finds that coverage heavily biased. They never talked about how a challenge to one party rule could lead to ruin.

It is impossible for bias not to creep in even under the most noble of efforts. The staff are choosing whom to interview, what to select from the interview, on television the setting, the lighting, and everything contribute to perception. One of the reasons I just don't watch any of the youtube videos that people pass around to support their point of view.

When you see pictures of the candidates, Trump was almost always shown with his mouth open, or looking confused while Hillary was portrayed looking serene and in charge. I don't know if the photographers or low level copy editors thought they were being biased, or if they were just selecting the pictures that best showed Trump's character. I know that it would have been possible to flip the choices, and you wind up seeing some of that on blogs that don't bother with even a fig leaf to cover their nakedness.

Two examples:

Bad Hillary (Breitbart) (http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/11/GettyImages-623720990-640x480.jpg)
Bad Trump (Wonkette) (http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/nbc-fires-donald-trump-after-he-calls-mexicans-rapists-and-drug-runners.jpg)

Of course, just now, I did the same thing. I passed over a number of pictures to choose the ones that supported my narrative.

Few members of the western media are out there trying to make Kim Jong Un look sympathetic, but not too many people are screaming about that bias in the West. ISIS supporters must be really pissed about how they are portrayed in the media. I think you can't remove editorial bias, and possibly you shouldn't even try. But you CAN call news organization and candidates out for making false statements. Let's start there.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Fenring on November 18, 2016, 11:32:00 AM
But you CAN call news organization and candidates out for making false statements. Let's start there.

This is a nearly irrelevant standard, as most kinds of effective propaganda or demagoguery ride not on direct lies but on insinuation and narrative. Look at Russian media and you'll see lots of insinuation, but basically no lies or direct untruths. And yet everyone is still convinced they are a propaganda arm for Putin and the KGB. I do agree that lies should be addressed, but that's the kindergarten version of addressing manipulation of the public. These guys graduated from their kindergarten 80 years ago, and the method of holding media up to scrutiny at present still amounts to little more than a child's toy. When people will bravely assert that the media has no agenda, the 'proof' of this being that there is no memo written directly by the editor in chief saying they have an agenda, better tools of analysis need to be developed.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 18, 2016, 01:14:02 PM
Quote
This is a nearly irrelevant standard, as most kinds of effective propaganda or demagoguery ride not on direct lies but on insinuation and narrative.
It's a critically important check against mendacious demagoguery and poisoning of the well of public discourse.  That it's only one way to deceive the public doesn't minimize the importance of confronting and addressing it.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Pete at Home on November 18, 2016, 03:46:16 PM
Trump is holding Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Virginia and New Hampshire....

It ain't over obviously, but wow - the blood of many people must be turning cold watching this.

As Wolf Blitzer just noted, this could put the polling industry out of business.

Poling is almost as accurate as horoscopes, and I don't see that business going anywhere.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Wayward Son on November 18, 2016, 06:36:25 PM
WS,

Do you believe the "media" had any preference regarding the outcome of the Republican primary?

Simple answer: no.  Because there is no one "media."  Thus, "the media" can't do anything or have any preferences.

More complex answer:  Individuals who work in the media certainly did, just like everybody else.  So their reporting doubtlessly had some bias to it.

But those who were liberals probably had no real preference, because they were all pretty bad, from a liberal's perspective. :)  Carson, Perry, Huckabee, Trump, Cruz--they all turned my stomach, one just as bad as the other.  I can't imagine that "the media" would settle on any one of them as the best.  Maybe Kasich, Rubio or Bush, if they had to choose.

Who would have been least likely to beat Hillary?  Yeah, maybe Trump, although Fiorina would have given him a run for his money.

But even if there was a group that decided Trump would definitely lose, what did they do?  What did "the media" do to make him the most desirable of the Republican contenders?

Broadcast his disparaging remarks about illegal immigrants?  Quote his nearly incomprehensible speeches?  Zoom in on his ridiculous antics?  Why would "the media" believe that any of those would make him more desirable as a candidate?  ???

The very things that would make him the most likely to lose would be the things that would make him most likely not to be nominated.  If they saw him as being a horrid candidate, why would they think the Republicans wouldn't notice those things?  Why would they discuss how he is a bully if they thought it would "turn on" the Republicans?  Are Republicans really so bad that "the media" knows that they would love things about a candidate that would disqualify him to the rest of the nation?

"The media" may have had its preferences, and may have hoped that Trump was the one candidate who would lose, but by showing Trump to be the clown that he is, they could not have expected him to win the nomination because of it.  If they believed Trump wasn't good enough to win the election, he shouldn't have been good enough to win the nomination.

And they certainly did not treat him any better before the nomination than after.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Greg Davidson on November 18, 2016, 08:28:03 PM
Quote
The email issue wasn't negative news coverage, it was just plain old news coverage whose effects harmed her.

Fenring, the only possible legal violation associated with the handling of classified information is if any spillage is intentional. No one ever even argued that Hillary Clinton had done that (okay, there's enough crazy people out there that I am sure someone probably argued that she secreted away classified emails in the murdered corpse of Vince Foster...). There never ever was a legal case of any sort.  It was just an excuse for partisans to use as a way to drive up her negatives by a constant barrage of mock horror.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump is buying his way out of legal troubles for actual fraud in the Trump University case with a $20M settlement.  Think how much press attention went to investigating "Whitewater", a potential scandal over a $300K loan 20 years earlier to a business partner of a President, and compare that to the level of news coverage of Trump University. Or the payment of legal bills from his "charitable" Trump Foundation. 
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Greg Davidson on November 18, 2016, 08:32:29 PM
The media fell down because it is unable to help in this emerging post-truth world.  We are all relativists now, there is no such thing as absolute truth in public discourse. A majority of people get their news from social media nowadays, and many genuinely believe what reinforces their feeling. And the staggering news divisions do not easily have the power to stand up to an unrepentant liar.

This is actually way more dangerous that just policy disagreements.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Pete at Home on November 18, 2016, 09:40:02 PM
The media tend to focus on whatever their core audiences find most riveting.  Just look at the history of news focus stories ever since the first 24 hour news program came out.

Note "media" is plural. Grammatical correctness becomes important when it helps clarify a fundamental misunderstanding.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Pete at Home on November 18, 2016, 09:49:59 PM
If one were not playing hide the ball, one should probably compare Trump University to events during the present millennium. Like the Clinton Foundation.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: yossarian22c on November 18, 2016, 10:40:03 PM
Or Trump's business loans from the bank of China, no conflict of interest there at all.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDrake on November 18, 2016, 11:51:52 PM
Disappointed to see noone wanted to take me up on my core arguments. :(
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: noel c. on November 18, 2016, 11:56:47 PM
 WS,

"... there is no one 'media'. Thus, 'the media' can't do anything or have any preferences."

Can the "electorate" do something, or have a preference, even though there is no one "elector"?

"But those who were liberals probably had no real preference, because they were all pretty bad, from a liberal's perspective. :)  Carson, Perry, Huckabee, Trump, Cruz--they all turned my stomach, one just as bad as the other.  I can't imagine that 'the media' would settle on any one of them as the best.  Maybe Kasich, Rubio or Bush, if they had to choose."

I am suggesting something a little more cynical. Who, among the original seventeen candidate Republican lineup, would be the most useful as a foil against the other sixteen? I understand that the candidates mentioned are equally reprehensible to you. They were also more viable in the general election... especially, as you point out, Carly Fiorina. With her poll numbers rising against Trump, who then stood at 32%, why did Paul Solotaroff of Rolling Stone decide to take a comment made about Fiorina's face in the isolation of Trump's 757, and give it world-wide air play? Was it an attack on Trump, or denigration of Mrs. Fiorina via surrogate? Solotaroff characterized Trump a few days later as an "extraordinarily shrewd predator". I think Solotaroff appreciates the corrosive nature of dangling ad hominem. His time at the Yale School of Drama appears to have cultivated some sophisticated predatory rhetoric in his own right, but not much in the way of professional journalistic discipline.

"The very things that would make him the most likely to lose would be the things that would make him most likely not to be nominated."

Not in a field where three of the four outsiders (Carson, Fiorina, and Cruz) were competing for the same voters while Reagan Democrats consolidated under Trump.

"If they saw him as being a horrid candidate, why would they think the Republicans wouldn't notice those things?"

They knew conservatives had identified Trump for what he was without their help.

https://www.google.com/search?q=national+review+cover+trump&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-au&client=safari#imgrc=5kz_Fp1idifzHM%3A

The objective was intra-party fratricide, leaving the single ideologically-void candidate standing.

"Why would they discuss how he is a bully if they thought it would 'turn on' the Republicans?"

Because the Yellow Dog, and Rust-Belt, Reagan Democrats needed to be brought in line. Bill Clinton understood this very well.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/wlwt.relaymedia.com/amp/article/bill-clinton-speaks-at-labor-day-picnic-in-cincinnati/3613258?client=safari

" 'The media' may have had its preferences, and may have hoped that Trump was the one candidate who would lose, but by showing Trump to be the clown that he is, they could not have expected him to win the nomination because of it.  If they believed Trump wasn't good enough to win the election, he shouldn't have been good enough to win the nomination."

No, one condition does not logically follow the other. Every election cycle there is a candidate good enough to win their parties nomination, yet lose the general election.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: noel c. on November 19, 2016, 01:29:59 AM
Drake,

"I think coverage is neither fair nor nefarious. I think that it is unlikely that leadership at a network gets in a room and says 'who are we going to get elected today?' I also think that journalists have always tried to synthesize facts into a coherent narrative - that's why they call it a story." ...

... I did not mean to ignore your post, I simply reject the premise that news organizations are passive observers in search of "stories", which seems to be what you are implying. There was a time when network news anchors were skillful at subordinating personal political views. Wikileaks proved conclusively that news "correspondents" did collude with the Clinton campaign.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-list-least-65-msm-reporters-meeting-andor-coordinating-offline-top-hillary-advisors/

It is pretty obvious that The National Enquirer did the same for Trump... I will not comment on the journalistic quality. :o
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 19, 2016, 05:58:33 AM
Greg Davidson

"Fenring, the only possible legal violation associated with the handling of classified information is if any spillage is intentional."

Many authorities, including former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Rudy Giuliani, say that's just not true.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/05/rudy_giuliani_hillary_broke_the_law_gross_negligence_equals_extreme_carelessness.html

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/07/05/gross-negligence-claim-about-clinton-emails-fbi-specifically-rejected/211352


Giuliani, and others, make the case that when it comes to laws surrounding handling classified data, intent is irrelevant.

"The definition of gross negligence under the law is extreme carelessness," he said. The FBI "clearly found a direct violation of 18 United States code section 793 which does not require intent -- it requires only gross negligence in the handling of anything relating to the national defense."

"It's the first definition that comes up in the law dictionary," he said. "It's the definition the judges give to juries when they charge injuries on gross negligence. Negligence equals carelessness. Gross negligence equals extreme carelessness. So that is a clear absolutely unassailable violation of 18 United States Code, section 793, which is not a minor statute, it carries ten years in prison."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Someone is obviously mistaken on this. One side or the other clearly isn't telling the truth. And getting away with it.

I don't necessarily fault anyone quoting or believing Comey though because that is what he said, that it wasn't a crime because there wasn't intent. But that's the part that just isn't true. It doesn't even make any sense either.

Gross negligence clearly describes Hillary's actions. Intent to give classified information to our enemies isn't required for that statute. If there was intent, that would be a crime more along the lines of straight up treason. Lacking that intent makes it so the crime is not treason, but it is still a crime of gross negligence in handling classified information just like if someone absent mindedly threw classified information into the regular garbage can for the regular clean up crew to throw away instead of putting it in the shredder or burn bag like they are required to, or had a maid print off classified information she had no security clearance to see instead of making sure anyone who had access to that information had the security clearance to know about it.

Comey's actions helped Clinton in the election because if he had followed through on the actual law instead of his wishful thinking interpretation of it he would have had to recommend that Hillary Clinton be charged with a crime, and one that she was obviously guilty of committing.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 19, 2016, 06:18:35 AM
Speaking of Comey, more explanations about how he contributed to helping Hillary lose:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-james-comey-surveillance_us_5814f125e4b0390e69d0aa65

"Obama has consistently frustrated civil liberties advocates by following his own aggressive surveillance activities, based on an expansive view of executive power. Back in 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder came under fire after the Justice Department secretly seized the phone records of Associated Press reporters who, the administration maintained, had disclosed classified information in a story.

That scandal raised major First Amendment questions, but it faded after The Guardian and The Washington Post reported that the government was collecting enormous amounts of data on the phone records of millions of Americans, not just journalists. When pressed about the collection effort by Congress, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper publicly lied ― and still kept his job. In 2015, ProPublica and The New York Times reported that Obama had significantly expanded upon the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance of internet activity and email.

If Obama wanted to invoke novel legal theories to pursue mass surveillance, then Comey was a pretty solid bet..."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"...But work at a weird hedge fund wasn’t disqualifying in an administration that had long made clear it was not interested in prosecuting financial crime. The Obama administration has settled billions of dollars in cases against big banks for everything from rigging energy markets to illegally foreclosing on homeowners, but top executives have avoided prosecution. Even when banks themselves pleaded guilty to felony tax evasion and interest-rate-rigging, the Obama administration declined to prosecute the actual bankers involved.

And Comey has been around for three years of the blind-eye operation on Wall Street misconduct. After he gave his July press conference detailing Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information and his decision not to prosecute, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) sent him a letter asking for parity. Why not release records from all the Wall Street cases the FBI decided not to pursue? Comey has not responded."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Comey has a history of not prosecuting criminals when they are high enough up like the big bankers. That couldn't look good to the Democrat Occupy types and most certainly cost Hillary some votes at least among those who were paying attention. Also after all of Obama's talk about not needing to spy on Americans the way Bush did in order to keep us safe, Obama spied on us even more, and Comey was his go-to guy to justify it all. After all of Obama's talk about how the big banks and Wall Street high rollers were taking advantage of average Americans and breaking the law to do it, nobody was prosecuted. People can only take so many of these broken promises and outright lies. At least Hillary was honest enough, when she talked about public and private positions, to admit that she was lying to us although as with the classified information fiasco it wasn't actually her intent to make that information public; just more gross negligence on her part.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: DJQuag on November 19, 2016, 08:40:51 AM
"apolitical except when marginalizing an committed socialist in favor of a faux-socialist allied with Wallstreet? "

Please, please don't tell me you're referring to Sanders here.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: noel c. on November 19, 2016, 09:53:06 AM
DJQ,

Yes, both Sanders, and  Clinton.

You think there was not a coordinated effort to stomp out Sanders by Clinton operatives in the media?
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: noel c. on November 19, 2016, 09:57:46 AM
Cherry,

" 'The definition of gross negligence under the law is extreme carelessness,' he said. The FBI 'clearly found a direct violation of 18 United States code section 793 which does not require intent -- it requires only gross negligence in the handling of anything relating to the national defense.' " ...

Did you know that Barry corresponded with Hillary on that unsecured server under a pseudonym?
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Fenring on November 19, 2016, 10:10:46 AM
Fenring, the only possible legal violation associated with the handling of classified information is if any spillage is intentional.

As mentioned above, this is not accurate. However I believe it has been sufficiently demonstrated that she knew full well what she was doing when setting up that serves. Even if you were to argue she didn't intend, in the case of any particular piece of information, to have it fall into the wrong hands, nevertheless on the aggregate she knew she was risking any or all of it being read by people who shouldn't see such things. If she had been lied to about the nature of her server setup then I think you'd have a real argument here. As it is she exerted considerable effort to make the private server happen, over the objections of many people, so that was no mistake. I would argue that after having deliberately set up conditions where classified information would be at risk, any particular piece of information passing through such a system would count as negligence without requiring specific negligence regarding that individual item. But this is even a stronger case than needs to be made, since, again, intent isn't even required; the law is very specific about that.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDrake on November 19, 2016, 12:13:49 PM
I simply reject the premise that news organizations are passive observers in search of "stories", which seems to be what you are implying. There was a time when network news anchors were skillful at subordinating personal political views. Wikileaks proved conclusively that news "correspondents" did collude with the Clinton campaign.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-list-least-65-msm-reporters-meeting-andor-coordinating-offline-top-hillary-advisors/

I don't think passive. Woodward and Bernstein weren't particularly passive, their paper and others had decided Nixon was a villain and acted accordingly.

The fact that Hillary laid out her plans in an open dinner meeting hardly seems like clandestine collusion, although there have been incidents where certain reporters clearly seem to have violated ethics. I don't think I'm ready to make the stretch that what some reporters did was coordinated and supported by their organizations as a whole.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: noel c. on November 19, 2016, 01:24:49 PM
Drake,

On Woodward:

https://youtu.be/REiEkNKIPtc

"The fact that Hillary laid out her plans in an open dinner meeting hardly seems like clandestine collusion, although there have been incidents where certain reporters clearly seem to have violated ethics. I don't think I'm ready to make the stretch that what some reporters did was coordinated and supported by their organizations as a whole." ...

Wall Street was on Hillary's paid speaking itinerary, and she was loathe to treat it as either "open", or non-collusive. Again, but for Wikileaks, the principled Bernie followers would have been left to speculation regarding the depth of Ms. Clinton's double dealings.

https://youtu.be/dOivL3SLrHs

Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDrake on November 19, 2016, 01:39:38 PM
See earlier comment:

"One of the reasons I just don't watch any of the youtube videos that people pass around to support their point of view."

Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: noel c. on November 19, 2016, 01:52:41 PM
Drake,

Can you restate your reason?
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 19, 2016, 02:03:28 PM
> noel c.

"Did you know that Barry corresponded with Hillary on that unsecured server under a pseudonym?"

Yes, I've seen the stories, but I didn't make the connection to them that I'm not tilting my head a bit in a contemplative manner wondering if you are making.

Are you suggesting that Obama may have also broken the law by being negligent about handling classified data over a server he knew, or should have known, was not secure?

We pretty much know now that Obama lied when he said he found out about Hillary's server on the news, but so far I haven't seen anyone suggest that Obama is guilty of the same crime as Hillary, and I hadn't thought of that yet either. It all depends on whether or not any of the information he sent her, or received from her for that matter, was classified information going to or from a non-secure server.

Good catch there. Maybe Trump will be able to find out more.

I like the way Trump is playing this too, all cool and nonchalant and basically placating Obama and the rest of the Democrats with his go along to get along act. That's the smart way to do it. The reason why is obviously so hopefully Trump can assume office without giving away his true intent and catch Obama off guard by unleashing the hounds to pick up the numerous crime trails and do it without Obama pardoning anyone and everyone first. I may be making a huge mistake posting this too, although even thinking that is probably just arrogance displaying itself, as if someone in power would forward this possibility to Obama so he could issue the pardons and destroy all the evidence before leaving office. I should probably keep this all to myself, but that wouldn't be any fun. On the other hand, maybe Trump really is just going to take it easy and ride a comfortable wave into power without making too many enemies out of the people he just beat politically. Maybe Trump will let sleeping dogs lie. In that case if Obama gets paranoid and goes crazy with the pardons and possibly destruction of evidence then that backfires by making Obama and his cohorts look as guilty as they are when if they would have stayed cool they would have been better off. Interesting game theory at play there.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: noel c. on November 19, 2016, 03:02:12 PM
Cherry,

"Are you suggesting that Obama may have also broken the law by being negligent about handling classified data over a server he knew, or should have known, was not secure?" ...

Yes.

I heard yesterday that Trump settled his "university" lawsuit for $25,000,000. How much would you like to bet that Donald, without admitting guilt, persuaded the complainants to sign an agreement to remain silent as a condition of the settlement?

He may have just cleansed himself of a counterattack potential in preparation for "draining the swamp", and if he wants to destroy his political opponents... his first few months in office is the time to do it.

Trump is a skilled predator, and the current love-fest between mister outgoing and mister incoming is just too surreal to be genuine. People like Obama, Clinton, Podesta, Holder, Comey, et al. have cause to be concerned that their lives are facing disruption on a grand scale.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 19, 2016, 04:52:58 PM
Oh, there's already signs it isn't all love and kisses between Obama and Trump. The offshore drilling moratorium that the Obama administration is attempting to lock in until 2022 is probably only one such example.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 19, 2016, 10:45:22 PM
It looks like the outrage that the right had when Obama was President because he wouldn't accede to the demands and priorities of the Republicans is being transformed into outrage that he is not falling in line behind Trump's vision for the next four years.  Pity Obama can't contribute to the undoing of his major initiatives like a patriotic citizen should do.  Amazing how the rhetoric flips upside down when the Republicans are in charge.  I'm guessing that will have tremendous outrage toward the Democrats when they oppose their proposals in Congress over the next two years.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 19, 2016, 10:55:00 PM
Too bad Harry Reid launched the nuclear option's first salvo. I just saw a story on CNN about a bunch of Democrats saying they don't regret it and I find that hard to believe. The nuclear option is also available for Trump Supreme Court nominees now too, if the Senate decides to change the rules again just like Harry Reid did and counter his first salvo with round two of nuclear options, changing the confirmation rules for Supreme Court justices. Why is it so satisfying when acts of hubris come back to work against arrogant people like Harry Reid?
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 19, 2016, 11:10:45 PM
I assume you would be OK if Reid said the number one goal for Democrats over the next four years would be to make sure Trump is a one term President. Goose and gander is how this game is played.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 20, 2016, 12:24:13 AM
Except Reid is gone at the end of December, he retired. Replacement (democrat) gets Sworn in during January with everyone else.

No more Reid, no more Clintons(until/unless Chelsea decides to do something), no more Obama(for now), and probably a lot less Pelosi if the Democrats internal challenge in the House wins out. Washington is going to look a bit different next year.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: noel c. on November 20, 2016, 01:59:22 AM
Al,

"Amazing how the rhetoric flips upside down when the Republicans are in charge." ...

No, not amazing. Call it karma.

Both the Democratic, and Republican, parties are headed for transformational reorientation.

Barry may have assumed the task of reconstituting the Democratic Party, but he is beating the wind. His party no longer exists, and I expect that the Bernie movement will energize the wreckage of what remains for 2020. The conservative faction of the Republican Party will have its Supreme Court for, at least, a generation, however; populism has found a permanent place in the Republican tent that will make it look a lot like the Democratic Party of the pre-Johnson era.

Whatever we as a nation end up being after the next four years, "The baton has been passed to a new generation."

It is a paradox that the catalyst for change was two septuagenarians.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 20, 2016, 09:55:32 AM
Except Reid is gone at the end of December, he retired. Replacement (democrat) gets Sworn in during January with everyone else.

No more Reid, no more Clintons(until/unless Chelsea decides to do something), no more Obama(for now), and probably a lot less Pelosi if the Democrats internal challenge in the House wins out. Washington is going to look a bit different next year.
Let's wait to see how Schumer publicly responds.  He and Trump are like old boxers who have fought their entire adult lives.  I don't see Trump bullying him into submission, and I don't see Schumer opposing every action Trump takes.  Differently than how Republicans did it, Schumer will pounce when he sees an opening.

The Clinton dynasty wasn't in the cards and the Bush dynasty is dead.  I don't see the political forum returning to "normal" for a long time, but it has to happen eventually.  In the meantime, watch your step. There's a twitter troll on your trail.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: noel c. on November 20, 2016, 11:58:19 AM
Al,

"I don't see the political forum returning to 'normal' for a long time, but it has to happen eventually."...

What is "normal" in politics, and why must it return?
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 20, 2016, 01:46:48 PM
Other things to look at, although 2020 is going to be more decisive as they'll be the ones doing the redistricting. But going into it:

Republicans now have full control of 26 State Governments(Legislature + Governorship). Democrats only have complete control of 6(bonus points: guess which ones?). The remaining states have various types of splits happening between the legislature itself or between the legislature and the Governorship.

But the one that is really significant, State Legislature control, as they're the ones that normally draw the district borders. The Republicans control 32 legislatures, to the Democrats 13.

Luckily for the Democrats, this cycle may be the one that the Census happens on, but the redistricting won't be happening until after the next election cycle, and it should favor them because it's a mid-term for a Republican President. However, just that normally is the case, doesn't mean it always is.

But to make it more frightening for the Democrats consider this: Those congressional districts that if used to decide EC votes(as happens in Maine and Nebraska) would have given Romney the Presidency in 2012?

The Democrats were in control of 27 State Legislatures in 2010, while the Republicans only held 14. The Democrats drew the borders for most of those congressional districts, and they still lost.

On a tangential note, it's possible we might see an Article V "Convention of the States" happen in the next few years the way things are heading right now. Sadly for some in here, I doubt the Electoral College will make it into their agenda. 

They "only need" 34 state legislatures to pass legislation with the same exact wording...
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: noel c. on November 20, 2016, 02:16:20 PM
"But to make it more frightening for the Democrats consider this: Those congressional districts that if used to decide EC votes(as happens in Maine and Nebraska) would have given Romney the Presidency in 2012?" ...

... And it looks like Romney is going to be the next Secretary of State.

Romney under 'active consideration' for Secretary of State: Pence - Reuters
https://apple.news/AyPK32ybZQIiAVuu3cxDSsQ

The 2020/2024 election cycles will constitute the perfect storm for old-school liberalism. It has me wondering who will donn the Bernie mantle... perhaps the wannabe Cherokee?
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 20, 2016, 02:55:44 PM
Tulsi Gabbard (Democrat - HI) is being floated as the possible "mantle bearer" for Bernie in 2020. (She also was the VP pick on the California ballot for those that voted Bernie in the General) She's young, born in 1981, she's also a Military Veteran who evidently saw some combat during her time on Active Duty. She also is something of an ethnic Minority(Mostly European, but her Dad is Samoan), but the religious aspect might raise some eyebrows. She's a Hindu c/o her (European descended) Mother according to Wiki. She also seems to come across as very photogenic, which won't hurt her chances.

And that mixed Hindu background, paired with two tours of duty(one of which she evidently volunteered for) in Iraq puts her in a unique spot, she's a Democrat. But she's also much more wary of Muslim Extremists, and Islamic Refugees in general. She's also more pro-gun than most progressive Democrats would prefer among a few other things.

Edit: While Elizabeth Warren on the other hand is old, she's only 2 years younger than Hillary IIRC, and she's got a lot of baggage, and doesn't really bring anything "new" to the table.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Greg Davidson on November 20, 2016, 06:31:42 PM
cherry,

Quote
Many authorities, including former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Rudy Giuliani, say that's just not true.

Your authorities are not credible (Rudy Guiliani, seriously?), and they make assumptions that are not even in evidence. There is a faction of the FBI in New York that disliked Hillary and violated their professional standards by leaking through the campaign - and what's worse, they we pushing forth a false narrative. Comey had time to go through the emails on Weiner's computer before the election, and despite the use of the absence of a warrant, he could have just asked for permission and 48 hours later (before going public) he could have known that there was no new incriminating information on that laptop.  Comey, a guy who took so seriously the practice of the FBI not to interfere with elections in the last 60 days that he refused to publicly stand behind the FBI's conclusion that Russia was responsible for the hacks of the Democratic Party, somehow drifted off that principled position for a Friday afternoon communication that both the Trump and Clinton campaigns agree turned the election against Clinton.

Hillary Clinton has never even been accused of originated any of the questionable emails. And liability, such as it is, goes to the person who originated the email.

And just as no Republican who pretended to care about the false claims of Clinton Foundation corruption (the Clintons still don't get any cash from it) will care at all about Trump's actual fraud or corruption or his blatant violations of rudimentary conflict-of-interest regulations, they also will not care that he's started having some of his first discussions with foreign heads of state, and I am sure that when he blurts out some classified information at some time over the next four years you Republicans will all consider that a master-stroke or a President's perogative or something else that makes it okay when your guy does it.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: noel c. on November 20, 2016, 09:46:13 PM
Greg,

Hillary witheld her emails for three years. For two of those years she had been given "20 days" to forward her work product to a secure government account. On March 5, 2015, her emails are subpoenaed by Trey Gowdey, chair of the House Benghazi Investigation Committee. May 22, 2015, 300 redacted emails are released by the State Department. On June 30, 2015 the State Department released 1,925 more of Hillary's redacted emails, and July 30, 2015 this happens again. On August 22, 2015 classified emails continue to leak out when it is discovered that the server itself had been scrubbed, and turned over to the Justice Department. The FBI is confident it can recover the emails in a matter of "months" until it is discovered that Hillary has used "Bleach-bit" to ensure they cannot be recovered by God himself. (We are now up to more than 31,000 emails, all this for Chelsea's wedding, and Hillary's yoga classes ;).)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/10/28/politics/hillary-clinton-email-timeline/index.html?client=safari

Three weeks before the election James Comey has 650,000 emails dropped in his lap from Anthony Weiner's shared computer, and you say the FBI director could have resolved the content question in "48 hours".

Do you have even an inkling of how partisan this sounds? Why do you think young Democrats had such a hard time voting for her in the general election?
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 21, 2016, 08:18:51 AM
Quote
Three weeks before the election James Comey has 650,000 emails dropped in his lap from Anthony Weiner's shared computer, and you say the FBI director could have resolved the content question in "48 hours".

Do you have even an inkling of how partisan this sounds? Why do you think young Democrats had such a hard time voting for her in the general election?
Do you think Comey did the right thing by announcing that emails were found on Wiener's laptop before he got a warrant?  What precedent did he follow to interfere with the progress of the election with less than 60 days to go?  Even though he found nothing of value in any of the 650,000 emails, you seem to agree that he may have cost Clinton the election.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: noel c. on November 21, 2016, 09:16:30 AM
Al,

- Why do you think Comey needed a warrant to make an announcement?

- What precident is need to honor his commitment to the House investigation committee to inform them of evidentiary developments?

- Hillary cost Hillary the election.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 21, 2016, 09:25:04 AM
Please explain your view rather than asking questions in response to my questions.  Your response is not very illuminating.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: noel c. on November 21, 2016, 11:26:52 AM
Al,

Your questions imply that Hillary's mishandling of classified information was not only someone else's bad judgement, but exculpatory.

I think Comey made a mistake not indicting her last July.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 21, 2016, 01:36:19 PM
Al,

Your questions imply that Hillary's mishandling of classified information was not only someone else's bad judgement, but exculpatory.

I think Comey made a mistake not indicting her last July.
I didn't  imply anything. You inferred that interpretation of my motive.   Next,  there was no exculpatory finding, since there was no charge against her,  but that a crime had not been committed. Lastly, you're entitled to your opinion as to whether she should have been indicted despite Comey's  exhaustive investigation that examined all of the available facts.

However, nothing in your two responses includes any attempt to answer the questions I posed. One wonders why you keep changing the subject., or perhaps one doesn't
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDrake on November 21, 2016, 02:00:56 PM
Absolutely he did the right thing. Transparency is always the right thing. I doubt that unknown emails caused more than a handful of voters who had plans to vote for Hillary to stay home, even less to vote Trump. I also don't see this as suddenly galvanizing people to vote for Trump when they were going to stay home.

If there was an impact, that is the fault of voters who when faced with an unknown, were inclined to fill in the blank with a negative, and Hillary's fault for setting them up to do so by being highly uncooperative and questionably honest throughout the investigation.

Truth be told, from everything I've heard, she didn't do anything nefarious as much as she was technically inept. But she would have had a hard time relating to the masses if she admitted that AOL was too challenging for her and she really didn't understand what a server was, except that it allowed her to keep using her obsolete blackberry curve.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Pete at Home on November 21, 2016, 02:08:25 PM
"Lastly, you're entitled to your opinion as to whether she should have been indicted despite Comey's  exhaustive investigation that examined all of the available facts"

ROFL!

I have no opinion as to whether indictment was proper, but your phrase "exhaustive investigation that examined all the AVAILABLE facts" (emphasis added) does Secretary Clinton no favors with an intelligent and attentive readership.

The availability of evidence is not an issue that Hillary supporters want to beg and highlight.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: NobleHunter on November 21, 2016, 02:15:03 PM
Truth be told, from everything I've heard, she didn't do anything nefarious as much as she was technically inept. But she would have had a hard time relating to the masses if she admitted that AOL was too challenging for her and she really didn't understand what a server was, except that it allowed her to keep using her obsolete blackberry curve.
I'd have thought technical ineptitude would have gone over well with most of the blue-haired set.

I've seen it suggested that both candidates were so un-liked that just being in the news was bad for them. So Comey first bringing up "new" emails and then recanting hurt Clinton twice, regardless of the fact that the second announcement repudiated the first.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDrake on November 21, 2016, 02:20:47 PM
Haha, NH. I like the theory that the best strategy would be to avoid reminding voters that she existed. :)
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Fenring on November 21, 2016, 02:30:23 PM
Haha, NH. I like the theory that the best strategy would be to avoid reminding voters that she existed. :)

It isn't merely a theory, but was Hillary's actual campaign strategy.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: NobleHunter on November 21, 2016, 02:32:38 PM
You'll notice how quiet Trump was during the final weeks?

Once his strategists sat on him, pretending not to exist was his strategy, too.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Pete at Home on November 21, 2016, 02:37:32 PM
Blonde and Blonder. Will we ever stop talking about it?
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 21, 2016, 08:53:19 PM
"Lastly, you're entitled to your opinion as to whether she should have been indicted despite Comey's  exhaustive investigation that examined all of the available facts"

ROFL!

I have no opinion as to whether indictment was proper, but your phrase "exhaustive investigation that examined all the AVAILABLE facts" (emphasis added) does Secretary Clinton no favors with an intelligent and attentive readership.

The availability of evidence is not an issue that Hillary supporters want to beg and highlight.
I don't understand you're laughing quibble.  After 6 Congressional investigations and the FBI investigation involving something like 75 agents nobody came up with a prosecutable offense.  In theory, there could be more that could damn her, but in practice it doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 21, 2016, 08:57:05 PM
To most people when you get rid of evidence that makes you look more guilty, not less. In fact, in most cases destruction of evidence is in itself a serious crime. Wasn't she ordered to turn over these emails and didn't she have them bleached instead?
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Seriati on November 21, 2016, 09:03:02 PM
Quote
The email issue wasn't negative news coverage, it was just plain old news coverage whose effects harmed her.

Fenring, the only possible legal violation associated with the handling of classified information is if any spillage is intentional
[/quote]

What law did you read?  That's flat out misinformation you are passing on.  The history of prosecution in this area (and conviction) makes that claim absolutely laughable.  Please cite your authorities.  Look at the statute, which also makes this a laughable claim. 
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Pete at Home on November 21, 2016, 09:12:52 PM
"Lastly, you're entitled to your opinion as to whether she should have been indicted despite Comey's  exhaustive investigation that examined all of the available facts"

ROFL!

I have no opinion as to whether indictment was proper, but your phrase "exhaustive investigation that examined all the AVAILABLE facts" (emphasis added) does Secretary Clinton no favors with an intelligent and attentive readership.

The availability of evidence is not an issue that Hillary supporters want to beg and highlight.
I don't understand you're laughing quibble.  After 6 Congressional investigations and the FBI investigation involving something like 75 agents nobody came up with a prosecutable offense.  In theory, there could be more that could damn her, but in practice it doesn't exist.

Are you claiming that she's been CLEARED on obstruction of justice charges?  Or that there is no prose cut able offense related to obstruction?

(I focus on obstruction only because that is the issue that your earlier posts very conspicuously leap over and dance around.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: rightleft22 on November 22, 2016, 02:07:38 AM
Quote
To most people when you get rid of evidence that makes you look more guilty, not less.

"USA Today reported in June on a decade-old civil case pitting Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts against an employee, in which it turned out that Trump’s business erased emails as a matter of course, and had no records for the years 1996 through to 2001."

"Trump businesses had “systematically destroyed or hidden thousands of emails, digital records and paper documents demanded in official proceedings, often in defiance of court orders."

"1973, when Trump and his father fought civil charges accusing their company of refusing to rent apartments to African-Americans."

"Trump’s lawyers spent months delaying court requests for documents, and when Trump himself testified in a deposition, he said the company had been destroying their corporate records for the past six months, in order to “save space.”


Of course we don't hold Trump to the same standards of well anyone else.  I wonder how long people will keep excusing him.

Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 22, 2016, 06:17:15 AM
To most people when you get rid of evidence that makes you look more guilty, not less. In fact, in most cases destruction of evidence is in itself a serious crime. Wasn't she ordered to turn over these emails and didn't she have them bleached instead?
No, the absence of evidence is not the proof of guilt unless you don't need evidence to find someone guilty at all.  You've used that approach on every issue in which you've attacked both Obama and Clinton.  I must have pointed this out a dozen times by now.  The more you dig and find nothing only confirms your rigid belief that there is something even more damning to find, so let's keep digging.

Pete:
Quote
Are you claiming that she's been CLEARED on obstruction of justice charges?  Or that there is no prose cut able offense related to obstruction?
I'm not ignoring it.  Comey addressed that, too:

Quote
FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday his investigators looked very intently at whether there was obstruction of justice in the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email account, but concluded they could not prove a criminal case against anyone.

"We looked at it very hard to see if there was criminal obstruction of justice," Comey said at a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing, under questioning by Chairman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)

"We looked at it very hard. We could not make an obstruction case against any of the subjects we looked at," Comey said. He did not identify those whose conduct the FBI investigated for potential obstruction.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: noel c. on November 22, 2016, 06:33:11 AM
RL22,

Trumps emails are not subject to FOIA petitions because, as private records, they are not "the People's property", and are not required to be preserved under Federal law. Hillary's work emails, during her term as SOS, do not belong to her. Further, the lives of ground intelligence assets were put at risk by Hillary's reckless handling of information classified top secret by other agencies, who were  the only entities entitled to place such classifications on the material which Hillary routinely instructed her staff to cut-and-paste sans the classification heading.

Having said that, Trump is not inclined to transparency. Whether his business practices carry over into public office remains to be seen, but he would have been foolish to behave as a public employee while engaged in private enterprise.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 22, 2016, 07:15:26 AM

AI Wessex

"No, the absence of evidence is not the proof of guilt unless you don't need evidence to find someone guilty at all."

Proof that someone destroyed evidence is certainly an indication of guilt.

Just like witnesses being murdered or dying suspiciously just before they are about to testify doesn't look good either.

It may not be enough evidence to convict someone in a court of law but it could certainly be enough to keep people from voting for her.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 22, 2016, 07:42:50 AM
One wonders why all of the things Trump was accused of for which there was ample and obvious evidence didn't prevent people from voting for him.  Not to mention, as someone else already has, that he routinely lies and has a long history of destroying evidence that he was supposed to produce in court when he has been sued by people he harmed through his business practices.  I don't doubt that you picked a winner, it's that how he wins says a lot about the kind of person he is and the kind of President he will be.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Gaoics79 on November 22, 2016, 08:00:59 AM
Well Al you come to the meat of it. It seems many would rather choose a *censored* sandwich for themselves rather than have one picked for them. I'm the same way - I never go for the set menu, always a la carte.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 22, 2016, 08:20:03 AM
This is neither the set menu nor the a la carte selection, but the chef's surprise.  Enjoy!
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: noel c. on November 22, 2016, 09:17:39 AM
Al,

"One wonders why all of the things Trump was accused of for which there was ample and obvious evidence didn't prevent people from voting for him." ...

Yes, that was baffling to just about everyone who votes with any regularity.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 22, 2016, 09:43:14 AM
Yes, people are drawn to disasters.  Perhaps he can brand his Presidency as something like "Governing Bad" and his voters will love it so much they'll ask for 4 more seasons.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Fenring on November 22, 2016, 09:51:44 AM
Yes, people are drawn to disasters.  Perhaps he can brand his Presidency as something like "Governing Bad" and his voters will love it so much they'll ask for 4 more seasons.

Except in this series they're buying the red version rather than the blue.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Seriati on November 22, 2016, 10:14:25 AM
Quote
To most people when you get rid of evidence that makes you look more guilty, not less.

"USA Today reported in June on a decade-old civil case pitting Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts against an employee, in which it turned out that Trump’s business erased emails as a matter of course, and had no records for the years 1996 through to 2001."

Can you provide context, its perfectly legal for businesses to have and maintain record retention policies that involve deletion of old records.  It's generally only an issue if they delete items outside of those policies, or in reaction to a demand (or even an expectation of a demand) for those records, or fail to stop scheduled deletions after they receive a subpoena.  Of course, none of that has anything to do with Government record retention requirements.

To most people when you get rid of evidence that makes you look more guilty, not less. In fact, in most cases destruction of evidence is in itself a serious crime. Wasn't she ordered to turn over these emails and didn't she have them bleached instead?
No, the absence of evidence is not the proof of guilt unless you don't need evidence to find someone guilty at all.  You've used that approach on every issue in which you've attacked both Obama and Clinton.  I must have pointed this out a dozen times by now.  The more you dig and find nothing only confirms your rigid belief that there is something even more damning to find, so let's keep digging.

In fact, the courts routinely hold that destruction of records requires that an inference be entered that the records contained materials detrimental to the person that held such records.  You're literally just flat wrong, again, about how destruction of records is interpreted, and should be interpreted.  It's almost impossible to imagine that anyone could delete records in the manner Hillary did, after she knew they were being demanded, and not face a severe consequence in any civil or criminal matter.

Quote
Pete:
Quote
Are you claiming that she's been CLEARED on obstruction of justice charges?  Or that there is no prose cut able offense related to obstruction?
I'm not ignoring it.  Comey addressed that, too:

No, he's pretending that declining to prosecute is the same thing as being cleared, notwithstanding that prosecutorial discretion is mutable and being cleared offers the protection against double jeopardy. 
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 22, 2016, 10:38:13 AM
Perhaps you can provide the legal definition of "cleared".  Is that an official status or a description of the outcome of an investigation where the DA (or FBI in this case) declines to prosecute?

FWIW, KellyAnne Conway said today that Trump won't pursue further legal investigations against Clinton.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Seriati on November 22, 2016, 11:12:24 AM
Sorry about the delay on this, want to respond to the original post first.  I was stunned with this result.  Definitely living in a left wing bubble, didn't even think this result was possible.  I thought the campaign's talk about going after the Blue Wall was desperation speak that meant they'd given up on the states they really needed to win, like North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.

The next day when I started seeing the absolute distress appear on FB from Hillary supporters (and honestly, I didn't realize there were as many who legitimately supported her, rather than just being anti-Trump), I went out and posted a conciliatory message.  I pointed out that Trump didn't have the full support of his own party, and he'd have to govern with a broader coalition to get anything done because they wouldn't support him acting as an autocrat, in the same post I reminded my friends on the right what it felt like to be systematically excluded from the government and urged them to reach out.

Three days later, I'd frankly had enough of the hate being spewed by those on the left convinced that it was the end of everything.  Reading about parents having to "explain" things to their kids because they had filled they kids with hateful lies in the first place.  The idea  that losing with grace is something that we can demand of Republicans but shouldn't expect from Democrats was shocking, the idea that people should be beaten up because they didn't vote for one of the least ethical candidates of all time was appalling.  There was an endless litany of hate being spewed by the same people who claimed, "Love would Trump Hate" without the least bit of shame. 
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Fenring on November 22, 2016, 11:23:39 AM
There was an endless litany of hate being spewed by the same people who claimed, "Love would Trump Hate" without the least bit of shame.

Around half the anti-Trump posts I see in my feed are about how he is about to institute fascism in America. The funny thing about that is that in previous administrations, when seriously anti-liberty laws have been passed, the word "fascism" has always been derided as being tinfoil-hat whacko nonsense. Now it seems like it's become mainstream, even prior to Trump taking office. I find it ironic that there is nothing wrong with drone strikes, metadata collection, domestic surveillance, and the Patriot Act, while Trump wasting his time asking some Broadway actors to apologize is the end of free speech as we know it and the ushering in of jackboots.

It's worth noting, however, that since I'm in the arts a lot of people on my FB feed are also artists, which does tend to place them within a certain socio-political milieu.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Seriati on November 22, 2016, 11:27:15 AM
People did not vote against Hillary Clinton. They voted for Donald Trump.

Sure, many people voted for Donald Trump because they disliked Hillary Clinton and wanted someone else.  Nevertheless, it was still Donald Trump they voted for.

Most people make the rational decision to vote for the candidate they think is better and that has a chance to win.  The fact is, that there were voters who could have been convinced to not put Trump's name on the ballot if the other choice was someone other than Hillary Clinton.  I know many of them.  I did not see any result of a Clinton Presidency that would have led to a lessening of executive authority and I'm anti-royalist at heart.  The Democrats have proven to me that they will protect (in the Senate) unconstitutional acts of a President if they agree with the outcome, and I find that a far bigger threat than anything Trump is likely to achieve.

Quote
He was not the Democrat's choice for an opponent.

Sure he was, he was not only their choice, he was expressly their fantasy for an opponent.  It's literally almost inconceivable that they lost an election running against him, they only managed to do it by finding the one candidate who may not have been able to beat any Republican that ran against her. 

Quote
You can blame the Democrats for not winning, for not nominating a candidate who could have won--even though the candidate was fully qualified, with years of experience as both a Senator and a Secretary of State, and was one of the most respected women in the world at one time, not so long ago.  But you can't blame them for who did win.

I don't have any reason to "blame" them.  I think however, the lack of soul searching that your post has built in is missing the point.  There is literally, no good reason that Hillary Clinton should have been the candidate.  There are tens of millions of Democrats that were better choices to be the candidate.  Party insiders picked her for you, and party insiders helped other potentially strong candidates decide not to run against her (no Biden, no Warren), because they know better than you do (or so they believe).

Quote
Voters could have voted for any other candidate than Donald Trump.  But, instead, they voted for him.

Not in the general election they couldn't have.  By that point, it really is a choice of direction for the country.  You can vote because you really love the message of one candidate, or you can vote because you're convinced one candidate's vision for the country is really wrong and you have to vote to prevent it from occurring.

Quote
Now they are going to have to live with the responsibility of that choice.

We all have to live with the responsibility of putting forward two candidates, neither of whom should have been there, leaving the decision up to people to pick which they hated less.  And that is really what it was, I said 6 months out that the campaign that wins will be the one that stays out of the news more at critical points.  People hated these two enough that the more they were reminded of them the less likely they were to vote for them, and in fact the more likely they were to go out to vote to stop them.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Pete at Home on November 22, 2016, 11:43:00 AM
would I find tremendously funny is the rise of the term "Progressive" as euphemism for liberal, when less than a century ago progressive clearly referred to fascism. 
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 22, 2016, 11:48:31 AM
Quote
There is literally, no good reason that Hillary Clinton should have been the candidate.  There are tens of millions of Democrats that were better choices to be the candidate.
And tens of millions of Republicans who were better choices than any of the 17 candidates who entered the derby at the start.  You go to election with the candidate you have, not the candidate you want.  I said here previously that Trump was my ideal GOP candidate because he was so completely unelectable.  I don't think Clinton lost because of who she is as much as because of how hated party politics has become.  We should remember that neither Party's Congressional favorable ratings are above 20%, which appeared to make Trump viable by non-association.  Imagine if any of the other GOP candidates who have served in Congress or the State House had uttered any one of the things that were laughed off or tolerated when Trump said them.  Given the choice between demagogues, hypocrites, liars, dynastic scion or religious intolerance, they chose the clown.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: noel c. on November 22, 2016, 02:08:03 PM
"... they chose the clown." ...

If you are genuinely against the populist Trump, it would be unwise to be quite so dismissive at this stage. He is about to deliver a sucker-punch that will leave you eating those words.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 22, 2016, 05:17:12 PM
You're unaware of the clown attacks that have been happening across the country, I assume.  Trump is scarier than any of them.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: godsblackestcrow on November 22, 2016, 10:40:50 PM
Quote
We all have to live with the responsibility of putting forward two candidates, neither of whom should have been there, leaving the decision up to people to pick which they hated less.
We disagree (noting that for a self-described anti-royalist, and conservative, you seem to me to be a bit liberal with your use of our royal we).

The actions of the two major parties are the responsibility of all of the voters who by their own actions have made themselves responsible for supporting Democrats and Republicans (all while doubtlessly applauding themselves for their dutiful civic participation in the ridiculous popularity contest procedure this circus uses to determine who gets to be head clown) in the latest contest of this perpetually silly game, not of everybody else who helplessly watched while you morons went through your regularly scheduled incredibly stupid process of tearing the peace of our social fabric apart.

Democracy itself is clearly the rule of the mob, and thus a shame against the name of all society, but just because you regret the riot you and your kind ran the other night, let's not forget that only the mobbers among society are truly responsible for the damage they do in their perennial socially destructive folly.

Looked at logically, the census puts the US population at 318 million, and there were 62 million who voted for the p#ssy-pawing president-elect, and 64 million who voted for the alleged (but never formally charged) anti-christ, which means that just over one in five Americans voted for Clinton, and just under one in five Americans voted for Trump. So sure, shame on every single one of you--this part of your point is totally true!--but do note that a solid majority of Americans had nothing at all to do with the shameful party games you bipartisan idiots play to give your favored flavor of the policy mob the putative right to rule.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: D.W. on November 23, 2016, 10:07:55 AM
So you suggest we go all W.O.P.R. and the only winning strategy is not to play?   ::)
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 23, 2016, 01:54:05 PM
Quote
W.O.P.R.
Is that a radio station?

Quote
Looked at logically, the census puts the US population at 318 million, and there were 62 million who voted for the p#ssy-pawing president-elect, and 64 million who voted for the alleged (but never formally charged) anti-christ, which means that just over one in five Americans voted for Clinton, and just under one in five Americans voted for Trump. So sure, shame on every single one of you--this part of your point is totally true!--but do note that a solid majority of Americans had nothing at all to do with the shameful party games you bipartisan idiots play to give your favored flavor of the policy mob the putative right to rule.
It's a typical level of participation in the active voting process (Clinton 1992 = 23% of eligible voters, 10% of the overall population).  The passive way to participate is to insist that you don't care and then complain about whatever the result turns out to be.

FWIW, I had an epiphany the other day (gin and tonic followed by several glasses of wine) that this election had almost nothing to do with the candidates or their positions.  Trump had no real positions and few people bothered to read any of Clinton's voluminous proposals. It was all about the establishment vs people who hate the establishment.  Trump's mantra should have been broadened beyond "Lock Her Up!" to "Tear it Down!"  No other Republican candidate could have beaten her, but Trump wasn't a Republican candidate.  He was the anti-candidate who could say anything as long as he didn't get along with anybody in Congress. He had almost no endorsements from any Senator, Representative or Governor, wasn't even popular among the "mainstream" right wing loudmouths, many of whom directly attacked or opposed him.  He had no organized support, didn't run an organized campaign, didn't tell the truth, promised to do things he could never accomplish, lies like a rug, abuses women, is xenophobic, is blatantly self-serving and narcissistic.........and won the election.

Einstein said that explanations should be as simple as possible, but not moreso.  I think mine is good.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: D.W. on November 23, 2016, 01:56:33 PM
I know you're a LITTLE older than me AI, but you didn't somehow miss the movie "War Games" did you?
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 23, 2016, 02:00:33 PM
No, I think that movie got evicted from my memory by Weekend at Bernies II.  I never actually saw that, but the idea itself was damaging.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: godsblackestcrow on November 23, 2016, 03:30:48 PM
Quote
So you suggest we go all W.O.P.R. and the only winning strategy is not to play?
I suggest that we go back to the drawing board and assemble another constitutional convention. Everybody apotheosizes the wisdom of the founding fathers, but the game has changed, and the rules they wrote don't really work anymore.

2A is a good example: the original intent behind the amendment has basically zero relation to the interpretation and application today, because technological and social changes have so altered the environment within which the right is operable.

Meanwhile, representative democracy was considered an optimal solution by the framers largely because of the contemporary constraints related to the pre-industrial transportation and communications infrastructure--constraints which simply do not exist today.

If people do really have a right to pursue happiness, and governments are instituted to secure such a right, isn't it relevant that these elections are really functioning to create increasing unhappiness and division among the people whose happiness the contests were intended to secure?

"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

PS: Tic Tac Toe is a dumb game because--played correctly--nobody wins. But at least it doesn't result in Donald Trump being in charge--in Democracy, as should be clear by now, everybody loses...
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: NobleHunter on November 23, 2016, 03:42:17 PM
Quote
So you suggest we go all W.O.P.R. and the only winning strategy is not to play?
I suggest that we go back to the drawing board and assemble another constitutional convention. Everybody apotheosizes the wisdom of the founding fathers, but the game has changed, and the rules they wrote don't really work anymore.

2A is a good example: the original intent behind the amendment has basically zero relation to the interpretation and application today, because technological and social changes have so altered the environment within which the right is operable.

Meanwhile, representative democracy was considered an optimal solution by the framers largely because of the contemporary constraints related to the pre-industrial transportation and communications infrastructure--constraints which simply do not exist today.
The commerce clause is an even better example. What was originally intended to limit the ability of the federal government to meddle in state level economies and transactions now implicates almost all economic activity. A restrictive statement about government power has now become an expansive statement without even the slightest change of word or meaning.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Pete at Home on November 23, 2016, 03:44:32 PM
"I suggest that we go back to the drawing board and assemble another constitutional convention. Everybody apotheosizes the wisdom of the founding fathers, but the game has changed, and the rules they wrote don't really work anymore"

So you trust our current Tea Party overlords to rewrite the entire constitution from the ground up?

If not, then exactly who will decide exactly who gets to write our new founding government?

Which begs the question, who exactly are "we" to begin with?  The original 1989 writers were the elected reps of the states that had just defeated the British Empire, or so they could llausibly imagine.  Dissolve the constitution today and what unites us?
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 23, 2016, 03:49:50 PM
would I find tremendously funny is the rise of the term "Progressive" as euphemism for liberal, when less than a century ago progressive clearly referred to fascism.

You're not supposed to bring up language shifts. And this is one many liberals have pushed, they're pushing for "progress on social issues" and have claimed the term "progressive" once more, just like their Democratic reformer brethren of the 1910's under the Wilson Administration. You know, the Democratic President who was a rather proud supporter of the KKK, the guy who re-segregated the military(for another 40 years), and implemented the first round of homophobic policies in the War Department?

Of course, 200 years ago, a Liberal was someone who advocated for the government to have less influence in the daily lives of the average citizen, and talked about the importance of individual rights(and Egalitarianism--"Enlightened self-interest") rather than worrying about any kind of collective.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Pete at Home on November 23, 2016, 03:55:32 PM
"PS: Tic Tac Toe is a dumb game because--played correctly--nobody wins. But at least it doesn't result in Donald Trump being in charge--in Democracy, as should be clear by now, everybody loses."

He cant do worse than Andrew Jackson, the man on our $20 bill, and who gave us this whole democratic disease in the first place. But Democratic BS may be the price we pay for maintaining the rule of law and general peace. the last time large numbers of Americans talked about scrapping the constitution because they didn't like the new president elect, more Americans died than in any other war.

Substantially more Americans die of prescription painkiller overdose than of guns, and the civil war it would take to suppress that right would make that look mighty small.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 23, 2016, 04:00:23 PM
FWIW, I had an epiphany the other day (gin and tonic followed by several glasses of wine) that this election had almost nothing to do with the candidates or their positions.  Trump had no real positions and few people bothered to read any of Clinton's voluminous proposals. It was all about the establishment vs people who hate the establishment.  Trump's mantra should have been broadened beyond "Lock Her Up!" to "Tear it Down!"  No other Republican candidate could have beaten her, but Trump wasn't a Republican candidate.  He was the anti-candidate who could say anything as long as he didn't get along with anybody in Congress. He had almost no endorsements from any Senator, Representative or Governor, wasn't even popular among the "mainstream" right wing loudmouths, many of whom directly attacked or opposed him.  He had no organized support, didn't run an organized campaign, didn't tell the truth, promised to do things he could never accomplish, lies like a rug, abuses women, is xenophobic, is blatantly self-serving and narcissistic.........and won the election.

Einstein said that explanations should be as simple as possible, but not moreso.  I think mine is good.

Welcome to what I was saying last spring, on this very forum. He was a terrible candidate, and he was winning because he was a terrible candidate, and his odds of winning the Presidency were likely to be very good if he continued to be a terrible candidate all the way to the end of the Election Process. He tapped into a lot of voter dissatisfaction with Washington D.C. and the politics of the beltway.

Hillary is too much of a D.C. critter anymore, and the constant swirl of controversy and condemnation surrounding Trump just further brought home "the fact" that he was not a candidate that was wanted by the D.C. Beltway. Which made him "the ideal choice" for the angry voter.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Fenring on November 23, 2016, 04:02:48 PM
He cant do worse than Andrew Jackson, the man on our $20 bill, and who gave us this whole democratic disease in the first place.

I've heard this claim before, but don't know what it means. What did he do?
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 23, 2016, 04:11:06 PM
Meanwhile, representative democracy was considered an optimal solution by the framers largely because of the contemporary constraints related to the pre-industrial transportation and communications infrastructure--constraints which simply do not exist today.

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, among others would likely disagree. Even with the information at our fingertips, how many people actually bother to inform themselves about anything that doesn't directly impact them? And do you really want the people who get directly impacted by rules/regulations/laws to be the ones directly involved in making them law?

There are plenty of claims and assertions that for many people at the Constitutional Convention, Democracy almost became a dirty word. For one big reason, and it's why some aspect of the Constitution are as obtuse as they are. They compared direct democracy to being ruled by an angry mob. Because that would be exactly what you end up with. Which is a bigger part why many of them argued for a Representative Republic instead, it provided the mechanism for democratic inputs. But it otherwise worked to put the brakes on any "angry mob scenario" that was likely to occur.... By essentially gridlocking the upper tiers of government for up to 6 years at worst(in theory).

Better to have a gridlocked government that is barely functional than to have a constantly ongoing civil war as one side pursues it grievances against the other through force of arms.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 23, 2016, 04:16:15 PM
He cant do worse than Andrew Jackson, the man on our $20 bill, and who gave us this whole democratic disease in the first place.

I've heard this claim before, but don't know what it means. What did he do?

He fired almost EVERY government employee at the time, and replaced them with political appointees/friends. He's the single biggest reason why Government Employees are so hard to fire now. He isn't the only reason, but he was the one that caused the laws to go on the books, and stay there long enough to be strengthened when later abusers came around.

Of course, he also was the one who authorized the "Trail of Tears," in direct defiance of the Supreme Court no less. A lot of other things happened under his watch as well the weren't particularly good, and many were fairly bad. 

He got away with much of it because a majority of congress supported him, as they were Democrats too.

Honestly, in terms of which President Trump is likely to be most like on the civil rights front, I think FDR or Woodrow Wilson are the two he'd come closest to. He's not going to pull a Hitler, although WW might have tried if he could have found a way to do so.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 23, 2016, 04:27:08 PM
"I suggest that we go back to the drawing board and assemble another constitutional convention. Everybody apotheosizes the wisdom of the founding fathers, but the game has changed, and the rules they wrote don't really work anymore"

So you trust our current Tea Party overlords to rewrite the entire constitution from the ground up?

The Tea Party lead initiative is a lot more restricted in its scope, they're amendments only, and have to be relevant to: 1) fiscal restraints, 2) federal jurisdiction, or 3) term limits.

http://www.conventionofstates.com/proposed_rules

Quote
If not, then exactly who will decide exactly who gets to write our new founding government?

Article V doesn't mean a complete rewrite, depending on how the convention is chartered, it could become a runaway, or it may be tightly restricted in what it does, as the Tea-Party initiated effort is seeking to do.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Pete at Home on November 23, 2016, 05:00:19 PM
He cant do worse than Andrew Jackson, the man on our $20 bill, and who gave us this whole democratic disease in the first place.

I've heard this claim before, but don't know what it means. What did he do?

Genocide. Ethic Cleansing.  And promoted VP Calhoun, the architect of the great White Supremacy lie that Dr. king spoke of after the Selma March. The lie that kept poor uneducated starving white trash in the pockets of the aristocrats that ran their blood hot and cold from the tap during the civil war.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: godsblackestcrow on November 23, 2016, 05:10:42 PM
Quote
Quote
Meanwhile, representative democracy was considered an optimal solution by the framers largely because of the contemporary constraints related to the pre-industrial transportation and communications infrastructure--constraints which simply do not exist today.

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, among others would likely disagree.
Only if they misunderstood my statement the same way you seem to have, I think. I didn't actually argue that direct democracy would be a better solution (though I do think that if suffrage had to be earned by citizens through demonstrated competence/merit, it would effectively provide the benefit of reasoned competence which is ostensibly provided by representative democracy, without maintaining the actual tyranny of "popular people" which characterizes the current system), I simply pointed out that the choices they made were based on environmental constraints which are no longer extant.

Surely we agree that Madison and Jefferson would understand that the dynamics of social interaction are different today than they were two and a half centuries ago...no?
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 23, 2016, 07:09:50 PM
Surely we agree that Madison and Jefferson would understand that the dynamics of social interaction are different today than they were two and a half centuries ago...no?

Only in the specifics and the speed in which it happens. Human behavior hasn't changed, so history is still a very powerful teacher.

As to the voting franchise being "retooled" I'd be all for that(except for the whole matter of "poll tests" in the south in years past). Perhaps some kind of tiered process so they don't end up fully disenfranchised? But how do you decide who gets to reside in the "higher" tiers?

I kind of like Heinlein's idea of "only Veterans," but I think that is far too extreme in a lot of ways too. Of course, he didn't "tier" that either, and that would create other issues as well(Such as: In order to have a "truly representative" and meaningful sample of the population engaged in Military service, you'd have to maintain a large military, particularly if they get "special benefits" for such service-- which then makes it appealing to groups that would otherwise avoid it).
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: AI Wessex on November 23, 2016, 07:28:22 PM
Quote
Which begs the question, who exactly are "we" to begin with?  The original 1989 writers were the elected reps of the states that had just defeated the British Empire, or so they could llausibly imagine.  Dissolve the constitution today and what unites us?
The "We" of now is not the same as it was in 1789.  I think we have moved well past the idea that we are a nation of individuals collected into states to now being a confederation of states and leagues of rival interests with membership.  If we were to rewrite the Constitution, it wouldn't be that people's rights would be either raised or lowered, but less important than what those other entities would demand and receive.  If you believe that the federal government is too powerful, you're in luck but then you'll have to contend with every state individually.  Choose where you live wisely, not because you were born there or were offered a job there.  Your freedoms and security will depend on that choice.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Pete at Home on November 23, 2016, 08:29:55 PM
Quote
Surely we agree that Madison and Jefferson would understand that the dynamics of social interaction are different today than they were two and a half centuries ago...no?

The Jefferson who wrote the D of I was far more like the better angels of our common nature today than like the son of a bitch named Thomas Jefferson who ran for president against Adams.  That later Jefferson was a much worse man than Trump.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Pete at Home on November 23, 2016, 08:37:14 PM
Quote
Which begs the question, who exactly are "we" to begin with?  The original 1989 writers were the elected reps of the states that had just defeated the British Empire, or so they could llausibly imagine.  Dissolve the constitution today and what unites us?
The "We" of now is not the same as it was in 1789.  I think we have moved well past the idea that we are a nation of individuals collected into states to now being a confederation of states and leagues of rival interests with membership.  If we were to rewrite the Constitution, it wouldn't be that people's rights would be either raised or lowered, but less important than what those other entities would demand and receive.  If you believe that the federal government is too powerful, you're in luck but then you'll have to contend with every state individually.  Choose where you live wisely, not because you were born there or were offered a job there.  Your freedoms and security will depend on that choice.

Indeed.  I would much sooner petition to rejoin the British Empire than return to pre-14th Amendment America.

I think the states should have more sovereignty than they do but not THAT much.

I opposed federal ssm precisely in order to avoid this current cultural backlash and the rainbow proto sedition that seems to be forming in response.  But would rather live with that crappy court decision than shred the constitution and 14a.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Pete at Home on November 23, 2016, 08:54:03 PM
Surely we agree that Madison and Jefferson would understand that the dynamics of social interaction are different today than they were two and a half centuries ago...no?

Only in the specifics and the speed in which it happens. Human behavior hasn't changed, so history is still a very powerful teacher.

As to the voting franchise being "retooled" I'd be all for that(except for the whole matter of "poll tests" in the south in years past). Perhaps some kind of tiered process so they don't end up fully disenfranchised? But how do you decide who gets to reside in the "higher" tiers?

I kind of like Heinlein's idea of "only Veterans," but I think that is far too extreme in a lot of ways too. Of course, he didn't "tier" that either, and that would create other issues as well(Such as: In order to have a "truly representative" and meaningful sample of the population engaged in Military service, you'd have to maintain a large military, particularly if they get "special benefits" for such service-- which then makes it appealing to groups that would otherwise avoid it).

In Heinlein's model (and I think it's an error to assume he embraces it except through his fictional narrator) the government can't turn down your service. Even a gimp like me has a right to serve, although it might assign me for the testing of land mines if I am deemed unsuitable for anything else.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Pete at Home on November 23, 2016, 09:01:21 PM
".  I think we have moved well past the idea that we are a nation of individuals collected into states to now being a confederation of states"

1789 itself moved beyond confederation, obviously.

Bear in mind that when you sum the votes for Trump, McMillan, and Johnson, that a MAJORITY of US voters, not plurality but majority, voted for options more conservative than anything that you or I could accept, Al.

But then I count votes as one counts Supreme Court opinions.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 24, 2016, 08:16:14 AM
In Heinlein's model (and I think it's an error to assume he embraces it except through his fictional narrator) the government can't turn down your service. Even a gimp like me has a right to serve, although it might assign me for the testing of land mines if I am deemed unsuitable for anything else.

I think Heinlein's model as per Starship Troopers was largely hyperbole and satire. Given the time-frame of the book, it was likely a sidelong commentary on a Military-Industrial Complex run-amok(which even the then President Eisenhower was going to start warning about just a year later). Although he sprinkles a lot of other stuff within the book that he probably did support to some degree, particularly given what is known of his personal life. He still does manage to make it hard to sort the wheat from the chaff on that one.

Although the "skin in the game" thing may very well have also been a poke at both WW2 and more specifically American involvement in the Korean War(as Vietnam hadn't involved the US just then), both of which involved large scale military drafts. (And ignores the even earlier WW1) Of course, the flip side is I don't think Heinlein was very sympathetic to the peace-nik types either, even without Startship Troopers, he did seem to come off as one of the "peace through strength" types.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: godsblackestcrow on November 25, 2016, 11:48:58 PM
Quote
Quote
Surely we agree that Madison and Jefferson would understand that the dynamics of social interaction are different today than they were two and a half centuries ago...
Only in the specifics and the speed in which it happens. Human behavior hasn't changed
I suspect you mean something more along the lines of "Basic human motivations haven't changed." Human behavior absolutely has changed, in tandem with technology. The invention of the telegraph, for instance, represents the emergence of  socially complex behaviors related to the construction, operation and maintenance of the telegraphy system, as well as engendering entirely new modes of communicative behaviors that had previously been impossible. More germane to my point is the fact that the availability of instantaneous communication at a distance created the possibility of a completely new and different solution to complex social problems which require instantaneous interactivity between individuals belonging communities at great distances from each other. Prior to the invention of telecommunications, the only viable solution to these types of problems was to delegate an individual (or individuals) who were capable of transporting themselves to the location of an interactive meeting with delegated individuals from other communities, and competent to represent the interests in the home community in such a meeting. After telecommunications were invented, the availability of new type of communicative behavior changes the behavioral solution set to complex social problems which involve distant communities.

In other words, after the framers set up their framework, human beings learned to behave in new ways which permitted for an entirely different type framework to resolve the problems the initial framework was designed to resolve. Even if one assumes that they found the optimal solution set given the tools they had to work with, the availability of new, more sophisticated tools should be sufficient in and of itself to mandate a reanalysis of the chosen solution framework.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 26, 2016, 02:12:55 AM
Tweaks/changes to how people communicate and interact with one another still has little bearing as to underlying nature of those interactions. The motivations remain the same, the nature of the human("human nature") hasn't changed. Now once we all start getting cybernetic implants and the technology becomes capable of displacing biology, we'll have a different discussion.

Now as to certain specifics regarding the Constitution, yes, some of it should be adjusted to account for present day circumstances. Nuclear weapons were things of very wild speculation even into the 20th century, and it's doubtful most of the founders would support every citizen having 50 megaton ICBMs in their backyard for example.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Kasandra on November 26, 2016, 04:30:17 AM
The changes from the times of the Founders is far more pervasive than just a set of namable things like nuclear weapons or cybernetic implants.  They founded an agrarian "framework" organized and controlled by landowners befitting their contemporaneous world.  That world no longer exists.  Today we live in a technology based world organized and controlled by corporate owners that is far more complex and vastly bigger than theirs.  The Constitution that fit the Founder's world covers little today.  As a guide to behavior in our time it's an anachronism almost as obsolete as the bible.  Our puny individual rights and powers are laughably weak compared to those of corporations.  Trump's election is the natural realization of the state of affairs; he is far more powerful than the massive horde of peons that put him in power.  The Constitution written in 1789 can't contain him.  If we rewrote it today citizens would have all the rights of members in an organization owned and managed by a plutocratic oligarchy.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Pete at Home on November 26, 2016, 09:30:30 AM
What uninformed speculation.

How exactly did the constitution "contain" Andrew Jackson in whose life it was written?

You have no information to show how the Constitution will or won't contain Trump.  He hasn't taken office.

With the 14th Amendment and two centuries of Separation of powers laws, our constitution is better situated to prevent Tyranny than it was in 1789
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Fenring on November 26, 2016, 10:06:55 AM
Our puny individual rights and powers are laughably weak compared to those of corporations.

Funny you should say that, since both parties (including yours) seem hellbent on rolling back those freedoms slowly over time, for the benefit of the few. I don't think this is happening for the reasons a few of you are stating - namely, that the world has changed and the constitution is obsolete. On the contrary, nothing that's happening now on a socio-political level wasn't foreseen to almost eerie detail by Jefferson. Sure, maybe the Founders didn't foresee gay marriage and other social changes like that, but such renovations to the social contract are not of primary importance in why individual rights have become 'laughably weak.' They are laughably weak because it is inevitable that in a sufficiently capitalist setting corporations will overpower individuals, and unless strict controls are in place, will overpower the boundaries between public and private as well.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Pete at Home on November 26, 2016, 11:08:20 AM
Tweaks/changes to how people communicate and interact with one another still has little bearing as to underlying nature of those interactions. The motivations remain the same, the nature of the human("human nature") hasn't changed. Now once we all start getting cybernetic implants and the technology becomes capable of displacing biology, we'll have a different discussion.

Now as to certain specifics regarding the Constitution, yes, some of it should be adjusted to account for present day circumstances. Nuclear weapons were things of very wild speculation even into the 20th century, and it's doubtful most of the founders would support every citizen having 50 megaton ICBMs in their backyard for example.
I hope you are just humoring Kasandra here.
Does anyone really think that under the existing Constitution, that people have the right to stockpile nukes?
 
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Pete at Home on November 26, 2016, 11:10:43 AM
if the US Constitution was Rewritten today, it would be written by people in the pockets of those big corporations
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 26, 2016, 11:36:55 AM
Funny you should say that, since both parties (including yours) seem hellbent on rolling back those freedoms slowly over time, for the benefit of the few. I don't think this is happening for the reasons a few of you are stating - namely, that the world has changed and the constitution is obsolete. On the contrary, nothing that's happening now on a socio-political level wasn't foreseen to almost eerie detail by Jefferson. Sure, maybe the Founders didn't foresee gay marriage and other social changes like that, but such renovations to the social contract are not of primary importance in why individual rights have become 'laughably weak.' They are laughably weak because it is inevitable that in a sufficiently capitalist setting corporations will overpower individuals, and unless strict controls are in place, will overpower the boundaries between public and private as well.

Well said. And looking at history, the more modern axiom of "Money talks" is probably the most apt description for much of history.

The story of history seems to ultimately come down to one of 3 paths:

1) Power seeking money, by any means necessary.
2) Money seeking power, often by any means necessary.
3) People with power/money acting in what they believe to be Egalitarian ways. (Often with negative results.)

Replace "Corporate Board" with "Titled Aristocracy" when it comes to discussing many issues present today, and you're basically talking about the situation in the world several centuries ago. The only difference is the Corporate system is slightly more of a Meritocracy than the Aristocratic system that it replaced. "The other difference" was that in the late 18th century, there generally were information constraints that tended to limit the depth and scope of the influence the aristocracy could wield individually.

Obviously, improvements in Transportation, Communication, and "Information Management" have wildly changed the game in that respect when it comes to exactly how much one person can exercise control over. It has also generally increased the amount of information available to everyone, although the quantity and quality of said information, and has access to what, is often widely variable.

Which is where I imagine most of the people on this board sit when they say it is perhaps time to change the configuration of the Constitution towards a more Democratic system. Except as Fenring points out, the situation we're in today isn't something not completely unforeseen by the likes of Madison and Jefferson.  The specifics of how we got here may be completely alien to them, but the practical side of it is something they very much saw. Because the Humans involved in it all haven't changed, just the (amount of) information they have has.

The founders were all about Option 3 outlined above, hence a lot of talk about people "acting in Enlightened Self-Interest." However, they also fully realized that was an ideal, and that history bears testimony to the fact that the reality is people are far more inclined to act in "self-interest" above all else. They may extend that sphere of "self-interest" to include (extended) family members, and friends, but eventually their "outer limit" will be reached, and they hit the point where they'll gladly trample on the rights/privileges of people they don't know so long as doing so does not negatively impact anybody they know/care about. It almost always comes down to "My 'tribe' against everyone else" at the end of the day.

Another way to put this is to quote Space Balls and declare "Good is dumb." Because someone who lives/breathes that egalitarian mindset often has a hard time even conceiving the idea that someone could possibly act in a deliberately harmful way towards others. Which is a large part of the reason why such systems tend to end up as spectacular failures. People with Egalitarian motives concentrate a lot of power in the hands a small group of people, or even a single person, often for "a good cause" and then are shocked when they discover that the person/group they just empowered isn't Egalitarian at all.

Because of things like that, direct democracy is a very scary thing, as history across the world can attest to, as almost every nation that has gone the direct democracy route has had a problem with rampant violence. Now of course, the Ivory Tower types like to claim it is "lack of 'Democratic institutions' being established" but it's more basic than that. They're setting up systems where a majority, or sometimes just a plurality, gains control of the government, and as soon as they do, they "democratically" decide that everyone not part of "their side"(tribe) should be treated as persons unwelcome, and in many cases, that gives them the excuse to (violently) pursue sometime centuries old feuds.

They failed to do what the founders did in the United States, they did not place sufficient backstops into their governmental processes to prevent the Majority from becoming a Tyranny. Of course, the US also had a big advantage in this respect in that it largely left the feuds from Europe, in Europe, so it lacked "the history" that would otherwise present such problems... At least until the Civil War and the emancipation of the slaves.

Another way to look at it is the uninformed voter problem many people lament about today? You really need to go back at look at the full text that Jefferson's infamous "blood of patriots" quote comes from:

http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_tree_of_liberty...(Quotation) (http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_tree_of_liberty...(Quotation)) (emphasis added by me)
Quote
...There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.

Or Madison in Federalist 10, emphasis added:
https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-10

Quote
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
 
It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 26, 2016, 11:40:39 AM
I hope you are just humoring Kasandra here.
Does anyone really think that under the existing Constitution, that people have the right to stockpile nukes?

Depends on what you think the rationale behind the 2nd Amendment was/is. If it was so the citizens could arm themselves in such a manner that they had a "reasonable" chance of winning against the Government, that would mean the citizens then must be able to arm themselves with the same equipment the government itself has...

I don't think any rational person seriously argues in favor of people having the right to stockpile nuclear weapons for personal use, but it IS one potential interpretation of the document.

Of course, the argument could instead be made that in this specific instance, such weaponry isn't intended for the private citizens, but should be within the respective rights of a given State to pursue such armaments if their State Government decides to so arm their state Militia.

So while Joe Blow member of the state militia of Texas may not be entitled to own his own nuclear weapon, the State of Texas itself has every right to do so as part of "a well regulated militia."
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Kasandra on November 26, 2016, 04:43:25 PM
Our puny individual rights and powers are laughably weak compared to those of corporations.

Funny you should say that, since both parties (including yours) seem hellbent on rolling back those freedoms slowly over time, for the benefit of the few. I don't think this is happening for the reasons a few of you are stating - namely, that the world has changed and the constitution is obsolete. On the contrary, nothing that's happening now on a socio-political level wasn't foreseen to almost eerie detail by Jefferson. Sure, maybe the Founders didn't foresee gay marriage and other social changes like that, but such renovations to the social contract are not of primary importance in why individual rights have become 'laughably weak.' They are laughably weak because it is inevitable that in a sufficiently capitalist setting corporations will overpower individuals, and unless strict controls are in place, will overpower the boundaries between public and private as well.
What I highlighted was exactly my point.  The "strict controls" (whatever they might be) are being systematically eviscerated by the so-called Conservative Supreme Court.  Odd that those who present and parade themselves as originalists have ushered in the greatest series of changes that have dramatically changed the Constitution as it was originally written.  And yes, both Parties are complicit in different ways as they see that it serves their short-term advantage.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Pete at Home on November 26, 2016, 04:47:47 PM
"Depends on what you think the rationale behind the 2nd Amendment was/is. "

depends on what you think the definition of think is. As I see it any thinking and inform person understands that militia means the ability of small communities to defend themselves against thugs robbers and the like. the idea of a militia being a counterbalance to the federal government is just psycho.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Pete at Home on November 26, 2016, 04:52:51 PM
A well organized local and city militia was intended to defend against, for example, the looting and lawlessness we saw in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The lefties and the rightwads have their heads so far up each others' butts that neither understands that the 18th century concept of militia protects against threats that have in no way gone away.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Pete at Home on November 26, 2016, 04:57:10 PM
Thomas Jefferson was the founder of the country, but he was in no way a founder of the Constitution. If anything he was an implacable enemy to the balance of branches.  His rantings on blood of patriots and white Supremacy laid the foundation for Dredd Scott and the civil war.  As far as Constitutional interpretation is concerned, the man is useless, and both the right and the left continue to drag him out to muddle the waters.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Greg Davidson on November 26, 2016, 06:16:10 PM
Quote
A well organized local and city militia was intended to defend against, for example, the looting and lawlessness we saw in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

The "looting and lawlessness" in the wake of Katrina was primarily an explosion of  racist fantasy.

Quote
The narrative of those early, chaotic days — built largely on rumors and half-baked anecdotes — quickly hardened into a kind of ugly consensus: poor blacks and looters were murdering innocents and terrorizing whoever crossed their path in the dark, unprotected city...

Today, a clearer picture is emerging, and it is an equally ugly one, including white vigilante violence, police killings, official cover-ups and a suffering population far more brutalized than many were willing to believe. Several police officers and a white civilian accused of racially motivated violence have recently been indicted in various cases, and more incidents are coming to light as the Justice Department has started several investigations into civil rights violations after the storm.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/us/27racial.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/us/27racial.html)

Pete, I suspect you will flip out with anything that even hints at accusing you expressing racist ideas, but if in fact there was no greater lawlessness or looting after Katrina than after similar events in primarily white communities, then your repeating the false white hysteria about Katrina is a racist act.   
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 26, 2016, 06:35:01 PM
"Depends on what you think the rationale behind the 2nd Amendment was/is. "

depends on what you think the definition of think is. As I see it any thinking and inform person understands that militia means the ability of small communities to defend themselves against thugs robbers and the like. the idea of a militia being a counterbalance to the federal government is just psycho.

Constitutionally thinking on this one, Armies are used to suppress and oppress. Which is why the Army has a two budgeting constraint in the CotUS. The various state militias, paired with the Federal Navy(plus others empowered by letters or marquee(sp?)) were the initially envisioned National Defense. Further, having it be the state militias, rather than a Federal Army, further curtains the ability of the Federal Government from "feeling it oats" as it were.

So yes, I do think many of the founders would have supported States being in possession of Nuclear Weapons if the Federal Government has them. It's the part that the militia movements get backwards. You don't go off on your own as Joe Citizen. You instead operate under the authority of your state government in the face of Federal tyranny.

The three federal branches are to check each other in power, and further, the respective State governments are likewise supposed to check the Federal government as well. Which is how we get an Electoral College, a Senate Seat both delegated "as the state's decide"(now defunct for the Senate), and State Militias under the 2nd Amendment, as well as the 10th Amendment--which seems to have been largely castrated by the 14th, for good and ill alike.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Kasandra on November 26, 2016, 07:57:44 PM
Quote
So yes, I do think many of the founders would have supported States being in possession of Nuclear Weapons if the Federal Government has them. It's the part that the militia movements get backwards. You don't go off on your own as Joe Citizen. You instead operate under the authority of your state government in the face of Federal tyranny.
I think that's silly. The Civil War established that the federal union was greater than the individual states.  To imagine that the feds would develop nuclear weapons in the 20th C. and then passively let the states develop or acquire them as a check against the federal union is a dark and bizarre fantasy.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Pete at Home on November 26, 2016, 08:15:47 PM
Quote
So yes, I do think many of the founders would have supported States being in possession of Nuclear Weapons if the Federal Government has them. It's the part that the militia movements get backwards. You don't go off on your own as Joe Citizen. You instead operate under the authority of your state government in the face of Federal tyranny.
I think that's silly. The Civil War established that the federal union was greater than the individual states.  To imagine that the feds would develop nuclear weapons in the 20th C. and then passively let the states develop or acquire them as a check against the federal union is a dark and bizarre fantasy.

Agreed with Kasandra there. I suspect Daemon is pulling out leg here. 

WMDs in the form of  primitive bioweapons were known by the founders ( while there is no evidence that Europeans ever use the legendary smallpox blankets on American Indians, there's definite historical evidence that they used it on each other, and Plague was used by the Mongols who catapulted corpses). But these measures were never referred to as "Arms.". To assume you can expand a right or power simply by changing the meaning of a word is the hubris of leftspeak. I hope conservatives will not fall to that son.

Yes, some founders envisioned the fed being able to call up local militia for war purposes but that wasn't the purpose of militia. Militia existed for local peacekeeping. Indian raids pirates and robbers. 

Yes modern "Militia" differ from the founders vision, but the 14th amendment expanded the effect of 2a just as it expanded the whole bill of rights.  So it's foolish to talk about founder intent for 2a without addressing 14a, which sought explicitly to preserve individual rights from the states.  14a was passed during a time when the South was enacting gun control laws to facilitate lynching of blacks and "n____~lovers"

Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 26, 2016, 10:08:54 PM
Quote
So yes, I do think many of the founders would have supported States being in possession of Nuclear Weapons if the Federal Government has them. It's the part that the militia movements get backwards. You don't go off on your own as Joe Citizen. You instead operate under the authority of your state government in the face of Federal tyranny.
I think that's silly. The Civil War established that the federal union was greater than the individual states.  To imagine that the feds would develop nuclear weapons in the 20th C. and then passively let the states develop or acquire them as a check against the federal union is a dark and bizarre fantasy.

The Civil War may be relevant for us, but it wouldn't be for the Founders, as it was after their time. Discussing two different things. The framework as envisioned/constructed initially, vs what it is now.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Kasandra on November 26, 2016, 10:20:43 PM
Which was my initial point.  We are more than two centuries beyond what the Founders knew and well beyond what they were capable of imagining, however brilliant we like to imagine them to have been.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Pete at Home on November 26, 2016, 10:46:05 PM
" I think that's silly. The Civil War established that the federal union was greater than the individual states"

Facepalm.

No.  That was established by the 14th and 15th Amendments, not by the freaking Civil war.  Yes, they are related, but get the causation right.

Origin a lists are full of crap because the founders INTENDED for the constitution to be amended, and the 14a drastically changed the effect and direction of the bill of rights.  Not to mention it's an exercise in hypocrisy for lefties to suddenly pretend to be originalists when it comes to the constitution.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Kasandra on November 27, 2016, 07:15:37 AM
Quote
Facepalm.

No.  That was established by the 14th and 15th Amendments, not by the freaking Civil war.  Yes, they are related, but get the causation right.
Holy Pedantix, Batman!  That deserved a facepalm?

Quote
The Reconstruction Amendments are the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, adopted between 1865 and 1870, the five years immediately following the Civil War. The amendments were important in implementing the Reconstruction of the American South after the war.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Pete at Home on November 27, 2016, 07:34:44 AM
Yes, because your failure to take in that distinction is at the heart of your foolish argument that the constitution is out of date.  You don't recognise that 14a totally changed the meaning and function of the 1789 constitution.

"We are more than two centuries beyond what the Founders knew and well beyond what they were capable of imagining, however brilliant we like to imagine them to have been."

Hence the facepalm.  14a took all that into account. The founders may be 250 years out of date but your call for an overhaul is 120 years out of date.  It's been done. Know your law before you lobby to change it.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 27, 2016, 07:44:58 AM
Originalists are full of crap because the founders INTENDED for the constitution to be amended, and the 14a drastically changed the effect and direction of the bill of rights.  Not to mention it's an exercise in hypocrisy for lefties to suddenly pretend to be originalists when it comes to the constitution.

...but that doesn't mean that amendments can't be made in error, and may need to be undone(prohibition anyone?) or otherwise adjusted themselves. Which is the one valid point to take from the "strict Originalist interpretation" in determining if the initial version may or may not be preferable to the subsequent versions we're now contending with due to later amendments. Although most Originalists do consider subsequent amendments too.

Now obviously, the 2ndA/10thA argument that the States(not the individual citizen) should be able to arm themselves such that they could rebel from the Federal Government if warranted was rendered largely moot by the 14th Amendment and the Civil War more generically. And that the militia's were more generally intended to deal with "'flash' domestic issues" within a state's border, which likewise has been largely rendered moot due to numerous factors that renders things stable enough, and the National Guard performs most of the other (emergency) militia duties today.

However, the fundamental need/right to self-defense(interpreted as the individual right to bear arms, 2nd Amendment) still remains relevant to this day, and short of Star Trek Transporter technology becoming widely available, will continue to remain relevant for a long time to come. When the first of "the first responders" is 40+ minutes away at best speed(or even just 5 minutes away), the citizen often needs to be able to act in the interim, even if that means the first-responder arrives to help do the cleanup.

When/if a non-lethal option becomes seriously viable(and comparably affordable to the alternative), taking away the lethal option from Joe Citizen may be on the table, but that isn't the case today.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Pete at Home on November 27, 2016, 07:51:05 AM
Quote
...but that doesn't mean that amendments can't be made in error, and may need to be undone(prohibition anyone?)

Sure, but they should only be undone by individual amendment, not by violent civil war as Kasandra laid out in her ghastly non "pedantic" historical revision.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 27, 2016, 08:15:54 AM
Yes, because your failure to take in that distinction is at the heart of your foolish argument that the constitution is out of date.  You don't recognise that 14a totally changed the meaning and function of the 1789 constitution.

"We are more than two centuries beyond what the Founders knew and well beyond what they were capable of imagining, however brilliant we like to imagine them to have been."

Hence the facepalm.  14a took all that into account. The founders may be 250 years out of date but your call for an overhaul is 120 years out of date.  It's been done. Know your law before you lobby to change it.

Or the 16th and 17th Amendments, which happened in the early 20th Century. Although I think #17 should be reconsidered/tweaked, possibly as part of a larger Electoral College adjustment. I think getting the various State Governments out of the US Senator selection process wasn't fully thought through.

The first compromise solution would be to give each state a third Senator so every state is selecting a senator every 2 years, but revert back to letting the States decide upon how their 3rd senator is selected, rather than subjecting seat #3 to the 17th Amendment and mandating direct election(states can still opt to do so on their own, as some did prior to the 17th Amendment). That would potentially give the various statehouses potential to only control up to 1/3rd of the US Senate, which wouldn't typically be decisive by itself.

The second possible solution would be that we could term limit the Senators while we're at it, but give the State Legislatures/Governments the ability to grant "waivers" allowing their Senators to run for re-election beyond the "standard" term limit(voters still have to vote to re-elect them however). For that matter, we could do that with or without adding a 3rd Senate Seat. (I initially considered only making the State Government selected Senator immune to term limits; State level politicians are going to have much longer memories than Joe Voter typically speaking...)

The only truly major issue with growing the Senate is that it would change the nature of the Electoral college, and give states like Wyoming even more voting power in the EC, so such a change in the Senate's size couldn't happen without other reforms involving the EC. Although giving State governments an up/down vote option on their Senatorial delegation running for re-election beyond a 2nd term seems like a half-way decent way to off-set some of the power they lost as a result of the 17th Amendment. US Senators looking to see a 3rd term, or longer, are going to be much more attentive to the issues of their respective state governments because of that.

As to the House, no mercy. Either give them term limits with no waiver, or don't put term limits in place to start with. They're there to represent their district, not their state, strictly speaking.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: TheDeamon on November 27, 2016, 08:20:28 AM
Quote
...but that doesn't mean that amendments can't be made in error, and may need to be undone(prohibition anyone?)

Sure, but they should only be undone by individual amendment, not by violent civil war as Kasandra laid out in her ghastly non "pedantic" historical revision.

Yeah, settling a dispute by force of arms, rather than by force of law, does nothing to change the nature of the underlying law. All the force of arms part did was say "I'm going to make you do this." It did nothing, by itself, to demonstrate that there was a legal basis for doing so beyond "might makes right." ;)

The amendments formalized and codified the outcome of what was initially settled by force of arms, but it(the amendments) is what formed the legal basis of what followed. Rather than the violence itself.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Kasandra on November 27, 2016, 08:26:18 AM
Quote
Yes, because your failure to take in that distinction is at the heart of your foolish argument that the constitution is out of date.  You don't recognise that 14a totally changed the meaning and function of the 1789 constitution.
Honestly, I can't discuss this with you after you agree with what I said and then "facepalmed" the same comment and now make an argument that is opaque to me.  Welcome back, Pete.
Title: Re: Holy......
Post by: Pete at Home on November 27, 2016, 10:59:19 AM
Holding off on responding to Kasandra until I have time to reread to see if and where I have misread and misunderstood.

"  It did nothing, by itself, to demonstrate that there was a legal basis for doing so beyond "might makes right." ;)
"

The war did actually settle the legal question of whether a state could unilaterally secede from the Union.  Ironically, if the Confeds had been less stupid, they could have waited for SCOTUS to rule on the legal question of secession, and their ruling imo might have been different had it occurred prior to the violence initiated at Ft Sumter. Remember over half the Court was Southern and had ruled horribly so in Dress Scott