2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

6,001 to 6,050 of 7,079 << first < prev | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thank you for the summation and for the wonderful wild life example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Thank you for the summation and for the wonderful wild life example.

I mean, I assume it's illegal to strap rockets to cattle. Maybe I need to go collect signatures outside the local Wal-Mart just to be sure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You must assume nothing.


Ryzoken wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Thank you for the summation and for the wonderful wild life example.
I mean, I assume it's illegal to strap rockets to cattle.

My body is ready.


I'm so glad levity found this thread and found it hard.


Sensor Sheep wrote:
Ryzoken wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Thank you for the summation and for the wonderful wild life example.
I mean, I assume it's illegal to strap rockets to cattle.
My body is ready.

Then you'd be Sensor floating sheep.


I haven't read more than a tiny fraction of the thread, but I just had to post THIS.

Silver Crusade

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

You know what's really silly? Citing Republicans' behavior and success during the primaries as evidence of anything for the generals. Kasich lost because nobody noticed him. That's basically an advantage in a one-on-one race with someone with a negative favorability rating.

And citing how well she's doing against the only other presidential candidate to ever reach a lower favorability rating than her while running as evidence that she would trounce someone like Kasich. That's silly, too.

Rubio is an idiot. I'm not gonna bother saying he would be likely to win. It would be close. But Kasich? A popular Ohio governor who's free from most of the racism/homophobic baggage that's been dragging down Republicans in the general? I have an extremely hard time believing Bernie supporters would be so willing to fall in line—most of them see Hillary as basically a Republican anyways. One Bernie supporter I know told me that she sees Hillary and Kasich as basically identical on most issues.

Except to get Kasich there, you have to hand-wave him through the primaries. IF he'd gained any traction, and IF he'd slipped through without any gaffes or scandals, IF Kasich wasn't stuck fending off charges of being a RINO cuck from his own right-wing, and IF huge numbers of liberal voters stayed home in disgust then sure your scenario maybe holds water. Your scenario seems entirely predicated on Kasich somehow sidestepping the dynamics that sunk Romney, or at least that it wouldn't hurt him. But that's a giant pile of counterfactuals and as such isn't very interesting to argue about.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
CrusaderWolf wrote:
That's like arguing that a spark plug is the only thing that matters for a car. I mean, sure, if everything else is there, but that spark plug won't do jack if you're missing the engine block. To put it another way, Ohio and Florida matter because California and Texas are locked up.
Texas is locked up you say?
Given that the Libertarians have pretty much thrown in the towel, that 4 percent could pretty much lock it up for Trump. They sure as hell won't vote for a Democrat, and especially not a Clinton.

Didn't we debunk this a while back? An attack on Trump isn't "throwing in the towel".

Sure, it's not like they were ever actually running a real campaign to win and third parties always bleed support in the final weeks, but we've already seen that and we're not going to see a huge further collapse because they haven't thrown in the towel.


Ryzoken wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I'm going to have to look into the California thing. .

Well, the idea is, a common citizen can make an end run around the political gears by getting enough signatures on an initiative, resulting in a proposition being put up to vote each electoral cycle. These propositions can't be altered by politicians once drafted, and can only be overturned by the judiciary, basically. So we end up with dudes standing around outside our shops asking if registered voters would sign their nth attempt to legalize sheep rocketry or whichever inane initiative they've drafted, then get to deal with it again when our ballot informationals roll into our mailbox and we've forgotten that the "Safe Squirrel Sanctuaries and Schools" proposition is actually the thing that says it's cool to strap rockets to farm animals.

In 1964, as a result of Direct Democracy Initiatives, we attempted to ban cable television. It failed.

In 2008, we attempted to do the same thing to same-sex marriage, through Proposition 8, which was enacted via, you guessed it, Direct Democracy. It passed, and was eventually struck down by SCOTUS, if I recall correctly.

Now we're looking at prop 57, which decriminalizes things like certain forms of rape (by intoxication, or of an unconscious victim) as they do not meet the legal definition of violent crime.

For starters. Lots of reading up to do on it. Pay special attention to stuff like Prop 8 of 2008, and 57 of 2016 for sterling examples of why this system can really suck.

Yeah. Do more research on 57. There's a lot of propaganda floating around about it. It certainly doesn't "decriminalize" anything. It allows early parole for non-violent crimes. Some claim that includes lots of things we'd normally think of as violent, but others, including the bill's authors, disagree.

But more generally, you're right. Ballot initiatives seem like a great idea and can be used for good, but overall they don't really seem any less easy to distort and manipulate than any other approach to government. If nothing else, in a state the size of California, you need serious funding to win a referendum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Scythia wrote:
Sensor Sheep wrote:
Ryzoken wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Thank you for the summation and for the wonderful wild life example.
I mean, I assume it's illegal to strap rockets to cattle.
My body is ready.
Then you'd be Sensor floating sheep.

Counting those, in an effort to fall asleep.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
CrusaderWolf wrote:
That's like arguing that a spark plug is the only thing that matters for a car. I mean, sure, if everything else is there, but that spark plug won't do jack if you're missing the engine block. To put it another way, Ohio and Florida matter because California and Texas are locked up.
Texas is locked up you say?
Given that the Libertarians have pretty much thrown in the towel, that 4 percent could pretty much lock it up for Trump. They sure as hell won't vote for a Democrat, and especially not a Clinton.

Actually, there have been a significant number of Johnsonites taken from Clinton's camp. A lot of it is from Bernie-Or-Busters who were really just in the game because they didn't want a woman to be president. Remember, Gary Johnson's main appeal is for social liberals who don't understand economics. Young folk, a lot of the time. Not so many seasoned Republicans.

BNW wrote:
Except to get Kasich there, you have to hand-wave him through the primaries

"Kasich would beat Clinton" =/= "Kasich could have won this overall election."

For the record, I do think a hand-waved Kasich would have done better than Trump. But yeah, Kasich had no chance in the primaries.

BNW wrote:
Your scenario seems entirely predicated on Kasich somehow sidestepping the dynamics that sunk Romney, or at least that it wouldn't hurt him.

Kasich is not Romney. Clinton is not Obama.

For one thing, Romney lost Ohio.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And in today's news, a Trump supporter was arrested for voting twice and charged with first-degree election misconduct.


Vidmaster7 wrote:

I have a question for you guys. Do you feel because of the strong polarization of the american election process it is literally impossible to find a candidate that would not be smeared to look like Satan himself. Seems to me that between one side or the other any potential candidate is going to be dissected and found some way to seem as bad as possible. I'm fairly certain if Jesus Christ or Buddha (which by the way there is a rather entertaining anime starring those two.) where running for office the opposing side would find someway to make them out to be the devil himself.

This is less election related but still int he ball park. I wonder how hard it would be to change the system to a direct democracy. I would say something like. A voting app on phones and pc's in library's and at home with complex pin numbers to say have a few laws voted on like once a day. There is flaws of course it means slow response times to matters that need to be reacted on quickly. (and other issues)

Or I also wonder about I believe it was Aristotle's Idea of scholar kings. if you want to be a politician you forgo all your wealth family and social ties to go into a monastery for the rest of your life and spent it researching everyone else in society and making the best polices one can come up with. Since the theory is the only way you can make unbiased decisions about a society is to take yourself out of the society. (this all might be super off topic but you guys seem like smart cookies and I'm interested in responses)

Direct democracy is how we got our political parties.

In the history of American politics, political parties have developed twice. The first time was in the aftermath of the writing of the Constitution. You ended up with the Federalists and Anti-federalists, this was largely due to strong ideological differences on a few key points. Once Hamilton died, the Federalists slowly fell apart over the next few years until you only had the Anti-Federalists (now Republicans). This gives us the Era of Good Feelings, so noted not necessarily for it's peace and prosperity, but just relative calmness within the political sphere. There are no political parties, people who hold the highest office in a given area (President, Governor) tend to pick their successor.

That lasts for about 10 years until Jackson comes along. As new states started to be admitted to the Union, many of them started to remove (or never implement) property/tax rights for voting and started to have universal suffrage for white men. Fearing that their low wage workers might leave to western states, older states started to reduce their requirements, or even adopt universal suffrage (for white men). All of a sudden, this dramatically opened up the number of people you had to sway in order to win an election. Prior to that you could meet with a few dozen land owners and if they liked you, most likely you'd carry all the votes for a pretty big area. At the same time, the usage of electors for many offices (other than president) start to go away and switch to direct voting.

Jackson wins office on a tide of populism. Once in office, he did a very common thing, he gave appointments to political supporters. This wasn't new, but Jackson was so blatant about it that he gets credit for starting it in American politics. Combined with the need to get people to campaign for you (remember, this is 1828, you can't visit every state, let alone every major city due to slow transportation speeds), the political party structure returns.

With a country this big, political parties are necessary to organize efforts to win elections. If you don't have a political party, you're going to lose the election to someone who does. The dynamic of parties being opposed to each other will always lead to cycles of increased hateful rhetoric. As long as millions of people need to be convinced to win an election, you'll always get someone trying to paint the other candidate as immoral and unfit to hold office.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:
And in today's news, a Trump supporter was arrested for voting twice and charged with first-degree election misconduct.

See! See! Voter fraud does happen!

We need voter ID to stop Clinton from stealing the election!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow, Trump is an even bigger (yuger?) self-aggrandizing tightwad than I thought: [WaPo] "Trump boasts about his philanthropy. But his giving falls short of his words." "Falls short" is a massive understatement, BTW.

Can we just give Fahrenthold his Pulitzer already?


For a bit of lighter news, the next President may have to deal with pirates in Iceland.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:
For a bit of lighter news, the next President may have to deal with pirates in Iceland.

Well obviously, Trump could just build a Biglier wall around the pirates. In the middle of the water.

Dark Archive

Sarcasm Dragon wrote:
Rednal wrote:
For a bit of lighter news, the next President may have to deal with pirates in Iceland.
Well obviously, Trump could just build a Biglier wall around the pirates. In the middle of the water.

Everybody talks about Iceland, but nobody does anything about Iceland!

He's already promised to solve problems with nukes. Is this a problem that a nuke can fix? Let's find out!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Huh. While I wasn't looking the New Hampshire Green Party went and changed tomorrow's protest outside the Dem's Clinton/Kennedy dinner (changed earlier this autumn from the "Jefferson/Jackson dinner") from a Jill Stein demo into a Solidarity with Standing Rock demo.

Didn't realize until I got there that Chelsea was speaking.

When we lined up in front of the Radisson with our various signs against pipelines and plutocracy, they sent staffers out with giant signs. We called the other half of the demo that was in front of the parking garage to come over and they sent out even more staffers.

I have to give it to the staffers: They were much better dressed than us. And hawt. Conferred with my male gay comrades and they confirmed that the male staffers were pretty hawt, too, although, Young Gay Autistic Comrade commented that he wouldn't touch them with a seven-and-a-half inch penis.

I thought that was odd, but he is odd often.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Rednal wrote:
For a bit of lighter news, the next President may have to deal with pirates in Iceland.

Relevant.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Didn't realize until I got there that Chelsea was speaking.

This is how I would have handled that situation...


Set wrote:
Sarcasm Dragon wrote:
Rednal wrote:
For a bit of lighter news, the next President may have to deal with pirates in Iceland.
Well obviously, Trump could just build a Biglier wall around the pirates. In the middle of the water.

Everybody talks about Iceland, but nobody does anything about Iceland!

He's already promised to solve problems with nukes. Is this a problem that a nuke can fix? Let's find out!

I'd prefer we not nuke Iceland. If we need a nuclear winter, I'd suggest starting much smaller. Say Fiji.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:
For a bit of lighter news, the next President may have to deal with pirates in Iceland.

We surrender please run our government.


Thomas Seitz wrote:
Set wrote:
Sarcasm Dragon wrote:
Rednal wrote:
For a bit of lighter news, the next President may have to deal with pirates in Iceland.
Well obviously, Trump could just build a Biglier wall around the pirates. In the middle of the water.

Everybody talks about Iceland, but nobody does anything about Iceland!

He's already promised to solve problems with nukes. Is this a problem that a nuke can fix? Let's find out!

I'd prefer we not nuke Iceland. If we need a nuclear winter, I'd suggest starting much smaller. Say Fiji.

IIRC, Nuclear Winter happens* because of all the burning cities dumping enormous volumes of smoke into the atmosphere and cloaking the earth in eternal winter by shielding it from the sun. So long as we don't set large nations on fire, then we are probably alright.

*Or rather, it might happen depending on how you model it. There is a very good chance that cities won't actually burn enough to send the necessary amounts of smoke into the atmosphere, for the simple reason that most modern cities just aren't that flammable. The cooling effect will still be there, but it won't be nearly as bad as the moniker "Nuclear Winter" suggests.


My major concern with a nuclear winter is the whole polluting our air quality much like people that want to use volcanoes to do the whole cooling down the planet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:
Sarcasm Dragon wrote:
Rednal wrote:
For a bit of lighter news, the next President may have to deal with pirates in Iceland.
Well obviously, Trump could just build a Biglier wall around the pirates. In the middle of the water.

Everybody talks about Iceland, but nobody does anything about Iceland!

He's already promised to solve problems with nukes. Is this a problem that a nuke can fix? Let's find out!

They won't even say the word "Greenland"! This politically incorrect administration keeps calling it "Iceland"! How can you fight Greenland pirates if you won't even say the word?


Meanwhile, the GOP is doubling down on the claim that a lot of people who want to vote for Trump just aren't admitting it, hence the disparity in polls.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thunderspirit wrote:
Rednal wrote:
For a bit of lighter news, the next President may have to deal with pirates in Iceland.
Relevant.

Genetics reveal cats may have sailed with Vikings.


Irontruth wrote:
thunderspirit wrote:
Rednal wrote:
For a bit of lighter news, the next President may have to deal with pirates in Iceland.
Relevant.
Genetics reveal cats may have sailed with Vikings.

Now this has historical legitimacy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Scythia, did you click thunderspirit's link?


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Scythia, did you click thunderspirit's link?

Well that's embarrassing. :P

I rarely click on links, it was bound to catch up with me sooner or later.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I click on all links. It's bound to catch up with me sooner or later.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I don't even click on my own links.

You never know which one is going to be a Family Guy clip and which one leads to Michael Bolton.

Here's a hint though.

:
Explosive Runes!!!


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I click on all links. It's bound to catch up with me sooner or later.

It's caught up me occasionally...not here yet, luckily.

Just the other day was at a site and said click here to see poll results. I clicked and a pop up came up, and before I could close it (sometimes a faster internet is NOT a good thing) it had loaded.

Still hoping that it didn't have something, ran the Virus checker, than ran malwarebytes and they both showed no infections...but still, things like that make me nervous.

And yet, I still click almost all the links that people post because I am very trusting that they are actually posting legitimate links that back up their stuff. I know I don't just put up links for show...and showing the same respect to others, I also open their links.

Normally, I'm not disappointed, and normally gives me a bit more reading than just the forum I'm on.


thejeff wrote:

The one who "self-financed" his entire primary campaign?

Also, the one who's losing big time and is far behind in the money race. Who knows he's losing and isn't bothering to put more of his own money into the game.

Spastic Puma wrote:

"Trump has shown us that you don’t need a billion dollars or more to run for President"

...
Really? REALLY? The guy who's a rich business man? The one who's entire identity revolves around making money and mastering the "art of the deal"? The guy who sticks his name on skyscrapers, steaks, vodka, etc. and whatever else he can (attempt) to make a profit off of? The one who owns his own private jets?

The guy who has used his own private real estate and transportation the entire campaign and paid for it using donation money so that it all gets funneled back into his company?

Wow. Just, wow.

Yes really. If you don't believe me, . Hillary Clinton has raised over $1 billion, Donald Trump has half of that.

I will agree he “self-financed” his entire primary campaign, he did it with $56 million of his money and all that press coverage.

You are going to see people follow this route first with congressional races, both at the state and the federal level. There the overall monetary needs are lower. From there it will only be a matter of time before someone tries it for governor and then eventually president once again. By that time they will need a lot less than the $500 million of capital to make a presidential run, relying even further on social media and the networks than Trump did.

As for “losing big time”, I already said this election is going to be close and I still say it will be close.


Vidmaster7 wrote:

Lets get a scenario here just for the sake of seeing where the line is drawn. lets say Boss 1. (we will use numbers and letter designations) Hits on employee A. employee A does not appreciate these advances however employee A is worried what boss 1 would do if the adavnces were rejected. therefore employee A allows it. Is employee A being sexually assaulted?

Now It may just be him bragging about conquest or it might be him using his influence money and power to put women in situations where they can not do anything about it. Do you know for a fact which it is?

Also the wording is terribly inconsistent with yours "let him" is a passive response. as opposed to wanted him to.

We don’t need to posit scenarios, I am sure you and I have both been through similar sexual harassment training and we are both reasonably familiar with the sexual harassment laws and sexual assault laws. The line is simple and straight forward…the woman must grant consent, and consent cannot be coerced.

I know for a fact that the woman being discussed in Donald Trump’s conversation with Billy Bush, Nancy O’Dell I believe, was in a situation where she could do something about it because she shot him down and he failed to seduce her.

As for “when you’re a star, they let you do it”, he says “when you’re a star”, not “when you’re the boss” and not “when you’re the guy writing the checks”. He is talking about his celebrity status helping him pick up women with another celebrity who presumably experiences the same thing.


Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Let's apply this rationale to another issue:

You believe Trump wants to stick it to the 1%, to clean out their influence from politics.

However, there are several 1%-ers who are backing Trump, including Peter Thiel who you've mentioned a few times now.

If Trump really wanted to stick it to he 1%, all billionaires would oppose them. Since several of them don't, you and the billionaires who oppose him must be seeing an illusion.

You are absolutely correct.

That Donald Trump is going to stick it to the billionaires after the election could very well be my hallucination. I could be wrong.

I will still support him, first and foremost, because, as you said, most of the other billionaires agree with me, whether it is a hallucination or not. If it is an illusion, it still makes Trump a thorn in their side for the duration of the election, and I like to see my enemies squirm. And, of course, Trump hitting the Bezos, Bush, and Koch families aren’t illusions, those hits are real, even if it will stop after the election.

For the record though, Peter Thiel is a billionaire who provides seed money to the company Legalist, which is an exciting idea that can help Ordinary Joe Schmoes fund their lawsuits when they have a legitimate claim against a big corp. Someone like Roger Kearns would have greatly benefited from Legalist. So Peter Thiel sees things my way, whether it is an illusion or not. I don’t know enough about the others to say, except that Adelson has always made Israel his top priority.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
That group would be the 1%, but I wouldn’t use the word “hate” or “terrible”. I would say that I despise the stupidity* of the 1% and I am morally outraged with the disruption and chaos they cause.
Nothing they do is stupid.

Not true.

Quote:
They have the entire system working for them, and ITS WORKING.

Hence the disruption and chaos.

Quote:
Trump is good at being born rich. Seriously. He inherited his entire fortune and would have been richer if he'd just sold the company and put the money into other peoples investments .

It’s Donald Trump’s fault he doesn’t have more money because he couldn’t see decades into the future?

Quote:

Yes, he got a "small loan" of a few million (in 1975 money) from his father, but after he didn't blow that he ALSO got the entire company: if i run the hardware store for someone you can bet i don't inherit the entire thing when they retire.

The idea that Donald trump will, out of the goodness of his heart, close tax loopholes that make him richer by billions because we're paying him 250,000 dollars is absolutely absurd.

I said he is going to inflict pain on the billionaires. I didn’t say it was going to be by closing tax loopholes.

Quote:

The man has never shown that he even understands the concept of what sacrifice is, much less made one.

He is promoting trickle down economics, the same economic platform that romney, reagan, bush 2 and bush 1 all went for.

Along with the Democrats, who also practice trickle down economics.

Quote:

The same economic platform the 1% has always justified. They aren't not promoting trump because he has a bad idea, they're not promoting him because he's going to lose, and if he loses big their control over the system could take a huge hit.

We shall see if he loses, but the billionaires supporting Hillary won’t be taking a hit if she wins.

thejeff wrote:

And yet somehow the 1% keep pushing for the actual tax cuts. For the top rates to be lowered, even at the cost of closing loopholes.

Tell that to Warren Buffet.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
Another thing I appreciate about Trump is how hard he is making Hillary work to earn the presidency. If she wins, at least he made her work for it.

Hahahahhahahaahhahahahhahahaa

JEB would have beaten her. Romney would have beaten her. Kasich would have crushed her. Hell, if he'd been the GOP candidate, Bernie probably could have beaten her.

Which one of those guys would have told Hillary she belongs in jail on national television?

That was a huge risk Donald Trump took. It could still back fire on him beyond the election. Hillary isn’t known to forgive and forget, at best Trump can look forward to more lawsuits and more federal investigations if he loses.

But saying it just paid off on Friday. There is no way James Comey wanted to open this can of worms. He either goes down in history as torpedoing Hillary’s presidential campaign, or the guy who tried to torpedo Hillary’s presidential campaign. The Republicans already hated his guts, now the Democrats do too*.

Reading his letter to Congress, it is obvious he did it because he had no choice. If he didn’t do it, someone under him was going to leak it, and it would look like a cover up.

Why would Comey be worried about leaks? Because Trump is keeping up the pressure, demanding justice. That is LEADERSHIP. The FBI investigators know they aren’t alone, they know that someone else has already stuck their neck out and put it all on the line, and that gives them the moral courage to take a stand and demand their higher-ups do the right thing and make it clear to the public this investigation is still active and ongoing.

It was pretty obvious after it became impossible for Sanders to win that he held on hoping that the FBI and US AG were going to indict Hillary so he could become the Democratic candidate. But it doesn’t work that way. No one was going to show up and handcuff Hillary and hand Sanders the nomination on a silver platter. You want it, you have to work hard and fight for it. Sanders wasn’t willing to fight hard enough. No one is going to stick their neck out for you if you don’t have the courage to do it first.

What Trump did is what great football players do on the football field. They make plays. They force the other team to react to what they are doing. Donald Trump just forced a turnover in favor of the Ordinary Joe Schmoes. Turnovers don’t win games by themselves, but it gives the other team another chance.

Did you see Hillary at her brief press conference in reaction to the FBI announcement? She looked defeated. Tell me again how hard she isn’t working.

*Of course, I suppose Comey could still somewhat redeem himself in the eyes of Democrats if he can announce the close of the investigation in the next few days. Anything can happen in this election and it does every few days.


There really isn't much to investigate. It's looking increasingly like Hillary pissed Comey off in some way and he's decided to put his finger on the scales. If that's so, you have the combined forces of the GOP, the FBI, and Hillary's own baggage...being still insufficient to carry Trump over the bare minimum threshold to become president.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
There really isn't much to investigate. It's looking increasingly like Hillary pissed Comey off in some way and he's decided to put his finger on the scales. If that's so, you have the combined forces of the GOP, the FBI, and Hillary's own baggage...being still insufficient to carry Trump over the bare minimum threshold to become president.

And no one thought BreXit would pass either.


Sure, sure. If I'm wrong, so be it—I'll look a little foolish. I'm willing to bet, though. It might be closer than expected, but Trump has been behind Hillary this entire race. It would take a record-breaking miracle to let him into the White House.

In other words: Care to place a friendly wager? I'll bet you ten Paizobucks.


Not sure I'd take that bet if I were you...


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

And no one thought BreXit would pass either.

If Brexit had another vote, it wouldn't.

A lot more people googled EU since then (then there were those folks who thought themselves very clever by voting Brexit as a form of protest).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
It's looking increasingly like Hillary pissed Comey off in some way and he's decided to put his finger on the scales.

Remember, Comey was a deputy special counsel on the Senate Whitewater Committee.

So Comey briefed Jason Chaffetz and the Republicans in the House of his actions before he notified the Dems, the FBI, or the Whitehouse. Once again, he deliberately broke with standard FBI procedures and policy going public with an ongoing investigation against Clinton, something he has not done on any of Trump's investigations. He wrote a letter to FBI employees trying to justify his actions. Then we find out he didn't even have a warrant for the emails until just earlier today. Now he and the FBI will likely not even comment further on this investigation until after the election, leaving everyone to speculate.

At best, Comey has repeatedly demonstrated poor leadership, undermined FBI morale, and bungled informing his superiors (and the public) in clear & precise language. At worst...? Well, Clinton Derangement Syndrome displays many symptoms and there currently seems to be no cure. In the immediate future, Comey is looking at an unpleasant meeting with President Obama and likely being charged with violation of the Hatch Act. I'm sure that if Comey still has his job on the Inauguration, he'll be politely but firmly informed how much he misses his family. I'm sure he'll find a new job working for a Libertarian think tank or a K-Street lobbying firm... heck Trump, Bannon, Ghouliani, Reek Christie, & Co. may have a job for him in their new company, MAGA Grifting Unlimited.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
NPC Dave wrote:

But saying it just paid off on Friday. There is no way James Comey wanted to open this can of worms. He either goes down in history as torpedoing Hillary’s presidential campaign, or the guy who tried to torpedo Hillary’s presidential campaign. The Republicans already hated his guts, now the Democrats do too*.

Reading his letter to Congress, it is obvious he did it because he had no choice. If he didn’t do it, someone under him was going to leak it, and it would look like a cover up.

Well, if that someone under him actually has anything he should go ahead and leak it, because currently it looks like nothing. Or at least it looks like they know nothing, certainly not enough to sink an election over. There are apparently some emails they found working on a different case. The FBI doesn't have a warrant for them yet. They haven't read them yet. They're apparently not from Clinton. They don't know yet if they're classified. They don't know yet if they're just different copies of emails they've already looked at. Basically, they know nothing. Comey's said they know nothing.

But he released it anyway. There's no reopening the investigation. There's no indictment coming. There's only what looks increasing like a blatant political act on the part of a partisan FBI director.

Hope that whistleblower leaks the real goods that'll finally take down Clinton soon. After all these years and all the scandals that haven't panned out, this one will do it for sure!

Edit: If it was not partisan interference, it was ineptitude. A serious blunder. The FBI (and the DoJ in general) has policies designed to prevent exactly this kind of impact on politics.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
NPC Dave wrote:
Quote:
Trump is good at being born rich. Seriously. He inherited his entire fortune and would have been richer if he'd just sold the company and put the money into other peoples investments .
It’s Donald Trump’s fault he doesn’t have more money because he couldn’t see decades into the future?

Well...yes?!

If he is a successful businessman, that means he can invest money better than other people. And he can't, not if he is beaten by the index. No seeing-into-the-future involved.


Meh. Paris Hilton is objectively better at business than Trump is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
My major concern with a nuclear winter is the whole polluting our air quality much like people that want to use volcanoes to do the whole cooling down the planet.

Ironically, the Icelandic volcano eruption in 2010 was calculated to the 'net environmentally friendly' since emission reductions from grounded planes outweighed direct emissions. (not the same effect as you were thinking of, but shows where people get crazy ideas from)

For the record, I'm against natural disasters.

(ps. a fundamental problem with US politics is that you have only 2 major parties, which makes negative campaigning way overpowered and prevents cooperation. Unfortunately there's no clear way out of it).

6,001 to 6,050 of 7,079 << first < prev | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards