US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5410

A wave of Republican officials abandoned Donald Trump on Saturday, but, at least for now, rank-and-file Republicans are standing by the party’s presidential candidate, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll conducted immediately after audio was unearthed Friday that had the GOP nominee crudely bragging about groping women and trying to lure a married woman into an affair.

Overall, fewer than 4-in-10 voters — 39 percent — think Trump should end his presidential campaign, while only slightly more voters, 45 percent, think he should not drop out.

But voters are largely viewing Trump’s comments through their own partisan lens: 70 percent of Democrats say Trump should end his campaign, but just 12 percent of Republicans — and 13 percent of female Republicans — agree.

As of now, GOP voters largely want the party to stand behind Trump. Nearly three-quarters of Republican voters, 74 percent, surveyed on Saturday said party officials should continue to support Trump. Only 13 percent think the party shouldn’t back him.

Still, Hillary Clinton leads Trump in the four-way race for the White House by 4 percentage points, 42 percent to 38 percent, with 8 percent supporting Gary Johnson, 3 percent supporting Jill Stein and 9 percent undecided. Clinton also leads by four in a two-way race, 45 percent to 41 percent.

Operatives in both parties say they believe it will take several days — and Sunday night’s debate at Washington University in St. Louis — to have the video bake into the public consciousness.

On October 10 2016 05:14 KwarK wrote:

Carson? Come on. Bush maybe, he appeared to be able to play the game well enough to appeal to the middle but there were some crazies in there. Carson and his pyramids weren't getting elected.

On October 10 2016 05:15 biology]major wrote:
The real loser in all of this, is Bernie. He started a movement and sold out and lost to the very thing he was fighting against. Trump doesn't give a shit if he loses, he's still rich and is going to go into retirement, or start a new media empire. Bernie will be forgotten as a sellout, if he didn't endorse HRC though he would have been remembered.

On October 10 2016 05:17 biology]major wrote:
HRC is that bad. A person who is on tape suggesting sexual assault, calling his daughter a piece of ass, is giving her a hard time. The wikileaks story would be dominating right now if it wasn't for the trump tapes. If any of the other candidates could make it through without some major scandal being revealed, even Carson and his creationist theories would make it into the white house.

The government of Saudi Arabia is now employing 10 lobbying firms in Washington as it grapples with a new law that would allow families of victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to sue the country.

The Saudis have hired King & Spalding to provide “advocacy and legal services” related to the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, according to a contract filed with the Justice Department. It’s the fifth firm to be hired by the country in recent weeks.

Congress handed President Obama his first veto override last week, turning the 9/11 bill into law. But top Republican lawmakers are already discussing rewriting the law to address some of the unintended consequences.
Saudi Arabia hired four other firms at the end of September, right before the White House issued its veto. Heavyweights Squire Patton Boggs, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck and Glover Park Group, along with Sphere Consulting, were added to the payroll.

Unlike the other firms, King & Spalding inked its contract through Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Commerce and Investment. The agreement does not discuss fees or the duration of the work, saying those details were still being worked out.

A review of disclosures by The Hill shows that Saudi Arabia is now paying upward of $1.3 million in lobbying fees per month — including payments to its other firms, Hogan Lovells, MSLGroup, DLA Piper, Podesta Group and BGR Group. Targeted Victory, a Republican ad firm, is working through a subcontract with MSLGroup.

Earlier this year, Saudi Arabia threatened to sell off hundreds of billions of dollars of American assets should the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act become law.

Obama has warned that the law allowing Americans to sue countries or individuals suspected of sponsoring terrorism could also ultimately open up Americans to lawsuits by foreign governments.

Companies like Boeing, Dow Chemical, General Electric and Chevron also pressed lawmakers not to vote for the override, according to Politico.

Almost immediately after the vote to sustain the legislation into law, overturning Obama’s veto, leaders began discussing ways to change it.

"I would like to think there’s a way we can fix so that our service members do not have legal problems overseas while still protecting the rights of the 9/11 victims,” Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said last week after the successful veto override.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said that he spoke to Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir last week, according to Bloomberg, and the Saudis are open to tweaking the law with new legislation following the November elections.

Prior to the law, families of terrorist attack victims could only sue governments thought to be responsible if the country was a State Department-designated sponsor of terrorism. Saudi Arabia does not have that designation.

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 hailed from Saudi Arabia. Critics have long suspected that the kingdom’s government may have either directly or indirectly supported the attacks, something the Saudis vehemently deny.

On October 10 2016 05:20 KwarK wrote:

I strongly disagree. Firstly, this election was far more important than Bernie, stopping Trump isn't just a priority for Clinton supporters, it's a priority for Bernie supporters. Focusing on the difference between Hillary and Bernie is short sighted, the important priority for Bernie supporters was stopping Trump, Trump beating Clinton would be a far worse result that Clinton beating Bernie. Secondly, Bernie didn't sell for nothing, Bernie got a number of his priority policies incorporated into the Clinton package, both by presenting a threat from the left that forced her to compete for those supporters and later by selling himself. Thirdly, this election is a moral litmus test. You can't stand above it and say it's not important to you, it's important to every American. 2016 is a year in which Americans have to pass judgement, one way or another, on xenophobic populism as a movement. You do not look good by refusing to take a stance on whether that should be opposed. You just don't.

I supported Bernie in the primary but I find no fault with his subsequent actions.

On October 10 2016 05:05 Blisse wrote:

I'm not sure but his outrage just seems so fake here it's funny.

Would Cruz have actually won against Hillary though?

On October 10 2016 05:23 biology]major wrote:
That's the thing, I think it's pretty funny when Clinton was on stage with Bernie promising free public tuition for any family making less than 125k. LOL ok. She is going to do whatever the hell she wants, and trust me all of the promises she made Bernie will go down the gutter.

On October 10 2016 05:20 KwarK wrote:

I strongly disagree. Firstly, this election was far more important than Bernie, stopping Trump isn't just a priority for Clinton supporters, it's a priority for Bernie supporters. Focusing on the difference between Hillary and Bernie is short sighted, the important priority for Bernie supporters was stopping Trump, Trump beating Clinton would be a far worse result that Clinton beating Bernie. Secondly, Bernie didn't sell for nothing, Bernie got a number of his priority policies incorporated into the Clinton package, both by presenting a threat from the left that forced her to compete for those supporters and later by selling himself. Thirdly, this election is a moral litmus test. You can't stand above it and say it's not important to you, it's important to every American. 2016 is a year in which Americans have to pass judgement, one way or another, on xenophobic populism as a movement. You do not look good by refusing to take a stance on whether that should be opposed. You just don't.

I supported Bernie in the primary but I find no fault with his subsequent actions.

On October 10 2016 05:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
2020 is God's gift to the GOP. So if Clinton wins she better pray is she able to put 2-3 judges on the Supreme Court. As I only see a 1 term Presidency for her.

On October 10 2016 05:15 biology]major wrote:
The real loser in all of this, is Bernie. He started a movement and sold out and lost to the very thing he was fighting against. Trump doesn't give a shit if he loses, he's still rich and is going to go into retirement, or start a new media empire. Bernie will be forgotten as a sellout, if he didn't endorse HRC though he would have been remembered.

On October 10 2016 05:27 Nevuk wrote:

I think a lot of people are missing the fact that if the democrats somehow took the house (it's still pretty unlikely now, but it was unthinkable on thursday) and try to implement the DNC platform it will actually be very close to what Bernie was aiming for. I never would have dreamed the platform would have moved so far a year ago