US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5516
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On October 12 2016 11:15 Probe1 wrote: We said that same thing when Obama was first elected. Turned out aside from a few super crazies the FBI caught before they ever got the ball rolling.. nothing. Maybe I'm being excessively anxious. You do have to admit that the rhetoric this election has been much worse however, with the one of the candidates talking about rigged elections, second amendment solutions, jailing their opponent, etc. | ||
CatharsisUT
United States487 Posts
On October 12 2016 09:59 KwarK wrote: Yeah, my bad, I was unclear. But it's looking seriously bad for him in all the swing states. He needs to win a 30% chance, then another 30% chance, then a 35%, then another 35%, then a 45%, then a 50%. If he can pull off all six of those then he wins. Important to note that they are correlated outcomes, though, so you can't just multiply the probabilities and say "no way it happens". There's a good discussion in this 538 article. | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
math, how does it work? | ||
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — Alaska's two U.S. senators resigned leadership posts in the state Republican party after denouncing GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump and saying he should step aside. U.S. Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan voluntarily resigned over the weekend as honorary members of the party's state central committee, Murkowski campaign spokesman Robert Dillon said Tuesday. Party officers are expected to back party candidates. Last month, several GOP officers resigned their posts to publicly back Republican-turned-Libertarian Joe Miller in his challenge to Murkowski in this fall's Senate race. State GOP chairman Tuckerman Babcock said Murkowski and Sullivan held their party leadership posts by virtue of holding elected office and would have those positions restored after the election. On Saturday, after a 2005 video surfaced in which Trump made lewd comments about women, Murkowski said Trump had "forfeited the right to be our party's nominee." She had not previously endorsed Trump. Sullivan, who had backed Trump, withdrew his support and said he would support Trump's running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, for president. Babcock said the state GOP remains committed to Murkowski as the party nominee in her re-election bid. The state party also remains behind Trump, he said. When asked his reaction to Trump's video, Miller pointed to a Facebook post he'd written saying he found Trump's comments about women reprehensible but takes him at his word that he is "repentant." He called Murkowski's position on Trump "a little curious" because Trump is the Republican nominee but said this isn't the first time Murkowski hasn't supported a GOP nominee, an apparent jab at her refusal to support Miller's 2010 Senate campaign after he beat her in the GOP primary that year. She went on to win with a general election write-in campaign. Pollster Ivan Moore said Murkowski faced less of a dilemma in taking a stance against Trump than other GOP candidates because she draws support across the political spectrum. But he said some Trump supporters might see that as the "final straw" from Murkowski and vote for Miller. One of the criticisms that Murkowski has faced is that she is not conservative enough or is a Republican in name only. Moore believes Murkowski holds the edge in a race that also includes Democrat Ray Metcalfe and independent Margaret Stock. Murkowski on Tuesday reported that she had raised $415,000 between July 28 and Sept. 30 and had nearly $1.6 million on hand. The other candidates had not yet released their latest fundraising details. Metcalfe said he will support his party's presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, though isn't enthusiastic about it. Independent Margaret Stock hasn't said who she will support. All this comes as the Senate candidates prepare for their first general election debate Wednesday night in Kodiak. They'll be debating without Miller, who will be in Sitka, Miller spokesman Randy DeSoto said. Miller's campaign has taken issue with some of the forums in which Murkowski has agreed to participate, seeing them as friendly to Murkowski. DeSoto said Miller has committed to four debates or forums, two of which Murkowski also plans to attend. "I think this puts to rest the accusation that Sen. Murkowski is avoiding debates," said Dillon, Murkowski's spokesman. https://apnews.com/8c3192f6549a4509bc53596b175c9c70 | ||
Chris1
44 Posts
| ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On October 12 2016 12:35 Chris1 wrote: Didn't Clinton talk about droning Julian Assange? I guess talking about rape>talking about murder. Wikileaks tweeted about an anonymous source talking about Hillary talking about using a drone on Assange. Video recording > friend-of-friend-tweet. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22722 Posts
Wait. Hillary Clinton on Tuesday rolled out a new tax break that, if enacted, would put more money into the pockets of working parents with very young children. Clinton's proposal is very different from Republican candidate Donald Trump's child care plan Is it a "tax break" or a "child care plan"? Because if it's supposed to be the new Democrats plan for childcare, that's terrible. | ||
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On October 12 2016 12:41 GreenHorizons wrote: Wait. Is it a "tax break" or a "child care plan"? Because if it's supposed to be the new Democrats plan for childcare, that's terrible. C/P a few more words there: Clinton's proposal is very different from Republican candidate Donald Trump's child care plan, which would provide most of its benefits as a tax deduction. Trump's "Child Care Plan" is the tax deduction. | ||
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
I just finished reading a trilogy in which a death row inmate named Babcock is one of twelve ultra-vampires that destroys the United States. I'm real spooked to see the name pop up again. On October 12 2016 12:41 GreenHorizons wrote: Wait. Is it a "tax break" or a "child care plan"? Because if it's supposed to be the new Democrats plan for childcare, that's terrible. Clinton's is a tax credit not a tax break. It's also not the same as her maternity leave policy which has probably also been called a child care plan. Note that this is almost certainly what Sanders' child care policy would have looked like, he never developed it beyond vagaries. | ||
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
She's having a rough night | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22722 Posts
On October 12 2016 12:44 WolfintheSheep wrote: C/P a few more words there: Trump's "Child Care Plan" is the tax deduction. Well it sounds like they open by calling it a "tax break" which they both are. One is a credit (so this helps people who don't earn much [but still have to earn something to benefit] and the other a tax deduction, which means that if you don't earn enough to owe taxes (not get a net income gain, as opposed to just getting money you didn't owe back in a "refund check"). Then suddenly it's a "child care plan" which neither are, though I presume Trump calls his one? So it appears the implication is that they are comparing child care plans, instead of tax breaks. | ||
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
This sounds so scary... The party’s schism is bursting wide at a volatile moment, with Clinton’s campaign weathering a series of email dumps linked to Russian government hackers and the tone of the campaign growing increasingly rancorous. Earlier on Tuesday, Trump’s running mate Mike Pence rejected a supporter’s call to overthrow the government in a “revolution” if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency. Though undaunted by the chaos erupting in the world of politics in recent days, rally attendees said one development went too far. They rejected Maine Gov. Paul LePage’s call earlier on Tuesday for Trump to “show some authoritarian power in our country.” “By its definition that means dictatorship, and you don’t want that in a republic,” Benefield said. “This is America,” said Sam Palmer, an 18-year-old police academy trainee in a “Blue Lives Matter” shirt with a “Deplorable” button pinned on it. “And the only reason we have been able to survive so long is that we have a system of checks and balances that prevents a dictator from coming to power.” | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On October 12 2016 12:51 GreenHorizons wrote: Well it sounds like they open by calling it a "tax break" which they both are. One is a credit (so this helps people who don't earn much [but still have to earn something to benefit] and the other a tax deduction, which means that if you don't earn enough to owe taxes (not get a net income gain, as opposed to just getting money you didn't owe back in a "refund check"). Then suddenly it's a "child care plan" which neither are, though I presume Trump calls his one? So it appears the implication is that they are comparing child care plans, instead of tax breaks. Yes, the implication is that Trump's has been posed as a child care plan. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Presidents can do this guys, trust me. This is totally a thing they can do. | ||
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On October 12 2016 13:09 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/learyreports/status/786025127259406336 Presidents can do this guys, trust me. This is totally a thing they can do. lol it really annoys me that his supporters don't question this http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-election-day-november-229651#ixzz4MpzhJqHh Trump urges Floridians to vote 20 days after Election Day Call it Donald Trump's November surprise. The Republican nominee urged Florida residents at a Panama City rally Tuesday night to register and turn out the vote come Election Day on November 28, instead of the actual date of November 8. "There's never been anything like this so go and register," Trump said. "Make sure you get out and vote, November 28." Trump, who has tumbled in the polls following the lewd tape controversy that has roiled his campaign, has recently made a concerted effort to inform citizens of voter registration deadlines in battleground states. Clinton, meanwhile, declared Tuesday that, “If we win Florida, there’s no way my opponent can win." | ||
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
Apologies if this was already posted. Chelsea flagged 'serious concerns' about Clinton Foundation conflicts Hacked emails reveal bitter infighting about how to deal with a Clinton-linked consulting firm's business. Chelsea Clinton flagged “serious concerns” about her father’s closest aides trying to cash in by using the former president’s name to gain access to government officials on behalf of paying clients, according to hacked emails released this week. The emails, which were disseminated by WikiLeaks, reveal bitter tensions within the Clintons’ inner circle that were inflamed when Chelsea Clinton tried to put an end to practices that blurred the line between the foundation, governments and a consulting firm called Teneo that paid Bill Clinton. Some of the concerns raised by the former first daughter echo attacks that have been dogging her mother, Hillary Clinton, during her presidential campaign. Clinton’s GOP rival Donald Trump and other Republicans allege that the Clintons used their foundation and private business arrangements to enrich themselves by essentially auctioning off access to the powerful family and their associates in government — including during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. + Show Spoiler + Teneo, in particular, did lucrative work for foundation donors and entities with business before Clinton’s State Department. And it signed a contract reportedly worth $3.5 million with Bill Clinton to serve as an adviser (though the former president ultimately kept only $100,000 of that, according to his tax returns and a source familiar with the arrangement). Teneo also paid Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s right-hand woman at the State Department, as a “senior advisor.” One of the pair of Clintonites who founded Teneo, Declan Kelly, was working for Clinton’s State Department while laying the groundwork for the firm, as revealed by POLITICO. POLITICO also exposed that the other Teneo founder, longtime Bill Clinton aide Doug Band, was drawing salaries from both the Clinton Foundation and the former president’s taxpayer-subsidized personal office, while another early Teneo official, Justin Cooper, was being paid by Clinton’s taxpayer-funded office, even as he was performing maintenance on Hillary Clinton’s controversial private email server. In December 2011, Chelsea Clinton sent a sharply worded email to top family confidants saying that people in London had raised "serious concerns" about the way Teneo was using her father's name to set up meetings for clients, according to private emails released by WikiLeaks. "I will raise all of this and more with my father this evening," she wrote. "Wanted to update you all in the meanwhile about my augmented concerns post London." At the time, Chelsea Clinton had already been pushing to enact tougher rules at the foundation regarding conflicts of interest and outside income. In response, Band blasted her behind her back as an irrational ingrate who runs “to daddy to change a decision or interject herself in the process.” In the emails released by WikiLeaks on Monday and Tuesday, Band dismissed Clinton as an entitled and power-hungry young woman who wreaked havoc at the Clinton Foundation — and who created a stressful environment that contributed to one person's contemplating suicide — simply because she was bored and protective of her relationship with her father. “She is acting like a spoiled brat kid who has nothing else to do but create issues to justify what she's doing because she, as she has said, hasn't found her way and has a lack of focus in her life,” Band wrote in a November 2011 email to longtime Clinton family adviser John Podesta. Band added that Teneo “has almost nothing to do with the Clintons, the foundation or [the Clinton Global Initiative] in any way.” Podesta urged Band to try to avoid sparring with Chelsea Clinton, but at the same time he was emailing with her and others in a manner that seemed to validate Chelsea's concerns about setting up outside procedures for dealing with Teneo. A former White House chief of staff to Bill Clinton, Podesta is now serving as the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, and the emails WikiLeaks released came from his personal account. Podesta and Band did not respond on Tuesday to questions about the emails, nor did representatives for Chelsea Clinton, Bill Clinton or the Clinton Foundation. Glen Caplin, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s campaign, declined to answer questions about the dispute over Teneo, instead alleging that the hack was the work of Russia and intended “to help Donald Trump become President of the United States.” While U.S. intelligence officials have fingered the Russia government for other hacks intended to influence the presidential election, there is no evidence that Russia is behind the hack of Podesta’s emails. Podesta has been a close personal adviser to the Clintons for decades. In late 2011 — the period covered by most of the WikiLeaks emails related to the foundation and Teneo — Podesta agreed to serve as the Clinton Foundation’s temporary CEO after its longtime CEO, Bruce Lindsey, the Clintons’ longtime Arkansas lawyer, suffered a stroke. Podesta inherited an organization that was still being run to some extent like a Bill Clinton personality cult steered by the former president’s friends and former aides, even as it had grown into a $2 billion global philanthropy credited with major breakthroughs in fighting childhood obesity and AIDS. At the time, Chelsea Clinton — newly married, bearing an Ivy League master’s degree in public health and coming off stints on Wall Street and at the consulting powerhouse McKinsey & Co. — had joined the board of one of the foundation’s subsidiaries and begun seeking to instill data-driven management techniques across the foundation. Clinton initiated a 2011 audit by the New York law firm Simpson Thacher focusing partly on “potential conflicts of interest.” The firm conducted 38 interviews with employees and officials, explaining in a Simpson Thacher document released by WikiLeaks on Tuesday that “many interviewees were unaware” of the foundation’s policies related to conflicts of interest and outside employment. Chelsea Clinton’s efforts to reform the foundation were perceived within the foundation as a vote of no-confidence in Band, Lindsey and the Clinton old guard, according to interviews with a handful of sources who worked with or around the foundation. During a November 2011 meeting, Band complained to Bill Clinton that his daughter’s efforts to implement conflict of interest rules were actually a thinly veiled effort “to push him out, take over,” according to an email from Chelsea Clinton to Podesta. “Dad kept asking him — has she said that to you? To anyone? She's never said it to me and I think she's been very clear and consistent in her goals, etc.,” Chelsea Clinton continued in the email, which was sent from a pseudonymous email address bearing the name Anna James and associated with New York University, where she served as an assistant vice provost. Those goals, according to Chelsea Clinton’s email, “were to help to take stock, professionalize the Foundation, build it for the future and build it in such a way that supported his work and mom's.” But, as POLITICO reported last year, Chelsea Clinton, who had by that point become the foundation’s vice chair, was seen by some in the foundation’s rank and file as distant and intimidating, while some officials saw her as using her relationship with her father to get her way. In a December 2011 email to Podesta and Cheryl Mills, who was then serving as Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff in the State Department, Band alleged that “the stress of all of this office crap with [Bill Clinton] and [Chelsea Clinton]” had contributed to pushing a top foundation official to the brink of suicide. And Lindsey “said the stress of specifically the office had caused his very serious health issues,” according to Band’s email. Lindsey did not respond to a request for comment, nor did the foundation official who Band indicated had become suicidal, who has since left the foundation. Band suggested that Chelsea Clinton should have been more concerned about “her role in what happened to” Lindsey and the allegedly suicidal staffer, as well as “what she is doing to” the Clinton Foundation, and with stories about her father’s marital infidelity. Instead, though, Band contended in a January 2012 email to Podesta, Mills and family friend Terry McAuliffe (now the governor of Virginia) that Chelsea Clinton was courting trouble by openly telling people outside the foundation “that she is conducting an internal investigation of money within the foundation.” According to Band’s email, which was released Tuesday, Clinton relayed this to “one of the bush 43 kids,” who “then told an operative within the republican party … Not smart.” In another email, Band suggested that Chelsea was trying to drive a wedge between him and Bill Clinton by highlighting a news story reporting that a controversial financial services firm called MF Global had been paying Teneo $125,000 a month. In fact, Chelsea Clinton had forwarded a version of that story in December 2011 to Podesta, Lindsey, McAuliffe and two Simpson Thacher officials. Clinton requested that the story be added to the news clips presented to her father, presumably via printouts, since he eschews email, suggesting that negative coverage of Teneo is typically kept from him. Chelsea Clinton indicated that during a trip to London “two people separately voiced concerns directly to me about Teneo,” while a third told her chief of staff that a Bill Clinton staffer “has called Members of the House and Members of Parliament, ‘on behalf of President Clinton,’ for Teneo clients” including Dow Chemical, a major Clinton Foundation donor. Trump threatens to attack Clintons if more damaging tapes of him go public These calls, according to Chelsea Clinton, were made “without my father's knowledge and inelegantly and ineffectually at best.” The situation has led to “people in London making comparisons between my father and Tony Blair's profit motivations. Which would horrify my father.” Podesta responded: “We need to move to a resolution of this quickly,” to which Clinton agreed, asking whether Mills and McAuliffe had made any progress working out an agreement with Band and Cooper relating to outside income. Less than two weeks later, Mills emailed Podesta, Band and Cooper with a draft of a document proposing what it called an “Infrastructure Model” for the Clinton Foundation. The draft outlined a number of proposed structures for handling Bill Clinton’s personal, political and foundation business, but the common theme in each is that Band and Cooper would be less central to the operation. They would “not have any obligation or authority regarding the implementation of decisions,” the document says, and “would no longer serve as either employees or consultants to the Foundation; should the Foundation or its affiliated entities desire their services, they would engage them directly, through a personal consulting contract, to provide mutually agreeable services.” A later draft of the document indicates that Bill Clinton’s role with Teneo — which it says began in July 2011, with Clinton serving “as an advisor to Teneo in support of its establishment and start-up” — would end. “Commencing January 1, 2012, the President instead will become a client of Teneo; Teneo principals will provide consulting services to the President in his personal capacity.” On Dec. 22, 2012, a Simpson Thacher official forwarded to Mills and Podesta a draft of Bill Clinton’s letter resigning from Teneo’s advisory board, in which he said he applauded “the wonderful work that you are doing, and I wish you and the firm all success in the future.” Band continued to be paid by the Clinton Foundation into 2012, and by Bill Clinton’s taxpayer-subsidized personal office through January 2013, but he has since become distanced from the family, even as Teneo’s clientele continued to overlap with the Clinton Foundation’s donor rolls. Not super sure how this fits in with everything. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22722 Posts
On October 12 2016 12:55 Plansix wrote: GH, what are you looking for? The federal government isn't going to provide nation wide child care. It is well beyond the scope of their powers and not something that is possible. Clinton's rebate cuts down on some of the cost and provides money directly to folks with low income. This sounds like, "Yes, it is the best childcare plan on the table, you can't expect much more" On October 12 2016 12:55 WolfintheSheep wrote: Yes, the implication is that Trump's has been posed as a child care plan. This sounds like "I can neither confirm or deny the tax break proposed by Clinton is in fact Democrats child care plan." Wolf, so you know (though I presume you do), it is one of the main parts of her child care plan. I went ahead and checked her site. I'll say whoever put it together did a better job than you, NPR, or plansix did to sell it (to someone like me). Looking at the Tax Policy Center explanation, (I couldn't find the details of how she would pay for it on her site) it actually doesn't look that bad. It's getting 0 Republican votes in the house so it's dead in the water, but that's something she should have opened with around convention time and she probably could have had this wrapped up a long time ago. It's actually a remarkably centrist position and is the kind of thing that should get bipartisan support with some tweaks to get it a bit further to the right, but it seems devoid of recognition of the current state of politics. Looks like the play is to shame a Republican house and use this as a cudgel. It's actually well tailored to do just that, a testament to her and her team's savvy, but I don't think it's going to work as well as they think it will on the mid-term electorate post a Trump loss. I obviously have my reservations, but I can give them credit when they deserve it (it doesn't hurt that you two did such a bad job), I think the problem is that they are counting on an electorate that doesn't currently exist, to manifest between now and mid terms. | ||
| ||