|
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. |
United States1874 Posts
On October 31 2016 11:29 LegalLord wrote:
Biden wasn't favored against Hillary, but honestly I think he would have been if he had run. He could have made up ground much more easily than Bernie.
The problem would be that his obvious strengths (running from the left, reputation for honesty/straight-talk, real-person vibe, sense of not having been bought, etc.) are identical to Bernie's. His one remaining strength/weakness is his closeness to the Obama camp. But that was a less obvious advantage when this decision was being made. If Biden and Bernie had split that left vote and the anti-Clinton vote, she probably would have sailed to a nomination by plurality. Biden would have had to manage his place very carefully and position as a middle-road candidate without either Hillary's establishment support or Bernie's anti-establishment cred. And marginalizing Bernie to capture his slice of the vote would only have worked so well; the guy clearly wasn't gonna drop out just because he lost a few states. It was doable, but always a bit of a longshot, and depended a lot on Biden's ability to get Obama-camp folks and some members of the establishment to defect and help him.
But the general would have been a cakewalk.
|
On October 31 2016 11:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 10:23 ChristianS wrote:We don't ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don't know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don't want to create a misleading impression. In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood, but I wanted you to hear directly from me about it. -Comey So this basically sounds like Comey 1) knew this would affect the election, and 2) thought this "supplement" to the record was important for the American people to have. In short, he told Congress because it would influence the election. ...is that legal? Show nested quote +In previous congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony. James B Comey, Director Don't play word games with "supplement." His address to Congress intentionally mentioned updating the Committee about our efforts in light of my previous testimony. He just got done telling Congress that the investigation was completed, now it's re-opened. It is misleading to let that testimony stand. Congress is made up of the direct representatives of the American people. Can we at least get bipartisan agreement that there is a big pickle here between intentionally misleading America's representatives about a closed investigation and not waiting until after the election to reveal it?
Sure, and to be clear, I'm not saying with any certainty that it isn't legal. But worth noting he didn't say "it would be misleading to Congress." He said "it would be misleading to the American people." That is to say, he thought that telling the American people there are more emails that may or may not be remotely damaging was necessary, knowing the shadow of innuendo it would cast, and knowing that without giving more information about the emails there was no way this announcement could clarify for anyone whether Clinton's actions were legal.
So he did it to change the mind of the American people, and gave just enough information to cast doubt, but not enough to clarify anything substantive. It doesn't seem like that difficult a pickle to me, just check the emails, see if there's even any that aren't duplicates, and then once you know something of substance you can go public.
|
No screened this text before Flynn decided to read it.
|
On October 31 2016 11:43 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 11:29 LegalLord wrote:
Biden wasn't favored against Hillary, but honestly I think he would have been if he had run. He could have made up ground much more easily than Bernie. The problem would be that his obvious strengths (running from the left, reputation for honesty/straight-talk, real-person vibe, sense of not having been bought, etc.) are identical to Bernie's. His one remaining strength/weakness is his closeness to the Obama camp. But that was a less obvious advantage when this decision was being made. If Biden and Bernie had split that left vote and the anti-Clinton vote, she probably would have sailed to a nomination by plurality. Biden would have had to manage his place very carefully and position as a middle-road candidate without either Hillary's establishment support or Bernie's anti-establishment cred. And marginalizing Bernie to capture his slice of the vote would only have worked so well; the guy clearly wasn't gonna drop out just because he lost a few states. It was doable, but always a bit of a longshot, and depended a lot on Biden's ability to get Obama-camp folks and some members of the establishment to defect and help him. But the general would have been a cakewalk.
If Biden had run he would have crowded out Bernie, whose campaign would have never gotten any traction.
|
Seems pretty obvious with the "400 years" that he's talking about the lasting impacts of a presidency, say, like Lincoln's presidency has had impacts that have far outlived him.
Doesn't surprise me one bit to see the CTR troll crowd hop on it like he's running to be dictator till death. The guy is the worst candidate in history, you shouldn't have to make stuff up and exaggerate to beat him.
On October 31 2016 11:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 11:43 Yoav wrote:On October 31 2016 11:29 LegalLord wrote:
Biden wasn't favored against Hillary, but honestly I think he would have been if he had run. He could have made up ground much more easily than Bernie. The problem would be that his obvious strengths (running from the left, reputation for honesty/straight-talk, real-person vibe, sense of not having been bought, etc.) are identical to Bernie's. His one remaining strength/weakness is his closeness to the Obama camp. But that was a less obvious advantage when this decision was being made. If Biden and Bernie had split that left vote and the anti-Clinton vote, she probably would have sailed to a nomination by plurality. Biden would have had to manage his place very carefully and position as a middle-road candidate without either Hillary's establishment support or Bernie's anti-establishment cred. And marginalizing Bernie to capture his slice of the vote would only have worked so well; the guy clearly wasn't gonna drop out just because he lost a few states. It was doable, but always a bit of a longshot, and depended a lot on Biden's ability to get Obama-camp folks and some members of the establishment to defect and help him. But the general would have been a cakewalk. If Biden had run he would have crowded out Bernie, whose campaign would have never gotten any traction.
The real impact Biden would have had is that many Black people wanted to vote for someone besides Hillary or Bernie and Biden is who they were calling for. Biden getting in and upsetting Hillary's black "firewall" would have changed the nomination process in ways I don't think we can really predict.
|
On October 31 2016 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Seems pretty obvious with the "400 years" that he's talking about the lasting impacts of a presidency, say, like Lincoln's presidency has had impacts that have far outlived him. Doesn't surprise me one bit to see the CTR troll crowd hop on it like he's running to be dictator till death. The guy is the worst candidate in history, you shouldn't have to make stuff up and exaggerate to beat him.
<shrug> even interpreted in the way it was intended, I don't want to see US politics influenced by Trump for 40 or 400 years, and trying to claim a single election (which at best for Trump will be close) as a mandate for change of that sort is pretty disturbing.
They're spinning it to imply the other, but I really don't know what else you would expect from politics.
|
On October 31 2016 10:51 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 10:39 Slaughter wrote:
How did the fbi get these emails anyway? Besides Weiner being a scumbag husband etc I didn't think he did anything illegal to have his emails seized? Did you really not hear about what he did? He was messaging pictures of his dick to a 15 year old.
Didn't hear about the 15 year old part. I just remember something about how he was sexting while his kids were next to him but I didn't recall the "to a minor" part.
|
On October 31 2016 12:07 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Seems pretty obvious with the "400 years" that he's talking about the lasting impacts of a presidency, say, like Lincoln's presidency has had impacts that have far outlived him. Doesn't surprise me one bit to see the CTR troll crowd hop on it like he's running to be dictator till death. The guy is the worst candidate in history, you shouldn't have to make stuff up and exaggerate to beat him. <shrug> even interpreted in the way it was intended, I don't want to see US politics influenced by Trump for 40 or 400 years, and trying to claim a single election (which at best for Trump will be close) as a mandate for change of that sort is pretty disturbing.
Was it so disturbing to you with Reagan, JFK, FDR, and as GH pointed out, Lincoln?
|
United States1874 Posts
On October 31 2016 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
The real impact Biden would have had is that many Black people wanted to vote for someone besides Hillary or Bernie and Biden is who they were calling for. Biden getting in and upsetting Hillary's black "firewall" would have changed the nomination process in ways I don't think we can really predict.
That is an excellent point. I wonder how well he would have been polling in that event... Probably impossible to know. I'm curious GH; how would you have felt about a Biden candidacy? I assume you would still have supported Bernie, but would you be happier with the ticket if it had been Biden instead of Clinton?
|
On October 31 2016 11:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 11:43 Yoav wrote:On October 31 2016 11:29 LegalLord wrote:
Biden wasn't favored against Hillary, but honestly I think he would have been if he had run. He could have made up ground much more easily than Bernie. The problem would be that his obvious strengths (running from the left, reputation for honesty/straight-talk, real-person vibe, sense of not having been bought, etc.) are identical to Bernie's. His one remaining strength/weakness is his closeness to the Obama camp. But that was a less obvious advantage when this decision was being made. If Biden and Bernie had split that left vote and the anti-Clinton vote, she probably would have sailed to a nomination by plurality. Biden would have had to manage his place very carefully and position as a middle-road candidate without either Hillary's establishment support or Bernie's anti-establishment cred. And marginalizing Bernie to capture his slice of the vote would only have worked so well; the guy clearly wasn't gonna drop out just because he lost a few states. It was doable, but always a bit of a longshot, and depended a lot on Biden's ability to get Obama-camp folks and some members of the establishment to defect and help him. But the general would have been a cakewalk. If Biden had run he would have crowded out Bernie, whose campaign would have never gotten any traction.
That reminds me of a Podesta mail I read recently. That Brent guy writing the mail was thinking that Biden wouldn't get votes from people that like Bernie, would instead just reduce Clinton's share and make Bernie look better:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36689
If the campaign agreed with that idea, they should then have pressured Biden to not get involved.
|
On October 31 2016 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
Seems pretty obvious with the "400 years" that he's talking about the lasting impacts of a presidency, say, like Lincoln's presidency has had impacts that have far outlived him.
It's still a really shitty sell, given the relatively low enthusiasm toward both candidates. I'm pretty sure most people at this point just want to get this election out of the way and hopefully get better candidates in 2020--the less we have to remember either candidate by, the better.
Most people that aren't within Trump's core base aren't going to see "Trump is going to have lasting impact beyond his presidency" as a positive.
|
On October 31 2016 12:11 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2016 12:07 Aquanim wrote:On October 31 2016 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Seems pretty obvious with the "400 years" that he's talking about the lasting impacts of a presidency, say, like Lincoln's presidency has had impacts that have far outlived him. Doesn't surprise me one bit to see the CTR troll crowd hop on it like he's running to be dictator till death. The guy is the worst candidate in history, you shouldn't have to make stuff up and exaggerate to beat him. <shrug> even interpreted in the way it was intended, I don't want to see US politics influenced by Trump for 40 or 400 years, and trying to claim a single election (which at best for Trump will be close) as a mandate for change of that sort is pretty disturbing. Was it so disturbing to you with Reagan, JFK, FDR, and as GH pointed out, Lincoln?
I'm not especially familiar with the nitty-gritty of what any of them were promising before the election, so I'm going to have to partially pass on that question.
That being said, my understanding is that none of them were pushing things nearly as fucked up as what Trump passes off as policies.
|
Donald "Methuselah" Trump
|
|
|
Isn't this so crazy though? First no one thought Trump would get the nomination, then everyone (including me) thought he would be crushed in the general election. It looked totally hopeless after everyone was piling on to him about his sexual commentary. But now...especially with the e-mails (and maybe regardless of them) Trump is effectively tied with hillary in many polls and is gaining ground, and who knows how bad things will get on Nov.1st when Wikileaks and anonymous release Hillary's 33000 deleted e-mails (supposedly).
Another example of how often predictions go wrong. Brexit and Trump, it could really happen folks. Soon we may be saying "President Trump"! WOW
edit: Also don't see how developing a positive working relationship with russia and de-escalating tensions classifies as a "bad" thing (assuming crimea can be worked out somehow). If you think angling towards another cold war is a good idea, that sounds like more of a 'wow' moment to me (wrt above tweet)
|
Regarding the 33,000 emails talking point.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/30/hillary-clintons-latest-email-controversy-what-we-/
Republicans have said Clinton deleted 33,000 emails from her private server. Is that true?
Clinton conducted work and personal business on her private email server. In December 2014, Clinton’s lawyers combed through the server in order to provide the State Department with her work-related emails, ultimately turning over about 30,000 emails. The campaign deleted the remaining 33,000, saying they were personal in nature.
However, the FBI investigation did find several thousand emails among those deleted that were work-related and should have been turned over. Comey said, though, that the investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."
|
if it's not enthusiasm, it's a heck of an operation then.
|
Plenty of those 33,000 emails will be on weiners computer.Huma used his computer, plenty of her emails are on there.
Just a hunch but i think wikileaks will drop something huge within the next week.They said they were saving the best for last.
|
On October 31 2016 12:49 radscorpion9 wrote:
edit: Also don't see how developing a positive working relationship with russia and de-escalating tensions classifies as a "bad" thing (assuming crimea can be worked out somehow). If you think angling towards another cold war is a good idea, that sounds like more of a 'wow' moment to me (wrt above tweet)
Crimea isn't going back to Ukraine, ever; pretty much everyone who knows enough about the situation would acknowledge as much. The broader Ukraine issue is one of those messes where there really is no way to withdraw support without looking like a fool (failure to achieve any result for the effort so far), and no way to continue without looking like a fool (supporting a corrupt government with fascist elements that all but lost a war with its eastern territories). The US mostly keeps it going; if the US and U.K. stopped pushing the issue it would die out within a year.
Europe pays the price more than the US does for this continuing, so I expect the US to keep it going without looking to how that will influence the future willingness of Europe to cooperate with US FP. Same with Syria.
But Hillary is clearly of the breed that believes that the litmus test for being good at FP is taking an aggressive stance towards Russia, so that is just what we will have to deal with. Oh well, at least the world will probably survive a few more years of that.
|
Canada11607 Posts
It had better be good, because the speculation is pretty hard to beat at this point: in the absence of facts, flights of fancy spring forth. People are already talking about the Wiener emails revealing that the Clintons are involved in an international child slavery/ sex ring.
The truth will out, but it can't out fast enough as far as I am concerned because it's getting pretty insane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
