|
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. |
On November 01 2016 09:33 Sermokala wrote:
I feel really bad for comey though. For all the shit hes going to get for releasing the info about reopening the investigation 11 days before the election he'd be much worse off for releasing that after the election.
And all this started with the conversation between bill clinton and the AG at the airport. He wanted to provide transparency about the process with the impropriety implied by the AG. But he couldn't just go back on that now that more information has come to light after the weiner investigation found more emails. By saying that he wouldn't recommend charges back then he was forced to say that he was reopening the investigation when the new information came no matter how asinine it is.
Crazy election would end with a crazy set of circumstances.
I don't feel sorry for him at all. He would be worse off for releasing it after the election. The FBI and Justice department of the US government wouldn't though. He basically is covering his own ass at the expense of his agency's.
|
its pretty clear that comey is completely clueless when it comes to playing politics. im assuming its stupidity rather than ill intent at this point.
|
On November 01 2016 09:49 ticklishmusic wrote:
its pretty clear that comey is completely clueless when it comes to playing politics. im assuming its stupidity rather than ill intent at this point.
which is why I suspect he didn't make proper use of the guy in his office who's job is dealing with the politics.
that's what I wanna ask comey about at least.
|
On November 01 2016 09:36 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 09:33 Sermokala wrote:
I feel really bad for comey though. For all the shit hes going to get for releasing the info about reopening the investigation 11 days before the election he'd be much worse off for releasing that after the election.
And all this started with the conversation between bill clinton and the AG at the airport. He wanted to provide transparency about the process with the impropriety implied by the AG. But he couldn't just go back on that now that more information has come to light after the weiner investigation found more emails. By saying that he wouldn't recommend charges back then he was forced to say that he was reopening the investigation when the new information came no matter how asinine it is.
Crazy election would end with a crazy set of circumstances. Comey has lost credibility and lost control of the FBI. He fucked up hard with his handling of all of this
Yeah, but that weird meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch should be important? That should be involved in the first weirdness in July where Comey was the one who recommended to stop the investigation after presenting the first results of it. Normally he should have just made a presentation without recommending anything, and then the DoJ should have published an opinion and ordered the investigation stopped. They couldn't do that because it would have looked rigged so they made Comey look suspicious instead.
|
On November 01 2016 09:55 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 09:36 Jaaaaasper wrote:On November 01 2016 09:33 Sermokala wrote:
I feel really bad for comey though. For all the shit hes going to get for releasing the info about reopening the investigation 11 days before the election he'd be much worse off for releasing that after the election.
And all this started with the conversation between bill clinton and the AG at the airport. He wanted to provide transparency about the process with the impropriety implied by the AG. But he couldn't just go back on that now that more information has come to light after the weiner investigation found more emails. By saying that he wouldn't recommend charges back then he was forced to say that he was reopening the investigation when the new information came no matter how asinine it is.
Crazy election would end with a crazy set of circumstances. Comey has lost credibility and lost control of the FBI. He fucked up hard with his handling of all of this Yeah, but that weird meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch should be important? That should be involved in the first weirdness in July where Comey was the one who recommended to stop the investigation after presenting the first results of it. Normally he should have just made a presentation without recommending anything, and then the DoJ should have published an opinion and ordered the investigation stopped. They couldn't do that because it would have looked rigged so they made Comey look suspicious instead.
That meeting could be a meeting between two old freinds, a poorly timed one for sure, but no evidence it was more than that. Lynch doesn't have power to directly control the FBI anyways, as evidenced by this mess.
|
On November 01 2016 10:03 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 09:55 Ropid wrote:On November 01 2016 09:36 Jaaaaasper wrote:On November 01 2016 09:33 Sermokala wrote:
I feel really bad for comey though. For all the shit hes going to get for releasing the info about reopening the investigation 11 days before the election he'd be much worse off for releasing that after the election.
And all this started with the conversation between bill clinton and the AG at the airport. He wanted to provide transparency about the process with the impropriety implied by the AG. But he couldn't just go back on that now that more information has come to light after the weiner investigation found more emails. By saying that he wouldn't recommend charges back then he was forced to say that he was reopening the investigation when the new information came no matter how asinine it is.
Crazy election would end with a crazy set of circumstances. Comey has lost credibility and lost control of the FBI. He fucked up hard with his handling of all of this Yeah, but that weird meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch should be important? That should be involved in the first weirdness in July where Comey was the one who recommended to stop the investigation after presenting the first results of it. Normally he should have just made a presentation without recommending anything, and then the DoJ should have published an opinion and ordered the investigation stopped. They couldn't do that because it would have looked rigged so they made Comey look suspicious instead. That meeting could be a meeting between two old freinds, a poorly timed one for sure, but no evidence it was more than that. Lynch doesn't have power to directly control the FBI anyways, as evidenced by this mess.
You think they talked about grandkids and yoga for 40 minutes? Given the circumstances?
|
Why would they talk in public at an airport? Phones exist. So does email. Worst plan for corruption ever.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 01 2016 02:41 LegalLord wrote:
It's interesting how quickly this "long post aftermath" discussion turns to stupid. Anyways, I'll give a longer post later tonight on the meta-discussion issue when I'm finished with work. I feel like this rehashing of old issues deserves yet another post.
Pop
|
On November 01 2016 08:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 07:58 zlefin wrote:
I'd have thought any regular thread follower by now could put together a list of solid weaknesses/flaws for Hillary; or valid criticisms against. Sure, there might not be many when you clear away the chaff, but there's certainly a few.
magpie, surely you can identify 1-2 issues with Hillary that you believe are sound? More than 1-2 Tim Kaine nomination to me is her biggest as it tells me that she thinks she's the liberal candidate when she really is the centrist. This suggests she's either slightly out of touch, or is just super committed to pre-made plans that her and her advisors have already agreed on--neither are very good. Assuming she is the more positive of the two--which is that she is inflexible at shifting gears once a plan is in motion--this is very good for "pull the trigger" decisions/scenarios (like the oft touted Bin Laden humble brag), less so for softer touch long term engagements. Obama and Bill were super flexible and super good at re-translating shifts in their plans so it never seemed like they were comprising or out of touch, which is how Obama was able to get his drone programming running for years before anyone realized it. Bush Jr. was really bad at it and is the reason why he got a lot of support for Afghanistan but was unable to shift public sentiment when he found reason to go after Iraq. The nomination tells me she will be closer to Bush Jr. in this department which has its biggest problems when guiding the american people through times when plans go south; like if her touted education program does not get enough support for example. Things like this are important because of the nature of political support and public sentiment being super entwined with each other such that slip ups like that end up slowing down progress across the board. I'm also fairly unhappy with her decision to isolate Russia as a target of interest. Not that I disagree with her assessment of the situation, but this is definitely something that her "supporters" should be vocal about while she herself should be silent about. She has been super far ahead of Trump and does not need to make foreign policy promises she might be forced to delay. Obama made a similar error during his Primary run with his emphasis of getting out of Iraq and shifting armed focus to Afghanistan. As such we got stuck with an "exit strategy" for Iraq that was not slow enough, despite it taking nearly half a decade to complete. The reason Obama did it however was because he was the underdog, as such he needed to show the people something about him that makes the risk of voting for him worth it. Hillary is not in the same position. Hillary went on defense when she didn't have to in this case and will force a policy decision before she has all the facts in place--that makes me nervous. Another issue I have with Hillary is her wanting to both expand the ACA while making education free for certain demographics at the same time. For the education portion of her policy she is forced into it in order to gain Bernie's support, but putting together these policies at the same time before the Republican Party imploded tells me that she did not plan to get improvements to the ACA passed since it would have been easier to negotiate an education reform bill at the cost of expanding the ACA than the other way around. She might have gotten lucky with Trump causing a self destruct on the GOP allowing a possible switch in house and senate majority allowing her to get both her asks instead of just one of them--but its definitely a sticky point for me that she would use the ACA as leverage tool like that. Thankfully the implosion might prevent this from happening, but her sticking with Kaine makes me nervous about her being able to adapt to the new circumstance smoothly. These are the kinds of issues I have with Hillary, and most candidates actually. I have more than a few more of these complaints, but for the most part I aim to keep my issues based on what she has said or did recently as opposed to what she did almost two to three decades ago.
I agree with the other 2 points, this 1st one is interesting.
This election doesn't run get any policy coverage but from what I've seen I get the opposite impression that she's more careful about handling negative backlash in order to achieve her agenda. She seems to be willing to moderate/reverse her opinions when it turns out they are unpopular with the public, re: Bernie with Obamacare, Armenian genocide, trade. Interesting theory about Obama vs Bush too. I think it's both a positive to be willing to change positions when you realize it's not popular (ability to reflect on decisions and willingness change your mind), but also a negative in terms of looking weak on stances when you change so much (see Clinton Campaign Manager Lost Track of Shifting Position on Trade). I can see where people would be annoyed with supporting her due to her previous positions and finding out she changed them, and I can see where people would be against a candidate that didn't seem to have solid stances. Personally I don't think that being flexible is a weakness unless it's more like you only shift for the sake of shifting and never has definite stances. I think she currently projects a strong stance on some issues and a shifting stance on others, and I believe all of her policy shifts are somewhat reasonable responses.
I don't have any informed opinion about Kaine but he didn't seem that bad.
I really don't like how inexperienced she is with technology. Obama was great for that so any change would be disappointing. I don't think the private email server was a problem because I think everyone? uses a private email server anyways. There's no evidence that she did anything treasonous with her email server, and it just seems less scandalous than something like the Bush administration missing emails on specific important dates I linked earlier back. Furthermore about her deleting emails, she's legally allowed to delete personal emails, and they didn't find any evidence of her intentionally deleting personal emails that were actually work emails. A private email server isn't any less secure than the email servers that they were normally using anyways, but from a security standpoint in 2016 it's disappointing she doesn't seem to be in touch with technology because I expect more of my presidents but it's not a disqualifying factor. I believe she made her aides handle it and they handled it really poorly. I'd expect my president to be smarter than that but I have higher tech standards.
My personal biggest thing against her is that she doesn't seem to be aware of the image that she projects (either that or she's extremely aware and doing it intentionally). My main evidence for this is her paid speeches. There has been no evidence that she's changed her stance due to a donation to the Clinton Foundation, but there are so many ties that could be drawn that it doesn't seem smart to stoke the fire by accepting the donations/doing the speeches, but she and Bill still do so. I think John Oliver said it doesn't seem like her aides are willing to say "hey don't you think this is a bad idea" to them. That's a bit scary if her advisors aren't able to realize these kinds of problems and change her mind, but that she's also not aware of the image it projects.
Also she toes the legal line so hard on everything. I can't tell if that's impressive and necessary for people at that level or masking illegal activity.
|
On November 01 2016 10:09 Plansix wrote:
Why would they talk in public at an airport? Phones exist. So does email. Worst plan for corruption ever.
Given how idiotic it was for them to even meet under such circumstances, I don't have high expectations for their secrecy tactics.
|
On November 01 2016 10:09 Plansix wrote:
Why would they talk in public at an airport? Phones exist. So does email. Worst plan for corruption ever.
The irony of you suggesting they ought to have 'emailed' the 'corruption' of their unprofessional meeting xD
|
|
|
Have there been any recent polls asking who people would vote for if given more typical options for one vs the current hated folk?
i.e. biden v trump, and clinton v romney (or substitute some other normal republican).
All the polls I can find on google were done a long time ago. I'm curious , given where we are now, how such matchups would poll.
|
So is Clinton a evil genius super criminal or a bumbling fucking moron? You can't have it both ways. Seems it changes on a weekly basis. She's either colluding with Lucifer at Illuminati meetings at bohemian grove with the globalist shadow government with a side of murdering 80 people that have wronged her on top of email deleting and blowing jihadists or she's too old and dumb to know what (C) means, sends her husband to meet and collude in broad daylight, and is literally dying as we speak. Its hard to keep up.
What the fuck is lifezette?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 01 2016 10:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:
So is Clinton a evil genius super criminal or a bumbling fucking moron? You can't have it both ways. Seems it changes on a weekly basis. She's either colluding with Lucifer at Illuminati meetings at bohemian grove with the globalist shadow government with a side of murdering 80 people that have wronged her on top of email deleting and blowing jihadists or she's too old and dumb to know what (C) means, sends her husband to meet and collude in broad daylight, and is literally dying as we speak. Its hard to keep up.
What the fuck is lifezette?
She's obviously a Schrodinger's Corrupt Genius-Moron.
|
Personally I'm still confident about Hillary's odds. Keep in mind 70 million people watched the third debate. Where Donald fails the most is on knowledge and temperament, and he got pulverized in all three debates.
|
I know this will is unlikely, but it was something I was wondering about a few days ago - would increasing the number of representatives solve gerrymandering ? Or to at least mitigate how extreme it can be?
I know that the equivalent proportions compared to when the number was first set is really low- 435 people for 320 million is pretty low, but an actually representative number would be so high as to probably be nonfunctional. Increasing the number by a large margin still seems like a good idea to me in order to create more actual representation of all groups, and allow actual representation for some who may be inclined to feel disenfranchised in the current system.
|
On November 01 2016 10:35 Nevuk wrote:
I know this will is unlikely, but it was something I was wondering about a few days ago - would increasing the number of representatives solve gerrymandering ? Or to at least mitigate how extreme it can be?
I know that the equivalent proportions compared to when the number was first set is really low- 435 people for 320 million is pretty low, but an actually representative number would be so high as to probably be nonfunctional. Increasing the number by a large margin still seems like a good idea to me in order to create more actual representation of all groups, and allow actual representation for some who may be inclined to feel disenfranchised in the current system.
I think the theory behind what you're saying makes a lot of sense, as a larger number of representatives would definitely smoothen out a lot of the differentiation across districts. However, the mechanics of actually conducting government business with enough people to do that seem extremely difficult to work out. Congress is already a big mess, and I'm guessing that it probably won't help to make it bigger.
|
Who ever said she was a corrupt genius?
|
On November 01 2016 09:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:+ Show Spoiler +FBI Director James Comey privately argued against having his bureau sign onto a statement saying the Russian government was meddling in the U.S. election, CNBC first reported on Monday, citing “a former FBI official.”
A source familiar with the interagency discussions confirms to The Huffington Post that Comey declined to do so because, specifically, he was concerned the statement was coming too close to the election. The source who spoke to HuffPost is not a former FBI official and spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.
The statement that Comey declined to sign off on ultimately went forward anyway. On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence stated: “The U.S. intelligence community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.”
But Comey’s decision to keep the FBI off the statement ― out of concern for the electoral impact it might have ― has taken on new significance in light of his handling of a separate matter involving Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
Last Friday, the FBI director sent a letter to Congress alerting lawmakers to the discovery of a computer that has material that may or may not be pertinent to the investigation into Clinton’s use of private email. In a separate letter to FBI colleagues, Comey stressed that he understood the sensitivity in making such an announcement so close to the election, but felt it was in the public’s interest to hear about the potential breakthrough and worried the discovery would have leaked prior to Election Day.
Comey has been subsequently criticized ― by Democrats, ex-prosecutors and even some Republicans ― for violating protocol that says Department of Justice officials should generally avoid making these types of announcements so close to an election.
One difference between the Russia statement and the Clinton investigation is that Comey had previously kept Congress abreast about the latter while declining to discuss the former. Thus, he may have felt an obligation to continue to update lawmakers on the status of the investigation.
Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Monday that they are working quickly to sift through the newly discovered emails, which were found on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, a former congressman and the estranged husband of longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin. Weiner is under federal investigation for allegations that he traded sexually explicit messages with an underage girl.
In a hastily assembled conference call on Monday, the Clinton campaign attacked Comey forcefully for what it deemed a “double standard” when it came to disclosing information prior to an election. Source
This has to be one of the stupidest things I've heard in a while. Comey doesn't want to influence the election, but he is forced due to others in the FBI. Later, another thing comes up that influences the election. Now, he follows precedent, and this time it's his fault.
It would be a double standard to release one without the other, not release both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
