|
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 Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 07 2016 09:18 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 09:15 LegalLord wrote:On November 07 2016 09:07 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2016 08:59 LegalLord wrote:On November 07 2016 08:46 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Comey has to get fired over this shitshow. The FBI has sprung a ton of leaks, going right to at least one presidential campaign, he brought up the potential for a new scandal less than two weeks before the election and then said ooppps it wasn't a new scandal two days before the election. Hes completely and utterly lost control over there. Time for Obama to clean the swamp and give the new president a clean closer to competent slate. Comey has looked less shitty than a lot of other people who deserve to get fired. Hillary Clinton first and foremost, for some rather severe impropriety in handling classified documents, but she isn't SoS anymore so there's not much we can do. Then Loretta Lynch the insane partisan. Then the House Oversight Committee for being utterly retarded about all of this. After that we can debate who deserves to get fired. Comey isn't even close to the top of that list. I'm curious, what did Lynch do to deserve getting fired? She recognized herself as potentially partisan and withdraw herself. To me that sounds exactly like how it should go, so why should she get fired? Nothing that you could explicitly pin on her, perhaps. But I remember watching that House Oversight Committee hearing on her and I could see that she lawyered up not just like someone who didn't want to self-incriminate, but in a way that guilty people would do. That's not proof of anything but a suspicion of wrongdoing that is significant enough for me to be convinced that there has been impropriety in her conduct as Attorney General. I suppose if we want any explicit evidence of wrongdoing, the best spot to watch is the DoJ-FBI issue that developed since the FBI's odd release. We will see if anything comes of that, but at this point I myself am quite convinced of impropriety. Right, so we should fire her based on your gut feeling. I'm sorry but its hard to have discussions when the answer to why? is almost always "I have no evidence but it feels this way". How about we don't fire Attorney General based on your hunch.
Fireable offense is definitely significantly below the benchmark of criminal offense. Maybe you would have a point if I said that we should put her in prison.
Similarly, Comey didn't do anything criminal and whether or not he should be fired is purely a matter of opinion.
In any case, we've had enough discussions about "who should be in prison/fired" for one election. Not interested in having that one with you or anyone else, at all.
|
On November 07 2016 09:24 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 09:18 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2016 09:15 LegalLord wrote:On November 07 2016 09:07 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2016 08:59 LegalLord wrote:On November 07 2016 08:46 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Comey has to get fired over this shitshow. The FBI has sprung a ton of leaks, going right to at least one presidential campaign, he brought up the potential for a new scandal less than two weeks before the election and then said ooppps it wasn't a new scandal two days before the election. Hes completely and utterly lost control over there. Time for Obama to clean the swamp and give the new president a clean closer to competent slate. Comey has looked less shitty than a lot of other people who deserve to get fired. Hillary Clinton first and foremost, for some rather severe impropriety in handling classified documents, but she isn't SoS anymore so there's not much we can do. Then Loretta Lynch the insane partisan. Then the House Oversight Committee for being utterly retarded about all of this. After that we can debate who deserves to get fired. Comey isn't even close to the top of that list. I'm curious, what did Lynch do to deserve getting fired? She recognized herself as potentially partisan and withdraw herself. To me that sounds exactly like how it should go, so why should she get fired? Nothing that you could explicitly pin on her, perhaps. But I remember watching that House Oversight Committee hearing on her and I could see that she lawyered up not just like someone who didn't want to self-incriminate, but in a way that guilty people would do. That's not proof of anything but a suspicion of wrongdoing that is significant enough for me to be convinced that there has been impropriety in her conduct as Attorney General. I suppose if we want any explicit evidence of wrongdoing, the best spot to watch is the DoJ-FBI issue that developed since the FBI's odd release. We will see if anything comes of that, but at this point I myself am quite convinced of impropriety. Right, so we should fire her based on your gut feeling. I'm sorry but its hard to have discussions when the answer to why? is almost always "I have no evidence but it feels this way". How about we don't fire Attorney General based on your hunch. Fireable offense is definitely significantly below the benchmark of criminal offense. Maybe you would have a point if I said that we should put her in prison. Similarly, Comey didn't do anything criminal and whether or not he should be fired is purely a matter of opinion. In any case, we've had enough discussions about "who should be in prison/fired" for one election. Not interested in having that one with you or anyone else, at all.
Comey can get fired for violating the internal guidelines for not influencing the political process.
If there is some guideline that Lynch violated then it could be cause to fire her.
|
On November 07 2016 09:21 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 09:18 Mohdoo wrote:On November 07 2016 09:00 Chocolate wrote:
There is a distinct possibility that the FBI, wikileaks, etc. will expose even more bad shit she's done between now and the election, as such I would err on the side of caution when calculating her chances So you think they go from no evidence to guilty in 48 hours? It works for discussion the internet. I can see why he'd think it works that way in real life. Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 09:20 Chocolate wrote:On November 07 2016 09:18 Mohdoo wrote:On November 07 2016 09:00 Chocolate wrote:
There is a distinct possibility that the FBI, wikileaks, etc. will expose even more bad shit she's done between now and the election, as such I would err on the side of caution when calculating her chances So you think they go from no evidence to guilty in 48 hours? Lol no, I mean the media picks up new info that influences enough voters so that she doesn't win You're mistaking the media going on about something as a convincing argument. Historically, most voters have made up their minds during the debates in October. It would have to be a truly shocking revelation to convince someone that the entire previous year they were wrong and they should vote for a different candidate. A bunch of emails, as the Republicans have found, are not that shocking.
I don't disagree entirely but something very bad could sway enough voters in just a couple days. Like if something Benghazi-level was discovered and the media gave it enough attention, I could see that being influential
Then again I do doubt anything would gain enough traction unless it were particularly egregious.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 07 2016 09:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 09:24 LegalLord wrote:On November 07 2016 09:18 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2016 09:15 LegalLord wrote:On November 07 2016 09:07 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2016 08:59 LegalLord wrote:On November 07 2016 08:46 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Comey has to get fired over this shitshow. The FBI has sprung a ton of leaks, going right to at least one presidential campaign, he brought up the potential for a new scandal less than two weeks before the election and then said ooppps it wasn't a new scandal two days before the election. Hes completely and utterly lost control over there. Time for Obama to clean the swamp and give the new president a clean closer to competent slate. Comey has looked less shitty than a lot of other people who deserve to get fired. Hillary Clinton first and foremost, for some rather severe impropriety in handling classified documents, but she isn't SoS anymore so there's not much we can do. Then Loretta Lynch the insane partisan. Then the House Oversight Committee for being utterly retarded about all of this. After that we can debate who deserves to get fired. Comey isn't even close to the top of that list. I'm curious, what did Lynch do to deserve getting fired? She recognized herself as potentially partisan and withdraw herself. To me that sounds exactly like how it should go, so why should she get fired? Nothing that you could explicitly pin on her, perhaps. But I remember watching that House Oversight Committee hearing on her and I could see that she lawyered up not just like someone who didn't want to self-incriminate, but in a way that guilty people would do. That's not proof of anything but a suspicion of wrongdoing that is significant enough for me to be convinced that there has been impropriety in her conduct as Attorney General. I suppose if we want any explicit evidence of wrongdoing, the best spot to watch is the DoJ-FBI issue that developed since the FBI's odd release. We will see if anything comes of that, but at this point I myself am quite convinced of impropriety. Right, so we should fire her based on your gut feeling. I'm sorry but its hard to have discussions when the answer to why? is almost always "I have no evidence but it feels this way". How about we don't fire Attorney General based on your hunch. Fireable offense is definitely significantly below the benchmark of criminal offense. Maybe you would have a point if I said that we should put her in prison. Similarly, Comey didn't do anything criminal and whether or not he should be fired is purely a matter of opinion. In any case, we've had enough discussions about "who should be in prison/fired" for one election. Not interested in having that one with you or anyone else, at all. Comey can get fired for violating the internal guidelines for not influencing the political process. If there is some guideline that Lynch violated then it could be cause to fire her.
Eh. At the end of the day the case for firing looks pretty weak for either of them right now (compare to how DWS looked a few days before she was basically forced to resign) and it's a moot (and not productive) point of discussion. I'll just pass on debating this one.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Is this post meant to imply voter suppression or a lack of fondness for Hillary? I seriously can't tell.
|
On November 07 2016 09:29 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 09:21 Probe1 wrote:On November 07 2016 09:18 Mohdoo wrote:On November 07 2016 09:00 Chocolate wrote:
There is a distinct possibility that the FBI, wikileaks, etc. will expose even more bad shit she's done between now and the election, as such I would err on the side of caution when calculating her chances So you think they go from no evidence to guilty in 48 hours? It works for discussion the internet. I can see why he'd think it works that way in real life. On November 07 2016 09:20 Chocolate wrote:On November 07 2016 09:18 Mohdoo wrote:On November 07 2016 09:00 Chocolate wrote:
There is a distinct possibility that the FBI, wikileaks, etc. will expose even more bad shit she's done between now and the election, as such I would err on the side of caution when calculating her chances So you think they go from no evidence to guilty in 48 hours? Lol no, I mean the media picks up new info that influences enough voters so that she doesn't win You're mistaking the media going on about something as a convincing argument. Historically, most voters have made up their minds during the debates in October. It would have to be a truly shocking revelation to convince someone that the entire previous year they were wrong and they should vote for a different candidate. A bunch of emails, as the Republicans have found, are not that shocking. I don't disagree entirely but something very bad could sway enough voters in just a couple days. Like if something Benghazi-level was discovered and the media gave it enough attention, I could see that being influential Then again I do doubt anything would gain enough traction unless it were particularly egregious.
the problem with that analogy is benghazi-level actually means trumped up charge with no actual substance to it, as the benghazi case was.
it'd more effective to use something different for an analogy.
|
I read some poll of black voters in Pennsylvania showed that about 18% supported Donald Trump, compared to say 2012 when only 6% supported Mitt Romney
|
United States41989 Posts
Wasn't NC the state where they were systematically disenfranchising them?
|
Yeah it is pretty well documented how NC was trying to limit early voting opportunities for african americans. Fewer early voting polling locations in black neighborhoods, dropping Sunday voting in some locations etc.
|
On November 07 2016 09:46 KwarK wrote:Wasn't NC the state where they were systematically disenfranchising them?
Why yes, it is. Weird how it is the only state with lower early voting for African Americans. It's almost like the Republicans are repressing black voters.
|
Almost all of those things were found to be unconstitutional and overruled though. For example, we had 17 days of early voting just like past elections since it was overturned. I do believe that not all of the early voting places were open all 17 days though. I know that there was long lines in Wake County at least, but being one of the larger population centers in the state, I'm not sure that was to be unexpected.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Found this article on the further FBI review.
I guess that confirms that they really did process all the emails in question and came to a conclusion in time. I'll admit to being wrong on assuming it would take longer or that the earlier twit meant otherwise. If you read the letter in that article it's pretty clear that they finished up by now.
On to the next Hillary investigation - we're not anywhere near done with them, I am absolutely sure of that.
|
On November 07 2016 09:46 KwarK wrote:Wasn't NC the state where they were systematically disenfranchising them?
Yes it was. They also purged a ton of voters illegally but it didn't get overturned until after early voting ended. Gee that's convenient.
|
On November 07 2016 09:55 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Almost all of those things were found to be unconstitutional and overruled though. For example, we had 17 days of early voting just like past elections since it was overturned. I do believe that not all of the early voting places were open all 17 days though. I know that there was long lines in Wake County at least, but being one of the larger population centers in the state, I'm not sure that was to be unexpected.
Yes, but there are still reduced polling places and hours. Since the voters rights act was gutted, state government can just reduce the number of polling places in and around communities think will vote against their party. Which is what is happening. The Republicans have dropped the act in claiming they were protecting the integrity of the vote.
Edit: I forgot about the write in voter purge where they sent certified letters houses and if they came back un-deliverable, they would report them to the state and have them removed from the registry. Mind you, certified mail gets returned if no one signs for it three times. I know few people who are home when their mail is delivered.
|
But they haven't dropped their intent. Or attempts.
The new government really needs to get on the ball and punish this kind of stuff harshly. Republicans for years have been gerrymandering and trying to suppress votes.
|
On November 07 2016 09:55 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Almost all of those things were found to be unconstitutional and overruled though. For example, we had 17 days of early voting just like past elections since it was overturned. I do believe that not all of the early voting places were open all 17 days though. I know that there was long lines in Wake County at least, but being one of the larger population centers in the state, I'm not sure that was to be unexpected.
Sunday voting was closed in NC, though, and there were large African-American church-based early voting that did community voting for years that were eliminated as a result.
The reason? The counties with the most Sunday voting leaned Democrat, a.k.a. were black.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 07 2016 10:14 Probe1 wrote:
But they haven't dropped their intent. Or attempts.
The new government really needs to get on the ball and punish this kind of stuff harshly. Republicans for years have been gerrymandering and trying to suppress votes.
The courts have been doing a lot of good in that regard in the past year or so. At this point it's clear it isn't a winning strategy.
|
The government was on it. But the voters rights act got gutted by the SCOTUS after Roberts got appointed. So now every new law and change has to go through the court system one at a time. Rather than just have the Justice Department crack down on that shit.
|
At least between the growth in African American and Latino turnout in Florida it looks like the demographic estimates built into a lot of the polling might be skewing it Trump's way relative to reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
