The 2016 elections are over, and GOP has everything it could have ever dreamed of. Except a reliable rubber stamp in the White House. Who knows what Trump will really do? Probably not even Trump.
So, how long before the knives are out, and GOP establishment conspires to replace Trump with Pence? We all know the pretext will be there to remove Trump from office, but will there be a political will?
I bet there will be, as soon as Trump approval ratings take their first dive. I bet there are already a number of Trump voters wearing their best Chris Christie face, and that number will only increase with time. It will be risky to go against the mob, but so is having Trump in charge when you have a 2-4 year window to implement what you always wanted to implement and entrench it for many decades.
From a strictly policy standpoint, Trump is actually the least scary Republican in the lot, since he isn't really a Republican at all.
Thinking about the future I am wondering if the election and what follows might destroy Ted Cruz's support. He might be vulnerable to being primaried. I am watching carefully. There are several prominent but more acceptable Republicans are in this state who might want his job if so...
Interesting.
But Trump is not being impeached unless whatever he needs to be impeached for leads to a Democratic victory in 2018.
Dude, you know they won't replace Cruz with someone better. I bet you it'll be that fraud radio talk show host who changed his name and then became Lt. Governor.
Senator Dan Patrick.
Quote from: Fate on November 11, 2016, 11:07:21 PM
Dude, you know they won't replace Cruz with someone better. I bet you it'll be that fraud radio talk show host who changed his name and then became Lt. Governor.
Senator Dan Patrick.
They can even replace him with somebody worse. Just somebody less dangerous. Dan Patrick isn't going to go on any damn fool crusades.
Quote from: Berkut on November 11, 2016, 10:49:44 PM
From a strictly policy standpoint, Trump is actually the least scary Republican in the lot, since he isn't really a Republican at all.
Domestically probably, though it's hard to tell.
I'm a hell of a lot more worried about him tearing up our longstanding alliances and setting the world on fire though.
Quote from: Fate on November 11, 2016, 11:07:21 PMSenator Dan Patrick.
:bleeding:
E: Speaking of, whats up with his teeth?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftxvalues.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F11%2Fpatrick-dan_1.jpg&hash=13f8d6b61112576207ffa79f0bf1147424dcd725)
He'll have to do something in office to decisively shift public opinion against him. That's what impeachment basically is, a popularity contest.
Quote from: Berkut on November 11, 2016, 10:49:44 PM
From a strictly policy standpoint, Trump is actually the least scary Republican in the lot, since he isn't really a Republican at all.
Yeah he's more like a New York Democrat who flayed the GOP and is now wearing it as a skin suit.
Quote from: Valmy on November 11, 2016, 10:55:41 PM
Thinking about the future I am wondering if the election and what follows might destroy Ted Cruz's support. He might be vulnerable to being primaried. I am watching carefully. There are several prominent but more acceptable Republicans are in this state who might want his job if so...
Interesting.
Well, considering how Cruz is being considered as a potential Supreme Court nominee (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=22&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjOzLT3z6PQAhWl7IMKHZjkDgkQFghqMBU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fstory%2F2016%2F11%2Flindsey-graham-ted-cruz-supreme-court-shortlist-231270&usg=AFQjCNGB2LSrj2CZmEt0-HJ_3CzwhUFdqQ&bvm=bv.138169073,d.amc), he may not have to worry about being primaried. :yeah:
QuoteBut Trump is not being impeached unless whatever he needs to be impeached for leads to a Democratic victory in 2018.
Impeachment. :lol: Niggas, please.
The House votes to impeach Trump, and the Senate Democrats are forced to vote against convicting him in order to avoid a Pence presidency (and also because Trump is willing to work with them on infrastructure and stuff, I guess). As a result, Dem turnout is much lower in 2018 because of disgust and the GOP gains a super-majority of seats in the Senate as well as picking up more states.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 12, 2016, 12:13:20 PM
The House votes to impeach Trump, and the Senate Democrats are forced to vote against convicting him in order to avoid a Pence presidency (and also because Trump is willing to work with them on infrastructure and stuff, I guess). As a result, Dem turnout is much lower in 2018 because of disgust and the GOP gains a super-majority of seats in the Senate as well as picking up more states.
I don't think the Dems would do that. Their base would murder them.
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2016, 01:05:20 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 12, 2016, 12:13:20 PM
The House votes to impeach Trump, and the Senate Democrats are forced to vote against convicting him in order to avoid a Pence presidency (and also because Trump is willing to work with them on infrastructure and stuff, I guess). As a result, Dem turnout is much lower in 2018 because of disgust and the GOP gains a super-majority of seats in the Senate as well as picking up more states.
I don't think the Dems would do that. Their base would murder them.
Yeah, I think that's what makes impeachment at the very least remotely possible. One party may not want to back Trump, and the other party would just find it impossible to back Trump (unless Trump openly allies himself with Democrats at the first sign of GOP uprising).
Donald J. Trump would merely take impeachment, ball it up and throw it right back. He would sue everybody.
I think that even if the GOP has good cause and opportunity to dump Trump, a sizable portion of his base will remain loyal, no matter what. I think there would be some violent reactions.
He was legitimately elected.
I suppose the question is how strong is the American Republic?
I think (hope) that it is very strong and can survive 4 years of an unworthy president.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 12, 2016, 04:44:40 PM
He was legitimately elected.
I suppose the question is how strong is the American Republic?
I think (hope) that it is very strong and can survive 4 years of an unworthy president.
The America Republic can easily survive an unworthy President, that isn't the problem here. Trump and his allies have made it clear they have no respect for the rule of law or the Constitution - outside of 1 Amendment - that is the problem.
Just going to go ahead and offer apologies for that whole NATO thingy that goes down in Tallinn in 2019. I mean, hey. You know how it is. Nothing personal. Just business.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 12, 2016, 11:23:24 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 11, 2016, 10:55:41 PM
Thinking about the future I am wondering if the election and what follows might destroy Ted Cruz's support. He might be vulnerable to being primaried. I am watching carefully. There are several prominent but more acceptable Republicans are in this state who might want his job if so...
Interesting.
Well, considering how Cruz is being considered as a potential Supreme Court nominee (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=22&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjOzLT3z6PQAhWl7IMKHZjkDgkQFghqMBU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fstory%2F2016%2F11%2Flindsey-graham-ted-cruz-supreme-court-shortlist-231270&usg=AFQjCNGB2LSrj2CZmEt0-HJ_3CzwhUFdqQ&bvm=bv.138169073,d.amc), he may not have to worry about being primaried. :yeah:
QuoteBut Trump is not being impeached unless whatever he needs to be impeached for leads to a Democratic victory in 2018.
Impeachment. :lol: Niggas, please.
I think he could be voted down by a GOP senate just out of spite. Everyone hates him.
This thread is hillarious. And people were laughing at the birther Republicans thinking of impeaching Obamahitler for coming for everybody's guns and setting up death panels.
The difference was that Siege was the only such loon we had on the right whereas we seem to have many on the left. Learn to live in a democracy, Jesus Christ.
Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2016, 08:09:03 AM
This thread is hillarious. And people were laughing at the birther Republicans thinking of impeaching Obamahitler for coming for everybody's guns and setting up death panels.
The difference was that Siege was the only such loon we had on the right whereas we seem to have many on the left. Learn to live in a democracy, Jesus Christ.
We're not discussing the possibility of political losers accomplishing something by the impeachment that they failed to accomplish during the elections. We're discussing the possibility of an internal party coup. If Trump will be impeached, it would be mainly at the hands of Republicans, not Democrats.
For fuck'es sake, there will be no "internal party coup." Everybody will get what they want.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 13, 2016, 09:57:29 AM
For fuck'es sake, there will be no "internal party coup." Everybody will get what they want.
Yep, wishful thinking, just like those petitions trying to get Republican electors to vote for Hilary Clinton.
I wouldn't rule out Trump eventually doing something so outrageous that public pressure forces the Republicans in Congress to look at impeachment, but that hasn't happened yet, and probably won't.
Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2016, 08:09:03 AM
This thread is hillarious. And people were laughing at the birther Republicans thinking of impeaching Obamahitler for coming for everybody's guns and setting up death panels.
The difference was that Siege was the only such loon we had on the right whereas we seem to have many on the left. Learn to live in a democracy, Jesus Christ.
I will ironically note, however, that members of Congress from McCaul in Texas to Johnson in Wisconsin had stated for weeks before the election that if Clinton were elected, she would most likely face impeachment proceedings immediately.
So, there you go, AIDs magnet.
Quote from: dps on November 13, 2016, 10:01:33 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 13, 2016, 09:57:29 AM
For fuck'es sake, there will be no "internal party coup." Everybody will get what they want.
Yep, wishful thinking, just like those petitions trying to get Republican electors to vote for Hilary Clinton.
I wouldn't rule out Trump eventually doing something so outrageous that public pressure forces the Republicans in Congress to look at impeachment, but that hasn't happened yet, and probably won't.
I'm not sure I'm wishing for it, only because Trump by his unpredictable nature can act as a check on GOP power. I guess it depends on how much of a Yanukovych Trump turns out to be.
As far as domestic policy goes, generic GOP is as catastrophic as disasters go: it's both incredibly malevolent and incredibly stupid. Thanks to 2010 electoral debacle for the Democrats, we already see what results from unchecked GOP control at state level: destruction or suborning of democratic institutions, voter suppression, and disastrous economic agenda.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 13, 2016, 10:07:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2016, 08:09:03 AM
This thread is hillarious. And people were laughing at the birther Republicans thinking of impeaching Obamahitler for coming for everybody's guns and setting up death panels.
The difference was that Siege was the only such loon we had on the right whereas we seem to have many on the left. Learn to live in a democracy, Jesus Christ.
I will ironically note, however, that members of Congress from McCaul in Texas to Johnson in Wisconsin had stated for weeks before the election that if Clinton were elected, she would most likely face impeachment proceedings immediately.
So, there you go, AIDs magnet.
I am not saying there are no idiots on both sides of the aisle. I am just saying that while Siege is the only representative of such idiots we have on Languish on the Republican side, we seem to have a plethora of those on the Democratic side.
Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2016, 10:41:39 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 13, 2016, 10:07:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2016, 08:09:03 AM
This thread is hillarious. And people were laughing at the birther Republicans thinking of impeaching Obamahitler for coming for everybody's guns and setting up death panels.
The difference was that Siege was the only such loon we had on the right whereas we seem to have many on the left. Learn to live in a democracy, Jesus Christ.
I will ironically note, however, that members of Congress from McCaul in Texas to Johnson in Wisconsin had stated for weeks before the election that if Clinton were elected, she would most likely face impeachment proceedings immediately.
So, there you go, AIDs magnet.
I am not saying there are no idiots on both sides of the aisle. I am just saying that while Siege is the only representative of such idiots we have on Languish on the Republican side, we seem to have a plethora of those on the Democratic side.
Oh, I think we have at least one more on the Republican side.
Aha!
Quote from: Berkut on November 13, 2016, 12:05:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2016, 10:41:39 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 13, 2016, 10:07:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2016, 08:09:03 AM
This thread is hillarious. And people were laughing at the birther Republicans thinking of impeaching Obamahitler for coming for everybody's guns and setting up death panels.
The difference was that Siege was the only such loon we had on the right whereas we seem to have many on the left. Learn to live in a democracy, Jesus Christ.
I will ironically note, however, that members of Congress from McCaul in Texas to Johnson in Wisconsin had stated for weeks before the election that if Clinton were elected, she would most likely face impeachment proceedings immediately.
So, there you go, AIDs magnet.
I am not saying there are no idiots on both sides of the aisle. I am just saying that while Siege is the only representative of such idiots we have on Languish on the Republican side, we seem to have a plethora of those on the Democratic side.
Oh, I think we have at least one more on the Republican side.
Who did you have in mind?
Quote from: Berkut on November 11, 2016, 10:49:44 PM
From a strictly policy standpoint, Trump is actually the least scary Republican in the lot, since he isn't really a Republican at all.
Exactly. The idea of President Pence is frankly horrifying.
Quote from: Hamilcar on November 13, 2016, 02:25:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 11, 2016, 10:49:44 PM
From a strictly policy standpoint, Trump is actually the least scary Republican in the lot, since he isn't really a Republican at all.
Exactly. The idea of President Pence is frankly horrifying.
....but the things that make Trump horrifying have nothing to do with policy, so it isn't like he is actually better.
If he decides to nuke Iran because he just doesn't like them, the fact that it isn't motivated by some ideology won't make it any better.
Quote from: Berkut on November 13, 2016, 02:36:02 PM
If he decides to nuke Iran because he just doesn't like them, the fact that it isn't motivated by some ideology won't make it any better.
I want to believe that the people in the armed forces wouldn't let him do that.
Quote from: Hamilcar on November 13, 2016, 02:25:14 PM
The idea of President Pence is frankly horrifying.
Creationism, conversion therapy, and criminalization of abortion? What could happen?
Quote from: Hamilcar on November 13, 2016, 02:38:07 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 13, 2016, 02:36:02 PM
If he decides to nuke Iran because he just doesn't like them, the fact that it isn't motivated by some ideology won't make it any better.
I want to believe that the people in the armed forces wouldn't let him do that.
I want to believe that as well, but my wanting doesn't make it so.
Plus, he could very well be well within his rights and powers as POTUS to do so.
Let's imagine another 9/11 size attack on the US, and it is traced back to some radical group somehow connected to Iran.
Nuking them would be a terrible response, but arguably within a President's power to decide to respond with...
I think the military might refuse a clearly ridiculous order to nuke someone, but would they refuse a merely grossly over-reacting order? Or just a bad idea?
What if he was in charge after 9/11, and he decided that the correct response to Afghanistan refusing to hand over bin Laden was not an invasion, but a limited nuclear strike on the Taliban leadership?
That is a rather astoundingly bad idea - but is it clearly illegal and a valid cause for a refusal to follow that order?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 13, 2016, 02:45:05 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on November 13, 2016, 02:25:14 PM
The idea of President Pence is frankly horrifying.
Creationism, conversion therapy, and criminalization of abortion? What could happen?
US Navy replaced with Arks.
Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2016, 08:09:03 AM
The difference was that Siege was the only such loon we had on the right whereas we seem to have many on the left.
Who? Name them. Don't be a bitch if you can help it. God damn it. I remember I asked you to stop this bullshit and you said 'fair enough'. I thought that meant you understood what I was saying, instead it just meant 'fuck you Valmy'. Whatever.
QuoteLearn to live in a democracy, Jesus Christ.
Because talking about an election involving Ted Cruz is anti-Democratic? Despite what you may be hoping for we will get another election in a couple years. :mellow:
And Valmy. J'accuse!
Quote from: Hamilcar on November 13, 2016, 02:38:07 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 13, 2016, 02:36:02 PM
If he decides to nuke Iran because he just doesn't like them, the fact that it isn't motivated by some ideology won't make it any better.
I want to believe that the people in the armed forces wouldn't let him do that.
Kinda defeats the purpose of having a military subordinate to civilian rule we have here in Constitutionland.
Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2016, 03:07:31 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 13, 2016, 02:47:43 PMWho? Name them.
CdM. garbon. Zoupa. Tim.
That's not entirely fair. Seedy is mostly just trolling us (I think/hope), garbon's not a loon, and Timmay's moronic posting isn't limited to politics.
Quote from: Berkut on November 13, 2016, 02:45:45 PM
Let's imagine another 9/11 size attack on the US, and it is traced back to some radical group somehow connected to Iran.
Considering the Iraq War of 2003, we've established we can pretty much trace anything back to anyone we want and get away with it.
Quote from: Berkut on November 13, 2016, 02:36:02 PM
If he decides to nuke Iran because he just doesn't like them, the fact that it isn't motivated by some ideology won't make it any better.
You say that like nuking Iran would be a bad thing.
Yes it would. It would be a bad thing now. I can't imagine how much of a bad thing it would be in the context of Trump's "foreign policy".
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 13, 2016, 04:01:37 PM
Yes it would. It would be a bad thing now. I can't imagine how much of a bad thing it would be in the context of Trump's "foreign policy".
Maybe Trumps 'foreign policy' will be foreign to him too?
Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2016, 03:07:31 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 13, 2016, 02:47:43 PMWho? Name them.
CdM. garbon. Zoupa. Tim.
Wow. Those guys are only leftists if one is so far to the right, one can't see the centre.
Or in a thread about American politics, where half the people just voted for Trump.
Quote from: Berkut on November 13, 2016, 02:36:02 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on November 13, 2016, 02:25:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 11, 2016, 10:49:44 PM
From a strictly policy standpoint, Trump is actually the least scary Republican in the lot, since he isn't really a Republican at all.
Exactly. The idea of President Pence is frankly horrifying.
....but the things that make Trump horrifying have nothing to do with policy, so it isn't like he is actually better.
If he decides to nuke Iran because he just doesn't like them, the fact that it isn't motivated by some ideology won't make it any better.
Yup. Predictable bad policy is preferable to unpredictable bad policy.
Quote from: saskganesh on November 13, 2016, 04:59:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2016, 03:07:31 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 13, 2016, 02:47:43 PMWho? Name them.
CdM. garbon. Zoupa. Tim.
Wow. Those guys are only leftists if one is so far to the right, one can't see the centre.
You've been gone a long time. I've moved quite far to the left domestically in the last 7 years.
Given how predictable and how bad real GOP policy is, I'm so not sure. Maybe I'm being highly delusional, but now that the two options are both clisterfucks of epic proportions, a crippling fight between GOP and Trump is the only scenario that gives me hope.
considering he just picked reince priebus as his chief of staff, it seems unlikely there will be a civil war. It seems as though after completing a hostile takeover of the republican party, he is content to give the positions of power to the people he took it from.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 13, 2016, 05:32:57 PM
considering he just picked reince priebus as his chief of staff, it seems unlikely there will be a civil war. It seems as though after completing a hostile takeover of the republican party, he is content to give the positions of power to the people he took it from.
Donald J. Trump has no earthly idea what a chief of staff is, what he does, or what purpose it serves--nor does he care.
Priebus, just like he and Pence during the campaign, will be the Translator-in-Chief and the bridge to the party. They will be dealing with the day-to-day management of governing.
QuoteStephen K. Bannon will serve as chief strategist and senior counselor
#Rasputin
Quote from: alfred russel on November 13, 2016, 05:32:57 PM
considering he just picked reince priebus as his chief of staff, it seems unlikely there will be a civil war. It seems as though after completing a hostile takeover of the republican party, he is content to give the positions of power to the people he took it from.
He had four campaign managers over the course of little more than a year. I expect his Chief of Staff to have the same turnover.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 13, 2016, 03:21:50 PM
And Valmy. J'accuse!
Well gosh how could I deny an accusation so artfully stated?
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2016, 01:07:21 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 13, 2016, 03:21:50 PM
And Valmy. J'accuse!
Well gosh how could I deny an accusation so artfully stated?
I didn't even know you were Jewish.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 13, 2016, 05:25:01 PM
You've been gone a long time. I've moved quite far to the left domestically in the last 7 years.
7 years is a very long time. I guess I missed a few things. :hmm:
I think over the years Languish has been converging to a political center-left (by American standards anyway). The imbecile right-wingers are either gone or are still being imbeciles, but almost everyone else on the right spectrum has moved at least a couple of notches to the left.
Quote from: DGuller on November 14, 2016, 11:36:21 PM
I think over the years Languish has been converging to a political center-left (by American standards anyway). The imbecile right-wingers are either gone or are still being imbeciles, but almost everyone else on the right spectrum has moved at least a couple of notches to the left.
Fuck you.
Edmunde Burke remains, as always, my loadstone.
Don't engage (((DGuller))). It only encourages him.
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2016, 11:45:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 14, 2016, 11:36:21 PM
I think over the years Languish has been converging to a political center-left (by American standards anyway). The imbecile right-wingers are either gone or are still being imbeciles, but almost everyone else on the right spectrum has moved at least a couple of notches to the left.
Fuck you.
Edmunde Burke remains, as always, my loadstone.
Okay, I'll give you that. You're the one non-imbecile right-winger who never moved any left. If anything, maybe you've even moved a bit to the right.
Quote from: DGuller on November 15, 2016, 12:04:34 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2016, 11:45:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 14, 2016, 11:36:21 PM
I think over the years Languish has been converging to a political center-left (by American standards anyway). The imbecile right-wingers are either gone or are still being imbeciles, but almost everyone else on the right spectrum has moved at least a couple of notches to the left.
Fuck you.
Edmunde Burke remains, as always, my loadstone.
Okay, I'll give you that. You're the one non-imbecile right-winger who never moved any left. If anything, maybe you've even moved a bit to the right.
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
I have also moved from definitely left positions to centre-right on a number of issues. So did Hami and (I think) Sheilbh.
Quote from: Martinus on November 15, 2016, 01:33:12 AM
I have also moved from definitely left positions to centre-right on a number of issues. So did Hami and (I think) Sheilbh.
I haven't moved. Still center left liberal.
Hami is just an asshole, who supported Trump for laughs, Marti on the other hand...
Quote from: katmai on November 15, 2016, 02:31:41 AM
Hami is just an asshole, who supported Trump for laughs, Marti on the other hand...
I never supported Trump.
Sorry all you white people look alike. :blush:
I never supported Trump either. Saying that Trump is not the Antichrist incarnate to a bunch of morons perceiving the world as a Manichean struggle is not the same as supporting him.
Quote from: Martinus on November 15, 2016, 04:42:29 AM
I never supported Trump either. Saying that Trump is not the Antichrist incarnate to a bunch of morons perceiving the world as a Manichean struggle is not the same as supporting him.
Yeah. That's why you only post things from the alt right / bits demonising the left...because you are so above the binary.
Quote from: katmai on November 15, 2016, 04:02:40 AM
Sorry all you white people look alike. :blush:
:jaron:
(I'm saying you look like him.) :P
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2016, 04:56:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 15, 2016, 04:42:29 AM
I never supported Trump either. Saying that Trump is not the Antichrist incarnate to a bunch of morons perceiving the world as a Manichean struggle is not the same as supporting him.
Yeah. That's why you only post things from the alt right / bits demonising the left...because you are so above the binary.
I try to provide a bit of balance - I actually post a lot of leftist stuff when arguing with people who approach the reality from the right wing perspective. It's just that Languish is so much slanted to the left, it's a virtual echo chamber.
My position on Hillary and Trump has always been this: there are people who, depending on legitimate world views they can adopt (none of which are degenerate or immoral or objectively wrong), can reasonably view Clinton as being better than Trump, Clinton as being as bad as Trump, or Trump as being better than Clinton.
Sadly, most people on this board (and the so-called mainstream media at large) seem to deny intellectual or moral faculty to people who disagree with them.
But, like arguing with a religious convert, I suppose it is very difficult to argue with someone's axioms.
Quote from: Martinus on November 15, 2016, 05:05:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2016, 04:56:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 15, 2016, 04:42:29 AM
I never supported Trump either. Saying that Trump is not the Antichrist incarnate to a bunch of morons perceiving the world as a Manichean struggle is not the same as supporting him.
Yeah. That's why you only post things from the alt right / bits demonising the left...because you are so above the binary.
I try to provide a bit of balance - I actually post a lot of leftist stuff when arguing with people who approach the reality from the right wing perspective. It's just that Languish is so much slanted to the left, it's a virtual echo chamber.
My position on Hillary and Trump has always been this: there are people who, depending on legitimate world views they can adopt (none of which are degenerate or immoral or objectively wrong), can reasonably view Clinton as being better than Trump, Clinton as being as bad as Trump, or Trump as being better than Clinton.
Sadly, most people on this board (and the so-called mainstream media at large) seem to deny intellectual or moral faculty to people who disagree with them.
But, like arguing with a religious convert, I suppose it is very difficult to argue with someone's axioms.
Oh I get it, you just want to be Mary Contrary.
Quote from: saskganesh on November 14, 2016, 11:23:11 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 13, 2016, 05:25:01 PM
You've been gone a long time. I've moved quite far to the left domestically in the last 7 years.
7 years is a very long time. I guess I missed a few things. :hmm:
I've definitely drifted to the left. I mean I was always pretty much on the left on social issues and now the right really has no credibility on economic issues. Plus the Republicans have finally evolved to their final form of true shamefulness that there's nothing left in that party that I can support.
My move to the "right" was largely caused by me being repelled by the mainstream left adopting the "alt left" positions on things such as safe spaces, trigger warnings, language policing and general hostility they seem to hold against various views informed by liberty.
Censorship, enforcement of "right" thinking and generally bullying people for holding unpopular views have always been illiberal positions that used to be imposed by conservatives (and the main reason why I disliked conservatism - and still dislike it in countries like Poland or Russia). The fact that a certain part of the left, upon winning the cultural war, adopted such attitudes in the West was very disappointing (although, in retrospect, not really surprising).
I have gravitated towards the centre throughout the years, but I still consider myself pretty solidly left of center. My far-leftism of old has been revealed to be inversely proportional to the far-left's chances of actually being politically significant in Spain. :hmm:
I would say I am centre-to-centre-right by Western European standards, which probably makes me an independent by US standards, and definitely leftist by Polish standards. :P
Quote from: Martinus on November 15, 2016, 04:42:29 AM
I never supported Trump either. Saying that Trump is not the Antichrist incarnate to a bunch of morons perceiving the world as a Manichean struggle is not the same as supporting him.
I don't think Trump is the Antichrist incarnate. I simply thought his policies were bad and that he was completely unqualified. I never once noticed you do anything but act like a fucking asshole the whole time. Trolling and amping people up, so save this 'oh I was just trying to be reasonable' bullshit. Fucking liar. You are only taking this position now as another bullshit trolling tactic.
Quote from: Martinus on November 15, 2016, 06:54:29 AM
My move to the "right" was largely caused by me being repelled by the mainstream left adopting the "alt left" positions on things such as safe spaces, trigger warnings, language policing and general hostility they seem to hold against various views informed by liberty.
Censorship, enforcement of "right" thinking and generally bullying people for holding unpopular views have always been illiberal positions that used to be imposed by conservatives (and the main reason why I disliked conservatism - and still dislike it in countries like Poland or Russia). The fact that a certain part of the left, upon winning the cultural war, adopted such attitudes in the West was very disappointing (although, in retrospect, not really surprising).
I agree. But that certain part of the left got radicalized by the culture war. They certainly do not perceive they have won, there will always be another group to champion. But it is certainly another example of making the perfect the enemy of the good which is has been their hallmark. They will keep driving.
But it is not like the right doesn't stoke the flames by doing things like passing bathroom legislation in NC. You couldn't have planned something better to empower the other side.
Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2016, 08:49:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 15, 2016, 04:42:29 AM
I never supported Trump either. Saying that Trump is not the Antichrist incarnate to a bunch of morons perceiving the world as a Manichean struggle is not the same as supporting him.
I don't think Trump is the Antichrist incarnate. I simply thought his policies were bad and that he was completely unqualified. I never once noticed you do anything but act like a fucking asshole the whole time. Trolling and amping people up, so save this 'oh I was just trying to be reasonable' bullshit. Fucking liar. You are only taking this position now as another bullshit trolling tactic.
:yes:
:hug:
Marty is a liar, but he isn't trolling either.
Look back over his history on Languish. He didn't really "move" at all, it is just that Trump in some keys ways fell right into a space where Marty has always been sitting quite comfortably.
He is a bigot, and has always been a bigot. He goes ballistic if HIS particular demographic is ever seen as being discriminated against, and then is the consistent first in line when it comes to treating other groups with contempt. Fat people, ugly people, religious people, whatever. He is always right there ready to cheer on the bullies.
The classic bully is never alone - they always have their sycophants and followers egging them on and getting personal validation through their desperate need to be part of the "accepted" group, which by definition requires a "not accepted" group to treat with contempt. The little shit without the balls to engage themselves standing next to (and just behind) the bully cheering them on?
That's Marty. That has always been Marty.
This is not new.
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2016, 08:56:39 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2016, 08:49:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 15, 2016, 04:42:29 AM
I never supported Trump either. Saying that Trump is not the Antichrist incarnate to a bunch of morons perceiving the world as a Manichean struggle is not the same as supporting him.
I don't think Trump is the Antichrist incarnate. I simply thought his policies were bad and that he was completely unqualified. I never once noticed you do anything but act like a fucking asshole the whole time. Trolling and amping people up, so save this 'oh I was just trying to be reasonable' bullshit. Fucking liar. You are only taking this position now as another bullshit trolling tactic.
:yes:
:hug:
Yes, that's a pretty good summation of my opinion too.
At least with Legbiter, he made it clear he was doing it for the Lolz .
I think if Marty is going to continue with the BS a lot of posters are going to get Very fed up with him.
I'd imagine if one is an American Lauguishite having to deal with the Trump presidency for four years will be more than enough, without Marty daily piling that bullshit on top of it.
Quote from: Martinus on November 15, 2016, 05:05:14 AM
My position on Hillary and Trump has always been this: there are people who, depending on legitimate world views they can adopt (none of which are degenerate or immoral or objectively wrong), can reasonably view Clinton as being better than Trump, Clinton as being as bad as Trump, or Trump as being better than Clinton. .
No that's not a reasonable informed view
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 15, 2016, 09:40:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 15, 2016, 05:05:14 AM
My position on Hillary and Trump has always been this: there are people who, depending on legitimate world views they can adopt (none of which are degenerate or immoral or objectively wrong), can reasonably view Clinton as being better than Trump, Clinton as being as bad as Trump, or Trump as being better than Clinton. .
No that's not a reasonable informed view
Trump is uniquely and obviously unqualified to be anywhere near the oval office. His ignorance was staggering. His policy proposals were laughable. His personal character is repugnant.
Reasonable people could reasonably disagree about Obama vs Romney, or really any Presidential election in the last hundred years or so. But not in 2016.
Right.
Reasonable and informed disagreement requires coherent programmatic alternatives.
"Build a wall", "drain the swamp", "lock her up", "repeal and replace" etc are slogans not programs.
He's a couple months from office and already there are indications of reappraisals on Obamacare, his immigration policy is looking a lot like Obama's, even the Iran deal may be OK after all. What was obvious and unstated before is obvious and stated now - with respect to every major policy area, there was absolutely no plan or idea about what to do, and his ersatz team is scrambling to figure it out now.
This was like a high school student council election where people voted for the joke candidate for fun and to express their annoyance at the dorky kids. Only the winner isn't in charge of a powerless body in a high school. He's in charge of the most powerful nation on the planet.
Oops.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 15, 2016, 12:48:56 PMThis was like a high school student council election where people voted for the joke candidate for fun and to express their annoyance at the dorky kids.
So I wasn't the only one who felt reminded of the election campaign of Bart vs Martin Prince in one of the old Simpsons episodes (only that Bart lost in that case)?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 15, 2016, 12:48:56 PM
Right.
Reasonable and informed disagreement requires coherent programmatic alternatives.
"Build a wall", "drain the swamp", "lock her up", "repeal and replace" etc are slogans not programs.
He's a couple months from office and already there are indications of reappraisals on Obamacare, his immigration policy is looking a lot like Obama's, even the Iran deal may be OK after all. What was obvious and unstated before is obvious and stated now - with respect to every major policy area, there was absolutely no plan or idea about what to do, and his ersatz team is scrambling to figure it out now.
This was like a high school student council election where people voted for the joke candidate for fun and to express their annoyance at the dorky kids. Only the winner isn't in charge of a powerless body in a high school. He's in charge of the most powerful nation on the planet.
Oops.
I would find this situation incredibly funny as a spectator, except then I realize that this would be the kind of chaotic atmosphere and lack of command in leadership the Soviets would've considered for a first strike in the 1950s or 1960s.
Maybe they should just skip the whole transition thingy, and just roll the phones over to Trump Tower.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 15, 2016, 12:48:56 PM
Right.
Reasonable and informed disagreement requires coherent programmatic alternatives.
"Build a wall", "drain the swamp", "lock her up", "repeal and replace" etc are slogans not programs.
He's a couple months from office and already there are indications of reappraisals on Obamacare, his immigration policy is looking a lot like Obama's, even the Iran deal may be OK after all. What was obvious and unstated before is obvious and stated now - with respect to every major policy area, there was absolutely no plan or idea about what to do, and his ersatz team is scrambling to figure it out now.
This was like a high school student council election where people voted for the joke candidate for fun and to express their annoyance at the dorky kids. Only the winner isn't in charge of a powerless body in a high school. He's in charge of the most powerful nation on the planet.
Oops.
thing is, trump's actions since getting elected have been mostly positive or indicate things might not be so terrible. a lot of people are stuck on what he said/promised, but it's looking increasingly likely trump said/promised things he had no intention of doing. this is very much a good thing that, imo, deserves more attention in these threads
Quote from: Martinus on November 15, 2016, 06:54:29 AM
My move to the "right" was largely caused by me being repelled by the mainstream left adopting the "alt left" positions on things such as safe spaces, trigger warnings, language policing and general hostility they seem to hold against various views informed by liberty.
You way overshot your target then.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 15, 2016, 01:02:43 PM
thing is, trump's actions since getting elected have been mostly positive or indicate things might not be so terrible. a lot of people are stuck on what he said/promised, but it's looking increasingly likely trump said/promised things he had no intention of doing. this is very much a good thing that, imo, deserves more attention in these threads
I don't know what to cheer for here.
Yes, on the one hand, I kind-of hope that Trump has zero intention of carrying out a single thing that he mentioned. No wall, no banning muslims, no tearing up NAFTA - nothing. He's going to take direction from senior GOP leaders like Priebus, Pence and Ryan and govern like an adult.
But then what does that tell us about how to run for election? What does that teach the voters, and the next generation of candidates?
So part of me hopes that Trump meant most of what he says - that he does build (as Vincente Fox succintly put it) a "fucking wall", he does lock up Hillary Clinton, he does get into a ruinous trade war with half the world. All of which would be terrible - but maybe that'll teach voters that they should actually listen to what politicians say they're going to do?
it means hillary truly ran a terrible campaign
Quote from: LaCroix on November 15, 2016, 01:18:23 PM
it means hillary truly ran a terrible campaign
I don't think she ran a terrible campaign. :huh:
I thought her campaign was just fine. I mean, I wish she would have tacked more to the centre rather than running to the left, but running to the left isn't an objectively horrible strategy either.
She was a pretty bad candidate, but that's a different issue.
Quote from: Zanza on November 15, 2016, 01:08:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 15, 2016, 06:54:29 AM
My move to the "right" was largely caused by me being repelled by the mainstream left adopting the "alt left" positions on things such as safe spaces, trigger warnings, language policing and general hostility they seem to hold against various views informed by liberty.
You way overshot your target then.
Does that stuff even happen in Poland?
Quite frankly, one would think one would worry more about one's own faggot ass in the politically hostile environment of one's own faggot-hating country than what one reads about happening at, say, UCLA, on the internet. If one were so inclined.
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2016, 01:23:22 PM
She was a pretty bad candidate, but that's a different issue.
Bingo. Although one thing I'll say is that her campaign probably invested too much time going negative on Teh Donald (PBUH) and too little time talking about actual issues.
Her campaign was fine. For 1996.
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2016, 01:23:22 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 15, 2016, 01:18:23 PM
it means hillary truly ran a terrible campaign
I don't think she ran a terrible campaign. :huh:
I thought her campaign was just fine. I mean, I wish she would have tacked more to the centre rather than running to the left, but running to the left isn't an objectively horrible strategy either.
She was a pretty bad candidate, but that's a different issue.
one example of her terrible campaigning is her mishandling of the entire email affair. this greatly contributed to peoples' negative impression of her. I don't think she was doomed as a candidate, but the way she ran her campaign doomed her.
There was an interesting article in NRO that argues CLinton's win in the popular vote is (mostly) meaningless.
The point was that both candidates knew that the election was going to be won in the Electoral College, and both candidates tailored their campaigns accordingly. There was a reason they spent so much time in places like Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania - these were swing states, where just a relative handful of votes could make a massive difference.
If the election was held purely by popular vote though, the campaigns would be very different. It would be about maximizing turnout no matter where. No one is going to bother with New Hampshire, for example. Instead CLinton will do event after event on the west coast, trying to drive up turnout. Trump would do event after event in Texas trying to do the same.
It would be a very different kind of election, and nobody could say for sure what the outcome would have been.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442170/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-victory-meaningless
Quote from: derspiess on November 15, 2016, 01:28:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2016, 01:23:22 PM
She was a pretty bad candidate, but that's a different issue.
Bingo. Although one thing I'll say is that her campaign probably invested too much time going negative on Teh Donald (PBUH) and too little time talking about actual issues.
I thought there was an odd tension in how she campaigned. She spent a lot of time talking about how uniquely unqualified Trump was (which I agree with). But by saying that you seem to be making an appeal to moderate Republican voters to switch to the democrats. But then her campaign platform (influenced by the Primary race) was pretty hard-left, with things like free tuition. And that would likely repel moderate Republican voters.
She never fully committed to "turn out the Obama base" versus "play for the middle".
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2016, 01:32:00 PM
There was an interesting article in NRO that argues CLinton's win in the popular vote is (mostly) meaningless.
The point was that both candidates knew that the election was going to be won in the Electoral College, and both candidates tailored their campaigns accordingly. There was a reason they spent so much time in places like Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania - these were swing states, where just a relative handful of votes could make a massive difference.
If the election was held purely by popular vote though, the campaigns would be very different. It would be about maximizing turnout no matter where. No one is going to bother with New Hampshire, for example. Instead CLinton will do event after event on the west coast, trying to drive up turnout. Trump would do event after event in Texas trying to do the same.
It would be a very different kind of election, and nobody could say for sure what the outcome would have been.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442170/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-victory-meaningless
Yep I think that's true. Same with Dem primary in 08
Though I'm not sure here if Trump would have done much differently. His ca.painting was erratic at best.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 15, 2016, 01:31:10 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2016, 01:23:22 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 15, 2016, 01:18:23 PM
it means hillary truly ran a terrible campaign
I don't think she ran a terrible campaign. :huh:
I thought her campaign was just fine. I mean, I wish she would have tacked more to the centre rather than running to the left, but running to the left isn't an objectively horrible strategy either.
She was a pretty bad candidate, but that's a different issue.
one example of her terrible campaigning is her mishandling of the entire email affair. this greatly contributed to peoples' negative impression of her. I don't think she was doomed as a candidate, but the way she ran her campaign doomed her.
You are being naive. Do I think she could have handle that issue better? Sure. Do I think that would have made a difference? No. The narrative about lying Hillary Clinton has existed for over 2 decades. Different handling of the email issue (beyond not doing it in the first place) wouldn't have made any difference. It isn't what suddenly made people think she is untrustworthy.
Just look at Benghazi and how much time and money was spent investigating that and though nothing was ever uncovered she's still tarred by many has having behaved shiftily and did the wrong thing.
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2016, 01:40:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2016, 01:32:00 PM
There was an interesting article in NRO that argues CLinton's win in the popular vote is (mostly) meaningless.
The point was that both candidates knew that the election was going to be won in the Electoral College, and both candidates tailored their campaigns accordingly. There was a reason they spent so much time in places like Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania - these were swing states, where just a relative handful of votes could make a massive difference.
If the election was held purely by popular vote though, the campaigns would be very different. It would be about maximizing turnout no matter where. No one is going to bother with New Hampshire, for example. Instead CLinton will do event after event on the west coast, trying to drive up turnout. Trump would do event after event in Texas trying to do the same.
It would be a very different kind of election, and nobody could say for sure what the outcome would have been.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442170/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-victory-meaningless
Yep I think that's true. Same with Dem primary in 08
Though I'm not sure here if Trump would have done much differently. His ca.painting was erratic at best.
His campaigning in Michigan and Wisconsin apparently paid off though.
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2016, 01:45:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2016, 01:40:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2016, 01:32:00 PM
There was an interesting article in NRO that argues CLinton's win in the popular vote is (mostly) meaningless.
The point was that both candidates knew that the election was going to be won in the Electoral College, and both candidates tailored their campaigns accordingly. There was a reason they spent so much time in places like Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania - these were swing states, where just a relative handful of votes could make a massive difference.
If the election was held purely by popular vote though, the campaigns would be very different. It would be about maximizing turnout no matter where. No one is going to bother with New Hampshire, for example. Instead CLinton will do event after event on the west coast, trying to drive up turnout. Trump would do event after event in Texas trying to do the same.
It would be a very different kind of election, and nobody could say for sure what the outcome would have been.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442170/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-victory-meaningless
Yep I think that's true. Same with Dem primary in 08
Though I'm not sure here if Trump would have done much differently. His ca.painting was erratic at best.
His campaigning in Michigan and Wisconsin apparently paid off though.
Not sure how you can draw that to any clear extent.
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2016, 01:44:19 PM
You are being naive. Do I think she could have handle that issue better? Sure. Do I think that would have made a difference? No. The narrative about lying Hillary Clinton has existed for over 2 decades. Different handling of the email issue (beyond not doing it in the first place) wouldn't have made any difference. It isn't what suddenly made people think she is untrustworthy.
Just look at Benghazi and how much time and money was spent investigating that and though nothing was ever uncovered she's still tarred by many has having behaved shiftily and did the wrong thing.
Well, she could have in the summer of 2015 given a full apology and, what's more, released very lightly redacted copies of every single email sent and received. It would have eliminated the steady drip-drip-drip from both Russia/Wikileaks, and from Comey's investigation.
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2016, 01:46:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2016, 01:44:19 PM
You are being naive. Do I think she could have handle that issue better? Sure. Do I think that would have made a difference? No. The narrative about lying Hillary Clinton has existed for over 2 decades. Different handling of the email issue (beyond not doing it in the first place) wouldn't have made any difference. It isn't what suddenly made people think she is untrustworthy.
Just look at Benghazi and how much time and money was spent investigating that and though nothing was ever uncovered she's still tarred by many has having behaved shiftily and did the wrong thing.
Well, she could have in the summer of 2015 given a full apology and, what's more, released very lightly redacted copies of every single email sent and received. It would have eliminated the steady drip-drip-drip from both Russia/Wikileaks, and from Comey's investigation.
Or we would have had months of pouring over the emails with analysis and rumors about how she still had unreleased emails then had the FBI investigation and drip by drip the full emails leaked.
Fundamentally, she was too flawed of a candidate. I think she ran a decent campaign but she couldn't overcome all of the 'Crooked Hillary' bullshit. The party made a huge mistake by just giving the nomination to her. Bernie's success in the primary helped illustrate what a big mistake it was.
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2016, 01:44:19 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 15, 2016, 01:31:10 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2016, 01:23:22 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 15, 2016, 01:18:23 PM
it means hillary truly ran a terrible campaign
I don't think she ran a terrible campaign. :huh:
I thought her campaign was just fine. I mean, I wish she would have tacked more to the centre rather than running to the left, but running to the left isn't an objectively horrible strategy either.
She was a pretty bad candidate, but that's a different issue.
one example of her terrible campaigning is her mishandling of the entire email affair. this greatly contributed to peoples' negative impression of her. I don't think she was doomed as a candidate, but the way she ran her campaign doomed her.
You are being naive. Do I think she could have handle that issue better? Sure. Do I think that would have made a difference? No. The narrative about lying Hillary Clinton has existed for over 2 decades. Different handling of the email issue (beyond not doing it in the first place) wouldn't have made any difference. It isn't what suddenly made people think she is untrustworthy.
Just look at Benghazi and how much time and money was spent investigating that and though nothing was ever uncovered she's still tarred by many has having behaved shiftily and did the wrong thing.
she had weaknesses and her campaign failed to overcome those weaknesses. I don't think her campaign adequately fit what she needed to do. I'm not calling the overall message of the campaign terrible, I'm saying she ran a terrible campaign for her particular circumstances. as another example, she didn't hit WI, MI, and PA enough when she should have known she was weak there.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 15, 2016, 01:24:28 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 15, 2016, 01:08:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 15, 2016, 06:54:29 AM
My move to the "right" was largely caused by me being repelled by the mainstream left adopting the "alt left" positions on things such as safe spaces, trigger warnings, language policing and general hostility they seem to hold against various views informed by liberty.
You way overshot your target then.
Does that stuff even happen in Poland?
Quite frankly, one would think one would worry more about one's own faggot ass in the politically hostile environment of one's own faggot-hating country than what one reads about happening at, say, UCLA, on the internet. If one were so inclined.
No idea if it happens in Poland and no idea why Marty seems to fascinated by certain aspects of American public discourse and yet sometimes rather ignorant about other particularities of America.
Quote from: katmai on November 15, 2016, 04:02:40 AM
Sorry all you white people look alike. :blush:
It's ok. :hug:
Quote from: Caliga on November 15, 2016, 01:48:41 PM
Fundamentally, she was too flawed of a candidate. I think she ran a decent campaign but she couldn't overcome all of the 'Crooked Hillary' bullshit. The party made a huge mistake by just giving the nomination to her. Bernie's success in the primary helped illustrate what a big mistake it was.
Agreed, she was practically anointed as the next in line to run. There certainly were other dems besides Bernie who would more fit the idea of a change candidate which was what people were looking for. Even curmudgeonly socialist Bernie did well since he was seen more as a change candidate.
I guess what I'm saying is I don't think hillary was always going to lose against trump, and that's what "she had a good campaign, but she was a terrible candidate" implies.
How much of there not being a viable alternative to Clinton was a very concerted and conscious effort by the Clinton power bloc within the DNC to make sure another "Obama" was not allowed to have any prominence for the last eight years?
It was Her Turn.
My perception from an ocean afar was always that American parties due to their primary system are much more open than our parties here in Europe where party leadership and candidacy for offices are always backroom deals among the powerful establishment of the parties.
It's strange that at a time where the Republican establishment looked completely powerless, the Democrats apparently had such a ultra-strong establishment to smother all candidates (other than Bernie).
My personal take is that both among the establishment and the rank and file of the Democratic party there were lots of people who didn't consider Hillary Clinton a terrible candidate but rather did consider her a good candidate. She was experienced, had a political record to show, reasonable policies worked out etc.
It's just that she could not translate that appeal into a sufficient number of votes in some swing states.
Quote from: Zanza on November 15, 2016, 02:18:19 PM
My personal take is that both among the establishment and the rank and file of the Democratic party there were lots of people who didn't consider Hillary Clinton a terrible candidate but rather did consider her a good candidate. She was experienced, had a political record to show, reasonable policies worked out etc.
It's just that she could not translate that appeal into a sufficient number of votes in some swing states.
Yeah but you're a foreigner!
Quote from: KRonn on November 15, 2016, 02:07:02 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 15, 2016, 01:48:41 PM
Fundamentally, she was too flawed of a candidate. I think she ran a decent campaign but she couldn't overcome all of the 'Crooked Hillary' bullshit. The party made a huge mistake by just giving the nomination to her. Bernie's success in the primary helped illustrate what a big mistake it was.
Agreed, she was practically anointed as the next in line to run. There certainly were other dems besides Bernie who would more fit the idea of a change candidate which was what people were looking for. Even curmudgeonly socialist Bernie did well since he was seen more as a change candidate.
Bullshit. Remember she ran in 2008 as well. Why wasn't she "anointed" then?
Quote from: Caliga on November 15, 2016, 01:48:41 PM
Fundamentally, she was too flawed of a candidate. I think she ran a decent campaign but she couldn't overcome all of the 'Crooked Hillary' bullshit. The party made a huge mistake by just giving the nomination to her. Bernie's success in the primary helped illustrate what a big mistake it was.
It was her turn I guess. But it was her turn in 2008. In any case I am not optimistic the next Dem nominee will be acceptable to me despite BB's claim that she was 'hard left'.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2016, 02:24:19 PM
Quote from: KRonn on November 15, 2016, 02:07:02 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 15, 2016, 01:48:41 PM
Fundamentally, she was too flawed of a candidate. I think she ran a decent campaign but she couldn't overcome all of the 'Crooked Hillary' bullshit. The party made a huge mistake by just giving the nomination to her. Bernie's success in the primary helped illustrate what a big mistake it was.
Agreed, she was practically anointed as the next in line to run. There certainly were other dems besides Bernie who would more fit the idea of a change candidate which was what people were looking for. Even curmudgeonly socialist Bernie did well since he was seen more as a change candidate.
Bullshit. Remember she ran in 2008 as well. Why wasn't she "anointed" then?
Because Obama was able to do what Sanders failed to do.
People wanted change, and that's what they got. In their wallets.
hillary had a stronger case of being nominated post-SoS
Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2016, 02:26:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2016, 02:24:19 PM
Quote from: KRonn on November 15, 2016, 02:07:02 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 15, 2016, 01:48:41 PM
Fundamentally, she was too flawed of a candidate. I think she ran a decent campaign but she couldn't overcome all of the 'Crooked Hillary' bullshit. The party made a huge mistake by just giving the nomination to her. Bernie's success in the primary helped illustrate what a big mistake it was.
Agreed, she was practically anointed as the next in line to run. There certainly were other dems besides Bernie who would more fit the idea of a change candidate which was what people were looking for. Even curmudgeonly socialist Bernie did well since he was seen more as a change candidate.
Bullshit. Remember she ran in 2008 as well. Why wasn't she "anointed" then?
Because Obama was able to do what Sanders failed to do.
If she was "anointed" she would have won anyway. The fact remains that Clinton had a strong constituency in the Democratic party. That's why she won.
I think Bernie is the exception that proves the rule. He was not a Democrat to begin with, hence never needed the establishment blessing, and therefore was able to not need that endorsement.
Heck, the DNC probably thought he was great. After all, they need some token opposition, and he was perfect, since early on he looked like a great token candidate - someone who could run against Clinton, but had no real chance.
Clinton was anointed in 2008, and then this charismatic Obama screwed it all up. It looked to me like Clinton and the DNC made a very concerted effort to not let that happen again...
The alternative explanation, I guess, is that the Democratic Party is basically dead, and the best possible leaders they could come up with is a fatally flawed re-tread and a very old Socialist? That doesn't strike me as a more appealing story...
Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2016, 02:11:16 PM
How much of there not being a viable alternative to Clinton was a very concerted and conscious effort by the Clinton power bloc within the DNC to make sure another "Obama" was not allowed to have any prominence for the last eight years?
All of it.
Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2016, 02:32:16 PM
I think Bernie is the exception that proves the rule. He was not a Democrat to begin with, hence never needed the establishment blessing, and therefore was able to not need that endorsement.
Heck, the DNC probably thought he was great. After all, they need some token opposition, and he was perfect, since early on he looked like a great token candidate - someone who could run against Clinton, but had no real chance.
Clinton was anointed in 2008, and then this charismatic Obama screwed it all up. It looked to me like Clinton and the DNC made a very concerted effort to not let that happen again...
The alternative explanation, I guess, is that the Democratic Party is basically dead, and the best possible leaders they could come up with is a fatally flawed re-tread and a very old Socialist? That doesn't strike me as a more appealing story...
Or there is, of course, the really easy angle of there were many Dems who actually supported her and wanted her as a candidate and President. :mellow:
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2016, 02:36:17 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2016, 02:32:16 PM
I think Bernie is the exception that proves the rule. He was not a Democrat to begin with, hence never needed the establishment blessing, and therefore was able to not need that endorsement.
Heck, the DNC probably thought he was great. After all, they need some token opposition, and he was perfect, since early on he looked like a great token candidate - someone who could run against Clinton, but had no real chance.
Clinton was anointed in 2008, and then this charismatic Obama screwed it all up. It looked to me like Clinton and the DNC made a very concerted effort to not let that happen again...
The alternative explanation, I guess, is that the Democratic Party is basically dead, and the best possible leaders they could come up with is a fatally flawed re-tread and a very old Socialist? That doesn't strike me as a more appealing story...
Or there is, of course, the really easy angle of there were many Dems who actually supported her and wanted her as a candidate and President. :mellow:
Of course there were - but it is a bit silly to think that her popularity within the Democratic Party was just so overwhelming that nobody else even bothered. If that was the case, she would have won in 2008.
She could have done a much better job about emails. AFAIK all she did is say she made a mistake and that she was sorry.
Should have done a Bill, go on 60 Minutes, sat on the couch with Bubba and explained everything she did and why she did it.
She even lied when she denied it was a criminal investigation, calling it a "security review."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2016, 02:48:56 PM
She could have done a much better job about emails. AFAIK all she did is say she made a mistake and that she was sorry.
Should have done a Bill, go on 60 Minutes, sat on the couch with Bubba and explained everything she did and why she did it.
Indeed. She could have done a repeat of her 1990s "pink dress" press conference where she stayed until every last question was answered about Whitewater.
But I still think she should have released all the emails.
Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2016, 02:38:23 PM
Of course there were - but it is a bit silly to think that her popularity within the Democratic Party was just so overwhelming that nobody else even bothered. If that was the case, she would have won in 2008.
According to Wiki five other candidates did in fact bother...? Two governors, two senators and a Harvard professor. In 2000 the Democrats had seven candidates other than her, all members of Congress except for on governor. But in 2008, except for a few delegates for Edwards it was a two-person race as well between her and Obama. Were Biden, Dodd or Richardson in 2008 also somehow smothered by the Clinton machine?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2016, 02:24:19 PM
Quote from: KRonn on November 15, 2016, 02:07:02 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 15, 2016, 01:48:41 PM
Fundamentally, she was too flawed of a candidate. I think she ran a decent campaign but she couldn't overcome all of the 'Crooked Hillary' bullshit. The party made a huge mistake by just giving the nomination to her. Bernie's success in the primary helped illustrate what a big mistake it was.
Agreed, she was practically anointed as the next in line to run. There certainly were other dems besides Bernie who would more fit the idea of a change candidate which was what people were looking for. Even curmudgeonly socialist Bernie did well since he was seen more as a change candidate.
Bullshit. Remember she ran in 2008 as well. Why wasn't she "anointed" then?
Because in Obama joined the race and was a strong candidate. The dems needed that this time around to give more competition to Hillary but no one really opposed her. In 2008 there were more strong candidates but in 2016 many chose not to run, such as Biden, Warren, and others.
Quote from: derspiess on November 15, 2016, 02:51:40 PM
She even lied when she denied it was a criminal investigation, calling it a "security review."
And yet, derfetuskullfucker still proves he doesn't know the definition of "criminal investigation."
Quote from: Zanza on November 15, 2016, 02:53:35 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2016, 02:38:23 PM
Of course there were - but it is a bit silly to think that her popularity within the Democratic Party was just so overwhelming that nobody else even bothered. If that was the case, she would have won in 2008.
According to Wiki five other candidates did in fact bother...? Two governors, two senators and a Harvard professor. In 2000 the Democrats had seven candidates other than her, all members of Congress except for on governor. But in 2008, except for a few delegates for Edwards it was a two-person race as well between her and Obama. Were Biden, Dodd or Richardson in 2008 also somehow smothered by the Clinton machine?
There was zero credible Dem candidates other than Clinton in this primary.
There were quite a few in 2008 who were at least credible. Of course it came down to two eventually, as it almost always does. But yes, even then the Clinton machine had in fact anointed Clinton, it just ran up against a surprising contender who didn't put up a show and then rally behind her as planned, instead Obama surprised them and beat Clinton, because the idea that Clinton is just oh so very super duper popular is a complete fiction.
My question is whether or not the stories that the Clinton machine made sure that would not, could not, happen again by not letting anyone rise to any kind of prominence to begin with during the Obama administration are true, or whether it is really the case that the Democratic Party is so crippled and stale that they went out, found all the best possible candidates, and came up with Clinton...and nobody else of note. At all. Not one single other viable candidate, except for the guy who wasn't a Democrat at all.
I think the bigger problem is that media has become so headline driven that it doesn't matter if you get competent or intelligent candidates, it's about grabbing attention by whatever means necessary. Look at the Republican primary, it was all Carson early on who said the craziest things and grabbed the attention. Later on he petered out and Trump came to the fore. Cruz was pretty crazy, but he couldn't let loose like Trump.
On the Democrat's side it was a two horse race between Emails/Benghazi Clinton (both good for pseudo-scandal headlines) and Socialist Sanders. Nobody else was exciting or crazy enough to get attention.
The criteria for being a president is fundamentally different now. The media thinks that it is highlighting reasons not to vote for someone, instead it just distracts from anybody reasonable.
Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2016, 03:00:36 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 15, 2016, 02:53:35 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2016, 02:38:23 PM
Of course there were - but it is a bit silly to think that her popularity within the Democratic Party was just so overwhelming that nobody else even bothered. If that was the case, she would have won in 2008.
According to Wiki five other candidates did in fact bother...? Two governors, two senators and a Harvard professor. In 2000 the Democrats had seven candidates other than her, all members of Congress except for on governor. But in 2008, except for a few delegates for Edwards it was a two-person race as well between her and Obama. Were Biden, Dodd or Richardson in 2008 also somehow smothered by the Clinton machine?
There was zero credible Dem candidates other than Clinton in this primary.
There were quite a few in 2008 who were at least credible. Of course it came down to two eventually, as it almost always does. But yes, even then the Clinton machine had in fact anointed Clinton, it just ran up against a surprising contender who didn't put up a show and then rally behind her as planned, instead Obama surprised them and beat Clinton, because the idea that Clinton is just oh so very super duper popular is a complete fiction.
My question is whether or not the stories that the Clinton machine made sure that would not, could not, happen again by not letting anyone rise to any kind of prominence to begin with during the Obama administration are true, or whether it is really the case that the Democratic Party is so crippled and stale that they went out, found all the best possible candidates, and came up with Clinton...and nobody else of note. At all. Not one single other viable candidate, except for the guy who wasn't a Democrat at all.
I think it was more that the Clintons are such a strong entity within democrat circles that it somewhat discouraged others to run against Hillary. Democrats are more of united who follow the party line than the republicans who are more like herding cats, so I think that added into there being less opposition to a politically strong Hillary candidate.
In 2008 you had Edwards, Clinton, Obama, and Biden - all of them as credible candidates you could imagine winning. Hell, Edwards came in second in Iowa. But even then, Clinton was very much seen as the obvious winner.
In 2016 you had Clinton, and that is it. One credible candidate.
How did that come about?
garbon would have us believe that Dems just love Clinton so much that nobody else wanted to run against her, because she was just that big of a rock star, even compared to 2008.
I don't buy it.
Quote from: KRonn on November 15, 2016, 02:57:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2016, 02:24:19 PM
Quote from: KRonn on November 15, 2016, 02:07:02 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 15, 2016, 01:48:41 PM
Fundamentally, she was too flawed of a candidate. I think she ran a decent campaign but she couldn't overcome all of the 'Crooked Hillary' bullshit. The party made a huge mistake by just giving the nomination to her. Bernie's success in the primary helped illustrate what a big mistake it was.
Agreed, she was practically anointed as the next in line to run. There certainly were other dems besides Bernie who would more fit the idea of a change candidate which was what people were looking for. Even curmudgeonly socialist Bernie did well since he was seen more as a change candidate.
Bullshit. Remember she ran in 2008 as well. Why wasn't she "anointed" then?
Because in Obama joined the race and was a strong candidate. The dems needed that this time around to give more competition to Hillary but no one really opposed her. In 2008 there were more strong candidates but in 2016 many chose not to run, such as Biden, Warren, and others.
Okay, so "anointed" really just means, "won the primary".
Anointing and inevitability were identified as aspects of both the 2008 and 2016. By the media and pundits I mean.
Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2016, 03:10:41 PM
In 2008 you had Edwards, Clinton, Obama, and Biden - all of them as credible candidates you could imagine winning. Hell, Edwards came in second in Iowa. But even then, Clinton was very much seen as the obvious winner.
In 2016 you had Clinton, and that is it. One credible candidate.
How did that come about?
garbon would have us believe that Dems just love Clinton so much that nobody else wanted to run against her, because she was just that big of a rock star, even compared to 2008.
I don't buy it.
To be honest, I don't care what you believe. Have fun with your conspiracy theory. Doesn't matter a single bit at this point.
Why were O'Malley, Chafee, or Webb not credible candidates? They won high office before.
That's a good question. I wondered that at the time. But I think Clinton had a large and passionate following. You needed to really have some juice to beat her.
The only other Democrat that could have changed the outcome of the primary was Biden. When he chose not to run then Hillary became the far and ahead favorite.
Struggling to think of anyone else who could have changed the dynamics of the primary.
I don't get the "not credible" candidate thing either. Fizzling early in the primaries is not the same as lacking credibility.
Occam's razor suggests that a candidate that wins in a democratic election wins because he is more popular among the electorate.
I think Donald Trump's victory shows that clearly. Hillary Clinton clearly had more support from the media, from her party, from economic, entertainment, scientific elites etc. and still lost.
I personally will file the "the Clintons didn't allow any democrat to shine for 8 years so there wasn't another Obama" alongside the "the Clintons killed Vince Foster" folder and the "Hillary is a sexual pawn of Huma Abedin who's actually an Al-Qaeda plant" folder.
There are more simpler reasons for the weakness of the Dem field this year. And yes, not wanting to run against the Dem establishment favorite was a strong one, without needing to imagine vast Clinton conspiracies to keep everybody else down.
Quote from: celedhring on November 15, 2016, 03:47:50 PM
I personally will file the "the Clintons didn't allow any democrat to shine for 8 years so there wasn't another Obama" alongside the "the Clintons killed Vince Foster" folder and the "Hillary is a sexual pawn of Huma Abedin who's actually an Al-Qaeda plant" folder.
There are more simpler reasons for the weakness of the Dem field this year. And yes, not wanting to run against the Dem establishment favorite was a strong one, without needing to imagine vast Clinton conspiracies to keep everybody else down.
Plus Hillary was running with Obama's blessing and tacit support, and Obama was still very popular amongst Democrats.
Quote from: celedhring on November 15, 2016, 03:47:50 PM
I personally will file the "the Clintons didn't allow any democrat to shine for 8 years so there wasn't another Obama" alongside the "the Clintons killed Vince Foster" folder and the "Hillary is a sexual pawn of Huma Abedin who's actually an Al-Qaeda plant" folder.
There are more simpler reasons for the weakness of the Dem field this year. And yes, not wanting to run against the Dem establishment favorite was a strong one, without needing to imagine vast Clinton conspiracies to keep everybody else down.
Let me run this by you and tell me what you think: "Few potential Democrat primary candidates wanted to run against the Clinton machine."
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2016, 03:56:12 PM
Plus Hillary was running with Obama's blessing and tacit support, and Obama was still very popular amongst Democrats.
I get the vibe that Hillary was not Obama's favorite, but that he felt like he had to support her to keep the party together.
See you would always say things about the " Clinton Machine" and make her sound amazing and powerful. But she couldn't even beat Donald Trump and just barely beat an elderly commie. Some "machine".
Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2016, 04:05:57 PM
See you would always say things about the " Clinton Machine" and make her sound amazing and powerful. But she couldn't even beat Donald Trump and just barely beat an elderly commie. Some "machine".
Well the Clinton Machine is very effective at raising money...
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2016, 04:08:58 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2016, 04:05:57 PM
See you would always say things about the " Clinton Machine" and make her sound amazing and powerful. But she couldn't even beat Donald Trump and just barely beat an elderly commie. Some "machine".
Well the Clinton Machine is very effective at raising money...
And locking down superdelagates. Which this year got turned into a weakness.
Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2016, 04:05:57 PM
See you would always say things about the " Clinton Machine" and make her sound amazing and powerful. But she couldn't even beat Donald Trump and just barely beat an elderly commie. Some "machine".
She just happened to be a terrible candidate. The Machine only gets you so far :P
One issue that hasn't been addressed is Hillary's looks. Maybe a woman of Hillary's age is just too unattractive to win national office.
Quote from: derspiess on November 15, 2016, 04:00:18 PM
Quote from: celedhring on November 15, 2016, 03:47:50 PM
I personally will file the "the Clintons didn't allow any democrat to shine for 8 years so there wasn't another Obama" alongside the "the Clintons killed Vince Foster" folder and the "Hillary is a sexual pawn of Huma Abedin who's actually an Al-Qaeda plant" folder.
There are more simpler reasons for the weakness of the Dem field this year. And yes, not wanting to run against the Dem establishment favorite was a strong one, without needing to imagine vast Clinton conspiracies to keep everybody else down.
Let me run this by you and tell me what you think: "Few potential Democrat primary candidates wanted to run against the Clinton machine."
that's not the same as an active conspiracy by the Clintons to squash any kind of opposition as far back as 8 years ago.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2016, 04:15:04 PM
One issue that hasn't been addressed is Hillary's looks. Maybe a woman of Hillary's age is just too unattractive to win national office.
;)
Quote from: derspiess on November 15, 2016, 04:00:18 PM
Quote from: celedhring on November 15, 2016, 03:47:50 PM
I personally will file the "the Clintons didn't allow any democrat to shine for 8 years so there wasn't another Obama" alongside the "the Clintons killed Vince Foster" folder and the "Hillary is a sexual pawn of Huma Abedin who's actually an Al-Qaeda plant" folder.
There are more simpler reasons for the weakness of the Dem field this year. And yes, not wanting to run against the Dem establishment favorite was a strong one, without needing to imagine vast Clinton conspiracies to keep everybody else down.
Let me run this by you and tell me what you think: "Few potential Democrat primary candidates wanted to run against the Clinton machine."
The Clinton Machine runs on Kerosene and uses a Intel 80486.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2016, 04:41:02 PM
The Clinton Machine runs on Kerosene and uses a Intel 80486.
I.e. its rock solid reliable and doesn't crash, but has a habit of giving off nasty fumes.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2016, 04:41:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 15, 2016, 04:00:18 PM
Quote from: celedhring on November 15, 2016, 03:47:50 PM
I personally will file the "the Clintons didn't allow any democrat to shine for 8 years so there wasn't another Obama" alongside the "the Clintons killed Vince Foster" folder and the "Hillary is a sexual pawn of Huma Abedin who's actually an Al-Qaeda plant" folder.
There are more simpler reasons for the weakness of the Dem field this year. And yes, not wanting to run against the Dem establishment favorite was a strong one, without needing to imagine vast Clinton conspiracies to keep everybody else down.
Let me run this by you and tell me what you think: "Few potential Democrat primary candidates wanted to run against the Clinton machine."
The Clinton Machine runs on Kerosene and uses a Intel 80486.
How did you get the technical specs on Hillary's email server?????
Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2016, 08:49:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 15, 2016, 04:42:29 AM
I never supported Trump either. Saying that Trump is not the Antichrist incarnate to a bunch of morons perceiving the world as a Manichean struggle is not the same as supporting him.
I don't think Trump is the Antichrist incarnate.
I do. It would explain the voter turnout. Everybody who was going to get raptured was on November 7th. It's just that the bulk of them happened to lean Democrat. THANKS YHWH
Quote from: Ideologue on November 15, 2016, 05:35:06 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2016, 08:49:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 15, 2016, 04:42:29 AM
I never supported Trump either. Saying that Trump is not the Antichrist incarnate to a bunch of morons perceiving the world as a Manichean struggle is not the same as supporting him.
I don't think Trump is the Antichrist incarnate.
I do. It would explain the voter turnout. Everybody who was going to get raptured was on November 7th. It's just that the bulk of them happened to lean Democrat. THANKS YHWH
Ok, you are trying to get me to support him. Is that it?
Quote from: Zanza on November 15, 2016, 03:37:07 PM
Occam's razor suggests that a candidate that wins in a democratic election wins because he is more popular among the electorate.
I think Donald Trump's victory shows that clearly.
Does it? Run those numbers again, bud.
Quote from: derspiess on November 15, 2016, 04:13:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2016, 04:05:57 PM
See you would always say things about the " Clinton Machine" and make her sound amazing and powerful. But she couldn't even beat Donald Trump and just barely beat an elderly commie. Some "machine".
She just happened to be a terrible candidate. The Machine only gets you so far :P
Should have run Bill. :sleep:
Stupid 22nd amendment.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 15, 2016, 05:36:52 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 15, 2016, 03:37:07 PM
Occam's razor suggests that a candidate that wins in a democratic election wins because he is more popular among the electorate.
I think Donald Trump's victory shows that clearly.
Does it? Run those numbers again, bud.
What the hell are you talking about?
...Do you, commentator on America, not actually know how our dumbassed electoral system works?
Or is it--and we all know this is the likeliest answer--you've convinced yourself you're some kind of "centrist" who takes shots at people to your left and right, and you know exactly what I'm talking about: namely, that the greater number of votes cast for Clinton versus Trump, meaning that Trump's victory doesn't show anything about his popularity, except he was (marginally) more popular in a few particular states.
Obviously, I don't like mentioning this all the time, but it's important to remember that he won by a peculiarity of our system. He has no mandate.
Are you making a reference to Hillary winning the popular vote?
If so, this is totally bogus. The rules were clear. Trump played by these rules - and to these rules - to get the most electoral votes. That is why he campaigned in the battleground states. If the election was decided by the popular vote, both he and Hillary would focus on the most populous states. Only an idiot doesn't see that.
Perhaps you should read the post Ide was responding to.
Quote from: Martinus on November 15, 2016, 05:56:44 PM
Are you making a reference to Hillary winning the popular vote?
If so, this is totally bogus. The rules were clear. Trump played by these rules - and to these rules - to get the most electoral votes. That is why he campaigned in the battleground states. If the election was decided by the popular vote, both he and Hillary would focus on the most populous states. Only an idiot doesn't see that.
QuoteOccam's razor suggests that a candidate that wins in a democratic election wins because he is more popular among the electorate.
All I said was that Zanza's post has a factual frailty in it. Factually speaking, Trump
was not more popular among the electorate. (I assume Zanza is not referring to our 500-some-odd electors as "the electorate," because who would do
that? You?)
"The rules" do not change this fact. They do (sadly) change the legal outcome of the electorate's choices. But they absolutely do not change the way that numbers work, and the way numbers work means that more members of the American electorate voted for Clinton than for Trump--a lot more. Clinton is "more popular" than Trump by this metric.
This does not necessarily make him an illegitimate president. It does mean that the narrative developing around his election is stupid, and no one should forget how he was elected--not by a majority, nor a plurality, of registered voters, but by the Electoral College. (I mean, I signed that petition along with a lot of people, but we all know that the EC selecting Clinton ain't happening. I'd bet on a meteor striking North America, giving Obama the opportunity to stay on as the warlord of the wasteland, before I'd ever bet on that.)
Does it really come down to argument that if "the rules" were in fact different, Trump
would have executed a successful plan to get a plurality of the votes cast? If so, then proceed. Please, Mart. I'm all ears on this one.
So far though it seems as though Trump is not acting as though he has a massive mandate. He isn't the most analytical guy but I think he knows that more Americans voted for the other person. The noises coming out on policy matter so far are heavily slanted to backtracking or compromising on extreme campaign stances. That could all change fast but so far that is how he is playing it.
Amusingly, the one area where his mandate may prove to have the most weight is in dealing with GOP trads, e.g. on spending.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 15, 2016, 06:16:40 PM
the way numbers work means that more members of the American electorate voted for Clinton than for Trump--a lot more.
I don't know that I'd call 47.8% "a lot more" than 47.2%.
I mean, it's certainly a hell of a lot more than in 2000. Anyway, it obviously reflects a value judgment, and my previous assertion of "two million" may be off by about a factor of two (though they are still counting). And yet, speaking personally, I'd nevertheless consider 800,000 or so people to be "a lot." (It was still "a lot" at Stalingrad, right?)
Wonder how many non-citizens voted. Obama assured them they wouldn't get caught.
First of all, it's Slate I know. But Kaplan is a credible writer.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/11/buckle_up_conservatives_are_revolting_against_trump.html
Quote
The GOP Civil War Is Just Beginning
Formerly conciliatory Trump skeptics are backing away from the president-elect.
By Fred Kaplan
A mere week after its election-night triumph, the Republican Party is fracturing more deeply and sharply than anyone had anticipated. Donald Trump's simultaneous appointments of Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus and alt-right publisher Stephen Bannon—an establishment moderate and a white-nationalist renegade—to co-equal positions set the stage for what promises to be all-consuming internecine warfare in the White House and beyond.
The split is particularly pronounced in the party's national-security realm, where the latest, clearest—and, to some Republicans, most alarming—sign of discontent is a tweet posted Tuesday morning by a prominent neoconservative scholar named Eliot A. Cohen.
In March, Cohen was a self-proclaimed "ringleader" of a group of 50 former Republican national-security officials who signed a letter in August warning that Trump "lacks the character, values and experience" to be president and "would put at risk our country's national security and well-being." Many of the signatories told friends and journalists that, if Trump won and they were asked to join his cabinet, they'd say no.
After Trump won, some of them reconsidered, including Cohen. In a Nov. 11 article posted in the American Interest, titled "To an Anxious Friend," Cohen wrote that several friends and colleagues had asked him what they should do if Trump offered them a job—and he concluded, with caveats, that they should take it.
"It seems to me," Cohen wrote, "that if they are sure that they would say yes out of a sense of duty rather than mere careerism; if they are realistic in understanding that in this enterprise they will be the horse, not the jockey; if they accept that they will enter an administration likely to be torn by infighting and bureaucratic skullduggery, they should say yes." He added, "Each of us has something to offer in restoring a temper of decency, responsibility, and civility to politics. There is plenty of work for all of us to do, and we would do well to get about it."
Cohen was praised in the Twitter-sphere for his "wise counsel" and public duty. And then came this tweet from Cohen on Tuesday morning:
Quote
Eliot A Cohen @EliotACohen
After exchange w Trump transition team, changed my recommendation: stay away. They're angry, arrogant, screaming "you LOST!" Will be ugly.
10:07 PM - 15 Nov 2016
I should note, I've been friendly with Cohen for many years. We disagree on many issues, but I regard him as a serious analyst and wise historian. (His book Supreme Command is one of the best studies of civil-military relations; Military Misfortunes, an edifying analysis of failure in warfare; Conquered Liberty, a surprising and entertaining chronicle of our nation's early frontier battles with Canada and how they shaped the American way of war.) His annual seminars on military history, taught to officers, have earned him wide respect inside the armed forces' more intellectual circles. He is sober-minded, sophisticated, not prone to outbursts. In other words, this tweet, in its tone and substance, is uncharacteristic—and for that reason, many of his ilk are taking it seriously.
Cohen told the Washington Post that he'd written the tweet after submitting names for possible national-security positions at the request of a longtime friend who's a senior official on the Trump transition team. His friend's response, Cohen said, was "very weird, very disturbing ... It became clear to me that they view jobs as lollipop things you give out to good boys and girls." His friend, he added, seemed "unhinged."
Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and a neocon who signed a similar anti-Trump letter by 122 national-security experts (and agitated against Trump on his Twitter feed until last week), wrote an op-ed for USA Today after the election, arguing—as Cohen did in his American Interest piece—that #NeverTrumpers shouldn't hesitate to counsel Trump, if just "to save him from himself." However, when I asked Boot this morning about Cohen's retraction, he emailed, "Eliot's tweeting is a matter of concern because it suggests Trump people will stay in their bunker. Heaven help us if they staff the entire admin only with Trump loyalists."
Another Republican who signed the letter, a former senior official who asked not to be identified, said Tuesday that he too had been encouraging fellow skeptics of Trump to serve if they were called (as long as they weren't required to renounce their views—"no need for loyalty oaths"), but that Cohen's email punctured his hopes. Another source of "discouragement," he said, was the announcement that Mike Rogers, the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and before that an FBI agent, had left Trump's transition team over disputes with the campaign loyalists who seem to be dominating the show.
There is also widespread weariness over reports that the next secretary of state might be Rudy Giuliani, a man with no experience in foreign policy and possibly the least diplomatic personality in American politics, simply because he stood by Trump unwaveringly in good times and bad.
Fasten your seatbelts; it's going to be a bumpy four years.
Quote from: Zanza on November 15, 2016, 03:17:26 PM
Why were O'Malley, Chafee, or Webb not credible candidates? They won high office before.
Webb suffered from the same problem as Scoop Jackson before him; he's a party of one. He can be elected Senator from a purple state, but he wouldn't have done well among the sort of Democrat who votes in the primary.
I think SNL captured O'Malley's problems the best when they had his doppelganger say "I did such a good job as Mayor of Baltimore that there were two television shows made about my tenure: "The Wire" and "Homicide, Life on the Street.""
Chafee came across as a lightweight in the debates. I don't know enough about his tenure as either Senator or Governor to say if that was a fair judgement or not; maybe Tim has some insight there.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 15, 2016, 06:41:40 PM
I mean, it's certainly a hell of a lot more than in 2000. Anyway, it obviously reflects a value judgment, and my previous assertion of "two million" may be off by about a factor of two (though they are still counting). And yet, speaking personally, I'd nevertheless consider 800,000 or so people to be "a lot." (It was still "a lot" at Stalingrad, right?)
The gap is over a million now and still climbing. DGuller is going to have to eat his words.
http://time.com/4572295/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-lead/
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 15, 2016, 03:26:46 PM
The only other Democrat that could have changed the outcome of the primary was Biden. When he chose not to run then Hillary became the far and ahead favorite.
Struggling to think of anyone else who could have changed the dynamics of the primary.
Warren could have done it too. She and Biden are the only ones who could have really shaken up the race by entering.
Quote from: derspiess on November 15, 2016, 06:43:46 PM
Wonder how many non-citizens voted. Obama assured them they wouldn't get caught.
:yawn:
Quote from: Savonarola on November 15, 2016, 06:47:34 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 15, 2016, 03:17:26 PM
Why were O'Malley, Chafee, or Webb not credible candidates? They won high office before.
Webb suffered from the same problem as Scoop Jackson before him; he's a party of one. He can be elected Senator from a purple state, but he wouldn't have done well among the sort of Democrat who votes in the primary.
I think SNL captured O'Malley's problems the best when they had his doppelganger say "I did such a good job as Mayor of Baltimore that there were two television shows made about my tenure: "The Wire" and "Homicide, Life on the Street.""
Chafee came across as a lightweight in the debates. I don't know enough about his tenure as either Senator or Governor to say if that was a fair judgement or not; maybe Tim has some insight there.
Fair judgement. He's a shadow of the man his father was.
Tim: and no matter what, you have to consider that an abysmal failure of democracy as it is usually understood (e.g., by Zanza's post). Maybe it's not a failure of American constitutional democracy in specific. But then again, the EC was created for exactly this situation, but (of course) what they will actually do is cast their votes for the unfit demagogue--which means that all the EC is, or really ever has been, is extra votes for sovereign states. Awesome.
P.S. I don't think anybody the Dems could've plausibly run would've won. Maybe Biden. Maybe Obama 2, Obama's secret clone. I mean, obviously I voted for Sanders in the primary, and thus I must've thought he could win at the time. But in retrospect, I dunno.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2016, 06:46:15 PM
First of all, it's Slate I know. But Kaplan is a credible writer.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/11/buckle_up_conservatives_are_revolting_against_trump.html
TrumpGOP is going judenrein. Mnuchin is hanging by a thread.
Quote from: Savonarola on November 15, 2016, 06:47:34 PM
Chafee came across as a lightweight in the debates. I don't know enough about his tenure as either Senator or Governor to say if that was a fair judgement or not; maybe Tim has some insight there.
Lightweight or not, he was a Republican who flipped so had very little chance in the primary.
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2016, 01:32:00 PM
There was an interesting article in NRO that argues CLinton's win in the popular vote is (mostly) meaningless.
The point was that both candidates knew that the election was going to be won in the Electoral College, and both candidates tailored their campaigns accordingly. There was a reason they spent so much time in places like Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania - these were swing states, where just a relative handful of votes could make a massive difference.
If the election was held purely by popular vote though, the campaigns would be very different. It would be about maximizing turnout no matter where. No one is going to bother with New Hampshire, for example. Instead CLinton will do event after event on the west coast, trying to drive up turnout. Trump would do event after event in Texas trying to do the same.
It would be a very different kind of election, and nobody could say for sure what the outcome would have been.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442170/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-victory-meaningless
Of course. It's same in auto-racing, where championship points systems have a tendency to change rather frequently. You always have those arguments that "so and so would've won the championship under the old points system", which conveniently ignores the fact that everyone knowingly competed under the new system. That doesn't mean that some systems aren't more legitimate than others in general, but no system will ever be legitimate when imposed after the fact.
Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2016, 02:32:16 PM
The alternative explanation, I guess, is that the Democratic Party is basically dead, and the best possible leaders they could come up with is a fatally flawed re-tread and a very old Socialist? That doesn't strike me as a more appealing story...
It's not dead, but it is and it was far sicker than it appeared. The party has many fundamental problems, but I would argue the biggest one is enthusiasm gap with the Republicans. Republicans are energized, about all the wrong things, but energized nonetheless. Democrats are boring mediocrities that can only energize people about how terrible Republican policies are (which is factually correct but not really that inspirational).
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2016, 06:46:15 PM
First of all, it's Slate I know. But Kaplan is a credible writer.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/11/buckle_up_conservatives_are_revolting_against_trump.html
Quote
Cohen told the Washington Post that he'd written the tweet after submitting names for possible national-security positions at the request of a longtime friend who's a senior official on the Trump transition team. His friend's response, Cohen said, was "very weird, very disturbing ... It became clear to me that they view jobs as lollipop things you give out to good boys and girls." His friend, he added, seemed "unhinged."
However, when I asked Boot this morning about Cohen's retraction, he emailed, "Eliot's tweeting is a matter of concern because it suggests Trump people will stay in their bunker. Heaven help us if they staff the entire admin only with Trump loyalists."
Another source of "discouragement," he said, was the announcement that Mike Rogers, the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and before that an FBI agent, had left Trump's transition team over disputes with the campaign loyalists who seem to be dominating the show.
There is also widespread weariness over reports that the next secretary of state might be Rudy Giuliani, a man with no experience in foreign policy and possibly the least diplomatic personality in American politics, simply because he stood by Trump unwaveringly in good times and bad.
Fasten your seatbelts; it's going to be a bumpy four years.
If this is anywhere near true then hahahahaha we're so fucked
Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2016, 03:10:41 PM
In 2008 you had Edwards, Clinton, Obama, and Biden - all of them as credible candidates you could imagine winning. Hell, Edwards came in second in Iowa. But even then, Clinton was very much seen as the obvious winner.
In 2016 you had Clinton, and that is it. One credible candidate.
How did that come about?
garbon would have us believe that Dems just love Clinton so much that nobody else wanted to run against her, because she was just that big of a rock star, even compared to 2008.
I don't buy it.
Another simple explanation could be that no one believed that she was beatable in the primaries, so no one with any political future wanted to go out and get wrecked. And the Democrats do have incredibly shallow bench to start with, given their exceptional weakness at the state level lately.
Hey, Beeb. Let's say that the EC did vote for Clinton. Legitimate or illegitimate? You're the Burkean conservative here. :P
(Anyway, of course the PV is "meaningless" in that it has no binding legal effect. So whatever meaning it has is the meaning people attach to it. What it means to me is a broken, broken electoral system, that paved the way for a rightist autocrat. Sure, if it had rewarded, say, a hypothetical Sanders, maybe I'd feel differently. It'd still be unfair, but I would still enjoy the victory. So, naturally, I don't expect most right-wingers to care. Perhaps even less than me, they have no principles above their policy goals, and "functioning democracy" has not been a right wing goal since, roughly speaking, ever.)
Quote from: DGuller on November 15, 2016, 07:26:15 PM
Another simple explanation could be that no one believed that she was beatable in the primaries, so no one with any political future wanted to go out and get wrecked. And the Democrats do have incredibly shallow bench to start with, given their exceptional weakness at the state level lately.
I don't think that losing a primary is generally considered a career wrecker, unless you're close to the end of your career.
The notion he's getting at, I think, is that Clinton would've been vindictive against any challenger. Which I would not call implausible.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2016, 06:47:47 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 15, 2016, 06:41:40 PM
I mean, it's certainly a hell of a lot more than in 2000. Anyway, it obviously reflects a value judgment, and my previous assertion of "two million" may be off by about a factor of two (though they are still counting). And yet, speaking personally, I'd nevertheless consider 800,000 or so people to be "a lot." (It was still "a lot" at Stalingrad, right?)
The gap is over a million now and still climbing. DGuller is going to have to eat his words.
http://time.com/4572295/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-lead/
:unsure: What words?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2016, 07:29:14 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 15, 2016, 07:26:15 PM
Another simple explanation could be that no one believed that she was beatable in the primaries, so no one with any political future wanted to go out and get wrecked. And the Democrats do have incredibly shallow bench to start with, given their exceptional weakness at the state level lately.
I don't think that losing a primary is generally considered a career wrecker, unless you're close to the end of your career.
It's a hell of a lot of money and time.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 15, 2016, 06:59:34 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2016, 06:46:15 PM
First of all, it's Slate I know. But Kaplan is a credible writer.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/11/buckle_up_conservatives_are_revolting_against_trump.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/11/buckle_up_conservatives_are_revolting_against_trump.html)
TrumpGOP is going judenrein. Mnuchin is hanging by a thread.
You might want to keep a bag packed and close to the door. That is not a joke. :mellow:
Quote from: DGuller on November 15, 2016, 07:26:15 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2016, 03:10:41 PM
In 2008 you had Edwards, Clinton, Obama, and Biden - all of them as credible candidates you could imagine winning. Hell, Edwards came in second in Iowa. But even then, Clinton was very much seen as the obvious winner.
In 2016 you had Clinton, and that is it. One credible candidate.
How did that come about?
garbon would have us believe that Dems just love Clinton so much that nobody else wanted to run against her, because she was just that big of a rock star, even compared to 2008.
I don't buy it.
Another simple explanation could be that no one believed that she was beatable in the primaries, so no one with any political future wanted to go out and get wrecked. And the Democrats do have incredibly shallow bench to start with, given their exceptional weakness at the state level lately.
And another plausible explanation is that nobody thought that they'd be able to match the Clintons in fundraising, which was probably a correct conclusion.
Quote from: DGuller on November 15, 2016, 07:36:33 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2016, 06:47:47 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 15, 2016, 06:41:40 PM
I mean, it's certainly a hell of a lot more than in 2000. Anyway, it obviously reflects a value judgment, and my previous assertion of "two million" may be off by about a factor of two (though they are still counting). And yet, speaking personally, I'd nevertheless consider 800,000 or so people to be "a lot." (It was still "a lot" at Stalingrad, right?)
The gap is over a million now and still climbing. DGuller is going to have to eat his words.
http://time.com/4572295/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-lead/
:unsure: What words?
Sorry, I mixed you up with Dorsey :blush:
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,9807.msg1033747.html#msg1033747
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 15, 2016, 07:25:35 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2016, 06:46:15 PM
First of all, it's Slate I know. But Kaplan is a credible writer.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/11/buckle_up_conservatives_are_revolting_against_trump.html
Quote
Cohen told the Washington Post that he'd written the tweet after submitting names for possible national-security positions at the request of a longtime friend who's a senior official on the Trump transition team. His friend's response, Cohen said, was "very weird, very disturbing ... It became clear to me that they view jobs as lollipop things you give out to good boys and girls." His friend, he added, seemed "unhinged."
However, when I asked Boot this morning about Cohen's retraction, he emailed, "Eliot's tweeting is a matter of concern because it suggests Trump people will stay in their bunker. Heaven help us if they staff the entire admin only with Trump loyalists."
Another source of "discouragement," he said, was the announcement that Mike Rogers, the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and before that an FBI agent, had left Trump's transition team over disputes with the campaign loyalists who seem to be dominating the show.
There is also widespread weariness over reports that the next secretary of state might be Rudy Giuliani, a man with no experience in foreign policy and possibly the least diplomatic personality in American politics, simply because he stood by Trump unwaveringly in good times and bad.
Fasten your seatbelts; it's going to be a bumpy four years.
If this is anywhere near true then hahahahaha we're so fucked
The Times says it is
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/us/politics/trump-transition.html?_r=2&mtrref=www.slate.com&gwh=C9EA95B7429943D2D3F2AD3BA039B3B8&gwt
QuoteWASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump's transition operation plunged into disarray on Tuesday with the abrupt departure of Mike Rogers, who had handled national security matters, the second shake-up in less than a week on a team that has not yet begun to execute the daunting task of taking over the government.
In a statement on Tuesday, Mr. Rogers, a former congressman from Michigan who led the House Intelligence Committee, said he was "proud of the team that we assembled at Trump for America to produce meaningful policy, personnel and agency action guidance on the complex national security challenges facing our great country." And he said he was "pleased to hand off our work" to a new transition team led by Vice President-elect Mike Pence.
In another sign of disarray, a transition official said on Tuesday that Mr. Trump had removed a second senior defense and foreign policy official from his transition team, Matthew Freedman, who runs a Washington consulting firm that advises foreign governments and companies seeking to do business with the United States government.
Mr. Freedman, who had been in charge of coordinating Mr. Trump's calls to world leaders after his election, is a former business associate of Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump's former campaign manager, who once worked on the re-election bid of Ferdinand E. Marcos, the Filipino dictator ousted in the 1980s.
Mr. Pence took the helm of the transition on Friday after Mr. Trump unceremoniously removed Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, who had been preparing with Obama administration officials for months to put the complex transition process into motion. That effort is now frozen, senior White House officials say, because Mr. Pence has yet to sign legally required paperwork to allow his team to begin collaborating with President Obama's aides on the handover.
An aide to Mr. Trump's transition team who insisted on anonymity to discuss internal matters said that the delay was taking place because the wording of the document was being altered and updated, and that it was likely to be signed later Tuesday.
Still, the slow and uncertain start to what is normally a rapid and meticulously planned transfer of power could have profound implications for Mr. Trump's nascent administration. It challenges the president-elect's efforts to gain control of the federal bureaucracy and to begin building a staff fully briefed on what he will face in the Oval Office on Day 1.
Even as the president-elect worked to fill pivotal roles in his administration, the disarray caught the attention of some senior Republicans who criticized Mr. Trump during his campaign but said after he won that they would not necessarily rule out joining his administration or advising him.
Eliot A. Cohen, a former State Department official, said on Twitter that after having spoken to Mr. Trump's team, he had "changed my recommendation: stay away. They're angry, arrogant, screaming 'you LOST!' Will be ugly."
Mr. Obama has repeatedly said that his priority is to ensure a smooth and professional transition, a process for which his team and aides to Mr. Trump, as well Hillary Clinton's staff members, had been quietly preparing for several months. Mr. Christie, who until Friday served as Mr. Trump's transition chief, signed a memorandum of understanding on Election Day to put the process into motion as soon as the outcome was determined.
But in response to a series of questions about whether the Obama administration had begun to brief Mr. Trump's team, White House officials said late Monday that the president-elect's decision to abruptly replace Mr. Christie on Friday with Mr. Pence had, for the time being, halted the process.
By law, the document must be signed by the chairman of the transition operation or his designee, and neither Mr. Pence nor anyone on his staff has done so.
Among other things, the paperwork serves as a mutual nondisclosure agreement for both sides, ensuring that members of the president-elect's team do not divulge information about the inner workings of the government that they learn during the transition period, and that the president's aides do not reveal anything they may discover about the incoming administration's plans.
Brandi Hoffine, a White House spokeswoman, said Mr. Obama's team was working with Mr. Pence to sign the document, a standard agreement whose wording is largely governed by statute. "We look forward to completing that work so that we can provide the necessary access to personnel and resources to get the president-elect's team up to speed and deliver on President Obama's directive for a smooth transition," Ms. Hoffine said.
The turmoil at the highest levels of his staff upended months of planning and preparation for a process that many describe as drinking from a fire hose even in the most orderly of circumstances — a period of about 70 days between the election and the inauguration on Jan. 20. During that time, the president-elect must assemble a team to take the reins of the vast federal bureaucracy and recruit, vet and hire 4,000 political appointees to help him run it.
Teams throughout the federal government and at the White House that have prepared briefing materials and status reports for the incoming president's team are on standby, waiting to begin passing the information to their counterparts on Mr. Trump's staff.
Cluster Fuck
I'm not sure there's even a million votes still out, let alone a million surplus for Hillary.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 15, 2016, 08:50:46 PM
I'm not sure there's even a million votes still out, let alone a million surplus for Hillary.
Millions of votes remain uncounted.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/no-voter-turnout-wasnt-way-down-from-2012/
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2016, 08:52:39 PM
Millions of votes remain uncounted.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/no-voter-turnout-wasnt-way-down-from-2012/
If millions of votes are still uncounted, why are they not talking about overturning the result? Are they all in California?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2016, 09:01:29 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2016, 08:52:39 PM
Millions of votes remain uncounted.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/no-voter-turnout-wasnt-way-down-from-2012/
If millions of votes are still uncounted, why are they not talking about overturning the result? Are they all in California?
Mostly mail ballots on the West Coast, yeah.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 15, 2016, 08:59:16 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 15, 2016, 08:56:03 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 15, 2016, 08:50:29 PM
Cluster Fuck
Oh, it's just starting, man.
Greatest reality show on earth.
It's no
Hardcore Pawn. Not enough Jews yelling at each other. Especially not with Stormfront Bannon around.
I have never followed such a transition before and am surprised there are 4000 political jobs to fill. At what level of hierarchy does the career civil service take over in the administration? Or do these 4000 jobs also include non-management positions like experts or specialists?
Quote from: Zanza on November 15, 2016, 10:10:31 PM
I have never followed such a transition before and am surprised there are 4000 political jobs to fill. At what level of hierarchy does the career civil service take over in the administration? Or do these 4000 jobs also include non-management positions like experts or specialists?
These are the presidential political appointments that drive administration policy down the verticals in government.
Here, something that explains it, with really nifty interactives--
http://presidentialtransition.org/blog/posts/160316_help-wanted-4000-appointees.php
Actually, you should explore the entire website. Shows you what a monumental task it is. And why the United States is totally fucked with this moron.
I heard today that the Trump people haven't even called State, Defense or the CIA yet. Tick, tock, dumbasses.
Quote from: Zanza on November 15, 2016, 10:10:31 PM
I have never followed such a transition before and am surprised there are 4000 political jobs to fill. At what level of hierarchy does the career civil service take over in the administration? Or do these 4000 jobs also include non-management positions like experts or specialists?
It goes pretty far down. I've worked in two agencies, the Bureau of Export Administration in Commerce, and the Rural Housing Administration in Agriculture. Both were smallish shops, guestimating around 60-100 at BXA and 40 or so in the DC office of RHA (more in state field offices). In each the Undersecretary and the Deputy Undersecretary were political, plus the press guy at BXA and the Congressional Relations guy at RHA (this guy had absolutely nothing to do). The guys I worked directly for at BXA was a political Assistant Deputy Undersecretary. He thought he might be the only person in the federal government with that title. I would say the highest civil service guy in each department is the budget guy, the personnel guy, and the inspector general. And of course around half of ambassadors are political.
This is going to be priceless.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 15, 2016, 10:22:33 PM
Here, something that explains it, with really nifty interactives--
http://presidentialtransition.org/blog/posts/160316_help-wanted-4000-appointees.php
What a great interactive--
Number of Presidential Appointments for the American Battlefield Monuments Commission? 12.
Number of Presidential Appointments for the Arctic Research Commission? 7.
Number of Presidential Appointments for the African Development Foundation? Zero.
:lol: Typical.
Maybe we don't need all that.
You can bring it up with the Grand Dragon at the next rally, Cleetus.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2016, 08:41:47 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 15, 2016, 07:36:33 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2016, 06:47:47 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 15, 2016, 06:41:40 PM
I mean, it's certainly a hell of a lot more than in 2000. Anyway, it obviously reflects a value judgment, and my previous assertion of "two million" may be off by about a factor of two (though they are still counting). And yet, speaking personally, I'd nevertheless consider 800,000 or so people to be "a lot." (It was still "a lot" at Stalingrad, right?)
The gap is over a million now and still climbing. DGuller is going to have to eat his words.
http://time.com/4572295/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-lead/
:unsure: What words?
Sorry, I mixed you up with Dorsey :blush:
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,9807.msg1033747.html#msg1033747
Tim, I'm not saying this to troll or to insult. You have been wrong about basically everything, starting with the spelling in your thread titles, and are just compounding it with getting me mixed up with DGuller. Yes I am wrong from time to time, as are other posters, but you in particular have no room to ever trash talk about someone "having to eat their words". If wrong statements were things that needed to be eaten, your mouth would be permanently so full that you could never get another word out.
In this particular case, I made a straight up offer to you, based on things that you were bringing to the forum. If Hillary ends up with over 50% of the popular vote, or her vote total exceeds Trump's by 2m, I will not post for 2 months. If neither of these happen, you will not post for 1 month and when you come back will post a mea culpa that you are a dumbass.
For days you have declined to answer on my proposal, and are now trash talking that I am going to "eat my words" while Hillary is still well short of meeting either criteria. Basically: either man up and take the deal, or quit your chickenshit trash talk about it.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 15, 2016, 07:31:34 PM
The notion he's getting at, I think, is that Clinton would've been vindictive against any challenger. Which I would not call implausible.
depends on how it goes.
If you keep saying she's just as bad as Trump, call her a witch, keep spreading rumours and conspiracy theories, yes, she might be vindictive.
If you keep attacking her while you have zero chance of winning after half the primaries are done, yes, she might be vindictive.
If you do relatively well, engage in reasonable debate, then, when it seems clear that you're not gonna win, fold, and call for your supporters to rally behind her, without any hesitation, I think there's a good chance she will like you. She seems like a reasonable carreer politician, as good or bad as most others.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 15, 2016, 10:22:33 PM
I heard today that the Trump people haven't even called State, Defense or the CIA yet. Tick, tock, dumbasses.
he could always ask Obama to rule for a couple more months... ;)
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2016, 11:03:13 PM
Tim, I'm not saying this to troll or to insult. You have been wrong about basically everything, starting with the spelling in your thread titles, and are just compounding it with getting me mixed up with DGuller. Yes I am wrong from time to time, as are other posters, but you in particular have no room to ever trash talk about someone "having to eat their words". If wrong statements were things that needed to be eaten, your mouth would be permanently so full that you could never get another word out.
In this particular case, I made a straight up offer to you, based on things that you were bringing to the forum. If Hillary ends up with over 50% of the popular vote, or her vote total exceeds Trump's by 2m, I will not post for 2 months. If neither of these happen, you will not post for 1 month and when you come back will post a mea culpa that you are a dumbass.
For days you have declined to answer on my proposal, and are now trash talking that I am going to "eat my words" while Hillary is still well short of meeting either criteria. Basically: either man up and take the deal, or quit your chickenshit trash talk about it.
Dorsey: triggered.
Quote from: viper37 on November 15, 2016, 11:36:36 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 15, 2016, 07:31:34 PM
The notion he's getting at, I think, is that Clinton would've been vindictive against any challenger. Which I would not call implausible.
depends on how it goes.
If you keep saying she's just as bad as Trump, call her a witch, keep spreading rumours and conspiracy theories, yes, she might be vindictive.
If you keep attacking her while you have zero chance of winning after half the primaries are done, yes, she might be vindictive.
If you do relatively well, engage in reasonable debate, then, when it seems clear that you're not gonna win, fold, and call for your supporters to rally behind her, without any hesitation, I think there's a good chance she will like you. She seems like a reasonable carreer politician, as good or bad as most others.
Dude, let it rest. She sucked. She sucked horribly. Bernie Bros have been saying that. Independents have been saying that. Even most liberals were originally saying that but then convinced themselves she is actually good. She wasn't. And predictably enough, she lost against a deeply flawed, toxic candidate like Trump.
:jaron:
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 16, 2016, 12:31:19 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2016, 11:03:13 PM
Tim, I'm not saying this to troll or to insult. You have been wrong about basically everything, starting with the spelling in your thread titles, and are just compounding it with getting me mixed up with DGuller. Yes I am wrong from time to time, as are other posters, but you in particular have no room to ever trash talk about someone "having to eat their words". If wrong statements were things that needed to be eaten, your mouth would be permanently so full that you could never get another word out.
In this particular case, I made a straight up offer to you, based on things that you were bringing to the forum. If Hillary ends up with over 50% of the popular vote, or her vote total exceeds Trump's by 2m, I will not post for 2 months. If neither of these happen, you will not post for 1 month and when you come back will post a mea culpa that you are a dumbass.
For days you have declined to answer on my proposal, and are now trash talking that I am going to "eat my words" while Hillary is still well short of meeting either criteria. Basically: either man up and take the deal, or quit your chickenshit trash talk about it.
Dorsey: triggered.
To be fair to Tim, which I am loath to do :lol: , if Dorsey lost he'd just create a sock. Hardly a fair bet.
Also because it's just not very likely the remaining votes are that numerous/lopsided. It's not as bad as B4's bet, but the odds are against him.
Quote from: garbon on November 16, 2016, 03:01:42 AM
:jaron:
I preferred Zoupa's " :D" after my posts saying that Trump is going to win and Clinton is a horrible candidate. Sadly, they stopped when Trump won. :(
Hillary is up by 1,200,000 according to the most recent totals I can find over the web. I don't know how many outstanding votes are out there, but it isn't that ludicrous a bet. I guess she'll fall short of 2m, but not by much.
Quote from: HVC on November 16, 2016, 03:22:00 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 16, 2016, 12:31:19 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2016, 11:03:13 PM
Tim, I'm not saying this to troll or to insult. You have been wrong about basically everything, starting with the spelling in your thread titles, and are just compounding it with getting me mixed up with DGuller. Yes I am wrong from time to time, as are other posters, but you in particular have no room to ever trash talk about someone "having to eat their words". If wrong statements were things that needed to be eaten, your mouth would be permanently so full that you could never get another word out.
In this particular case, I made a straight up offer to you, based on things that you were bringing to the forum. If Hillary ends up with over 50% of the popular vote, or her vote total exceeds Trump's by 2m, I will not post for 2 months. If neither of these happen, you will not post for 1 month and when you come back will post a mea culpa that you are a dumbass.
For days you have declined to answer on my proposal, and are now trash talking that I am going to "eat my words" while Hillary is still well short of meeting either criteria. Basically: either man up and take the deal, or quit your chickenshit trash talk about it.
Dorsey: triggered.
To be fair to Tim, which I am loath to do :lol: , if Dorsey lost he'd just create a sock. Hardly a fair bet.
He would still have the DGuller account.
Quote from: Tamas on November 16, 2016, 05:11:26 AM
Quote from: HVC on November 16, 2016, 03:22:00 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 16, 2016, 12:31:19 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 15, 2016, 11:03:13 PM
Tim, I'm not saying this to troll or to insult. You have been wrong about basically everything, starting with the spelling in your thread titles, and are just compounding it with getting me mixed up with DGuller. Yes I am wrong from time to time, as are other posters, but you in particular have no room to ever trash talk about someone "having to eat their words". If wrong statements were things that needed to be eaten, your mouth would be permanently so full that you could never get another word out.
In this particular case, I made a straight up offer to you, based on things that you were bringing to the forum. If Hillary ends up with over 50% of the popular vote, or her vote total exceeds Trump's by 2m, I will not post for 2 months. If neither of these happen, you will not post for 1 month and when you come back will post a mea culpa that you are a dumbass.
For days you have declined to answer on my proposal, and are now trash talking that I am going to "eat my words" while Hillary is still well short of meeting either criteria. Basically: either man up and take the deal, or quit your chickenshit trash talk about it.
Dorsey: triggered.
To be fair to Tim, which I am loath to do :lol: , if Dorsey lost he'd just create a sock. Hardly a fair bet.
He would still have the DGuller account.
Now, now. We need to come together and pretend that they are distinct individuals.
Dorsey pretends he's not white and Guller pretends he's not an accountant, totally different.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 16, 2016, 03:30:17 AM
Also because it's just not very likely the remaining votes are that numerous/lopsided. It's not as bad as B4's bet, but the odds are against him.
I didn't pull the proposal out of thin air. It was based on predictions that Tim was bringing to the forum. He should put up or shut up.
Fuck you all. :)
Quote from: alfred russel on November 16, 2016, 06:22:40 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 16, 2016, 03:30:17 AM
Also because it's just not very likely the remaining votes are that numerous/lopsided. It's not as bad as B4's bet, but the odds are against him.
I didn't pull the proposal out of thin air. It was based on predictions that Tim was bringing to the forum. He should put up or shut up.
If Ebola dint humble Tim this election won't either.
Quote from: DGuller on November 16, 2016, 08:06:13 AM
Fuck you all. :)
Im on your side :console: us accountants have to stick together :P
More than half of the anti-Trump protesters arrested in Portland, Oregon did not vote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3938928/More-half-112-anti-Trump-protesters-arrested-Portland-didn-t-vote.html
Not sure whether to laugh or cry. I guess these are just rubble-rousing thugs.
Since there was an overwhelming media message of Hillary's inevitability, I would guess some of them figured she'd win no matter what, so they just didn't bother.
Quote from: Caliga on November 16, 2016, 09:44:52 AM
Since there was an overwhelming media message of Hillary's inevitability, I would guess some of them figured she'd win no matter what, so they just didn't bother.
Clinton took Oregon by more than 10% though.
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2016, 01:23:22 PM
She was a pretty bad candidate, but that's a different issue.
She wasn't even a bad candidate, she was just the wrong candidate for this season. She was a conservative and the people were looking for a revolutionary.
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2016, 09:39:45 AM
More than half of the anti-Trump protesters arrested in Portland, Oregon did not vote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3938928/More-half-112-anti-Trump-protesters-arrested-Portland-didn-t-vote.html
Not sure whether to laugh or cry. I guess these are just rubble-rousing thugs.
They probably all Sanders supporters who held their noses at HRC
You know - your kind of people.
Quote from: Maximus on November 16, 2016, 12:10:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2016, 01:23:22 PM
She was a pretty bad candidate, but that's a different issue.
She wasn't even a bad candidate, she was just the wrong candidate for this season. She was a conservative and the people were looking for a revolutionary.
She was a bad candidate. Her problems were:
-she is not an inspiring public speaker
-she is an elderly lady and appears at times physically frail
-whether justified or not, she is vulnerable to charges of corruption
-she has been in politics long enough that she has changed numerous positions, but at the same time she hasn't had roles to allow for a bunch of noteworthy individual achievements (first lady, junior senator)
Quote from: alfred russel on November 16, 2016, 01:16:43 PM
-she is not an inspiring public speaker
-she is an elderly lady and appears at times physically frail
-whether justified or not, she is vulnerable to charges of corruption
-she has been in politics long enough that she has changed numerous positions, but at the same time she hasn't had roles to allow for a bunch of noteworthy individual achievements (first lady, junior senator)
the effect of 1 and 2 are not significant IMO
3 is significant and could be said for anyone who has been the target of decades of smear tactics. Even so whe was one of the least vulnerable to this in this campaign.
4a is a positive and 4b is bullshit
Quote from: Maximus on November 16, 2016, 01:26:22 PM
the effect of 1 and 2 are not significant IMO
3 is significant and could be said for anyone who has been the target of decades of smear tactics. Even so whe was one of the least vulnerable to this in this campaign.
4a is a positive and 4b is bullshit
Are those your opinions of what should be important to swing voters, or what is important?
I think if you look at the history of US presidential elections, you will see the most attractive/charismatic candidate wins much more frequently.
Quote from: Maximus on November 16, 2016, 12:10:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2016, 01:23:22 PM
She was a pretty bad candidate, but that's a different issue.
She wasn't even a bad candidate, she was just the wrong candidate for this season. She was a conservative and the people were looking for a revolutionary.
Not sure I'd say that is accurate. Not going down some Clinton with more popular vote arm, but certainly hard to say that the people were looking for a revolutionary. A great many clearly were not.
Quote from: Maximus on November 16, 2016, 12:10:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2016, 01:23:22 PM
She was a pretty bad candidate, but that's a different issue.
She wasn't even a bad candidate, she was just the wrong candidate for this season. She was a conservative and the people were looking for a revolutionary.
Yeah, I have to agree. This was a time for populists. Bernie would have been a much better fit.
Quote from: garbon on November 16, 2016, 02:37:37 PM
Quote from: Maximus on November 16, 2016, 12:10:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2016, 01:23:22 PM
She was a pretty bad candidate, but that's a different issue.
She wasn't even a bad candidate, she was just the wrong candidate for this season. She was a conservative and the people were looking for a revolutionary.
Not sure I'd say that is accurate. Not going down some Clinton with more popular vote arm, but certainly hard to say that the people were looking for a revolutionary. A great many clearly were not.
I think the great many voted for her because they could not stomach Trump - but not as a revolutionary, but as a blowhard surrounded by some nasty people and himself employing some nasty rhetorics. I think a "nicer" revolutionary would get more votes.
:jaron:
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2016, 04:16:32 PM
I think the great many voted for her because they could not stomach Trump - but not as a revolutionary, but as a blowhard surrounded by some nasty people and himself employing some nasty rhetorics. I think a "nicer" revolutionary would get more votes.
As dedicated as the Woman Card Brigade here was to voting for their gal, when you got past the surface you could tell there wasn't a whole lot of actual enthusiasm for her.
As I've said, both candidates were awful. I've heard "lesser of two evils" mumbled in other elections, but I can't remember an election where so many people said <Candidate X> isn't perfect and I really don't like him/her, but at least he/she isn't <Candidate Y>.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 16, 2016, 01:16:43 PM
-she is not an inspiring public speaker
True. Hitler was an inspiring speaker. That guy, he makes you cry of passion when you don't understand german.
It's not like anyone can compete with "Grab them by the pussy!" as a rallying cry, after all. That was pure genius from Trump.
Quote
-she is an elderly lady and appears at times physically frail
She's 69. Trump is 70. Sanders is 75.
Quote
-whether justified or not, she is vulnerable to charges of corruption
True, she's a politician. Unlike her crooked opponents who never pays taxes and uses every justifiable excuses to avoid paying the people working for him.
Quote
-she has been in politics long enough that she has changed numerous positions, but at the same time she hasn't had roles to allow for a bunch of noteworthy individual achievements (first lady, junior senator)
Same thing for Sanders. And Trump hasn't done much either. Inheriting money from dad and successfully launching a business after a few million$ interest free loan from dad is not a personal achievement.
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2016, 04:15:19 PM
Quote from: Maximus on November 16, 2016, 12:10:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2016, 01:23:22 PM
She was a pretty bad candidate, but that's a different issue.
She wasn't even a bad candidate, she was just the wrong candidate for this season. She was a conservative and the people were looking for a revolutionary.
Yeah, I have to agree. This was a time for populists. Bernie would have been a much better fit.
emotion trumps reason?
Quote from: viper37 on November 16, 2016, 04:58:26 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2016, 04:15:19 PM
Quote from: Maximus on November 16, 2016, 12:10:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2016, 01:23:22 PM
She was a pretty bad candidate, but that's a different issue.
She wasn't even a bad candidate, she was just the wrong candidate for this season. She was a conservative and the people were looking for a revolutionary.
Yeah, I have to agree. This was a time for populists. Bernie would have been a much better fit.
emotion trumps reason?
In politics or in life? Yes.
Quote from: viper37 on November 16, 2016, 04:57:35 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 16, 2016, 01:16:43 PM
-she is not an inspiring public speaker
True. Hitler was an inspiring speaker. That guy, he makes you cry of passion when you don't understand german.
It's not like anyone can compete with "Grab them by the pussy!" as a rallying cry, after all. That was pure genius from Trump.
Quote
-she is an elderly lady and appears at times physically frail
She's 69. Trump is 70. Sanders is 75.
Quote
-whether justified or not, she is vulnerable to charges of corruption
True, she's a politician. Unlike her crooked opponents who never pays taxes and uses every justifiable excuses to avoid paying the people working for him.
Quote
-she has been in politics long enough that she has changed numerous positions, but at the same time she hasn't had roles to allow for a bunch of noteworthy individual achievements (first lady, junior senator)
Same thing for Sanders. And Trump hasn't done much either. Inheriting money from dad and successfully launching a business after a few million$ interest free loan from dad is not a personal achievement.
Viper, imo Trump was an incredibly weak candidate, but - as judged by the relevant electorate - still stronger than Hillary. Some of the weaknesses overlap, but imo most previous candidates would have beaten both of them (Romney, McCain, Obama, etc).
The problem is relative. The other candidates weren't on the list. The choice was either Trump or Clinton. Before that, on the Democrat's side, Sanders was the top runner to Clinton, the others barely registered a blip and abandonned early on, so they weren't a realistic choice.
Quote from: viper37 on November 16, 2016, 04:57:35 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 16, 2016, 01:16:43 PM
-she is an elderly lady and appears at times physically frail
She's 69. Trump is 70. Sanders is 75.
She still appeared way more frail than Sanders. Trump doesn't look frail.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 17, 2016, 02:26:53 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 16, 2016, 04:57:35 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 16, 2016, 01:16:43 PM
-she is an elderly lady and appears at times physically frail
She's 69. Trump is 70. Sanders is 75.
She still appeared way more frail than Sanders. Trump doesn't look frail.
try having a pneumonia, then we'll talk about how frail you look :)
Quote from: viper37 on November 17, 2016, 11:37:39 PM
try having a pneumonia, then we'll talk about how frail you look :)
Try having AIDS and people will probably say you look frail as well. Not sure how that's a rebuttal though. :hmm:
Quote from: viper37 on November 17, 2016, 11:37:39 PM
try having a pneumonia, then we'll talk about how frail you look :)
And how'd she get pneumonia? FRAILNESS
She doesn't have pneumonia. :P
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 17, 2016, 11:48:08 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 17, 2016, 11:37:39 PM
try having a pneumonia, then we'll talk about how frail you look :)
Try having AIDS and people will probably say you look frail as well. Not sure how that's a rebuttal though. :hmm:
do you get AIDS or pneumonia because you are frail?
Not Aids.
Pneumonia, yes.
The first of many times that we will surely be taunted with salvation, only to have it pulled out from under us.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/01/the_emoluments_lawsuit_against_donald_trump_is_an_audacious_gamble.html
QuoteSee You in Court, Mr. President
The emoluments lawsuit against Donald Trump is an audacious gamble.
By Mark Joseph Stern
On Monday, ethics watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sued President Donald Trump for violating the Emoluments Clause, a constitutional provision that prohibits federal officials from accepting "any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever" from a foreign state without congressional approval. The clause clearly bars Trump from receiving payments from foreign governments, including from state-owned corporations. Yet Trump's business empire, from which he refuses to divest, is continually receiving emoluments from foreign states in the form of cash, loans, licensing deals, and building permits. (In 18th-century parlance, an "emolument" was any good or service of value.) So CREW has asked U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams to rule that Trump's acceptance of these emoluments is unconstitutional and prohibit him from taking any more.
Make no mistake: This suit may well fail. If it does, it could help Trump, taking emoluments off the table as grounds for impeachment and allowing his administration to dismiss the issue as fatuous harassment. Democrats would lose a potent rallying cry, and the emoluments criticism would fade from the political arena. The suit is an audacious gamble; it could certainly backfire. But even if it does, it will have a silver lining—functioning as the opening volley in a sustained assault on Trump's unlawful conflicts of interest.
CREW's first hurdle is the sheer novelty of its claim. The Emoluments Clause has never before been tested in court—although the legal luminaries who joined CREW's complaint appear convinced that judicial intervention is necessary. Eminent constitutional law professors Laurence Tribe and Zephyr Teachout, as well as Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California–Irvine School of Law, are participating in the suit; so is Deepak Gupta, a Supreme Court advocate of considerable renown.
This imposing lineup of lawyers is clearly designed to send Trump the message that his conflicts of interest aren't a frivolous distraction to be blithely waved away. The basic point, that Trump's foreign payments present a grave constitutional concern, is clearly correct. And yet the merits of the suit itself may never be heard in Abrams' courtroom, let alone the Supreme Court of the United States. That's because CREW arguably lacks "standing"—a concrete and imminent injury that gives it the right to sue Trump. CREW asserts that it has standing because it investigates ethics violations, and constantly investigating Trump's conflicts of interest will create a "drain on the organization's resources."
This theory rests on a 1982 Supreme Court decision called Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman that blossomed into a generous interpretation of standing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, in which Abrams' court is located. The judge may well decide, though, that this standing claim is simply a bridge too far, in which case she would be obliged to toss out the whole case. But Joshua Matz, an associate at Robbins, Russell who contributed to the Brookings white paper on emoluments that served as a kind of rough draft to the lawsuit, told me he found the theory "compelling"—and that the courts have a duty to act.
Matz hopes that the court finds Trump in violation of the Emoluments Clause and orders him to fully divest from his business; any other result, he said, would allow the president to maintain "financial interests that inevitably blur his loyalty with regard to foreign powers." But that leads to CREW's second big hurdle: The courts may decide that they have no business passing judgment on the president's conflicts of interest, maintaining that they involve an inherently political question that courts are ill-suited to decide.
But in a conversation on Monday, Tribe told me he's optimistic that the courts won't punt on the case.
"This is a perfect example of something where the courts are quite ready to weigh in," he said. "It's clear that the old approach—treating every politically sensitive question as a potential 'political question'—is gone. Once we get to the merits, the court will not say, 'Ah, but we can't decide that question; it's only for Congress to decide.' The Constitution states very clearly that foreign emoluments are absolutely forbidden unless Congress chooses to give its consent. And Congress has not given consent."
I asked Tribe why he chose to litigate the issue, rather than pressure Congress to impeach Trump for accepting foreign payments.
"We are a country dedicated to the rule of law," he said, "and those who spend their lives trying to interpret and understand and enforce the law naturally look at whether this is something we can get judicial help with."
Moreover, judicial intervention may be the fastest way to remedy an extraordinarily serious problem.
"We want Trump to have the best interests of America at stake," Tribe said, "and there's no way of ensuring that under the current circumstances. He has divided loyalty. Right now, every time Trump makes a decision involving any of the dozens of countries where he has hotels or other enterprises, we can't know what motivated it. Was it a desire to have better business relations with that country? A response to how much that country greased his palm? Or a desire to do what's best for America?"
Tribe also sees the suit as a way to educate the public about Trump's constitutional violations.
"Litigation can help bring important principles to light," he said. "It helps me teach my students, and it performs an educational function vis-à-vis the public. Of course, I don't take on causes that I feel confident I will lose purely for educational purposes. But win or lose, we're going to help educate the public on something that's very important."
Even if the CREW suit fails because of standing or some other hurdle, it isn't the only group seeking to tackle Trump's conflicts of interest in court. The American Civil Liberties Union is searching for a plaintiff to sue under the Emoluments Clause—preferably a hotel that loses foreign business to Trump's hotel, which would make for a strong standing argument. And lawyers around the country are hatching plans to use the courts to halt Trump's lawbreaking well beyond Emoluments Clause breaches, challenging his planned crackdown on immigrants and disturbing rejection of transparency.
As Elie Mystal has written in Above the Law, these fights are critically important, even if they ultimately prove to be futile. While a majority of congressional Democrats debate appeasing or collaborating with Trump, these lawsuits demonstrate that, in Mystal's words, "private citizens will use what they have to frustrate the Trump regime."
The emoluments fight may quickly run into a brick wall. Or it may lead to a court order forcing Trump to divest from his businesses. Either way, the Trump administration will be on notice that his constitutional contraventions will not go unchallenged. With this suit, Tribe, CREW, and the lawyers of the resistance have effectively given Trump an ultimatum: Comply with the Constitution, or we'll see you in court.
The standing requirement seems insurmountable in that one.
I thought the emoluments clause didn't apply to the president.
Didn't the Republicans try something similar claiming that Obama couldn't be President because he received the Noble Peace Prize?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 24, 2017, 07:06:04 PM
The standing requirement seems insurmountable in that one.
:huh: an associate found the theory compelling
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 24, 2017, 07:06:04 PM
The standing requirement seems insurmountable in that one.
If we are talking about Tim, that last preposition was unnecessary.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 24, 2017, 07:06:04 PM
The standing requirement seems insurmountable in that one.
What do you make of the ACLU's idea? It seems like a competitor would be within the zone of interest.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on January 24, 2017, 11:11:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 24, 2017, 07:06:04 PM
The standing requirement seems insurmountable in that one.
What do you make of the ACLU's idea? It seems like a competitor would be within the zone of interest.
More legs there, though raises the question of what the purpose of the clause really is.
I'm sympathetic to the argument, but I think the standing hurdle is a real bitch. This is sweet, though, because it's definitely not a political question. For years, I've been trying to see if the Court would make a non-political question into one. This is one such case where if they punted it would destroy the legitimacy of the Court. Fun times.
Minsky, you were skeptical of the standing in the emolument lawsuit, what do you think of this alternate approach.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/02/how_state_attorneys_general_could_take_down_trump_over_emoluments.html
Quote
...
Last month, a government watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and some of the country's leading ethics and constitutional law experts—among them Harvard's Laurence Tribe, Fordham's Zephyr Teachout, and University of California–Irvine's Erwin Chemerinsky—filed suit arguing that the president is in violation of the Constitution, and more urgently, that CREW has standing to sue. Without standing, or claims of a concrete and imminent injury to plaintiffs, a suit cannot go forward. CREW argues it has legal standing to bring this action because Trump's Emoluments Clause violations are using up the organization's time and resources. Many legal analysts have expressed doubt as to whether that claim will suffice to get CREW into a courtroom. But a new theory advanced by Fordham University Law School professor Jed Shugerman may present an end run around that standing problem.
Shugerman's approach uses a whole lot of Latin words, but in a nutshell, he wants to use state laws of incorporation to investigate and revoke Trump's business charter in New York. In an article last week (https://www.law360.com/delaware/articles/890935/state-ags-can-enforce-emoluments-clause-against-trump), Shugerman laid out the theory that corporations are creatures of state law and that attorneys general have the authority to bring actions against corporations that are acting against the public interest. As he put it, "State attorneys general can bring quo warranto proceedings to access information about whether the entities are conduits for illegal emoluments." By asking state attorneys general in the states Trump businesses are incorporated to sue, the standing problem disappears. As Shugerman puts it: "Instead of private parties suing the public official (Trump), public officials can sue the private parties (the Trump hotels and other business entities). Corporations are a creature of state law, and state attorneys general have a special role in making sure that corporations adhere to federal and state law." Not only does the standing problem disappear but because standing requirements are lower in state court than in federal court, the state AGs will be more likely to be allowed to proceed.
Quo warranto is the Latin term for an old English writ that dates back to the 12th century. The idea here is that if a corporation is behaving in a fashion that is deemed ultra vires, or exceeding its legal authority, the state must investigate. In New York, the attorney general has the authority to bring an action against a corporation under New York Business Corporation Law § 1101 (a) (2), which allows the AG to dissolve a corporation if it finds "that the corporation has exceeded the authority conferred upon it by law, or has violated any provision of law whereby it has forfeited its charter, or carried on, conducted or transacted its business in a persistently fraudulent or illegal manner, or by the abuse of its powers contrary to the public policy of the state has become liable to be dissolved."
To that end, an advocacy group called Free Speech for People (FSFP) has asked New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to investigate whether to revoke the charter of The Trump Organization, Inc., due to the president's ownership stake in the corporation and its alleged history of illegal activity.
The 24-page letter is less interested in new legal arguments, or even in arcane questions of standing, than existing evidence that Trump's corporate entities are being used to funnel illegal emoluments to Trump. The group's claims run the gamut from allegations of discriminatory housing practices in the 1970s through last year's claims against Trump University. In addition to getting around the standing problem, the initiative also sidesteps the need to rope in Congress, the Justice Department, or any other entity disinclined to investigate or question Trump conflicts.
Schneiderman has been at the vanguard of state attorneys general who have pushed back on Trump's actions: He brought one of the cases against Trump University, launched an investigation of the Trump Foundation, and has opposed the president's executive order on immigration. But Shugerman insists that this legal move could work in many different jurisdictions. Actions under a state's quo warranto authorities could be brought, for instance, against the Trump Organization in Washington, where it appears to be in violation of the General Services Administration lease that bars any federal official from operating the hotel. And Shugerman adds that in some states, like California, entities beyond the state AG would be authorized to bring such an action. California law also grants this power to local governments and municipalities.
I asked Shugerman whether there is any reason to believe the states would be willing to take as dramatic and draconian an action as threatening to dissolve Trump Organization entities. In an email, he explained that this remedy can be tailored to be more or less dramatic, but one meaningful benefit is that it allows for broad discovery:
Under quo warranto proceedings, the state attorneys general and the courts have flexibility to create a balanced remedy. The first step is discovery to find out about the Trump Organization's financial arrangements and entanglements with foreign and state entities. The next step is to take the emoluments and fraud claims into court. In the end, the attorneys general and the courts may craft a mix of injunctions, fines, divestment, and/or limited dissolutions of LLCs. It's important to recognize that the first step of transparency about the Trump Organization is a service to the public interest by itself, but so is the rule of law and anti-corruption. If this action prevents foreign entities from using payments and debts to manipulate American policy, some relatively minor and temporary instability is worthwhile and necessary.
As to whether one more lawsuit alleging yet more corruption can dislodge an intransigent president who believes himself above the ethics laws, Shugerman reminded me that allowing the appearance of corruption to persist is not costless. "Look how much instability the Trump Organization and its foreign entanglements have already created," he said. "This action will actually reduce that instability, legally, economically, and in national security."
It's become clear that the courts are the best hope for restoring at least some stability to the Presidency Inc. regime in which we now find ourselves and that the states have become powerful agents for accountability. This quo warranto business may feel airy and academic. But the logic behind it is persuasive, and the impacts of this legal theory could be very real.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2017, 10:50:04 PM
Minsky, you were skeptical of the standing in the emolument lawsuit, what do you think of this alternate approach.
It's true the state can seek to invalidate a charter under BCL 1101. It's less clear that the standard for dissolution - very high - can be met. And if successful - then what? Doesn't impact Trump's position as President. It's a problem for the Trump Org, but could be worked around using another entity structure.
I would prefer a million dollars in bratwurst.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/10/would_1_million_in_hot_dogs_violate_the_emoluments_clause.html
Quote
Would $1 Million in Hot Dogs Violate the Emoluments Clause?
A delicious hypothetical at oral arguments in an anti-Trump lawsuit.
By Dahlia Lithwick
In a federal courthouse in Manhattan on Wednesday morning, lawyers for the Department of Justice tried to persuade Federal District Judge George B. Daniels to toss the civil lawsuit accusing the president of violating the Constitution by accepting foreign money while in office. Perhaps the high point of the morning came when a Trump lawyer conceded that if the president were to accept $1 million in hot dogs purchased from an imaginary Trump hot dog business as a gift to sign a foreign treaty, he would probably run afoul of the most obscure constitutional provision you've never heard of. Metaphor, meet the president of the United States.
You may recall that back in November everyone was casting about trying to find a name for the phenomenon wherein a presidential candidate who promises to release his tax returns if elected and declines to do so, then promises to divest himself of his foreign business interests from which he would profit as president and fails to do so, and then stands next to a tower of empty folders and tells us ethics rules don't apply to the White House and he doesn't care if you're mad about that. You may also recall that this was around the time the word emoluments became something other than that stuff you use to keep your skin smooth and supple.
The Foreign Emoluments Clause can be found in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, and it bars anyone holding an "office" from accepting presents or emoluments from "any King, Prince or Foreign State" without "the consent of Congress." (The Constitution actually has three separate emoluments clauses, but only the foreign and domestic clauses came up in oral arguments on Wednesday.) In the simplest possible terms, the Emoluments Clause prohibits government officials from accepting gifts or payments from foreign governments. Here's the sticky bit: We don't have a lot of doctrine in this area because it's never been litigated, chiefly because most presidents haven't wanted to look like they were cashing in on the office with club fees, Chinese trademarks, and jacked-up hotel drink prices. But this president doesn't care about any of that.
Because he failed to fully divest from his businesses and because foreigners are dropping a whole lot of cash at Trump properties, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, and co-plaintiffs Eric Goode, Jill Phaneuf, and the Restaurant Opportunities Center United filed a lawsuit in New York claiming the president was violating the Emoluments Clause. There are two similar suits pending in other courts.
Arguing today on behalf of the president, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate says the court should dismiss the entire proceeding. Shumate says the plaintiffs lack standing—that they have suffered no particularized injury that merits a court's intercession. He also argues that the court has no jurisdiction to enjoin a sitting president from participating in commercial business, and he says the plaintiffs have incorrectly defined emoluments so as to preclude anyone in office from holding any interest in a business with foreign income. Judge Daniels lets him proceed largely unchallenged as he states that CREW and the hospitality plaintiffs alleged harms too speculative to be cognizable and that CREW opted to "inflict injury on itself" by bringing this lawsuit and focusing money, research, and resources on this particular endeavor as opposed to other issues.
Judge Daniels stops to ask a question only when Shumate contends that Trump is taking no government action over the hotel and restaurant markets, saying he's merely participating in them. "But you can be in a market and also control it," notes Daniels. Shumate replies that this is a highly competitive market with hundreds of businesses and that no two entities are actually competing. Judge Daniels stops him to say the plaintiffs allege they lost business to Trump properties. Shumate says no, they are asking the court to infer injury.
The lawyer and judge spar for a few moments on the question of remedies. Shumate says it's appalling to imagine a federal court micromanaging and monitoring Trump's business dealings, while Daniels says he could impose different remedies, or the president could perhaps decide to divest on his own. But when Shumate turns to the actual definition of emoluments favored by the DOJ in this case, the wheels start to come off. The DOJ has urged that—at least according to some dictionaries—an emolument requires a connection between the payment made and the president's office or employment. Daniels thinks this is a tortured reading of the clause. "Why can't we just say it's addressing the compensation the president gets?"
Shumate keeps insisting that it's only an emolument if the president exchanges the gift for services. Judge Daniels keeps telling him that if a foreign power gives Trump $1 million to sign a treaty, it doesn't matter if the president signs that treaty. Shumate keeps insisting this is a "gift." "Well, not from the foreign country's perspective," snaps Daniels. People titter. They go round and round this mulberry bush multiple times as Daniels changes the hypo: "If you say you're going to sell me a car for $10,000," says Daniels, "and I show up tomorrow and there's no car, are you saying that's a gift?"
Shumate says the gift-giver's subjective intent doesn't matter. Daniels says there is no difference between an official and unofficial act of the president. "Everything he does is official," Daniels says. "It doesn't matter if it's in exchange for his services, whether he sleeps all day or works all day, his services arise out of the office of the president." Shumate says none of the framers understood the Emoluments Clause to "apply to private business concerns."
Cue the hot dogs.
Daniels: "So a foreign government says to the president, 'Sign this favorable treaty and we will give you $1 million. You own a hot dog stand so we will buy a million dollars in hot dogs.' "
Shumate: "That might be a present."
Daniels: "You are not arguing that $1 million in hot dogs is a present."
Shumate concedes that he is not.
Based on the DOJ's reading of emoluments, no government official could ever be in violation of anything.
Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler argues on behalf of CREW, and he has a tough time getting past the standing arguments. Daniels isn't really buying that at least one of the CREW plaintiffs has standing, and he doesn't seem at all persuaded that CREW itself does. He tells Gupta that the Emoluments Clause "is not an anti-competitive provision. It's an anti-corruption provision." He repeats several times that there is a vast universe of people who want to stay at Trump properties because they believe Trump is awesome, and that those people don't suffer an Emoluments Clause injury. Gupta says the Emoluments Clause doesn't confer a right, but it does mean courts can step in and remedy violations. But when Daniels begins putting air quotes around phrases like "diverting resources," it's clear he doesn't think CREW has standing to claim harm.
"They're not diverting resources if they just want to play policeman," Daniels insists. "I don't know if CREW had even thought of the Emoluments Clause before this. Most people had not." Tittering.
Daniels is perhaps most animated when he starts telling Gupta that this is a political problem, to be sorted out between the president and Congress. "Why," he asks, "is this a legal question for the courts? It's an issue between two branches of government. ... The president has the ability to do this. I'm not sure there's anything in the Constitution that says Congress couldn't consent even if they thought it was a bribe. ... Why should the president fight this out in a street brawl with individuals?"
Gupta replies that the fact that Congress could make exceptions to the emoluments ban doesn't mean it's not also justiciable. He spends what's left of his time agreeing with Judge Daniels that $1 million in hot dogs is an emolument.
QuoteTop Comment
$1 million in hot dogs would be a violation of the Condiments Clause.
Shumate ends his rebuttal where he began: that if Trump can't take money from foreigners at his hotels, President Obama can't take foreign book royalties and retired military men can't hold stock in hotels. In a strange echo of what the Supreme Court said in the Bob McDonnell case, it seems it can't be bad to profit off high office if everyone does it all the time.
The subtext to today's hearing is that if Daniels allows this case to go forward to trial, CREW would be entitled to discovery, granting the group access to the kinds of evidence of corruption and self-dealing that everyone has only guessed at until now. The stranger subtext is that, based on the DOJ's cramped reading of emoluments, it's hard to imagine any government official could ever be in violation of anything. As we walk out of the building wondering aloud whether the same president who profits daily off his hotels and clubs and trademarks might take $1 million in hot dog–based bribes, it's hard to believe he couldn't get away with that and a whole lot more.