US Election: It's a post-TrumpDay world

[ThinkerX]

And the investigation continues....

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fbi-interviewed-clinton-aide-huma-abedin-in-email-probe-report/ar-BBsGDVr?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=msnclassic

 

Quote

 

The FBI is expected to interview Clinton in the coming weeks, though a date has not been set.

Federal investigators have reportedly not found anything showing the former secretary of state

Naturally, the vast majority of commenters on that article believe that she is guilty, and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

For myself, I find myself wondering at what happens should Clinton be indicted or something similar AFTER the convention?  Does she run as a tainted candidate, further increasing her already high negatives?  Does she quit?  If so, does Sanders become the nominee despite losing at the convention, or does the DNC pick somebody?  That last is scary to contemplate; in my view the DNC is likely to pick somebody Trump could actually beat without realizing it.[/quote]

38 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Considering Mr. Sanders' age and sex, he's probably more likely to have a "serious health issue" in the next few months than Hillary Clinton is.

However, issues about Clintons health have been raised in the past.

 

[TrackerNeil]

8 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I am very frustrated with the sentiment that Trump will be so disasterous that it will usher in real change, such as Sanders.  In the short term, our international standing will suffer horribly, and the key Bernie planks like addressing economic inequality and climate change will get much worse.  Politics has a ton of inertia and accepting a short term disaster for a long term "maybe things will improve?" is really really stupid. 

Agreed. The damage President Trump did wouldn't be theoretical but real, and people would suffer. I am dismayed that anyone who claims to be liberal could take so blase an attitude towards something like that.

On the Ryan thing, I think Trump is making the smart move. Ryan's history suggests that any proviso he sets on his agreements can be ignored, as the House Freedom Caucus discovered when they blithely dismissed his many conditions for accepting the speaker's gavel. I very much doubt Paul Ryan will fail to endorse (or support, if you will) Trump, and all The Donald has to do is wait until Ryan gives in.

[Red Hermit]

So Rick Perry is now open to being Trump's VP after previously calling him a cancer on conservatism that will destroy the GOP.  Just waiting to see if Ted Cruz will bend the knee next.  After all that tough guy talk the "true conservative" politicians can't even stand up to Trump's bullying, lies and insanity.

[TrackerNeil]

4 minutes ago, Red Hermit said:

So Rick Perry is now open to being Trump's VP after previously calling him a cancer on conservatism that will destroy the GOP.  Just waiting to see if Ted Cruz will bend the knee next.  After all that tough guy talk the "true conservative" politicians can't even stand up to Trump's bullying, lies and insanity.

Nope. These tough-talkers are really just pathetic weaklings who will suckle at any teat they can get their grasping little hands on. I never have high expectations for Republicans, but this is beyond the pale even for them. They'd rather see Donald Trump ruin this nation than let Hillary Clinton rule it.

[Boris the Blade]

 

21 minutes ago, Red Hermit said:

So Rick Perry is now open to being Trump's VP after previously calling him a cancer on conservatism that will destroy the GOP.  Just waiting to see if Ted Cruz will bend the knee next.  After all that tough guy talk the "true conservative" politicians can't even stand up to Trump's bullying, lies and insanity.

15 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Nope. These tough-talkers are really just pathetic weaklings who will suckle at any teat they can get their grasping little hands on. I never have high expectations for Republicans, but this is beyond the pale even for them. They'd rather see Donald Trump ruin this nation than let Hillary Clinton rule it.

haha oh god. It's like Christie going on with his tough talk with Trump then being so far up his ass that he bumps into some of the media organizations that are also up there. 

[ThinkerX]

Been posts popping up on my Facebook from conservative types arguing that Clinton is worse than Trump. 

And today at work, a conservative friend of mine, is trying very hard to convince himself that Trump is better than 'Lying Hillary.'   Because, Trump is after all, a successful businessman and not a professional politician.  (his stance, not mine.)

 

[James Arryn]

I am confused at the sheer volume of nominally intelligent people who confuse someone's willingness to be offensive with someone's honesty, especially when said someone is shown to habitually lie. It's almost as confusing as seeing an Ivy League inherited wealth failed tycoon reality tv star as an anti-establishment symbol. He IS the establishment, as every single agenda he has tried to further in his many many decades as a corporate actor clearly show. You have to be pretty blinkered to think his telling various empowered people to fuck off actually means his entire record somehow becomes irrelevant. 

Trump is almost everything non-Americans see when they criticize Americans, including an amazing capacity to enthusiastically believe his own bullshit. What's kinda awesome is that this very notion will serve as some kind of unarticulated but vehemently felt rallying cry, perfectly melding an overt stereotype rejection with its actual embodiment. 

That all said, if Clinton is sitting on something explosive which does explode during the general, and it gets Trump in the Uge!!House, she will live in eternal infamy for putting personal ambition ahead of saving the planet from Trump. 

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

I personally find it laughable that Hillary is even allowed to run as a President after displaying gross incompetence at handling confidential documents. She definitely needs to be in prison. I hope she gets indicted. FBI do your job!

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-clinton-emails-cnn-idUSKCN0XW2B7

 

Quote

 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is likely to interview Hillary Clinton in the next few weeks about her use of a private email server while she was U.S. secretary of state and have already interviewed some of her aides, CNN reported on Thursday.

I truly hope something comes out of this

[The guy from the Vale]

This is just about the firxt time that I have seen anybody hope that a crime was committed. YMMV.

[mormont]

2 hours ago, James Arryn said:

It's almost as confusing as seeing an Ivy League inherited wealth failed tycoon reality tv star as an anti-establishment symbol.

Remember that George W Bush, son of an actual President, successfully ran as an anti-establishment candidate.

You don't have to be anti-establishment to win, you just have to sound anti-establishment.

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

You don't have to be anti-establishment to win, you just have to sound anti-establishment.

Word.

I am continually amazed at Americans' willingness to accept a narrative they are sold, even when that narrative flies directly in the face of the facts. Cruz played the anti-establishment card even though he is the consummate party insider. Sanders has been in DC for twenty-five years and he's anti-establishment, too. Personally, that claim does nothing for me. I don't care whether a pol is in the establishment or not; I want to know if she's got what it takes to do the job. The other stuff seems like window-dressing.

[DanteGabriel]

1 hour ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

This is just about the firxt time that I have seen anybody hope that a crime was committed. YMMV.

Back in 2008, we had one of Stan's spiritual ancestors on this board, a certain smashing young fellow, who was openly hoping that Hillary Clinton would hijack the nomination from Obama and cause "the blacks" to riot.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Was just about to post that. Trump telling Ryan to fuck off was also awesome.

It's nice to see that Ryan and Trump already don't like each other.

[Fez]

10 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

On the Ryan thing, I think Trump is making the smart move. Ryan's history suggests that any proviso he sets on his agreements can be ignored, as the House Freedom Caucus discovered when they blithely dismissed his many conditions for accepting the speaker's gavel. I very much doubt Paul Ryan will fail to endorse (or support, if you will) Trump, and all The Donald has to do is wait until Ryan gives in.

Probably. But oh what a wondrous world it would be if Ben Sasse ran third party and got at least some of the GOP to endorse him instead.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

12 hours ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

Sanders vowed not to run as an independent when he began running in the Democratic primary. So he'd actually be "just another lying politician" if he chose to ran as an independent. But please, have a taco bowl and continue living in your fantasy world. 

Sanders proved himself to be a lying politician the moment he joined the Democratic Party.  After 40 years of proudly calling himself an independent of explicitly rejecting the Democrat label, of calling the Democrats 'ideologically bankrupt', of saying no real change can come from either party...he decides that wait, nevermind, now that I want to be president I was just kidding about all that other stuff.

Heck, even when announcing his campaign as a DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE he couldn't stop himself from saying he wasn't a Democrat.  He's a liar and a fraud.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Fez said:

Probably. But oh what a wondrous world it would be if Ben Sasse ran third party and got at least some of the GOP to endorse him instead.

Or Gary Johnson

[Fez]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Or Gary Johnson

I think there's probably too much distance between Gary Johnson and the GOP these days. Besides, the actual Libertarian Party has its own policy platforms, some of which are pretty anathema to the sort of Republicans willing to breakaway against Trump.

But Sasse is a sitting red-blood Republican Senator that's basically always stuck to the party line. If he, or someone like him, hijacked the Constitution Party, that'd probably be a more palatable option. On the other hand, the Libertarian Party has ballot access in 33 states, the Constitution Party only has it in 18 states. But if they organized pretty much immediately to start collecting petitions, they could probably get on to at least another dozen or so.

Or, if there was someone, they could just go completely independent. But it'd probably be easier to use existing party infrastructure. Also, importantly, one of the Constitution Party's 18 states is Florida, so not having to worry about that one is a pretty big help.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, Fez said:

I think there's probably too much distance between Gary Johnson and the GOP these days. Besides, the actual Libertarian Party has its own policy platforms, some of which are pretty anathema to the sort of Republicans willing to breakaway against Trump.

But Sasse is a sitting red-blood Republican Senator that's basically always stuck to the party line. If he, or someone like him, hijacked the Constitution Party, that'd probably be a more palatable option. On the other hand, the Libertarian Party has ballot access in 33 states, the Constitution Party only has it in 18 states. But if they organized pretty much immediately to start collecting petitions, they could probably get on to at least another dozen or so.

Or, if there was someone, they could just go completely independent. But it'd probably be easier to use existing party infrastructure. Also, importantly, one of the Constitution Party's 18 states is Florida, so not having to worry about that one is a pretty big help.

I only mentioned him as a joke, but if you want to have a serious conversation Johnson makes more sense. I think a number of Republicans might identify with him more than Trump. Sasse has no chance other then to steal a few percentage points here and there. Johnson could take a larger vote share than that in some places, and if he were to win NM (not happening, but if), there is a scenario in which Clinton wins 267 EC votes and Trump wins 266. 

[Fez]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I only mentioned him as a joke, but if you want to have a serious conversation Johnson makes more sense. I think a number of Republicans might identify with him more than Trump. Sasse has no chance other then to steal a few percentage points here and there. Johnson could take a larger vote share than that in some places, and if he were to win NM (not happening, but if), there is a scenario in which Clinton wins 267 EC votes and Trump wins 266. 

Neither Sasse, Johnson, Romney, or anybody else has a chance of more than stealing a few points here and there unless a large percent of the Republican establishment and donors publicly support them instead. They still probably wouldn't win much of anything, but there's a few states here and there. New Mexico is safely blue no matter what at this point. The best bets would be dark red states that despise Trump (which might just be Utah at this point, but maybe also Idaho and Wyoming) and independent-minded states where both Trump and Clinton and very unpopular (e.g. New Hampshire and Colorado).

You give all those to a third party candidate and its not too hard to draw a map where no one hits 270; although it would require this hypothetical person to be drawing more from Clinton than Trump in the swing states. Otherwise, its just too easy for her to win, there's so many more paths to victory. And it seems pretty unlikely that the GOP establishment-backed alternative would pull many votes from otherwise Democratic voters.

Its not going to happen anyway of course, but its still nice to think about a third party candidate pulling 3%-4% from Trump everywhere and Clinton ending up with 385 electoral votes.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, Fez said:

Neither Sasse, Johnson, Romney, or anybody else has a chance of more than stealing a few points here and there unless a large percent of the Republican establishment and donors publicly support them instead. They still probably wouldn't win much of anything, but there's a few states here and there. New Mexico is safely blue no matter what at this point. The best bets would be dark red states that despise Trump (which might just be Utah at this point, but maybe also Idaho and Wyoming) and independent-minded states where both Trump and Clinton and very unpopular (e.g. New Hampshire and Colorado).

You give all those to a third party candidate and its not too hard to draw a map where no one hits 270; although it would require this hypothetical person to be drawing more from Clinton than Trump in the swing states. Otherwise, its just too easy for her to win, there's so many more paths to victory. And it seems pretty unlikely that the GOP establishment-backed alternative would pull many votes from otherwise Democratic voters.

Its not going to happen anyway of course, but its still nice to think about a third party candidate pulling 3%-4% from Trump everywhere and Clinton ending up with 385 electoral votes.

No third party candidate is going to win a state, so you'd need a 269 tie to deny either candidate 270.