U.S. Elections: Orange is the New Wack

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

 

In all seriousness, the newspaper's response to the predictable reaction from the knuckle-draggers in their readership is great:
 

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/2016/10/16/publisher-response-to-threats-after-republic-endorsement-clinton-trump/92058964/

I think I've worked in the field long enough to say I've seen the effects of affluenza first hand. Common symptoms include crashing of daddy's corvette and alcohol poisoning from the top shelf of the liquor cabinet.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Trump is really doubling down on the rigged angle.  Reeks of desperation.  

 

According to one of his FB posts the FBI helped Hillary edit the leaked emails in exchange for her staff promising "more FBI agents positions overseas".  

[OnionAhaiReborn]

4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Trump is really doubling down on the rigged angle.  Reeks of desperation.  

 

According to one of his FB posts the FBI helped Hillary edit the leaked emails in exchange for her staff promising "more FBI agents positions overseas".  

It's not quite what that FB post says, but this claim has some basis in fact:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/documents-state-dept-official-wanted-fbi-to-change-the-classification-of-one-of-clintons-emails/2016/10/17/1492979c-9471-11e6-bb29-bf2701dbe0a3_story.html

A top State Department official tried to pressure the FBI to change its determination that at least one of the emails on Hillary Clinton’s private server contained classified content, prompting discussion of a possible trade to resolve the issue, two FBI employees told colleagues investigating Clinton’s use of a private server last year.

One FBI official conceded that he told the State Department employee he would “look into” changing the classification of a Clinton email if the official would lend his authority to an FBI request to increase its personnel in Iraq, according to documents released by the bureau Monday.

Another bureau official described the arrangement as a “quid pro quo” and said he believed that the State Department official, Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy, was interested in “minimizing the classified nature of the Clinton emails in order to protect State interests and those of Clinton,” the documents say.

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

It's not quite what that FB post says, but this claim has some basis in fact:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/documents-state-dept-official-wanted-fbi-to-change-the-classification-of-one-of-clintons-emails/2016/10/17/1492979c-9471-11e6-bb29-bf2701dbe0a3_story.html

 

 

Huh.  Truth is stranger than fiction.  

[Fez]

9 hours ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

I think it is mighty hard for Democrats to accept twice in less than 20 years that the Presidental Candidate with (hypothetically) the most popular votes to not win.  Add to that  (hypothetically) having the most E.C will be greatly intolerable for someone who will most likely have only a few million votes to become the President.  Those Senate Democrats will be viewed as traitors up and down.  

I understand it is a very highly unlikely scenarios but it will be viewed as far, far, far worst than what happen in 2016.

The Electoral College is what it is, and rules are rules, if Clinton doesn't get an outright majority, and neither does Trump, it goes to the House. And there's no chance Democrats will have a majority of the House delegations and not have Clinton win, so there's no way Clinton will become President under that circumstance (unless somehow Democrats get really close to a majority of delegations, and can bribe a couple at-large Republican delegations; "hey South Dakota Representative, want to be Secretary of State?"; but if Democrats are that close to a majority there's also no way Clinton didn't win).

If the choice Trump or McMullin, you pick MuMullin, especially since you'd be able to get concessions out of him as well. Also, no one would think anything about Senate Democrats; it'd be House Democrats who vote for MuMullin. The Senate only votes for the VP, not POTUS. And it is possible Democrats would have a Senate majority but not see a Clinton win, so they would just vote for Kaine as VP. I don't think any Democrats would think badly of the House Democrats for doing whatever they could to prevent Trump from becoming President under these circumstances. And if any do, well, this is the definition of putting country before party.

Again though, extremely unlikely. All evidence points to a comfortable Clinton win.

[Weeping Sore]

@Kalbear

Here's the link: http://news.stanford.edu/2015/06/08/50states-renewable-energy-060815/

It's a state-by-state plan for the U.S. to get to 100% renewables with an end-date of 2050. Their original proposal came out in 2009 and cited 2030 so I'm not sure if that's what Stein was referencing. Even that contained "as early as" language, the real estimate being 20-40 years for full implementation.

Still, with the advances in fast-breeder reactors making nuclear's total energy reserves more than 10 x that of fossil fuels, I agree with you that it shouldn't be ruled out*. (part of the concern with breeder reactors is security- they create plutonium which can be weaponized or used in flux capacitors)

*particularly if we're talking about global solutions- how can we tell Australia not to use Uranium when they have 1.67 million tons of it?

[TheKitttenGuard]

35 minutes ago, Fez said:

The Electoral College is what it is, and rules are rules, if Clinton doesn't get an outright majority, and neither does Trump, it goes to the House. And there's no chance Democrats will have a majority of the House delegations and not have Clinton win, so there's no way Clinton will become President under that circumstance (unless somehow Democrats get really close to a majority of delegations, and can bribe a couple at-large Republican delegations; "hey South Dakota Representative, want to be Secretary of State?"; but if Democrats are that close to a majority there's also no way Clinton didn't win).

If the choice Trump or McMullin, you pick MuMullin, especially since you'd be able to get concessions out of him as well. Also, no one would think anything about Senate Democrats; it'd be House Democrats who vote for MuMullin. The Senate only votes for the VP, not POTUS. And it is possible Democrats would have a Senate majority but not see a Clinton win, so they would just vote for Kaine as VP. I don't think any Democrats would think badly of the House Democrats for doing whatever they could to prevent Trump from becoming President under these circumstances. And if any do, well, this is the definition of putting country before party.

Again though, extremely unlikely. All evidence points to a comfortable Clinton win.

It is conceding that Republicans get to run the country.  That having most popular and electoral college are irrevelant.  It will be viewed as a coup regardless how Consistutional it might be.

In 2012 Romney won Utah with 750,000 (72%). So you are stating a scenario where someone with less than 1,000,000 being selected as President against two candidate that should get at a minimum 20 million each.

Bush still won the E.C and regardless as one feelings it is how Presidential election are done.  Having someone who has neither being made President will a whole lot to ask a Party who had to deal with someone losing the popular vote less than 20 years.  In addition the strong feeling that Congressional District are gerrymandered to all hell for Republican will be more fuel.  It is also disheartening to think Republican will not choose a Candidate that has both popular and electoral votes for Partisan reason will really burn down all bridges and structures.  

It will be a very bad, awful, and terrible idea.

[Tywin et al.]

15 hours ago, Inigima said:

Remember when the Republicans claimed they couldn't confirm Obama's SCOTUS nominee because it was his last term? Remember how anyone who wasn't a fucking idiot knew it was bullshit? Well, here's some more proof:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58050653e4b0162c043d4c9a

And lest we forget, all you morons who buy his bullshit where he briefly pretends to be a decent person, that's John McCain explaining how the Republicans will, having never heard then named, refuse to confirm any hypothetical Clinton nominees. Mavericky!

At this point this isn't really that surprising. The said, the infuriating part is Republicans keep going around saying Washington is broken without acknowledging the fact that they deserve the lion's share of the blame.

[IheartIheartTesla]

2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Huh.  Truth is stranger than fiction.  

I am getting a little tired keeping track of what is happening with this whole e-mail business. Everyone assures me there is nothing to worry about, and that's mostly true, but it is disappointing to see that there wasn't a bigger wall of separation between the state department and the FBI. Such things just give the impression of impropriety. I think with a Clinton presidency we will have such fuzziness throughout the 4 years.

I mean, this particular exchange did not involve Clinton directly, but was there a culture in place that treated some arrangements as normal?

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

It's not quite what that FB post says, but this claim has some basis in fact:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/documents-state-dept-official-wanted-fbi-to-change-the-classification-of-one-of-clintons-emails/2016/10/17/1492979c-9471-11e6-bb29-bf2701dbe0a3_story.html

 

 

Yes, it's annoyingly a twitter chain, but it covers the story fairly well.

Like most of these leaks, it depends mostly on you not reading the actual material leaked.

[Mexal]

31 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Yes, it's annoyingly a twitter chain, but it covers the story fairly well.

Like most of these leaks, it depends mostly on you not reading the actual material leaked.

Or if people actually care, which they likely don't cause headlines, here are his two comprehensive articles on Clinton's emails.

Segment 1

Segment 2

[Martell Spy]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/10/why_obama_is_focusing_his_post_presidency_on_state_politics.html

Barack Obama Is Coming to a Statehouse Near You

He’s focusing his post-presidency on a matter that bedeviled his two terms: gerrymandering.

[Martell Spy]

Trump: Maybe Paul Ryan wants me to lose so he can run in 2020

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-paul-ryan-2020-ambitions-229922#ixzz4NSMaSwg9
 

[BloodRider]

2 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/10/why_obama_is_focusing_his_post_presidency_on_state_politics.html

Barack Obama Is Coming to a Statehouse Near You

He’s focusing his post-presidency on a matter that bedeviled his two terms: gerrymandering.

YAY!

[Kalbear]

Just now, Martell Spy said:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/10/why_obama_is_focusing_his_post_presidency_on_state_politics.html

Barack Obama Is Coming to a Statehouse Near You

He’s focusing his post-presidency on a matter that bedeviled his two terms: gerrymandering.

Awesome. Really, really awesome. I hope we get some kind of multisystem instead of district by district electing.

Also, in more @lokisnow was right and Veep is the model for politics department, Huma Abedin is Clinton's personal external hard drive. Or basically, she is Clinton's personal Gary.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

17 hours ago, LongRider said:

I worry about "Second Amendment solutions" with these folks, I find that possibility not zero and therefore scary.

I'm not too worried about it really.  Each party is allowed one person at each polling station, but there is a limit to the amount of challenging they can do.  They can't challenge 100% of the voters, or so many as to cause major delays and if they start creating a disturbance, local law enforcement will be asked to remove them.

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Awesome. Really, really awesome. I hope we get some kind of multisystem instead of district by district electing.

Also, in more @lokisnow was right and Veep is the model for politics department, Huma Abedin is Clinton's personal external hard drive. Or basically, she is Clinton's personal Gary.

I don't even watch veep but spending even one minute around my wife's best friend who works at state is like living in a veep promo. I extrapolate that people are more likely to be like her wonderful obliviousness than some sort of turgid conspiratorialist.

conspiracy is really hard to do, not understanding the technicalities of how an email server works is easy, and even the default position of 99.999999% of people who use email. 

Thus, veep is probably much more true than house of cards.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I was thinking about voting absintee this year just because it's easier but I'm really curious to see if Trump supporters will attempt to "Police" the polls.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I was thinking about voting absintee this year just because it's easier but I'm really curious to see if Trump supporters will attempt to "Police" the polls.

Washington State's system of voting should be required everywhere. It's so absurdly easy, it's well-done and ends up causing a massive amount of actual people voting not just in presidential elections but in off-year elections. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Washington State's system of voting should be required everywhere. It's so absurdly easy, it's well-done and ends up causing a massive amount of actual people voting not just in presidential elections but in off-year elections. 

What makes it different? Just curious.