US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

[Shryke]

15 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Well, now that Bill is a vegan, he can take over Michelle Obama's White House victory garden.

That honestly makes more sense than putting him "in charge" of the economy. 

As Paul Krugman noted today on the economic boom times during Bill's time in office: 

 

Oh, he's totally not responsible for the good economy except in that he didn't really fuck it up.

But that's besides the point, which is that he's credited for the good economy. That's the way people see him and remember him. So saying "Bill will be in charge of the good economy" makes sense politically because that links your future administrations economy to Bill Clinton's economy, which is remembered well.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

It wasn't unofficial.  The President can absolutely tell the FBI to investigate whomever it wants, as long as there is a federal crime being investigated.  He can also tell the FBI which crimes not to investigate.  The President can say, "Hey FBI, drop your bank robbery investigations and focus on Al Qaeda."  Or he can say, "Hey, stop with the white collar fraud investigations and focus on cyber intrusions."

As long as there is sufficient predication, the President can order the FBI to investigate anything he wants.  He could order an investigation into whether the Ferguson Police Department committed a hate crime.  Do you really think all those investigations happened without Presidential approval?  Most of these recent federal investigations into police shootings probably were mandated, since it was clear that the elements of the crime weren't met, but it would look bad if the government did nothing.

it was unofficial. And point of fact, Hoover completely ignored LBJ when LBJ told him to stop going after MLK, and went after him even more. 

I think lots of investigations happened with presidential approval. My point is that many investigations also happen without presidential approval, and while the president can encourage actions to be taken they cannot order investigations to occur - and more importantly, they really cannot order investigations of the state department to stop. 

Quote

The biggest lever that he has, which offers the most insulation, is to order the Attorney General not to indict.  The FBI only investigates, it's the DoJ which decides whether to indict or not.  If the President really wanted to, he could order the investigation ended.  He probably wouldn't since that would be political poison, but he could if he wanted. 

This is also factually untrue. The President cannot do any such thing. They can tell the AG to resign or fire them, but they cannot compel the AG to indict. 

[Shryke]

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Could be. Either way we'll likely never know. Another example is the way she has been talking recently about potential VP candidates. It sounds like she's open to an individual who could be a high risk/reward VP pick, which is the type of move a trailing candidate would consider. A candidate with a lead usually avoids risky decisions. And since Hillary is generally a risk averse person, it seems somewhat out of character to me. 

Frankly, I don't see this at all and it's kinda completely out there imo. She's floating all sorts of names and none of them have seemed "trailing candidate risky" to me at all. There's no Palin's here.

Plus VP short lists are more a rhetorical tool then actual lists.
 

Quote

 

Honestly Idk. But there is a difference between calling him an adviser and giving him a functional role in her administration, should she win.

Also, this campaign has got to be killing Bill. He can't be himself and his legacy is getting trashed, sometimes by his own wife. 

 

Aye. It's why he's such a liability some times imo. And I even agree with many of the points he's making but none of them are helpful now and time has definitely moved on since his administration, even if how it's moved on stings a bit for him personally. But he can't really quite seem to let it go.

And shit, it ain't like the changing moors of US society have actually made him less popular as a President or less fondly remembered by most.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-vince-foster-media_us_57448e61e4b045cc9a721738

It was really only a matter of time.

[Kalbear]

Quote

 

Frankly, I don't see this at all and it's kinda completely out there imo. She's floating all sorts of names and none of them have seemed "trailing candidate risky" to me at all. There's no Palin's here.

Plus VP short lists are more a rhetorical tool then actual lists.

 

Pretty much this.

I think that Clinton has recognized the biggest danger to her winning is Sanders doing some quixotic independent run like the Maester Drews of the world want him to. As such, she is looking to find ways to both gain some of his supporters and gain some of his support. Because honestly, once she does that she's almost certainly home free. 

So we've seen things like Sanders getting representatives on the Democratic plank (despite it not being necessary that it happen) and we've seen her specific platform open up to things like Universal Health Care and going with the #Fed Up campaign ideas. I would suspect that she'd go for a VP that's a bit younger, more progressive, and someone who Sanders likes to a degree. Warren would almost work save that she's more valuable as a senator and a bit too old. 

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-vince-foster-media_us_57448e61e4b045cc9a721738

It was really only a matter of time.

Heh. The HuffPo Editorial note is amazing.

Quote

Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar,rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.

 

[Maester Drew]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

I think that Clinton has recognized the biggest danger to her winning is Sanders doing some quixotic independent run like the Maester Drews of the world want him to.

I never said I wanted him to. All I said was that I'd be writing him in. That's it.

Furthermore, Hillary has nothing to fear since Sanders has unambiguously said he won't run in the General if Hillary gets the nomination.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Maester Drew said:

I never said I wanted him to. All I said was that I'd be writing him in. That's it.

Furthermore, Hillary has nothing to fear since Sanders has unambiguously said he won't run in the General if Hillary gets the nomination.

Why write him in if you don't want him to run? That doesn't make any sense at all. So...you want to be the special snowflake that gets to vote for him, but you don't want him to win? 

Sanders said he wouldn't run in the general. He also said that he wouldn't attack Clinton. Or that he wouldn't do anything to damage Clinton's chances of winning against Trump. He has since changed his mind on those things. It's almost as if he's flip-flopped on his positions. 

[Maester Drew]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Why write him in if you don't want him to run? That doesn't make any sense at all. So...you want to be the special snowflake that gets to vote for him, but you don't want him to win? 

Sanders said he wouldn't run in the general. He also said that he wouldn't attack Clinton. Or that he wouldn't do anything to damage Clinton's chances of winning against Trump. He has since changed his mind on those things. It's almost as if he's flip-flopped on his positions. 

I wanted him to run as the Democratic nominee. Plus, "I never said I wanted him to" isn't the same as "I don't want him to" Would I like the fact that he could run in the General as an independent? Yeah, but I understand that he doesn't want to, so that's where my "writing him in" comes into play.

As for attacks, there is a difference between personal attacks, and critcizing her positions. He, as a candidate, is allowed to criticize her positions or views.

He hasn't damaged her campaign. Some Sanders supporters have said they would vote for her if she's the nominee, and any problems she's having with Trump cannot be pinned on Bernie.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

it was unofficial. And point of fact, Hoover completely ignored LBJ when LBJ told him to stop going after MLK, and went after him even more. 

I think lots of investigations happened with presidential approval. My point is that many investigations also happen without presidential approval, and while the president can encourage actions to be taken they cannot order investigations to occur - and more importantly, they really cannot order investigations of the state department to stop. 

This is also factually untrue. The President cannot do any such thing. They can tell the AG to resign or fire them, but they cannot compel the AG to indict. 

So it's your contention that anytime the President tells the FBI to do something, it's really more of a suggestion and an informal order instead of a directive issued by the head of the executive branch?

The President can order the AG to indict (by that I mean, the President can order the DoJ to present their findings to a Grand Jury).  The AG then has the choice of doing it, or resigning.  The President can also order the AG to not present their findings to a GJ.  The AG can then obey, or resign.  Just because most presidents have publicly respected the independence of FBI investigations does not mean they are required to.

Why do you think Obama had to walk back the comment he made about Clinton's email server not being a threat to national security?  Why do you think he was able to order the DoJ to review its methods in media leak investigations?

[Kalbear]

Quote

The President can order the AG to indict (by that I mean, the President can order the DoJ to present their findings to a Grand Jury).  The AG then has the choice of doing it, or resigning.  The President can also order the AG to not present their findings to a GJ.  The AG can then obey, or resign.  Just because most presidents have publicly respected the independence of FBI investigations does not mean they are required to.

As far as I can tell this is not correct. At all. 

Quote

Why do you think Obama had to walk back the comment he made about Clinton's email server not being a threat to national security?  Why do you think he was able to order the DoJ to review its methods in media leak investigations?

The former was because the FBI didn't like him interfering. But again - that supports your view not at all - because the FBI has jurisdiction and he was seen as interfering in a federal investigation. That's not wrong because he's president, it's wrong because it's illegal. 

[Kalbear]

30 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

I wanted him to run as the Democratic nominee. Plus, "I never said I wanted him to" isn't the same as "I don't want him to" Would I like the fact that he could run in the General as an independent? Yeah, but I understand that he doesn't want to, so that's where my "writing him in" comes into play.

Gotcha. So you want to write him in despite him not running, but you don't want him to run because if he did he'd hurt Clinton's chances, but you don't want to vote for Clinton but you do want Clinton to win. 

Truly dizzying. 

30 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

As for attacks, there is a difference between personal attacks, and critcizing her positions. He, as a candidate, is allowed to criticize her positions or views.

He's been doing very little of that as of late, and instead has been attacking the entire primary process pretty much non-stop in the last 3 weeks. All the while saying that she is the 'lesser evil'. Pray tell, what 'position' is calling her evil, exactly?

30 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

He hasn't damaged her campaign. Some Sanders supporters have said they would vote for her if she's the nominee, and any problems she's having with Trump cannot be pinned on Bernie.

I disagree. In particular, him decrying the entire nominating process has nothing to do with problems she's having with Trump and everything to do with problems she's having with Sanders. The number of Sanders voters who have become more opposed to her or have openly declared that they'll vote for Trump has increased. That has nothing to do with Clinton given that she's not said anything about Sanders and everything to do with Sanders.

Sanders today, for instance, just said that the Clinton campaign is cowardly and renegged on promises because she won't debate him prior to California. That isn't a policy criticism at all. He knows precisely why she won't debate him. She even said as much (because it's distracting to the Trump/Clinton campaign). But he's spinning it as Yet Another Establishment thing. 

[Maester Drew]

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Gotcha. So you want to write him in despite him not running, but you don't want him to run because if he did he'd hurt Clinton's chances, but you don't want to vote for Clinton but you do want Clinton to win. 

Why do you make it unnecessarily complex when it's obviously not that hard to understand?

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

He's been doing very little of that as of late, and instead has been attacking the entire primary process pretty much non-stop in the last 3 weeks.

To use your own words, the primary process is "truly dizzying." I'm not talking about just for Sanders, I'm speaking in general of the modern primary process that both parties have used since 1972. It is rather complex, with too many rules that get entangled by other rules. Sanders isn't the only one that is pointing out the problems of the primaries; Jon Oliver, for example, did so just this past weekend.

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sanders today, for instance, just said that the Clinton campaign is cowardly and renegged on promises because she won't debate him prior to California. That isn't a policy criticism at all. He knows precisely why she won't debate him. She even said as much (because it's distracting to the Trump/Clinton campaign). But he's spinning it as Yet Another Establishment thing. 

Clinton's campaign isn't Clinton. Him calling her campaign cowardly isn't a personal attack. Finally, if she gets her feelings hurt because Sanders 'attacked' her, she ain't gonna do well against Trump, since he won't show mercy in his attack ads and statements.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Maester Drew said:

Why do you make it unnecessarily complex when it's obviously not that hard to understand?

Because it's insane troll logic. You want someone else to win but don't want to vote for them. You want to vote for someone who isn't running. You don't want the person you're voting for to run. None of this makes sense.

1 minute ago, Maester Drew said:

To use your own words, the primary process is "truly dizzying." I'm not talking about just for Sanders, I'm speaking in general of the modern primary process that both parties have used since 1972. It is rather complex, with too many rules that get entangled by other rules. Sanders isn't the only one that is pointing out the problems of the primaries; Jon Oliver, for example, did so just this past weekend.

That's all true, but it's not the fault of Clinton's campaign, and that's what he implies. Furthermore, by any reasonable metric Sanders has lost fair and square. While the process is odd and confusing, it is not the reason that Sanders lost. He is implying that it is. 

The primary rules are not the reason that he is 3 million votes behind, as the Jon Oliver sketch you apparently watched states. They aren't the reason that  he has fewer delegates. They aren't the reason that he has won fewer states. 

1 minute ago, Maester Drew said:

Clinton's campaign isn't Clinton. Him calling her campaign cowardly isn't a personal attack. Finally, if she gets her feelings hurt because Sanders 'attacked' her, she ain't gonna do well against Trump, since he won't show mercy in his attack ads and statements.

Yeah, this kind of bullshit continues to be bullshit. 

He called Clinton cowardly. Not her campaign - Clinton. 

It's not about getting feelings hurt. (nice to go for the sexist thing there, btw - well done!) It's about ethics in political campaigning. More specifically, it's about that Sanders attacking Clinton at the end of the campaign for Democratic front runner is a very different thing than Trump attacking Clinton at all. Sanders is doing so with the support of other erstwhile democratic voters. Furthermore, he's doing so in such a way that he is attacking her legitimacy, not her policies. Both of those things damage Clinton's campaign in a way that Trump simply cannot do successfully. 

[Kalbear]

Quote

Hillary supporters are the ones saying how hurtful it is of Sanders "attacking" Hillary. I had not commented on hurt feelings prior to today because I thought it was unnecessary and a non-issue. But it was you who brought the issue up.

I said how damaging it is. Hurtful - and feelings involved - was your invention. 

Quote

Effectively over ain't the same thing as over. If he wants to continue his primary campaign, let him. Besides, Hillary is no longer focusing on him, her gaze is now set on Trump, she doesn't seem worried about Sanders, so why should her supporters.

Again, no one, certainly not me, is suggesting Sanders stops campaigning. I'm suggesting the bullshit about the legitimacy of the primary is a problem. I'm saying that the continued negative attacks on Clinton are a problem. One does not have to run the campaign Sanders is doing in order to run a campaign. 

[TrackerNeil]

2 hours ago, Maester Drew said:

Forgive me Tracker, but did you miss part of my post that said "used to"?

Sorry...I wasn't trying to be snarky towards you, but I see I succeeded anyway! So please forgive and just assume I am ranting at Republicans in general, which I often do.

[Maester Drew]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I said how damaging it is. Hurtful - and feelings involved - was your invention.  

Okay... so what does hurt feelings have to do with sex and gender?

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm saying that the continued negative attacks on Clinton are a problem. One does not have to run the campaign Sanders is doing in order to run a campaign. 

And negative attacks are part of campaigns, sadly. This isn't a new phenomenon, it didn't just spring up with Sanders. And again, she isn't focusing on Sanders, so wouldn't it follow that she herself isn't worried about him or what 'damage' he could do to her campaign?

[DanteGabriel]

Not hard to see that Maester Drew wants to avert the catastrophe of a Trumpian Presidency but maintain his hard-won moral purity by not having to cast a vote for the evil Hillary Clinton.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Maester Drew said:

Okay... so what does hurt feelings have to do with sex and gender?

Just now, Maester Drew said:

And negative attacks are part of campaigns, sadly. This isn't a new phenomenon, it didn't just spring up with Sanders. And again, she isn't focusing on Sanders, so wouldn't it follow that she herself isn't worried about him or what 'damage' he could do to her campaign?

Negative attacks are. Negative attacks on the institution of the Democratic party are not a typical thing. That has, actually, just kind of sprung up with Sanders. 

She isn't focusing on Sanders therefore I shouldn't worry about the damage that Sanders is causing? How the fuck does that make any sense? She's not focusing on him because it is the least problematic thing to do. Her going back and telling him to fuck off only makes him more legitimate. As far as she is concerned she is crowned and done. What Sanders is doing isn't attacking Clinton's policies at all - something I'd be okay with. No, he's attacking the actual election system entirely.  And the main effect that is having isn't on Clinton's supporters. What that's doing is making it more likely that the Sanders supporters won't vote. Or, in fact, won't do anything other than be cynical and do ineffective things like write in candidates that aren't running.

Quote

But in the long-term, the same strategy could undermine Sanders’s goal of creating a lasting political movement. If the campaign suggests the primary election has not proceeded fairly, its supporters may give up on the idea that political reform is even possible. The Boston College political science professor David Hopkins describes the risk this way: “Complaints about a rigged system may breed more apathy and cynicism than motivation to remain productively active in party politics,” he wrote in an analysis of the Nevada convention. “If the lesson drawn by Sanders and his supporters from the 2016 nomination race is ‘the fix is in’ rather than ‘good start—let’s get ’em next time,’ it will be harder to sustain momentum for their agenda within the Democratic Party and the electoral arena more broadly past the end of this campaign.”

 

[Maester Drew]

3 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Not hard to see that Maester Drew wants to avert the catastrophe of a Trumpian Presidency but maintain his hard-won moral purity by not having to cast a vote for the evil Hillary Clinton.

Moral purity? How is it a bad thing for me to vote my conscience?

No one should have to be bullied into voting for someone, I would normally expect that from Trump and his supporters, so I am rather surprised to see it from Hillary supporters.