US Elections: FBI. F-B-I... (Comey turns the ID the right way up) FBI.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Wow, baseball is a big ticket item now?  The mind boggles.  

Playoff baseball, yes. Granted it can't compare to the NFL, but Game 7 of the World Series has to be top drawer in terms of ad space.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Yeah, I just don't buy this at all. I think Trump might be able to be manipulated by some people - especially some who have had his back for a while - but otherwise I think that any notion of him cooperating on ideas that aren't his is absurd wishful thinking. He isn't someone who can be controlled.

Which is a good thing, methinks. Can you imagine what this election might look like if he had a competent campaign manager that he actually listened to?

[SkynJay]

Here in Colorado the ads have been strange for a while.  At first they were all Hillary, all the time.  Then on a few super-pac ads ran for either side.  About a week ago Trump approving this message hit hard and hit all by themselves.  Starting yesterday I am getting about an equal split between the two.

The Clinton ads before were mostly positive ads.  Trump has a few talking about his plan but mostly lean on negative.  And Hillary has moved into almost pure attack ads.

I voted a week ago.  Seeing how I am in a swing state I guess i can say 'your welcome.' 

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

Self-righteous means "confident of one's own righteousness, especially when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others." What I said was that there is a small chance that Trump would make the country better (I never actually said I'd vote for him unless somebody actually forced me to choose between them). That has nothing to do with self-righteousness, it's simply a willingness to gamble.

It's willingness to gamble when you have nothing to lose and others do, because you believe that Trump would make the country better...somehow. And you don't care about the actual cost because it would help defeat your personal bugaboos. That's self-righteousness - the belief that your way is the right way. You have to be pretty confident in your own righteousness to risk 30 million people's rights on a gamble. 

Also, I'm pretty sure you've said repeatedly that you'd vote for Trump. Nice try though!

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

He can't deport people or build a wall without money and to get money he needs both the House and the Senate to give it to him. At most, he can slightly increase the deportation rate by prioritizing it over other solutions within existing agencies, but what is currently there is utterly inadequate to make a noticeable difference in the number of illegal immigrants. He may be able to starve ACA, but that's mostly because it's slowly failing on its own even with all of the executive help it can get.

And again, you're just wrong. He can deport people without any more money. I've described several times what he can do, and you continue to ignore it, and you continue to be wrong. He can, for instance, prioritize deporting everyone that they know of quickly without due process because a) they don't need to give due process to non-criminals and b ) they know pretty precisely where they live. He can authorize non-government personnel to help him and volunteer. He can even claim the items of the people deported and sell them to make more money for the whole shebang. This is all within his power right away. More money would make things a lot easier, but it certainly is doable without it. 

Also, the ACA really isn't failing slowly or at all right now. And the government side is both doing better than expected and is bringing in more people. 

 

[Boris the Blade]

Just saw a Clinton ad. Didn't use lies like Trump's bullshit ad, just used clips of Trump and shit all over him haha.

[The Marquis de Leech]

3 minutes ago, SkynJay said:

The Clinton ads before were mostly positive ads.  Trump has a few talking about his plan but mostly lean on negative.  And Hillary has moved into almost pure attack ads.

I think the reasoning is that any persuadable voters have already been persuaded. It's now all about mobilising the base via scaring them.

Speaking of Colorado, a new poll has it tied. Not sure that gels with the favourable early voting data - need more polls, I think.

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

We reached the point in the election cycle where pretty much everything from both camps is either a hype or a lie.  At this point, the factions are playing to raw, divisive emotion - as evidenced by the responses in this thread and its immediate predecessors.

Yeah, this is completely wrong and obviously stupid. It's certainly true of Trump. it's not remotely true of Clinton.

Quote

And now we have nypd sources implicating Hillary in Epsteins child sex network. Juiciest rumour so far- Huma's compter file named 'intimate' includes sex photos of Hillary, Huma and underage girls.

Wow, when you get your news from True Pundit you know it's gotta be good.

[S John]

I'm also watching the World Series.  Just saw a Clinton commercial but have seen several Trump ones.  I've actually seen a lot of Trump commercials in general in TX lately.  Don't know if it means anything other than its crunch time.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Trump running ads in Texas suggests one of three things:

•  Hillary has spooked the opposition into thinking Texas is (still) a possible flip.
• Trump is trying to get the PV as close as he can, to delegitimise Hillary.
• Trump's campaign has no idea what it is doing.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, DraculaAD1972 said:

It's an irony of this election that Trump was born to an Elite family and is representing the working class, while Hillary was born to a working class family and is representing the Elite. That both are connected to Epstein is disturbing, but the Clntons are seemingly a lot more  connected to Epstein than Trump. If these nypd/FBI rumours about Hillary have any truth to them and the truth is revealed... it's the biggest political scandal imaginable. 

Trump doesn't represent the working class though. That's only true if you only consider white uneducated men as the working class. Working women? Nope. Minorities? Nope. Both groups are much more economically disadvantaged than white men are.

 Similarly, Clinton only represents the elite if you consider Democrat billionaires and most political pundits as elite. Koch and Adelson and Rauner? They're all at least on Trump's side, if not lining his pockets.

And yes, if the NYPD rumors are true - which as far as I can tell are the same bullshit ones coming from everywhere - then it would be a huge scandal. What do you think the chances are that these emails have massive TS/Classified data on them AND also have proof about a secret sex ring with underage children AND happen to have been discovered 3 weeks before the election? Do you believe that this is likely? And do you believe Clinton would say 'please process all of these as fast as possible' if that were the case? Also, how did the NYPD get to look at these emails? They weren't the ones handling the laptop, after all. If the NYPD did see the emails, they couldn't admit any of it as evidence anyway as they did not have the warrant. 

It's such a ludicrous story, but the base details make it clear that it's made up. Keep dreaming, Dracula! One day your coffin will come.

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

There have been a lot of Trump commercials here across the border in Oklahoma, which is a complete safe state for Trump, so I think it's probably the 3rd possibility.

My suspicion is based on the easiest thing to predict - that Trump will attempt at every turn to make money for Trump and game the system. He's already used 35-40% of the funding to spend on things that either he owns or he sells (hats, books, hotel space, airplane rental, speaking fees), which is a massive different normally. I wouldn't be surprised if he's paying for ad time and somehow gets a cut of said ad time. 

[Jace, Extat]

55 minutes ago, SkynJay said:

Here in Colorado the ads have been strange for a while.  At first they were all Hillary, all the time.  Then on a few super-pac ads ran for either side.  About a week ago Trump approving this message hit hard and hit all by themselves.  Starting yesterday I am getting about an equal split between the two.

The Clinton ads before were mostly positive ads.  Trump has a few talking about his plan but mostly lean on negative.  And Hillary has moved into almost pure attack ads.

I voted a week ago.  Seeing how I am in a swing state I guess i can say 'your welcome.' 

Assuming you voted for anything other than a racist orange peel sent by a cruel and vengeful god, I genuinely thank you for your contribution of the continued stability of the republic.

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

Why on earth would you think he wouldn't be able to get congressional support for a wall? If Trump gets in then the GOP are going to wind up with congress and the presidency on the back of a wave of xenophobia and racism, you really think they're going to block policy like that when half of them have called for that shit themselves? And that's just one example. If Trump gets up, it encourages all the worst of his rhetoric, and the GOP have shown they're nothing if not cowards when it comes to pandering to their bases lowest instincts to save their asses.

Because the Democrats will filibuster any attempt to allocate funding to it. The Republicans may win the Senate, but there's no way they're going to win 60 Senate seats.

42 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Also, I'm pretty sure you've said repeatedly that you'd vote for Trump. Nice try though!

Did I? I don't remember doing so. I've definitely said that if I had to choose between the two, I would choose him, but given the existence of a "none of the above" option, I'm not voting at all.

49 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And again, you're just wrong. He can deport people without any more money. I've described several times what he can do, and you continue to ignore it, and you continue to be wrong. He can, for instance, prioritize deporting everyone that they know of quickly without due process because a) they don't need to give due process to non-criminals and b ) they know pretty precisely where they live. He can authorize non-government personnel to help him and volunteer. He can even claim the items of the people deported and sell them to make more money for the whole shebang. This is all within his power right away. More money would make things a lot easier, but it certainly is doable without it. 

OK, we did have this argument before, but you never explained how this blatantly unconstitutional behavior would get past the courts. The Fifth Amendment says nothing about applying only to criminals or only to citizens or anything of the sort. The Due Process clause is ridiculously broad and universally accepted; any one of the actions you mention will get smacked down by the courts -- in all likelihood, unanimously.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Because the Democrats will filibuster any attempt to allocate funding to it. The Republicans may win the Senate, but there's no way they're going to win 60 Senate seats.

Thanks to budget shenanigans they don't have to do that. As long as they can pass it as a funding bill, a simple majority can suffice. Ryan hinted at this earlier. 

4 minutes ago, Altherion said:

OK, we did have this argument before, but you never explained how this blatantly unconstitutional behavior would get past the courts. The Fifth Amendment says nothing about applying only to criminals or only to citizens or anything of the sort. The Due Process clause is ridiculously broad and universally accepted; any one of the actions you mention will get smacked down by the courts -- in all likelihood, unanimously.

I can say it wouldn't because it already got discussed. Point of fact, it was a dissenting opinion in the case that forced due process on criminals regardless of immigration status, which was from here:

Quote

In dissent, Justice Scalia protested that the language of IIRIRA was perfectly clear: all types of judicial review had been eliminated, including habeas corpus review, he said, for immigrants facing deportation based on criminal convictions. Scalia pointed out that by allowing "criminal aliens" to seek review under the habeas corpus law, the Court was actually putting them in a better position than immigrants facing deportation for other reasons that did not involve criminal activity. Others facing deportation had to take their cases directly to the federal courts of appeals under far stricter limitations. The result of this, he argued, "speaks for itself: no Congress ever imagined it."

There is no indication that there are any real due process rights for exporting undocumented immigrants from the country, period. Even the Immigrant Defense Project indicates there are a bunch of holes in due process for them. Such as not having a right to an attorney or having the right to challenge a verdict. Similarly, the ACLU notes the same thing. And if you think a Supreme Court is going to side with them on immigration? Hah. 

The issue is that being deported is not by itself a criminal court. You aren't committing a crime, necessarily, by being here, and being deported simply for overstaying visas or being here without documentation is not subject to a criminal proceeding. As pointed out above, this means that deportations of noncriminals can happen quite quickly and easily. It doesn't happen right now that way because we've decided what the procedures should be - but that isn't a law, that's simply the current state of affairs.There's nothing that says it has to be that way. Similarly, the priorities on who to deport are based a lot on getting the bad ones out - namely criminals - which DOES require a criminal hearing (as well as a country willing to take them). If instead you flip that and get the ones without crimes out who have been here a while, it's going to go much faster and can go insanely fast. There's not even much needed - per this, you simply need to have an NTA show up, the government needs to prove you're here incorrectly, and then you're gone.

And the easiest way to 'prove' someone is here illegally is to look at things like the DREAM act or some of the other actual documents that have been provided voluntarily to the government that admit that you are undocumented. Those are the easiest ones to get, period. And that's like 5 million immigrants. So you do an NTA to their address in batches of 200, verify their name is on the list, and then they're gone. The only small hiccup in this is that they do currently have the ability to appeal - but you could easily make an order saying that anyone proven to be an undocumented immigrant via certain ways has no right to appeal. 

It's totally legal. Violates no rights. Could be done today. 

[Altherion]

32 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I can say it wouldn't because it already got discussed. Point of fact, it was a dissenting opinion in the case that forced due process on criminals regardless of immigration status, which was from here:

Scalia is not saying that non-criminal immigrants have no due process, he's saying that the criminal ones get an extra step (the non-criminals have to go directly to the federal court of appeals).

35 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The issue is that being deported is not by itself a criminal court. You aren't committing a crime, necessarily, by being here, and being deported simply for overstaying visas or being here without documentation is not subject to a criminal proceeding. As pointed out above, this means that deportations of noncriminals can happen quite quickly and easily. It doesn't happen right now that way because we've decided what the procedures should be - but that isn't a law, that's simply the current state of affairs.There's nothing that says it has to be that way. Similarly, the priorities on who to deport are based a lot on getting the bad ones out - namely criminals - which DOES require a criminal hearing (as well as a country willing to take them). If instead you flip that and get the ones without crimes out who have been here a while, it's going to go much faster and can go insanely fast. There's not even much needed - per this, you simply need to have an NTA show up, the government needs to prove you're here incorrectly, and then you're gone.

And the easiest way to 'prove' someone is here illegally is to look at things like the DREAM act or some of the other actual documents that have been provided voluntarily to the government that admit that you are undocumented. Those are the easiest ones to get, period. And that's like 5 million immigrants. So you do an NTA to their address in batches of 200, verify their name is on the list, and then they're gone. The only small hiccup in this is that they do currently have the ability to appeal - but you could easily make an order saying that anyone proven to be an undocumented immigrant via certain ways has no right to appeal.

It's not subject to a criminal proceeding, but there do exist laws that govern this (e.g. here's the one that defines the board of appeals). From your link, the procedure is:

1) NTA hearing before an immigration judge

2) Another hearing before an immigration judge where the government proves that the person ought to be deported and the person may apply for relief

3) Board of Immigration Appeals

In addition, there's sometimes the possibility of appealing further to a Federal Court of Appeals. It is not possible to get rid of any of this by executive order. Depending on how you count, the government currently deports either roughly 300k or roughly 400k people per year. There's no way that will scale up to millions without additional resources and there are no volunteer judges.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Scalia is not saying that non-criminal immigrants have no due process, he's saying that the criminal ones get an extra step (the non-criminals have to go directly to the federal court of appeals).

He is saying that they have more due process rights. Which is the point. And as I illustrated, everyone appears to believe that they do not have a whole lot of due process rights in immigration hearings.

3 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It's not subject to a criminal proceeding, but there do exist laws that govern this (e.g. here's the one that defines the board of appeals). From your link, the procedure is:

1) NTA hearing before an immigration judge

2) Another hearing before an immigration judge where the government proves that the person ought to be deported and the person may apply for relief

These can be (and often are) the same thing. 

3 minutes ago, Altherion said:

3) Board of Immigration Appeals

Which is arbitrary and does not have to occur, and is entirely at the control of the department.

3 minutes ago, Altherion said:

In addition, there's sometimes the possibility of appealing further to a Federal Court of Appeals. It is not possible to get rid of any of this by executive order. Depending on how you count, the government currently deports either roughly 300k or roughly 400k people per year. There's no way that will scale up to millions without additional resources and there are no volunteer judges.

Why do you say it's impossible to get any of this gone via executive order? What federal law dictates this? The thing you cited is not a federal law precisely - it's a code - and the last paragraph indicates why you're likely wrong:

Quote

(j) Continuation of jurisdiction and procedure.The jurisdiction of, and procedures before, the Board of Immigration Appeals in exclusion, deportation, removal, rescission, asylum-only, and  any other proceedings, shall remain in effect as in effect on February 28, 2003, until the regulations in this chapter are further modified by the Attorney General. Where a decision of an officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service was, before March 1, 2003, appealable to the Board or to an immigration judge, or an application denied could be renewed in proceedings before an immigration judge, the same authority and procedures shall be followed until further modified by the Attorney General

So it doesn't take any action from congress to change it; all it takes is the AG to change. So you're probably right that an executive order can't change it right away - but it's certainly in the power of whoever is president to appoint an AG, and they in turn can change whatever. Furthermore, per that code, the AG can choose to escalate ANY case they choose directly to themselves. Doesn't seem all that hard to deal with. 

Now, I agree that under the current system without further funding you can't get rid of that many people that quickly. But that's with Obama making these choices, and before him GWB making choices (and he was fairly compassionate to immigration). So long as the laws regarding paths to citizenship aren't being changed there is nothing that is stopping Trump from doing exactly what I've stated.

[The Marquis de Leech]

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

and before him GWB making choices (and he was fairly compassionate to immigration). 

You know something is wrong when people are getting nostalgic for a Republican nominee like George W. Bush.

(Who might actually be voting for Hillary, apparently).

[Jace, Extat]

18 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

You know something is wrong when people are getting nostalgic for a Republican nominee like George W. Bush.

(Who might actually be voting for Hillary, apparently).

The world we live in, nay?

[Martell Spy]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/dont-gamble-on-trump/506207/

The Conservative Case for Voting for Clinton
Why support a candidate who rejects your preferences and offends your opinions? Don’t do it for her—do it for the republic, and the Constitution.

[Martell Spy]

How Donald Trump Outsmarted George Will
By Jonathan Chait

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/how-donald-trump-outsmarted-george-will.html