[Andorion]

worry, on 27 May 2016 - 02:29 AM, said:

Yeah it's definitely possible. I don't think it's politically attractive -- it would be largely seen as a tantrum -- but who knows? GOP isn't averse to embarrassing tantrums if they think they can railroad through what they want. Or rather, the people who own them demand it of them.

I believe there were impeachment motions against Obama that were quashed early?

Also they might see a double Clinton impeachment as poetic irony or something?

[worry]

Andorion, on 27 May 2016 - 02:38 AM, said:

I believe there were impeachment motions against Obama that were quashed early?

Also they might see a double Clinton impeachment as poetic irony or something?

There's always been talk about impeaching Obama, like from before he even took office. Like everything else about right-flank opposition to him it's about finding a pretext. I'm pretty sure the ball has never gotten rolling though unless I'm hitting a really crazy blind spot.

That Clinton thing: man that's cynical! It's never occurred to me, so I had to laugh at the audacity of that idea.

[Andorion]

worry, on 27 May 2016 - 02:51 AM, said:

Andorion, on 27 May 2016 - 02:38 AM, said:

I believe there were impeachment motions against Obama that were quashed early?

Also they might see a double Clinton impeachment as poetic irony or something?

There's always been talk about impeaching Obama, like from before he even took office. Like everything else about right-flank opposition to him it's about finding a pretext. I'm pretty sure the ball has never gotten rolling though unless I'm hitting a really crazy blind spot.

That Clinton thing: man that's cynical! It's never occurred to me, so I had to laugh at the audacity of that idea.

I think quite a few Republicans would salivate at the chance. These are the people who repeatedly tried to shut the US government down and actually did it once. Modes of moderate civilised rational behaviour no longer apply

[Terez]

EmperorMagus, on 27 May 2016 - 12:27 AM, said:

Is the new information regarding Clinton's emails significant or not?
I realize that the possibility of actual criminal charges is astronomically small, but there are a lot of articles out there that claim the audit results that came out yesterday show Clinton violated the law. Is it likely that something (anything) is going to stick to her for this?

It was a report from the Inspector General for the State Department. The interesting thing here to me is that there was never a permanent IG installed at the State Department while Hillary Clinton was there, and if there had been, she likely would never have gotten away with using her own private email server in the first place. The Clintons have a history of trying to undermine Inspectors General so I wouldn't be surprised if it were at her request that Obama didn't appoint a permanent State IG during her tenure.

[Mentalist]

Andorion, on 27 May 2016 - 02:14 AM, said:

worry, on 27 May 2016 - 01:18 AM, said:

My non-legal eagle take:
It's significant in the sense that letting this kind of thing slide is apparently the 21st century norm. I have zero doubt that it's anti-transparency, anti-Freedom Of Information Act, pro-surveillance state business as usual. It goes hand in hand with warrantless wiretaps for civilians, and a firewall between top brass and repercussions for those doing the surveilling.

But besides all that boring stuff, no it's not a big deal. It's the big brother gov equivalent of double-parking while you run in and get coffee. She broke the law, but I doubt there will be legal consequences.

She may not be prosecuted, but as Terez told me upthread, the Republicans will definitely try to impeach. And they might carry the House, so impeachment is on the cards. Senate may not convict of course

I think it's already been mentioned upthread that GOP have a reputation for being impeachment-happy. Which effectively dilutes the impact such a mov would have-regardless of the merits of the claim, large swathes of Dem voters are likely to dismiss the accusations, purely because GOP tried to impeach her for it, and they'd try that based on any flimsy excuse.

Effectively, more political farcing is all.

[Terez]

That all factors into why they haven't done it yet with Obama, but again, the longer they go without the White House, the more crazy they'll get. And by they, I mean the voters, who are already pressuring their lawmakers to impeach Obama. Difficult as it might be for some younger folks to imagine, the Republicans hate Hillary even more and are even more likely to think of her as a criminal.

The last time any party held the White House more than 12 years was when FDR + Truman (who left office in January 1953) made 20 years for the Democrats. The only period in between where any party got more than 8 years was Reagan + HW Bush from 1981-1993.

You think Republicans are crazy now? Wait a few years.

[Nicodimas]

Umm @ Clinton supporters she is done for....

http://www.judicialw...overy-released/


A: She wouldn’t have had a password.
Q: So the computer would have just been open and be able to use without going through any security features?
A: Correct.

What?? You see why wikileaks got what they did.

..As a note to get into my computer at work I have to login to it 4 separate security systems. ( this kind of drives me bonkers.. As any time I walk away .....)

I have to login to forums... the SOS seriously did not have a password.

[Terez]

Nicodimas, on 28 May 2016 - 05:22 AM, said:

Umm @ Clinton supporters she is done for....

Something tells me you live in a media bubble.

[Gnaw]

Terez, on 28 May 2016 - 11:55 AM, said:

Nicodimas, on 28 May 2016 - 05:22 AM, said:

Umm @ Clinton supporters she is done for....

Something tells me you live in a media bubble.

Of a wishful thinking bubble...or is that a redundancy?

[Tsundoku]

Really interesting email conversation between Conor Friedersdorf and a Trump supporter in The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlant...pporter/484232/

[EmperorMagus]

Tsundoku, on 29 May 2016 - 03:07 AM, said:

Really interesting email conversation between Conor Friedersdorf and a Trump supporter in The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlant...pporter/484232/

I wasn't going to comment on this, but I can't stop myself after reading this.

Quote

Finally, I feel that white supremacists and anti-Semites are a tiny faction that shouldn't be a reason to dismiss Trump's speech of empowerment. I do see feeling that white culture is under attack in many ways when being called a “white male” is an attack, where white history is decried by the left as a history of rape and pillage. But white supremacy and anti-Semitism is not the answer for most Trump supporters.

1. White culture? What the actual fuck is white culture?
Are Mormons part of the "White Culture" (WC)? What about the Amish? Irish? Eastern Europeans? Hippies? What are some costumes and/or defining elements of WC?
The idiots say WC is under attack while having absolutely no idea what WC is and how it is being attacked.


2. Again, WTF is white history? Either it's the US/British/Dutch history of rape and pillage or there is some sort of history that I didn't know existed at all.


And don't get me started on all that BS about political correctness.

[Terez]

EmperorMagus, on 29 May 2016 - 03:24 AM, said:

1. White culture? What the actual fuck is white culture?

White supremacy. It's the only reason why "whiteness" is even a thing.

EmperorMagus, on 29 May 2016 - 03:24 AM, said:

2. Again, WTF is white history?

A tautology.

[EmperorMagus]

Terez, on 29 May 2016 - 03:28 AM, said:

EmperorMagus, on 29 May 2016 - 03:24 AM, said:

1. White culture? What the actual fuck is white culture?

White supremacy. It's the only reason why "whiteness" is even a thing.

EmperorMagus, on 29 May 2016 - 03:24 AM, said:

2. Again, WTF is white history?

A tautology.

I know, that's why these people attacking "the ultra pc culture" annoys me to no end. It's not being politically correct when I know you're talking about white supremacy. And no, we can't have a rational argument about white supremacy because there is no rational reasoning behind white supremacy at all.

[EmperorMagus]

Quote

My ideal government would be strong enough to take on massive projects (such as the illegal immigration question) only when necessary, would prevent mass exploitation by the elites ( conservationist efforts to protect the environment, for example,) but would try not to regulate people's personal and economic lives.

Deluded much?

[worry]

Might be a good time to point out that your kindly old aunt who is mildly surprised when a person of color speaks with eloquence, or wonders why BET exists and White Entertainment Television doesn't, or thinks Jeff Dunham's zombie terrorist puppet is pretty dang funny, is a white supremacist. Everyone who's said Barack HUSSEIN Obama with a knowing wink. Every last person who's responded to Black Lives Matter with All Lives Matter. Everyone who's ever called something "ghetto" as a denigration. Anyone who bought into the "super predator" or "welfare queen" narrative. Anyone who's ever suggested meritocracy as an alternative to affirmative action, as if "merit" was spawned in a vacuum.

Tiny fraction of Trump's support? Frankly I'd say it's closer to 100% than 99% of it.

And of course he doesn't have a monopoly, because the legacy of white supremacy permeates. But the overt, the covert, and the proudly in-denial do seem particularly drawn to him.

[Tsundoku]

Can't really sum this up, but is this a reasonably accurate 25-words-or-less version of what's going on?

http://www.news.com....98db55d38caafbe

[Gust Hubb]

Very good article. I agree with it

[Gorefest]

It is indeed rather bizarre that you vote for a person and not for a party. That's what keeps being so difficult to fathom for me personally in these US election run-ups: surely the Republicans as a party have a certain philosophy and surely their candidate should by and large reflect that philosophy? And if they don't, shouldn't they be in another party altogether? But then I realise that there aren't any other parties other than the Democrats. So how does that even work then? Whomever gets voted as party leader/president also sets out the entire ideological line of that party for the next four years? How does that even work?

[amphibian]

The parties are so large and varied internally that they nearly have most of the political spectrum covered between the two of them. Voting a particular party is still done by lots of people, but within each party, there is so much variance, that you can almost get in a vote for a rep of the other party bc they can be so ideologically similar.

The determination of the collective party direction is probably a herding cats thing, with money being the biggest determinant.

[Mentalist]

Both parties are essentially gigantic conglomerates of business interests, roughly split (mostly for show) on a few "hot button" issues (guns, drugs, same sex marriages, abortions, etc)

Any meaningful politician in US has to adopt one of the 2 "ideologies", or become a perpetual outsider.

Re: the article above. It's ironic that the "anti-establishment" voters may end up voting in a "rougher", populist establishment candidate to spite the more "refined" Establishment candidate.

In any case, as the saying goes in politics back home "do not underestimate the amortization potential of the established institutions".

This post has been edited by Mentalist: 02 June 2016 - 06:26 PM