[worry]

The red pill stuff is definitely tied into the rise of the "alt right" which is part and parcel to Trump's success. It seems you left those posts alone though, so fair enough.

[Grief]

worry, on 22 May 2016 - 10:08 PM, said:

The red pill stuff is definitely tied into the rise of the "alt right" which is part and parcel to Trump's success. It seems you left those posts alone though, so fair enough.

I've tried to leave posts posts which were tied into the discussion about politics, while trimming those that weren't. Posting about the red pill stuff is fine as long as it's being directly related to the topic at hand. What I'd like to avoid is having a bunch of posts which are only discussing the red pill stuff (or whatever topic) in itself and not discussing US politics at all.

[Morgoth]

Your obsession with Hillary Clinton doesn't seem entierly healthy.

[Tsundoku]

Morgoth, on 24 May 2016 - 07:23 AM, said:

Your obsession with Hillary Clinton doesn't seem entierly healthy.

It's like Apt with SJP. Love and hate, different sides of the same coin.

[Gorefest]

Yeah, but this is the equivalent of

Spoiler

hating Laseen so much that you side with Mallick Rel

.

[Tsundoku]

I think you just insulted

Spoiler

Laseen AND Rel. But mostly Rel.

Nicely done.

[Macros]

I would have said Pormqual to be honest. Rel has brains

[Andorion]

Ok this might be a stupid question, but I saw this online and had to check

If a credible case is made against Hillary for leaking classifying info, is it likely that she will be impeached(assuming she wins)

If this is at all possible should not the Democrats put a lot of thought into her VP?

[Terez]

No matter how much thought Democrats put into it, she will pick who she picks, and she will almost certainly prioritize someone who can help her get elected. And whether or not there is a credible case regarding classified info, if she loses Congress at any point, it's almost certain she will be impeached. They'll find a reason. The longer Republicans go without the White House, the less politically risky it will be for them.

[Andorion]

Terez, on 24 May 2016 - 02:25 PM, said:

No matter how much thought Democrats put into it, she will pick who she picks, and she will almost certainly prioritize someone who can help her get elected. And whether or not there is a credible case regarding classified info, if she loses Congress at any point, it's almost certain she will be impeached. They'll find a reason. The longer Republicans go without the White House, the less politically risky it will be for them.

What are the vote margins needed in Congress? Simply Majority in both?

[Terez]

Simple majority in the House to indict, 2/3 majority in the Senate to convict. The main reason why they never impeached Obama (even though they could have easily gotten the vote to indict in the House) is that they knew they'd never get the conviction in the Senate. But regardless of that, their constituents expect them to do it, so the low probability of a conviction doesn't mean much; they only need a simple majority in the House to get the political theater their constituents desire.

The conventional wisdom is that this would negatively affect their chances in the next elections, but again, the longer they go without the White House, the crazier they'll get.

[Andorion]

Terez, on 24 May 2016 - 02:33 PM, said:

Simple majority in the House to indict, 2/3 majority in the Senate to convict. The main reason why they never impeached Obama (even though they could have easily gotten the vote to indict in the House) is that they knew they'd never get the conviction in the Senate. But regardless of that, their constituents expect them to do it, so the low probability of a conviction doesn't mean much; they only need a simple majority in the House to get the political theater their constituents desire.

The conventional wisdom is that this would negatively affect their chances in the next elections, but again, the longer they go without the White House, the crazier they'll get.

Hmm. Didn't they try it with Clinton and the Senate acquitted him anyway?

Also I was googling the margins myself and I am a bit unclear on this, is that total majority, or present-and-voting?

BTW can an impeachment resolution be filibustered against?


Also if Trump wins and Dems carry Congress mid-term is it likely they will give it a shot?

American politics is weirdly fascinating.

[Terez]

Andorion, on 24 May 2016 - 02:36 PM, said:

Hmm. Didn't they try it with Clinton and the Senate acquitted him anyway?

Like I said, the conviction ultimately won't matter to them. They just want the political theater.

Andorion, on 24 May 2016 - 02:36 PM, said:

Also I was googling the margins myself and I am a bit unclear on this, is that total majority, or present-and-voting?

Votes cast. Abstentions don't count.

Andorion, on 24 May 2016 - 02:36 PM, said:

BTW can an impeachment resolution be filibustered against?

The House doesn't have the filibuster, and in the senate, since a 2/3 majority is required for conviction, the filibuster (which requires 6/10) isn't necessary. The bar is actually higher for conviction.

Andorion, on 24 May 2016 - 02:36 PM, said:

Also if Trump wins and Dems carry Congress mid-term is it likely they will give it a shot?

Doubtful, unless he does something unquestionably illegal and terrible. The Democrats are not quite so into the impeaching your political enemies thing as the Republicans (talking about voters here).

[Tsundoku]

Serious question: was there anything like these sorts of altercations in previous campaigns? In the video age or earlier? I don't recall any, but my USA campaign recollections only go back to the 1980s and are spotty at best before the 2000 Bush-Gore brouhaha.

@BK
I do believe you'd never stoop. That's bad for your back. Kick 'em, it's easier.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 25 May 2016 - 01:32 PM

[Terez]

Tsundoku, on 25 May 2016 - 01:30 PM, said:

Serious question: was there anything like these sorts of altercations in previous campaigns? In the video age or earlier?

1968. George Wallace rallies were not unlike Trump rallies, and there were riots at the Democratic convention that year.

[worry]

Neither race mattered. Trump's already won the Republican nom basically, and Washington Dems already held their caucus (Bernie won). Their primary is for show (zero affect on delegates), but Hillary won it.

Trump's campaign chairman/chief strategist is a real trip: http://www.huffingto...4b0dacf7ad3e201

Quote

The vice presidential pick will also be part of the process of proving he’s ready for the White House, Manafort said.

“He needs an experienced person to do the part of the job he doesn’t want to do. He seems himself more as the chairman of the board, than even the CEO, let alone the COO.”

“There is a long list of who that person could be,” Manafort added, “and every one of them has major problems.”

The campaign probably won’t choose a woman or a member of a minority group, he said. “In fact, that would be viewed as pandering, I think."

I'm telling you guys, Trump would be a pushover for a Rep congress. Not because he has a weak personality or responds to bullying, but because he literally does not care about most aspects of the job and his passivity will mean no gridlock and thus reify his master status in the art of the deal.

[EmperorMagus]

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?

[worry]

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.

[Andorion]

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

[worry]

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.