General US Politics

[-Cynthia-]

Sad thing is that conservative intellectuals who worship Reagan is the base of #nevertrump. Every neo-Nazi group is enthusiastically behind Trump. So that tells you where the party is.

Although these 'conservative intellectuals' often cite cutting spending and reducing the national debt and Reagan increased spending and greatly increased the national debt. Part of this might be that a lot of the spending increase was military related which American conservatives view differently from other kinds of spending.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Although these 'conservative intellectuals' often cite cutting spending and reducing the national debt and Reagan increased spending and greatly increased the national debt. Part of this might be that a lot of the spending increase was military related which American conservatives view differently from other kinds of spending.

Didn't he triple the national debt? Between that and the union busting, apartheid support, pretty much everything to do with his handling of the AIDS crisis and his mental health policies, I'm surprised that he isn't treated the same way we treat Tony Abbot.

[CyborgZeta]

Trump is the one who wants to jail political opponents

Unless the transcript I read was mistaken, I'm pretty sure the response was, "If I was President, you'd be in jail over your emails".

He didn't say he'd jail her because she's his opponent, but because she committed a federal crime.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Unless the transcript I read was mistaken, I'm pretty sure the response was, "If I was President, you'd be in jail over your emails".

He didn't say he'd jail her because she's his opponent, but because she committed a federal crime.

JFC, again with the emails?

The investigation found that she hadn't broken the law, no? The fact that Trump is saying she would be in jail over something where she (to my knowledge) did nothing wrong outside of the inherent stupidity of using a private email for government business is pretty telling.

[XeKr]

Conservative “intellectuals” was implied.

I’m pretty sure the left talks excessively about how Reagan the actual president doesn’t match the imagined one, but apparently all that matters is that he won 2 elections in a landslide.

Unless the transcript I read was mistaken, I'm pretty sure the response was, "If I was President, you'd be in jail over your emails".

He didn't say he'd jail her because she's his opponent, but because she committed a federal crime.

FBI did not recommend indictment, so she's not even being tried, which is still far from actually convicted of a federal crime.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-clinton-jail-ex-prosecutors-slam-229547

When federal officials from your own party think it’s a problem, it might be a problem.

Edited October 29, 2016 by XeKr

[tuvarkz]

FBI did not recommend indictment, so she's not even being tried, which is still far from actually convicted of a federal crime.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-clinton-jail-ex-prosecutors-slam-229547

When federal officials from your own party think it’s a problem, it might be a problem.

Except that Clinton was 'extremely careless' when handling important if not confidential information was said, emails were intentionally deleted and not turned over, and people have gotten in legal trouble for less. Lack of intent doesn't mean there is not a crime. The charges may be lesser but something should've been done about it.

And Trump is a party outsider, the GOP tried to stop him from earning the nomination (although committing hilarious miscalculations at times, see Florida primary)

Edited October 29, 2016 by tuvarkz

[euklyd]

At least Eukyld is having fun with linking the newsthump satire website (yes, I'm aware it actually happened)

Are you implying that I'm somehow attempting to link the readers of this thread to misleading information? I take great offense at that notion.

re: what Life was going on about earlier (edit: this wound up covering a lot more than just what Life was saying) - I'm pretty confident that Clinton is not going to bring about the fall of our country, simply because her actions over her entire career have proven her to be a very 'stay the course' politician. Even if I were to buy into the claims that she's hugely corrupt, the parties she's accused of having taken money from are already in bed with the US government.

This is in stark contrast to Trump, whose stated geopolitical goals are to warp and/or destroy a large portion of our relationships with allies (and that's before he ruins our economy with protectionist trade policies and withdrawing from NAFTA). And again, if we're assuming the worst about where each candidate's allegiances lie, Trump has literally been bought by Russia; letting Putin do his thing is imo far more destabilizing than Clinton continuing the policy of favoring rich Gulf states or what-have-you.

Domestically, a Clinton presidency isn't going to be able to do much, because nothing is happening until at least 2022 (the first election cycle after 2020 redistricting). More likely 2024, because mid-presidential term elections tend to be dominated by older folks, who by and large tend more conservative.

This is assuming that she's reelected in 2020 (not a sure thing, obviously), and that the Republican congresspeople continue their policy of obstruction (far more certain).

The most that's gonna happen is she manages to appoint several liberal Supreme Court Justices. Mind you there's a reasonable chance that such nominations remain dead on arrival in a Republican-controlled Senate.

Meanwhile, a Trump presidency, which is far more unpredictable and radical (in a bad direction) would have more or less free reign with a GOP-controlled House/Senate. (Here I am assuming that the #nevertrump wing of the Republican party would not actually elect to form an alliance with the Democrat members of Congress in order to stonewall Trump's agenda.)

At the end of the day, even if Clinton were utterly corrupt (which I do not believe to be the case), I would still support her over Trump.

EDIT: On the present topic - I'd vote for Clinton over Reagan, too; fuck that guy.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Euklyd

[Phoenix Wright]

Expecting someone that you insulted in your very first reply to want to discuss anything with you was a mistake, lol.

even if you don't like the way some people here are conducting themselves, it's still good practice to link valuable and relevant information that supports your point. it is a public forum after all. crysta maybe isn't the only one curious of your claim. this place isn't a soap box--if you're here to put in your two cents and dip, why come?

Edited October 29, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[euklyd]

this place isn't a soap box

where on earth did you get that impression lol

oh there's something I meant to respond to

And Trump is a party outsider, the GOP tried to stop him from earning the nomination (although committing hilarious miscalculations at times, see Florida primary)

a significant portion of the GOP has been composed of "party outsiders" for years now. the traditional wing of the republican party isn't in control by any means; framing trump as significantly an "outsider" is kind of disingenuous

e: as in, his positions may not have been implemented previously, but there exists a large wing of his party that has no significant opposition to most of his views / proposed policies, no matter how far they are from the traditional republican platform

Edited October 29, 2016 by Euklyd

[Time the Crestfallen]

Except that Clinton was 'extremely careless' when handling important if not confidential information was said, emails were intentionally deleted and not turned over, and people have gotten in legal trouble for less.

Unless I misread something, all those individuals were punished for stealing or mishandling classified data, the only one of those I'm not sure about is the person who quoted wikileaks. You yourself have admitted, in this quote, that the emails did not contain confidential information. Are you saying that she should be punished as these people for stealing, destroying and otherwise mishandling classified data were punished, even though none of the information in those emails was classified (at least not classified at time of sending)?

Edited October 29, 2016 by The Blind Idiot God

[XeKr]

Except that Clinton was 'extremely careless' when handling important if not confidential information was said, emails were intentionally deleted and not turned over, and people have gotten in legal trouble for less. Lack of intent doesn't mean there is not a crime. The charges may be lesser but something should've been done about it.

And Trump is a party outsider, the GOP tried to stop him from earning the nomination (although committing hilarious miscalculations at times, see Florida primary)

The last few sentences of Comey’s original statement are relevant here. They are deliberately nuanced and worded to address such concerns.

source: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system excerpt below

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.

I assure you a lot of very good lawyers have looked at the same things you have and have a far better understanding of the details and implications for this case and past relevant ones. You are probably not as good as them.

If there was an actual legal case against Clinton, Republicans would absolutely use it. Instead, they are presently overreacting to an extremely opaque and vague letter. Which says it all.

Unless of course, it’s all a globalist conspiracy.

Edited October 29, 2016 by XeKr

[tuvarkz]

Unless I misread something, all those individuals were punished for stealing or mishandling classified data, the only one of those I'm not sure about is the person who quoted wikileaks. You yourself have admitted, in this quote, that the emails did not contain confidential information. Are you saying that she should be punished as these people for stealing, destroying and otherwise mishandling classified data were punished, even though none of the information in those emails was classified (at least not classified at time of sending)?

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

I misworded my sentence, should've been "if not outright classified", of which there were emails with such.

Indeed, there's no ultimately conclusive proof that is sufficient to make a 100% succesful legal case against Clinton, but with so many pointers towards the possibility that Clinton is mired in corruption, I believe it a reasonable thing to believe in.

[euklyd]

someone should explain why the possibility of clinton being involved in minor corruption (this isn't even corruption it's negligence wtf) is so much worse than trump's goal being to literally tear down a lot of the best things we have going for us

including the foundations of our democracy, and our constitution, apparently

edit: alternatively they should link to a funny satire article because that would probably be more coherent

Edited October 29, 2016 by Euklyd

[Phoenix Wright]

where on earth did you get that impression lol

i know you're joking (probably), but:

Serious Discussion is not your personal soap-box to come to for validation, do not hope nor expect to "preach to the choir". You will be interacting with others, many of whom may not share your viewpoint. If you cannot handle disagreement in a respectful and mature fashion, this is not the place for your post.

--balcerzak, sd rules.

yeah, being a dick isn't good. but refusing to provide evidence when inquired isn't mature or respectful either, imo.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Time the Crestfallen]

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

I misworded my sentence, should've been "if not outright classified", of which there were emails with such.

Indeed, there's no ultimately conclusive proof that is sufficient to make a 100% succesful legal case against Clinton, but with so many pointers towards the possibility that Clinton is mired in corruption, I believe it a reasonable thing to believe in.

Pretty sure everything that was classified was classified retroactively. And charging her for something retroactively is going to open a floodgate that no-one should be in a hurry to open.

[tuvarkz]

Pretty sure everything that was classified was classified retroactively. And charging her for something retroactively is going to open a floodgate that no-one should be in a hurry to open.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/294323-clinton-thought-classified-markings-in-emails-were-meant

There were 'C' s for classified in the emails, if just not on the headings.

EDIT: Also, regarding corruption. If the Clinton Foundation is involved, we would have plenty of major private companies and other countries (including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, known for terribly mistreating their citizens) mixed in the whole thing. 'Minor' corruption would be far from it.

Edited October 29, 2016 by tuvarkz

[UNLEASH IT]

Didn't he triple the national debt? Between that and the union busting, apartheid support, pretty much everything to do with his handling of the AIDS crisis and his mental health policies, I'm surprised that he isn't treated the same way we treat Tony Abbot.

I feel like his public opinion has a lot to do with the Cold War, which people believe he played a major part in ending.

Edited October 29, 2016 by UNLEASH IT

[euklyd]

welp time to go support trump someone was arrested for in-person voter fraud, just as feared
american democracy is under siege, my friends

--balcerzak, sd rules.

judging by this thread forum idt most people read those

[Time the Crestfallen]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/294323-clinton-thought-classified-markings-in-emails-were-meant

There were 'C' s for classified in the emails, if just not on the headings.

Can someone else give their thoughts on this? I'd like a second opinion before I start making conclusions.

EDIT: Also, regarding corruption. If the Clinton Foundation is involved, we would have plenty of major private companies and other countries (including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, known for terribly mistreating their citizens) mixed in the whole thing. 'Minor' corruption would be far from it.

Perhaps, but the question is how does the Clinton Foundation measure up against the Trump Foundation (ignoring the Saudi Arabia and Qatar donations, I've already given my thoughts on that). I don't know much about the Clinton Foundation (perhaps because there isn't as much legal coverage), but I know that Trump has a long and well-documented history of corruption.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/28/12904136/donald-trump-corrupt

Edited October 29, 2016 by The Blind Idiot God

[euklyd]

EDIT: Also, regarding corruption. If the Clinton Foundation is involved, we would have plenty of major private companies and other countries (including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, known for terribly mistreating their citizens) mixed in the whole thing. 'Minor' corruption would be far from it.

even assuming that's true how does that change US foreign policy

we already bend over backwards for these guys

edit: like I don't think it's true but at this point it's a literal 'he said she said' so I don't think there's any point trying to dispute it here

Edited October 29, 2016 by Euklyd

[tuvarkz]

And most of that is 'shady business practices', which while morally wrong, involve a situation where Trump isn't pledged to do a duty for the nation. In the meantime, there's a potential link between foreign donations and foreign policy-And knowing the two aforementioned countries, they certainly didn't do those donations out of the goodwill of their hearts.

Well, the US would have to do a 180 on the relationship (and Trump would likely do so if needed). Make an investigation to see if they are actually funneling money onto ISIS or not, and if they are part of the problem, they also need to be taken out (and a puppet government put in place to prevent radical islamists from gaining power).

[Lord Raven]

And most of that is 'shady business practices', which while morally wrong, involve a situation where Trump isn't pledged to do a duty for the nation.

and therefore he would make a fine president???

[tuvarkz]

and therefore he would make a fine president???

Well, to begin with, the fact that Trump knows about how these things are done could help him close down the loopholes. Trump the businessman and Trump the (potential) POTUS would have different duties and responsibilities-As long as he doesn't screw over the citizens of the US, he's a fine president. And it's pretty obvious what would happen to a populist that directly tries to screw over his voting base.

[Just call me AL]

Can someone else give their thoughts on this? I'd like a second opinion before I start making conclusions.

Perhaps, but the question is how does the Clinton Foundation measure up against the Trump Foundation (ignoring the Saudi Arabia and Qatar donations, I've already given my thoughts on that).

That's easy. One (the Clinton Foundation) has a record of philanthropy that's considerably well-documented, and the other (the Trump Foundation) has a purported (and likely disproven) philanthropy record.

[Phoenix Wright]

Well, to begin with, the fact that Trump knows about how these things are done could help him close down the loopholes. Trump the businessman and Trump the (potential) POTUS would have different duties and responsibilities-As long as he doesn't screw over the citizens of the US, he's a fine president. And it's pretty obvious what would happen to a populist that directly tries to screw over his voting base.

i think this inaccurately depicts the job of the president. it isn't the president's duty to close loopholes, in fact a president must help enforce the law. (that is the primary function of the executive branch in government.) the most any president could do is urge congress to make changes to the law, and either veto/sign if the changes are unacceptable/acceptable. moreover, trump is not a lawyer and likely has very little knowledge of the laws associated with any loopholes. he must depend on congress--which means more than likely loopholes will not be dealt with (at least during the his term(s)).

having different duties and responsibilities does not change the kind of person you are. this is why we have corrupt people in government. having more power does not make one more honest. the old adage does go, "power corrupts. absolute power corrupts absolutely."