POTUS Election thread

[Graphic]

I don't care about her email server, I don't care if she lied about it. I honestly don't care. The ironic aspect is that the entire democratic party infrastructure got hacked while they missed her server, probably because no one knew about it, including the Russians. When it was revealed that there were THREE out of 60,000 emails that had classified markings inside the body, without a classified header, this was ultimately revealed to be a fake controversy. Just another tool to try and destroy her career like the last 500 fake controversies that she was ultimately exonerated in.

I'm fairly confident, but not certain, that Clinton will win with a pretty comfortable electoral college margin. And I think she'll be a good president because she mirrors my own views more than any other politician around, let alone those running for president: more liberal than Obama on social issues but with a bit more forcefulness in foreign affairs. I'm voting for Clinton and not just against Trump.

I want the country to keep getting gayer and gayer and become a paradise of gay liberty, I want Obamacare to go further and insure the final 10% of uninsured and control costs, I want you to be able to prove your sanity to own a gun or at the very least set off alarm bells at the FBI when you buy an AR-15 if you've been investigated for terrorism before. Unlike Bernie Sanders (bless his heart), she's far more in tune with the issues the black community has with systemic racism and police brutality. It's not all the fault of the 1% and the billionaire class.

But I also want a slightly stronger backbone in regards to foreign policy. I feel like I'm alone on this in the internet these days, but no, I don't want to retreat from our endeavors in the middle east, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the world. I want them to be more successful. The USA has a part to play in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and Ukraine, and Clinton has the comfort with military force that Obama lacks in order to bring these conflicts to some kind of a conclusion. Retreating from these conflicts will create more death and danger, not less.

She will be as good as Obama was in terms of accomplishments, if not better. It just won't be that sexy because she has no charisma. But I don't need charisma. I don't need to be catered to to "earn" my vote like a special snowflake. I need a president that relatively represents my views. If that's a robot, a reptilian overlord, or a career politician with no panache, I could not care less. In other words, I'm a democrat, so I vote democrat. Every single democrat is automatically mostly compatible with my views, so there's no need to fuss or hissy fit about stupid details.

The next eight years will be great.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...When it was revealed that there were THREE out of 60,000 emails that had classified markings inside the body, without a classified header, this was ultimately revealed to be a fake controversy....

One would have been sufficient to get my wife fired from her job and her company fined.

[Xiahou]

Behold as the Republican nominee for president calls for 35% import tariffs. Such interesting times we live in.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[HopAlongBunny]

Behold as the Republican nominee for president calls for 35% import tariffs. Such interesting times we live in.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff all over again.
I suggest Trump knows history very well, he just absorbed different lessons from it.

[Fragony]

Behold as the Republican nominee for president calls for 35% import tariffs. Such interesting times we live in.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Can also see it as 'buy American', a very protective economy didn't exactly hurt Japan (although it's not all good news now)

[Graphic]

One would have been sufficient to get my wife fired from her job and her company fined.

I'm sorry but appointed members of a president's cabinet don't get fired for the same things office staff do, even when they're not Hillary Clinton. This is the world we live in.

[Greyblades]

I'm sorry but appointed members of a president's cabinet don't get fired for the same things office staff do, even when they're not Hillary Clinton. This is the world we live in.

I dont see a shouldnt. If there was anything worth beginning a tradition of enforcing accountability in politics this is it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

When it was revealed that there were THREE out of 60,000 emails that had classified markings inside the body, without a classified header, this was ultimately revealed to be a fake controversy.

Shill more.

@ 4 min 20 sec: 110 emails in 52 email chains determined to have classified information at the time. 8 of those chains had top secret information at the time, 36 chains with secret information at the time, 8 chains with confidential information ​at the time.

I want the country to keep getting gayer and gayer and become a paradise of gay liberty,

So do I, what a shame that Hillary couldn't be bothered to speak for gay marriage until 2013 when the polls told her to switch sides.

she's far more in tune with the issues the black community has with systemic racism and police brutality.

Right, I find that rich white women often find a deep understanding of the black community when their husbands pass Tough on Crime bills that imprison millions of young black men.

She will be as good as Obama was in terms of accomplishments

So she will get one big watered down bill passed in her first two years, then try to spend the next 6 years overriding congress with executive actions that get shot down by the Supreme Court?

[Hooahguy]

So do I, what a shame that Hillary couldn't be bothered to speak for gay marriage until 2013 when the polls told her to switch sides.

So did Obama. Hell, most of the country flipped on gay marriage over the course of the past decade or so.

Right, I find that rich white women often find a deep understanding of the black community when their husbands pass Tough on Crime bills that imprison millions of young black men.

At the time the crime bill was widely supported by the black community.

[Gilrandir]

Now I know how Trump grooms his hair.

[Hooahguy]

If true, this is slightly terrifying: "Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can't we use them."

[Ironside]

Trump's not really a hawk compared to hillary and nor is he a republican, that's rather the point of him. His hands are clean so he's free to bash clinton and obama for contrbuting to the tradition of war mongering that bush started and got thier son killed.

Trump could have reflected it back and I am dissapointed he didnt, instead falling into yet another gaff.

Have you seen or red what Trump says? He's totally a hawk, probably worse.

"We're gonna beat ISIS very, very quickly folks. It's gonna be fast," Trump said at a Saturday morning rally in Waterbury, Conn. "I have a great plan. It's going to be great. They ask, 'What is it?' Well, I'd rather not say. I'd rather be unpredictable."

Trump said Saturday, without specifics, that he will make the American military so powerful that "no one is going to mess with us."

He's also ranting about China abusing trade deals and that he'll renegotiate them totally in USA:s favor.

Combine it with the info Hooahguy has about his opinion on nukes.

If we're lucky, it's mostly bullshit. If we're not, he's gotten this brilliant idea of "nukeboat diplomacy".

And even while he's contradicting himself about a lot, he's consistent about "making America powerful again".


Don't try to paint him into some ideals just because he's an outsider. He's really, really bad news if he would be president.

One would have been sufficient to get my wife fired from her job and her company fined.

Actually no, since the classified emails didn't leak. That's a very critical thing about this. But to be fair, it's probably your wife's CEO we would be talking about. Or a server your wife's CEO knew about.

Right, I find that rich white women often find a deep understanding of the black community when their husbands pass Tough on Crime bills that imprison millions of young black men.

You haven't red up on this much have you? Bill was fondly called "the first black president" and there's a reason why she crushingly won the black vote vs Sanders.

So she will get one big watered down bill passed in her first two years, then try to spend the next 6 years overriding congress with executive actions that get shot down by the Supreme Court?

Probably. The current Republican congress is throwing temper tantrums if they don't get everything they want, can't agree on what they want and considers everything touched by the letter D to be the spawn of Satan, including things they themselves have said.

[Greyblades]

Have you seen or red what Trump says? He's totally a hawk, probably worse.

He's also ranting about China abusing trade deals and that he'll renegotiate them totally in USA:s favor.

Combine it with the info Hooahguy has about his opinion on nukes.

If we're lucky, it's mostly bullshit. If we're not, he's gotten this brilliant idea of "nukeboat diplomacy".

And even while he's contradicting himself about a lot, he's consistent about "making America powerful again".

Don't try to paint him into some ideals just because he's an outsider. He's really, really bad news if he would be president.

"I'm going to win the war quickly" does not translate to "I'm going to start new wars", nor does complaining about chinese trade deals.

He didnt show any opinion on nukes in Hooahguy's article but an ignorance of nuclear strategy, one that is concerning but becomes somewhat less worrying knowing that the president cannot actually launch a nuke without the approval of the Secritary of Defense.

None of these are exclusively hawkish behavior and past actions indicate otherwise. Now I do not think Trump is peaceful but I think he is an isolationist; he is not interested in stepping into another middle east quagmire for no real gain back home. On the other hand Hillary has been straining at the leash to jump in headfirst since Obama appointed her Secritary of State.

So in response I say: do not try to paint him into some villiany he is for once undeserving. In addition Hillary is really, really bad news if she is president.

[Hooahguy]

He didnt show any opinion on nukes in Hooahguy's article but an ignorance of nuclear strategy, one that is concerning but becomes somewhat less worrying knowing that the president cannot actually launch a nuke without the approval of the Secritary of Defense.

Per the Wikipedia article you posted, the president can fire the Secretary of Defense if he doesnt agree with the use of nukes. So the Secretary of Defense doesnt have veto power over this. Cheney said basically this back in 2008:

He could launch a kind of devastating attack the world's never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.

And you are right about this showing an ignorance about nuclear strategy and not an expressed desire to use them. But its still very chilling because its seems like hes ignorant about the fact that ideally nukes should be a last resort measure, not a "use 'em if you got 'em" measure. Lets say things escalate in the South China Sea. Im not so sure Trump wouldnt order a nuclear strike off the bat if a Chinese warship takes a shot at an American one.

[Greyblades]

Per the Wikipedia article you posted, the president can fire the Secretary of Defense if he doesnt agree with the use of nukes

True he can fire them, but he has to then go through the deputy Secretary of defense and get them to agree. Going by the fact that pretty much every politician in the US is at best wary of him I believe that the worst case scenario is that Trump ends up firing an uncooperative Secretary of Defense and in response the heads of the executive departments use the 25th amendment to declare him incapacitated.

So the Secretary of Defense doesnt have veto power over this. Cheney said basically this back in 2008:

I'm not sure what to make of this, did Cheyne not know about the two man system?

And you are right about this showing an ignorance about nuclear strategy and not an expressed desire to use them. But its still very chilling because its seems like hes ignorant about the fact that ideally nukes should be a last resort measure, not a "use 'em if you got 'em" measure. Lets say things escalate in the South China Sea. Im not so sure Trump wouldnt order a nuclear strike off the bat if a Chinese warship takes a shot at an American one.

Like I said, concerning, hence why I'm hoping to god you "Checks and balances" guys can pull off this check, partially because I dont actually trust Hillary with the nuke either.

Hopefully someone took him aside and explained nuclear strategy to him when he asked, and that they do it again both when the republicans have this intervention and if he's sworn in. And maybe once a month once in office.

[Hooahguy]

True he can fire them, but he has to then go through the deputy Secretary of defense and get them to agree. Going by the fact that pretty much every politician in the US is at best wary of him I believe that the worst case scenario is that Trump ends up firing an uncooperative Secretary of Defense and in response the heads of the executive departments use the 25th amendment to declare him incapacitated.

He can keep firing people until he gets an answer he likes. We can hope that his cabinet would enact the 25th but lets be real here, he will fill his cabinet with yes-men.

I'm not sure what to make of this, did Cheyne not know about the two man system?

Im sure he knows, but he would know better than any of us that the two man system is a formality at best.

Like I said, concerning, hence why I'm hoping to god you "Checks and balances" guys can pull off this check, partially because I dont actually trust Hillary with the nuke either.

That is one hell of a wager. I trust Hillary a lot more because she has shown that she doesnt make rash decisions, whether or not you actually like those decisions.

Hopefully someone took him aside and explained nuclear strategy to him when he asked, and that they do it again both when the republicans have this intervention and if he's sworn in. And maybe once a month once in office.

If the report is true, he asked three times, which means that the first two times he didnt seem to comprehend the answer. Do you think that the GOP and his campaign managers havent pulled him aside telling him to stop tweeting stupid stuff multiple times? Again, its one a huge wager that hes going to comprehend this basic fact of nuclear strategy when in office. If not, the results are catastrophic.

[Ironside]

"I'm going to win the war quickly" does not translate to "I'm going to start new wars", nor does complaining about chinese trade deals.

He didnt show any opinion on nukes in Hooahguy's article but an ignorance of nuclear strategy, one that is concerning but becomes somewhat less worrying knowing that the president cannot actually launch a nuke without the approval of the Secritary of Defense.

None of these are exclusively hawkish behavior and past actions indicate otherwise. Now I do not think Trump is peaceful but I think he is an isolationist; he is not interested in stepping into another middle east quagmire for no real gain back home. On the other hand Hillary has been straining at the leash to jump in headfirst since Obama appointed her Secritary of State.

So in response I say: do not try to paint him into some villiany he is for once undeserving. In addition Hillary is really, really bad news if she is president.

The Secretary of Defense is chosen by the president. The senate can reject or accept the choice. The Republic senate isn't that healthy right now and would be the majority if Trump wins.

He's not going for a long war with ground troops, true. The problem is that he's going to make America look like his definition of strong, aka a bully (see how he treats NATO or people) and make the army look strong again. That means that he has to win a war. In a way that doesn't creates a new Libya or Iraq. In a way that's threatening to other countries (you don't do a trade deal that threatens your economy, unless the other option is worse).

Nukes solves all those problems (not really, but some... and gives a ton of other problems). Buddy up with Russia and you won't start WWIII (probably, maybe).

Is the Hillary being really, really bad thing a feeling or do you have anything tangible that makes her so much worse than a normal politician?

A tip, if someone has been hiding their Skeletor face for 40 years, with 20 of those with the opposition throwing every dirt they got on that one, without any big result for it, you're probably picking up the dirt throwing, rather than the person behind it.

You haven't thought about this much have you?

Just because Bill Clinton wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth like Bush 41, he is suddenly blacker than black. As if a lower class lifestyle is what defines black lives (hint: lower class whites still have privilege).

His presidency is a series of half measures and back room deals to pass politically rewarding but socially devastating polices like War on Drugs, Tough on Crime and Welfare Reform.

Did you read the parts about it also being because he was (still is) popular among the black community? Let me put it this way. Whatever he did, he's still remembered as the second best president for blacks (Obama being the first of course). That might be because of lack being given anything else, but it still means that laws requested at the time and turning sour with time is the best anyone has ever offered them without it being empty platitudes.

Like I said, concerning, hence why I'm hoping to god you "Checks and balances" guys can pull off this check, partially because I dont actually trust Hillary with the nuke either.

She knows the political consequences of using one and has no reason using them. Her hawkishness is very much in the form of intended benign intervention (success rate is another matter).



He's starting to loose his mind by the looks of it. That's some massive incoherent ranting.

[Kralizec]

I dont see a shouldnt. If there was anything worth beginning a tradition of enforcing accountability in politics this is it.

"Well, from now on we should be more critical of our public servants. The important thing is we have to start with Clinton!1111!!!!!"

Plain opportunism.

He didnt show any opinion on nukes in Hooahguy's article but an ignorance of nuclear strategy, one that is concerning but becomes somewhat less worrying knowing that the president cannot actually launch a nuke without the approval of the Secritary of Defense.

So you're willing to admit that Trump is unhinged or ignorant, but count on his staff and Congress to prevent him from being a total disaster. Counting on other people to filter out the lunacy, so that the residue will "make America great again". Because it's a given that the residue will be totally awesome, Trump has said so.

I'm sure that Congress and leaders of other countries will gladly work with Trump to implement the ~15% of his ideas that are not completely insane. Even when they, personally, have been repeatedly insulted by him. Afterall, if they wouldn't be able to look past those things then they'd just be immature

[Greyblades]

Firstly it is not a matter of criticism, americans are critical as any towards politicians they dont like their system just doesnt allow enforcment of the law on those public servants, as long as they kiss the right asses.

Secondly. What do you suggest they do instead? Start acting on the revelations of illegal action of public servants, "just not right now 'cause it's clinton" or that they shouldnt act on such illegality at all?

[a completely inoffensive name]

You haven't red up on this much have you? Bill was fondly called "the first black president" and there's a reason why she crushingly won the black vote vs Sanders.

You haven't thought about this much have you?

Just because Bill Clinton wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth like Bush 41, he is suddenly blacker than black. As if a lower class lifestyle is what defines black lives (hint: lower class whites still have privilege).

His presidency is a series of half measures and back room deals to pass politically rewarding but socially devastating polices like War on Drugs, Tough on Crime and Welfare Reform.

[Graphic]

Shill more.

Be an asshole more. Or be an adult.

@ 4 min 20 sec: 110 emails in 52 email chains determined to have classified information at the time. 8 of those chains had top secret information at the time, 36 chains with secret information at the time, 8 chains with confidential information ​at the time.

Watch his congressional testimony.

So do I, what a shame that Hillary couldn't be bothered to speak for gay marriage until 2013 when the polls told her to switch sides.

Bernie Sanders didn't even speak in favor of it until 2009. Obama didn't come out for it until around the same time as Clinton. It's almost like progressive causes become more acceptable as time progresses!

Large swathes of the public changed their mind on gay marriage over the last few decades, to where a majority are now in favor of it. Politicians took the same journey that their constituents did. Aren't politicians elected to represent their constituency, or am I missing something?

Right, I find that rich white women often find a deep understanding of the black community when their husbands pass Tough on Crime bills that imprison millions of young black men.

The crime bill was passed with full support of the congressional black caucus. But you already know that.

"Mass imprisonment" wasn't a social issue to black communities at the time. Ridiculously high crime rates was.

Being a rich white woman also doesn't prevent her from listening intently to the concerns of black communities. Her race, gender, and financial situation are irrelevant.

So she will get one big watered down bill passed in her first two years, then try to spend the next 6 years overriding congress with executive actions that get shot down by the Supreme Court?

That watered down bill insured tens of millions of Americans, including myself. Is this the "all or nothing" mentality from Bernie bros? That never achieves anything. Obama's big crime is that he got something but not everything. Wow, welcome to politics.

Obama has used less executive orders than almost every previous president.

Try again please.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Watch his congressional testimony.

Why? Could you watch the video I linked where he just detailed the official findings of the investigation?

Bernie Sanders didn't even speak in favor of it until 2009. Obama didn't come out for it until around the same time as Clinton. It's almost like progressive causes become more acceptable as time progresses!

It's almost like those 4 years make a big difference to the millions of gays and lesbians who needed political support against the Mormon's and Evangelicals trying to shove Constitutional Amendments across the country to deny gay marriage!

Where was Hillary and Obama when we needed to fight Prop 8 here in California?

The story of Gay Marriage is the story of courts following the Constitution while politicians tried to join the bandwagon at the eleventh hour to celebrate the inevitable SCOTUS ruling.

Large swathes of the public changed their mind on gay marriage over the last few decades, to where a majority are now in favor of it. Politicians took the same journey that their constituents did. Aren't politicians elected to represent their constituency, or am I missing something?

Politicians are duty obligated to uphold the Constitution. I don't care if there are still rural Southerns that want to segregate schools and ban gays from public life, their representative should know better than to spend their time in Congress simply parroting their voice.

The crime bill was passed with full support of the congressional black caucus. But you already know that.

Political reality of a Republican controlled Congress equipped with the next generation of PR tactics. Either join, or look weak by Frank Lutz.

"Mass imprisonment" wasn't a social issue to black communities at the time. Ridiculously high crime rates was.

No, drugs were the issue and I highly doubt the answer blacks were looking for was more cops on their streets given the Rodney King Riots showed how little they already trusted the system...

Being a rich white woman also doesn't prevent her from listening intently to the concerns of black communities. Her race, gender, and financial situation are irrelevant.

Actual people of color would disagree with that. There is no escaping privilege.

That watered down bill insured tens of millions of Americans, including myself. Is this the "all or nothing" mentality from Bernie bros? That never achieves anything. Obama's big crime is that he got something but not everything. Wow, welcome to politics.

No, it's the reform mentality that says you got those people insured not from improving the system but by making it illegal to not enter it.

Obama has used less executive orders than almost every previous president.

And? That's a talking point that doesn't refute my issue. It's not the number, it's why he is making them and what he is using them for...

Try again please.

[Viking]

^
What is interesting about this is that he finds US soldiers in Pakistan a positive thing while Russian soldiers in Ukraine are negative.

It is this dissonance with reality that makes all US presidents dangerous.

Which US soldiers exactly; which equivalent situations?

Politicians are duty obligated to uphold the Constitution.

What does the US constitution say on (gay) marriage?

Edit: after doing some digging, it appears that marriage is not mentioned in the US constitution at all.

The Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage. It is not mentioned [...]

http://www.jurist.org/forum/2014/10/...x-marriage.php

[Sarmatian]

Which US soldiers exactly; which equivalent situations?

In this case, those that crossed the border to off Bin Laden.

Yes, I understand that a small strike team crossing a border to eliminate one of the most dangerous criminals in the world is not the same as actively supporting an armed insurrection - it wasn't supposed to be taken literally. US soldiers go over into Pakistan illegally on a daily basis. Drone strikes (confirmed) number in the hundreds, with around 200 children being killed.

And that's just Pakistan.

The entire system in America sees nothing wrong with that. The exceptionalism has reached unbelievable levels, and the politicians, the entire political system is encouraging that. Biden almost lost it on that podium during DNC "we're 'murica, we're second to none, we're the best, smartest..." and so on.

The people buy into that surprisingly easy. Yes, we're best. Of course we are. But, wait if the results don't show that, it certainly isn't our fault. It must be those Muslims or Mexicans or the rest of the world holding us back, which leads to even worse behaviour both domestic and abroad.

Incidentally, that's what creates Trumps. Luckily for America and the rest of the world, Trump is a narcissistic buffoon who can't tie his own shoelaces. Even Hillary should be able to beat him.

But, next one might be a little more charismatic, and little smarter and much more dangerous.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Which US soldiers exactly; which equivalent situations?



What does the US constitution say on (gay) marriage?

Edit: after doing some digging, it appears that marriage is not mentioned in the US constitution at all.



http://www.jurist.org/forum/2014/10/...x-marriage.php

Just because you contol+F the word "marriage" and it doesn't appear, doesn't mean it isn't in there.

Guess there is no right to privacy either...


EDIT: Also your column is from 2014, pick something from the past year, you know....after SCOTUS ruled on gay marriage so you actually get to read on why it is in there.

[Viking]

In this case, those that crossed the border to off Bin Laden.

Yes, I understand that a small strike team crossing a border to eliminate one of the most dangerous criminals in the world is not the same as actively supporting an armed insurrection - it wasn't supposed to be taken literally. US soldiers go over into Pakistan illegally on a daily basis. Drone strikes (confirmed) number in the hundreds, with around 200 children being killed.

And that's just Pakistan.

If Russia had been bombing or raiding groups holing up in Ukraine that were launching terrorist attacks in Russia or elsewhere, I expect that the language from the US government apparatus would be significantly different.

Just because you contol+F the word "marriage" and it doesn't appear, doesn't mean it isn't in there.

Guess there is no right to privacy either...

What do you mean, exactly?

EDIT: Also your column is from 2014, pick something from the past year, you know....after SCOTUS ruled on gay marriage so you actually get to read on why it is in there.

If it was all along an obvious interpretation of the constitution, a few self-written sentences should presumably suffice - and be easy to write. It's not a requirement for US politicians to be experts in law.

At any rate, legal conclusions tend to involve a lot of interpretation; and I doubt it would be much harder to argue against the relevant supreme court decision than for.