US Politics: 2017 Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ustrello**

LordofHats wrote:
Mario wrote:
Hey, how about a spoiler warning in regard to what Riker does, not everybody has seen the show. Or should these be avoided too because they warn the reader about sensitive content that might affect them and they just need to be exposed to in and get over it?

Good point.

Okay people no more spoiler tags! If someone isn't prepared to be told Snape kills Dumbledore* then they should have just read the books faster! I don't care if you don't know know Vader is Lukes father I'm going to tell you anyway because know the plot twist at the end of The Sixth Sense might ruin the film for you but I don't care!

Its all fun and games til someone posts a game of thrones spoiler

**LordofHats**

Ustrello wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Mario wrote:
Hey, how about a spoiler warning in regard to what Riker does, not everybody has seen the show. Or should these be avoided too because they warn the reader about sensitive content that might affect them and they just need to be exposed to in and get over it?

Good point.

Okay people no more spoiler tags! If someone isn't prepared to be told Snape kills Dumbledore* then they should have just read the books faster! I don't care if you don't know know Vader is Lukes father I'm going to tell you anyway because know the plot twist at the end of The Sixth Sense might ruin the film for you but I don't care!

Its all fun and games til someone posts a game of thrones spoiler

But seriously I'm a season behind XD

**d-usa**

Everyone dies and we'll see more boobs.

**thekingofkings**

LordofHats wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Mario wrote:
Hey, how about a spoiler warning in regard to what Riker does, not everybody has seen the show. Or should these be avoided too because they warn the reader about sensitive content that might affect them and they just need to be exposed to in and get over it?

Good point.

Okay people no more spoiler tags! If someone isn't prepared to be told Snape kills Dumbledore* then they should have just read the books faster! I don't care if you don't know know Vader is Lukes father I'm going to tell you anyway because know the plot twist at the end of The Sixth Sense might ruin the film for you but I don't care!

Its all fun and games til someone posts a game of thrones spoiler

But seriously I'm a season behind XD

In the spirit of trying to bridge left-right-center, I will refrain from my planned posts from AGoT.

**BobtheInquisitor**

edit: not worth it.

**Ustrello**

Onto non GoT news, a Penn. state senator has some choice words for President sexual assault (spoilers cause swearing)

Spoiler:

During a meeting with the National Sheriff’s Association this Monday, President Trump raised a few eyebrows when he offered to “destroy” a Texas lawmaker’s career at the behest of a sheriff who didn’t like his legislation.

The sheriff, Harold Eavenson of Rockwell County, Texas, mentioned an unnamed senator who was introducing legislation that would require a conviction before police could seize forfeiture money, jokingly adding that “the [drug cartels] would build a monument” to the senator if the legislation were to pass.

“Who is the state senator? Do you want to give his name? We’ll destroy his career,” Trump replied.

Although he wasn’t the subject of the sheriff’s comment, Pennsylvania Democratic Senator Daylin Leach also supports civil asset forfeiture reform. In a Twitter post this Tuesday, he dared trump to come after him as well.

“Hey! I oppose civil asset forfeiture too,” Leach wrote on Facebook and Twitter. “Why don’t you come after me you fascist, loofa-faced sh*t-gibbon!!”

**LordofHats**

I'm pretty sure there's this sweet section of the constitution that forbids unwarranted search and seizure, which is something we've been happily ignoring with civil forfeiture law, and that's before getting into the nonsense that a cop can pull me over, confiscate my money on the flimsy argument that "only a criminal would have $5000 in cash" charge me with no crime, and then never give me my money back.

**Ustrello**

LordofHats wrote:
I'm pretty sure there's this sweet section of the constitution that forbids unwarranted search and seizure, which is something we've been happily ignoring with civil forfeiture law, and that's before getting into the nonsense that a cop can pull me over, confiscate my money on the flimsy argument that "only a criminal would have $5000 in cash" charge me with no crime, and then never give me my money back.

Funny that most people who bleat about the sacristy of the 2nd amendment happily forget the 4th

**Prestor Jon**

Ustrello wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
I'm pretty sure there's this sweet section of the constitution that forbids unwarranted search and seizure, which is something we've been happily ignoring with civil forfeiture law, and that's before getting into the nonsense that a cop can pull me over, confiscate my money on the flimsy argument that "only a criminal would have $5000 in cash" charge me with no crime, and then never give me my money back.

Funny that most people who bleat about the sacristy of the 2nd amendment happily forget the 4th

You really think so? It was pro2A citizens that brought the ATF's Always Tink Forfeiture scandal to light. All the gun owners I know are vehemently opposed to asset forfeiture programs. Of course that's anecdotal and social circles will vary.

**LordofHats**

Well criticism and support of civil forfeiture law is fairly bipartisan across the board. The seizure of cash is the most famous abuse, but seizure of firearms is also not uncommon and often complained about. In a lot of states the cops can basically take anything for any reason with no cause, and they'll even blackmail you with bs documents that say "give up your property and don't complain about it and you won't be charged with a crime." The entire idea of charging property with a crime is a giant run around due process anyway, but I think you'll find conservatives who are opposed to the current status quo here just as much as you'll find liberals who support it.

The real issue is largely law enforcement itself as the proceeds of seized property generally end up in the hands of cops, either as part of their department budget or their pensions.

**whembly**

LordofHats wrote:
I'm pretty sure there's this sweet section of the constitution that forbids unwarranted search and seizure, which is something we've been happily ignoring with civil forfeiture law, and that's before getting into the nonsense that a cop can pull me over, confiscate my money on the flimsy argument that "only a criminal would have $5000 in cash" charge me with no crime, and then never give me my money back.

THat is my major beef with AG-to-be-Sessions and Trump...

They're a civil asset forfeiture honk, such that I'm sure they'll object if Congress passes laws to restrict these activities.

EDIT: Jeff Sessions has been confirmed to be the next AG.

**Vaktathi**

"Donald Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court has described the president's attacks on the judiciary as "demoralising" and "disheartening"."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38914598

awkward....

**whembly**

Vaktathi wrote:
"Donald Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court has described the president's attacks on the judiciary as "demoralising" and "disheartening"."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38914598

awkward....

Heh...

A) Judges back each other up against the Executive/Legislative branches.

B) He's telegraphing to the rest of the Senate that he’ll be a fully independent justice on the Court, beholden to no one. He's a sharp stick... and probably was given the greenlight to do this by Trumpo's peeps.

**LordofHats**

You know what. I'd back him for the court just cause he said that. At least it suggests he has some standards, though I wonder how much longer he's going to be a SCOTUS pick.

Que tinfoil hat conspiracy that he only said it to ease his confirmation

**thekingofkings**

LordofHats wrote:
You know what. I'd back him for the court just cause he said that. At least it suggests he has some standards, though I wonder how much longer he's going to be a SCOTUS pick.

Que tinfoil hat conspiracy that he only said it to ease his confirmation

IS tinfoil really better than aluminum foil?

**LordofHats**

You'd have to ask Lord of Metal about that. I have no power over things that are used as hats, only actual hats XD

**d-usa**

LordofHats wrote:
You'd have to ask Lord of Metal about that. I have no power over things that are used as hats, only actual hats XD

It's nice to see the separation of powers in the realm of lordships.

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
A) Judges back each other up against the Executive/Legislative branches.

This part of it is actually pretty interesting. The republican party certainly wants someone who will vote to overturn all those decisions they don't like, but is he going to be interested in it? Or will he say "STFU we decided this already" and defer to precedent to preserve the integrity of the judicial branch as a whole?

**sebster**

Sentinel1 wrote:
I don't see that as bad thing, it just shows the disillusionment of X% of people from the political norm.

But the SJWs aren’t the political norm. They’re just a fairly noisy minority, focused almost entirely on social issues that are important, but are far from the only issues that matter.

The problem is having 8 years of the same old same is not always progress and in many places in the states, the people thought they did not see much benefit.

If you think the snake handler has done a bad job, you don’t elect the snake. Lots of people are concerned about income inequality and the working and middle classes being left out of the economic recovery, and that’s a fair complaint. Electing the party that wants a tax cut focused almost entirely on the rich, and opposes a minimum wage increase (with many opposing a minimum wage entirely) is electing the snake.

Social change occupancies political change, it is after all democracy and you could quite rightly argue that the S.J.W's are in fact denying democracy and free speech by bigotedly branding people who believe differently as morally wrong.

It isn’t anti-democratic or against free speech, you’re allowed to tell someone to shut up. You just can’t use the force of law to make them shut up.

That said, I do agree that the left too often looks to vilify and shout down people, rather than engage on the issue. This is a fault of the left, too many people drawn to the left are there because they like feeling self righteous, rather than being useful. Condemning someone else as racist is a nice, easy way to feel self-righteous, but not actually useful.

I am not American, but if I could have voted in the election I would have voted Trump for several reasons, one being to rub up the S.J,W's as mentioned. You could draw the same parallel reaction to the UK referendum which to some extent I voted Leave for the same reason (as did many other people for both topics). I do not see it as a terrible reason to vote for anything, as you should never give in for what you believe in, because if people were afraid to vote on an issue because certain people were against it and would get angry, then you would only have one opinion and effectively no democracy.

The point is that you should vote for reasons of substance and meaning. Stuff like policy, and the competence of the person in the role you are electing them to. Voting for Trump because you got in an argument over privilege over twitter is not a good reason.

ulgurstasta wrote:
Attitudes like this is whats gonna win Trump his second term, Liberals so clueless they believe all the discontent brewing in the US (and the west at large) is just some conspiracy by Gingrich/Putin/"Your villain of the week".

A political strategy is not a conspiracy theory. You’ve gotten yourself very confused there.

And here I was hoping that a Trump presidency would be a wake-up call for the american left and liberals...

And here I was hoping the Trump presidency would be a wake up call for the right. Because, you know, it’s kind of obvious that when a president sucks, it falls on the people who elected him to consider voting for a non-sucking president in future.

But that dream appears increasingly unlikely, as people like you start inventing ever more strange ways to blame a terrible right wing president on anyone but the right wing who elected him.

**Just Tony**

tneva82 wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
We also have a Constitution, and Separation of Powers with military to enforce it if needed.

A constitution and Separation of Power only works as far as people respect those. The Weimar republic had both.
Don't believe those will inherently prevent a dictatorship. What will prevent a dictatorship is the disapproval of everyone in the system (police, military, legislature, judiciary, …). However, given how Trump interacts with its followers, I can see him convincing them that it would be a good thing to give him unchecked power.

Yeah. Nobody TAKES power. But one can do it so that he is GIVEN power.

Obviously if everybody opposes Trump he cannot become dictator. But what if he is given dictatorial powers willingly? Has happened before, will happen again. Don't see anything in US that makes it uniquely safe from it. Constitution and separation of powers? Hasn't protected before either.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Yeah, no, you're not going to get literally hundreds of thousands of military and LEOs to join forces to conspire to ditch the constitution for the sake of making Trump dictator of America.

Why makes America immune to that when that hasn't worked elsewhere?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:
I'm sure it was the Founders idea to just assume everything would be cool and let stuff slide instead of being vigilant about government. There seems to be a strange thing going on where the people who used to argue how awful government is and that we need to be on guard for abuse went and voted for people who can't be trusted and then try to tell others that we should trust the system to keep everything in place. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Ah but it's because now people in power are R's. You only need to be on guard for abuse when it's D's in power!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Just Tony wrote:
Do you think the military would then follow an unlawful order given by his meat puppet, or steadfastly refuse, assisting in the removal of said President AND whatever high ranking official took his side.

Has happened before in the history. So since we know it's possible what makes US immune to it? Oath to constitution? Not enough. History shows it. Give better reason.

Has it happened to the US "in the history"? I also note you don't give any examples where a similar nation to the US gives in to such an upheaval which runs contrary to its founding principles.

Right, you're Scandinavian. Not at all acquainted with the US mindset. let alone the US military mindset. I will try my best to explain.

In the US, with a few exceptions during our larger wars, being in the military is a voluntary thing. You don't just get a random handful of people thrown into a job, pretty much everyone comes into it with a similar mindset. This mindset is reinforced through the training we go through. How thoroughly, you ask? I'd say to an individual, every military person would obey the Code of Conduct under severe torture. That's the whole thing you see in movies where someone will only answer with name, rank, serial number. SERE school in the army revolves around that very scenario. Also, TO A MAN/WOMAN/SPLOURGH, if an explosive device is lobbed into a group of soldiers, the military person closest to it will not hesitate to throw themselves onto it, knowing damn well that it guarantees them an extremely painful, and possibly even slow, death. THAT mentality, which I won't fault you for "getting", is why you wouldn't see Trump manage to organize a military takeover of the US.

sebster wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
We also have a Constitution, and Separation of Powers with military to enforce it if needed.
Come on, who do you think we are? Europe?

To paraphrase a certain tyrant, "and how many divisions does your constitution have?"

Seriously, this talk of military coups and all the rest is crazy, but that's kind of what makes it so strange that the responses have been so weak.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:
I'm sure it was the Founders idea to just assume everything would be cool and let stuff slide instead of being vigilant about government. There seems to be a strange thing going on where the people who used to argue how awful government is and that we need to be on guard for abuse went and voted for people who can't be trusted and then try to tell others that we should trust the system to keep everything in place. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

It's like a switch gets flipped election day. People who woke up on that November Tuesday wary of government and thinking they might just have to rebel go to be that night thinking everything will always be fine so people are wrong to even talk about it. Meanwhile the other half swap from trusting government to thinking a coup is coming any day now.

fething identity politics man. It corrodes sensible politics completely.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:
I've seen this posted several places in different ways so might as well see what people here say:

That was great, thankyou.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
From speaking with Trump supporters that I know, there was another reason many of them voted for him: he made people they don't like really, really angry and upset. I don't think that's a very good reason to vote for someone, but I guess if that's what they were going for it has worked out as they expected?

Yeah, that's something I picked up on during the campaign, especially from Trump supporters here on dakka. After spotting the pattern, I started to keep a rough count of the Trump voters who would say one thing they really liked about him was how he pissed of the SJWs or some other tribal enemy. I got to 4, which isn't a huge number, but there weren't more than a half dozen willing, happy Trump supporters who ever spoke up on dakka, so it was a fair chunk out of the sample group.

And yeah, voting for the presidency based on how much you dislike people that you have assigned to the other tribe is a really, really terrible reason to vote for someone.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
That's different from a quid pro quo arrangement.

feth me I just burst out laughing, almost woke the baby.

We just went through a whole fething year of the right wing saying any money in to the Clinton Foundation was proof of something or other, and the left talking about how what you needed was an actual quid pro quo, otherwise you ain't got gak. Now there's a Republican in charge and oh my god holy gak will you look at that the right has adopted a very narrow definition of acceptable favours for cash. Who could have seen that coming?

Anyhow, moving past the Clinton Foundation conspiracy nonsense, and to Obama's actual appointments, Obama did reward significant contributors to his campaign with political appointments. I don't know if he appointed anyone who directly paid in big money, but there was more than a few who ran large donation lobbying efforts who were given diplomatic posts. That was gak, to put it bluntly. It is not good enough whenever someone closely connected to the money trough is moved in to a government position, it is far too open to corruption.

Trump has gone well past Obama's appointments. He is appointing someone that didn't just lobby for him, but directly paid in, and not to some backwater diplomatic posting, he's giving them a cabinet position.

And all the people who cheered him on for saying he'll drain the swamp seem rather okay with this.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Just Tony wrote:
As someone who has taken and lived by the enlistment oath for over 23 years, I can tell you how your little conspiracy theory would pan out in reality. ALL military personnel are sworn to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States, not any one or several persons in power.

Giggle. Look, the idea of US coup is silly, but it isn't because of this oath nonsense. Every monarch had their armies swear oaths to them... which is why no king or queen was ever thrown from power by their military.

I actually am a bit baffled as to what is happening here. The coup talk is ridiculous, but the responses about why it won't happen are probably even worse. What the hell is going on with you guys today.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:
Nicki Minaj is a high-profile entertainer and night clubs are places of entertainment. Hillary Clinton is a high-profile politician and Wall Street one of the centres of power in the US, one particularly known for serving its own interests to the detriment of the American people. The comparison is not honest.

There's no fething comparison here, there's just me explaining how a simple business arrangement works. When an organiser can use your name and profile to make hundreds of thousands in table sales, that makes you worth a six figure sum to the organiser. Because very few people will charge less than they can, that means Clinton, Minaj, and goddamn anyone else on the circuit will charge six figures to appear.

That is just the basic economics of it. People were ignorant of this, and so they made those weird half conspiracies that Clinton could only have been paid that much because Wall St was buying her. And what's incredible is that even after how they've learned how it actually works, they still believe the nonsense.

See above for the part addressed to me, I don't want to repeat it. And yes, I realize in other countries the military has overthrown those in power, or that there are dictators who have a military who will follow their word past absurdity. The US military isn't one of those. I know it's hard to get, and I realize that even OUR military has despicable people come from their ranks (the guy that rolled the grenade into the tent, the guy that shot up Fort Hood, former military personnel committing mass shootings), but it isn't representative of the whole military population, just as every Australian isn't Ned Kelly or whomever, or every Frenchman isn't Napoleon. Sometime pay attention to what US military personnel are willing to do FOR duty, and you'll see the same resolve that will prevent them from breaking that oath.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Just Tony wrote:
As someone who has taken and lived by the enlistment oath for over 23 years, I can tell you how your little conspiracy theory would pan out in reality. ALL military personnel are sworn to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States, not any one or several persons in power. What would happen in your scenario is: President gives order to senior military person, who refuses said order as unlawful.

Sure. I'm sure all the senior military personnel are paragon of virtue that would always chose the Constitution over Trump, or any other politician. That is how it is now, and that is how it will be for ever and ever. Amen.

And once again, what's the percentage of civillians that commit crimes? Do you blanket expect every OTHER citizen to do so? Military officers are no different there. And even if there's a potential for one to go "bad/corrupt/socialist

", how many more wouldn't? And do you think that person's orders would stand in that instance? Not at all. Every US military person gets this. Once again, you don't live the life, you haven't done the training, you simply don't know.

Frazzled wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
However, if states and school boards insistent on including it I don't think the Feds need to forbid it as long as there's no evidence that creationism's inclusion is hurting science test scores and keeping schools from meeting standards in regards to science test score benchmarks.

There is far more to education than test score benchmarks. Teaching creationism is bad education even if it doesn't make a quantifiable difference in test scores, and if the states won't take responsibility for keeping it out of science classes then the federal government needs to step in and say no.

Sounds like you're working through some issues on the topic, but thats ok.

Essentially it's a "burn the Christians" thing. It's only been around as long as the Christians themselves.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Serious question: do you think the military should be in the business of offering trigger warnings to people during training before showing them challenging material?

What do you mean by challenging? I'll let you know that the military usually deals with PTSD from soldiers that have already served and got them during their service, because they don't usually enroll people that already suffer from PTSD. And I'm not sure if having PTSD gives you a discharge, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did. Because it sure as hell impacts your ability to do your job on the battlefield.

No, you don't get discharged automatically for having PTSD. I can assure you of that. Now if you have it so bad that you can't do your job, then yes, you get discharged if treatment doesn't work for you, or doesn't get you to a place where you can perform your duties.

As far as suffering from PTSD before you enlist? People lie about childhood asthma and the like, you think people won't omit any PTSD if they want to serve badly enough? Refer back to the mindset I referred to earlier. Some people WANT to be that person, no matter what.

**Peregrine**

Just Tony wrote:
Essentially it's a "burn the Christians" thing. It's only been around as long as the Christians themselves.

Yeah, "secular schools should not teach Christian science theories that have been thoroughly disproved" and "burn the Christians" are absolutely the same thing. Makes perfect sense.

**NinthMusketeer**

sebster wrote:
This is a fault of the left, too many people drawn to the left are there because they like feeling self righteous, rather than being useful.

You know when you find it hard to summarize your feelings concisely then someone comes along with a statement that does so perfectly? Seriously, thank you for this one.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ustrello wrote:
Funny that most people who bleat about the sacristy of the 2nd amendment happily forget the 4th

Got a source for that claim?

**LordofHats**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
A) Judges back each other up against the Executive/Legislative branches.

This part of it is actually pretty interesting. The republican party certainly wants someone who will vote to overturn all those decisions they don't like, but is he going to be interested in it? Or will he say "STFU we decided this already" and defer to precedent to preserve the integrity of the judicial branch as a whole?

This guy is pretty much the conservative dream for a judge. There's only a few issues where he might (at least going by his judicial history), break from the pack.

The bright side is that he's not another Scalia, and actually makes legal arguments to support his decisions instead of going off on political rants.

**whembly**

LordofHats wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
A) Judges back each other up against the Executive/Legislative branches.

This part of it is actually pretty interesting. The republican party certainly wants someone who will vote to overturn all those decisions they don't like, but is he going to be interested in it? Or will he say "STFU we decided this already" and defer to precedent to preserve the integrity of the judicial branch as a whole?

This guy is pretty much the conservative dream for a judge. There's only a few issues where he might (at least going by his judicial history), break from the pack.

The bright side is that he's not another Scalia, and actually makes legal arguments to support his decisions instead of going off on political rants.

Yup.

Trumpo gets a few free "mulligans" from me for this pick.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
Funny that most people who bleat about the sacristy of the 2nd amendment happily forget the 4th

Got a source for that claim?

Anecdotal to be sure, but I'd probably start with most people who have blue painters tape on the back window of their vehicle.

**thekingofkings**

d-usa wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
You'd have to ask Lord of Metal about that. I have no power over things that are used as hats, only actual hats XD

It's nice to see the separation of powers in the realm of lordships.

well they need to reach across the aisles (or isles, realm dependent) so we peasants can get the really important info,...the gubment could even now be influencing me to buy a maga hat :(

**sebster**

jasper76 wrote:
@Sebster: If you think Clinton was such a good candidate, do you think the Democrats should nominate her again in 2020 (issues of age aside)? If so, do you think she would do any better next time? If not, why not?

I think she would be have perfectly adequate as a president, and the various attacks against her if she’d been president were overblown or fictitious.

This doesn’t mean I think she ran a good campaign, because she didn’t. Whatever Clinton’s strengths are as a policy wonk and backroom negotiator, as a political campaigner she’s a disaster. He presence and message control was terrible, and more than that her instincts for strategy were all wrong. She focused on the wrong states to campaign, she picked the wrong overall strategy (focusing on minority interests over economic issues).

I’d put her in the same camp as John Kerry and Mitt Romney, they’d be quite alright if they got the job, but you just can’t trust them not to screw up the interview a second time.

**thekingofkings**

sebster wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
@Sebster: If you think Clinton was such a good candidate, do you think the Democrats should nominate her again in 2020 (issues of age aside)? If so, do you think she would do any better next time? If not, why not?

I think she would be have perfectly adequate as a president, and the various attacks against her if she’d been president were overblown or fictitious.

This doesn’t mean I think she ran a good campaign, because she didn’t. Whatever Clinton’s strengths are as a policy wonk and backroom negotiator, as a political campaigner she’s a disaster. He presence and message control was terrible, and more than that her instincts for strategy were all wrong. She focused on the wrong states to campaign, she picked the wrong overall strategy (focusing on minority interests over economic issues).

I’d put her in the same camp as John Kerry and Mitt Romney, they’d be quite alright if they got the job, but you just can’t trust them not to screw up the interview a second time.

Romney/Kerry in 2020...one of each world

**sebster**

Trump put in an official complaint about the hand towels on air force one. They're not soft enough. Remember, this is the man who totally understands the plight of the working man.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Who is "the right" that's adopting a position on what "quid pro quo" means in politics? That's already been settled by SCOTUS.

The right, of course, means the right wing. I'll make sure to spell this out for you in future.

I have no idea how you possibly took anything I said as confusion over the legal standard established for a quid pro quo arrangement. It's like you're arguing from a script or something. Like you've turned up to an improv session with King Lear memorised, and you're going to say each of your lines in turn, no matter what anyone else around you is saying.

Anyhow, the point is not the legal standard for corruption. That's obviously a very narrow definition, which it needs to because it is dealing with a criminal standard of guilt. But the rest of us aren't connected to that criminal standard, we can make our own assessments and decide if a person has given an informal favour for past campaign funding and know that isn't cool, even if it isn't technically a crime.

What's funny is that 6 months ago the right wing didn't care one jot about the narrow legal definition. They were very concerned that after the Clinton Foundation received a donation from Brunei then some months later Sec of State Clinton met with the Prince of Brunei. They didn't even to establish any notion of personal benefit, let alone a formal quid pro quo. The left, on the other hand, was all about that narrow definition, they defended Obama's appointment of a bunch of diplomats with zero foreign policy experience or knowledge (who just happened to have been prolific fund raisers), because those appointments didn't meet the narrow legal definition.

Now Trump is making appointments, and oh my gosh will you look at that the right is using the narrow definition, and the left is trying for as expansive a definition as is possible.

thekingofkings wrote:
Romney/Kerry in 2020...one of each world

Making them stand next to each other would create such centrifugal force of flip flopping we'd solve our energy crisis forever.