Support NeoGAF

[Aaron Strife]

PD's just playing his part. Guess it's about that time then:

Hillary will win by double digits, Democrats will pick up 40 seats in the House and 9 in the Senate

You heard it here first

 

[ivysaur12]

How many months until the election?

 

[B-Dubs]

How many months until the election?

Too many.

 

[Funky Papa]

So this just popped over my feeds and I thought poligaf would get a kick out of it.

 

[B-Dubs]

Why are they sitting around staring at $100 bills? I guess because he's in it for the cash?

 

[Chichikov]

So this just popped over my feeds and I thought poligaf would get a kick out of it.

What's going on with his profile picture?

 

[Jooney]

You can't concern troll all the time and expect to be taken seriously, so you have to work in "normal" political analysis like a conspiracy theorist uses historically accurate details to create the illusion of seriousness. It's like a fox news commentator who does it for no money.

Read the article I posted about how nyt fundamentally misrepresented the situation when they last tried to push a Clinton donation story.

I don't want to make this conversation about PD so let me restate my concern.

I don't know if there is any 'there there' in the clinton donation scandal but the willingness of people to view any negative story affecting Hillary solely through lens of the 2016 race is what concerns me. For example when the email scandal broke the conversation here was largely dismissive because the story wouldn't have legs to run out to 2016. As if a decision by a sitting SofS to establish her own private email server within her own private residence was some reasonable and legitimate decision that didn't warrant further investigation, nor the fact that the 'accountability moment' was when her team got to comb through the emails and release what they thought was relevant. If alternative universe SofS Lindsay Graham

Spoiler

or future SofS Tom Cotton!

did this I'm sure the conversation here would go a little differently.

It's 18 months aka 27 scandals till the election. There's going to be a surplus of mud thrown but it's ok not to play defense and wrap your arms around the Clinton campaign the entire time.

 

[Jooney]

Guys I just had an epiphany:

If metaforkintheroad is right when he says that corporations are people, and if benjipwns is right in saying that the government is a corporation, then is it also right to to say that via the transitive property the government is people? And does that mean I can make unlimited donations to anyone in government?

 

[Amir0x]

Guys I just had an epiphany:

If metaforkintheroad is right when he says that corporations are people, and if benjipwns is right in saying that the government is a corporation, then is it also right to to say that via the transitive property the government is people? And does that mean I can make unlimited donations to anyone in government?

:<

 

[pigeon]

For example when the email scandal broke the conversation here was largely dismissive because the story wouldn't have legs to run out to 2016. As if a decision by a sitting SofS to establish her own private email server within her own private residence was some reasonable and legitimate decision that didn't warrant further investigation, nor the fact that the 'accountability moment' was when her team got to comb through the emails and release what they thought was relevant. If alternative universe SofS Lindsay Graham

Spoiler

or future SofS Tom Cotton!

did this I'm sure the conversation here would go a little differently.

I honestly, real talk, don't think this matters at all except politically, so my response to it is exclusively political.

Who cares if the Secretary of State has a private personal email server? She still needs to send public emails to actually get anything done, because those emails need to go to the State Department.

Moreover, frankly, I don't believe that no other politicians have private personal email servers, for the simple reason that everybody has private personal email servers. I have one! It's not in my house, but that's mainly because I'm too lazy!

But even if we pretend that the SoS has never before had a personal email server, they've still had personal conversations, personal phones, personal secretaries and messages, and generally personal lives. It's both necessary as a human and inevitable as a Secretary of State to have private communication pipelines.

Can you explain what you think people would be saying if this were Tom Cotton, or what you think they should be saying about Hillary? Because I honestly don't get the problem.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

As if a decision by a sitting SofS to establish her own private email server within her own private residence was some reasonable and legitimate decision that didn't warrant further investigation, nor the fact that the 'accountability moment' was when her team got to comb through the emails and release what they thought was relevant. If alternative universe SofS Lindsay Graham

Spoiler

or future SofS Tom Cotton!

did this I'm sure the conversation here would go a little differently. .

It doesn't really matter IMO, Id admittedly probably use it for partisan ends but private server or not there is nothing stopping and government official from using private correspondence whenever they want with the way the law is now.

Clinton could have used government email and just used her personal email whenever she wanted to avoid people archiving stuff. The law allows that and still allows that and will probably always allow that.

That's why I think the controversy is so meaningless. If she did the "right thing" nothing changes. She still could have used another account for shady things. Its an optics thing, nobody is proposing a policy solution to this (requiring private communications to be captured, banning private communications, etc) because there is none, they're just using this as a blank canvass to for their feelings about the clintons. We can't have 100% public records without invading these peoples abiltity to have privacy.

 

[InsaneZero]

Guys I just had an epiphany:

If metaforkintheroad is right when he says that corporations are people, and if benjipwns is right in saying that the government is a corporation, then is it also right to to say that via the transitive property the government is people? And does that mean I can make unlimited donations to anyone in government?

Yes, in that the government can use your tax money to make unlimited donations to anyone in government to represent you.

 

[Aaron Strife]

The email thing is stupid as hell. It's like conservatives are expecting government officials to behave like robots without any personal lives. But I mean, they did nominate Mitt Romney.

 

[PhoenixDark]

This isn't a tough one. PD's doing a heel turn on Hillary so that he can continue to troll PoliGAF all the way through 2016. It's what he does!

Just as I posted when this came up last week: if this were a real issue, they'd be holding it up til next year. But they're not, because there isn't anything here. People gave money to Bill Clinton because they thought they'd get access. Guess what? They would do that whether or not anybody was offering them access.

Eh...how many times are major issues held until the general? Clinton was hit with multiple female scandals during his primary, Obama was hit with Rev Wright, Romney's tax issues were laid bare, etc.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Eh...how many times are major issues held until the general? Clinton was hit with multiple female scandals during his primary, Obama was hit with Rev Wright, Romney's tax issues were laid bare, etc.

Conservatives tried to make Rev Wright stick but voters sure as hell didn't care.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Conservatives tried to make Rev Wright stick but voters sure as hell didn't care.

That issue could have ended a regular politician's campaign.

 

[pigeon]

That issue could have ended a regular politician's campaign.

No, it could really only have ended a black politician's campaign.

 

[PhoenixDark]

No, it could really only have ended a black politician's campaign.

A regular black politician's campaign. Obama wasn't a regular black politician, or regular politician. He's a special talent, like Bill. Hillary is not that type of candidate.

 

[Wilsongt]

Of course it would be Huckabee to cry "misquote!"

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mike-huckabee-complains-obama-misquoted-me-in-whcd-joke/

What Huckabee said:

"
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee claimed in an interview with Iowa talk radio host Jan Mickelson [Thursday] that the Obama administration has “an open hostility toward the Christian faith,” and urged prospective military recruits to wait until the end of President Obama’s term to enlist. […]

“There’s nothing more honorable than serving one’s country and there’s no greater heroes to our country than our military,” he responded, “but I might suggest to parents, I’d wait a couple of years until we get a new commander-in-chief that will once again believe ‘one nation under god’ and believe that people of faith should be a vital part of the process of not only governing this country, but defending this country.”

What Obummer said:

"“Mike Huckabee recently said people shouldn’t join our military until a true conservative is elected President. Think about that. It was so outrageous, 47 ayatollahs wrote a letter trying to explain to Huckabee how our system works.”"

Huckabee's response?

"Gov. Mike Huckabee
&#10004;
@GovMikeHuckabee

Obama misquoted me at #WHCD. I want the brave people who join the military to have a competent Prez who's not hostile to religious liberty.

Gov. Mike Huckabee
&#10004;
@GovMikeHuckabee

The one person at #WHCD who should not joke about others' knowledge of "how the system works" is Obama. #UnconstitutionalExecutiveAmnesty"

For a party that made an entire presidential primary convention around an out of context quote, Fuckabee has no room to try to clarify himself against a joke.

And before you respond to this PD defending Huckabee:

 

[Black Mamba]

Why are they sitting around staring at $100 bills? I guess because he's in it for the cash?

They're playing Liar's Poker.

It's a game of high stakes.

Liar's poker is an American bar game that combines statistical reasoning with bluffing, and is played with the eight digits of the serial numbers on a U.S. dollar bill. The numbers are usually ranked with a zero counting as a ten, and a 1 being highest as "ace". Normally the game is played with a stack of random bills obtained from the cash register. The objective is to guess how often particular digits appear across all bills held by players, with guesses increasing in value or quantity until a player challenges the most recent guess.

It was famously made popular in Michael Lewis amazing expose of the 80s Bond Market called "Liar's Poker." It's a short read and I suggest everyone read this book if you want to get insight into the financial world's people of the time (not that that much has changed since) if you have none.

IIRC, in the book the guys would bet millions on this game.

edit: in the pic they are using a $100 bill instead of $1, but the game is the same. Apparently, Rand sucks at this game.

 

[B-Dubs]

They're playing Liar's Poker.

It's a game of high stakes.



It was famously made popular in Michael Lewis amazing expose of the 80s Bond Market called "Liar's Poker." It's a short read and I suggest everyone read this book if you want to get insight into the financial world's people of the time (not that that much has changed since) if you have none.

IIRC, in the book the guys would bet millions on this game.

edit: in the pic they are using a $100 bill instead of $1, but the game is the same. Apparently, Rand sucks at this game.

The fact they're making this reference says all I need to know. They could have easily done it with normal poker and piles of chips, Rand having the smaller one.

 

[Black Mamba]

The fact they're making this reference says all I need to know. They could have easily done it with normal poker and piles of chips, Rand having the smaller one.

Well, in fairness having less chips doesn't mean you're a bad bluffer...or even a bad player.

All it takes is a bad beat or unlucky hand (KK vs AA).

 

[B-Dubs]

Well, in fairness having less chips doesn't mean you're a bad bluffer...or even a bad player.

All it takes is a bad beat or unlucky hand (KK vs AA).

You know what I mean

 

[Black Mamba]

You know what I mean

I do, but my former poker player in me had to make a stand.


Regardless, the President should be a good bluffer. What is international relations without the ability to bluff!?

 

[Aaron Strife]

That issue could have ended a regular politician's campaign.

Nah it was always stupid. If that was the worst "scandal" they could dig up in any politician they'd be in trouble. Obama is only unusual because of how relatively clean his past is.

 

[Wilsongt]

Oh Stacy...

Outnumbered guest host Stacey Dash said Monday afternoon that no one would have been beheaded under a George W. Bush presidency.

Dash’s comments were in reference to a report Monday that Bush criticized Obama’s foreign policy, the first time he has been known to done so. In his remarks to the Republican Jewish Coalition’s annual meeting in Las Vegas, Bush reportedly said, “Just remember the guy who slit Danny Pearl’s throat is in Gitmo, and now they’re doing it on TV.” Pearl was a Wall Street Journal reporter who was captured and murdered in 2002 by Pakistani militants.

Moments after cohost Andrea Tantaros invoked Pearl, Dash made her comment about nobody being beheaded under Bush.

“When George W. Bush was president, the most important thing to him was not to be liked, but to be respected,” she said. “And you better believe no one would have been beheaded when he was president.”

Pearl was in fact beheaded, and an execution video was released. His death has even been cited as having catalyzed the practice, leading to its use by ISIS today.

 

[Jackson50]

Oh Stacy...

Except people were beheaded. Many more than just Daniel Pearl, unfortunately. Come on, conservatives. And Bush wasn't respected. His leadership tarnished this nation's image to a considerable degree.

 

[Amir0x]

I bet the Obama administration is dancing with glee right now that Bush opened his big fucking moronic mouth. This is another opportunity for them to remind the American people how much they've fixed since Bush.

 

[Wilsongt]

Except people were beheaded. Many more than just Daniel Pearl, unfortunately. Come on, conservatives. And Bush wasn't respected. His leadership tarnished this nation's image to a considerable degree.

He was respected in that there was backlash from criticism. Unlike obama where it is welcomed and encouraged.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Oh Stacy...

Mandatory:

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Oh Stacy...

she's clueless

Spoiler

I'll see myself out

 

[NeoXChaos]

Too many.

Yeah and the debates are still 3 months away.

 

[B-Dubs]

Yeah and the debates are still 3 months away.

Dear god, no wonder Stewart is quitting.

 

[Jooney]

I honestly, real talk, don't think this matters at all except politically, so my response to it is exclusively political.

Who cares if the Secretary of State has a private personal email server? She still needs to send public emails to actually get anything done, because those emails need to go to the State Department.

Moreover, frankly, I don't believe that no other politicians have private personal email servers, for the simple reason that everybody has private personal email servers. I have one! It's not in my house, but that's mainly because I'm too lazy!

But even if we pretend that the SoS has never before had a personal email server, they've still had personal conversations, personal phones, personal secretaries and messages, and generally personal lives. It's both necessary as a human and inevitable as a Secretary of State to have private communication pipelines.

Can you explain what you think people would be saying if this were Tom Cotton, or what you think they should be saying about Hillary? Because I honestly don't get the problem.

Well my understanding is that both State and personal business was being conducted using private infrastructure which meant that independent governance and oversight of the her State business was not being achieved, because it was her staff that got to determine what was released. I would expect that a Government official would have their communications captured as part of the official record and that oversight would be conducted by an independent body, not the official or their staff in question.

If my understanding is wrong than I am happy to take the L and move on.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

I'll be interested to see how Hogan handles the civil unrest. Jay Nixon had some higher aspirations and those all went down the toilet.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Every Democratic President for the last 124 years since the parties founding has come into office with both house and senate controlled by their party.

I did not know that but its interesting. Apparently Hillary would make history by being the first Democrat ever with Congress controlled by the Republicans or divided government going back to Grover Cleveland.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Every Democratic President for the last 124 years since the parties founding has come into office with both house and senate controlled by their party.

I did not know that but its interesting. Apparently Hillary would make history by being the first Democrat ever with Congress controlled by the Republicans or divided government going back to Grover Cleveland.

Or she'll continue the trend

 

[RustyNails]

I'm bummed that there are no joke candidates like Herman Cain or Michelle Bachmann running.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Or she'll continue the trend

If the country is going to be stuck in this perpetual cycle of divided government for the foreseeable future, it's better for the Democrats to have the White House than Congress.

A Republican win in 2016 almost guarantees that Republicans will have control of Congress. Any type of hypothetical gains Democrats could make in 2018 due to a Republican President wont ever be worth letting Republicans control the White House and Congress for the first two years. Think of Supreme Court appointments as an example.

We can only hope Aaron.

 

[Mario]

If the country is going to be stuck in this perpetual cycle of divided government for the foreseeable future, it's better for the Democrats to have the White House than Congress.

A Republican win in 2016 almost guarantees that Republicans will have control of Congress. Any type of hypothetical gains Democrats could make in 2018 due to a Republican President wont ever be worth letting Republicans control the White House and Congress for the first two years. Think of Supreme Court appointments as an example.

I can only imagine how much progress made in the last 20 years (including bits and pieces from Bush) would be reversed back out or compromised with a Republican president and Congress. It would be swift and brutal.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I can only imagine how much progress made in the last 100 years (including bits and pieces from Bush) would be reversed back out or compromised with a Republican president and Congress. It would be swift and brutal.

There, fixed that for you.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm bummed that there are no joke candidates like Herman Cain or Michelle Bachmann running.

Ben carson?

 

[Yellowtail]

Whenever the GOP regain the White House - whether in 2016 or 2020 or 2024 or later - they'll almost certainly have control of Congress as well. The best thing Hillary can do aside from delaying the inevitable is to replace enough SCOTUS justices so that when they get back into power there'll be a Court able to prevent the worst laws and rollbacks enacted.

On the other hand, GOP control + Ginsburg dying and Kennedy and Scalia retiring to ensure a 6-3 Conservative court for a generation is too terrible to think about.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I wonder what type of judge a republican senate would even approve for President Hillary...

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I wonder what type of judge a republican senate would even approve for President Hillary...

what ever one she nominates

 

[NeoXChaos]

Whenever the GOP regain the White House - whether in 2016 or 2020 or 2024 or later - they'll almost certainly have control of Congress as well. The best thing Hillary can do aside from delaying the inevitable is to replace enough SCOTUS justices so that when they get back into power there'll be a Court able to prevent the worst laws and rollbacks enacted.

On the other hand, GOP control + Ginsburg dying and Kennedy and Scalia retiring to ensure a 6-3 Conservative court for a generation is too terrible to think about.

Most definitely. Romney won 24 states in 2012 with 21 of them averaging 10 or more points. GA, NC and AZ being the exceptions. Only 5 Democratic Senators remain from those red states. Eventually polarization is gonna take those 5 out and vice-versa with Kirk in Illinois and Collins in Maine. You will be left with an increasing 50/50 slight Republican Senate advantage due to the small state advantages they have as well as the nature of the environment in midterms.

 

[Yellowtail]

I wonder what type of judge a republican senate would even approve for President Hillary...

I don't think there'd be too much of a fight replacing RBG. If Scalia dies though...

Sri Srinivasan is the person that has been most discussed as a likely future Democratic SCOTUS nominee, and appears to be widely respected across ideological lines and opaque enough to get through confirmation hearings. But if he (or anyone) is the person who would swing the court's ideological make-up from Conservative to Liberal then all bets are off. They'd probably vote down or filibuster any pick until they win the Presidency again.

 

[Third Strike]

Or she'll continue the trend

Is there a real shot of the Dems taking the House in 2016? Seems like a lost cause.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I don't think there'd be too much of a fight replacing RBG. If Scalia dies though...

Sri Srinivasan is the person that has been most discussed as a likely future Democratic SCOTUS nominee, and appears to be widely respected across ideological lines and opaque enough to get through confirmation hearings. But if he (or anyone) is the person who would swing the court's ideological make-up from Conservative to Liberal then all bets are off. They'd probably vote down or filibuster any pick until they win the Presidency again.

If there is a Democrat in the White House when Scalia or Kennedy are no longer on the Court(Retire or Die), and a Republican Senate is in charge there will be a blood bath.

I could see a scenario where Hillary wins with a Democratic Senate, Ginsburg & Bryer retire(or pressured to), 2018 goes bad and it flips back to Republicans & Scalia or Kennedy dies unexpectedly or retire.

I cant see the bolded happening. Bush 41 got Thomas through with a Democratic Senate.

 

[HylianTom]

I don't think there'd be too much of a fight replacing RBG. If Scalia dies though...

Sri Srinivasan is the person that has been most discussed as a likely future Democratic SCOTUS nominee, and appears to be widely respected across ideological lines and opaque enough to get through confirmation hearings. But if he (or anyone) is the person who would swing the court's ideological make-up from Conservative to Liberal then all bets are off. They'd probably vote down or filibuster any pick until they win the Presidency again.

When you say filibuster, do you mean "fakey, 'I'm-gonna-put-a-hold' filibuster" - or actual, physical, maintain-the-floor filibuster?

After a certain timespan of fakey filibuster, I could see some of them being forced to maintain a physical filibuster on the floor. But I wonder how long it would be before the public would get tired of it, especially if there's a clear majority in favor of confirmation.