Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Starver]

There's also "to take pride in", so let us leave it as ambiguous, eh? 

Unable to complete: requested my birthday in an Unamerican manner.

Stupid order, anyway.. 

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Apparently, Starver takes great pride in my nipples. I cannot even.

[Antioch]

I still don't get the whole Clinton email "Scandal"

Because when you actually read the story it turns out that it wasn't even illegal and several other top politicians used private mail servers for their mail as well.

[Frumple]

Welcome to Senseville, population: Less than anyone hoped.

Can't be arsed to find a decent article and the one I saw it on was one of those limited view paywall piles of crap, but we've now had a (historically black) Mississippi church burned down with "Vote Trump" scrawled across some of the remains. Let's hope once more this shit doesn't continue to escalate

[smjjames]

You forgot to look at CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/02/us/mississippi-black-church-vandalized-vote-trump/index.html

And yeah, I hope it doesn't escalate any further either. Just shows how far things are getting escalated. I don't recall any churches being burned down with something like 'vote <republican candidate>', that I know of anyway. Though the article says that it happened back in the 50's and 60's.

[Frumple]

I didn't forget, heh, I just didn't look any further than the article linked elsewhere. Have a rather astonishingly small amount of arse to give at the moment, at least for stuff that can be trivially googled. Thanks for throwing up a link, though.

[sluissa]

I still don't get the whole Clinton email "Scandal"

Because when you actually read the story it turns out that it wasn't even illegal and several other top politicians used private mail servers for their mail as well.

The problem is that she either made stupid or unethical decisions and it has the appearance of being very very shady, up to and including the destruction of evidence before investigators were able to actually look at it. But thus far very little of consequence has actually been found. It has been found that she did stuff that broke internal state department rules. And she mishandled classified materials which is on some level illegal. But thus far no malicious intent can be attached to that. And nobody is willing to prosecute anyway.

I'll be honest. I don't see that turning into an actual court case at all. But even by her own admission she made a mistake. And based on other peoples testimony she was warned multiple times by people with expertise that should have been trusted that she was making a mistake. I personally see that as a major flaw.

[Starver]

Compare and contrast with: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/31/turns-trump-put-investigators-6-months-destroyed-emails.html

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Yeah, Clinton's not perfect. (I still would have preferred Sanders.) But I think she'll do fine. She won't deal with Wall Street in the Right^TM way, but she's better by far than Drumpf. (which doesn't say much)

In fact, when I'm feeling optimistic, I think that Clinton could do very well, but that only applies if we have a Dem Congress, or she'll spend her next four years constantly headbutting with Congress.

[sluissa]

Yeah, Clinton's not perfect. (I still would have preferred Sanders.) But I think she'll do fine. She won't deal with Wall Street in the Right^TM way, but she's better by far than Drumpf. (which doesn't say much)

In fact, when I'm feeling optimistic, I think that Clinton could do very well, but that only applies if we have a Dem Congress, or she'll spend her next four years constantly headbutting with Congress.

In some optimistic scenarios that's what I'm hoping for. We could do a lot worse than nothing happening other than Clinton sitting in the oval office using up an ungodly amount of veto ink.

[smjjames]

Yeah, Clinton's not perfect. (I still would have preferred Sanders.) But I think she'll do fine. She won't deal with Wall Street in the Right^TM way, but she's better by far than Drumpf. (which doesn't say much)

In fact, when I'm feeling optimistic, I think that Clinton could do very well, but that only applies if we have a Dem Congress, or she'll spend her next four years constantly headbutting with Congress.

They've basically promised to give her hell if she becomes elected. A Dem led Senate is likely, a Dem led House isn't. Though the Republicans will certainly have a reduced majority.

They say that the investigation will continue, but even then, I don't see how they can legally impeach her for an act done BEFORE she was elected President. Since she'd have to be convicted in a court of law before being elected. The impeachment indictment would have to pass by the Senate, which won't happen with a Democrat led Senate.

[martinuzz]

So if Trump becomes president and evidence is found that he had sex with a minor (before he became president), it would legally no be possible to impeach him for that? Would it be possible to arrest him though? Can a president be jailed?

[PTTG??]

Maybe, no matter who wins, we just need to split the country. There are such firm political divides between red regions and blue that having a single unified government just doesn't make sense. The difficulty, of course, will be in resettling displaced people, but perhaps we can do home-swapping. If you're a liberal in rural Alabama (somehow,) you can switch places with a rural conservative in California.

Jesusland and Liberalia have been proposed before, but maybe the country is ready for it now?

[RedKing]

By now they surely have a stamp in place for vetoes.

With a Republican Congress, attempts by either Clinton or Congress to do *anything* are going to look like this.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

So if Trump becomes president and evidence is found that he had sex with a minor (before he became president), it would legally no be possible to impeach him for that?

It's uncertain. Technically, there's no limit on impeachment other than Congressional will. If they're actually willing to go through with it, they could do it. It'd cause a legal clusterfuck, and Trump being Trump he'd probably refuse to surrender, but it's not impossible.

The thing is that there's a certain lack of precedent here. Clinton wasn't convicted, Nixon resigned before he could be, and nobody really pays attention to the impeachments before them.

Can a president be jailed?

Legally uncertain, practically no. They're too important, and you'd also have to get the cooperation of the Secret Service. There was once an incident after, iirc, the Reagan assassination attempt, where his security detail nearly gunned down a bunch of local cops trying to bust into the hospital he was in.

So long as this country doesn't do something stupid like heavily restrict immigration.

In all honesty? I don't buy that it's possible, even if Trump were to be elected. Immigration on both sides of the law is the lifeblood of the US. The runner up in sheer numbers is Russia, and theirs is entirely different in nature to ours. Trump would hurt a lot of individuals but I doubt he, or any other person, could ever put a dent in immigration that wasn't caused by greater trends.

Maybe, no matter who wins, we just need to split the country. There are such firm political divides between red regions and blue that having a single unified government just doesn't make sense. The difficulty, of course, will be in resettling displaced people, but perhaps we can do home-swapping. If you're a liberal in rural Alabama (somehow,) you can switch places with a rural conservative in California.

Jesusland and Liberalia have been proposed before, but maybe the country is ready for it now?

I know you're not serious, but god this attitude pisses me off. The country isn't firmly divided into Enlightened Liberal Utopia and Hurr Durr Jesusland, the divides are enforced through lack of campaigning and gerrymandering. Even in the reddest and bluest parts of the country there are firm cores from the other side.