Print

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

[Frumple]

For what it's worth (not all that much, tbh), the FBI didn't really do that, exactly. The folks they gave the information to did, but the letter itself that sparked that latest round of nonsense was pretty empty, all told. Almost certainly shouldn't have been sent anyway, but they don't deserve all the blame on that front. Just a fair chunk.

... some of the stuff after, now, well. There's a reason people are talking about hatch law violations.

[Max™]

The fact that the FBI doesn't have a responsibility, history, or good reason to inform the public of the status of an investigation is reason to question what the hell is going through Comey's head.

[Frumple]

The fact that the FBI doesn't have a responsibility, history, or good reason to inform the public of the status of an investigation is reason to question what the hell is going through Comey's head.

I mean, again, at least if we're talking the thing about the abedin stuff, they didn't, at least initially (can't recall about after), if my memory's not completely fritzing on me. The letter was sent to a (most/all) republican committee in congress. Said republicans promptly screeched to the world about it and used it as an excuse to invent bullshit from whole cloth that the letter didn't even say to continue tarring clinton.

And eh, the investigation disclosure's not entirely tradition, isp. Hatch law is a thing.

[Max™]

I mean the initial one about not going forward with charges, that ain't what the FBI usually does, is required to do, or needs to do.

First time Comey did it was strange, second time when he sent out the letter could just be a coincidence, but isn't a third time enemy action?

[Reelya]

Exciting stuff, T-2 and counting down. Apparently there is global market instability when Trump is polling higher. It would be funny if the global financial system collapsed purely because Trump is elected.

FFS I just saw that it's possible based on polls that both candidates get 269 votes and it is disputed then goes to the Senate. Now, who exactly though of this system? Basically you just make sure there's an odd number of delegates.

Can you imagine what Trump would actually do if it was 269-269 and then the Senate called it for Clinton? Not pretty stuff.

[Egan_BW]

Can you imagine what Trump would actually do if it was 269-269 and then the Senate called it for Clinton? Not pretty stuff.

Grumble slightly, be promptly forgotten by everybody, just like every other presidential candidate who didn't get in.

[martinuzz]

Can you imagine what Trump would actually do if it was 269-269 and then the Senate called it for Clinton? Not pretty stuff.

Grumble slightly, be promptly forgotten by everybody, just like every other presidential candidate who didn't get in.

Indeed just like that other dude, what was hs name.. Ali Gorashi or something like that.

[Egan_BW]

Obviously it was Mid Goromeny

^ best possible humor from me at 3:30

[Reelya]

I thought it was Jim McClaine.

[Frumple]

If it goes to congress, house choose president, senate chooses VP. Can't quite remember what happens if they can't agree on someone, though.

That said, seriously, the early voting data we have so far is looking bloody horrible not just for trump, but for republicans period. "The house flipping isn't as much of a long shot" horrible. Someone is going to have to have seriously screwed the pooch polling and prediction wise for this to end up a tie, at this point.

[Harry Baldman]

If it goes to congress, house choose president, senate chooses VP. Can't quite remember what happens if they can't agree on someone, though.

That said, seriously, the early voting data we have so far is looking bloody horrible not just for trump, but for republicans period. "The house flipping isn't as much of a long shot" horrible. Someone is going to have to have seriously screwed the pooch polling and prediction wise for this to end up a tie, at this point.

Might be that Democrats are turning out in force because of the repeated statements and compelling evidence that people are definitely going to try and intimidate them on Election Day, and Republican turnout is going to be relatively yuge on the big day due to not having the same fears (though it's not inconceivable that the voter intimidators in question are incompetent enough to intimidate both sides by accident or on purpose).

[Frumple]

If it was just the democrat numbers that were indicative, you'd have more of a point, heh. It's not, though -- the relative party turnouts are (in general) big compared to last election, but so is the NPA/third party turnout and the racial demographics involved overall. Even more so considering the defection rate polling has been picking up among republicans, basically none of it is looking good for the GOP. If the relative general turnout stays steady with 2012, or even leans harder republican, the outlook for trump is "fucked". And for all a good chunk of the media is trying to horse race this, that outlook was pretty damn bad even beforehand.

[martinuzz]

The guy that supposedly had a gun turned out to be a Republican with an anti-Trump sign. The crowd tried to grab his sign, dragged him to the ground, grabbed his balls, kicked him, punched him and screamed he had a gun.
The guy, Austin Crites, says that he has been a Republican supporter for years, and still is, but that he just detests Trump, who, according to him, is a 'textbook version of a fascist and a dictator'

I hope they arrest the people that did that to him, and incited the panic. People could have been trampled to death.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/live-trump-vs-clinton-anti-trump-bordje-leidde-tot-hysterisch-tafereel-geen-wapen-gevonden~a4405985/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/06/trump-protester-i-was-beaten-for-holding-a-republicans-against-trump-sign

(tv interview with the guy at the guardian link)
He's very spot on when he points out how a demagogue like Trump can turn good people into animals.

[Sergarr]

So, is anyone worried about just how fast the public's opinion on FBI has changed from "impartial defenders of justice, despite their personal opinions" to "Trumpland, to the point where them trying to coup the government or "accidentally" forget to prevent one would not be unexpected", in just a few days, and all based on their appointed-by-Obama director being an asshat with a couple questionable information releases, Twitter chatter, and a few news pieces with anonymous sources?

I mean, sure the standards of evidence would be obviously different either way, and sure, FBI has not done some very good things, but this is ridiculous, we're talking about probably the most iconic core law enforcement agency of USA, how could people have so little trust in it?

[smjjames]

So, is anyone worried about just how fast the public's opinion on FBI has changed from "impartial defenders of justice, despite their personal opinions" to "Trumpland, to the point where them trying to coup the government or "accidentally" forget to prevent one would not be unexpected", in just a few days, and all based on their appointed-by-Obama director being an asshat with a couple questionable information releases, Twitter chatter, and a few news pieces with anonymous sources?

I mean, sure the standards of evidence would be obviously different either way, and sure, FBI has not done some very good things, but this is ridiculous, we're talking about probably the most iconic core law enforcement agency of USA, how could people have so little trust in it?

Given that anger at the establishment and at congress not doing it's job is so high, it's not exactly surprising. I can see how it might be surprising from an outside view looking in though.

I agree it's ridiculous, ridiculous that they let partianship get in the way of their job and ridiculous that we are in the current state that we are in.