Print

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

[Andux]

Never got a chance to watch the hearings. What's the gist of it?

There... was quite a bit of it. I'd recommend finding a transcript, personally. Wouldn't be hard to find.

Alternatively, this Reddit thread gives a pretty good bullet-point summary.

I'm especially curious about the unspecified factor in Sessions' recusal, which Comey was unable to discuss in a public hearing.

Bonus links:

• Clip the First - In which Senator King understands that reference.
• Clip the Second - In which Director Comey's dinner plans are upset.

[Gizogin]

I've been browsing the social media reactions to the Comey testimony. It's pretty much what you'd expect. What I found interesting was the set of statements accepted or rejected by those inclined to support Trump. Basically, anything that Comey said that makes himself look "bad", that had to do with Loretta Lynch or the Clinton campaign, or that could possibly be interpreted to exonerate Trump of any wrongdoing must be true. For example, he admitted to leaking classified information about confidential conversations between himself and the President (except he didn't, because those conversations and memos were one-on-one but not actually confidential or classified, especially since Trump himself spoke about their contents before the "leak" happened).

On the flipside, the contents of the memo are blatantly false, according to Trump's team and supporters. Trump's lawyer has denied Comey's allegations while maintaining that Comey leaked details about private conversations. So which is it? Did he leak sensitive information, or did he publish some governmental fanfiction? Except that some parts of the memo are actually true, since they confirm that the President was not under a counter-intelligence investigation; it's just the bad parts that are false.

[Lord Shonus]

Most people are pretty happy with their own representative, even those that are unhappy with Congress overall. After all, they get elected every two years, so they have to keep their voters happy. Senators are a somewhat different issue, as they hold office for so long that there is a good chance of "buyer's remorse" setting in, or short term animosity going away before the next election.

This is by design - the House was intended to be as close to an up-to-the-minute barometer of public will as was feasible in the 18th century, while the Senate was always intended to look at the long view instead of what often turn into brief trends. This is also part of why the position of Senator was originally an appointed one instead of elected - theoretically the governors would pick wise statesmen that could get along. That part didn't work out so well, and it was changed.


Barring something very unlikely -such as a sneaky nuclear strike or some Japanese airline pilot deciding he's mad at the US- the retention rate of Congress will probably stay within the range it has always stayed in.

(Incidentally, does anybody know if statistics on congresscritter retention rate have been analyzed by anybody?)

[Hanslanda]

In that respect, I'd say it's pretty stable. A wave election could knock out a pretty good chunk of Congress, but there's enough "safe" seats that a sizable chunk of the old guard would remain.

Okay, a 100% clean slate might be a bit greedy, but what about something like 75%, 60%, or a majority?

We aren't going to see that. I know far too many people that just, by gosh, love the durn heck of good old Donald. Despite, well. Literally every. Single. Thing. He. Does.

Our nation is broken and I strongly think it will only change through violence. I am both terribly frightened for, and disgusted with Americans right now.

[smjjames]

In that respect, I'd say it's pretty stable. A wave election could knock out a pretty good chunk of Congress, but there's enough "safe" seats that a sizable chunk of the old guard would remain.

Okay, a 100% clean slate might be a bit greedy, but what about something like 75%, 60%, or a majority?

Well.... given that Representatives are elected every two years and Senators every 6 years, but the Senators are staggered from each other, you won't have a 75% change in the Senate because you don't have that many up for election re-election at a time. But the entire House is voted on, so, a 75% change is certainly possible there, but conditions for that would be pretty rare.

[smjjames]

(Incidentally, does anybody know if statistics on congresscritter retention rate have been analyzed by anybody?)

I'm sure SOMEONE has analyzed it. I think 538 did go over that at a couple points.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Actually, different question to my previous that is tangental.  If every person currently in a elected position in the federal government was banned from running for any elected position ever again, would anything of value be lost?

We aren't going to see that. I know far too many people that just, by gosh, love the durn heck of good old Donald. Despite, well. Literally every. Single. Thing. He. Does.

Our nation is broken and I strongly think it will only change through violence. I am both terribly frightened for, and disgusted with Americans right now.

Why are you making my question about Trump?  I want to see EVERY damn long term politician elected out, Democrats or Republicans.  All positions should have term limits (not just on a single position but 'if you hold any single or combination of elected positions for more than X years total, you can't run anymore'), but like hell they're going to add them, so the only option I got is to hope for all them to not be reelected anymore.

[misko27]

Actually, different question to my previous that is tangental.  If every person currently in a elected position in the federal government was banned from running for any elected position ever again, would anything of value be lost?

• There would immediately be a magnificent burst of fundraising and politics that would consume roughly half of the legislative seats. Half would, of course, remain ignored.
• Then politics would settle back to where they were before; the chamber might be filled with people who would be better, or worse, than it was before, but nonetheless they would certainly be less experienced on the whole (while, for example, we'd have all the same old lobbyists and bureaucrats).
• It would definitely shift a lot of power over to people in the government who aren't elected.
• With the exceptions of people who were previously in government, but lost, but then ran for a seat after 535 people lost their jobs, almost everyone would be new to Congress, if not necessarily to politics. One possible result is that the chamber would be very much unlike what it was before, and much less focused on the rules of the parliamentarian, for example. What that would mean, in practice, is essentially unpredictable with any certainty.
• The next presidential race would be filled with a lot more political newcomers and Cabinet members (although ironically this would not actually stop most of the people who ran in the Republican nomination last year, such as Ben Carson or Rick Perry.
• Donald Trump might become more or less insufferable, but this is impossible to predict with any certainty.

I'm not quite sure "value" would be "lost", but I'm also not quite sure that it wouldn't be a terrible idea either. It sounds like it would be a massive experiment with completely unpredictable consequences, much like electing Trump was. On a related note, I've quite frankly had enough of experiments.

[smjjames]

@Misko: America is one eternal experiment, and you know that. lol

[misko27]

But no one ever wants to try my experiments, like "What if we listened to the fire?" and "Exactly how much of Australia could be destroyed by our current stock of nuclear weaponry?"

People only ever seem to want "Change" in some vague and abstract sense which just empowers the person who most seems like they promise that. And they get that! Too bad not all change is progress.

[Neonivek]

Wait are there seriously Anti-Comey attack ads?

That is incredulous!

[Draignean]

That is incredulous!

That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Neonivek]

That is incredulous!

That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Fine it is Incredible! Unbelievable...

Wait.... no Incredulous still works.

[Draignean]

That is incredulous!

That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Fine it is Incredible! Unbelievable...

Wait.... no Incredulous still works.

No, no it doesn't.

"That is incredulous!" implies that the event is incredulous. Which, being that it is not sapient, is not physically possible.

Seriously, Neon, you were that close to making a correction and not attempting to mutilate English. Incredible and Unbelievable are both really good picks for words to use in that exclamation, incredulous is not.

[Neonivek]

Can incredulous mean ‘incredible’?

incredulous as incredible was revived in the 20th century after a couple of centuries of disuse. Although it is a sense with good literary precedent—among others Shakespeare used it—many people think it is a result of confusion with incredible, which is still the usual word in this sense.

Oxford is dictating language in this case my dear Draignean.

That and your definition isn't correct even if we ignore this. Incredulous can also refer to an action or mannerism that implies disbelief.