|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 6, 2016 20:25:18 GMT
On those emails:
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 6, 2016 21:05:22 GMT
Wow, we were told that it would take weeks or months for them to go through everything, they certainly have taken that long before to review that kind of volume of evidence. Now they get everything done in superfast time and finished 2 days before the election. what an amazing co-incidence! We were told no such thing and we have no idea how much evidence there was. |
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,961 
|
Post by mondialito on Nov 6, 2016 21:12:46 GMT
On the subject of antisemitism a lot of the stuff that is out there isn't overtly antisemitic but simply contains dog whistles. Most of the time when somebody complains about "international bankers" what they really mean is "the Jews" or to be a bit more generous they are using the term knowing that others will interpret it that way. To be fair to Trump he probably doesn't even realise that he using antisemitic dog whistles, he is likely just using words and phrases that Steve Bannon is telling him play well with his supporters. I've now just seen Trump's new advert on telly. The local dogs are howling- it's so incredibly unsubtle. Trump does Drumont. For those who haven't seen it. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Nov 6, 2016 21:17:33 GMT
Wow, we were told that it would take weeks or months for them to go through everything, they certainly have taken that long before to review that kind of volume of evidence. Now they get everything done in superfast time and finished 2 days before the election. what an amazing co-incidence! We were told no such thing and we have no idea how much evidence there was. Maybe there were hardly any e-mails from Clinton in the cache, and those were rapidly found to be innocent. In which case Comey looks to be deep in the shit for having massively overstated the significance, and having done sort the most damaging time he could. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Nov 6, 2016 22:09:23 GMT
Maybe there were hardly any e-mails from Clinton in the cache, and those were rapidly found to be innocent. Maybe. Do you think people will believe that that's the reasons the investigation was finished so quickly, two days before election day. Probably the same proportion who believe it was a coincidence it started eight days before election day..... But not necessarily the same people. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,036
|
Post by Sibboleth on Nov 6, 2016 22:13:15 GMT
On the subject of antisemitism a lot of the stuff that is out there isn't overtly antisemitic but simply contains dog whistles. Most of the time when somebody complains about "international bankers" what they really mean is "the Jews" or to be a bit more generous they are using the term knowing that others will interpret it that way. To be fair to Trump he probably doesn't even realise that he using antisemitic dog whistles, he is likely just using words and phrases that Steve Bannon is telling him play well with his supporters. Like it's notable that attacks from certain directions on the financial services sector are directly pretty much exclusively at Goldman Sachs... |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Nov 6, 2016 22:18:20 GMT
Maybe there were hardly any e-mails from Clinton in the cache, and those were rapidly found to be innocent. Maybe. Do you think people will believe that that's the reasons the investigation was finished so quickly, two days before election day. It very much depends on which people you are considering. Anyone who attends a Trump rally will take the line you suggest, registered Democrats will with some relief take my suggestion. I suspect Republicans who have been desperate to find a reason not to vote Clinton will at least think to themselves "there's no smoke without a fire." Not sure about the swing voters but I suspect they are probably will break more for Clinton on this. My guess would be that Hillary has lost a mast but her hull is still intact, whereas Trump is listing badly from the pussygate broadside. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 6, 2016 22:26:07 GMT
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 7, 2016 0:31:37 GMT
Someone in the Los Angeles area seems to have been inspired by the 'Spirit Cooking' story to some homemade posters What can I say, you have finally convinced me. Trump is obviously going to win California. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Nov 7, 2016 0:36:59 GMT
Someone in the Los Angeles area seems to have been inspired by the 'Spirit Cooking' story to some homemade posters  Does look a bit like Bette Davis, I have to admit. The building in the background is the First African Methodist Episcopal Church btw. |
|
|
|
Post by mrhell on Nov 7, 2016 1:38:26 GMT
That should help the Democrat vote. Not that it makes much difference there with the Presidential vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 7, 2016 10:16:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mrhell on Nov 7, 2016 13:26:14 GMT
The 5% for "others" being a rather obvious red flag never mind Stein's limited chances of reaching the 5% quoted for herself. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,796
|
Post by john07 on Nov 7, 2016 17:23:14 GMT
Someone in the Los Angeles area seems to have been inspired by the 'Spirit Cooking' story to some homemade posters Does look a bit like Bette Davis, I have to admit. The building in the background is the First African Methodist Episcopal Church btw. That poster has a touch of the 'demon eyes' used by the Tories back in the day. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 7, 2016 18:11:19 GMT
I hope we'll see James O'Keefe bravely investigate any voter suppression tactics. I mean, we wouldn't people thinking he wasn't an honest broker when it came to people being accused of electoral fraud.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2016 20:24:17 GMT
Some of us do have quite a bit of knowledge due to being, er, well, a bit obsessive about this election  Well we will compare your projections to the end result. Do you have doubts about Clinton and her holding of office? I fully understand your desire to beat trump of course. I've moved my response to this thread as others quite rightly pointed out it was a bit of a diversion from the Prediction thread. So, doubts about Clinton? No and yes. It might seem that I should have been backing Bernie Sanders in the primaries, but although I like him a lot as a Senator and a voice for the left in American politics, I had major doubts about his ability to lead a team as President, or to enthuse enough voters to actually reach the presidency -Bernie has been successful as an individual, and an outsider, rather than as a team player. Hillary has a very progressive record as a senator, and was very much on the liberal wing by DW_Nominate scores. That surprises many, as there is very much a perception that she is a centrist, but she had a very solid record across a lot of progressive issues - well to the left of Obama. I like this a lot in a potential president. Secondly, I am confident she'll get things done as President, she managed to get a lot done as a Senator, which is something that comes up again and again in her track record. She does deals with people (which some don't like) but one common thread is how often she's persuaded someone that she's giving them the best end of the deal, and then she's ended up walking away with exactly what she wanted, while the other side have found out she's given them nothing significant. This could be a really useful tool for dealing with an obstructive congress - I think if she has to deal with Paul Ryan and a narrow Republican House majority, she'll run rings around them. Thirdly, she is amazingly good on detail and complexity - her testimony when she was questioned by the House committee on Benghazi was amazing in her superior grasp of everything, her ability to deal with questions with tact and diplomacy while destroying their arguments, and her stamina in maintaining that level over a very long period. This corresponds with what has been said about her time as SoS, when her aides learned to fear her ability to know more than them about virtually every topic. We've seen at first hand with Cameron what happens when you have a leader who is content to skate over the surface of information, leaving the detail to others. I know which I prefer! Fourthly, she's dealt with decades of frankly appalling misogyny and propaganda from the right and come out unscathed and just as determined to make a difference. I know you're worried about her as hawkish on international affairs. She's certainly interventionist, but then so am I - internationalism can't just be passive, we need to actively engage in situations. My worry, such as it is, is that I think she might have the general American trait of not understanding the need to plan for outcomes of those interventions (again, Cameron shows it's not just an American problem) - I'm very happy to support intervention if there's a proper plan both for our exit, and for leaving things better and more stable than when we started. My other slight concern is that where she is not fully engaged with an issue (e.g. TPP and TTIP), she is often happy to go with the advice she receives rather than measure it critically. Everyone has their hobby horses, and there are probably some issues I'd consider paramount that she would dismiss. But, and it's quite a big but, while some see her changing her mind on things like TPP as showing her as lacking in firm principle, I think it shows that when presented with evidence she is willing to admit her mistakes. I think that we could end up viewing HRC as very similar to LBJ: not hugely popular, with a reputation as a tough and unforgiving negotiator, but who gets her (his) way on most of the manifesto. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,056
|
Post by jamie on Nov 7, 2016 20:53:53 GMT
Quoted to like again, welcome to the club of 2 interventionist Green Party members |
|
|
|
Post by dizz on Nov 7, 2016 21:12:16 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2016 23:01:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Nov 7, 2016 23:55:53 GMT
I think that we could end up viewing HRC as very similar to LBJ: not hugely popular, with a reputation as a tough and unforgiving negotiator, but who gets her (his) way on most of the manifesto. LBJ had quite comfortable congressional majorities all throughout his term & a bit as president (even if the Southern wing could be a bit badly behaved at times), I can almost guarantee that Clinton won't enjoy that luxury. Also, whilst LBJ and Clinton both served in the Senate, LBJ managed to become the Democratic floor leader during his time there, and probably had a deeper, finer, and more nuanced understanding of Senate proceedure than Clinton likely has. That, and there was less acrimony between the Democrats and the Republicans at the time (I don't think the real nastiness truly started until the debacle over the Bork nomination). None of this is to say that Clinton is ineffective or anything like that, but Johnson certainly had a much better board to play with than Clinton likely will*. * And if anything, should Clinton managed to accomplish half of what LBJ did, under less favourable circumstances, it could perhaps be said that she's even more effective. She still needs to get elected first, mind you.[/sub[ |
|
