Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
My speculation is that Giuliani will get to be Trump's Attorney General, mostly since it seems likely that Chris Christie will soon face charges for his role in Bridgegate.
I put the lineup together as a thought exercise:
Secretary of State: Newt Gingrich
Secretary of Defense: Michael Flynn
Secretary of Treasury: Stephen Moore (part of Trump's "Council of Stevens" economic advisory team)
Attorney General: Rudy Giuliani
For Clinton, we've got:
Secretary of State: Jake Sullivan (key staffer on her State Department team, including laying the groundwork for the Iran deal)
Secretary of Defense: James Stavridis (retired Admiral, believed to have been on her VP shortlist)
Secretary of Treasury: Garry Gensler (her campaign CFO who used to have a position at Treasury)
Attorney General: Tom Perez (another VP shortlist candidate, an experienced legal fighter and current Secretary of Labor)
Hillary can't appoint Stavridis to Sec Def. She'd be breaking the law.
I think she'd keep Kerry and Lynch, assuming they'd still want their jobs
New Survey coming this weekend!He retired in 2013. She'd have to wait until 2020 at the earliest to appoint him without breaking Federal Law.
New Survey coming this weekend!Honestly, given how much crazy shit is going on right now, keeping Kerry is probably a good idea, the same way keeping Gates was a good idea when two wars were still being fought. It's good for continuity, at the very least.
"There is definitely a lack of prominent young Democrats. Hopefully another Obama will appear out of nowhere when the time comes."
Blame that one on purges in the House and in local governments. Also, the brand of liberalism that the Dems are about is decidedly unhip — hard to attract young people to run for office on the (D) ticket.
edited 10th Oct '16 9:31:26 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Louisiana passed a law this year that doesn't allow foreign-born citizens to get married in the state unless they present both their green card and their birth certificate
. Since quite a few immigrants (especially refugees) don't have birth certificates, this has naturally caused some problems.
This law was brought to you by Inspector Javert and the Obstructive Bureaucrat. (When Valjean was mayor, there was a plot point about him being unable to produce a birth certificate under his new name).
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.![]()
"Forget it Jake, it's Louisiana."
Edit:
On another note, this happened:
Kurt Eichenwald seems pretty pissed off by this.
edited 11th Oct '16 3:52:12 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised
Holy crap! To summarize the linked article, the Russian — I mean Wikileaks — leak of an email from Sidney Blumenthal purportedly acknowledging the responsibility of the State Department for the Benghazi attacks was actually Blumenthal quoting from an article by Kurt Eichenwald in which he reached the exact opposite conclusion.
The Russians cherry-picked from the email, altered the context, then dumped it through Wikileaks, and apparently right into the Trump campaign because he was quoting from it immediately thereafter.
edited 11th Oct '16 4:59:30 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Assange doesn't seem very trustworthy, to be sure.
It is kind of curious, though, that people who establish channels for leaking documents and people who go on to leak those documeds have to become refugees, even from Western countries. You'd sort of hope that wasn't the case. (Then again, if you didn't pursue some leaks you'd establish a precedent by which more dangerous leaks could occur with impunity.)
I wish Snowden had fled somewhere else than Russia. He's giving them credibility.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.It's almost as if leaking documents often involves acts that are illegal in and of themselves, subjecting the leakers to prosecution. It's so weird. Almost as weird is how governments like to protect their secrets. I don't get it.
Russia is playing a dangerous role here by acting as a friendly haven for U.S. whistleblowers. It's quite clever, in a way: it promises them a certain degree of sanctuary against international reprisal, then co-opts them into its propaganda machine. Who needs old-fashioned Cold War style espionage?
There's also a kind of hypocrisy on our part: we talk up the need for cyber-security but then eagerly pore over every document released by hackers, as if their victims' abrogate their rights to privacy by having data stolen from them.
edited 11th Oct '16 5:36:34 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I don't think Snowden and Wikileaks are on speaking terms now. As for picking Russia, for some reason, countries that are friendly with the United States - so, most democratic countries really - tend to have extradition treaties with them, and I agree with him that any trial he could have on US soil might not be fair.
He's not escaping a rape accusation here.
Can we leave Snowden out of being painted with the same brush as Assange for once? He is not publicly and openly aiding and abetting the Russian propaganda machine in the election cycle. And frankly if Trump won he would probably be in some actual danger of disappearing.
I won't even start the argument trying to defend him today, I just want him left out of this.

Thanks, that was one of my initial guesses, but that picture is less formal than the ones I'm familiar with.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.