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
So, assuming Hillary wins what do you think will be the reaction of Trump's supporters?
- 1: A lot of grumbling and whining about rigging but no real action
- 2: Scattered riots
- 3: Militias engaging in terrorist action
- 4: Outright civil war
Myself I'm thinking 2 with a mild possibility of 3 later on.
Trump delenda est![]()
In fairness, that almost seems to be standard operating procedure in business - if it isn't (actively) broken, don't spend money on it. Or as Edge succinctly put it
...
- Edge: Save money by upgrading equipment? My supervisor tells me "We can't afford to save money!"
And also in a fair proportion of Government — especially if the original items weren't cheap to start with...
edited 29th Oct '16 6:28:49 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On
Yep - which, ironically, is what led to the Clinton email scandal to start with, though I'll admit I can agree to some extent. The problem with trying to stay on the bleeding edge of technology is that it costs a hell of a lot more than waiting a few years - unfortunately, that also means the system is all-but obsolete. Hell, a major problem with the VA systems is that they've got some that date back to the "supercomputers" of the '70s - at the time a sound idea that saved a lot of money, but now they're literally unable to communicate with those types of systems.
And in other news, someone in Trump's campaign openly admitted to engaging in voter suppression
, though through disillusionment rather than intimidation.
edited 29th Oct '16 6:43:48 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"![]()
![]()
![]()
I think 1 with some small incidents of 2 are most likely, in the end.
edited 29th Oct '16 7:02:54 AM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |- 1: A lot of grumbling and whining about rigging but no real action
- 2: Scattered riots
- 3: Militias engaging in terrorist action
- 4: Outright civil war
Mostly 1 with one or two 2 incidents but mostly like the Y'all Qaeda occupying somewhere not important and making an ass of themselves.
edited 29th Oct '16 7:04:14 AM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent legesLynch advised Comey against letter to Congress: report
A source in the Obama administration told the magazine that Lynch argued for following the Justice Department’s practice of not taking actions that could influence the outcome of an election.
He's done.
edited 29th Oct '16 7:47:41 AM by TacticalFox88
New Survey coming this weekend!The fact that Congress are nutty partisan hacks is neither the FBI directors fault or his responsability. He's not being partisan he's doing his job, which sadly requires him to report to a bunch of partisan nutjobs.
The reasonable response of a neutral third party, taking into account the congressional investigation, the election, the media circus inherent in both, and the FBI's position as a nonpartisan law enforcement body, would have been to complete the investigation into the emails and then report on the findings of the investigation. The chances that said report would be anything but "we found some more emails, but no new information relevant to the investigation" are miniscule, so it's it's extremely likely that the report would ultimately be of little consequence.
Instead, he announces that the investigation into Clinton's emails are being reopened, without any additional information about what's been found (other than "more emails"), how, or when the investigation will be complete. He did the thing most likely to cause an anti-Clinton uproar that he could do without actually lying to anyone.
That's not okay. There are literally laws against is. The main one being the Hatch Act
which, among other things, bans employees of the executive branch (like Comey) from using the authority of their office to influence or interfere with an election. Which is exactly what Comey has done.
@ Jovian:
Even if apparently Congress ordered him to do so?
edited 29th Oct '16 7:39:54 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On
Yes. Congress cannot order someone to break the law. And like I've already said, Comey has the authority to interpret "keep us updated" as "tell us the results of any additional investigation you do", not "tell us immediately every time you find a new piece of information, before you even look into it".
Looks like that's just a summary of a longer New Yorker article
, which is less clear on whether Comey sought advice before sending the letting and then sent it anyway, or whether the Attorney General's "he shouldn't have done it" opinion is from after the fact. But it does make clear that official policy of the Justice Department (which includes the FBI) is to both not publically comment on ongoing investigations and to not do anything that could be construed as influencing an election. Comey's certainly violated both of those policies, regardless of whether or not he did so against explicit legal advice of the Attorney General's office.
So it's always interesting to hear other people's thoughts on the election and anything really. At the barbarshop I heard more of the "it doesn't really matter between the two" but it was oddly less spiteful and cynical than usual, and even a bit optimistic.
I still disagree with that but an interesting. Well, at least until they got to "Whoever wins will start a war" and "I lost respect for Michelle Obama for pushing hard for Hilary", but what can you do.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-28/don-t-let-the-fbi-s-e-mail-surprise-swing-the-election
To sum up the article I will quote this part:
"It's fair to argue that the law is the law. As the secretary of state, Clinton should be held to a high standard, since lower level officials would be penalized for doing what Clinton did. But this argument cuts both ways."
"But there is a greater issue at stake. As a member of the press, I have an interest in less government secrecy and less scrutiny for government sources. So I acknowledge I am biased here. But it's not healthy for the republic in the long run for the FBI to investigate the mishandling of national security information wherever it finds it.
This would give the FBI director extraordinary power over the rest of the government. There was an interagency process to retroactively determine what was and what was not classified in Clinton's e-mails, and it showed that reasonable people disagree on this all the time. The problem is that the FBI has way too many secrets to protect.
So, those Republicans giddy over the thought that Clinton could end up going to jail for her private e-mail server should ask themselves how they would feel if the shoe was on the other foot. Should the FBI director have the power to influence an election through choosing to prosecute a crime Republicans and Democrats commit all the time? As the saying goes, careful what wish for, you might just get it."
edited 29th Oct '16 10:09:32 AM by chartoc
![]()
It's not hilarious to me. Because she wasn't rigging the election, she was trying to vote twice. I feel fairly certain she's not the only one trying that. It would be surprising if everyone who tried it was voting Trump. And I can't help but imagine what would happen if somebody got caught voting twice for Hillary.
edited 29th Oct '16 10:11:00 AM by Gilphon
In this situation, he wasn't actually obligated to tell people he found those e-mails. He is obligated to tell Congress the results of the investigation, but that isn't what he did. If it was any other time, he'd be in the clear, but anyone with half a brain cell would realize that the timing with this would impact the election, one way or the other, which the FBI is legally barred from doing.
Especially with how vague the wording is. It's dead easy to get a bad conclusion from the letter because he gives no details whatsoever on the e-mails themselves.
Apparently, she thought her first vote would be rigged to switch to Clinton.
Disgusted, but not surprised

Having systems that vulnerable is so not cool.
That reeks of cheapness or laziness.
Do not obey in advance.