The Wall

[J842P]

Essentially, what could have been a valid criticism of the Obama administration's response to the storming of an American embassy in Libya and the subsequent lynching of an American diplomat turned into the Republicans trying to paint Hillary as callously watching with glee as American foreign service members were killed, witholding any aid because she is Killary, and she hates America. It was a clear politically motivated attack aimed at undermining her then future candidacy. After 10 or so investigations spanning several years, culminating in an 11 hour testimony by Clinton to Congress, they failed to find any wrongdoing.

These are the people screaming "witch hunt" right now. And look, I am no fan of Hillary Clinton, particularly her tenure as Secretary of State, but her handling of all this only made me respect her competency.

I thought Clinton secured the White House post the all-day testimony. She handled clearly, cleanly, and without any noticeable effort. It was one of those, 'yup, she has the maturity and political savvy to be President'. Instead we have a whining shit bag who lost the popular vote by millions on Twitter complaining about how unfair life is as President, promising to veto Congress smacking him back for trying to seize their power of the purse.

Yes, because identifying people's grievances is more important than seeming competent.

The problem with Clinton is that she is part of a caste that fundamentally thinks the system works. The one commonality between the current crop of popular politicians is that they say the system *doesn't* work, their differences are their prescriptions and diagnoses of these problems.

To people like Clinton (not to single her out, I don't think she is the only one or the worst example of this), problems are minor imperfections that need to be dealt in ways that involve the same technocrats who got us into the mess in the first place. This isn't just Clinton, this is sort of the belt-way in general. However, they system has systematically screwed people at the expense of the already powerful and the people know this. The people know that for the last 30 years, they have been getting fucked. They are angry at the elites because the elites have been largely shielded from this.

I grew up in The Beltway (well, just outside of it, in Northern Virginia). People there shook off 2008 like a minor inconvenience, they maybe lost some money on one of their investment properties. The majority of the country did not. Their solution was to bail out the financial system (which was necessary, but should have involved a major overhaul and Frank-Dodd is not even close to enough) and then to basically keep giving the financial system more money in the form of quantitative easing. This is absurd and it seems like a recipe for the guillotines (again, something these people are completely unaware of, but I think Trump has spooked them). This is what people should be really pissed about, not the "bailout" per se. This is because Washington is fundamentally incapable of thinking up solutions to problems that doesn't end with making the already well-to-do better off.

I understand the need for stimulus, but I still haven't gotten a (good) answer as to why you can't just give all tax-payers a check instead of giving the banks a check (sorry, sorry, by buying bonds at a predetermined quantity to directly inject cash into the "economy", and by "the economy" we mean the balance sheets of large financial institutions).

In any case, she is very clearly an incompetent politician, and quite frankly, that is a good thing in my book, but it is sort of a prerequisite for the job she wanted.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So... 12 Republicans voted with the Democrats to oppose Trump's Emergency Declaration.

Trump responded with a one word tweet, "VETO!" Yeah, all capped it.

This puts America in a weird place. Congress just smacked Trump on the ass, but Trump is going to use the Veto to ignore the ass smacking. It seems doubtful the GOP is willing to undo the Veto. So a majority of Congress views Trump's action was unauthorized by the Constitution, but not a Veto proof majority.

 

[crazyfingers]

It seems to me that when this makes it to court, if the court allows a trump veto to stand it would mean that Trump, not congress has the power of the purse and Congress would need a veto-proof majority to stop Trump from spending money on anything he wants.

That does not construe with the entire structure of balance of powers within the Constitution.

The Courts must strike down a Trump veto or the balance of powers is dead.

 

[repoman]

I thought only congress makes laws. What is going on?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The House has power to initiate fiduciary bills, not the President nor Senate. Congress has the power to make a non-binding resolution. President has the power to veto it. Court would not override a veto, but instead make a ruling on whether or not Trump's actions with the declared national emergency is constitutional. It might be acceptable if it does not overuse the military in civilian areas or for civilian purposes and if it does not tap too much into allocated funds as opposed to discretionary funds.

 

[blastula]

Neither did they vote for Killery ! I suspect those figures would look a lot different if America used the Australian system of compulsory voting. I must admit though that I'm surprised Killery attracted 26% of the vote. What is it about Americans and their death wish?

Clinton would have won easily if everyone voted. That's why Republicans try to suppress turnout.

 

[angelo]

What do you think “Ben Gozzy” was in reference to?

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016...s-sue-clinton-negligence-160809100601692.html


https://www.npr.org/2016/06/12/4817...ide-from-whitewater-to-the-clinton-foundation

 

[angelo]

Neither did they vote for Killery ! I suspect those figures would look a lot different if America used the Australian system of compulsory voting. I must admit though that I'm surprised Killery attracted 26% of the vote. What is it about Americans and their death wish?

Clinton would have won easily if everyone voted. That's why Republicans try to suppress turnout.

That can never be known with any certainty because just 40% of possible voters cast their votes. Nevertheless, even 40% is still a sizable poll, and the way the college vote went, it may be the same result.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Neither did they vote for Killery ! I suspect those figures would look a lot different if America used the Australian system of compulsory voting. I must admit though that I'm surprised Killery attracted 26% of the vote. What is it about Americans and their death wish?

Clinton would have won easily if everyone voted. That's why Republicans try to suppress turnout.

That can never be known with any certainty because just 40% of possible voters cast their votes. Nevertheless, even 40% is still a sizable poll, and the way the college vote went, it may be the same result.

It can be because when Democrats suggest making Election Day a Federal Holiday, the GOP cried it was a "power grab".

 

[Ford]

That can never be known with any certainty because just 40% of possible voters cast their votes. Nevertheless, even 40% is still a sizable poll, and the way the college vote went, it may be the same result.

It can be because when Democrats suggest making Election Day a Federal Holiday, the GOP cried it was a "power grab".

Can you imagine how much voter fraud there would be if we just let everyone have the day off to vote? What we really need to do in order to make sure the "right people" vote, is making voting as difficult as cancelling a gym membership. Can't be too careful...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That can never be known with any certainty because just 40% of possible voters cast their votes. Nevertheless, even 40% is still a sizable poll, and the way the college vote went, it may be the same result.

It can be because when Democrats suggest making Election Day a Federal Holiday, the GOP cried it was a "power grab".

Can you imagine how much voter fraud there would be if we just let everyone have the day off to vote? What we really need to do in order to make sure the "right people" vote, is making voting as difficult as cancelling a gym membership. Can't be too careful...

Things really need to go back to those august days of Old Virginia when only white men of wealth could vote so long as you belonged to the proper religious country club.

It's such a shame we've lost our way.

 

[Elixir]

Can you imagine how much voter fraud there would be if we just let everyone have the day off to vote? What we really need to do in order to make sure the "right people" vote, is making voting as difficult as cancelling a gym membership. Can't be too careful...

Things really need to go back to those august days of Old Virginia when only white men of wealth could vote so long as you belonged to the proper religious country club.

It's such a shame we've lost our way.

Such an easy thing to fix, too. Just revoke all voter registrations, and issue new ones with every contribution of more than $1000 to the RNC. Problem solved!

 

[angelo]

That can never be known with any certainty because just 40% of possible voters cast their votes. Nevertheless, even 40% is still a sizable poll, and the way the college vote went, it may be the same result.

It can be because when Democrats suggest making Election Day a Federal Holiday, the GOP cried it was a "power grab".

Are you saying that Dem voters are dumb, and that they need much more time to reach a decision?

 

[Patooka]

That can never be known with any certainty because just 40% of possible voters cast their votes. Nevertheless, even 40% is still a sizable poll, and the way the college vote went, it may be the same result.

It can be because when Democrats suggest making Election Day a Federal Holiday, the GOP cried it was a "power grab".

Are you saying that Dem voters are dumb, and that they need much more time to reach a decision?

Make voting on a Tuesday, genius, and see how many Australians still think compulsory voting is a good thing.

 

[angelo]

Are you saying that Dem voters are dumb, and that they need much more time to reach a decision?

Make voting on a Tuesday, genius, and see how many Australians still think compulsory voting is a good thing.

I'd bet there would still be at least a 80% turnout no matter what day it was held.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That can never be known with any certainty because just 40% of possible voters cast their votes. Nevertheless, even 40% is still a sizable poll, and the way the college vote went, it may be the same result.

It can be because when Democrats suggest making Election Day a Federal Holiday, the GOP cried it was a "power grab".

Are you saying that Dem voters are dumb, and that they need much more time to reach a decision?

You can feel free to respond to what I said at any time. I would however freshen up on understanding the concept known as pronouns first.

 

[Gun Nut]

Are you saying that Dem voters are dumb, and that they need much more time to reach a decision?

Make voting on a Tuesday, genius, and see how many Australians still think compulsory voting is a good thing.

I'd bet there would still be at least a 80% turnout no matter what day it was held.

Not just a Tuesday... also remove any requirement for employers to compensate workers for time off to go to vote... or even provide any allowance to take unpaid time off, to drive 50 miles away from where you live.. and then see if you can get more than 30% out there.

 

[angelo]

Are you saying that Dem voters are dumb, and that they need much more time to reach a decision?

Make voting on a Tuesday, genius, and see how many Australians still think compulsory voting is a good thing.

Ever hear of absentee vote? It's widely available in Australia. But I'm having second thoughts about compulsory voting as few if any other democratic nation has it.

 

[Patooka]

Are you saying that Dem voters are dumb, and that they need much more time to reach a decision?

Make voting on a Tuesday, genius, and see how many Australians still think compulsory voting is a good thing.

Ever hear of absentee vote? It's widely available in Australia. But I'm having second thoughts about compulsory voting as few if any other democratic nation has it.

Please. Live there instead. And don't forget, you made a snide remark about the voting system in the US and how one political party there is trying to make voting more accessible to their general public. You clearly made that remark ignorant on the institutionalized voter suppression perpetuated by one political party in that country, and believe you can magically wave that away with a "well it worked at A, so it can work at B" argument. My advice; you need to stop watching Sky News.

 

[angelo]

Ever hear of absentee vote? It's widely available in Australia. But I'm having second thoughts about compulsory voting as few if any other democratic nation has it.

Please. Live there instead. And don't forget, you made a snide remark about the voting system in the US and how one political party there is trying to make voting more accessible to their general public. You clearly made that remark ignorant on the institutionalized voter suppression perpetuated by one political party in that country, and believe you can magically wave that away with a "well it worked at A, so it can work at B" argument. My advice; you need to stop watching Sky News.

My point was that there's more than one way to skin a rabbit. The present voting system has worked fine since instituted, so why change it now that someone you don't like got himself elected. In other words, would the voting system be fine had Killery won?

https://gellerreport.com/2019/03/warren-electoral-college.html/