US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

[Jimmy Higgins]

I was of the opinion that not impeaching W was a strategic maneuver to not rock the boat, which could lead to winning majorities in Congress, as was done in 2006.

In 2006, when the Democrats got control of the legislature, is when impeachment became possible. "We can't impeach him once we win a majority, because otherwise we won't win the majority." Brilliant. We're now in "pre-crime" territory here.

I remember when Speaker Pelosi announced that impeachment was off the table in 2007. Was she worried that if she left it on the table, people in 2006 would change how the voted? Was she reassuring voters a year earlier?

No, they were worried about losing in '08.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Ah, so now we're in a new territory of cowardice. "If we do the right thing we might get punished for it." No wonder Pelosi continued to fund Bush's wars as well.

Either that or "you don't impeach me, I don't impeach you."

 

[Nice Squirrel]

In 2006, when the Democrats got control of the legislature, is when impeachment became possible. "We can't impeach him once we win a majority, because otherwise we won't win the majority." Brilliant. We're now in "pre-crime" territory here.

I remember when Speaker Pelosi announced that impeachment was off the table in 2007. Was she worried that if she left it on the table, people in 2006 would change how the voted? Was she reassuring voters a year earlier?

No, they were worried about losing in '08.

And the Cheney administration.

 

[laughing dog]

And put to lie by the impeachment of Nixon.

Nixon was not impeached. He resigned before any impeachment.

 

[Ford]

I was of the opinion that not impeaching W was a strategic maneuver to not rock the boat, which could lead to winning majorities in Congress, as was done in 2006.

In 2006, when the Democrats got control of the legislature, is when impeachment became possible. "We can't impeach him once we win a majority, because otherwise we won't win the majority." Brilliant. We're now in "pre-crime" territory here.

I remember when Speaker Pelosi announced that impeachment was off the table in 2007. Was she worried that if she left it on the table, people in 2006 would change how the voted? Was she reassuring voters a year earlier?

I believe I may have caused a short circuit in your thinking by using the phrase "subvert an election." On reflection, a better term would be "overturn an election."

The first Clinton impeachment was, IMO, clearly an attempt by the Republican-controlled Congress to remove a President from office. Not because he'd done something that reached the level where he was a risk to the nation, but because he held the office they felt belonged to their party.

The second Clinton impeachment - a likely occurrence IMO - will be an attempt by the Republican-controlled Congress to remove her from office. Like the previous attempt, they will decide to impeach Clinton, then set about finding a reason to do so.

The Republican Party, and Congress in particular, have been investigating Bill and Hillary for a generation now. Not because they're trying to serve justice, but because they don't want them in power. They couldn't impeach Obama because (as far as politicians go) he's squeaky clean. Clinton? Not so much. If she wins, it is a safe bet the Committee to Continually Investigate Clinton will convene within minutes after the new Congressional class is sworn in, and the goal of that outfit will be to find something - anything - that they can use to initiate impeachment.

 

[Elixir]

In 2006, when the Democrats got control of the legislature, is when impeachment became possible. "We can't impeach him once we win a majority, because otherwise we won't win the majority." Brilliant. We're now in "pre-crime" territory here.

I remember when Speaker Pelosi announced that impeachment was off the table in 2007. Was she worried that if she left it on the table, people in 2006 would change how the voted? Was she reassuring voters a year earlier?

I believe I may have caused a short circuit in your thinking by using the phrase "subvert an election." On reflection, a better term would be "overturn an election."

The first Clinton impeachment was, IMO, clearly an attempt by the Republican-controlled Congress to remove a President from office. Not because he'd done something that reached the level where he was a risk to the nation, but because he held the office they felt belonged to their party.

The second Clinton impeachment - a likely occurrence IMO - will be an attempt by the Republican-controlled Congress to remove her from office. Like the previous attempt, they will decide to impeach Clinton, then set about finding a reason to do so.

The Republican Party, and Congress in particular, have been investigating Bill and Hillary for a generation now. Not because they're trying to serve justice, but because they don't want them in power. They couldn't impeach Obama because (as far as politicians go) he's squeaky clean. Clinton? Not so much. If she wins, it is a safe bet the Committee to Continually Investigate Clinton will convene within minutes after the new Congressional class is sworn in, and the goal of that outfit will be to find something - anything - that they can use to initiate impeachment.

Does the CCIC really need anything to initiate impeachment proceedings? I thought it was put to a vote - if enough congresscritters want to impeach, then impeachment it is.

 

[funinspace]

As Nevada goes....

The article suggests the disparity could be with difficulties in gauging the Hispanic vote, but the pattern of which party has the turn out in Nevada is showing data significantly stronger than polling data. And with data that suggests Hispanic turnout this year is higher than the norm, Trump could be loosing harder than the polls hint at...
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-suggests-clinton-might-beat-her-polls-there/

Indeed, the pattern in early voting looks pretty much the same as in 20121. After one week of early voting in 2012, Democrats made up 45 percent of early voters and Republicans made up 37 percent. Those numbers held through the second week of early voting and into the general election. Democrats had a 7-point edge after early voting that year and a 6-point edge after all the votes were counted. The fact that the registration numbers didn’t change very much after early voting shouldn’t be surprising, because absentee and early voters made up about 70 percent of all ballots cast.

The similarity to 2012 in the early numbers in Nevada is good news for Clinton. Obama won the state by 7 points (or about the Democratic edge in the registration of those who voted). Some polls have given Clinton the same-size lead in the past month, but the current FiveThirtyEight polls-only forecast puts her advantage at between 1 and 2 percentage points in Nevada. If Trump were to lose Nevada, the polls-only model gives him just a 9 percent chance of winning the election. It’s a near must-win for him, as most swing states are.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In 2006, when the Democrats got control of the legislature, is when impeachment became possible. "We can't impeach him once we win a majority, because otherwise we won't win the majority." Brilliant. We're now in "pre-crime" territory here.

I remember when Speaker Pelosi announced that impeachment was off the table in 2007. Was she worried that if she left it on the table, people in 2006 would change how the voted? Was she reassuring voters a year earlier?

I believe I may have caused a short circuit in your thinking by using the phrase "subvert an election." On reflection, a better term would be "overturn an election."

The first Clinton impeachment was, IMO, clearly an attempt by the Republican-controlled Congress to remove a President from office. Not because he'd done something that reached the level where he was a risk to the nation, but because he held the office they felt belonged to their party.

The second Clinton impeachment - a likely occurrence IMO - will be an attempt by the Republican-controlled Congress to remove her from office. Like the previous attempt, they will decide to impeach Clinton, then set about finding a reason to do so.

The Republican Party, and Congress in particular, have been investigating Bill and Hillary for a generation now. Not because they're trying to serve justice, but because they don't want them in power. They couldn't impeach Obama because (as far as politicians go) he's squeaky clean. Clinton? Not so much. If she wins, it is a safe bet the Committee to Continually Investigate Clinton will convene within minutes after the new Congressional class is sworn in, and the goal of that outfit will be to find something - anything - that they can use to initiate impeachment.

Very great points. The impeachment against Clinton was political. An impeachment of W would have been about lies that led to the deaths and maiming of 10,000 US Soldiers, the deaths of 100,000+ Iraqi civilians, and the displacement of over 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians.

 

[James Brown]

Very great points. The impeachment against Clinton was political. An impeachment of W would have been about lies that led to the deaths and maiming of 10,000 US Soldiers, the deaths of 100,000+ Iraqi civilians, and the displacement of over 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians.

I remember someone saying during the mid-2000's:

"Will someone please give this man a blow job so that we can impeach him!"

 

[lpetrich]

In addition to authoritarianism, Hostility to Women a Key Predictor of Trump Supporters by Ed Brayton, noting How sexism drives support for Donald Trump - The Washington Post in turn noting Trump Supporters Are Peddling Disgustingly Sexist Anti-Hillary Clinton Swag | Huffington Post

There could well be a connection, however, and also a connection to the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman. Misogynistic comments directed at her date back to her husband's presidency.

I remember someone who joked about "Hillary Fried Chicken: two left wings, two fat thighs, and $3.99 plus tax plus tax plus tax." (not sure about the order of the first two items). Variants of it add two small breasts.

Also a bumper sticker "Impeach Clinton -- and her husband!"

Now we see buttons saying "Life's a bitch -- don't vote for one." Also T-shirts saying "Hillary sucks -- but not like Monica." with pictures of both women. Also bumper stickers saying "Trump that bitch." with pictures of both candidates.

 

[lpetrich]

From How sexism drives support for Donald Trump - The Washington Post

In June 2016, we conducted a nationally representative survey of 700 U.S. citizens. They were asked whether they agreed with statements such as “Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist” and “Many women are actually seeking special favors, such as hiring policies that favor them over men, under the guise of asking for equality.” An index based on these statements is widely used in social science research on sexism and gender attitudes.

We found that sexism was strongly and significantly correlated with support for Trump, even after accounting for party identification, ideology, authoritarianism and ethnocentrism. In fact, the impact of sexism was equivalent to the impact of ethnocentrism and much larger than the impact of authoritarianism. Again, this was in June — well before the “Access Hollywood” tape was released and several women came forward to accuse Trump of unwanted touching or kissing.

But by then, it was evident that he would be running against a woman, a woman from the "wrong" party, a woman who was very unlike Phyllis Schlafly.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Very great points. The impeachment against Clinton was political. An impeachment of W would have been about lies that led to the deaths and maiming of 10,000 US Soldiers, the deaths of 100,000+ Iraqi civilians, and the displacement of over 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians.

Unfortunately, the two parties both agree that killing foreigners isn't an offense, much less an impeachable one. The biggest two parties to oppose killing people for the crime of being foreign are the Green and Libertarian parties.

And since Hillary is clearly going to win I can say without fear of being accused of being a Trump supporter, that she is going to continue and expand that crime spree and if she is impeached it won't be over foreign policy.

Besides, impeaching her will violate the "you don't impeach me I don't impeach you" deal that was struck after Clinton was impeached as payback for Nixon.

 

[angelo]

In addition to authoritarianism, Hostility to Women a Key Predictor of Trump Supporters by Ed Brayton, noting How sexism drives support for Donald Trump - The Washington Post in turn noting Trump Supporters Are Peddling Disgustingly Sexist Anti-Hillary Clinton Swag | Huffington Post

There could well be a connection, however, and also a connection to the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman. Misogynistic comments directed at her date back to her husband's presidency.

I remember someone who joked about "Hillary Fried Chicken: two left wings, two fat thighs, and $3.99 plus tax plus tax plus tax." (not sure about the order of the first two items). Variants of it add two small breasts.

Also a bumper sticker "Impeach Clinton -- and her husband!"

Now we see buttons saying "Life's a bitch -- don't vote for one." Also T-shirts saying "Hillary sucks -- but not like Monica." with pictures of both women. Also bumper stickers saying "Trump that bitch." with pictures of both candidates.

Do we know Monica gave better blowjobs than Hilary? The stain on her dress meant she didn't swallow!

 

[angelo]

Very great points. The impeachment against Clinton was political. An impeachment of W would have been about lies that led to the deaths and maiming of 10,000 US Soldiers, the deaths of 100,000+ Iraqi civilians, and the displacement of over 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians.

Unfortunately, the two parties both agree that killing foreigners isn't an offense, much less an impeachable one. The biggest two parties to oppose killing people for the crime of being foreign are the Green and Libertarian parties.

And since Hillary is clearly going to win I can say without fear of being accused of being a Trump supporter, that she is going to continue and expand that crime spree and if she is impeached it won't be over foreign policy.

Besides, impeaching her will violate the "you don't impeach me I don't impeach you" deal that was struck after Clinton was impeached as payback for Nixon.

What if it's found she placed the nation at risk during her term of Secretary Of State? Isn't that a reasanable cause for impeachment ?

 

[whichphilosophy]

In addition to authoritarianism, Hostility to Women a Key Predictor of Trump Supporters by Ed Brayton, noting How sexism drives support for Donald Trump - The Washington Post in turn noting Trump Supporters Are Peddling Disgustingly Sexist Anti-Hillary Clinton Swag | Huffington Post

There could well be a connection, however, and also a connection to the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman. Misogynistic comments directed at her date back to her husband's presidency.

I remember someone who joked about "Hillary Fried Chicken: two left wings, two fat thighs, and $3.99 plus tax plus tax plus tax." (not sure about the order of the first two items). Variants of it add two small breasts.

Also a bumper sticker "Impeach Clinton -- and her husband!"

Now we see buttons saying "Life's a bitch -- don't vote for one." Also T-shirts saying "Hillary sucks -- but not like Monica." with pictures of both women. Also bumper stickers saying "Trump that bitch." with pictures of both candidates.

Do we know Monica gave better blowjobs than Hilary? The stain on her dress meant she didn't swallow!

I would think that Hilary didn't do it in the Oval office, hence this might have been the reason for BJ-gate. I think it started one day when Monica was in the office talking about Politics and Bill said, "Can you see the elephant in the room? No, Let me show you."

 

[ZiprHead]

Reminds me of the old joke. "Wanna see a one-eared elephant?" Pull pocket out of pant, unzip fly...

 

[Elixir]

What if it's found she placed the nation at risk during her term of Secretary Of State? Isn't that a reasanable cause for impeachment ?

Teh Pugs have already "found" that she's guilty of treason, murder and many more minor offenses. Unfortunately for them, they've been unable to get any reasoning people (like say, judges) to share in their paranoid hallucination.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Unfortunately, the two parties both agree that killing foreigners isn't an offense, much less an impeachable one. The biggest two parties to oppose killing people for the crime of being foreign are the Green and Libertarian parties.

And since Hillary is clearly going to win I can say without fear of being accused of being a Trump supporter, that she is going to continue and expand that crime spree and if she is impeached it won't be over foreign policy.

Besides, impeaching her will violate the "you don't impeach me I don't impeach you" deal that was struck after Clinton was impeached as payback for Nixon.

What if it's found she placed the nation at risk during her term of Secretary Of State? Isn't that a reasanable cause for impeachment ?

You mean like ignoring an imminent threat against the nation and then faking another imminent threat to go to war?

 

[whichphilosophy]

What if it's found she placed the nation at risk during her term of Secretary Of State? Isn't that a reasanable cause for impeachment ?

Teh Pugs have already "found" that she's guilty of treason, murder and many more minor offenses. Unfortunately for them, they've been unable to get any reasoning people (like say, judges) to share in their paranoid hallucination.

An ordinary employee would most likely get fired if they used their own server for state mails. This is what we mean by putting security and ultimately the nation at risk. If a company has not had any accidents but it does not follow legal guidelines on safety it can be fined or even shut down until it complies.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Teh Pugs have already "found" that she's guilty of treason, murder and many more minor offenses. Unfortunately for them, they've been unable to get any reasoning people (like say, judges) to share in their paranoid hallucination.

An ordinary employee would most likely get fired if they used their own server for state mails. This is what we mean by putting security and ultimately the nation at risk. If a company has not had any accidents but it does not follow legal guidelines on safety it can be fined or even shut down until it complies.

3000 died on 9/11. How is that for putting the nation at risk.

Leaked the identity of a NOC-List CIA agent... unknown consequences of that.

10,000 dead/maimed US soldiers.

Where the fuck was this concern 10 to 15 years ago?! Actual harm, actual measurable death tolls and economic damage.

We have a lot more evidence that Trump's campaign is coordinating with the Russians than we do that Hillary Clinton put American interests at risk over her fucking email server!