The Clinton Thread: All things Hillary

[Sensualtravler]

The Hillary camp is trying to denounce the head of the FBI for releasing the latest email problem.  The director of the FBI is in a no-win situation.  If he sat on it until after the election he would come across as favoring the Clinton camp.  By releasing the emails, he is praised by Trump and vilified by Clinton.  

No matter how stupid Trump looks and acts, he is neck and neck with Hillary.  What a sorry pair of candidates we, the voters, are faced with.

A few weeks ago he was a buddy for his findings, but now she denounces him even though she doesn't know if they're favorable.  If they are favorable it would help her cause. Sounds to me she may be expecting the worst. Perhaps they found several that they failed to hide well enough?

[Katiebee]

No, not really.

The announcement is enough to cause ripples. Analysis and confirmation of good ornill effect of the emails will not come about for several weeks or even months. The effect of announcing this without analysis is the same as giving Trump preference. If he announced that they were sufficient to re-open would be one thing. Just saying "hey we found more" without any other statement is political favoritism. He made an ill-advised release at this time.

If it comes to pass that they were inconsequential, his actions will be labeled as political partisanship and he will have more worries.

[Lois]

It is thought likely that the emails on the laptop will be duplicates of what has already been reviewed. But some of the private emails that Hillary said she deleted might be there also.  I'm sure that the birth announcements and internet memes passed around might be humorous to some.

Comey is a Republican appointed to ten year stint by the Bush administration. I am concerned with the timing of the announcement of new emails, without any knowledge that new evidence might be obtained, so close to the election.  This appears partisan, especially when he has cited the election for a reason not to announce progress on internet hacks and the investigation to uncover Russian connections to the Trump campaign.

From http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/31/fbis-comey-opposed-naming-russians-citing-election-timing-source.html

FBI Director James Comey argued privately that it was too close to Election Day for the United States government to name Russia as meddling in the U.S. election and ultimately ensured that the FBI's name was not on the document that the U.S. government put out, a former FBI official tells CNBC.

The official said some government insiders are perplexed as to why Comey would have election timing concerns with the Russian disclosure but not with the Huma Abedin email discovery disclosure he made Friday.

....

According to the former official, Comey agreed with the conclusion the intelligence community came to: "A foreign power was trying to undermine the election. He believed it to be true, but was against putting it out before the election." Comey's position, this official said, was "if it is said, it shouldn't come from the FBI, which as you'll recall it did not."

[Katiebee]

He is under the jurisdiction of the Hatch Act. It could be bad for him as the outcry against his release of this information at this time, by someone no less high in the Republican leadership than Rep. Harry Reid. He bases his objection squarely within the limits of the Hatch Act, saying that this appears to be an attempt to influence the election.

[joan1984]

Danny Williams Life Matters...

[Lois]

Danny Williams is the supposed illegitimate son of Bill Clinton.  His mother was a prostitute that claims that Bill bought her services.

This was only reported on wing-nut fringe sites that had no problem ignoring the fact that DNA evidence proved this not to be true.

Once again the wing-nuts prove that no lie is too low for them to pursue in their quest to smear those they fear most:  Bill and Hillary Clinton.

[Sensualtravler]

Two socialists opinions.

[Sensualtravler]

Ties to Hillary,Huma Abedin and Saudi Arabia terrorism.



http://www.proudcons.com/anonymous-releases-bone-chilling-video-of-huma-abedin-every-american-needs-to-see/

[Katiebee]

You have no real concept of politics, sensualtraveler. Only your personal feelings.

You don't seem to understand the difference between socialism and fascism.

And to be absolutely honest, the comparison between Trump and Hitler holds together much better.

[Hoss]

Comment in National broadsheet today. ....

If Hilary is elected then Amercia wIll suffer.....if Trump is successful the whole wold wIll suffer....

Glad it is not my decision. ..

[Sensualtravler]

Hillarys dictatorial personality.

[Sensualtravler]

Possible Democrat party election fraud.


http://christiantimesnewspaper.com/breaking-hack-of-state-voter-systems-originated-from-clinton-campaign-office-in-florida/

[Sensualtravler]

Trump possibly limiting Congressional and Senate term limits


http://christiantimesnewspaper.com/breaking-trump-vows-to-implement-congressional-term-limits-if-elected/

[Sensualtravler]

Texas Governor warns Trump.

[MissBarbara]

Trump possibly limiting Congressional and Senate term limits

http://christiantimesnewspaper.com/breaking-trump-vows-to-implement-congressional-term-limits-if-elected/

Perhaps this would be better posted in the "Pet Peeves" thread, but one of my biggest annoyances during this seemingly endless campaign is the aggressive ignorance of political commentators, amateur and professional, of how the U.S. political system works. You know, "If elected Clinton will do this," or "If elected, Trump will do that." Partisans on both sides of the aisle are equally guilty, and it has continued unabated for the past 2+ years.

To the matter at hand: A U.S. president cannot "implement" congressional term limits, or any other type of term limit. Implementing congressional term limits would require  Constitutional amendment, and the first step in attempting to pass a Constitutional amendment is passage by a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate -- the two bodies whose terms the amendment would seek to limit.

[watcher1]

Perhaps this would be better posted in the "Pet Peeves" thread, but one of my biggest annoyances during this seemingly endless campaign is the aggressive ignorance of political commentators, amateur and professional, of how the U.S. political system works. You know, "If elected Clinton will do this," or "If elected, Trump will do that." Partisans on both sides of the aisle are equally guilty, and it has continued unabated for the past 2+ years.

To the matter at hand: A U.S. president cannot "implement" congressional term limits, or any other type of term limit. Implementing congressional term limits would require  Constitutional amendment, and the first step in attempting to pass a Constitutional amendment is passage by a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate -- the two bodies whose terms the amendment would seek to limit.

I agree with you, MissB, but would also add that the candidates themselves try to sway voters by telling them that if elected, they would so such and such when in reality, they would have no power to do what they promise because Congress only has that power.  With the announcers, it might be ignorance of the Constitution but with candidates, it most likely is a flat out lie.

[Lois]

I disagree that both sides of the isle are the problem.  Obstructionism has been all on the GOP.  And now the GOP is changing its tune with its "let America decide" with regards to our next Supreme Court Justice, meaning they would not take any action on confirming a nominee until after the election.  Now that it looks like Hillary will win, they promise to block anyone she nominates to the bench.

Sorry MissB, but they are not both equally to blame.  If you really believe that, I invite you to document it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html?utm_term=.f25df5be5e09

http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/the-party-of-no-new-details-on-the-gop-plot-to-obstruct-obama/

Furthermore, when asked about congress' historically low approval ratings linked to the fact they were not getting anything done was a concern, a leading Republican (I think it was Cantor) said that it was a win-win, that getting people to dislike and distrust their government was a good thing.

It is almost like the GOP is setting the US up to accept a dictatorship.

Added:  http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/3079:goodbye-to-all-that-reflections-of-a-gop-operative-who-left-the-cult

[MissBarbara]

Perhaps this would be better posted in the "Pet Peeves" thread, but one of my biggest annoyances during this seemingly endless campaign is the aggressive ignorance of political commentators, amateur and professional, of how the U.S. political system works. You know, "If elected Clinton will do this," or "If elected, Trump will do that." Partisans on both sides of the aisle are equally guilty, and it has continued unabated for the past 2+ years.

To the matter at hand: A U.S. president cannot "implement" congressional term limits, or any other type of term limit. Implementing congressional term limits would require  Constitutional amendment, and the first step in attempting to pass a Constitutional amendment is passage by a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate -- the two bodies whose terms the amendment would seek to limit.

I agree with you, MissB, but would also add that the candidates themselves try to sway voters by telling them that if elected, they would so such and such when in reality, they would have no power to do what they promise because Congress only has that power.  With the announcers, it might be ignorance of the Constitution but with candidates, it most likely is a flat out lie.

You're right, and that's a good point.

I'm not sure I'd call it a "flat out lie" (though I get your point), since candidates, for every office in the land and throughout our history, have made campaign promises to voters, regardless of whether they would be able to be implemented. For example, Bernie Sanders, whom I supported, made dozens of pie-in-the-sky promises that stood not a ghost of a chance of every being put into effect.

But, don't you think professional commentators should know better?

And the types of "predictions" I'm referring to, and that set me off, are almost always dire forecasts of what the opposing candidate will do "if elected." This board alone is filled with these types of dire warnings -- and by those on both sides of the discussion.

[MissBarbara]

I disagree that both sides of the isle are the problem.  Obstructionism has been all on the GOP.  And now the GOP is changing its tune with its "let America decide" with regards to our next Supreme Court Justice, meaning they would not take any action on confirming a nominee until after the election.  Now that it looks like Hillary will win, they promise to block anyone she nominates to the bench.

You completely missed my point. I wasn't speaking about Congressional obstructionism, but rather, ignorance on the part of political commentators, amateur and professional.

But as long as you bring it up, GOP obstructionism has been the scapegoat of the Democrats (and the Left in general) for almost 8 years, and it's far more of a crutch -- or a lame excuse -- than a reality. Keep in mind that during Obama's first term, there was a period of two years when the Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. Where's the obstructionism?

The GOP's actions to prevent Obama's SCOTUS nominee from being appointed were all perfectly legal. Like it or not (and I don't), there was nothing wrong with what they did. And, with wonderful irony, you are guilty of exactly what I was talking about, making dire (and baseless) predictions about the actions of the opposing party. Do you really believe that the GOP will resort to illegal means to block a SCOTUS nominee proposed by President Clinton if elected? "If you really believe that, I invite you to document it."

Obstructionism a two-way street, are you really asserting that the Democrats have never been guilty of congressional obstructionism? Or, more to the point, were the situation reversed, and a GOP president attempted to appoint a conservative to SCOTUS, do you really believe that the Democrats wouldn't do everything in their power to block that nomination, as they tried successfully with Bork, and unsuccessfully with Thomas? "If you really believe that, I invite you to document it."

Furthermore, when asked about congress' historically low approval ratings linked to the fact they were not getting anything done was a concern, a leading Republican (I think it was Cantor) said that it was a win-win, that getting people to dislike and distrust their government was a good thing.

It is almost like the GOP is setting the US up to accept a dictatorship.

If it was Eric Cantor you are referring to, then not only was that just one guy's opinion, but you must have missed the fact that Cantor was drummed out of office two years ago by his constituents precisely for saying things like this.

And do you really believe that "the GOP is setting the US up to accept a dictatorship?" In what ways? And do you really believe that the American people are currently in a position to welcome a dictatorship? "If you really believe that, I invite you to document it."

[Katiebee]

We are much closer to an authoritarian change than we have been in many decades. While I don't think Trump would actually usher in an authoritarian government, his concept of the executive branch seems to be based upon such a system.

Trumps damage would benin the area of foreign policy, and economic destruction of the nation. As a business man and as a political leader l, Trump has the most debilitating and massive deficiencies in understanding and skill this side of the 6th grade.