The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[The Romulan Republic]

A law professor at Harvard, Laurence Tribe, has concluded that Trump's requests to Russia to reveal Clinton emails "appear to violate the Logan Act and might even constitute treason".

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/l ... z4FjE3YPwz

For Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, not only do Donald “Trump's "jokes" about Russia amount to "inviting an adversary to wage cyberwar against the U.S.," but they also "appear to violate the Logan Act and might even constitute treason,” he tweeted Thursday.




The latest tweet from the liberal legal giant whose name has been floated as a Supreme Court pick comes after Trump and his campaign brushed aside the backlash over his remark. The Republican nominee himself telling Fox News that he was "being sarcastic."

“Imagine what our 1st president would've said about a candidate inviting a foreign power to intrude into a US election for the 45th president,” Tribe previously tweeted Wednesday, adding that he “must have been hallucinating” at hearing Trump’s calls for Russian hackers to infiltrate Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s emails.

He also wrote, "I've been saying the Russian hacking into DNC is Watergate on e-steroids."

Though a former Obama mentor, Tribe also buttressed Trump’s charge against former Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, one of his other former law students, over his citizenship and eligibility to serve as president.

He told The Guardian in January that according to the “originalist” judges Cruz so adored, “Cruz wouldn’t be eligible because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and 90s required that someone be born on US soil to be a ‘natural born’ citizen.” Tribe subsequently penned an op-ed titled “Under Ted Cruz’s own logic, he’s ineligible for the White House” in the Boston Globe.

And Democratic Congressman David Cicilline, who's on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has asked Obama to withhold classified briefings from Trump.

https://cicilline.house.gov/press-relea ... fied-intel

PAWTUCKET - U.S. Congressman David N. Cicilline (D-RI), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, today requested that, in the interest of protecting America’s national security, President Obama withhold classified materials and briefings from Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for President.

“The Republican nominee’s call for hostile foreign action represents a step beyond mere partisan politics and represents a threat to the republic itself. It suggests that he is unfit to receive sensitive intelligence, and may willingly compromise our national security if he is permitted to do so,” wrote Cicilline. “With this in mind, I respectfully ask that you withhold the intelligence briefing to Mr. Trump in the interests of national security.”

Since 1952, Democratic and Republican presidential candidates have traditionally received classified national security briefings after securing their party’s nomination. But in recent weeks, Trump’s volatile behavior and murky business dealings have raised serious questions about the depths of his relationship with the Russian government.

Cicilline, who has been a forceful advocate for human rights in Russia, made his request just hours after Trump encouraged the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 presidential election by hacking former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The full text of Cicilline's email is embedded below. A pdf version of his letter is available to view here.

------

President Obama,


Since 1952, the White House has authorized the U.S. intelligence community to provide major party presidential nominees with classified briefings on the state of international affairs. These briefings feature the discussion of sensitive intelligence, and are designed to help prepare candidates for the solemn national security responsibilities that they will assume upon taking office.

As the Republican nominee for president, Donald Trump will presumably be eligible for this courtesy in the near future. However, on July 27, 2016, Mr. Trump urged Russian intelligence services to conduct cyberespionage operations into the correspondence of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, saying, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope that you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” In light of these recent statements, I respectfully ask you to suspend Mr. Trump’s access to these briefings.

It is my belief that these statements, when considered in the broader context of the Republican nominee’s prior conduct, warrant a re-examination of his access to this sensitive intelligence. These remarks reflect more than just a lack of good judgment—it is an explicit call for intervention from an adversarial foreign power to undermine the American democratic process, and represents an action just short of outright treason.

Unfortunately, this intervention would be only the latest chapter in Russian efforts to interfere in this presidential election. In May, National Intelligence Director James Clapper announced that the intelligence community had seen some indications that foreign governments were attempting to hack U.S. presidential campaigns. And in June, CrowdStrike identified Russian intelligence agencies as the source behind the hack of the Democratic National Committee—an assessment that has been largely corroborated by the U.S. intelligence community.

The Republican nominee’s call for hostile foreign action represents a step beyond mere partisan politics and represents a threat to the Republic itself. It suggests that he is unfit to receive sensitive intelligence, and may willingly compromise our national security if he is permitted to do so. With this in mind, I respectfully ask that you withhold the intelligence briefing to Mr. Trump in the interests of national security.

Sincerely,
David N. Cicilline
Member of Congress

Dude, how many times in this thread and the ones before it have you accused or posted others accusing people of treason or being a traitor?

How many times have you engaged in personally-motivated straw men and lies against me?

I'm half-inclined to simply disregard this as another pathetic attempt at trolling. However, since you are falsely accusing me, I feel that I am justified in making a rebuttal, at least briefly.

First, obviously, the fact that I quote what some other figure is saying about the election does not necessarily mean that I agree with them. Mr. Tribe's opinion would be newsworthy even if I thought it utter bunk. Although I would think that a law professor's opinion would carry some weight on this subject. I would also note that Mr. Tribe did not go so far as to say that Trump did commit treason- merely that his actions "...might... constitute treason..."

Personally, I very much doubt that Trump's actions here would be something that could lead to a treason conviction in court. Nonetheless, I feel that the fact that people outside of the fringe are even asking that question is by itself significant, and that regardless of weather they legally qualify as treason, Trump's actions represent a betrayal of America.

Secondly, "traitor" can be used colloquially under any number of circumstances, and is not the same as accusing someone of treason, the criminal offence described in the Constitution. I've been over this distinction before.

Third, feel free to quote any instances of my making such an accusation that you feel were unjustified by fact. Or fuck off. Either works for me.

[Flagg]

All I did was point out that you are constantly using the word treason or traitor to describe people whose opinions you disagree with and it's tiresome. I'd point it out if it were anyone, as your personal beliefs, leanings, or opinions don't matter to me. But you don't seem to understand what that word means in any legal sense and frankly, it's annoying. Your imaginings of some vendetta aside, as I can't remember the last time I made a post even directed at you.

[The Romulan Republic]

I acknowledge that I probably overreacted a bit to your post and could have worded my reply better. My apologies.

However, I'm tired of addressing this criticism, and I utterly reject the implication that I call people traitors because I disagree with them. There are a great many people I disagree with and even despise who I do not consider or refer to as traitors. I apply the term colloquially to those who I feel have committed a betrayal, and I apply the legal term treason with, I hope, great reluctance and care.

I do consider Trump a likely traitor, at least in the colloquial sense if not the legal one, because, in addition to the subject being described here, he is very clearly favouring Russian foreign policy interests and has business ties which incentivize him to do so against the good of the country. Those who support him, therefore, can be considered complicit in this betrayal, though I would certainly not apply the term "treason" to everyone who supports Trump.

While we're on the subject, incidentally, I also consider Bernie or Bust "traitors" in the colloquial sense because they are undermining their own side despite Senator Sanders' own efforts. Though the irony that many of them would consider Senator Sanders a traitor is not lost on me.

[maraxus2]

Hah, I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in thinking that this was a pretty good Dem convention

Link

The Reviews Are In: Conservatives Say The DNC Was 'Disaster' For The GOP
2 min read original
Something strange happened on the last night of the Democratic National Convention.

After the GOP nominee lambasted the Democrats on Twitter for displaying what he viewed as too few American flags, there was a sea of waving flags as far as the eye could see when Hillary Clinton became the first woman to accept a major party's nomination on Thursday.

A small faction of protesters chanting "no more war" as General John Allen spoke were quickly drowned out by chants of "USA!" filling the Philadelphia arena. The most notable refrain from the RNC crowd last week: "Lock her up."

The evening also hammered home the stark tonal difference between the two conventions. After Trump painted America as a downcast country in need of a billionaire savior, night after night of all-star DNC speakers preached a sermon of American exceptionalism, with values that unify us all – talking points once exclusively owned by Republicans.

It was enough to give a lot of conservatives whiplash. Here are just a few of them praising the DNC and bemoaning the state of affairs in their own party.

Conservative writer Ron Fournier:
Well done, @realDonaldTrump. You made Democrats a party of sunny patriotism and values.
You sure @billclinton didn't ask you to run?

National Review editor Jonah Goldberg:
Why this convention is better: It's about loving America. GOP convention was about loving Trump. If you didn't love Trump, it offered nada.

John Podhoretz, former Ronald Reagan speech writer and Commentary editor:
Take about five paragraphs out of that Obama speech and it could have been a Reagan speech. Trust me. I know.

Fox News host Greg Gutfeld:
if repubs had championed their principles with specifics rather than embrace autocracy - they wouldn't have yielded this turf to dems.

Conservative blogger Erick Erickson:
For Republicans who are not social conservatives, I have to imagine last night and tonight at the DNC are having an impact on them.

Conservative Iowa radio host Steve Deace:
So most of conservative media and the GOP spent the week rooting for Russia, and now the Democrats get to rally around the flag.

Dreadful.

Conservative Wisconsin radio host Charlie Sykes:
Snark aside: GOP needs to understand what is happening to them tonight…
Do you know how old I am? Old enough to remember when speeches like this would've been given at GOP convention… Not Dem one. Brutal.

Rich Galen, press secretary for Dick Cheney:
How can it be that I am standing at my kitchen counter sobbing because of the messages being driven at the DNC? Where has the GOP gone?

Conservative ops veteran Matt Mackowiak
This Democratic convention has been an unmitigated disaster for the GOP. Very well produced. Unifying. Patriotic. Bravo.#DNCinPHL

Amanda Carpenter, former spokeswoman for Sen. Ted Cruz:
I am sure hearing a lot more about God and faith at the DNC than the RNC.

Conservative blogger AGConservative:
Still stunned. Feel like I'm in the twilight zone. Obama just defended America & conservative values from attacks by the Republican nominee.

Commentary editor Noah Rothman:
Republicans could have stopped all this.

Daily Caller Writer Jamie Weinstein:
Now an immigrant medal of honor winner? If the goal is to reach independents and conservatives uneasy w/ Trump, well done Democrats

Now, most of these conservative commentators don't have a great predictive track record. Ross Doughthat could fuck up a cup of coffee. That said, conservative writers should not need to even think about praising the DNC, much less actually doing it. To me, that's a pretty solid indication that there's still a lot of reluctance on the Right to fully embrace Trump, which, y'know, should have been fixed at the RNC.

Also granted that most of this stuff just doesn't matter very much. Trump demonstrated that you could have a Hindenberg of a convention and you'll still get a bump in the polls. I don't expect the DNC itself, or any of these speeches for that matter, to have much of an impact on the election.

But this is one of the reasons why I firmly believe that Trump's gonna lose this election. Given two very unpopular candidates, the one with the more effective campaign organization ought to win. Especially when the other side effectively has no campaign organization. The only reasonably effective guys are Manafort and Stone, who at least know what they're doing, even if they are evil and sleezy respectively.

Could Hillary become so unpopular that no campaign can save her? Sure, I guess. Or Johnson and Stein could pull more support from her for some reason. But in a statistically tied race, I think she wins it by a decisive margin just based on the fact that she has a goddamn campaign.

While we're on the subject, incidentally, I also consider Bernie or Bust "traitors" in the colloquial sense because they are undermining their own side despite Senator Sanders' own efforts. Though the irony that many of them would consider Senator Sanders a traitor is not lost on me.

Traitor may not be the right word. A lot of those Bernie or Bust folks come from Left activism, and mostly don't give two shits about undermining a politician because all mainstream politicians sell them out (basically accurate), and it's more important to speak truth to power (debatable). Plus, I don't think they're really hurting Sanders anymore. They're small in number, and Bernie's folks will move to Clinton. There wasn't a mass revolt after the emails, for instance.

I dunno, now that it's all over I've got no problem with the BoB people, unless they start aggressively fucking with the Clinton campaign. Hopefully some of them will become hard left figures in local and state government.

[Flagg]

I acknowledge that I probably overreacted a bit to your post and could have worded my reply better. My apologies.

However, I'm tired of addressing this criticism, and I utterly reject the implication that I call people traitors because I disagree with them. There are a great many people I disagree with and even despise who I do not consider or refer to as traitors. I apply the term colloquially to those who I feel have committed a betrayal, and I apply the legal term treason with, I hope, great reluctance and care.

I do consider Trump a likely traitor, at least in the colloquial sense if not the legal one, because, in addition to the subject being described here, he is very clearly favouring Russian foreign policy interests and has business ties which incentivize him to do so against the good of the country. Those who support him, therefore, can be considered complicit in this betrayal, though I would certainly not apply the term "treason" to everyone who supports Trump.

While we're on the subject, incidentally, I also consider Bernie or Bust "traitors" in the colloquial sense because they are undermining their own side despite Senator Sanders' own efforts. Though the irony that many of them would consider Senator Sanders a traitor is not lost on me.

I appreciate the apology, though it's unnecessary as I'm a big boy and can take it. Though acknowledging your overreaction is very commendable and again, appreciated.

I just think you need to make it more clear when using words like "treason" and "traitor" when you mean it in the legal sense which is very narrowly defined and the general sense which can simply mean you switched from one sports team's fandom to another's. One is a death penalty offense and the other generally just results in light ribbing. So IMO you should of course use "Traitor" when you believe someone is an out and out traitor who should be charged with treason, and "betrayal" in the other sense. But I'm not the grammar police, I was just pointing out an annoyance.

[Terralthra]

Traitor may not be the right word. A lot of those Bernie or Bust folks come from Left activism, and mostly don't give two shits about undermining a politician because all mainstream politicians sell them out (basically accurate), and it's more important to speak truth to power (debatable). Plus, I don't think they're really hurting Sanders anymore. They're small in number, and Bernie's folks will move to Clinton. There wasn't a mass revolt after the emails, for instance.

I think that's largely because the emails didn't really indicate anything most supporters of Sen. Sanders - myself included - didn't already know. Sen. Sanders said it himself when the DNC apologized and Rep. Wasserman-Schulz resigned: "...not a great shock to me. There’s no question in my mind and no question to any objective observer’s mind that the DNC was supporting Hillary Clinton and was in opposition to our campaign." The DNC chair and staff's protestations of neutrality were clearly bullshit, and everyone who paid attention knew it. When it was proven by emails leaked, only the truly naïve and ignorant learned anything new.

I dunno, now that it's all over I've got no problem with the BoB people, unless they start aggressively fucking with the Clinton campaign. Hopefully some of them will become hard left figures in local and state government.

Same. Both Sen. Sanders and Sec. Clinton have been very clear: they embrace the political revolution Sen. Sanders spearheaded, and the work of political revolution neither begins nor ends on any particular election day.

I'm a bit perplexed at some angry reactions to Sen. Sanders' response in an interview that he'll be returning to the Senate as an independent for the remainder of his Senate term, because "I was elected as an independent." People are treating it like a betrayal, when it's pretty clearly living up to what he sees as his duty to his constituents. He caucuses with the Democrats anyway, so what does it matter?

[The Romulan Republic]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that their is actually a rule that you cannot change your party affiliation in Congress during the term, so he would have to wait until next election and then run as a Democrat if he wished to switch. But I don't have a source.

I would be disappointed if he does not change his affiliation if he runs for reelection, as it has previously been stated by his campaign that he would remain a Democrat.

Edit: Not that it makes much practical difference. More a symbolic thing/keeping ones' word.

[bilateralrope]

North Korea praises Donald Trump

US presidential candidates like nothing better than basking in the glow of high-profile and celebrity endorsements.

At this week's Democratic National Convention there may as well have been a red carpet leading up to the stage with Hollywood royalty, in the form of Meryl Streep, and TV stars Eva Longoria and Lena Dunham adding some celebrity sparkle to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

But Presidential hopeful Donald Trump appears to be getting the thumbs up from some questionable characters.

In December, Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has been variously accused of trampling on the human rights of his citizens and covertly invading his neighbours, said Trump was, "a very bright and talented man" and "the absolute leader of the presidential race."

Now Trump can add that stronghold of democracy and free speech, North Korea, to his list of supporters.

A column in Tuesday's DPRK Today, a mouthpiece for the repressive regime, piles praise on the presidential hopeful, calling him "wise" and the right choice for Americans.

"It turns out that Trump is not the rough-talking, screwy, ignorant candidate they say he is, but is actually a wise politician and a prescient presidential candidate," said the column, written by a China-based Korean scholar identified as Han Yong Muk.

It described his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, as "thickheaded Hillary" over her proposal to apply the Iran model of wide sanctions to resolve the nuclear weapons issue on the Korean peninsula.

Trump instead has told Reuters he was prepared to talk to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to try to stop Pyongyang's nuclear program, and that China should also help solve the problem.

DPRK Today also said Trump's suggestion that the US should pull its troops from South Korea until Seoul pays more was the way to achieve Korean unification.

The North has for years called for the withdrawal of US troops from the South as the first step toward peace on the Korean peninsula and demanded Washington sign a peace treaty to replace the truce that ended the 1950-53 Korean War.

Democrats have seized on Trump's apparent admiration for President Putin.

On Wednesday, Trump appeared to call on Russian intelligence agencies to find and reveal 30,000 of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails.

It earned the Republican contender a stinging rebuke from President Barack Obama who on Thursday said, "he cosies up to Putin, praises Saddam Hussein, and tells the NATO allies that stood by our side after 9/11 that they have to pay up if they want our protection."

Being lauded by Pyongyang will do nothing to mollify the Presidential wannabe's critics.

[Flagg]

Traitor may not be the right word. A lot of those Bernie or Bust folks come from Left activism, and mostly don't give two shits about undermining a politician because all mainstream politicians sell them out (basically accurate), and it's more important to speak truth to power (debatable). Plus, I don't think they're really hurting Sanders anymore. They're small in number, and Bernie's folks will move to Clinton. There wasn't a mass revolt after the emails, for instance.

I think that's largely because the emails didn't really indicate anything most supporters of Sen. Sanders - myself included - didn't already know. Sen. Sanders said it himself when the DNC apologized and Rep. Wasserman-Schulz resigned: "...not a great shock to me. There’s no question in my mind and no question to any objective observer’s mind that the DNC was supporting Hillary Clinton and was in opposition to our campaign." The DNC chair and staff's protestations of neutrality were clearly bullshit, and everyone who paid attention knew it. When it was proven by emails leaked, only the truly naïve and ignorant learned anything new.

I dunno, now that it's all over I've got no problem with the BoB people, unless they start aggressively fucking with the Clinton campaign. Hopefully some of them will become hard left figures in local and state government.

Same. Both Sen. Sanders and Sec. Clinton have been very clear: they embrace the political revolution Sen. Sanders spearheaded, and the work of political revolution neither begins nor ends on any particular election day.

I'm a bit perplexed at some angry reactions to Sen. Sanders' response in an interview that he'll be returning to the Senate as an independent for the remainder of his Senate term, because "I was elected as an independent." People are treating it like a betrayal, when it's pretty clearly living up to what he sees as his duty to his constituents. He caucuses with the Democrats anyway, so what does it matter?

It only matters in the sense that I was proven correct and he was essentially just using the Democrats for money and exposure, having no more loyalty to them than a common street whore has to a John. That's why I not only don't give a fuck that the DNC was actively acting against him, I applaud them for it as he was hijacking money and manpower better spent in the general against Donnie Douchebag.

[Thanas]

Watching speeches again and the acceptance speech by Hillary was a great piece of simple oratory that had a great effect. Kinda like Obama's speeches, little on style but big on emotion.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... transcript

[maraxus2]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that their is actually a rule that you cannot change your party affiliation in Congress during the term, so he would have to wait until next election and then run as a Democrat if he wished to switch. But I don't have a source.

I would be disappointed if he does not change his affiliation if he runs for reelection, as it has previously been stated by his campaign that he would remain a Democrat.

Edit: Not that it makes much practical difference. More a symbolic thing/keeping ones' word.

MoCs can switch their party affiliation whenever they want. We've had more than one Congress flip a chamber because a Senator flipped from Dem to Rep or vice versa.

It is important in that Sanders is trying to get the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee chair if the Dems retake the Senate. He'll need to take it away from Patty Murray, who has a leadership position, 14 years of Seniority, and is a solid Dem with no real heresies on her record. Would help if he became a Dem. Then again, probably wouldn't matter much.

[Flagg]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that their is actually a rule that you cannot change your party affiliation in Congress during the term, so he would have to wait until next election and then run as a Democrat if he wished to switch. But I don't have a source.

I would be disappointed if he does not change his affiliation if he runs for reelection, as it has previously been stated by his campaign that he would remain a Democrat.

Edit: Not that it makes much practical difference. More a symbolic thing/keeping ones' word.

MoCs can switch their party affiliation whenever they want. We've had more than one Congress flip a chamber because a Senator flipped from Dem to Rep or vice versa.

It is important in that Sanders is trying to get the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee chair if the Dems retake the Senate. He'll need to take it away from Patty Murray, who has a leadership position, 14 years of Seniority, and is a solid Dem with no real heresies on her record. Would help if he became a Dem. Then again, probably wouldn't matter much.

I don't think it would matter if he became a Democrat, frankly. With the spectacle and sideshow he put on that may well have damaged Clinton's chances in the general election (though to no great extent) if there were a dog catcher chairmanship he wouldn't get it. Hell, he wouldn't get a dog excrement picker-upper chairmanship.

[The Romulan Republic]

Jesus, Flagg, we get it, you hate Bernie Sanders because you don't consider him a real Democrat. Do we really have to hear it again?

And I must point out that weather you think he deserves it or not, Sanders has gained a national prominence and influence he never had before. I don't know about the Health, Education, Labour, and Pensions committee, but there seems to be a recurring rumour about him getting Budget committee chair. Of course, only time will tell.

But it makes sense that he would get something substantial, because unlike you, Democratic party leaders seem to generally recognize that Bernie and his supporters are an asset that they want on their side, not people to be ignored or punished for running a tough primary campaign.

Weather Sanders can be said to have damaged Clinton's chances will depend on how many go Bernie or Bust, and how well he campaigns for her between now and the general election day. I suspect the answers will be "relatively few" and "quite well", if recent events are any indication, in which case he will, by pushing for a more progressive platform and exciting young voters and progressives, have likely proved a net positive for the party.

[Mr Bean]

So lets see a week from today (This next Friday) if the polls show having an shit show of a convention provides exactly as much of a boost as someone who had a really good convention.

As far Bernie or bust people, I believe maraxus2 is ignoring the polling say Trump and Hillary are under 40% in some states and Gary Johnston is over 10%. Having a third party pulling down 10% when anyone rarely talks about him indicates both the Democratic and Republican party are searching for a "none of the above option" and then it becomes an interesting turnout game if the Johnston votes accidentally flip a strong Democratic states to Republican or a strong Republican state to democrat.

I'll note at the moment this mostly affects Trump as the only two states he benefits from are Oregon and Michigan which when polled and you add in Gary Johnston bring him within a point or two of winning the state while Hillary is benefiting from it in many more places like Georgia, Ohio and Florida.

[Flagg]

Jesus, Flagg, we get it, you hate Bernie Sanders because you don't consider him a real Democrat. Do we really have to hear it again?

And I must point out that weather you think he deserves it or not, Sanders has gained a national prominence and influence he never had before. I don't know about the Health, Education, Labour, and Pensions committee, but there seems to be a recurring rumour about him getting Budget committee chair. Of course, only time will tell.

But it makes sense that he would get something substantial, because unlike you, Democratic party leaders seem to generally recognize that Bernie and his supporters are an asset that they want on their side, not people to be ignored or punished for running a tough primary campaign.

Weather Sanders can be said to have damaged Clinton's chances will depend on how many go Bernie or Bust, and how well he campaigns for her between now and the general election day. I suspect the answers will be "relatively few" and "quite well", if recent events are any indication, in which case he will, by pushing for a more progressive platform and exciting young voters and progressives, have likely proved a net positive for the party.

Yes, unlike me, Democratic party leaders aren't ethical and will do whatever it takes to win. Which they did, as the emails illegally hacked show. They may give lip service to Sanders suckers now, but when Hillary Clinton is announced the winner at 11pm EST they will drop Bernie like a bag of bricks.

And seriously, just admit that me being correct and saying "I told you so" just pisses you off.

[Flagg]

So lets see a week from today (This next Friday) if the polls show having an shit show of a convention provides exactly as much of a boost as someone who had a really good convention.

As far Bernie or bust people, I believe maraxus2 is ignoring the polling say Trump and Hillary are under 40% in some states and Gary Johnston is over 10%. Having a third party pulling down 10% when anyone rarely talks about him indicates both the Democratic and Republican party are searching for a "none of the above option" and then it becomes an interesting turnout game if the Johnston votes accidentally flip a strong Democratic states to Republican or a strong Republican state to democrat.

I'll note at the moment this mostly affects Trump as the only two states he benefits from are Oregon and Michigan which when polled and you add in Gary Johnston bring him within a point or two of winning the state while Hillary is benefiting from it in many more places like Georgia, Ohio and Florida.

None of that word salad makes any sense. Honest question, not being rude, just truly curious: Is English your first language?

[NecronLord]

Cut the shit Flagg. That's perfectly readable.

[Flagg]

Cut the shit Flagg. That's perfectly readable.

I can't make sense of it. I'm not trolling or trying to be a dick, I'd like some more explanation as to what he's saying. I can't tell if he's saying Johnson is cutting into both of their numbers equally, Trumps more than Clintons or what. Christ I didn't know asking for clarification was something worthy of getting yelled at for. I could have been more polite about it, but I've been having trouble trying to figure out what Bean has been saying for awhile now and I'm not the only one, that's why I asked if English is his first language.

[Knife]

Cut the shit Flagg. That's perfectly readable.

I can't make sense of it. I'm not trolling or trying to be a dick, I'd like some more explanation as to what he's saying. I can't tell if he's saying Johnson is cutting into both of their numbers equally, Trumps more than Clintons or what. Christ I didn't know asking for clarification was something worthy of getting yelled at for. I could have been more polite about it, but I've been having trouble trying to figure out what Bean has been saying for awhile now and I'm not the only one, that's why I asked if English is his first language.

He is saying that there are some purple states where Johnson may take enough votes to flip the state the other way, complete with a few examples of where Trump could benefit but many more where Clinton would benefit.

[maraxus2]

So lets see a week from today (This next Friday) if the polls show having an shit show of a convention provides exactly as much of a boost as someone who had a really good convention.

As far Bernie or bust people, I believe maraxus2 is ignoring the polling say Trump and Hillary are under 40% in some states and Gary Johnston is over 10%. Having a third party pulling down 10% when anyone rarely talks about him indicates both the Democratic and Republican party are searching for a "none of the above option" and then it becomes an interesting turnout game if the Johnston votes accidentally flip a strong Democratic states to Republican or a strong Republican state to democrat.

I'll note at the moment this mostly affects Trump as the only two states he benefits from are Oregon and Michigan which when polled and you add in Gary Johnston bring him within a point or two of winning the state while Hillary is benefiting from it in many more places like Georgia, Ohio and Florida.

We don't actually know what kind of a polling bounce Clinton's going to get from this since most of the polls are still in the field. You can see a slight uptick in the last few days, although it's statistical white noise at this point. It'll take a few days for the results to filter down to the polling.

As for Bernie or Bust people, I'm not ignoring Stein or Johnson's impact on polling. I just don't think either of them will be particularly strong since: A. they're almost certainly not going to get on the debate stage this year and, B. third party candidacies usually fall well short of their high-water mark on election day. Instead, I'm looking at the polling suggesting that upwards of 90% of Sanders supporters are going to vote for Clinton. The BoB people were never part of the Democratic coalition anyway, so it's difficult to say that their defections cost Hillary substantive support.

Cut the shit Flagg. That's perfectly readable.

I have difficulty reading his posts.

[Flagg]

Cut the shit Flagg. That's perfectly readable.

I can't make sense of it. I'm not trolling or trying to be a dick, I'd like some more explanation as to what he's saying. I can't tell if he's saying Johnson is cutting into both of their numbers equally, Trumps more than Clintons or what. Christ I didn't know asking for clarification was something worthy of getting yelled at for. I could have been more polite about it, but I've been having trouble trying to figure out what Bean has been saying for awhile now and I'm not the only one, that's why I asked if English is his first language.

He is saying that there are some purple states where Johnson may take enough votes to flip the state the other way, complete with a few examples of where Trump could benefit but many more where Clinton would benefit.

Ok, now that makes sense. Thanks. I kind of thought that might be what he was saying but really wasn't sure

I'm sorry I came of as condescending, if I had spoken it instead of typing it, it wouldn't have. It's just the limitations of the medium, unfortunately and I forget that sometimes so it's a me, not a thee problem. That's pretty much true for 90% of the shit I say that pisses people off. If I'd spoken it, the tone of my voice would have made it clear I wasn't trying to be an asshole or start a fight.

[Flagg]

I wonder if Trump will do the usual tack to the middle or if he'll hold firm to his douchey ways. For once I can foresee a major party nominee actually continue pandering to the white male base only. If he does I wonder what the spread will be. I can see Clinton actually beating him silly with a 15 point lead in the popular vote. I may dislike her, but she's got the chops to get it done.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I wonder if Trump will do the usual tack to the middle or if he'll hold firm to his douchey ways. For once I can foresee a major party nominee actually continue pandering to the white male base only. If he does I wonder what the spread will be. I can see Clinton actually beating him silly with a 15 point lead in the popular vote. I may dislike her, but she's got the chops to get it done.

I dont think he actually can swing middle. He cannot unsay all the rancid things he has said, so if confronted with it (and he will be), he basically has to admit to duping the rubes that are american people, and that never goes over well.

[Flagg]

I wonder if Trump will do the usual tack to the middle or if he'll hold firm to his douchey ways. For once I can foresee a major party nominee actually continue pandering to the white male base only. If he does I wonder what the spread will be. I can see Clinton actually beating him silly with a 15 point lead in the popular vote. I may dislike her, but she's got the chops to get it done.

I dont think he actually can swing middle. He cannot unsay all the rancid things he has said, so if confronted with it (and he will be), he basically has to admit to duping the rubes that are american people, and that never goes over well.

Yeah, that's what's kind of unusual. I mean there are usually racist and sexist dogwhistles (see 2000 SC where a flyer went around saying John McCain's adopted daughter of Indian descent was a secret biracial love child), but Trump's out there with a motherfucking bullhorn. I'm not saying he can tack to the middle successfully, I just wonder if he'll try.

[Mr Bean]

Well I get back and Knife already handled my discussion so I move on this.

Yeah, that's what's kind of unusual. I mean there are usually racist and sexist dogwhistles (see 2000 SC where a flyer went around saying John McCain's adopted daughter of Indian descent was a secret biracial love child), but Trump's out there with a motherfucking bullhorn. I'm not saying he can tack to the middle successfully, I just wonder if he'll try.

There are several schools of thought on Trump.

1. He never planned on winning
The Trump campaign was nothing more than a vanity project/an effort to raise Trump's visibility and thus profitability so his entire goal is to be memorable.

2. No one can tell him no
The Trump campaign is going so "well" because no one can rein in Trump, a true lose cannon nominee

3. It's all about the turnout stupid
It's an accepted fact that less than 50% of American bothers to show up for elections. If Trump can raise turnout by 20% in his favor he can sweep the nation never mind this has never been done before. 50%-60% of Registered voters voting is the American average ceiling

4.It was all a cunning ruse!
Yes Virginia, Trump really is a Clinton conspiracy cooked up between Bill and Trump last year, not only did he not plan on winning he was trying to actively destroy the GOP.