News Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[DiracPool]

I personally am not very concerned with the Hillary e-mail scandal. It's not as if there was some malicious intent for personal gain here, except maybe the gain of laziness, from what I've gathered. Plus, what damage to the USA has come out of any of her hacked emails, if there were any?

I think all this hype around her self-discipline hides the larger question of why isn't there some sort of national security policing authority that monitors on a consistent basis how individuals with security clearance are exchanging that information. If this is an "honor system" type of thing then that is the problem, not Hillary Clinton. Some oversight or monitoring agency should have been in place to tell her that her email setup was not up to national security standards very soon after she started using a personal server.

If I were part of her campaign team I would get out in front of this instead of always playing on the defensive and make a statement that, under her presidency, this is all going to change and that, under the Clinton administration, there will be strict monitoring of how classified email is handled and exchanged. This seems pretty straightforward.

 

[russ_watters]

I personally am not very concerned with the Hillary e-mail scandal. It's not as if there was some malicious intent for personal gain here, except maybe the gain of laziness, from what I've gathered.

It certainly was not laziness: setting up a personal email server takes a lot of effort. Many pundits surmised (and I think many on PF agrees) that she did it for control: to avoid transparency.

Plus, what damage to the USA has come out of any of her hacked emails, if there were any?

I guess we don't really know if anyone ever successfully hacked it, nor would we be likely to find out. What "concerns" me isn't necessarily speculation about damage, it is the recklessness and spectacular selfishness when choosing personal protection from oversight over national security. That isn't the sort person I want as President.

I think all this hype around her self-discipline hides the larger question of why isn't there some sort of national security policing authority that monitors on a consistent basis how individuals with security clearance are exchanging that information. If this is an "honor system" type of thing then that is the problem, not Hillary Clinton. Some oversight or monitoring agency should have been in place to tell her that her email setup was not up to national security standards very soon after she started using a personal server.

My understanding is that there was: that people pointed it out repeatedly to her or her staff. The problem isn't a lack of oversight, it is a lack of teeth when dealing with a person who is above the law.

 

[DiracPool]

It certainly was not laziness: setting up a personal email server takes a lot of effort. Many pundits surmised (and I think many on PF agrees) that she did it for control: to avoid transparency.

Avoid transparency for what? For some nefarious purpose or just to say she could? As in she could get away with it simply because she's Hillary Clinton and there's no other reason other than that.

 

[russ_watters]

Back to that link:

Leave aside for the moment Trump’s policies, which in my opinion range from the unconstitutional to the un-American to the potentially catastrophic. At this point, it would be irresponsible to ignore the fact that Trump’s grasp on reality appears to be tenuous at best.”

We could replace Trump's name with anyone we don't like there, right? I'm reminded again of Obama's thoughtless (detail-less) promise to close the 'Gitmo detention facility in his first 100 days of office. His supporters - even many on PF who should have known better - thoughtlessly cheered it. But it just wasn't possible. So was he:
1. Crazy (out of touch with reality)?
2. Lying? (The typical campaign lie/promise most make that they have no intention of keeping).
3. Just hopelessly naive?

What is worse: a thoughless lie or a well planned-out lie?

 

[russ_watters]

The Inspector General thinks public unencrypted email back then was safe?

That isn't what I or he said: you are moving the goalposts.

We don't know what Powell sent, aren't those emails missing now?

Source? I don't think I've heard that accusation before.

 

[Evo]

That isn't what I or he said: you are moving the goalposts.

Sorry, then I didn't understand.

Source? I don't think I've heard that accusation before.

It wasn't an accusation, just what he said,

Powell says he doesn't have any of his State emails

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell says he doesn’t have any emails to turn over to the State Department.

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday, Powell responded to revelations that he used a personal email account, rather than a government one, when he was in charge of the State Department. Questions about his email use arose last week when it was disclosed that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a personal email account during her tenure.

“I don’t have any to turn over. I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files,” Powell said. “A lot of the emails that came out of my personal account went into the State Department system. They were addressed to State Department employees and state.gov domain, but I don’t know if the servers in the State Department captured those or not. “

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...n-email-state-department-115870#ixzz4Gch9wpFf

The last I read they hadn't been found but it wasn't a priority and the e-mails are thought to have been deleted some time ago for various reasons. But no one seems to be bothered by it. Go figure.

 

[Astronuc]

why isn't there some sort of national security policing authority that monitors on a consistent basis how individuals with security clearance are exchanging that information.

There is a system for handling CI. It's more or less done on an agency basis, but there are independent investigative agencies that provide support. It's covered under various Acts and Executive Orders (OEs).

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-01-05/pdf/E9-31418.pdf
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-08-07/pdf/95-19654.pdf

This could be a problem: "Agency heads shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining an effective program to ensure that access to classified information by each employee is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security." In the case of Clinton, she apparently didn't apply it to herself.

Sec. 7.1. Classified Information Procedures Act. Nothing in this order is intended to alter the procedures established under the Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App. 1).

https://www.odni.gov/files/documents/ICD/ICD_704.pdf

ICD-704 mentions - The National Security Act of 1947, as amended; the Counterintelligence Enhancement Act of 2002, as amended; Executive Order (EO) 12333, as amended; EO 12958, as amended; EO 12968, EO 13467, and other applicable provisions of law.

 

[Astronuc]

Trump’s economic advisers are also his biggest donors
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trumps-economic-advisers-are-also-his-biggest-donors-226758#ixzz4GeUhnPPc

After spending months scolding his rivals for being beholden to their financial backers, Donald Trump unveiled an economic advisory council this week — and filled it with some of his biggest donors.

“He is following the path he has said was corrupt: Raising large sums of money and then giving donors special access,” said Trevor Potter, the president of the Campaign Legal Center and former chair of the Federal Election Commission.

Steve Deace, an influential conservative activist in Iowa and anti-Trump radio host, said he was not surprised that Trump was granting his biggest donors titles and insider access. But he was still angry.

“It is complete and total hypocrisy,” Deace said.

Meanwhile Slate charges, Donald Trump’s Website Won’t Let You Cancel Recurring Donations
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...won_t_let_you_cancel_recurring_donations.html

On Thursday, Mic confirmed that, no, there is no button to undo your recurring payment to the Trump campaign. You can’t delete the recurring payment. You can’t even delete your credit card information (you can update it, but it has to be with a different valid card number). So you just keep paying Trump’s campaign, we suppose, until the end of time.

Federal Election Commission spokesperson Christian Hilland told Mic that there’s nothing illegal about this per se, that is until a person’s automatic payments put her over the maximum contribution limit of $2,700.

 

[NTL2009]

Her public statements weren't part of the investigation. It is not illegal to make false statements to the public. It is illegal to lie to the FBI as part of a criminal investigation. According to Comey, she was truthful to the FBI, so that does not clear her in front of Congress or in the public domain. ...

My point was, the FBI should have asked he the questions regarding those public statements. That seems like a normal part of an investigation to me. If someone said X,Y,Z in public, they should be asked to validate that as part of the investigation. She would then have either needed to walk back the public statements she made, or lie to the investigators. It just seems to me that they left this open, and it seems an odd thing to leave open in such an intense investigation. It makes me suspicious that the exception was done for a reason (Comey did not want to be in the position of taking out a candidate).

I'm not sure that is the case. I believe they had the hard-drives from the servers, and they retrieved and reviewed the materials themselves. Clinton did sent email to the Department of State. ...

As I understand it, she turned over paper copies, and deleted all the emails from the server. It was only later that the FBI was able to piece together the emails from some parts of the server that the deletion didn't touch.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...fact-sheet-hillary-clintons-email-controvers/

It was only then that Mrs. Clinton instructed her aides to cull through roughly 60,000 emails that had passed through the server and turn over those involving official business. Those amounted to roughly half of the total.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-emails-comey-225121

bold mine

“It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related emails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server. It is also likely that there are other work-related emails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all emails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”

Wouldn't any other US citizen be charged with obstruction of justice, interfering with a Federal investigation, or some other related charge (I am not a lawyer)? Recall that Martha Stewart went to jail for interfering with the investigation of her stock trade, not for insider trading (I don't think they ever proved that - intent is tough to prove).

I think using public e-mail is less safe than using a private encrypted server. I feel it's comparable, apparently we disagree.

The Inspector General thinks public unencrypted email back then was safe?
...

Evo, I think what russ is saying is, you took his private email is 'less safe' than public email reference and turned it into 'so public email is safe?' He didn't say that public email was safe, just likely that public is safer than her private server. I think that report indicates that the public servers have very sophisticated protection and monitoring, far more than what was used by the administrator of the HRC private server .

I personally am not very concerned with the Hillary e-mail scandal. It's not as if there was some malicious intent for personal gain here, except maybe the gain of laziness, from what I've gathered. ...

Avoid transparency for what? For some nefarious purpose or just to say she could? As in she could get away with it simply because she's Hillary Clinton and there's no other reason other than that.

As was mentioned, it sure isn't laziness to hire a private company to maintain a private server. That was a deliberate action.

Without "clear evidence" of intent, we can still make Occam's Razor type theories. How about that pesky little FOI Act? I think a reasonable person could be suspicious that this was done, and thousands of emails deleted, and devices cleaned so tthat those emails could not be produced to comply with a FOIA request. What else would Occam propose?

-NTL2009

 

[Astronuc]

Five-Thirty-Eight ongoing analysis of 2016 presidential election. It will be updated as new data are collected.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

 

[mheslep]

Comey chose his words/statements carefully and did not address whether he believe Clinton had lied to, or otherwise mislead, Congress or public.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/james-comey-testimony-clinton-email-225224#ixzz4Gai7MgTE

Clinton's statements about the emails are certainly troubling. As Secretary of State, it was part of her job requirements to know and protect classified information. She may not have intentionally sent classified information to those who should not receive it, but the information was maintained on an unsecure server, so in that sense it was a breach of protocol.
...

Comey stated he had no evidence that Clinton lied to the FBI in her interview. With regard to Clinton statements to the public and Congress, Comey stated the FBI had not investigated.

"Not to my knowledge. I don't think there's been a referral from Congress,” Comey responded,

Clinton's statement last Sunday, putting words in Comey's mouth, was clearly false.

"Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I've said is consistent with what I have told the American people."

 

[mheslep]

He has some good experience.

Powell too has never been elected to any office.

 

[mheslep]

Five-Thirty-Eight ongoing analysis of 2016 presidential election. It will be updated as new data are collected.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

As of July 30, 5-3-8 had Trump a slight favorite. A week later and Trump collapsed. Good grief, now even Georgia is in play.

 

[mheslep]

Americans Really Dislike Trump, Clinton. So Why Aren't Third Parties Doing Better?

I don't think Johnson so far is serious about the job or seriously considers what he says on the issues. But in my view he is not corrupt, has no notion that he is entitled to the job as is/does Clinton. I'd vote for Johnson over Clinton.

 

[axmls]

I don't think Johnson so far is serious about the job or seriously considers what he says on the issues.

I wouldn't say it's so much about being serious about the job as it is that he pretty much knows his campaign doesn't matter that much since even he would probably admit his chances of winning are incredibly small. It's not like him and Weld aren't qualified for the presidency (I personally would argue that they're more qualified than the other choices). As for the issues, he's really pushing to bring (moderate) libertarianism to the mainstream. One of his campaign talking points is that "most people are libertarians; they just don't know it yet."

 

[Astronuc]

Powell too has never been elected to any office.

True, but he has some good diplomatic experience as Secretary of State, and executive experience as National Security Advisor (1987–1989), as Commander of the U.S. Army Forces Command (1989) and as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989–1993). He kind of like George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower.

It would have been great if he'd been HW's VP in 1992. Had Bush had a second term with Powell as VP, the country would have been a lot better off now, IMO.

 

[mheslep]

I wouldn't say it's so much about being serious about the job as it is that he pretty much knows his campaign doesn't matter that much since even he would probably admit his chances of winning are incredibly small.

I understand your point and disagree. I saw him [Johnson] interviewed last month with plenty of time for answers: i) his understanding of his chances were quite sincere and well considered, ii) his answers on policy were incoherent, as in huh? incoherent. Still, what I did not see him do in that interview was lie, evade, talk about how the opposition party was his enemy, demonize members of his own party during the general election, nor descend into some narcissistic rant about himself. So yes I would still vote for him in a Clinton v Johnson race.

It's not like him and Weld aren't qualified for the presidency (I personally would argue that they're more qualified than the other choices). As for the issues, he's really pushing to bring (moderate) libertarianism to the mainstream. One of his campaign talking points is that "most people are libertarians; they just don't know it yet."

I think Sen Rand Paul did a more serious job of attempting to take libertarianism mainstream in the Presidential race. For instance, the open borders policy that Johnson openly promotes is not libertarian, open borders is at best anarchic, and worse than anarchic inside a system with heavy state benefits. I liked Paul in the primary. He lost.

 

[Evo]

Please remember that this is Current News Events and if your post disappears, it probably didn't meet the rules.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/must-read-current-events-guidelines.113181/

 

[axmls]

For instance, the open borders policy that Johnson openly promotes

I guess that would depend on how loosely you define "open borders."

From his official campaign site:

Candidates who say they want to militarize the border, build fences, and impose punitive measures on good people, ground their position in popular rhetoric, not practical solutions.

Governors Johnson and Weld believe that, instead of appealing to emotions and demonizing immigrants, we should focus on creating a more efficient system of providing work visas, conducting background checks, and incentivizing non-citizens to pay their taxes, obtain proof of employment, and otherwise assimilate with our diverse society.

Making it simpler and more efficient to enter the United States legally will provide greater security than a wall by allowing law enforcement to focus on those who threaten our country, not those who want to be a part of it.

Not exactly open borders. He speaks a lot about making it easier to immigrate, but the only quote from him about open borders comes from 2001.

That said, I think a lot of it is that Johnson isn't that great of a speaker. He mumbles a lot and struggles to get to the point. Honestly, Bill Weld should be on the top of the ticket, in my opinion. Virtually the same credentials, but more well-spoken.

Edit by Mod: you forgot to link to his site, please link to it now, thank you.

 

[Astronuc]

From his official campaign site:

Governors Johnson and Weld believe that, instead of appealing to emotions and demonizing immigrants, we should focus on creating a more efficient system of providing work visas, conducting background checks, and incentivizing non-citizens to pay their taxes, obtain proof of employment, and otherwise assimilate with our diverse society.

Making it simpler and more efficient to enter the United States legally will provide greater security than a wall by allowing law enforcement to focus on those who threaten our country, not those who want to be a part of it.

https://www.johnsonweld.com/immigration

On the issues - http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Gary_Johnson_Immigration.htm

https://www.johnsonweld.com/issues

 

[jim hardy]

Please remember that this is Current News Events and if your post disappears, it probably didn't meet the rules.

no problem. I've been thrown out of better places.

 

[phinds]

no problem. I've been thrown out of better places.

me too

 

[Evo]

no problem. I've been thrown out of better places.

 

[mheslep]

Not exactly open borders. He speaks a lot about making it easier to immigrate, but the only quote from him about open borders comes from 2001.

Yes, open borders, or in Johnson's words, "No limit at all." Johnson has said he wants no quotas on legal immigration, is unhappy with the government imposed number of a million plus admitted each year: "No limit at all" on US legal immigration (see starting at 5:20 here). Elsewhere, as you cite, their platform does reference "background checks", but, in a no limit system for the whole world, checks are meaningless. He also mocks the idea of improved border security, which leaves the door open (as now) for the few that can't con their way in legally under his system. He's meandering through fringe anarchism, in which the theory is that the only forces at play in immigration are the supply and demand for jobs. This position has been ridiculous going back at least to when the marauding Huns pushed Goths looking for safety into Roman territory 1700 years ago.

 

[RonL]

no problem. I've been thrown out of better places.

Should I be feeling down ? I have never been thrown out of anything

 

[phinds]

Should I be feeling down ? I have never been thrown out of anything

Well clearly you've led a very dull life

 

[Astronuc]

It is astounding that 50 GOP national security officials are negative on Trump, or rather, it is astounding that the GOP would nominate someone of whom so many in the GOP are negative.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-national-security-trump-reckless-000000096.html

“None of us will vote for Donald Trump,” http://hsrd.yahoo.com/RV=1/RE=1471921169/RH=aHNyZC55YWhvby5jb20-/RB=/RU=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5ueXRpbWVzLmNvbS9pbnRlcmFjdGl2ZS8yMDE2LzA4LzA4L3VzL3BvbGl0aWNzL25hdGlvbmFsLXNlY3VyaXR5LWxldHRlci10cnVtcC5odG1sAA--/RS=%5EADAuxYRbi5Fzzthldpi.8XGRaWnUmc- . “From a foreign policy perspective, Donald Trump is not qualified to be President and Commander in Chief. Indeed, we are convinced that he would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.

“Most fundamentally,” the letter states, “Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President. He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world. He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U.S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary.”
. . . .
Those who signed the letter include former Homeland Security Secs. Thomas Ridge and Michael Chertoff; former NSA and CIA Director Michael V. Hayden; ex-Deputy Secretaries of State John D. Negroponte and Robert B. Zoellick; and Eric S. Edelman, who served as Vice President Dick Cheney’s national security adviser and was a top aide to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Unbelievable!

 

[mheslep]

it was nothing pre-calculated on Hillary's part.

Afterwards, the story told to the public about the Bhengazi attack being caused by rage at an internet video instead of "an Al-Qaeda like group" (her private words) was false and pre-calculated, IMO the reason being that two months before the US election the administration needed to continue to show what it had been saying, that it had terrorism "on the run".

Also, Clinton voted for the Iraq invasion, and GW Bush is retired.

 

[Evo]

Also, Clinton voted for the Iraq invasion, and GW Bush is retired.

Well, let's tell the whole story.

Listening to her rationale Wednesday night, I didn’t know whether she was telling the truth. I had written many Slate columns about the Iraq debate and the ensuing war, but I couldn’t remember the details of then-Sen. Clinton’s position. Looking up those details now, I have come to a conclusion about the rationale she recited at the New Hampshire town hall: Hillary was telling the truth.

This fact doesn’t vindicate her vote back in 2002—far from it. But it does take some of the sting out of Sanders’ attack. In short, her vote on Iraq, under the circumstances, should not be seen as the indicator of her stance or judgment on armed intervention generally.

The evidence is clear. On Oct. 10, 2002, during the Senate debate on a resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Clinton rose to express her highly qualified support. First, though, she criticized the idea of attacking Saddam then and there, either alone or “with any allies we can muster.” Such a course, she said, “is fraught with danger,” in part because “it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us,” legitimizing invasions that Russia might launch against Georgia, India against Pakistan, or China against Taiwan.

“So,” she continued, “the question is, how do we do our best to both diffuse the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his people, the region, including Israel, and the United States—and, at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations.”

She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.

“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”

Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”

She added, “This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. … My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.” A vote for the resolution, she argued, “is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...n_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html

One hell of a smart woman, one that will make a great President.

 

[phinds]

Trump suggested today that gun nuts assassinate Hillary and/or her Supreme Court nominees. He was vague about which. His surrogates are having their usual difficulties in "walking it back" on the talk shows. Their claim, basically, is that it was just a joke and/or he was signalling unity with fans of the 2nd ammendment. The Secret Service is probably not amused. As one of the talking heads pointed out, if someone in the hall outside where he was speaking has made that "joke", that person would likely now be answering questions posed by large men with guns and frowns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

among other statements in the article:

Representative Eric Swalwell, Democrat of California, wrote on Twitter that the Secret Service should investigate Mr. Trump for making a death threat against Mrs. Clinton: “Donald Trump suggested someone kill Sec. Clinton. We must take people at their word.”

This comes at a time when those around Trump thought they had FINALLY convinced him to stay on message and quit creating self-inflicted wounds. That's not working out so well for them.

 

[Evo]

Trump and Putin offer me some hope, they're two hard nosed men of action who might see eye to eye on the advantages offered by Western Civilization and bring "getting along with the other superpowres" out in the open.
And do not try to tell me that's not relevant to this campaign.

Trump now says he does not know Putin, never met him, has never even spoken to him. I can post that interview if you aren't aware of it. Apparently those in the position to judge these things think Putin thinks he can manipulate Trump.

Ex-CIA Director: 'No Doubt' Putin Views Trump as 'Unwitting Agent'

Former CIA Acting Director Michael Morell on Sunday doubled down on the connection he made between Republican nominee Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Morell told ABC's "This Week" that he had "no doubt" Putin viewed Trump as an "unwitting agent" of Russia, and noted that as a trained KGB intelligence operative, Putin had manipulated people "much smarter than Donald Trump."

"He played this perfectly, right? He saw that Donald Trump wanted to be complimented. He complimented him. That led Donald Trump to then compliment Vladimir Putin and to defend Vladimir Putin's actions in a number of places around the world. And Donald Trump didn't even understand, right, that Putin was playing him," Morell said.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...ubt-putin-views-trump-unwitting-agent-n624786

 

[jim hardy]

Trump now says he does not know Putin, never met him, has never even spoken to him. I can post that interview if you aren't aware of it. Apparently those in the position to judge these things think Putin thinks he can manipulate Trump.

post gone, at this point what difference does it make

 

[Evo]

post gone, at this point what difference does it make

Someone complained about a post so I had to delete it and then the posts that were in response also had to be deleted.

 

[Astronuc]

Possible change in Congress a la Trump.

Down Ticket: How Trump could cost the GOP its biggest House majority since WWII
https://www.yahoo.com/news/down-ticket-1-trump-could-000000722.html

There was always a risk of Republicans losing the Senate in 2016. The entire map is tilted against them. Democrats are defending 10 seats this year; Republicans are defending 24. If as few as four of those seats flip — a likely outcome — the GOP’s majority is gone.

Democrats don’t have the same sort of structural advantage in the House, though. For one thing, House Republicans enjoy a much bigger cushion — 247 seats to the Democrats’ 186 — than their Senate counterparts. This means that Pelosi would need a net gain of at least 30 seats to recapture control — the kind of swing that gerrymandering largely rules out. In a normal election year, they wouldn’t stand a chance.

Harry Reid is retiring. His seat is contested by Catherine Cortez Masto (D) and John Heck (R). The race is a statistical tie, and more than 20% are undecided.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Nevada,_2016

Other Senate races
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2016

 

[jim hardy]

Someone complained about a post so I had to delete it and then the posts that were in response also had to be deleted.

i can only imagine trying to ride herd on such contentious subject matter. You have my sympathy, dear Evo ...

I've had my say on the foreign affairs angle , thanks for leaving it up for a while

see you 'round !

old jim

 

[Evo]

i can only imagine trying to ride herd on such contentious subject matter. You have my sympathy, dear Evo ...

I've had my say , thanks for leaving it up for a while

see you 'round !

old jim

You know I want you here, see my pitiful attempt at rickrolling you!

 

[DiracPool]

You know I want you here, see my pitiful attempt at rickrolling you!

Well, you can't telegraph it so obvious like that, you need to be more clandestine like Hillary Clinton's trickery.

 

[Salvador]

I hope my post meets the rules , I just wanted to add a few thoughts myself,
the major talking point in this election for the Republicans is the need for a better border and on this issue I can agree with them.I really dislike the modern liberal viewpoint when it comes to borders , one good example is the EU.Eu has open or more precisely no borders inside and between the member states and that's a good thing , I've used it myself and it makes life easier and it also works or atleast worked because the people living in Europe more or less share some common beliefs and knowledge and world views so they won't use this free system to simply travel to a neighboring country to blow something up , but now in the advance of radical Islam and the many folks who agree with it this system no longer works , and also the fact that Europe's outer border is like non existing makes the matters worse.
And we have all seen the results of this.

I agree with @mheslep and others that this "no border" policy is a fatal mistake that probably arises from the modern humanist viewpoint that all people should be equal and given the same opportunity, as good as it sounds it's like Communism , ideal on the paper and non working in the real world.In a world were some people strive for the best and others for the worst there can be no common ground shared between these two so if the best ones want to survive and continue the growth and advancement of humanity they must also focus on sustaining that growth both environmentally and also purely from a human perspective as in the need to see your enemy.

That being said I think this election is really a hard one because atleast for me there is no real candidate.And I say this from a non US citizen viewpoint.So I think it simply breaks down to the lesser of two evils, from which one is rather more dumb than evil I think.
At some point I even favored Trump over Hillary but His foreign policy is as naive and stupid as it's non existent and quite frankly it's dangerous.If he would become POTUS and stop the support for NATO , NATO would start to fall apart and if Russia made any more advances in the Baltic region that could very well trigger a world war , so there a lot a stake not only for Europe but the whole world.
In the end the only difference between Hillary and Trump is their level of intelligence and willingness to listen to their advisors over their own personal ego.
Both have made some pretty significant mistakes to be questioned for their candidacy and both have had problems with greed over morale.

That being said I think the election result is already clear , like it's the easiest gamble in history if I were to put money on it.Trump simply can't and seems unable to put himself together to even pretend his different for the sake of power and money , the best example being that of the attacks on Khan family , I mean he had his campaign boosted by the DNC emails and all that and what he does is he comes out of that bonus by ranting some personal level BS about a family that said something about him on TV. A smart man would have atleast ignored that or replied in a smart rhetoric.

Hopefully Evo you won't take this down. But if so then I'm with Jim on his reply about the "thrown out of better places" :D

 

[Astronuc]

How bad can it be? https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-gop-foreign-policy-letter-000000863.html

One of the 50 former Republican foreign policy officials to sign a scathing letter this week declaring Donald Trump “dangerous” says she would have trusted U.S. national security with Sarah Palin more than with the GOP nominee.

Apparently from the letter in NY Times:

“We understand that many Americans are profoundly frustrated with the federal government and its inability to solve pressing domestic and international problems,” the letter concludes. “We also know that many have doubts about Hillary Clinton, as do many of us. But Donald Trump is not the answer to America’s daunting challenges and to this crucial election. We are convinced that in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless President in American history.”

 

[Dotini]

How bad can it be? https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-gop-foreign-policy-letter-000000863.html

From your article cited:

The Trump campaign dismissed the letter late Monday.

“The names on this letter are the ones the American people should look to for answers on why the world is a mess,” Trump said in a statement. “And we thank them for coming forward so everyone in the country knows who deserves the blame for making the world such a dangerous place. They are nothing more than the failed Washington elite looking to hold onto their power, and it’s time they are held accountable for their actions.

He added: “These insiders – along with Hillary Clinton – are the owners of the disastrous decisions to invade Iraq, allow Americans to die in Benghazi, and they are the ones who allowed the rise of ISIS.”

 

[Salvador]

Of all the problems Trump has and his shortcomings in knowledge he does know how to brag about a few issues that concern many folks and to grab their attention in that way and also this attention grabbing works for some as it turns away their otherwise more critical evaluation from his shortcomings.
Like for example when someone asks him or others for that matter a question that shows them in bad light he simply answers like he would answer to a different question , like How are your ties with Putin or what will be your foreign policy and he just answers with " Well You know , we will build a YUGE wall , destroy ISIS fast , like real fast , like never before fast, and be good friends with Russia"
Like he simply says some of the things that concern majority of Americans in a close to fairytale way, the fact that shocks me the most is that such a large portion of Americans simply buy it.That they don't understand that none of those three things mentioned and many others can be solved that easy and also no other candidate has spoken about them so simply.

Also a hint , if a public person attempting high office (anyone for that matter not just Trump) thinks that it's possible for the US to ever be "good friends" with Russia then by this alone he must have atleast a tough mind evaluation check as it clearly shows a lack of reasoning and understanding of both political history and Russia or any other major world power in general. Putin is probably laughing his *** off in the Kremlin while watching how Trump tries to befriend him and his government.
Russia is like a fire , it can be sustained and used for good but if you go too close or try to be "friends" with it you end up with your house burnt to the ground.
Take my word for it , I live in Baltic region ,I know firsthand about all of this "Russian thing" that being said their not bad people it's just that their government always needs a counterbalance in the world because in the absence of one they simply expand in "mysterious ways".
The Cold war was actually a much safer time in which it was easier to know the future than now , because back then the world was pretty much kept in check by the US and USSR rivalry ,it would only be in the best US and also Europe's interests that the US president and government keep their foreign policy in check and with strict measures , from this perspective I am genuinely worried about the prospect of Trump's presidency.
There could be many more things to be said here about the middle east and rest but I'm sure that would trigger a complain for me getting into philosophy.
One things for sure the US would have been better off if it learned from the Soviet mistake in the first Afghan war.You can't win religion nor ideas with force, the Soviet "backbone" which was an idea about communism itself came into existence and survived a revolution because of many fanatics who believed in it and were willing to sacrifice themselves and others (mostly others :D) , no idea or belief has ever been destroyed with a bullet.You only end up with an empty budget and dead soldiers.Also one more thing I would like to touch on , speaking about ideas, religions and beliefs , one of the major topics concerning this election and the world right now -terrorism.This is one of the few very strong stances that i agree with the Republicans , mostly Trump , even though he probably brags about it so much not because he genuinely has a plan for it but to get ratings.
Islam has a deep problem with violence and I hate when modern liberals whether in Europe or the US try to hide it deny it or otherwise simply to suit their agenda.That is a slow motion suicide that we are all now a part of and it needs to be stopped or atleast heavily contained.But it's impossible to do so if they keep on telling that saying your opinion about Islam is a hate speech now and that Islam is actually peaceful.
Let me give you a good argument of why Islam and probably many other religions are not at all peaceful and please don;t delete this.
In the simplest form one could simple look and say , when was the last time a Christian blew himself up or a Hindu for some purpose but obviously this is too vague or weak of an argument so let me give you one much more fundamental one.
Many of the people who follow the teachings of the Quran live in areas were there is low or no education and there is high rates of poverty and in many cases death and destruction on daily basis.Such people will always be more susceptible to radical ideas and further violence , it simple is that way because of the human psyche and it's workings.Much like kids from abusive families tend to further follow the footsteps of their parents.
Now take this very fact into account and then go and read and try to understand the Quran and what it says.It is not a hard job to do since the Quran is one of the most printed books in human history alongside the Bible.
Quran clearly speaks about the destruction of nonbelievers and their fate and it also orders the followers of Muhammad to do their job in terms of the judgment towards nonbelievers. As all religious books ofcourse this can be interpreted and bent etc but we must understand that the area in which most Islamic nations are located and their level of education and understanding will clearly lead to the most violent interpretation , and quite frankly who knows how it's meant to be , nobody has asked Muhammad himself about his teachings.The reason why the majority of Muslim don't choose violence to full fill their faith is because their logica reasoning and common sense is stronger , but still the idea they follow is a fire in itself.

Just recently a high ranking Muslim leader in my country who couldn't be called a stupid radical secretly joined ISIS and said that he regrets ever denouncing the works of ISIS simply because he now considers himself a true follower of Muhammad.This just goes to show how infectious ideas can be.

Whoever becomes POTUS should better understand this and not buy into the overly liberal wing who support reduction in background checks and overall security measures.
Europe's disastrous no outer border and immigration policy is already showing it's ugly face and trust me you won't read about it in such liberal mindwasher sites like Huffpost and maybe not even CNN.The situation is worrying and we should better think about it or it will "think" about us and then it will be too late.But we need a serious thinker on the issue not someone who plays public stupidity and fear for ratings.

 

[phinds]

... Like he simply says some of the things that concern majority of Americans in a close to fairytale way, the fact that shocks me the most is that such a large portion of Americans simply buy it ...

Why is the phrase "close to" in this sentence?

Yeah, I share your concern that so many Americans buy his nonsense and I AM an American. I do understand how they can hate Hillary but to think that Trump is a viable alternative just makes no sense to me.

 

[Dotini]

Whey is the phrase "close to" in this sentence?

Yeah, I share your concern that so many Americans buy his nonsense and I AM an American. I do understand how they can hate Hillary but to think that Trump is a viable alternative just makes no sense to me.

Let me say this simply. Most Americans don't like the way things are going. Hillary is the status quo. Trump is change. Easy choice.

 

[DiracPool]

Yeah, I share your concern that so many Americans buy his nonsense and I AM an American. I do understand how they can hate Hillary but to think that Trump is a viable alternative just makes no sense to me.

I don't know think that was Salvador's message. I think he is basically warning us not to throw the baby out with the bathwater in the sense that, if you're anti-Trump, then it's your job to drop your guard and hug every Muslims in order to prove that. We don't want to be a paranoid, racist country, but we also don't want to be a stupid and naive country.

 

[Salvador]

To be honest @phinds this goes beyond Hillary and Trump , there is a saying that just as one can tell your character by looking at your friends , one can also tell the fate and character of a nation by looking at their leaders.maybe this doesn't work in dictatorships and monarchies but it sure holds true in old democracies like the US.

As a foreigner I can tell the US image has never been the best around the world and it has much to do with history etc , but nowdays this image is mostly formed not by history but by the actual US policies and their products respectively.
Lately it seems the US has become a nation which is divided at many points starting from some that are of historic origin like slavery and race and ending with many which are products of modern stupidity and the lack of critical thinking or sometimes any common sense for that matter.
Shows like Honey Boo Boo, Trumps Apprentice ,the middle east affairs and budget debt , fast foods that are unhealthy and now a presidential candidate who seems much like a reality show clown in a reality show which could very well be called "The Election" only on FOX , Wednesday nights. His opponent which also has some doubtful practices and has managed to slip from a court case for her wrongdoing while in high office.

To me it seems the US is loosing it's world counterbalance position and it's been a while now that we have been witnessing firsthand something that the first president Bush called as the "New world order" don't get me wrong I'm not talking about the one which keeps conspiracy nuts entertained and makes Alex Jones rich from his Youtube BS channel views , I'm talking about a real ongoing process in which some world powers shift and some loose their position it's a complex process but we must understand that it has always been this way.The water keeps on flowing no matter what you do.

@Dotini , Trump may seem like change much like Hitler may have seemed like a messiah to some , so I have to ask you and any other thinking person for that matter to whom he seems like change ? To my mind he can only look like change for someone who has no real understanding of even basic world affairs and who is also quite ignorant , please forgive me if I offend someone with this but it's simply the truth. Trump has some good points yes but as I said I doubt he speaks them from some deeper understanding of the dangers they pose and more from a ranting perspective since that is what thew public wants to hear.@DiracPool yes you got my message , I'm not 100% anti trump or pro Hillary , for me personally this changes little but Trump and Hillary are more like titles in this election , they simply are the one person projections of a much larger and normally silent majority of people who think a certain way , the ones who want a more conservative oldschool America and for the ones who think that every race and religion can really work together and be as one and that we all are just humans and freedom and liberty is the dominant force ... sounds like a liberal news add doesn't it ?
The world clearly shows it's not possible , as long as there will be atleast a few people who will disagree and maybe even willing to use force for their disagreement there can be no peace no full liberty and no equality. History has showed us that countries rise and fall , empires rise and fall , movements rise and fall but there is one thing that doesn't change and is rock solid , it's human nature. Modern liberalism is dangerous because much like Communism back in the 20th century , it turns a blind eye on human imperfections and shortcomings in order to bring forward this openness and abstract equality they are talking about.
Atleast Communism used force and strong all seeing order to keep itself together , modern liberalism uses nothing , no force no borders no nothing , you simply take millions of people with a vastly different lifestyle and history and education and religion and blend them together in a given territory , for heaven's sake isn't this the perfect formula for a weapon of mass destruction ??

Europe is the test ground for this and it seems like the experiment is going out of control , because what's the chance that these people will suddenly say, Oh , we apologize , we were wrong , let us now become Christians or Buddhists , deny Muhammad and start working with sweat instead of living off government handouts and immigration aid money.
Many choose to go to the more developed western European countries instead of the Baltic region not because we are worse but simply because they pay more and have a higher life standard. Excuse me but isn't this pure disrespect for all of humanity ? I mean cmoon you just supposedly saved yourself from a bullet in the head yet you want to make commands and choose a Chicken burger over a Cheese one.
Back in the days people fought for their countries and died along the way and we honor that and thanks to those people we now can share the values and lifestyle of western world. These days it seems like a bunch of fools just want to enjoy life with no respect and no consequences whatsoever.

P.S. I am not speaking about all people as clearly there are always people who are different and who want to work and help us as humanity evolve , sadly I'm speaking about the majority who lack all of the things needed to become part of any decent society not just our western one.

Think about it for a second , there must be a reason why the middle east has always been at or in war either with each other or with the world.It's not just pure coincidence , I think it;s the result of their understanding or lack of , and of their religious beliefs that they are were they are.
Anybody can reach some level in life and some can become great but it requires strong will , much like making a suicide attach requires strong will , so it all comes down to the ideas one agrees upon.

 

[DiracPool]

Hillary is the status quo. Trump is change. Easy choice.

What's wrong with the status quo? You've got a laptop and can post opinionated messages to PF of your own free will and spirit. Sounds good to me. One hard lesson I've learned in life is that, no matter how bad things seem to be at the time, they can actually get far far worse. Abraham Lincoln said, "Most folks are as happy as they make their minds up to be." In my experience I've found that is true as long as you have a roof over your head and food on the plate. Today, I'm pretty much as happy as I make up my mind to be. At the end of the George W. Bush administration, my business folded due to the economic collapse. Many of my friends and vendors businesses also collapsed and went out of business so I couldn't look to them for help. I got evicted from my apartment. The house I bought my mom in 2006 halved in value. It was bad times. So is that the easy choice for change you're thinking of when you encourage us to vote for Trump? Change is a two-way street, it can change up or change down. During the Clinton and Obama presidencies I worried about what I was doing and how I could make my life and situation better. I didn't worry much about what the government was doing. During the George W. Bush administration, I was worried about they were doing; mushroom clouds, "patriot" acts intruding on my privacy, and, by the end of that term, how I was going to feed myself.

 

[phinds]

Let me say this simply. Most Americans don't like the way things are going. Hillary is the status quo. Trump is change. Easy choice.

That point of view totally ignores my main point, which is that he lives in a fantasy world of his own creation. As I said, I DO understand how people can dislike Hillary and yes, I think we all recognize that people are fed up with our gridlocked congress and bankers than crash the economy and walk away with bonuses instead of jail sentences, and other serious issues, but again that does not make Trump a reasonably alternative. Fact checkers have said over and over that something like 75% of everything he says is completely divorced from reality.

 

[phinds]

I don't know think that was Salvador's message. I think he is basically warning us not to throw the baby out with the bathwater in the sense that, if you're anti-Trump, then it's your job to drop your guard and hug every Muslims in order to prove that. We don't want to be a paranoid, racist country, but we also don't want to be a stupid and naive country.

I don't get the bolded part at all.

 

[Salvador]

I think he meant that if you are pro Trump then you definitely dislike immigrants and Muslims in general and liberalism is a curse word in your house.
But if you are anti Trump and pro Hillary or independent and most probably liberal along the way you shouldn't simply "go with the flow" and don't be concerned with the whole globalism issue and different cultures clashing problem.
P.S. When I think about it, it's impossible to be pro Trump or anti Trump , simply because Trump himself can give you 180 degrees out of phase opinions about the same question in a matter of 10 minutes all you have to do is reword the question and ask it from a slightly different perspective.
It's like he has some sort of a Trump's special relativity thing going on ,only in this case all observers agree on him no matter their point of reference.

 

[Dotini]

What's wrong with the status quo?

For me, the status quo is good. I'm old, rich and far past any personal worries. So usually I vote my conscience and go Libertarian. This political season we have a rare prairie fire where there is strong chance to upset the applecart, bring down an old, fossilized party or two and pit the greatest issues of the day to a national vote. I only wish I had invested in popcorn futures.