News Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

  • Thread starter Thread starter bballwaterboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    2016 Issues Race
AI Thread Summary
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are currently the leading candidates for the 2016 presidential election, with their character and qualifications being significant issues among voters. The crowded field includes 36 declared Republican candidates and 19 declared Democratic candidates, with many others considering runs. Major topics of discussion include nationalism versus internationalism and the stability of the nation-state system versus global governance. Recent polls show Trump as the front-runner, although his support has decreased, while Carly Fiorina has gained traction following strong debate performances. The election cycle is characterized as unusual, with many candidates and shifting public opinions on key issues.
  • #1,201
Both sides should have genuine concern that the other side has many supporters and the other side could win. But what happens after the election? Is the population so polarized that democracy as usual cannot go forward? Frankly, I'm worried about that.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #1,202
Don't worry Dotini , " The show must go on", a cool Queen song with much artistic and it seems hidden political value.
 
  • #1,203
Astronuc said:
Some polls indicate Clinton won, and some indicate Trump won.

I think the case could be made that they both won. The Clinton strategy is to gin up the base, not to swing undecideds, and the Trump strategy is the reverse. ("Strategy" may not the the right word here, since there is a large circumstantial component to these decisions) It's still early for the polls, but what information we have suggests both things happened.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #1,204
Is entitlement reform an issue in this election? I hadn't heard anyone mention it, but it should be:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ecord-entitlement-reform-third-rail/91258118/

...and this is perhaps a continuation of a discussion with @OmCheeto in another thread that is dragging it off topic.

Hillary's position is that she can fix the shortfall by raising the income cap, and she's probably right. The problem is, as she says, "Social Security isn't just a program - it's a promise." And that "fix" terminates the promise for upper middle class Americans and above by decoupling their benefits from their incomes.

The rest of her positions are just tye typical pandering to SS recipients (she won't make changes to ...) and fail to address realities. Number one on her list is "fight any attempts to gamble seniors' retirement security on the stock market through privatization." ...despite the reality that this is the only solution that addresses all (any?) of the shortcomings of Social Security. Any expert will tell you and most individuals know that the vast majority of your retirement savings should be in the stock market (with a reducing fraction when you get older).

Donald Trump's position is...well...incoherent, so there's that.

I'm screwed, but my hope and expectation is that politicians do nothing until B/D-Day. Then when the building has collapsed around them, they'll finally be ready to talk about fixing it.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,206
russ_watters said:
Donald Trump's position is...well...incoherent, so there's that.
Not completely. If Trump has a consistent, plausible economic message, a big if, then it is more economic growth (and thus more govt revenue), and he proposes some measures likely to do so if he pulls them off. If Trump is successful he's more likely to improve the the deficit problem than will Clinton's tax the rich tinkering. Recall in the GOP primary period the debates about how to achieve 4% growth. The Democrats had no such debate. If the US continues along the disaster of 1 or 2% growth then nothing will remedy entitlements without hacking at the spending.
 
  • Like
Likes jim hardy
  • #1,207
mheslep said:
Not completely. If Trump has a consistent, plausible economic message, a big if, then it is more economic growth (and thus more govt revenue), and he proposes some measures likely to do so if he pulls them off. If Trump is successful he's more likely to improve the the deficit problem than will Clinton's tax the rich tinkering. Recall in the GOP primary period the debates about how to achieve 4% growth. The Democrats had no such debate. If the US continues along the disaster of 1 or 2% growth then nothing will remedy entitlements without hacking at the spending.

All of the analysis' of Trumps economic programs that I have seen have shown that the deficit of his programs is likely to exceed that of Clinton programs of up to 10:1. He is significantly cutting taxes on everybody including companies thus greatly reducing revenue.
 
  • #1,208
gleem said:
All of the analysis' of Trumps economic programs that I have seen have shown that the deficit of his programs is likely to exceed that of Clinton programs of up to 10:1. He is significantly cutting taxes on everybody including companies thus greatly reducing revenue.
Maybe, not "thus". Government revenue is a function of tax rates *and* economic output. Reagan cut tax rates but federal revenue doubled from 1980 to 1990 (28% real increase) with the large economic growth in the period. Spending also increase under Reagan and Tip Oneil, outpacing the higher revenue. Also, cutting business taxes doesn't completely eliminate revenue from the foregone business tax, but to a degree (not necessarily one for one) moves the tax elsewhere, to personal income or dividend income, as the businesses hopefully spend their income in higher wages, more wages to more employees as they grow, or dividends to investors.

The scoring analyses I've seen so far are static in terms of revenue, ie they include caveats like no consideration of "macro economic feedback effects".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Dotini
  • #1,209
The Holy Grail of any modern economy is growth. Without it, we face the Apocalypse of unsustainable, unpayable debt and eventually either default or debasement of the currency.
 
  • Like
Likes jim hardy, russ_watters and mheslep
  • #1,210
Dotini said:
The Holy Grail of any modern economy is growth. Without it, we face the Apocalypse of unsustainable, unpayable debt and eventually either default or debasement of the currency.
Well, the Grail of any economy with over 100% GDP government debt and a growing population had *better be* robust economic growth.
 
  • #1,212
upload_2016-9-29_15-59-15.png


It's too bad that the debates did not let Gary join onstage for the debates. It would have been such a better photo opt than this shot taken backstage and after the debates. :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes SW VandeCarr and russ_watters
  • #1,213
Greg Bernhardt said:

Well, the headline doesn't quite the match the actual question which was about what foreign leader(s) he admired. I can name a few leaders, but I can't say I admire any. I used to admire Angela Merkel, but not anymore. Having said that, I do think he blew it twice now and I could never vote for him.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,214
CalcNerd said:
View attachment 106690

It's too bad that the debates did not let Gary join onstage for the debates. It would have been such a better photo opt than this shot taken backstage and after the debates. :smile:

Who's the third one supposed to be if not Johnson? (I think he should be the one on the right, sticking his tongue out at those jerks that asked him such hard questions.)
 
Last edited:
  • #1,215
russ_watters said:
...despite the reality that this is the only solution that addresses all (any?) of the shortcomings of Social Security. Any expert will tell you and most individuals know that the vast majority of your retirement savings should be in the stock market

Do you think it is a good idea for the Federal Government to become the world's largest investor? How long do you think it will be before the President directs Social Security to buy Coke instead of Pepsi because Coke contributed more to his campaign? And what will be the effect on the market as an investment choice if buy and sell decisions of the largest investor are based on politics?
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep, CalcNerd and Bystander
  • #1,216
SW VandeCarr said:
Well, the headline doesn't quite the match the actual question which was about what foreign leader(s) he admired. I can name a few leaders, but I can't say I admire any.

I agree. Also, the number of foreign leaders who subscribe to libertarian principles is very small. I can't really think of any. He might have been able to get away by naming a foreign leader who is/was a strong supporter of democracy, even if that person were not particularly libertarian, such as King Juan Carlos of Spain or Lech Walesa of Poland.
 
  • Like
Likes nsaspook
  • #1,217
Vanadium 50 said:
Do you think it is a good idea for the Federal Government to become the world's largest investor?
No, I don't, considering how poorly that is currently working out for us! That's one of the things I'd like to change!

I would assume if I got to manage the money myself (perhaps with some limits, rather like my 401k), I wouldn't be allowed to lend the money to myself (issue myself bonds), charge myself interest and call it growth!
 
  • #1,220
SW VandeCarr said:
Are you sure?
I think he (Johnson) was exactly right in that.
 
  • #1,221
SW VandeCarr said:
Well, the headline doesn't quite the match the actual question which was about what foreign leader(s) he admired. I can name a few leaders, but I can't say I admire any.

I think that Johnson's inability to recall a foreign leader who he admires shows more of a lack of ability to think on his feet obviously not good for a politician. In his case he could have said that he didn't particularly admire anyone and maybe rejoined with the question Who do you think I should admire? or why do you think I should admire anybody?
 
  • #1,222
gleem said:
think that Johnson's inability to recall a foreign leader who he admires shows more of a lack of ability to think on his feet obviously not good for a politician...
Its more complicated than remembering a name for a Presidential candidate. Perhaps the name that comes to mind is a leader who arrests his opposition the next day, or kidnaps Americans expats, or persecutes a traditional American allied nation, partners with nations hostile to America, or did great things in office but came to power through murky but nefarious means. People are flawed, so there's always some flawed behaviour. Thus comes the next question, Mr Candidate, are you frivolous in you support? Do you think being President is like being baseball fan? Will you also arrest the opposition? Do you care about the kidnapped Americans? Do you think Admired Leader's Country is better than America? Admired Leader says he favors your opponent, says youre an idiot, shouldn't you stop your campaign?
 
  • #1,223
Clinton leaked talking about Bernie supporters.

I don't think it's a fair characterization on her part.
Assuming that these "college educated kids living in their parents basement" are probably smart enough to research the Scandinavia system, and other such rebuttals that easy to come up with.

She also sees herself as a center left to center right candidate in the same audio.

I don't understand where her support is coming from, she was the worst candiate the Democrats could field, as observed by the closeness of this race.

Guess I vote for Johnson.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #1,224
russ_watters said:
It's very disappointing. On paper, he should be great, but there is some screw loose in his head. I'm probably going to choose to assume that it is social anxiety and vote for him anyway.
I'm considering Johnson and Weld, even though I'm expecting one of the two principal candidates to win the nomination in November. And it wouldn't be a wasted vote, since it might just help qualify a third party alternative to the two major parties. I voted to Sanders in the primary, not that I wholly agree with his positions, but as a protest vote.

Hopefully, Johnson will take some time to study up on foreign affairs and world leaders.

The Chicago Tribune endorses Gary Johnson. The conservative paper’s editorial board argued that the Democratic and Republican parties have drifted so far from the United States’ political mainstream and failed to nominate suitable candidates to the top of their tickets.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/right-leaning-newspapers-bail-on-donald-trump-165200193.html

The Arizona Republic broke tradition to endorse the democratic candidate rather than the republican candidate. The paper still supports/endorses other republicans.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,225
Trump is under fire concerning leaked 1995 Federal income tax forms showing he took a $915 M loss that could saved him from paying taxes for up to 18 yrs. This of course is legal for valid losses. But does a person commit that order of magnitude of his own money to his own business. One tries to insulate ones personal wealth from any business dealing that could result in a personal liability financial or otherwise. If he is so smart why did he risk his own wealth? He still had equity in the properties and their assets were they liquidated? Can some explain why he would have risked his own money?

On another note Rudy Giuliani mentioned in an interview that Trump made over $600M last year, how does he know this and if he does he probably knows Trump's tax liability. The interviewer completely missed an opportunity to dig a little deeper.
 
  • #1,226
At a Trump rally in Pennsylvania he said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-goes-off-script-at-a-rally-in-pennsylvania/
You will never ever have this chance again. Not going to happen again… You have one magnificent chance.
Personal opinion:
He could be right. The Democrats were able to stop Sanders. And the Republicans, if they can survive, will not allow their party to be hijacked again. It may be our only chance to break away from the status quo. But with the questionable character of the candidates and the future of the supreme court in the balance, what a predicament we've gotten ourselves into.
 
  • Like
Likes CalcNerd, Dotini and jim hardy
  • #1,227
gleem said:
Trump is under fire concerning leaked 1995 Federal income tax forms showing he took a $915 M loss that could saved him from paying taxes for up to 18 yrs. This of course is legal for valid losses. But does a person commit that order of magnitude of his own money to his own business. One tries to insulate ones personal wealth from any business dealing that could result in a personal liability financial or otherwise. If he is so smart why did he risk his own wealth? He still had equity in the properties and their assets were they liquidated? Can some explain why he would have risked his own money?

But this is the thing. It seems to me that there are two options here:
  1. What Trump did was a perfectly legal deduction due to valid losses.
  2. What Trump did was intended tax evasion.
Option 2 is bad and should have people outraged. Option 1 is worse if you are looking for someone to take care of and nurture the entire US economy. I mean, it is fine if you lose your own money, it is less fine if you lose the money of the entire nation. Hillary already hinted at this in the debate and essentially spelled out the options:
First, maybe he’s not as rich as he says he is. [...] Or maybe he doesn’t want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he’s paid nothing in federal taxes [...]
The first part of the quote essentially hinting at option 1, that Trump perhaps is not as successful as he claims to be.
 
  • Like
Likes Pepper Mint
  • #1,228
How was Trump able to declare a $915M loss? It turns out that the real estate broker crowd is an indeed privileged group.tax wise that is.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/how-donald-trump-turned-the-tax-code-into-a-giant-tax-shelter/ar-BBwUYBj?li=BBnbfcN

Mr. Trump’s records indicate that there was an attached statement that explained the net operating loss being carried forward. “That’s so tantalizing,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin said. “I’d love to see that statement.”

Mr. Trump, of course, is free to release it. It would probably answer many questions about the source of the losses. It would also help explain whether these were legitimate business losses or “accounting gimmicks and abusive tax shelters,” as Mr. Rosenthal put it.

There are a number of accounting tactics that Mr. Trump might have used to generate such a huge loss, some of them considered highly aggressive and of dubious legitimacy, accounting experts said.

Given the dire state of Mr. Trump’s businesses at the time, he might have been able to record write-downs of assets under a doctrine known as “abandonment,” an aggressive accounting tactic used when an investor walks away from a worthless or nearly worthless asset and writes off the entire capital investment in the property.

There is also the question of Mr. Trump’s debt. Mr. Trump personally guaranteed $832 million of debt related to his casinos and other assets. Under tax code provisions available to real estate developers, he could take the full amount as a deduction even if he didn’t invest a dime of his own money.

Ordinarily, that deduction would be recaptured when the debt was forgiven or the underlying assets sold. If the debt were forgiven, Mr. Trump would have to report that as income. But there are various exceptions. If Mr. Trump was insolvent at the time — if his debts exceeded his assets — he might have avoided having to report the forgiveness of debt as income. Of course, if that was the case, it further undermines his claims to being an astute businessman.

There are other provisions, too, that might have allowed Mr. Trump to deduct the loans but never have to report them as income.

Real estate developers are also uniquely able to realize losses as soon as they occur, but defer gains, often indefinitely, through such tactics as like-kind exchanges. “It’s heads Trump wins, and tails the government loses,” Mr. Knoll said.

Now think of all those home owners who went under water from the housing collapse of 2009 who had to eat their losses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,229
If Hillary said that, she was probably being flip. And given that I've let Trump slide on that (a lot), I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt here as well.
 
  • Like
Likes Student100
  • #1,230
Dotini said:
Assassination is a venerable practice in war and its extension politics. Sun Tzu and Machiavelli took the notion seriously, wrote of it seriously, and these two immortal authors are read to this very day by all serious students of war and politics. Aside from its dubious legality and morality, its a quite useful and effective practice to this very day and hour. The ends justify the means and might makes right - no question about it in this world.

It's also highly illegal according to US law.
 
  • #1,231
Student100 said:
It's also highly illegal according to US law.

Well Anwar al Awlaki was an American citizen and he was "droned" in Yemen. The legal argument is that the US is in a state of war against "radical islamists" who directly threaten the US homeland. I'm not posting this to defend or oppose this view. I'm just stating a fact.

What I do oppose is posting a claim that Hillary Clinton proposed such a action. The post in question used RT (Russia Today) as the source. Does PF consider this to be a reliable news source for this? I'd like this question answered. I've not heard of this from any other news source. I did report this, but several subsequent posts have referenced it.

EDIT: Apparently the offending posts have been deleted, but the posts referencing it stand. At least my point is made.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-of-anwar-al-awlaki.html?_r=0
 
Last edited:
  • #1,232
SW VandeCarr said:
Well Anwar al Awlaki was an American citizen and he was "droned" in Yeman. The legal argument is that the US is in a state of war against "radical islamists" who directly threaten the US homeland. I'm not posting this to defend or oppose this view. I'm just stating a fact.

What I do oppose is posting a claim that Hillary Clinton proposed such a action. The post in question used RT (Russia Today) as the source. Does PF consider this to be a reliable news source for this? I'd like this question answered. I've not heard of this from any other news source. I did report this, but several subsequent posts have referenced this.

EDIT: Apparently the offending post has been deleted, but the posts referencing it stand. At least my point is made.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-of-anwar-al-awlaki.html?_r=0

You're confusing targeted killings with assassinations. One depends on context and can range from perfectly okay to legally murky, while the latter is always illegal.
 
  • #1,233
Student100 said:
You're confusing targeted killings with assassinations. One depends on context and can range from perfectly okay to legally murky, while the latter is always illegal.

OooK. So if the President says "Kill the SOB!", that's illegal. But if the President says "Assassinate the SOB!", that's legal. Right?
 
  • #1,234
SW VandeCarr said:
OooK. So if the President says "Kill the SOB!", that's illegal. But if the President says "Assassinate the SOB!", that's legal. Right?

Ummm?

Here, infantryman calling in airstrike on enemy position, completely legal targeted killings. Us drones killing enemy combatants, completely legal targeted killings. Us drone targeting American citizen enemy combatants, legal grey area. Us drones targeting non combatants, illegal assassination.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #1,235
Student100 said:
Ummm?

Here, infantryman calling in airstrike on enemy position, completely legal targeted killings. Us drones killing enemy combatants, completely legal targeted killings. Us drone targeting American citizen enemy combatants, legal grey area. Us drones targeting non combatants, illegal assassination.
Agreed. There are certainly grey areas, but non-government non-combatant would generally be over it...unless you consider him a spy...
 
  • #1,236
Student100 said:
Ummm?

Here, infantryman calling in airstrike on enemy position, completely legal targeted killings. Us drones killing enemy combatants, completely legal targeted killings. Us drone targeting American citizen enemy combatants, legal grey area. Us drones targeting non combatants, illegal assassination.

OK, but how do you define "combatant". Awlaki was not directly involved in combat nor was he known to be directing or planning specific hostile actions against the US at the time he was killed. He was encouraging violence via the internet and a lot of people are listening to his sermons even now. If you include these activities as a justification for assassination, what's left? Essentially non combatants who shout "death to America" and shake their fists. I doubt anyone in the US government is seriously suggesting we kill all of them.

In other words, it's a nearly meaningless distinction when you include "grey areas".

BTW you did not make the distinction between "targeted killing" and assassination in post 1230.

"Assassination is a venerable practice in war and its extension politics. Sun Tzu and Machiavelli took the notion seriously, wrote of it seriously, and these two immortal authors are read to this very day by all serious students of war and politics. Aside from its dubious legality and morality, its a quite useful and effective practice to this very day and hour. The ends justify the means and might makes right - no question about it in this world."

"It's also highly illegal according to US law."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #1,237
russ_watters said:
Agreed. There are certainly grey areas, but non-government non-combatant would generally be over it...unless you consider him a spy...
Yes, Anwar al Awlaki was a cleric, not a combatant. And his son was also killed. But I suppose that doesn't count because it was collateral, and supposedly unintended.

Now, Snowden and Assange may be "spies", as they reveal dirty secrets. Death by drone execution may be justified - just don't call it assassination, and we can feel better about it.

EDIT:
I remember when President Nixon said, "when the president does it, that means it is not illegal".
Today, as I understand it, a US President can legally order anyone killed anywhere in the world with the rubber-stamp of a secret court.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,238
Dotini said:
EDIT:
I remember when President Nixon said, "when the president does it, that means it is not illegal".

Yes, but Nixon resigned under the threat of impeachment and removal from office. There were other reasons but this statement did not curry favor in the House of Representatives.
 
  • Like
Likes Dotini
  • #1,239
If Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both split the electoral vote equally outside of New Mexico (5 electoral votes), and Gary Johnson (Libertarian) wins, then that would be an interesting and bizarre twist to an already troubled election.

Some news media are speculating Johnson could take the lead in NM. "Election Update: The Craziest End To The 2016 Campaign Runs Through New Mexico"
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...to-the-2016-campaign-runs-through-new-mexico/

Interesting map. Several swing or battleground states are critical.

On the other hand, "Johnson’s chief advantage in this election is the possession of a surname that isn’t Trump or Clinton. The two major parties are now led by the two most unpopular major-party candidates in modern history. The cases against Clinton and Trump are well known, but the case for Johnson requires, well, a case for Johnson."

The Case of Gary Johnson, or Not!
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/no-not-gary-johnson/502718/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Student100
  • #1,240
Dotini said:
EDIT:
I remember when President Nixon said, "when the president does it, that means it is not illegal".
Today, as I understand it, a US President can legally order anyone killed anywhere in the world with the rubber-stamp of a secret court.
Please post your source.
 
  • #1,242
SW VandeCarr said:
What I do oppose is posting a claim that Hillary Clinton proposed such a action. The post in question used RT (Russia Today) as the source. Does PF consider this to be a reliable news source for this? I'd like this question answered. I've not heard of this from any other news source. I did report this, but several subsequent posts have referenced it.
Sorry. my computer was broken and had to get a new one. No RT is not an appropriate source, nor are any other Russia owned or controlled propaganda sources.
 
  • #1,243
As far as I can tall, every source suggesting Hilly Clinton planned to "drone" Julian Assange comes from Julian Assange.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep and Orodruin
  • #1,244
This VP debate is a total bore compared to the presidential debate.
 
  • #1,245
Dotini said:
Hillary and Julius think alike. I'm not so sure I wish to enable and support a person who thinks killing people, toppling nations and putting whole populations fleeing into chaos is such jolly good fun. Although I do think Sun Tzu and Machiavelli might look fondly upon her, as they would upon Caesar. She would probably be a good Caesar, if that's what you really want, maybe something like General Douglas MacArthur if he had been loosed from his chains.

What kind of fantasy world have you concocted for yourself?

Yes, Sun Tzu once said...

Sun Tzu said:
When your nemesis releases diplomatic cables, you must strike them with drones swiftly.

People who died centuries ago are irrelevant to the modern worlds politics and warfare, and especially this thread.

Greg Bernhardt said:
This VP debate is a total bore compared to the presidential debate.

It still feels like a debate on Trump and Hillary. I guess that's to be excepted, but was hoping to hear more about their ideologies myself.
 
  • Like
Likes Evo
  • #1,246
Dotini said:
Of course I did. :-p

The important thing is I managed to get the email accepted into the literature of this forum. Phew!
Our readers are smart enough to take it from there, and don't need me to tell them what to think.:wink:
Yes they do. You are required by forum rules to clearly state your point when you make a post. To not do so, while posting an odd and not very useful quote/link makes it look like you are just trying to stir-up trouble. Please do better.
 
  • #1,247
Greg Bernhardt said:
This VP debate is a total bore compared to the presidential debate.
I'm not watching, but I bet I can sum it up:
"Your running mate is crazier/more corrupt than mine."
"Is not."
"Is too."
"Is not."
"Is too."
 
  • Like
Likes Student100
  • #1,248
  • #1,249
Dotini said:
I remember when President Nixon said, "when the president does it, that means it is not illegal".

Yes I remember hearing that too. On TV from the David Frost Show interview of Richard Nixon. May 17, 1977
http://landmarkcases.org/en/Page/72...cerpts_from_a_1977_Interview_with_David_Frost

Frost:...Would you say that there are certain situations - and the Huston Plan was one of them - where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation, and do something illegal?

Nixon: Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.

Frost: By definition.

Nixon: Exactly, exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.

Frost: The point is: the dividing line is the president's judgment?

Nixon: Yes, and, so that one does not get the impression that a president can run amok in this country and get away with it, we have to have in mind that a president has to come up before the electorate. We also have to have in mind that a president has to get appropriations from the Congress. We have to have in mind, for example, that as far as the CIA's covert operations are concerned, as far as the FBI's covert operations are concerned, through the years, they have been disclosed on a very, very limited basis to trusted members of Congress.[1]

All he's really doing is reiterating one of the basic arguments that most Presidents have made throughout history: that there are times where the government takes action in the interests of national security or public safety and that imperative can, at times, override certain legal protections. It's not about absolute power as much as it's about the government having to balance the sometimes-juxtaposing concepts of the rule of law and public safety.
 
  • #1,250
Dotini said:
Our readers are smart enough to take it from there, and don't need me to tell them what to think.:wink:
You mean that the majority of the PF readership is smart enough to understand the difference between nonlegal and illegal? I would certainly hope so.

The "evidence" presented certainly would not be enough to take any legal measures against Hillary, but maybe you prefer nonlegal methods?
 

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
Replies
10
Views
7K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
36
Views
1K
Replies
340
Views
31K
Back
Top