Florida does a recount and Al Gore wins: Politics

by **Werthless** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 15:42:20

traderdave wrote:From CNN -

President Donald Trump told special counsel Robert Mueller in writing that Roger Stone did not tell him about WikiLeaks, nor was he told about the 2016 Trump Tower meeting between his son, campaign officials and a Russian lawyer promising dirt on Hillary Clinton, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

by **Phred** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 15:57:43

Werthless wrote:
traderdave wrote:From CNN -

President Donald Trump told special counsel Robert Mueller in writing that Roger Stone did not tell him about WikiLeaks, nor was he told about the 2016 Trump Tower meeting between his son, campaign officials and a Russian lawyer promising dirt on Hillary Clinton, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

Would have liked to have been a fly on the wall in the room when Mueller read DT's answers.

by **Bucky** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 16:13:52

Phred wrote:
Werthless wrote:
traderdave wrote:From CNN -

President Donald Trump told special counsel Robert Mueller in writing that Roger Stone did not tell him about WikiLeaks, nor was he told about the 2016 Trump Tower meeting between his son, campaign officials and a Russian lawyer promising dirt on Hillary Clinton, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

Would have liked to have been a fly on the wall in the room when Mueller read DT's answers.

traderdave wrote:@realDonaldTrump
While the disgusting Fake News is doing everything within their power not to report it that way, at least 3 major players are intimating that the Angry Mueller Gang of Dems is viciously telling witnesses to lie about facts & they will get relief. This is our Joseph McCarthy Era!
5:39 AM - 28 Nov 2018

I'm sure the timing of that tweet is just coincidental...

by **The Crimson Cyclone** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 16:40:30

Pelosi and Hoyer are the dem nominees for speaker and majority leader

by **Werthless** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 16:41:14

He copied Manafort's test answers, but learned in the next period that the teacher gave the students different tests.

"What, you don't trust us?"

by **joboggi** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 18:14:36

Phred wrote:
Werthless wrote:
traderdave wrote:From CNN -

President Donald Trump told special counsel Robert Mueller in writing that Roger Stone did not tell him about WikiLeaks, nor was he told about the 2016 Trump Tower meeting between his son, campaign officials and a Russian lawyer promising dirt on Hillary Clinton, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

Would have liked to have been a fly on the wall in the room when Mueller read DT's answers.

Add two counts of perjury to the rest of it. And collusion times two. 1500 counts of money laundering. Sex assault, you can get impeached for that and lying about it. the 12 days of Trump, I am sure we can come up with a song here.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 18:18:10

I want to interrupt our daily recitation of the infernal doings of the Trumpers and explore an idea that right now is little more than a hot take on US politics. I assigned the now discredited The Party Decides to my students this semester, partly because I wanted to give them some experience with criticizing an analysis of politics in a non-partisan way. Also, I figured used copies would be widely available and cheap.

But as we've discussed the book over the last few weeks, I think there might be a serious error at the heart of the book's theory itself. The idea is that party elites are better than the primary electorate at identifying candidates who are electable. (This is why the Dems have Superdelegates.)
But in looking at Presidential elections with no incumbent since 1960, it seems that the more establishment candidates tended to lose.

To an extent, this depends on how you define establishment, I guess.

But consider:

1960--Kennedy beats Nixon
1968--Nixon beats Humphrey (I guess it's tough to say who is more establishment here.)
1976--Carter beats Ford (I only include this because Ford was barely an incumbent, dealing with an unusually strong primary challenge.)
1988--Bush beats Dukakis (The only clear case of an establishment victory, in my view.)
2000--Bush Jr. beats Gore (Sitting VP always gets the establishment nod--see Nixon/Kennedy)
2008--Obama beats McCain (I don't care how much you say "maverick" McCain was a long serving Senator, doesn't get much more establishment than that)
2016--nuff said.

Now, there's a certain face validity to this argument--voters are better at choosing who voters will ultimately support than party elites. (And yes I'm using elite/establishment interchangably here).

One huge problem is that we have a very small number of elections here. If you go back to 52, you could argue Eisenhower was less establishment than Stevenson, but I'm not sure how easy that argument is to make. And prior to 52, the last non-incumbent election was I guess 1928.

But basically, it seems to me that the take away is that if parties want to nominate the most electable candidate, they should let the primaries work, and don't allow establishment candidates to suck up all the resources early on.

Kennedy entered (and won) primaries to prove to the establishment that a Catholic could get votes in places like West Virginia. Primaries are the best test of electability we have.

by **CalvinBall** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 18:25:58

On that TV, I attended my local democract party meeting this week for the first time. Only 15 people. I was the only new person. The whole thing was very meeting like.

One large topic of discussion was endorsements. One man, a bit older than me, insisted that the party endorse people. He basically said, "We are the committee people. We need to pick viable candidates for the people to vote for. They listen to us. We don't want expensive primaries." Very top down.

Another, younger guy disagreed. He said the people should pick who they want and if the committee can't meet the vote threshold to endorse so be it. Primaries are about finding the best candidate, not the committee picking the person they like.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 18:49:21

It's pretty obvious that if I'm right, then the committee should follow what the younger guy said.

But an interesting question is what counts as "best"? Is it electability, or is it who is closest in terms of issue agreement? There is some evidence to suggest that the longer a party is out of power, the issue of "best" tilts towards electability. I remember back in 1992, Clinton was seen as the best candidate among even some of my most leftist friends because even though he was probably the most conservative of the Democratic contenders, and the most conservative Democratic nominee since at least Carter, he could win.

by **Bucky** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 19:12:47

hope you've got a couple truckloads of snickers

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 20:47:20

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that double crossing the FBI is not a smart idea

by **pacino** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 22:22:05

CalvinBall wrote:On that TV, I attended my local democract party meeting this week for the first time. Only 15 people. I was the only new person. The whole thing was very meeting like.

One large topic of discussion was endorsements. One man, a bit older than me, insisted that the party endorse people. He basically said, "We are the committee people. We need to pick viable candidates for the people to vote for. They listen to us. We don't want expensive primaries." Very top down.

Another, younger guy disagreed. He said the people should pick who they want and if the committee can't meet the vote threshold to endorse so be it. Primaries are about finding the best candidate, not the committee picking the person they like.

The Berks county Democratic party doesn't endorse in primaries because that's incredibly shortsighted when trying to grow a locla party. There are too many bad feelings and bad decisions that get made when you do that.

Also, if they indeed do that, a few of your friends and you should become committee members and start attending. You can easily push the agenda.

by **CalvinBall** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 23:58:07

Swing left didn't endorse in primaries either. I'm of the belief that the party should not be endorsing.

by **Ace Rothstein** » Thu Nov 29, 2018 00:14:50

Kathleen Kane is going to prison after thinking she was going to be able to avoid her sentence

by **joboggi** » Thu Nov 29, 2018 07:16:37

actual collusion

OMG

Here it is

In an August 2, 2016 email to Stone, Corsi suggested they should start spreading rumors about Clinton’s health, as the topic was likely to feature in the forthcoming WikiLeaks dump.

by **thephan** » Thu Nov 29, 2018 07:18:11

I totally missed that Trmp tweeted an image of Presidents Clinton and Obama, 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, former Attorneys General Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager John Podesta and Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, for Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, special counsel Robert Mueller, and Rod Rosenstein behind bars with the words, “Now that Russian collusion is a proven lie, when do the trials for treason begin?” embedded in it. Tho original comes from @theTrumpTrain at about 0300 Monday... could that be from Russia? He defended his retweet to NY Post.

His dictator impulses are just naked at this point. The president calling for charges of treason against his political rivals and precived opponents.

Then there is this from the same ineterview:

The commander-in-chief said he could declassify FISA warrant applications and other documents from Robert Mueller’s probe — and predicted the disclosure would expose the FBI, the Justice Department and the Clinton campaign as being in cahoots to set him up.

“I think that would help my campaign. If they want to play tough, I will do it. They will see how devastating those pages are.”

But Trump told The Post he wanted to save the documents until they were needed.

by **The Savior** » Thu Nov 29, 2018 07:40:25

Go after his business and finish him.

by **Monkeyboy** » Thu Nov 29, 2018 08:14:52

They need to do it fast once it gets to a certain point because he's going to end up getting people in the intelligence community killed. And I really think there's almost no limit to what he's capable of doing to save his own skin.

Once Mueller's shit hits the fan, every fucking republican in congress better be willing to go to the mat to get rid of this poison before he does something horrific. Anyone who still stands with him is probably corrupt or being blackmailed because I can't see how any educated american can still believe this man is innocent.

by **JFLNYC** » Thu Nov 29, 2018 08:44:02

He’ll release those FISA documents right about the same time he releases the documents showing Obama isn’t an American citizen.

by **The Savior** » Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:02:53

Trump is a moron who doesn’t read these so called documents and is just throwing buzz words out there to scare people. It’s like busines folks using words like synergies and lets circle back to sound intelligent.

Dude is a moron and horrendous deal maker and a fraud.

Democrats should be saying that every day.

Archived

Florida does a recount and Al Gore wins: Politics

Re: Florida does a recount and Al Gore wins: Politics

Re: Florida does a recount and Al Gore wins: Politics

Re: Florida does a recount and Al Gore wins: Politics

Re: Florida does a recount and Al Gore wins: Politics

Re: Florida does a recount and Al Gore wins: Politics

Re: Florida does a recount and Al Gore wins: Politics

Re: Florida does a recount and Al Gore wins: Politics

Re: Florida does a recount and Al Gore wins: Politics

Re: Florida does a recount and Al Gore wins: Politics

Re: Florida does a recount and Al Gore wins: Politics

Re: Florida does a recount and Al Gore wins: Politics

Re: Florida does a recount and Al Gore wins: Politics

Re: Florida does a recount and Al Gore wins: Politics

Re: Florida does a recount and Al Gore wins: Politics

Re: Florida does a recount and Al Gore wins: Politics

Re: Florida does a recount and Al Gore wins: Politics

Re: Florida does a recount and Al Gore wins: Politics

Re: Florida does a recount and Al Gore wins: Politics

Re: Florida does a recount and Al Gore wins: Politics

Re: Florida does a recount and Al Gore wins: Politics