jerseyhoya wrote:Not sure it's a good decision, but there are no good options, only a series of bad ones that it's pretty tough to say which is least bad. Though endorse, unendorse, fake half re-endorse is probably not the least bad path.

Yeah, that's basically where I'm at with him.

pacino wrote:Republicans have decided to investigate the sure-to-be corrupt Clinton administration. They'll figure out what about soon enough.

I'm sympathetic to the possibility of corruption, and the need to investigate. Even if I have no faith in it being led by our Congress, winning an election does not absolve you from scrutiny and investigation (see Nixon winning by 23% in the popular vote, then resigning later).

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:Republicans have decided to investigate the sure-to-be corrupt Clinton administration. They'll figure out what about soon enough.

I'm sympathetic to the possibility of corruption, and the need to investigate. Even if I have no faith in it being led by our Congress, winning an election does not absolve you from scrutiny and investigation (see Nixon winning by 23% in the popular vote, then resigning later).

An investigation should be in response to new allegations of wrongdoing. It should not be a presumptive state of existence, and the prior allegations have been investigated thoroughly.

As a political matter, permanent "investigation" makes little sense: even the witless drumpfians know "they all do it"

Add to that that Chipmunk Chaffetz, Trey Gowdie, and Issa have all proven they're not any good at all at conducting these things

direct democracy in California is sorta silly at this point:

I’m talking about the California November voter guide, which this year clocks in at 224 pages, thanks to 17 statewide ballot propositions—the longest ballot in a quarter-century. This morass includes multiple initiatives on the same issue, proposals to extend deadlines that the legislature has routinely extended itself, and ballot measures that force future policies to be decided by other ballot measures. In 2016, the Golden State’s experiment with direct democracy has imploded, producing little more than outsized salaries for a handful of political consultants. Somebody needs to tranquilize this beast and end our misery.

It’s supremely easy to certify measures for the California ballot: 365,880 signatures for an initiative and 585,407 for a constitutional amendment, in a state with over 18 million registered voters. A robust signature-gathering industry makes qualifying propositions a matter of raising several million dollars, a barrier for ordinary Californians but child’s play for the special interests that rule the process, a perversion of former Governor Hiram Johnson’s vision of direct democracy.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:Republicans have decided to investigate the sure-to-be corrupt Clinton administration. They'll figure out what about soon enough.

I'm sympathetic to the possibility of corruption, and the need to investigate. Even if I have no faith in it being led by our Congress, winning an election does not absolve you from scrutiny and investigation (see Nixon winning by 23% in the popular vote, then resigning later).

I'm sympathetic to the idea that investigations need to occur, but the sort of *insert controversy here* method this Congress has done with it has really soured me on them trying much legitimate in 2017.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:Republicans have decided to investigate the sure-to-be corrupt Clinton administration. They'll figure out what about soon enough.

I'm sympathetic to the possibility of corruption, and the need to investigate. Even if I have no faith in it being led by our Congress, winning an election does not absolve you from scrutiny and investigation (see Nixon winning by 23% in the popular vote, then resigning later).

An investigation should be in response to new allegations of wrongdoing. It should not be a presumptive state of existence, and the prior allegations have been investigated thoroughly.

I hate to cite Wikileaks emails, but possible corruption in the executive office is worth an investigation. It's not speculation, but what we know today.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hil ... 3911ed5e27

pacino wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:Republicans have decided to investigate the sure-to-be corrupt Clinton administration. They'll figure out what about soon enough.

I'm sympathetic to the possibility of corruption, and the need to investigate. Even if I have no faith in it being led by our Congress, winning an election does not absolve you from scrutiny and investigation (see Nixon winning by 23% in the popular vote, then resigning later).

I'm sympathetic to the idea that investigations need to occur, but the sort of *insert controversy here* method this Congress has done with it has really soured me on them trying much legitimate in 2017.

I hear you. It's a classic boy who called wolf scenario... we just can't rule out a legitimate corruption scandal in this upcoming white house, nor can we just point to a mandate to govern based on a popular vote.

Bernie Sanders would have been clean.

Werthless wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:Republicans have decided to investigate the sure-to-be corrupt Clinton administration. They'll figure out what about soon enough.

I'm sympathetic to the possibility of corruption, and the need to investigate. Even if I have no faith in it being led by our Congress, winning an election does not absolve you from scrutiny and investigation (see Nixon winning by 23% in the popular vote, then resigning later).

An investigation should be in response to new allegations of wrongdoing. It should not be a presumptive state of existence, and the prior allegations have been investigated thoroughly.

I hate to cite Wikileaks emails, but possible corruption in the executive office is worth an investigation. It's not speculation, but what we know today.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hil ... 3911ed5e27

i guess i'm missing the thing Morocco 'got' from this? Access...for what? The link you provided doesn't say.

Werthless wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:Republicans have decided to investigate the sure-to-be corrupt Clinton administration. They'll figure out what about soon enough.

I'm sympathetic to the possibility of corruption, and the need to investigate. Even if I have no faith in it being led by our Congress, winning an election does not absolve you from scrutiny and investigation (see Nixon winning by 23% in the popular vote, then resigning later).

An investigation should be in response to new allegations of wrongdoing. It should not be a presumptive state of existence, and the prior allegations have been investigated thoroughly.

I hate to cite Wikileaks emails, but possible corruption in the executive office is worth an investigation. It's not speculation, but what we know today.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hil ... 3911ed5e27

Sorry, I'm not seeing anything there, at least not under current law. Not even a Bob McDonnell level of almost-but-not-quite-because-fortunately-for-me-my-staff-had-morals quid pro quo.

If the chief executive of every state or federal government faces an investigation every time a major donor seeks a meeting, government will grind to a halt completely. And Morocco wasn't even a donor to her--it was to the foundation, from which neither she nor any of her family members draw a salary.

pacino wrote:Iceland could end up being run by activists and hackers

Jónsdóttir, the Pirates’ parliamentary leader, has said her party is willing to form a government with any party that subscribes to its agenda of “fundamental system change”, including the introduction of a new, crowdsourced national constitution.

Now wait just a fucking minute, you crazy ass viking fucks

they did an AMA and they came off terrible

The NYT Upshot/Siena poll has Clinton up 46-39 and McGinty up 47-44. Cool pictures, good analysis, nice piece of evidence for the not ticketsplitting thesis of TNC and others.

Inside the Trump Bunker, With 12 Days to Go - I have many thoughts about this. I think the most simple to express is it is wild to me that they made the decision to grant this access and say they things they did less than two weeks before the election.

Top Democrats steamed that party letting Rubio skate - This was a bigger thing yesterday, but I wanted to include something in here that made me less sad.

jh - that article (the Bunker one) makes me think they are basically advertising themselves

Interesting to see Donald's support is higher in Delco and Bucks than in Montco. I'd categorize Montco as largely 'newer' past the Main Line than the other two as far as suburbs go.

Mr. Trump had the support of one black respondent to the survey.

Woody wrote:

pacino wrote:Iceland could end up being run by activists and hackers

Jónsdóttir, the Pirates’ parliamentary leader, has said her party is willing to form a government with any party that subscribes to its agenda of “fundamental system change”, including the introduction of a new, crowdsourced national constitution.

Now wait just a fucking minute, you crazy ass viking fucks

Constitutiony McConstitutionface

that Bloomberg article is amazing and scary as hell, thanks for the link JH

pacino wrote:jh - that article (the Bunker one) makes me think they are basically advertising themselves

Yes.

It's quite the balancing act of demonstrating you exist in reality (acknowledging he's behind) to maintain credibility as a data guy, while also working to stoke the resentment/rigged line of argument. The claims made about how Trump could still win are so hollow, you can tell they don't believe it, but clearly Donald does.

The RNC has pushed back on Trump owning the voter contact list, so I have no idea about that. I don't really think whoever controls an email list of 10 million people or whatever has the Golden Ticket for running the GOP moving forward, though it's clear if they want to be a major nuisance regardless of ownership, they can be a major nuisance. Bannon really wants this to happen. It's less clear Trump has any desire to keep this going. And if Trump does walk away with this contact info and can rent it through his campaign to business ventures for below market rates, that's a real angle at him making money off the campaign that I've pushed back on in other forms, though there seems to be a lot of ambiguity there.

Whoever said that voter suppression stuff is working on their first and probably last campaign. Dunno if that's Bannon or Parscale or some other know nothing, but there's generally nothing wrong with trying to dampen enthusiasm for your opponent among their core supporters...difficult to fathom how stupid you have to be to describe that as voter suppression to a fucking reporter.

Reading the article having some idea about how some of this stuff works these people come across as pretty dumb. I can only imagine what data people who actually know what they're doing on the GOP side (who mostly refused to work for Trump) think of it.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:jh - that article (the Bunker one) makes me think they are basically advertising themselves

The RNC has pushed back on Trump owning the voter contact list, so I have no idea about that. I don't really think whoever controls an email list of 10 million people or whatever has the Golden Ticket for running the GOP moving forward, though it's clear if they want to be a major nuisance regardless of ownership, they can be a major nuisance. Bannon really wants this to happen. It's less clear Trump has any desire to keep this going. And if Trump does walk away with this contact info and can rent it through his campaign to business ventures for below market rates, that's a real angle at him making money off the campaign that I've pushed back on in other forms, though there seems to be a lot of ambiguity there.

Licensing his name is essentially what he's good at. I don't doubt this is what ends up happening.