A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
But with fall approaching and momentum on Clinton’s side, Democrats and Republicans alike are looking over the horizon to a thornier reality: If elected, Clinton would likely become the first Democrat since Grover Cleveland to enter office without control of both houses of Congress.
That means the bipartisan show of support she has now — thanks to Donald Trump and the “alt-right,” conspiracy-driven campaign Clinton attacked Thursday in Reno, Nevada — is likely to evaporate as soon as the race is called. If she wins the presidency, Clinton would likely enjoy the shortest honeymoon period of any incoming commander in chief in recent history, according to Washington strategists, confronting major roadblocks to enacting her ambitious agenda, as well as Republican attacks that have been muted courtesy of the GOP nominee.
[...]
While Democrats are confident about taking control of the Senate if Clinton wins the election, even her top operatives who have been working to elect down-ballot Democrats do not expect to snatch up the House of Representatives.
“What that would leave her with is an absolute imperative to govern from the center," said Cowan, a former Bill Clinton White House official. "She will have no choice. There is no choice. Obama will have picked most of the low-hanging executive orders, and she'll be in this Grover Cleveland moment.”
At the same time, many Republicans who have aligned themselves with Clinton say they feel as if they have been “holding their fire” — and that ends Nov. 9.
“In any other election, the majority of national security Republicans would be going after her, and I would be enthusiastically doing so,” said Kori Schake, a veteran of George W. Bush’s National Security Council and State Department, and an adviser to Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. “She wasn’t a particularly good secretary of state; the lack of judgment on emails was a shock to a lot of us. She rightly criticized the Bush administration for its failures creating stability in Iraq — and made the exact same mistake herself on Libya.”
Schake is on the long and growing list of Republicans who have said they plan to support Clinton this fall. But many of those Republicans for Hillary don’t want a vote against Trump to be confused with any newfound love for Clinton.
“A lot of us would like to hold her accountable for the failures, but we are holding our fire,” Schake said. “It's because all of us are afraid of Trump. If she wants to maintain our support after, she’s going to have to address our policy concerns about the economy and America’s role in the world.”
[...]
Republican operatives on the Hill, for instance, are already planning to block Clinton’s agenda by strategically targeting individual Democratic senators who will be up for reelection in 2018. “Take Joe Manchin in West Virginia,” explained one GOP operative of the strategy. “If Hillary puts up an anti-coal, pro-EPA judge for the Supreme Court, the smart play is to start pressuring him with an advocacy campaign to vote no.” Voting with Clinton would jeopardize his reelection chances, and voting against her would rob her of a Democratic Senate vote she couldn’t afford to lose without the 60 votes needed to filibuster.
[...]
Republicans on the Hill said that much of what Clinton has proposed during her campaign amounts to unfinished agenda items of the Obama administration — and they don’t expect her to have any more luck than he did while facing an obstructionist Republican Congress. “If she wins, her four years will look a lot like the last six years of Obama,” said one influential House Republican staffer. “She’s talking about things the president couldn’t get done; why does she think she will have more luck?”
Some Republicans warned that Clinton will have less. Groups like America Rising PAC have spent years researching the most effective attacks on Clinton. “There is a long history of Republicans opposing pretty much everything Hillary Clinton has done, from trying to reform health care in the 1990s to what she was doing as secretary of state — there’s a long memory there,” said Holler. “Assuming she wins, Republicans could in some world say the message here is that we have to compromise with Hillary Clinton. I’d be very surprised if that was their takeaway.”
But with fall approaching and momentum on Clinton’s side, Democrats and Republicans alike are looking over the horizon to a thornier reality: If elected, Clinton would likely become the first Democrat since Grover Cleveland to enter office without control of both houses of Congress.
That means the bipartisan show of support she has now — thanks to Donald Trump and the “alt-right,” conspiracy-driven campaign Clinton attacked Thursday in Reno, Nevada — is likely to evaporate as soon as the race is called. If she wins the presidency, Clinton would likely enjoy the shortest honeymoon period of any incoming commander in chief in recent history, according to Washington strategists, confronting major roadblocks to enacting her ambitious agenda, as well as Republican attacks that have been muted courtesy of the GOP nominee.
[...]
While Democrats are confident about taking control of the Senate if Clinton wins the election, even her top operatives who have been working to elect down-ballot Democrats do not expect to snatch up the House of Representatives.
“What that would leave her with is an absolute imperative to govern from the center," said Cowan, a former Bill Clinton White House official. "She will have no choice. There is no choice. Obama will have picked most of the low-hanging executive orders, and she'll be in this Grover Cleveland moment.”
At the same time, many Republicans who have aligned themselves with Clinton say they feel as if they have been “holding their fire” — and that ends Nov. 9.
“In any other election, the majority of national security Republicans would be going after her, and I would be enthusiastically doing so,” said Kori Schake, a veteran of George W. Bush’s National Security Council and State Department, and an adviser to Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. “She wasn’t a particularly good secretary of state; the lack of judgment on emails was a shock to a lot of us. She rightly criticized the Bush administration for its failures creating stability in Iraq — and made the exact same mistake herself on Libya.”
Schake is on the long and growing list of Republicans who have said they plan to support Clinton this fall. But many of those Republicans for Hillary don’t want a vote against Trump to be confused with any newfound love for Clinton.
“A lot of us would like to hold her accountable for the failures, but we are holding our fire,” Schake said. “It's because all of us are afraid of Trump. If she wants to maintain our support after, she’s going to have to address our policy concerns about the economy and America’s role in the world.”
[...]
Republican operatives on the Hill, for instance, are already planning to block Clinton’s agenda by strategically targeting individual Democratic senators who will be up for reelection in 2018. “Take Joe Manchin in West Virginia,” explained one GOP operative of the strategy. “If Hillary puts up an anti-coal, pro-EPA judge for the Supreme Court, the smart play is to start pressuring him with an advocacy campaign to vote no.” Voting with Clinton would jeopardize his reelection chances, and voting against her would rob her of a Democratic Senate vote she couldn’t afford to lose without the 60 votes needed to filibuster.
[...]
Republicans on the Hill said that much of what Clinton has proposed during her campaign amounts to unfinished agenda items of the Obama administration — and they don’t expect her to have any more luck than he did while facing an obstructionist Republican Congress. “If she wins, her four years will look a lot like the last six years of Obama,” said one influential House Republican staffer. “She’s talking about things the president couldn’t get done; why does she think she will have more luck?”
Some Republicans warned that Clinton will have less. Groups like America Rising PAC have spent years researching the most effective attacks on Clinton. “There is a long history of Republicans opposing pretty much everything Hillary Clinton has done, from trying to reform health care in the 1990s to what she was doing as secretary of state — there’s a long memory there,” said Holler. “Assuming she wins, Republicans could in some world say the message here is that we have to compromise with Hillary Clinton. I’d be very surprised if that was their takeaway.”
Sun rises in east, water is wet. Was there anyone who didn't see this coming?
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
+16
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Even if the Democrats get control of the Senate and nuke the filibuster, the GOP can still obstruct from the House.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
+1
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
Once again, the focus on inane stuff like that stupid medical letter lets Trump slip away.
who is slipping and from where? and why is it bad to pay attention to a political campaign for the highest office doing yet another inane thing?
You're thinking about this with greater depth than Trump is, because he sure hasn't got any answers for you.
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
hah what depth, I just don't see what him bringing up medical records has to do with him slipping away from medical records. I don't expect any answers from him... when you do you get things like his ludicrous doctor's note.
Really even setting Clinton aside "GOP gearing up to stop Dem president from doing anything!" isn't so much news as it is the status quo that has been in place for years at this point
+10
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Really even setting Clinton aside "GOP gearing up to stop Dem president from doing anything!" isn't so much news as it is the status quo that has been in place for years at this point
They will be swapping out (some of) the racism for sexism though, so that'll be interesting.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I did a political compass quiz a little while ago but I don't think it was designed by these idiots. It correctly placed me as a slightly left wing, slightly authoritarian, and more or less in-line with mainstream Democrats.
So I just nodded and said "yeap, that's right".
That's about where I ended up years ago (2004 maybe?). Not sure much has changed to shift me since, but I'd be dumbfounded to find out that I ended up either straight libertarian or just right-wing authoritarian.
A sensible poll should put someone who is pro big government and regulation but socially liberal as somewhere along the authoritarian spectrum. When compared to a true libertarian or an anarchist we are absolutely authoritarian by comparison. But less authoritarian than a traditional Republican, who believes in social control as well as plenty of government (just different governmental focus than the Democrats).
So I don't really have an issue with compasses that throw mainstream Democrats and Republicans somewhere on the authoritarian side because, well, they are. Compared to anarchists and noted terrorist Grover Norquist anyway.
The problem with Political Compass though isn't just that they put all of the actual politicians in the upper right, but that it's designed to put everyone who answers the quiz in the lower left. I could agree with Hillary on 90% of issues and it would tell me to vote for Jill Stein.
I did a political compass quiz a little while ago but I don't think it was designed by these idiots. It correctly placed me as a slightly left wing, slightly authoritarian, and more or less in-line with mainstream Democrats.
So I just nodded and said "yeap, that's right".
That's about where I ended up years ago (2004 maybe?). Not sure much has changed to shift me since, but I'd be dumbfounded to find out that I ended up either straight libertarian or just right-wing authoritarian.
A sensible poll should put someone who is pro big government and regulation but socially liberal as somewhere along the authoritarian spectrum. When compared to a true libertarian or an anarchist we are absolutely authoritarian by comparison. But less authoritarian than a traditional Republican, who believes in social control as well as plenty of government (just different governmental focus than the Democrats).
So I don't really have an issue with compasses that throw mainstream Democrats and Republicans somewhere on the authoritarian side because, well, they are. Compared to anarchists and noted terrorist Grover Norquist anyway.
I get that. Just saying if I took a poll and ended up where they placed Hillary, I'd be extremely suspicious.
I did a political compass quiz a little while ago but I don't think it was designed by these idiots. It correctly placed me as a slightly left wing, slightly authoritarian, and more or less in-line with mainstream Democrats.
So I just nodded and said "yeap, that's right".
That's about where I ended up years ago (2004 maybe?). Not sure much has changed to shift me since, but I'd be dumbfounded to find out that I ended up either straight libertarian or just right-wing authoritarian.
A sensible poll should put someone who is pro big government and regulation but socially liberal as somewhere along the authoritarian spectrum. When compared to a true libertarian or an anarchist we are absolutely authoritarian by comparison. But less authoritarian than a traditional Republican, who believes in social control as well as plenty of government (just different governmental focus than the Democrats).
So I don't really have an issue with compasses that throw mainstream Democrats and Republicans somewhere on the authoritarian side because, well, they are. Compared to anarchists and noted terrorist Grover Norquist anyway.
I get that. Just saying if I took a poll and ended up where they placed Hillary, I'd be extremely suspicious.
I'm curious where Hillary would end up on that test.
Hillary's a secret Libertarian? omg
+1
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
Fucking Christ his writing style is like a 3rd grader, its maddening
Like the first tweet, dear god. Is he asking if anyone knows because he's not sure, or is he telling us in case we don't already know? There's no question mark, so who knows?
So a foreign power (Russia?) is attempting to physically rig our elections? Do we get a do over if it's found the only reason President Trump is in office is because of verifiable interference by a foreign agent?
E: Quick googling does not reveal exfiled to be a word. Could someone explain?
silence1186 on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
So a foreign power (Russia?) is attempting to physically rig our elections? Do we get a do over if it's found the only reason President Trump is in office is because of verifiable interference by a foreign agent?
E: Quick googling does not reveal exfiled to be a word. Could someone explain?
My guess is that it means the info was taken (as in obtained) but not (necessarily?) altered.
The FBI thing uses "exfiltration," I'm assuming it's short for that.
So a foreign power (Russia?) is attempting to physically rig our elections? Do we get a do over if it's found the only reason President Trump is in office is because of verifiable interference by a foreign agent?
E: Quick googling does not reveal exfiled to be a word. Could someone explain?
Manchurian candidates are supposed to keep their real allegiances hidden not so with Trump.
Donald J. Trump, who has gone more than a year without holding a single event in a black community, plans to head to a predominantly black church in Detroit on Saturday and speak with the president of an African-American owned and operated national Christian television network.
Mr. Burns said Mr. Trump will talk about crime and safety, unemployment issues, educational opportunities and the candidate’s plans to help black colleges and universities.
Mr. Trump has declined to speak before several minority organizations, including the N.A.A.C.P., the National Urban League, the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.
At least Trump should know he can't do any further harm to himself with black voters unless he gives the speech dressed in blackface.
Posts
That's Race-ist.
I prefer
We're talking about the GOP and Hillary Clinton afterall
Sun rises in east, water is wet. Was there anyone who didn't see this coming?
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
who is slipping and from where? and why is it bad to pay attention to a political campaign for the highest office doing yet another inane thing?
You're thinking about this with greater depth than Trump is, because he sure hasn't got any answers for you.
They will be swapping out (some of) the racism for sexism though, so that'll be interesting.
The problem with Political Compass though isn't just that they put all of the actual politicians in the upper right, but that it's designed to put everyone who answers the quiz in the lower left. I could agree with Hillary on 90% of issues and it would tell me to vote for Jill Stein.
Is PoliticsUSA a reliable source? Because if they are, this is the best news I've read all day.
I get that. Just saying if I took a poll and ended up where they placed Hillary, I'd be extremely suspicious.
And of course Trump has said helpful things like "I don't need your donations, I'm rich!" Which I expect has been super helpful for the RNC
I'm curious where Hillary would end up on that test.
He did not type in the handle correctly. He meant this account: https://twitter.com/RhondaRoseFlora
And it looks like he is going on another screed.
Yeah, I was really hoping Obama would get a renewed graphic design effort for the Feds, what with his logo and all. Nope.
Like the first tweet, dear god. Is he asking if anyone knows because he's not sure, or is he telling us in case we don't already know? There's no question mark, so who knows?
Also the commas in the last one
Also record levels?
Also agh I've gone cross eyed
He'll just retweet everyone who said he won and was amazing.
With a soupçon of focusing on the new birtherism: attempting to impune Hillary Clinton's health status.
George Wallace could get more of the African American vote than Trump could.
AP going full Faux News.
So a foreign power (Russia?) is attempting to physically rig our elections? Do we get a do over if it's found the only reason President Trump is in office is because of verifiable interference by a foreign agent?
E: Quick googling does not reveal exfiled to be a word. Could someone explain?
Great, nothing like political leaders declaring what the press will write.
The FBI thing uses "exfiltration," I'm assuming it's short for that.
Manchurian candidates are supposed to keep their real allegiances hidden not so with Trump.
God, he really is like a child.
BAD BABYSITTING