Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Karl Henning]

Okay: who can name all ten of those who have now dropped out of the GOP primarypalooza? 

[Todd]

You may not get the fight you want either.

I like all political combat, so I will get what I want: Discord between the parties.

I have to say, you are on a different wave length, with helter skelter, witchhunts, etc.  When I talk about race baiting, I mean both the typical Democratic accusation of racism, as well as Lee Atwater style agitation. 

Now, back to this race.  Last night I learned two main things:

1.) My debate viewing limit is about 20 minutes for either party.  After that, my mind wanders.

2.) Democrats' magic number is $100 billion/year.  Both Sanders and Hillary claimed that amount in annual revenue and/or savings each year that can be spent on various programs, most notably health care.  Details were fuzzy to the point of nonexistence, almost hinting at the politicians just making things up, not that they would do that.

Apparently, Bernie is also innumerate and or completely clueless as to how the criminal justice system works.  He said during his first term, the US would no longer imprison more people than any other country on earth.  That would require about 500K prisoners being released in a penal system where about 200K are federal prisoners.  Surely, Bernie knows presidents cannot simply issue dictates to states to release state prisoners.  Right?  Well, maybe not.  But his supporters seem to include a disproportionate number of people who just like nice sounding things.

[Karl Henning]

But his supporters seem to include a disproportionate number of people who just like nice sounding things.

What, you mean like, English horns? 

[North Star]

Apparently, Bernie is also innumerate and or completely clueless as to how the criminal justice system works.  He said during his first term, the US would no longer imprison more people than any other country on earth.  That would require about 500K prisoners being released in a penal system where about 200K are federal prisoners.  Surely, Bernie knows presidents cannot simply issue dictates to states to release state prisoners.  Right?  Well, maybe not.  But his supporters seem to include a disproportionate number of people who just like nice sounding things.

I suspect he meant that the number of people put in prison per year in the US would go down. Obviously it's still bloody unlikely that the rate could drop that much so suddenly.

[Todd]

I suspect he meant that the number of people put in prison per year in the US would go down.

Here's what he said:

"Here's my promise: At the end of my first term as president we will not have more people in jail than any other country"*


If one uses the lexical definition of the words he used, or even more flexible common usage, he promised to reduce the prison population to be lower than China's.  If so, he lives in la-la land.  If he meant something else, he's a typical dishonest politician.  (I suppose he may not actually know what he means to say - that's certainly a very real possibility.)




* Here's the full blurb:

"We have got to make sure that local police departments look like the communities they serve in their diversity. And, where we are failing abysmally is in the very high rate of recidivism we see. People are being released from jail without the education, without the job training, without the resources that they need to get their lives together, then they end up -- we're shocked that they end up back in jail again. So, we have a lot of work to do.

But, here is a pledge I've made throughout this campaign, and it's really not a very radical pledge. When we have more people in jail, disproportionately African American and Latino, than China does, a communist authoritarian society four times our size. Here's my promise, at the end of my first term as president we will not have more people in jail than any other country.

We will invest in education, and jobs for our kids, not incarceration and more jails."



Not only will the US reduce its prison population by 500K, but police forces will become more racially diverse, because, as all left-leaning sorts know, the race of police officers is the determining factor in their ability to justly police.  This, of course, requires implementing straight-up quotas in public employee hiring.  That's another long-standing dream of the left, though they do not want to stop at public employees.

[North Star]

Alright, that is indeed unambiguous, and not going to happen. Thanks.

[Todd]

Yesterday, I had to smile as I listened to John Lewis' endorsement of Hillary and smackdown of Bernie.


https://www.youtube.com/v/CZ7GyYP9WAA

[Pat B]

If one uses the lexical definition of the words he used, or even more flexible common usage, he promised to reduce the prison population to be lower than China's.  If so, he lives in la-la land.  If he meant something else, he's a typical dishonest politician.  (I suppose he may not actually know what he means to say - that's certainly a very real possibility.)

Maybe he plans to negotiate with China to massively increase their prison population.

[Todd]

Well, this news will add a new dimension to this election year . . .

[(poco) Sforzando]

Well, this news will add a new dimension to this election year . . .

Holy shit. That's easily as important as who becomes the next POTUS.

[Todd]

Holy shit. That's easily as important as who becomes the next POTUS.

It will be interesting to see how long Obama takes to name a successor, and when confirmation hearings might take place.  Before or after the conventions?  Will it impact presidential debate schedules?  Will Republicans obstruct as never before? 

[knight66]

It will be interesting to see how long Obama takes to name a successor, and when confirmation hearings might take place.....  Will Republicans obstruct as never before?

From what I see sprayed across my Twitter feed; the answer is a resounding yes. Nice to know thy will toil at something I suppose.

Mike

[(poco) Sforzando]

It will be interesting to see how long Obama takes to name a successor, and when confirmation hearings might take place.  Before or after the conventions?  Will it impact presidential debate schedules?  Will Republicans obstruct as never before?

"Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader and Republican of Kentucky, backing the sentiments of Senator Ted Cruz, said in a statement that the next president, not President Obama, should appoint a successor to Justice Antonin Scalia."

Does the Constitution forbid the president from nominating a successor in the last year of his administration? First I heard of it.

[Karl Henning]

Balderdash.

[Todd]

Does the Constitution forbid the president from nominating a successor in the last year of his administration? First I heard of it.

No, but the Senate must offer "advice and consent", and consent may be withheld by the Senate.  The political angle is more interesting than normal depending on who does become president.  If Hillary wins, will the Senate face a more appealing nominee?  If Republicans do block the process now, do they destroy their Senate majority in the process?  (Congressional majorities are more important than the presidency in my view.)  Not that they'll ask me, but I'd maneuver hearings on the nominee(s) until after the conventions, and push the final vote as close to election day as practicable while still ensuring the court operates on the first Monday in October.  If needed, perhaps one or two nominees' reputations and/or careers could be demolished in the process, but that's politics.

If the court is hobbled, that means a short period with 4-4 votes on contentious issues, which in practice means lower court rulings would stand.  Depending on which appellate court is involved, that could be good or bad for Democrats or Republicans.

As I wrote before, this adds a new dimension to this election year.

[Karl Henning]

"We don't want Obama to do this," rather than, "the President shouldn't."

[Daverz]

Yesterday, I had to smile as I listened to John Lewis' endorsement of Hillary and smackdown of Bernie.
https://www.youtube.com/v/CZ7GyYP9WAA

Lewis has walked this back somewhat:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/john-lewis-berne-sanders-soften

It was a cheapshot to begin with.  Bernie never claimed to be a leader or important in the movement.

[Todd]

It was a cheapshot to begin with.

Which is why I smiled as I watched it.

[Daverz]

Which is why I smiled as I watched it.

A cheapshot I forgive him for.  The man took blows to the head on the Edmund Pettis bridge for all of us.

[Pat B]

"Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader and Republican of Kentucky, backing the sentiments of Senator Ted Cruz, said in a statement that the next president, not President Obama, should appoint a successor to Justice Antonin Scalia."

Does the Constitution forbid the president from nominating a successor in the last year of his administration? First I heard of it.

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he [McConnell] said.

No surprise that the Senate Rs will spend the next 11 months obstructing everything they can, but what an idiotic way of expressing that. Maybe somebody should remind him that the American people elected Barack Obama for this purpose. Twice.

Also have to wonder whether having a SCOTUS vacancy at the forefront of a Presidential campaign really benefits Republicans.