Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Karl Henning]

So, Karl, is Hillary a lifelong crook, or no?

And do you want "extremely careless" running your country? Really?

Context, snypssss, context.  We've all agreed this is a lousy year for POTUS candidacy.

[(poco) Sforzando]

And do you want "extremely careless" running your country? Really?

"Also, it is worth noting that the President, whoever he or she may be, does nothing so grand as run the country."

- Todd: Reply #238 on Brexit thread (now shut down for the unforgivable crime that some of us were being digressive).

But if the president doesn't run the country, just what does he or she do?

[Brian]

But if the president doesn't run the country, just what does he or she do?

Lose sleep, age rapidly, and watch "Game of Thrones" before everybody else is allowed to.

[mc ukrneal]

The latest thing I've read is that the demand for all her emails has actually revealed that she asked for more secure facilities when she started, and was told no by the NSA! So she only set up this system after having been expressly turned down for a secure system.

There's also evidence that people have been over-classifying emails (which, working in government, is a regular problem). People without much power are often keen to show what they're working on is Terribly Important. See this article with comments from Colin Powell: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes-past-secretaries-of-state/209044

The whole thing makes a heck of a lot of people look quite stupid. I'm not entirely sure that Clinton is one of them.

Ah. So she purposely set up a private server, knowing it was unapproved. That makes things better.

it also seems like she may have lied. She said there was nothing confidential, but the FBI says there was.

I am not denying that her Republican opponent is not ideal (putting it extremely nicely), but that does not mean she should get a pass on this. Many of you may have forgotten how the Clinton administration went from scandal to scandal during its time in office. It was a bit maddening. Neither Bush nor Obama have had this issue (or rather the issue has been on policy rather than stuff like meeting on a plane).

[Karl Henning]

Ah. So she purposely set up a private server, knowing it was unapproved. That makes things better.

it also seems like she may have lied. She said there was nothing confidential, but the FBI says there was.

Many an unforced error through this whole affair.

I am not denying that her Republican opponent is not ideal (putting it extremely nicely), but that does not mean she should get a pass on this. Many of you may have forgotten how the Clinton administration went from scandal to scandal during its time in office. It was a bit maddening. Neither Bush nor Obama have had this issue (or rather the issue has been on policy rather than stuff like meeting on a plane).

Don't blame me—I voted for Bernie 

Even with my limited engagement with US politics in the Clinton era (I was overseas for his first term, e.g.), the whiff of scandal regularly skirted my nostrils.  And dangit, it put the hurt on my nose.

http://www.youtube.com/v/D9FBQ1O5F8k

[(poco) Sforzando]

Lose sleep, age rapidly, and watch "Game of Thrones" before everybody else is allowed to.

Sounds pretty grand to me.

[Todd]

The government's email system is notoriously awful and buggy, and the desktop program crashes regularly.

Which government email system?  Surely you are not implying there is only one, when 137 will do. 

But if the president doesn't run the country, just what does he or she do?

He or she is the head of the executive branch of the federal government.  He or she may or may not enforce federal laws, browbeat states that don't comply with this or that law, and bomb this or that country.  Hell, the President can't even legally impound federal budget funds anymore. (Thanks, Nixon.)  It is a common liberal fallacy to equate the federal government with the country.  That does not make it so.

[(poco) Sforzando]

It is a common liberal fallacy to equate the federal government with the country.  That does not make it so.

Last time this common liberal looked, the federal government was composed of three branches. I don't know any common liberals who think otherwise.

[Rinaldo]

Many of you may have forgotten how the Clinton administration went from scandal to scandal during its time in office. It was a bit maddening. Neither Bush nor Obama have had this issue (or rather the issue has been on policy rather than stuff like meeting on a plane).

Well, when you drag people into a war that will bite us for decades AND a worldwide financial crisis to boot, they tend to overlook scandals of your predecessor.

[Todd]

Last time this common liberal looked, the federal government was composed of three branches. I don't know any common liberals who think otherwise.

Yet it was you who previously claimed the President ran the country.  'Tis not so.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Yet it was you who previously claimed the President ran the country.  'Tis not so.

Primus inter pares.

[Todd]

Primus inter pares.

Janet Yellen?

[Madiel]

Ah. So she purposely set up a private server, knowing it was unapproved. That makes things better.

That's also not an accurate description. If you ask for X, and don't get it, that is not a statement that Y is unapproved. If I can't get a car loan that doesn't mean that purchasing a bicycle is rendered illegal.

Where's the statement that the NSA was generally responsible for approving things? She's been told off for breaching State Department policy, not NSA policy.

I think it's also quite ridiculous to say "she shouldn't get a pass on this" when it's not just the director of the FBI, but actual lawyer after actual lawyer who's been saying for a long time that there's no legal case to answer. It's only the bloody armchair lawyers who keep declaring her guilty.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Janet Yellen?

Oh please. We speak of the Lincoln administration, the Teddy Roosevelt administration, the FDR administration, the Clinton administration, the Obama administration. We don't define periods in American history by the Congress or Supreme Court, much less who's heading the Fed. That's not some kind of a stupid liberal thing, and not for the first time you're just being contentious for the sake of being contentious. And we both know it.

[Madiel]

Many of you may have forgotten how the Clinton administration went from scandal to scandal during its time in office. It was a bit maddening. Neither Bush nor Obama have had this issue (or rather the issue has been on policy rather than stuff like meeting on a plane).

Really? So all the stuff about where Obama was born and whether he was eligible to be President was "policy"?

[Todd]

Oh please. We speak of the Lincoln administration, the Teddy Roosevelt administration, the FDR administration, the Clinton administration, the Obama administration. We don't define periods in American history by the Congress or Supreme Court, much less who's heading the Fed. That's not some kind of a stupid liberal thing, and not for the first time you're just being contentious for the sake of being contentious. And we both know it.

I'm not sure who this "we" is.  It makes sense to write of the Clinton Administration when you are writing of the Clinton Administration, but it is also rather common to use even bigger phrases that encompass so much more.  The Progressive Era, the Post-War Era, etc.  These transcend mere Presidents and escape the cult of personality aspect inherent in focusing solely on Presidents.  Depending on how one approaches history, it is actually very easy, and not at all uncommon, to refer to something like the Warren Court or the Marshall Court.  On matters economic, it is actually not uncommon to refer not to Presidents, but to Fed Chairman (Volcker, say), or to the inflationary period that preceded it (call it Stagflation, call it the Burns era).  You fixate on Presidents.  I don't.  You believe in the objective truth of your proclamations.  I don't.

[mc ukrneal]

Really? So all the stuff about where Obama was born and whether he was eligible to be President was "policy"?

Not exactly the same. Any other examples?

[Madiel]

Not exactly the same. Any other examples?

I only need one.

[mc ukrneal]

I only need one.

No. You need lots, because that was the reference - that the Clinton time was filled with scandals. You can't really expect to compare the whole birthing thing (something which any mainstream person had no issues with for the most part and is an accident of birth, so really isn't a scandal at all) to scandals that were because the person actually did something? I mean with Clinton, it seemed a constant barrage - Gennifer Flowers, Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Whitewater, Travelgate, multiple illegal fund-raising issues, the pardon thing (forget the guy's name), etc.  And it seems to have continued with the Benghazi, emails, DOJ meeting on a plane, etc. We haven't really had that as much with Obama or Bush. Doesn't make them better Presidents, of course.

[Wendell_E]

Many of you may have forgotten how the Clinton administration went from scandal to scandal during its time in office. It was a bit maddening. Neither Bush nor Obama have had this issue (or rather the issue has been on policy rather than stuff like meeting on a plane).

Obama, no.  But Bush?  Seriously?  Have you looked over a list of indicted and convicted criminals in the Bush administration lately?  Google is our friend.