I think most reasonable people would love the justice department to investigate shady democrats–politicians should be held to high standards regardless of party affiliation.
I think most reasonable people would love the justice department to investigate shady democrats–politicians should be held to high standards regardless of party affiliation.
I think we need a working definition of "shady", first. Your idea of "shady" isn't necessarily mine. I think that any elected official who has ever accepted private-sector donations is corrupt...
I think most reasonable people would love the justice department to investigate shady democrat
I think we need a working definition of "shady", first. Your idea of "shady" isn't necessarily mine.
I think that any elected official who has ever accepted private-sector donations is corrupt because those donations come with the understanding that they will cease if the official does not support the political agenda of the donors. As such, the only difference between private-sector donations and outright bribery is that the law still forbids the latter.
Then again, I'm not exactly reasonable on this subject. I also think that politicians who take bribes, legal or not, should be dealt with in the same manner Vlad Tepes once dealt with invading Turks, criminals, and people who talk at the theater.
You're not, but I'm glad you admit it. It's an idealistic view, that no politician should ever take private donations. Its not realpolitik though. The fact is, unless there is major finance...
Then again, I'm not exactly reasonable on this subject.
You're not, but I'm glad you admit it. It's an idealistic view, that no politician should ever take private donations. Its not realpolitik though. The fact is, unless there is major finance reform, blowing away citizens united, and going far further than that, and backed up by a much stronger Federal Elections Commission to enforce it, there's absolutely no possible way to get elected president in this country without taking private donations (unless you're already one of the top 20 wealthiest people in the world yourself, but that would be arguably even worse).
There are definitely candidates that are more beholden to private interests than others. Private interests donate to candidates because of what they think they'll do. Those candidates don't necessarily have to do that. That's the extremely thin line between campaign donations and bribes. If there's an expectation that because I gave you a million dollars, you have to follow my agenda, that's clearly a bribe. If I give you a million dollars because I like your policies, that's clearly a campaign donation.
I get the feeling that most money going to candidates, if you really took a look at the big donors, fall somewhere on the middle of that spectrum.
Well, if you want to talk about idealistic views, here's one for you: all elections should be replaced with sortition. Pools of potential candidates for each office should be based on existing...
Well, if you want to talk about idealistic views, here's one for you: all elections should be replaced with sortition. Pools of potential candidates for each office should be based on existing constitutional requirements.
If this resulted in a spree of investigations and prosecutions for white collar crime that would be just utterly fantastic. We all know that isn't what Trump is asking for and I doubt it's what...
If this resulted in a spree of investigations and prosecutions for white collar crime that would be just utterly fantastic. We all know that isn't what Trump is asking for and I doubt it's what Sessions would want to deliver.
Before Benghazi, Republicans repeatedly raked her over the coals over stuff like Whitewater and the death of Vince Foster. Hillary Clinton has been the subject of one GOP witch hunt after another...
Clinton was investigated over Benghazi for years, testified for hours on end before Congress, and again nothing was found.
Before Benghazi, Republicans repeatedly raked her over the coals over stuff like Whitewater and the death of Vince Foster. Hillary Clinton has been the subject of one GOP witch hunt after another since 1991, which was one reason I supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primaries; I didn't think Clinton had a prayer in the general election.
Clinton actually did fantastic in the popular, even with decades of vilification on her back. 3-million more votes than Trump, that's a hell of a margin. Considering that the only reason Trump...
Clinton actually did fantastic in the popular, even with decades of vilification on her back.
3-million more votes than Trump, that's a hell of a margin.
Considering that the only reason Trump managed to win the electoral was about 70-thousand votes across three states—and we know that there was foreign interference—Clinton might have honestly won if it weren't for that,
That's a fair point, but it only raises further questions: Suppose Clinton had managed to win the electoral vote as well as the popular, and wasn't assassinated by some right-wing nutjob. Would...
That's a fair point, but it only raises further questions:
Suppose Clinton had managed to win the electoral vote as well as the popular, and wasn't assassinated by some right-wing nutjob. Would she have been able to get anything done, or would a Republican-dominated Congress have continued the same obstructionism with which they opposed Obama at every turn?
I think about this a lot. In short, I think if we avoid socioeconomic or political collapse in the next few years then the Trump Presidency will be beneficial in the long-run, however painful...
I think about this a lot.
In short, I think if we avoid socioeconomic or political collapse in the next few years then the Trump Presidency will be beneficial in the long-run, however painful things are right now. Turbulent times give great opportunities for change.
Unless foreign interference gave us Republican majorities in both Chambers as well, then Ryan & McConnell would have done all in their power to make a President Clinton a very lame duck indeed.
In the long run, Republicans seem to be voting in increasingly ill-suited presidents. Bush was not great. Trump seems even worse. Republicans don't seem to care how competent these presidents are,...
In the long run, Republicans seem to be voting in increasingly ill-suited presidents. Bush was not great. Trump seems even worse. Republicans don't seem to care how competent these presidents are, as long as they remain pro-fossil fuels, pro-police, anti-welfare, anti-regulations, pro-"judeo/christian" values, pro-guns, anti-immigration.
If we're playing the hypotheticals game, supposed Bernie Sanders dropped out a month earlier when it was undeniably clear he would not win the primary. That's what cost the Democrats the election:...
If we're playing the hypotheticals game, supposed Bernie Sanders dropped out a month earlier when it was undeniably clear he would not win the primary.
That's what cost the Democrats the election: the 2 on 1 lasting longer than it needed irrespective of who the dem candidate would be.
Given that the DNC was probably going to pick Clinton regardless, one could argue that Sanders shouldn't have run in the Democratic primary at all. I don't buy it. I think the Democrats lost...
If we're playing the hypotheticals game, supposed Bernie Sanders dropped out a month earlier when it was undeniably clear he would not win the primary.
Given that the DNC was probably going to pick Clinton regardless, one could argue that Sanders shouldn't have run in the Democratic primary at all.
That's what cost the Democrats the election: the 2 on 1 lasting longer than it needed irrespective of who the dem candidate would be.
I don't buy it. I think the Democrats lost because their chosen candidate was Clinton from the start, the primary was strictly for form's sake, Clinton is just another corporate stooge like Obama and her husband Bill, and people are sick of it. The Democrats need to end this political menage a trois they share with Wall Street and the Republicans and actually start representing ordinary Americans again.
Arguably, their mistake could be chalked up to rigging it, but hey what do I know? http://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/...
Arguably, their mistake could be chalked up to rigging it, but hey what do I know?
I'm not sure you need a source. It's obvious that being unable to pivot from in-fighting within your own party to acting as the party candidate must hurt your campaign. If that wasn't the case,...
I'm not sure you need a source. It's obvious that being unable to pivot from in-fighting within your own party to acting as the party candidate must hurt your campaign.
If that wasn't the case, why don't all candidates always stick in the race until there's no longer a theoretical chance of winning? Why do candidates leaving the nomination races always endorse their candidates and try to feed their supporters into their nearest allied campaign if it really didn't matter if they were staying in the race or not?
If you still want to read historical sources (which can be very interesting), here's one piece by Fox news,
Even reading obviously poll-illiterate folks try to show that Bernie didn't ruin things for Hillary, you black on white how Sanders was in it to wrestle with, and ensure Hillary had to fight him rather Democrats working together to onboard as many people as possible together:
By staying in the race, Bernie kept his followers engaged in the political process. By fighting for every delegate, he was able to get some of “his people” on the Platform Committee. And by having at least some influence in that committee, he was then able to go to his supporters and claim that he — and they — had been instrumental in forging the “most progressive party platform in history.”
You can read poll analyses from then, or just read practically any piece on Sanders from April/May of 2016 to see why everyone knew what he was doing would hurt the democrats.
The largest damage Sanders did, was turn off potential Clinton voters from turning out. Remember the huge "surprise" on and right after election day when people realized Democratic turnout was so low? Sanders helped do that.
If anyone tries to tell you a third-wheel candidate doesn't hurt your preferred candidate after the contest is over in all but crazy theoretical scenarios, you know you can safely disregard their opinion.
Thanks for the great reply. Looks like I’ve got some reading to do! I feel like that period of time was so crazy, it was hard to keep up with all the analysis and news. I really liked Sanders too,...
Thanks for the great reply. Looks like I’ve got some reading to do! I feel like that period of time was so crazy, it was hard to keep up with all the analysis and news. I really liked Sanders too, so I’m a little disappointed by this news
To be fair, she did have a prayer (and she still won the popular vote). If it weren’t for Comey’s untimely announcement and other factors, Clinton may have won the electoral college as well.
I didn't think Clinton had a prayer in the general election.
To be fair, she did have a prayer (and she still won the popular vote). If it weren’t for Comey’s untimely announcement and other factors, Clinton may have won the electoral college as well.
I always wondered if the Republicans where so vicious about the Clinton's because they felt the 92 election was stolen from them. Meaning if Ross Preot had not of run, the Republicans would have...
I always wondered if the Republicans where so vicious about the Clinton's because they felt the 92 election was stolen from them. Meaning if Ross Preot had not of run, the Republicans would have easily won and remained in power for much of the 90's.
I think "nothing was found" is a little too light on details for the Benghazi bit, because it was through that thorough investigation that the use of a private email server to handle potenitally...
I think "nothing was found" is a little too light on details for the Benghazi bit, because it was through that thorough investigation that the use of a private email server to handle potenitally classified material was discovered (though she wasn't the first to engage in the practice, nor apparently has she been the last--see also: Jared Kushner, et al.).
I don't think we've still yet reckoned with the potential conflicts infrastructure-wise between public channels ultimately within the government's domain and private channels ultimately outside of the government's domain when it comes to important national document creation and information security. Certain parts of the federal government's infosec infrastructure have been notoriously exposed to all sorts of nefarious access. There may be a case for using private servers that have more market-current security practices compared to these older, more vulnerable systems. Yet we never seem interested in talking about that aspect of the email story. It's all about playing 'gotcha' and the conversation just seems to end there.
Clearly Republicans are not alone in this game of gotcha. Democrats hammering on Trump (or Melania) for some of the less important things they've said and done as though they were the most important thing ever has been part of why I'm fatigued to even discuss this. Democrats have long had a rhetorical pattern of saying THIS IS THE WORST THING EVER AND IF WE DON'T GET EVERYTHING WE WANT ON THIS ISSUE WE ARE SCREWED. Then they don't get everything they want and say "Okay, but NEXT TIME WE DON'T GET EVERYTHING WE WANT, WE'RE SCREWED." And it just repeats, ad nauseum. I'm kind of over that style of debate. There is only one issue that I think justifies that reaction right now, and that's on climate change because the potential impacts are so far down the line that what we're experiencing currently is mostly a reflection of the damage we did in the 70s and 80s. There's almost nothing we can do now to keep the environment the way it is today, but we can start the necessary work of mitigating the damage we're about to see. In all other matters, this rhetoric is inappropriate. All decisions impact lives. But none rise to the level of being nation-catastrophic like Climate Change could.
I've gotten pretty far off track in writing this.
I think that this talk of "corruption" in politics is a losing game no matter who plays it. Punish wrongdoing. Be honest when it is in your ranks (hello, New Jersey Senator Incumbent Bob Menendez), and do the dirty work of fighting the corruption in your own party before insisting the other party disown theirs.
Frankly, the Republicans should never have let Trump participate in their primary, let alone back him in the general election. If there's any justice in the world -- and if the average US voter...
Frankly, the Republicans should never have let Trump participate in their primary, let alone back him in the general election. If there's any justice in the world -- and if the average US voter isn't a complete moron -- they will eventually be made to suffer grievously for this mistake.
Likewise, Congressional Republicans should never have confirmed Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. This is a guy whose nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama was denied because of his racism and McCarthyism. He was too racist to be a federal judge in Alabama. And now he's the AG of the US.
To flip this the other way. Do you think that the American voter base has a memory long enough to do anything about this for more than one election in the future? I honestly don't think so. Do you...
To flip this the other way. Do you think that the American voter base has a memory long enough to do anything about this for more than one election in the future? I honestly don't think so. Do you think that the Democratic party is competent enough to actually punish this either? I have doubts about that as well.
Here's the thing. I've spent my whole life living on the edge, walking the line between idealism and cynicism. I want to believe in my fellow Americans. I hope that they'll remember how the...
Do you think that the American voter base has a memory long enough to do anything about this for more than one election in the future? I honestly don't think so. Do you think that the Democratic party is competent enough to actually punish this either? I have doubts about that as well.
Here's the thing. I've spent my whole life living on the edge, walking the line between idealism and cynicism.
I want to believe in my fellow Americans.
I hope that they'll remember how the Republicans have fucked us over.
George Bush is directly responsible for more deaths and destruction than any president since Johnson pushed into Vietnam, and his justifications for it were far flimsier. Most people just talk...
George Bush is directly responsible for more deaths and destruction than any president since Johnson pushed into Vietnam, and his justifications for it were far flimsier. Most people just talk about the adorable pictures he paints now.
Say what you will about Trump, but he's not directly responsible for the deaths of 500,000 people.
I think you should probably temper your expectations.
True, I'm just trying to keep things in perspective for now though. I think Trump is one of the worst things to happen to the US in the past few years, and I fully realize that if 9/11 had...
True, I'm just trying to keep things in perspective for now though. I think Trump is one of the worst things to happen to the US in the past few years, and I fully realize that if 9/11 had happened during his presidency, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq could have very well been five times worse, but circumstances unfolded as they did, and as of yet, Trump is not responsible for killing roughly the population of Wyoming.
Bush also: Broke a campaign promise to regulate Coal powerplant CO2 Withdrew from the Kyoto climate change treaty Actively blocked climate change data from NASA Censored climate change discussions...
Bush also:
Broke a campaign promise to regulate Coal powerplant CO2
Withdrew from the Kyoto climate change treaty
Actively blocked climate change data from NASA
Censored climate change discussions among federal agencies
Rolled back endangered species protections
and Opened millions of new acres to oil and gas drilling
That's in addition to being directly responsible for killing 500,000 people between 2003 and now. Not hypothetical future people, but actual people, with bullets, missiles and bombs.
Bush still wins the war criminal award as of today.
The point is, does anyone have the power to say "No, you're not allowed to run as a Republican"? Or can anyone run who wants to as long as they meet the legal requirements to become President...
The point is, does anyone have the power to say "No, you're not allowed to run as a Republican"? Or can anyone run who wants to as long as they meet the legal requirements to become President (such as age as citizenship)?
US political parties are private organizations that can basically do whatever they want. The Republican party has internal rules that currently don't allow party leadership to disqualify...
US political parties are private organizations that can basically do whatever they want. The Republican party has internal rules that currently don't allow party leadership to disqualify candidates (I think), but they could change those rules at any time if they felt like it. Doing so right now would probably destroy the party, but it wouldn't be illegal.
I was scanning the replies and I could have sworn one of the tags used on this article was "trainwreck". It was just your comment, hah stupid anecdote.
I was scanning the replies and I could have sworn one of the tags used on this article was "trainwreck". It was just your comment, hah stupid anecdote.
What kind of a scumbag wouldn't recuse himself when charged with investigating his direct superior? That seems like lawyer 101. If you have a vested interest in the outcome of an investigation...
What kind of a scumbag wouldn't recuse himself when charged with investigating his direct superior?
That seems like lawyer 101. If you have a vested interest in the outcome of an investigation (ie; you enjoy being employed), how is that not a blatant conflict of interest? What kind of a person would feel the need to tell your boss that "Hey, if you appoint me as the head investigator, I'm not going to be investigating you, since it would be a conflict of interest". Does that not seem like the blatantly obvious course of action for anyone that isn't a complete scumbag to anyone else?
I don't make a habit of telling my boss that I won't sell cocaine on the job, since I would think he is intelligent enough to make that assumption about me. I don't see how this is any different.
I think most reasonable people would love the justice department to investigate shady democrats–politicians should be held to high standards regardless of party affiliation.
I think we need a working definition of "shady", first. Your idea of "shady" isn't necessarily mine.
I think that any elected official who has ever accepted private-sector donations is corrupt because those donations come with the understanding that they will cease if the official does not support the political agenda of the donors. As such, the only difference between private-sector donations and outright bribery is that the law still forbids the latter.
Then again, I'm not exactly reasonable on this subject. I also think that politicians who take bribes, legal or not, should be dealt with in the same manner Vlad Tepes once dealt with invading Turks, criminals, and people who talk at the theater.
You're not, but I'm glad you admit it. It's an idealistic view, that no politician should ever take private donations. Its not realpolitik though. The fact is, unless there is major finance reform, blowing away citizens united, and going far further than that, and backed up by a much stronger Federal Elections Commission to enforce it, there's absolutely no possible way to get elected president in this country without taking private donations (unless you're already one of the top 20 wealthiest people in the world yourself, but that would be arguably even worse).
There are definitely candidates that are more beholden to private interests than others. Private interests donate to candidates because of what they think they'll do. Those candidates don't necessarily have to do that. That's the extremely thin line between campaign donations and bribes. If there's an expectation that because I gave you a million dollars, you have to follow my agenda, that's clearly a bribe. If I give you a million dollars because I like your policies, that's clearly a campaign donation.
I get the feeling that most money going to candidates, if you really took a look at the big donors, fall somewhere on the middle of that spectrum.
Well, if you want to talk about idealistic views, here's one for you: all elections should be replaced with sortition. Pools of potential candidates for each office should be based on existing constitutional requirements.
If this resulted in a spree of investigations and prosecutions for white collar crime that would be just utterly fantastic. We all know that isn't what Trump is asking for and I doubt it's what Sessions would want to deliver.
Before Benghazi, Republicans repeatedly raked her over the coals over stuff like Whitewater and the death of Vince Foster. Hillary Clinton has been the subject of one GOP witch hunt after another since 1991, which was one reason I supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primaries; I didn't think Clinton had a prayer in the general election.
And I was right.
Clinton actually did fantastic in the popular, even with decades of vilification on her back.
3-million more votes than Trump, that's a hell of a margin.
Considering that the only reason Trump managed to win the electoral was about 70-thousand votes across three states—and we know that there was foreign interference—Clinton might have honestly won if it weren't for that,
That's a fair point, but it only raises further questions:
Suppose Clinton had managed to win the electoral vote as well as the popular, and wasn't assassinated by some right-wing nutjob. Would she have been able to get anything done, or would a Republican-dominated Congress have continued the same obstructionism with which they opposed Obama at every turn?
I think about this a lot.
In short, I think if we avoid socioeconomic or political collapse in the next few years then the Trump Presidency will be beneficial in the long-run, however painful things are right now. Turbulent times give great opportunities for change.
Unless foreign interference gave us Republican majorities in both Chambers as well, then Ryan & McConnell would have done all in their power to make a President Clinton a very lame duck indeed.
In the long run, Republicans seem to be voting in increasingly ill-suited presidents. Bush was not great. Trump seems even worse. Republicans don't seem to care how competent these presidents are, as long as they remain pro-fossil fuels, pro-police, anti-welfare, anti-regulations, pro-"judeo/christian" values, pro-guns, anti-immigration.
If we're playing the hypotheticals game, supposed Bernie Sanders dropped out a month earlier when it was undeniably clear he would not win the primary.
That's what cost the Democrats the election: the 2 on 1 lasting longer than it needed irrespective of who the dem candidate would be.
Given that the DNC was probably going to pick Clinton regardless, one could argue that Sanders shouldn't have run in the Democratic primary at all.
I don't buy it. I think the Democrats lost because their chosen candidate was Clinton from the start, the primary was strictly for form's sake, Clinton is just another corporate stooge like Obama and her husband Bill, and people are sick of it. The Democrats need to end this political menage a trois they share with Wall Street and the Republicans and actually start representing ordinary Americans again.
Arguably, their mistake could be chalked up to rigging it, but hey what do I know?
http://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/debbie-wasserman-schultz-and-the-dnc-favored-hillary_us_57b365a4e4b0b3bb4b0800bd
Do you have some source for this? I fail to see how Bernie staying in the primary made Hillary lose to Trump in the general
I'm not sure you need a source. It's obvious that being unable to pivot from in-fighting within your own party to acting as the party candidate must hurt your campaign.
If that wasn't the case, why don't all candidates always stick in the race until there's no longer a theoretical chance of winning? Why do candidates leaving the nomination races always endorse their candidates and try to feed their supporters into their nearest allied campaign if it really didn't matter if they were staying in the race or not?
If you still want to read historical sources (which can be very interesting), here's one piece by Fox news,
Even reading obviously poll-illiterate folks try to show that Bernie didn't ruin things for Hillary, you black on white how Sanders was in it to wrestle with, and ensure Hillary had to fight him rather Democrats working together to onboard as many people as possible together:
I mean, I was being generous when I said he dropped out a month late. Vox suggested he was more than two months late even before he dropped out.
You can read poll analyses from then, or just read practically any piece on Sanders from April/May of 2016 to see why everyone knew what he was doing would hurt the democrats.
The largest damage Sanders did, was turn off potential Clinton voters from turning out. Remember the huge "surprise" on and right after election day when people realized Democratic turnout was so low? Sanders helped do that.
If anyone tries to tell you a third-wheel candidate doesn't hurt your preferred candidate after the contest is over in all but crazy theoretical scenarios, you know you can safely disregard their opinion.
Thanks for the great reply. Looks like I’ve got some reading to do! I feel like that period of time was so crazy, it was hard to keep up with all the analysis and news. I really liked Sanders too, so I’m a little disappointed by this news
To be fair, she did have a prayer (and she still won the popular vote). If it weren’t for Comey’s untimely announcement and other factors, Clinton may have won the electoral college as well.
I always wondered if the Republicans where so vicious about the Clinton's because they felt the 92 election was stolen from them. Meaning if Ross Preot had not of run, the Republicans would have easily won and remained in power for much of the 90's.
I think "nothing was found" is a little too light on details for the Benghazi bit, because it was through that thorough investigation that the use of a private email server to handle potenitally classified material was discovered (though she wasn't the first to engage in the practice, nor apparently has she been the last--see also: Jared Kushner, et al.).
I don't think we've still yet reckoned with the potential conflicts infrastructure-wise between public channels ultimately within the government's domain and private channels ultimately outside of the government's domain when it comes to important national document creation and information security. Certain parts of the federal government's infosec infrastructure have been notoriously exposed to all sorts of nefarious access. There may be a case for using private servers that have more market-current security practices compared to these older, more vulnerable systems. Yet we never seem interested in talking about that aspect of the email story. It's all about playing 'gotcha' and the conversation just seems to end there.
Clearly Republicans are not alone in this game of gotcha. Democrats hammering on Trump (or Melania) for some of the less important things they've said and done as though they were the most important thing ever has been part of why I'm fatigued to even discuss this. Democrats have long had a rhetorical pattern of saying THIS IS THE WORST THING EVER AND IF WE DON'T GET EVERYTHING WE WANT ON THIS ISSUE WE ARE SCREWED. Then they don't get everything they want and say "Okay, but NEXT TIME WE DON'T GET EVERYTHING WE WANT, WE'RE SCREWED." And it just repeats, ad nauseum. I'm kind of over that style of debate. There is only one issue that I think justifies that reaction right now, and that's on climate change because the potential impacts are so far down the line that what we're experiencing currently is mostly a reflection of the damage we did in the 70s and 80s. There's almost nothing we can do now to keep the environment the way it is today, but we can start the necessary work of mitigating the damage we're about to see. In all other matters, this rhetoric is inappropriate. All decisions impact lives. But none rise to the level of being nation-catastrophic like Climate Change could.
I've gotten pretty far off track in writing this.
I think that this talk of "corruption" in politics is a losing game no matter who plays it. Punish wrongdoing. Be honest when it is in your ranks (hello, New Jersey Senator Incumbent Bob Menendez), and do the dirty work of fighting the corruption in your own party before insisting the other party disown theirs.
Frankly, the Republicans should never have let Trump participate in their primary, let alone back him in the general election. If there's any justice in the world -- and if the average US voter isn't a complete moron -- they will eventually be made to suffer grievously for this mistake.
Likewise, Congressional Republicans should never have confirmed Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. This is a guy whose nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama was denied because of his racism and McCarthyism. He was too racist to be a federal judge in Alabama. And now he's the AG of the US.
This whole country is fucked.
To flip this the other way. Do you think that the American voter base has a memory long enough to do anything about this for more than one election in the future? I honestly don't think so. Do you think that the Democratic party is competent enough to actually punish this either? I have doubts about that as well.
Here's the thing. I've spent my whole life living on the edge, walking the line between idealism and cynicism.
I want to believe in my fellow Americans.
I hope that they'll remember how the Republicans have fucked us over.
I know better than to actually do so.
George Bush is directly responsible for more deaths and destruction than any president since Johnson pushed into Vietnam, and his justifications for it were far flimsier. Most people just talk about the adorable pictures he paints now.
Say what you will about Trump, but he's not directly responsible for the deaths of 500,000 people.
I think you should probably temper your expectations.
True, I'm just trying to keep things in perspective for now though. I think Trump is one of the worst things to happen to the US in the past few years, and I fully realize that if 9/11 had happened during his presidency, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq could have very well been five times worse, but circumstances unfolded as they did, and as of yet, Trump is not responsible for killing roughly the population of Wyoming.
Bush also:
Broke a campaign promise to regulate Coal powerplant CO2
Withdrew from the Kyoto climate change treaty
Actively blocked climate change data from NASA
Censored climate change discussions among federal agencies
Rolled back endangered species protections
and Opened millions of new acres to oil and gas drilling
That's in addition to being directly responsible for killing 500,000 people between 2003 and now. Not hypothetical future people, but actual people, with bullets, missiles and bombs.
Bush still wins the war criminal award as of today.
Does the RNC have any actual control over who can run as a Republican in the primary?
If they don't, who does? The Blue Öyster Cult?
The point is, does anyone have the power to say "No, you're not allowed to run as a Republican"? Or can anyone run who wants to as long as they meet the legal requirements to become President (such as age as citizenship)?
US political parties are private organizations that can basically do whatever they want. The Republican party has internal rules that currently don't allow party leadership to disqualify candidates (I think), but they could change those rules at any time if they felt like it. Doing so right now would probably destroy the party, but it wouldn't be illegal.
But they can't actually forbid them from running as a Republican.
I was scanning the replies and I could have sworn one of the tags used on this article was "trainwreck". It was just your comment, hah stupid anecdote.
What kind of a scumbag wouldn't recuse himself when charged with investigating his direct superior?
That seems like lawyer 101. If you have a vested interest in the outcome of an investigation (ie; you enjoy being employed), how is that not a blatant conflict of interest? What kind of a person would feel the need to tell your boss that "Hey, if you appoint me as the head investigator, I'm not going to be investigating you, since it would be a conflict of interest". Does that not seem like the blatantly obvious course of action for anyone that isn't a complete scumbag to anyone else?
I don't make a habit of telling my boss that I won't sell cocaine on the job, since I would think he is intelligent enough to make that assumption about me. I don't see how this is any different.