Law School Discussion

POTUS

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: POTUS
« Reply #90 on: August 19, 2015, 07:53:36 AM »
"I'll follow up later.  Not sure why you dont find me credible? Or incredible for that matter.  This isn't spin or partisanship playing because we are talking an actual federal criminal investigation not bridgegate...lol"

Because you don't seem to get basic facts correct? Let's take this, for example. Bridgegate was an actual criminal investigation, despite your "lol." A person might reasonably disagree with how "serious" they found it, but you do realize that-
1. There was a *federal* investigation.
2. There were indictments of key Christie officials.
3. There has already been a guilty plea.

So, um, yeah. This is why I don't find your facts very credible. More importantly, though, getting back to the OP, I have followed politics long enough to not get too concerned about day-to-day. For example, the reason that Christie is doomed isn't because of bridgegate- it's because he has no GOP support- either with the establishment any more (he burned those, um, bridges) and certainly not with the base.

In an ideal world, I would prefer that Clinton not be the nominee for the Democratic party (nor would I want Sanders, who is unelectable). But I am realistic enough to know that Clinton has the support of the party establishment, and while the House GOP is doing their darnedest to leak information that they believe will damage her, it is unlikely that anyone else will get the nomination, and it is 99% certain that *no one else currently running for the nomination for the Democrats* will.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #91 on: August 19, 2015, 06:14:28 PM »
So, um, yeah. This is why I don't find your facts very credible. More importantly, though, getting back to the OP, I have followed politics long enough to not get too concerned about day-to-day. For example, the reason that Christie is doomed isn't because of bridgegate- it's because he has no GOP support- either with the establishment any more (he burned those, um, bridges) and certainly not with the base.

Would you say he burned those "tunnels" of support?

Re: POTUS
« Reply #92 on: August 19, 2015, 09:11:43 PM »
So, um, yeah. This is why I don't find your facts very credible. More importantly, though, getting back to the OP, I have followed politics long enough to not get too concerned about day-to-day. For example, the reason that Christie is doomed isn't because of bridgegate- it's because he has no GOP support- either with the establishment any more (he burned those, um, bridges) and certainly not with the base.

Would you say he burned those "tunnels" of support?
The un PC reality is no one wants someone that fat from Jersey in charge of anything outside of that area, other than maybe Waste Management.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #93 on: August 20, 2015, 06:47:09 AM »
Tbf, he isn't that fat anymore. He even looks svelte compared to an average 'murican.

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: POTUS
« Reply #94 on: August 20, 2015, 07:16:28 AM »
Would you say he burned those "tunnels" of support?

Heh. Bridge and tunnel crowd. I try not to make too much fun of New Jersey- after all, some topics are too easy.

"The un PC reality is no one wants someone that fat from Jersey in charge of anything outside of that area, other than maybe Waste Management."

Maybe. I think Christie blew his (possible) opening in 2012. He is far too liberal for the GOP base, has too many unfortunate associations, no longer has an "electable" argument, and has seriously angered parts of the establishment- he doesn't play well with other GOP figures.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #95 on: August 20, 2015, 12:55:55 PM »
Tbf, he isn't that fat anymore. He even looks svelte compared to an average 'murican.
No one who vote for the "average 'murican" either.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #96 on: August 24, 2015, 10:53:52 PM »
Oh jeez. Bridgegate Loki, fugedahbatit.  That was much ado about a traffic jam. Nothing like the belt parkway daily grind anyway.  This was about the support people screwing up and getting caught.  Federal crime ok. But not classified info.

I'm telling ya, it's gold. Check  out the usc798 & 1924.  These are about highly classified info mishandling.  You cannot say it isn't fun to watch this pan out. Ok I get it.   Trump is not as compelling at this stage of the game at least for me.   I've watched Bernie sanders smoke clinton in a state she carried.
 and at this point it's more interesting to watch this nixonesque train wreck.

Oh yeah, a sharpening of a bet with uncle joe ready to jump in the race. Maybe.

I think we see who Barak Obama gets behind is your nominee. 8)



Re: POTUS
« Reply #97 on: August 24, 2015, 11:04:17 PM »
Older irish american from pennsylvania and mercurial did I say older carrying on the Obama legacy.
Hillary clinton representing the older Scranton, pennsylvania incompetent yet foreboding a pasture of an entitlement democratic establishment sheep herder straight out of Austin powers. Or some early nineties soviet tank inspector.
Then the extremely older Jewish American New Yorker, Bernie sanders who is carrying the young and old super expanding progressive movement on his back to sell out crowds.  He is the income inequality populist.

We got straight up strange fracture.

Or will hillary become the champion of the Obama legacy and Biden carries the working class vote? Who is to tell at this point?

Republican clowns how group is actually greater than typical with one pt Barnum running.
Oh yeah and the diversity of the large group. Not homogenous as dem dems.

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: POTUS
« Reply #98 on: August 25, 2015, 07:12:24 AM »
Cinnamon-

I think that you misunderstand the valence of the issues. For example, you and I might agree that "bridgegate" is no big deal (people affected might disagree), but it was a investigated and prosecuted by the US-A and resulted in guilty pleas.

On the other hand, you can speculate all you want about the email server, but to date it isn't an issue that will result in an offense. Nor will it. On the other hand, it is an issue that could prove to be politically damaging.

I understand you think it's fun to watch it- and more power to you. But it can be easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees. :)

Re: POTUS
« Reply #99 on: August 25, 2015, 01:49:11 PM »
"Nor will it."

This is what makes no sense.  Mishandling of classified info shouldn't be difficult to grasp; we are just waiting to see in what manner this is prosecuted.  Lets see what the FBI has to say when its done with its investigation.  I guess loki, you already know what they will find.  Amazing.

John Deutsch and sandy Berger compromised classified emails and were just as sloppy as Clinton.  Their cases began with an FBI investigation. The similarities particularly of the former with Clinton's situation are remarkable.

Neither though, had their own unprotected home server.

I guess I dont understand why you don't even see the possibility that Clinton mishandled classified info. Which is a serious crime.  If you could explain why you are so sure she did nothing illegal I think it would explain your point. Do you just feel that she is telling the truth? Help me out.

You must have thought it was strange when they began their investigation since Clinton did nothing wrong.