|
Hollismason posted:I am pretty sure he can't nominate him as others have stated. They're looking into getting a waiver for it. And if it's feasible (and this isn't just a head fake by Trump -- possible), it'll probably work out. I'm sure that the Republicans in Congress will be fine with Mattis as SecDef; he's broadly popular on the right.
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 21:05 |
|
|
Hollismason posted:There's no question really at this point that we're not going to war. Almost every person so far mentioned has a huge "Lets bomb and attack Iran" sentiment. It'll be nice to see the cognitive dissonance behind the eyes of all those people who voted for Trump because Hillary is a "warmonger" before I'm drafted and sent to die near Esfahan.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Iran cannot win a war with the US. Jokes about dying in a foxhole outside of Ahvaz aside, I'm very skeptical of the idea that any "war" with Iran would involve actual ground troops, as opposed to just a general campaign of aerial and missile bombardments of their infrastructure in some sort of misguided boondoggle effort to remove their capacity to make nukes/export terror. Basically what we did to Iraq in the 90s, but a lot more intense. Deadulus posted:Does Iran have the capability to damage an aircraft carrier? I think they have Silkworm missiles (or something like that) that can take out a carrier if they get really lucky.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:Doesn't Russia support Iran? Would the pro-Russia wing of Trump's administration intervene? No, because Flynn has some back-asswards retarded worldview where ISIS and Iran are linked with Pyongyang and Havana in some sort of anti-American super-alliance. He seemingly has zero regard for the relationship between Iran and Russia.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:We're not going to war with loving Iran. We'll probably put up a lot of awful sanctions that creates a completely unnecessary humanitarian crisis that will help destabilize Central Asia for years to come and set back Iranian progress decades but there won't be a war in the traditional sense. Not only would the American public simple not stand for any deployment of ground troops but Putin would NOT take it lying down. I also doubt that there will be an actual shooting war with Iran, but let's not pretend Putin wouldn't cut bait with Tehran double-quick if America was stupid enough to stick its head into that meatgrinder, so that he could play in the Eastern European sandbox while we're distracted.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
RandomBlue posted:It's false flags all the way down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Sl4EjFaUTc
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Mustached Demon posted:Yeah it's like thinking Richard Sherman's ok for sharing a name with General Sherman while he makes your passing game his bitch. In the illustrious tradition of his predecessor, Richard Sherman committed a war crime to defeat Atlanta a few weeks back.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
Harrow posted:There may be some Republican senators with some principles left, but definitely not the majority, and absolutely not the House. no, don't you see, Paul Ryan is a Serious Man with Serious Ideas.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ChMadar/status/800680544002392065
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
WingsOfSteel posted:On the subject of Dems needing at least three Republican Senators to stand against Trump's most egregious policies, what about Jeff Flake and Ben Sasse? Weren't they big critics of Trump even after he won the nomination? Jeff Flake has already said he'll support Jeff Sessions. And Ben Sasse is a critic of Trump as a personality: as far as politics goes, he's as conservative as they come.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
 Who's excited for voter roll purges coordinated by the Department of Homeland Security? 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Covok posted:I mean the sentence seems more like it's saying there will be regulations on voter rolls. Like, you're inferring a bit there. It's not a major inferential leap if it's Kris Kobach we're talking about.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:I can't even comprehend how anyone right now could think both sides are the same You underestimate just how unplugged a large number of people are from politics.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
AdmiralViscen posted:Hillary won the election big if true
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/rawstory/status/800918001386078208 https://twitter.com/dwdavison9318/status/801097581791158272
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Quorum posted:My feeling is that if they had actually persuasive evidence, they'd have come out and released it publicly. They may have suggestive evidence, but I doubt it's anything large or pervasive enough to actually swing the election. Agreed. This smells like 2004-vintage Diebold hysteria.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:What happens though if they are recounted and it turns out Hillary did win? No one knows. It would be completely unprecedented. Which is a big part of why I don't think it will happen.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Was-the-US-Election-Stolen-...Yet-Again-20161118-0008.html quote:According to the exit poll data compiled from 28 states where data was available, nearly every single race where there was a discrepancy between exit poll and final vote data went to Trump.  yeah it's 2004 alright
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Well, no, if there is an official recount and it changes the outcome of the election then Hillary is president. The thing is, I'm not even sure if it's that straightforward. If (and this is the biggest if of the past 100 years or more) widespread electoral fraud did somehow flip those three states to Trump, and it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was the case, I'm not sure what the legal process for overturning the selection of electors would be if the state involved had already certified its results. It would likely require some sort of convoluted series of lawsuits, state legislature votes, and/or federal government intervention, and you'd have to go back to, like, 1876 or something to find anything even remotely similar to that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Condiv posted:so if this election comes down to the supreme court again, and it goes 4/4, what happens? lower court decision stands
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Either Roberts or Kennedy would flip. I'm not so sure. Alito and Thomas would be #MAGA all the way, but Kennedy and Roberts strike me as the sort of Republicans that would despise Trump and everything he stands for. Maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part, though. Anyway it's not gonna go to the Supreme Court, so this is all just theorycrafting.  https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/801211439209914369 Quorum posted:But hilariously, it has no binding effect outside that circuit! Comedy option: nine trump versus Clinton cases, Trump gets to be president of the Fifth Circuit and a couple of the others, Clinton gets all the rest. I don't think it would go to a federal circuit since elections are administered at the state level. Everything in 2000 was dealt with by Florida state courts up until Bush v. Gore went to SCOTUS.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Xae posted:The first thing Bush v. Gore states is that it sets no precedent. All bets are off. It's not about precedent, it's about standing and jurisdiction. Disputing an election result is a matter of state law, so it would be filed in a state court.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Niton posted:Irrespective of anything else, that is a large discrepency between Clinton and Feingold voters. Who are those people? Plenty of swing voters like their state-level Republican/Democrat candidates but dislike the national nominees. Combine that with the fact that Johnson had the advantage of incumbency, and it's not too surprising.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Niton posted:You have it backwards, I think. Ross Feingold outperformed Clinton, against an incumbent, by a large margin. That's unusual just on its face before you get into the irregularities of the # of votes cast. That's just in one county though. Feingold lost statewide by more than Clinton. At the county level, you're talking sample sizes that are small enough (relatively speaking) for all sorts of weirdos to rear their heads. And anyway, while the bit about Johnson being the incumbent may not apply, it's still the case that there are probably still swing voters (or disaffected leftists) who liked Feingold more than Clinton.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Niton posted:I think we're on the same side? I just find it interesting/unusual how that voter breakdown looks even in the bizarre second-twist case where the 3000 phantom votes were Democratic stuffing. sorry, I'm tired and I've sort of lost the plot. whatever our disagreement is/may be, you're probably right. if we are disagreeing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:yeah, the republicans would just use their playbook from 2000, gum up the works and run out the clock on any recount. the real kicker here is that there's not even a recount being called for here per se, it seems that they're alleging some sort of strange infosec breach that flipped voting machine totals. Which is gonna be drat near impossible to prove without a smoking gun.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/801226924156719104
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Again we're assuming that's the only thing they noticed. Michigan has all-paper ballots so that would be quite a trick for Putin to pull off.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/status/801210219019673600 https://twitter.com/SimonMaloy/status/801230994305089536
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
reminder that a higer % evangelicals voted for trump than anyone else this century lmao
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:or shes not actually expecting to get the full amount of money necessary and will pocket what she does get Bingo. Learn how to spot a scam, we're in for a lot of them in the next few years. Case in point: smoke and mirrors "infrastructure bill" that mostly consists of tax credits.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Weird BIAS posted:https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount 2.5 million haha holy poo poo
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Jill Stein's totally-not-a-scam recount kickstarter has raised $818,000 in 6 hours 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Urgh what Id do to route all that money into the ACLU or PP I was gonna say something like "if only they had donated it to the Clinton campaign", but then I realized that Robby Mook would have set it on fire airing extra TV ads in Houston or something. edit: lol speaking of which https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/801585489178460160
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Condiv posted:then people will learn the hard way that the dems are a joke too we already have
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/801592866443182080
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
baw posted:If the data was showing they were fine (it was) then it's hard to blame them for not listening to Bill. The problem is no matter how good your supercomputer and algorithms are, you'll still get lovely results if you feed lovely data into it. And this time around all the data was lovely Sure. My problem is that nobody seemed to have the necessary degree of creative thought to think "hey, a few weeks out from E-Day, and Feingold is cratering in Wisconsin, begging us for help. Maybe we should get some people on the ground to re-examine our priors and make sure that we're not missing something here?" Instead they just throw more money at Arizona.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
alpha_destroy posted:Joking aside: at the risk of sounding racist, what makes Trump or conservatives think Carson is qualified for this position besides the fact the department has "urban" in the name and Carson is black? I think that Carson has at times pontificated about the nature of Federal housing programs to various horrible ends, such as saying that housing discrimination laws should be repealed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Kia_Mak/status/802353507734986752
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 21:05 |
|
|
blue squares posted:Didn't realize it was him. Now I suspect the story in the post is wildly inaccurate https://twitter.com/dick_nixon/status/798340369964531712?lang=en
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 05:44
|
|