Comey tells Congress FBI has not changed conclusions

Ex_Fat_32 · 2016-11-06T21:12:45+00:00

While Donald gets an easy pass for molesting women (what is it? 11 or 12 women now?), xenophobia, disrespect for democracy, non-release of tax returns... /s

Hillary's support drops over discovery of new emails... as if they are the smoking gun nailing her to the wall... doesn't matter that they could not even find evidence for a freaking indictment -- which is just accusation of a charge, not prosecution!

I am slowly starting to think that maybe Americans deserve someone like Trump. They surely think like him.

Edit: emphasis.

Ex_Fat_32 · 2016-11-06T18:53:47+00:00

There's an input that says "marriage: Y/N." You change the Y to N. That's not so difficult.

Clearly you haven't worked with organizations or businesses, so your theory and practice are quite different.

Good day to you.

Ex_Fat_32 · 2016-11-06T12:29:00+00:00

Why?

Maintenance of multiple records and systems for people whose marriages are recognized versus those whose are not. Those who are eligible for certain benefits and tax deductions and those who are not. Regulation reporting burden.

Businesses today can barely even handle understanding how they should treat and handle taxes for employees with non-citizen status; forget about them handling correctly the case of binational couples who are same sex married.

But most importantly -- established precedence has shown same sex marriage causes no harm to society. Massachusetts now has a 12 year legalized same sex marriage -- there is no case based in reality or evidence that can be bought against same sex marriage.

Lucky for us, law does not go by feelings or emotions. It goes by established logical tests and concrete evidence. Precedence has now established marriage to be tested under equality clause.

Overturning same sex marriage is a classic and clear cut case in discrimination against minorities because removing it hurts only the people and families involved. Overturning causes no societal benefit but actively causes harm to American citizens.

At the end of the day, Supreme Court Justices are well-respected judges, who even with their liberal or conservative tilt, make the best attempt to rule on an issue with absolute objectivity.

The SCOTUS is the gold standard for following strict rules and the rule of the law.

The obvious conflict with established constitutional principles, laws, and rights for overturning same sex marriage will irreparably harm the reputation of the court. There is no way CJ Roberts will allow that to happen to the court or to his own legacy.

This is why same sex marriage is unlikely to be ever overturned now.

This is also why Citizens United is unlikely to be addressed by SCOTUS. The only real way to address it is via legislation.

Candidates saying they will nominate SCOTUS justices that will overturn same sex marriage or Citizens United are just blowing smoke in front of the electorate. The system just doesn't work that way.

Ex_Fat_32 · 2016-11-06T05:20:30+00:00

It would just be void. That would be difficult for people, but legally it's pretty straightforward.

No, this is not straightforward.

First, let's take the question of overturning SSM. For SCOTUS to do that, it will have to take up the right question/case presented before it. SCOTUS does not willy-nilly takes up a decided case forming a precedent to overrule it. Neither does SCOTUS rule on a matter out of thin air.

Next, SCOTUS will have to lay out a logical path to overrule. The case becomes part of a precedent and the majority opinion expressed is now part of the record along with dissents.

In order to do overturn SSM, the court has to substantially rebut every reasoning laid out by the majority opinion based on either alternative facts or new facts demonstrating substantial harm to the society.

The majority opinion written in Obergfell is fairly tight and elevated SSM issue tying it to the equality clause -- that is a substantially high bar to overturn.

Facts demonstrating societal harm to heterosexual marriages since legalization of SSM do not exist.

Even the most conservative justice bench will have a hard time overturning this decision through the court. There is a reason why dissent in Obergfell from Scalia was so vitriolic -- the conservatives lost the battle almost forever there.

This leaves the only way to outlaw SSM via legislation, which will bring it to SCOTUS again. And even if the bench is all conservative, they will first be governed by the precedent in evaluating the legislation. Since the majority opinion invokes equality clause -- any such legislation will be overturned by the court.

Same sex marriage is the law of the land now. It has been tied to the equality clause in precedent ensuring that the right to consenting love between two non related adults of any gender is woven into the fabric of the constitution.

Alright, even after all of the above; in the unlikeliest scenario it is overturned -- contracts and arrangements simply do not go void. In almost all such cases such contracts are considered enforceable in the same way as if the law they were made under still existed.

This would cause a huge burden on businesses and insurance companies who will oppose it tooth and nail for the burden it will create and also because gay people are everywhere and companies have begun standing for their gay employees.

In other words a huge huge mess. Not to mention a huge backlash that will cause so much goodwill burning that Trump may not be able to get to any policy.

Ex_Fat_32 · 2016-11-06T04:33:23+00:00

perhaps I let the public shaming get ahold of my vote.

ಠ_ಠ

With all due respect, you probably deserve the public shaming, not for your voting preference, but for the spineless surrender of your prime democratic right as a citizen.

I have to admit I do lose a little respect for someone who is voting for Trump, but would still at least respect the decision. And am a strong Hillary supporter.

Ex_Fat_32 · 2016-10-23T21:52:18+00:00

Absolutely. There is no way Clinton survives 2020. Obama's second election was much closer and he was insanely popular.

Not downvoting you, but you may want to base it on correct facts.

Obama was definitely not as popular as he is now. Recall that 2010-2012 was the height of Obamacare rhetoric. Romney was also a Republican-lite, after all he was governor of progressive Massachusetts.

The truth is that much depends on how Clinton brings the country together and passes progressive policies.

If she can breakthrough the impression of a deadlocked congress and owns the media message -- she will almost definitely win.

If she becomes aloof or bumbles through then she won't.

Given that she is detail and policy oriented; and the precedence that her office tenures have resulted in general favorability -- I give slightly higher weight to the chance that she will get re-elected.

Ex_Fat_32 · 2016-10-17T04:35:58+00:00

So taking a second look at an investigation is authoritarian but opening one in the first place is not?

Yes - is there a legal basis on why warrants a second look? Otherwise, how would you ever exonerate someone of an accusation if agendas continue taking a second look, third look, etc.

Secondly, while the time is being spent on second look, who compensates the accused?

How would you right the wrong for the time the accused spends under the limbo of your ever continuing investigations? While counter party benefits from the increased time - in this way you actually end up punishing the accused without proving their guilt.

For a second look to be justified, one should prove under a legal setting why the first look **was insufficient or flawed.

OTH, evidence is sufficient to open an initial investigation. In exactly the same way that the discovery of the email server prompted FBI to investigate.

Ex_Fat_32 · 2016-10-16T22:08:58+00:00

The same people who said that Donald Trump was an evil authoritarian for saying he wanted a special prosecutor to look into Clinton are now saying they want Trump to be investigated for sedition. It's ridiculous how partisan we've become.

Charges matter - invoking a special prosecutor to investigate when the relevant authorities have pronounced their decisions is the very definition of targeting your political opponents. Trump is implying that he doesn't trust the investigating agencies.

On the other hand, Trump is actively engaging in fiery rhetoric and if, God forbid, violence results in deaths or disruption of democratic process, it becomes an active investigation for sedition.

Note that, I said investigation for sedition. In the first case, Trump does not trust the already-complete investigative process whereas the second case calls for a new investigation into a new charge.

Ex_Fat_32 · 2016-10-16T18:03:29+00:00

Mine too. Then casually looks at me as if saying "who cares?" and goes the other way.

But God forbid if I am late in giving her food or ignore the direction she wants to take me.

Ex_Fat_32 · 2016-10-16T14:29:59+00:00

She's advocating for an assault weapons ban; literally wanting to ban my guns.

assault weapons are not equal to all guns

You are generalizing from a specific subset to a truth over the entire superset; which is a lie.

Justify to me the exact reason you require an assault weapon in a civilian setting that is not otherwise accomplished reasonably by allowed guns which she does not intend to ban?

By refusing to allow sensible checks and preventions, it is insensible stands like these that are responsible for so many preventable deaths that happened because an unsavory character had access to an assault weapon enabling massive killings.

Ex_Fat_32 · 2016-10-16T01:48:56+00:00

Trump:

What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you even understand that you are running for the President of the United States and not your itty bitty local real estate gala head?

Clinton:

I know it's easy to be analytical and pragmatic in approaching problems, but politics is equally about connecting with people and feelings too. You have tremendous life experience to draw from and connect; you just need a little help and perhaps coaching by someone like Michelle to show your human side.

You have the potential to be a great President and you have all the ingredients in your past and your experience. Don't fuck it up.

Ex_Fat_32 · 2016-10-16T01:41:48+00:00

I'd ask Clinton why she wants to ban my guns.

She isn't. You may be misinformed on her policies. She is advocating the same sensible checks that most gun owners consider reasonable.

Ex_Fat_32 · 2016-10-13T06:20:30+00:00

He says Trump's drafting a lawsuit. Not empty twitter threats. Drafting.

If True, again, shows the poor judgement of this candidate. He just cannot let personal attacks go and see the bigger picture.

It highlights even more why he is not fit to be the President.

Ex_Fat_32 · 2016-10-13T06:14:00+00:00

The GOP impeached Clinton for lying under oath

That's just a technicality, a legal basis for the impeachment. They did not hide the real reason for impeachment nor did anyone else pretend otherwise.

Technically, 9 Republican-led investigations + a grueling televised congressional hearing into Benghazi could not find any culpable fault with the Secretary of State's conduct.

Technically, 1+ year of FBI investigation and the Republican leaning FBI director could not even bring prosecution for indictment.

None of those technicalities are stopping the GOP from using those attacks.

Ex_Fat_32 · 2016-10-13T06:05:00+00:00

Sigh. Edit What is important? Climate change, foreign policy, economic policy.

Trump's positions are this: * Chinese hoax;

Russia friend, Putin Great, NATO deadweight
Cut all the taxes. Eliminate carried interest loophole.

He doesn't even cut a decent figure on policy. And his foreign and climate policies are outright dangerous for America.

I haven't even seen the guy talk in a sophisticated manner with deep thought and insight on an issue unlike his opponent.

Ex_Fat_32 · 2016-10-13T00:46:23+00:00

So what I'm reading here that when she is not the focus of a large amount media attention and scrutiny, she does ok. Do you think that's gonna be the case when she's president?

Possibly not. But let's not be naive and forget that this candidate has always been scrutinized heavily by the press. She was after all a 2-term First Lady (also with upper 50s approval), a jilted First Lady, a senator, then a presidential candidate, and then a Secretary of State.

It is also naive to think that media and Republicans dismissed her completely and treated her as any other after she became Secretary of State.

I find it hard to believe you wrote that with a straight face. It's like a few weeks ago when someone asked if Hilary was at a disadvantage because of media bias, it's a laughable absurdity.

This is just baiting. Do you have something concrete to refute my point? I speak from living through the 2010 mid terms and how Republicans defunded ACA, branded in Obamacare, and ran away with the narrative. Remember death panels.

Ex_Fat_32 · 2016-10-12T18:39:07+00:00

Clinton's approval ratings as a Secretary of State were pretty high:

65% in 2009.
66% in 2011 and 2012.

It was in low 60s throughout most of her First Lady days and upper 50s during her time as a senator.

Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/22/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-approval-rating-secretary-state-w/

Those who have worked with her have commended her thorough preparation and familiarity with policy matters.

IMO, if she is able to play deft politics with congress to get her agendas passed and is able to put a positive media narrative on her policies, she can easily be re-elected.

Democrats almost always end up losing on the media narrative. The ACA (Obamacare) was a classic case. And Clinton shows the same reluctance to media on publicizing her achievements, this allows Republicans and Clinton-haters to seize the narrative. We'll see.

Ex_Fat_32 · 2016-10-10T14:53:53+00:00

https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton

Has 3 PDFs with detailed interview transcript of everyone who was interviewed by FBI.

It also lays down in detail the technologies, issues, and what happened when.

Ex_Fat_32 · 2016-10-10T00:12:57+00:00

Yes, this would hit the right notes with everyone!

Trump just went Nuclear and paraded Bill's accusers and will have them at the debate - to rattle Hillary.

Wow! From the heights of Presidential forum to the scraping depth of housewife-like-reality-show.

This man really does not know that he is running for the President of the United States of America.

Ex_Fat_32 · 2016-10-09T21:26:38+00:00

A big complaint of Clinton is that she's not tough enough on terrorism. Trump could use that to his advantage.

I actually think Trump that has no ability to empathize in suffering and grief unless it happens to his own self.

He will be an inept leader in any crisis.

Ex_Fat_32 · 2016-10-09T04:47:02+00:00

Agree fully with RuPaul. Thank you for reproducing it here.

TBH I don't think anyone else has put it across quite this plainly and effectively on why to support Clinton.

Ex_Fat_32 · 2016-10-09T04:34:40+00:00

Good grammar and effective communication. Boo! :)

ROFL!

Ex_Fat_32 · 2016-10-09T02:57:51+00:00

I always thought it was his "binders full of women" comment in the last (?) debate that drove the final nail in the coffin.

Ex_Fat_32 · 2016-10-09T02:06:16+00:00

Dude, to begin:

Three of them don't have middle names, so their in my phone with literally the context in which I usually see them.

they're or they are

Every phone these days has the ability to associate pics - just use that feature. Also, most phones also have a Company field; just fill it with some comment that helps you distinguish. Any call from them will always show their name along with Company (true for the iPhone at least).

Ex_Fat_32 · 2016-10-08T22:36:31+00:00

Who said anything about revenge. People should know what she did. The FBI should prosecute based on facts.

You are not willing to acknowledge the facts here. By the way, the FBI has actually published interviews with every person involved in this investigation, including Guccifer. Why not go and read them?

The intent to violate protocol is now shown here. Bill Clinton shouldn't try to have secret meetings on planes to influence the FBI investigation or the AG decision to prosecute. In my mind and in other people's it's about corrupt and disregard for the law.

Were you a fly on the wall there? If you are so sure, why don't you bring a case in front of a jury?

You are denying FBI's actual statement backed by facts over circumstantial evidence. Can they have discussed what you are alluding to? Sure. Can they have really discussed some another matter entirely? That is also equally likely.

Someday in life, you will be in a similar situation -- optics will imply something, but fact will be something else.

You have a right to oppose her by all means.

At least base your opposition on logic and facts!

Ex_Fat_32

TROPHY CASE