General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 548

Oh Gary.

 

Sabrina the Teenage Witch Is Now Heading Gary Johnson’s Campaign in Connecticut

 

Exclusive: The Creator of Pepe the Frog Is Voting for Hillary

 

This is weird, because the polling was right on Brexit at the end. The good averages of the polls had "leave" winning at the end and most were in full "toss-up" mode, but we knew the polling over there was a mess going into it and even then. That talking point is still weird.

 

They say that Trump has become "normalized" now, but that point doesn't make sense because the Conservatives in the UK (where the term "shy Tory" originates from) are very much normalized, and have been in government far more often than any other party. They're sky high in the opinion polls right now while the opposition parties are performing really badly.

 

I fucking hate Bill Clinton. Hillary assistance with shaming and bullying survivors is equally deplorable.

 

I'm actually at his house talking to him face to face haha just hammer home the dangers of the free market without regulation

 

I think that's true, in a normal case, but if we're actually talking about an authoritarian who does something like ... actually implements a deportation force and is rounding up people, or are demanding proof of citizenship ... and, like you said, really is implementing fascist policies — I don't really know what the answer is besides actual movement. Now, I don't mean violent, but taking people in, huge protests, huge organization ... getting state laws passed ... it would have to come from all angles depending on what actually gets passed, or gets e.o'd. Now, I think the first thing I'd be worried about is that he, and his "team," are incompetent. I think that'll lead to economic, and possibly safety, issues relatively quickly.

The chance that he wins the EC but not PV is higher for him than it his Hillary. I don't think it would even be legally challenged though. What the senate does would probably matter about SCOTUS, and if Trump wins, they probably keep that ... who he actually nominates would give me a better guess on what the SCOTUS would/could do around things like immigration bans, what he could do is up for some debate legally:

If Trump is elected president and follows through with an immigration ban on Muslims (or any other group of people, for that matter), he can do so by asserting powers under the United States Code and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which is the nation’s main immigration act.

Under Title 8, Section 1182 of the U.S. Code, the president has authority to use a proclamation to suspend the entry of “any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States [who] would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” for however long he deems necessary. This provision was included in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

Such presidential proclamations already exist, and they were made out of foreign policy or national security concerns. For example, President Obama issued a presidential proclamation in 2011 suspending the entry of “any alien who planned, ordered, assisted, aided and abetted, committed or otherwise participated in” war crimes or other violations of humanitarian law. That means the State Department has authority to block someone from getting a visa if they are found ineligible under that criteria.

The executive branch has broad discretion through this authority. In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that the government can deny someone a visa on national security grounds without a specific reason.

 

What's your take on Chelsea? I feel that it's a real shame for her because she is so bright and effective but will forever be tied to her awful parents.

Do you give her a pass for defending her parents?

 

I mean, I think she's of the same culture as her parents.

 

Some pollsters got it right, but the majority of polls overestimated the support for remain. As the article I linked states, "the polls suggested that the result was in the balance right up to the end." With hindsight it's easy to say it was obvious but as someone who lives in the UK, it wasn't clear at all which side would win. Maybe that's the fault of the media idk, but that's how it appeared at the time.

 

That agrees with what I said ... at the end leave was barely winning in the polls when looking at the averages — which is what you should do with polls. The implication from people that keep citing Brexit was that the polls were saying "stay" would win and it was a huge shock and therefore polls are not to be trusted — but that's just not what the polls said, looking at the averages, it was definitely going to be close, very, close ... I dunno what the media was telling you, but I'm mostly talking about the new narrative that has come up around Brexit which seems to imply that the polls are wrong and therefore can't be looked at for an understanding of the race.

 

Related, I'm gonna call these "Gary Johnson" moments now. Calling gaffes "Aleppo moments" irks me.

 

It's my own fault, but I like reading the conspiracy theories ... it kinda cracks me up in that "oh that's sad" kind of way:

 

Maybe he used Brexit as an example because the polls only provided uncertainty and there was no clear, decisive prediction as to which side would win? Idk, but yeah looking at the tweet again it's weird he said the "polling was totally wrong" for brexit. That phrasing is accurate in describing the polling for the 2015 general election though; it had indicated a very close result between the Conservatives and Labour, but in the end the Conservatives performed far stronger while Labour was much weaker. I have no idea about the 2014 US midterms though, was the polling inaccurate?

 

very good at the cyber

 

I was just about to post this. Lmfao.

 

Always good to bring back this article - How to Hack an Election in 7 Minutes

 

Maddow is reporting an excerpt from a story that'll run in Newsweek tomorrow about a Trump business spending money in Cuba during the embargo with his knowledge, including efforts to cover it up.

 

This is big... right?

Granted I also thought "Trump donates to judge so judge will drop case against him" and "Trump uses foundation's to pay fines" and "Trump gets people to pay his foundation instead of him to skirt tax laws" were all big too. But this one is also big right?

 

Pretty sure any one of us here could have figured out what the questions were going to be ahead of time.