POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I just read a report that claims Chinese tourists will be around 100 million a year by the end of the decade. How do you possibly track everybody so that nobody overstays their visa?

I just read a report that we mail billions of packages all over the country each year. We're pretty successful at keeping track of all that.

If (China) or India or Belgium sends in 100,000,000 "tourists", at what point is it a problem worth addressing if they don't go home? Obviously we couldn't sustain 100%, I'm sure we can agree on that, but where do you draw the line?

What I think I hear you suggesting is just complete apathy. It seems, for this particular issue, a very anti-sovereign stance.

[larrymcg421]

Well we could fine corporations so heavily that the money they save on hiring undocumented immigrants is far less than the amount they'd have to pay for getting caught. That curiously seems to be missing from most of these "tough" immigration proposals which focus on walls and rounding people up. When Arizona passed their "tough" immigration bill a few years ago, it hilariously provided an entrapment defense for corporations.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Well we could fine corporations so heavily that the money they save on hiring undocumented immigrants is far less than the amount they'd have to pay for getting caught. That curiously seems to be missing from most of these "tough" immigration proposals which focus on walls and rounding people up. When Arizona passed their "tough" immigration bill a few years ago, it hilariously provided an entrapment defense for corporations.

Agree, need to also consider the demand side.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I just read a report that we mail billions of packages all over the country each year. We're pretty successful at keeping track of all that.

If (China) or India or Belgium sends in 100,000,000 "tourists", at what point is it a problem worth addressing if they don't go home? Obviously we couldn't sustain 100%, I'm sure we can agree on that, but where do you draw the line?

What I think I hear you suggesting is just complete apathy. It seems, for this particular issue, a very anti-sovereign stance.

But we don't track the packages for weeks or months or years after they are delivered. That's the difference.

Do you want to RFID everyone that comes to the U.S. and then set up monitoring stations all across the country? Do you want everyone to report to a government office once a week?

You keep dodging the practical questions. How are you going to do this and how are you going to pay for it?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But we don't track the packages for weeks or months or years after they are delivered. That's the difference.

Do you want to RFID everyone that comes to the U.S. and then set up monitoring stations all across the country? Do you want everyone to report to a government office once a week?

You keep dodging the practical questions. How are you going to do this and how are you going to pay for it?

Eh, why actually think about logistics and cost when you can just grandstand?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What indication did Brexit give?

Like AlexB said - some voted for it knowing full well that it's not going to be easy, and may actually lead to a downturn. Judging from voices here who support the Brexit, I think many would be fine with a hit to the economy if it meant closing the borders/deporting those here illegally.

(edit: or like what Edward voiced)

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Sure there's been injustices, no doubt. I think policy of legal immigration can be improved but our southern border is a mess. Just want to fix/improve it. Again, not saying Trumps plan (or what little he is divulged) is the right thing to do but my position is there is merit to the Wall.

But, again, to the extent we have an immigration problem, it isn't, really, a porous border issue. A wall isn't going to keep out people who overstay their visas. You'd be spending a ridiculous amount of money to tackle a fraction of the problem. A wall amounts to a rhetorical device and a red herring to convince the voters that you're Doing Something Serious About It. That's all.

Possibly congress should change the birthright assumption but you are right that the as-is with current illegals with US children is a mess. Maybe start with the illegals without the US kids and then progress from there?

Which is, ironically, exactly what the DAPA stuff was all about. "Let's focus first on those who commit violent crimes and those without families, because Congress isn't spending enough to deport 11 million people in one go, and priorities must be set." And conservatives squalled about how outrageously unconstitutional it was that the executive directed an office with insufficient resources to DEPORT ALL THE PEOPLE to prioritize. And went to court. Won a victory at the appellate level which the Supreme Court was unable to resolve due to staffing.

But, y'know, that's exactly what was tried - "start with the illegals without kids and go from there."

... and there are home grown terrorists so I get your point. However, to me the terrorism issue is a separate thing and don't claim with Wall will stop that. I'm talking about broader issue of illegals.

Right. My point is that the terrorism issue conflates directly, because the 9/11 terrorists attacked our immigration system at its weakest point, and that point wasn't the border. It was the visa system. They entered the country legally, and while a better vetting system might have denied them those visas to begin with, they didn't just sneak across the Rio Grande. And that's true of most of our illegal immigrants - visa overstays make up a larger percentage of the whole than border jumpers.

I do think building a Wall will slow it down but you are right, if a Wall is built, there needs to be other measures to complement it.

I think you'll find if you pursue the other measures first, you'll find the Wall essentially unnecessary.

I don't see why you don't think the Wall will slow down illegals. It's obvious to me that it will. But yes, immigration reform and other measures also need to be done.

It's obvious to you that it will because you take it as an article of faith that most illegal immigrants are people swimming the Rio Grande, and that's not true. We've been over the visa thing already, but even without that, there's money in human smuggling, and part of how people, drugs and guns have come across our border is a tunnel system originating on the other side. Building the Wall isn't going to stop that. You're still going to have to play whack-a-mole, and you'll be doing it across a 2,000 mile border.

The wall that Israel built seemed to have stopped alot of the terrorism activity albeit with a cost to innocent Palestinians.

Israel is a tiny-ass country. The wall they built is 1/5 the size of what you'd need on our southern border, and there were other factors in play. The Israeli military pursued Palestinian militants into Palestinian territories - what you'd call a "forward defense" - helped, but one should also remember that the terrorist activity from Palestine was state-sponsored; when Palestinian leadership agreed a truce with Israel, that activity diminished.

Yup, agree that a wall by itself won't do it. It needs to be supplemented by immigration reform, border control etc.

Again, start with the other stuff. The Wall is largely symbolic; you'll get way more mileage out of the money spent if you pursue the other issues with the immigration system.

I dispute the $1T number. The actual building of the wall won't cost $1T. Sure the wall won't be 100% or even 80% but I'll take something over pure rhetoric right now and the act of passing legislation and "building" the Wall show the resolve (or at least more so than now).

A few things here:

1) there's the idea of the "first mile" and the "last mile" costs. We spent $2.4 billion on a border fence approximately the length of Israel's West Bank wall, and that was on topography that most agree was the easiest on which to build something like that. As the topography changes, your cost is going to go up.

2) The initial appropriation from Congress for the stretch of fencing erected under President Bush was $1.5 billion. On the easiest stretch of land on which to build, and with fencing rather than a "big, beautiful Wall," we saw 50% cost overruns. The border fence as constructed was supposed to be double-layered, with a patrol corridor between the fences. Much of the barrier is single-layered, even with those cost overruns.

3) When $1T costs are thrown around, it isn't "let's cut a $1 trillion check right now." There are several costs involved, and not all of them are directly materials costs to construct a wall. That's part of it, to be sure; the Wall itself is estimated to cost $25 billion. That's materials and, depending on who you talk to, labor. That also doesn't account for cost overruns and cost differences between using military labor and private contractors (when construction of the existing fence switched from National Guardsmen to private contractors, costs went up by about 60% per mile).

You're also going to have to factor land acquisition costs. What you budget for and what you end up having to pay landowners can be quite different.

Then, after the wall is constructed - and remember, given topographical changes, that wall is still going to be permeable in places - you get to start factoring in maintenance, staffing, and everything that goes along with that. Building that wall is not a one-time cost. Will it be $1 trillion over the life of the wall? Maybe not. Depends on how carried away Trump gets (remember, nobody builds a bigger, more beautiful wall than he would). Depends on how lucky you get on maintenance costs, what sort of inflation you get over the years increasing those costs. But I think over a 25 year period, between construction, maintenance and staffing, $200 billion is probably the low end of what you can expect.

I do think there is alot of debate and angst on this thread because there are alot of unknowns about the Wall, how Trump plans on financing, building and enforcing, what to do with existing illegals, how to reduce the flow by improving the situation in the south etc. I don't have all the answers but my position is a Wall is a good step to reduce the flow.

"The flow" is a net negative on our southern border, and has been for a few years now. Total deportations under President Obama are markedly higher than they were under President Bush, and some have estimated total deportations under President Obama to be greater than the entirety of those conducted by the various Executive Branches in the 20th century.

The total number of illegal immigrants in the country has remained essentially static since President Obama took office, which is unprecedented since Ulysses S. Grant. The narrative from the right is that DAPA proves he just wants to give the country away to Mexican illegals, but the reality carries quite a bit more nuance.

The Wall is a rhetorical tool that might convince our own citizens of Just How Serious We Are, but it would not substantially impact illegal immigration to this country, and particularly for the cost it would incur, we can do better.

[Thomkal]

Love this new Clinton ad that shows just how much Trump believes his "made in the USA" position:

WATCH: New Clinton Ad Brilliantly Goes After Trump’s Products That Are NOT ‘Made In The USA’ | Addicting Info | The Knowledge You Crave

[ISiddiqui]

The FBI officially indicates that it will bring no charges against Hillary Clinton for the emails, but calls her use "extremely careless":

Log In - The New York Times

[flere-imsaho]

I look forward to 8 years of special investigations brought by the U.S. House.

[flere-imsaho]

As of today (July 5th), RCP's polling average shows Clinton with a 4.6% lead over Trump. Of the 30 most recent polls they list (going back to mid/late-May) only 1 shows a Trump lead, while 4 show a Clinton double-digit lead.

Clinton's favorability rating has recovered somewhat from +20 Unfavorable in mid/late-May to about +16 Unfavorable now. Trump's has recovered too (somewhat) from +31 Unfavorable in mid-April to about +27 Unfavorable now.

Obama's net approval rating reached a high of +6% last week, though is about +3% now. However, prior to March he had consistently been in net disapproval since June, 2013.

What does all of this mean? I think it's hard to say. Clinton's lead is very healthy for this stage of the campaign compared to past campaigns. But on the other hand, there's so much that's unique about this race I'm not sure how much we want to rely on history.

[Thomkal]

I'm very curious how much those numbers will change now that she's been "cleared" by the FBI.

[CraigSca]

One man's "cleared" is another man's "evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information."

[flere-imsaho]

I don't think the FBI "clearing" will move the numbers at all. Clinton has been a known quantity for over 20 years now. Almost everyone has already made up their mind about her.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

One man's "cleared" is another man's "evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information."

If only there was an investigative body that could look into this and tell us whether an indictment was warranted.

[larrymcg421]

Don't worry. Trump is going to put someone on the Supreme Court to look into her e-mails, because that's what the Supreme Court does.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

But, again, to the extent we have an immigration problem, it isn't, really, a porous border issue. A wall isn't going to keep out people who overstay their visas. You'd be spending a ridiculous amount of money to tackle a fraction of the problem. A wall amounts to a rhetorical device and a red herring to convince the voters that you're Doing Something Serious About It. That's all.



Which is, ironically, exactly what the DAPA stuff was all about. "Let's focus first on those who commit violent crimes and those without families, because Congress isn't spending enough to deport 11 million people in one go, and priorities must be set." And conservatives squalled about how outrageously unconstitutional it was that the executive directed an office with insufficient resources to DEPORT ALL THE PEOPLE to prioritize. And went to court. Won a victory at the appellate level which the Supreme Court was unable to resolve due to staffing.

But, y'know, that's exactly what was tried - "start with the illegals without kids and go from there."



Right. My point is that the terrorism issue conflates directly, because the 9/11 terrorists attacked our immigration system at its weakest point, and that point wasn't the border. It was the visa system. They entered the country legally, and while a better vetting system might have denied them those visas to begin with, they didn't just sneak across the Rio Grande. And that's true of most of our illegal immigrants - visa overstays make up a larger percentage of the whole than border jumpers.



I think you'll find if you pursue the other measures first, you'll find the Wall essentially unnecessary.



It's obvious to you that it will because you take it as an article of faith that most illegal immigrants are people swimming the Rio Grande, and that's not true. We've been over the visa thing already, but even without that, there's money in human smuggling, and part of how people, drugs and guns have come across our border is a tunnel system originating on the other side. Building the Wall isn't going to stop that. You're still going to have to play whack-a-mole, and you'll be doing it across a 2,000 mile border.



Israel is a tiny-ass country. The wall they built is 1/5 the size of what you'd need on our southern border, and there were other factors in play. The Israeli military pursued Palestinian militants into Palestinian territories - what you'd call a "forward defense" - helped, but one should also remember that the terrorist activity from Palestine was state-sponsored; when Palestinian leadership agreed a truce with Israel, that activity diminished.



Again, start with the other stuff. The Wall is largely symbolic; you'll get way more mileage out of the money spent if you pursue the other issues with the immigration system.



A few things here:

1) there's the idea of the "first mile" and the "last mile" costs. We spent $2.4 billion on a border fence approximately the length of Israel's West Bank wall, and that was on topography that most agree was the easiest on which to build something like that. As the topography changes, your cost is going to go up.

2) The initial appropriation from Congress for the stretch of fencing erected under President Bush was $1.5 billion. On the easiest stretch of land on which to build, and with fencing rather than a "big, beautiful Wall," we saw 50% cost overruns. The border fence as constructed was supposed to be double-layered, with a patrol corridor between the fences. Much of the barrier is single-layered, even with those cost overruns.

3) When $1T costs are thrown around, it isn't "let's cut a $1 trillion check right now." There are several costs involved, and not all of them are directly materials costs to construct a wall. That's part of it, to be sure; the Wall itself is estimated to cost $25 billion. That's materials and, depending on who you talk to, labor. That also doesn't account for cost overruns and cost differences between using military labor and private contractors (when construction of the existing fence switched from National Guardsmen to private contractors, costs went up by about 60% per mile).

You're also going to have to factor land acquisition costs. What you budget for and what you end up having to pay landowners can be quite different.

Then, after the wall is constructed - and remember, given topographical changes, that wall is still going to be permeable in places - you get to start factoring in maintenance, staffing, and everything that goes along with that. Building that wall is not a one-time cost. Will it be $1 trillion over the life of the wall? Maybe not. Depends on how carried away Trump gets (remember, nobody builds a bigger, more beautiful wall than he would). Depends on how lucky you get on maintenance costs, what sort of inflation you get over the years increasing those costs. But I think over a 25 year period, between construction, maintenance and staffing, $200 billion is probably the low end of what you can expect.



"The flow" is a net negative on our southern border, and has been for a few years now. Total deportations under President Obama are markedly higher than they were under President Bush, and some have estimated total deportations under President Obama to be greater than the entirety of those conducted by the various Executive Branches in the 20th century.

The total number of illegal immigrants in the country has remained essentially static since President Obama took office, which is unprecedented since Ulysses S. Grant. The narrative from the right is that DAPA proves he just wants to give the country away to Mexican illegals, but the reality carries quite a bit more nuance.

The Wall is a rhetorical tool that might convince our own citizens of Just How Serious We Are, but it would not substantially impact illegal immigration to this country, and particularly for the cost it would incur, we can do better.

I've always believed that dealing with our drug problems (how, I'm not sure) would go a long way towards fixing Mexico and the country's rule under the cartels and lure of the drug money. Making Mexico a safer and less corrupt place to be, particularly by reducing the demand for drugs and or the profits to made by the drug trade and cartels, would allow their economy to grow, therefore making it better for those who come here to pursue opportunities at home instead. This would extend to the rest of Latin America as well.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Don't worry. Trump is going to put someone on the Supreme Court to look into her e-mails, because that's what the Supreme Court does.

If Trump is smart, he accepts the FBI findings and doubles down on her decision making. Is someone this careless with sensitive material someone we want to run the country?

[Edward64]

Lynch-Clinton conspiracy theory up next.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If only there was an investigative body that could look into this and tell us whether an indictment was warranted.

What I'm saying is, if you're pro-Hillary she was "cleared". If you're anti-Hillary she "mishandled classified data and violated statutes". It's a win-win for both sides!

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Lynch-Clinton conspiracy theory up next.

I really don't understand the outrage on this. If Clinton wanted to talk to Lynch he could call or send a letter or have someone deliver a message. It's not like the only possible way to talk to her was in a plane.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Don't worry. Trump is going to put someone on the Supreme Court to look into her e-mails, because that's what the Supreme Court does.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

But, again, to the extent we have an immigration problem, it isn't, really, a porous border issue. A wall isn't going to keep out people who overstay their visas. You'd be spending a ridiculous amount of money to tackle a fraction of the problem. A wall amounts to a rhetorical device and a red herring to convince the voters that you're Doing Something Serious About It. That's all.

The immigration issue I'm concerned about is specific to the southern from Mexico/LatAm/SouthAm. It is not about Chinese students/visitors overstaying their visa. It is a porous border issue in that context.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Which is, ironically, exactly what the DAPA stuff was all about. "Let's focus first on those who commit violent crimes and those without families, because Congress isn't spending enough to deport 11 million people in one go, and priorities must be set." And conservatives squalled about how outrageously unconstitutional it was that the executive directed an office with insufficient resources to DEPORT ALL THE PEOPLE to prioritize. And went to court. Won a victory at the appellate level which the Supreme Court was unable to resolve due to staffing.

But, y'know, that's exactly what was tried - "start with the illegals without kids and go from there."

Still seems like a good starting point me to. I would also add somehow make sure businesses that hire illegals (or look the other way) are really punished ... regardless of what it does to our economy.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I think you'll find if you pursue the other measures first, you'll find the Wall essentially unnecessary.

It's obvious to you that it will because you take it as an article of faith that most illegal immigrants are people swimming the Rio Grande, and that's not true. We've been over the visa thing already, but even without that, there's money in human smuggling, and part of how people, drugs and guns have come across our border is a tunnel system originating on the other side. Building the Wall isn't going to stop that. You're still going to have to play whack-a-mole, and you'll be doing it across a 2,000 mile border.

... and complications with smuggling via waters, I get that. Building a wall and managing that process will certainly reduce human smuggling, drugs and guns. It may not stop all of it but, again, pretty obvious to me it will reduce it.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Israel is a tiny-ass country. The wall they built is 1/5 the size of what you'd need on our southern border, and there were other factors in play. The Israeli military pursued Palestinian militants into Palestinian territories - what you'd call a "forward defense" - helped, but one should also remember that the terrorist activity from Palestine was state-sponsored; when Palestinian leadership agreed a truce with Israel, that activity diminished.

Tiny-ass country with people with murderous intent in crossing over. We can trade length of wall vs capabilities of illegals/terrorists.

The effectiveness of the wall played some part in the "truce". Obviously there are other drivers too. Regardless, it was not a failure nor was it ineffective (and pretty darn good at keeping the zombies at bay for a while!).

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Again, start with the other stuff. The Wall is largely symbolic; you'll get way more mileage out of the money spent if you pursue the other issues with the immigration system.

Nothing else has worked and there's been no commitment to keep anything agreed to working on the southern border since as far back as I can remember (e.g. Reagan).

Originally Posted by SackAttack

1) there's the idea of the "first mile" and the "last mile" costs. We spent $2.4 billion on a border fence approximately the length of Israel's West Bank wall, and that was on topography that most agree was the easiest on which to build something like that. As the topography changes, your cost is going to go up.

2) The initial appropriation from Congress for the stretch of fencing erected under President Bush was $1.5 billion. On the easiest stretch of land on which to build, and with fencing rather than a "big, beautiful Wall," we saw 50% cost overruns. The border fence as constructed was supposed to be double-layered, with a patrol corridor between the fences. Much of the barrier is single-layered, even with those cost overruns.

3) When $1T costs are thrown around, it isn't "let's cut a $1 trillion check right now." There are several costs involved, and not all of them are directly materials costs to construct a wall. That's part of it, to be sure; the Wall itself is estimated to cost $25 billion. That's materials and, depending on who you talk to, labor. That also doesn't account for cost overruns and cost differences between using military labor and private contractors (when construction of the existing fence switched from National Guardsmen to private contractors, costs went up by about 60% per mile).

You're also going to have to factor land acquisition costs. What you budget for and what you end up having to pay landowners can be quite different.

Then, after the wall is constructed - and remember, given topographical changes, that wall is still going to be permeable in places - you get to start factoring in maintenance, staffing, and everything that goes along with that. Building that wall is not a one-time cost. Will it be $1 trillion over the life of the wall? Maybe not. Depends on how carried away Trump gets (remember, nobody builds a bigger, more beautiful wall than he would). Depends on how lucky you get on maintenance costs, what sort of inflation you get over the years increasing those costs. But I think over a 25 year period, between construction, maintenance and staffing, $200 billion is probably the low end of what you can expect.

"The flow" is a net negative on our southern border, and has been for a few years now. Total deportations under President Obama are markedly higher than they were under President Bush, and some have estimated total deportations under President Obama to be greater than the entirety of those conducted by the various Executive Branches in the 20th century.

The total number of illegal immigrants in the country has remained essentially static since President Obama took office, which is unprecedented since Ulysses S. Grant. The narrative from the right is that DAPA proves he just wants to give the country away to Mexican illegals, but the reality carries quite a bit more nuance.

The Wall is a rhetorical tool that might convince our own citizens of Just How Serious We Are, but it would not substantially impact illegal immigration to this country, and particularly for the cost it would incur, we can do better.

I think you are referring "as a whole". I'm specifically referring to the southern border.

However, I do agree that comprehensive immigration policy is needed in addition to the Wall. Some thoughts I like are

1) Encourage immigration of well educated foreigners/professionals (e.g. we want other countries brain drain to favor us) assuming security considerations are taken into account (e.g. nurses, doctors etc.)

2) Reduce illegal immigration from the "porous" south. Complement this with some sort of orderly guest worker program

3) Hold companies and businesses accountable for hiring illegals. Smaller business are going to resist this. A possibly way of doing this is some sort of national id system (I know, I know ...)

4) For illegals already in the country, prioritize (e.g. felons), find them and start deporting them. May not happen all at once but start the process. Not sure what to do with those with US born kids ...

I've not found an analysis of the cost vs benefits but the $250B low end doesn't seem bad. For some perspective, the F-35 program was going to cost $380B at one time plus another $650B to operate and maintain over its life time.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I really don't understand the outrage on this. If Clinton wanted to talk to Lynch he could call or send a letter or have someone deliver a message. It's not like the only possible way to talk to her was in a plane.

Sure but some would say its the Clinton arrogance. It was just Bill being Bill but certainly did not help the optics.

IMO, they are also overplaying the Star of David controversy. I really don't think that was Trumps intent but his team bungled the migitation.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I really don't understand the outrage on this. If Clinton wanted to talk to Lynch he could call or send a letter or have someone deliver a message. It's not like the only possible way to talk to her was in a plane.

A lot of people seem to be confusing the role of a prosecutor with the role of a judge. There's nothing wrong with a prosecutor meeting with someone they're investigating. It happens all the time. (Edit: As long as Lynch wasn't trying to trick Bill into making incriminating statements without Hillary's lawyer there, but I somehow doubt that's what happened).

[larrymcg421]

I have no problem with the meeting other than the bad politics of it. I mean, there's nothing the Clintons could offer Lynch to make her alter the investigation. She can get whatever job she wants after she leaves the White House and they certainly aren't going to be funnelling large amounts of money to her during Hillary's presidency.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I have no problem with the meeting other than the bad politics of it. I mean, there's nothing the Clintons could offer Lynch to make her alter the investigation. She can get whatever job she wants after she leaves the White House and they certainly aren't going to be funnelling large amounts of money to her during Hillary's presidency.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but there is at least on thing the Clintons could offer her that she wouldn't get anywhere else -- a shot at the SCOTUS.

[JPhillips]

She has no shot at SCOTUS without a Dem controlled senate.

And again, that offer could have come through any number of other ways to communicate with her.

[larrymcg421]

If she was that corrupt, then she'd know she has not shot without Hillary winning the Presidency and thus wouldn't need Bill to explain that to her. In fact, the very meeting that took place pretty much kills her SCOTUS chances.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by molson

A lot of people seem to be confusing the role of a prosecutor with the role of a judge. There's nothing wrong with a prosecutor meeting with someone they're investigating. It happens all the time. (Edit: As long as Lynch wasn't trying to trick Bill into making incriminating statements without Hillary's lawyer there, but I somehow doubt that's what happened).

Has she (Lynch) said why she met with Bill yet? Was it his idea or hers?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Has she (Lynch) said why she met with Bill yet? Was it his idea or hers?

The story out of the Clinton camp is that just ended up on the same tarmac at some point and shot the shit about their grandkids and golf.

But even if Bill wanted to talk about the case, there's no ethical rules against that. Unless he offered to bribe her on Hillary's behalf, but that's taking quite a jump, and as someone else said, the Clintons could make an offer like that through intermediaries or in a more secret meeting that nobody knows about.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I don't think the FBI "clearing" will move the numbers at all. Clinton has been a known quantity for over 20 years now. Almost everyone has already made up their mind about her.

Ding ding ding.

Nor do I believe that even an indictment would have changed them in a meaningful fashion.

Nor anything else really.

[ISiddiqui]

It's quite amusing though to see all those on the right who were saying that FBI Director Comey is someone that follows the law and isn't swayed by politics so Hillary better watch out, who now say the fix was in!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It's quite amusing though to see all those on the right who were saying that FBI Director Comey is someone that follows the law and isn't swayed by politics so Hillary better watch out, who now say the fix was in!

Honestly, I didn't see much of that (re: Comey) at all. A smattering of wishful thinking once in a blue moon but that's about it.

Anybody who thought otherwise, well .... here's your sign.

[Ben E Lou]

Taking a step back from any partisanship, it's pretty clear that Comey's statement was in direct contradiction to the narrative about this that the Clinton campaign has put forth, particularly about sending classified information. A competent opposition campaign could shred her to pieces with those in the middle/on the fence.

But with Clinton vs. Trump, you have neither a competent opposition nor very many on the fence. *shurg*

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

A competent opposition campaign could shred her to pieces with those in the middle/on the fence.

But with Clinton vs. Trump, you have neither a competent opposition nor very many on the fence. *shurg*

Yeah, just not sure those half dozen people or so who truly just can't / haven't decided are actually going to change the outcome anyway so it's kind of a moot point.

[Dutch]

Or expect a brutal 4-year campaign by both. It's gonna be ugly.

[kcchief19]

Election Update: Swing State Polls And National Polls Basically Say The Same Thing | FiveThirtyEight

Interesting figures from FiveThirtyEight. Some of this is absolutely due to some small sample size of state poles, but the upshot is this: Clinton is slightly underperforming in blue states, slightly over performing in purple states and significantly over performing in red states.

In states Romney won by an average of 16 points, Clinton is only trailing by 7. Trump is only outpolling Romney in two states, while Clinton is outpolling Obama in 15. The poll average has her in the lead in Kansas (which I do think is an aberration) but also within the margin of error in places such as Missouri, Georgia, Arizona and Utah.

As bad as the national polls look for Trump, the state polls are showing signs of the race really getting out of hand. Trump isn't within the margin of error in any blue states, and trails by 20 points in places such as New York and California where Trump claims he's going to campaign.

Will be interesting to see just how far Clinton and the DNC are willing to go to compete in some red states. I think they will put some effort into Arizona since there is a competitive senate race there too. But will Clinton put an effort into winning Georgia? Not sure about that.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Or expect a brutal 4-year campaign by both. It's gonna be ugly.

I was inclined to agree, but then thought: more ugly than the past 8 years?

Republican politicians had to construct a bogeyman out of Obama to have someone to attack for 8 years. Clinton's already that bogeyman, and has been under assault from the right for over 2 decades.

Does this mean the attacks get even worse, or does fatigue (among the public) finally set in?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

But will Clinton put an effort into winning Georgia? Not sure about that.

Obama had such an advantage in money and organization in 2008 that he was able to put McCain on the defensive in states that had no business being competitive. And he was also able to help downticket races that shouldn't have gotten that kind of oxygen from the Presidential campaign.

If Clinton ends up with (or has now) the same structural advantages, I really want to believe that she'll push those advantages home both to help her own cause and also to help downticket races (which also helps her cause).

I want to believe this, of course, but I'm also pretty wary. I lived through 2004, after all.

[VPI97]

I'm no fan of Trump nor Hillary, but after seeing Comey's press conference and remembering all of her denials, I can't understand how anyone can vote for Hillary. Trump may be a buffoon, but I prefer a buffoon to be in charge over an out and out liar like Hillary.

[PilotMan]

Trump isn't a liar?

Reagan wasn't either?

GWB?

Clinton I?

GhwB?

History is littered with liars. To claim some great American apocalypse now that Clinton won't be indicted is a little disingenuous.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Trump isn't a liar?

Reagan wasn't either?

GWB?

Clinton I?

GhwB?

History is littered with liars. To claim some great American apocalypse now that Clinton won't be indicted is a little disingenuous.

I claimed there was a "great American apocalypse"?

[PilotMan]

It was more of a general response to that and facebook posts that I've been seeing. It's nothing specific against you so to speak. Besides that's not really the point of the topic.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

It was more of a general response to that and facebook posts that I've been seeing. It's nothing specific against you so to speak. Besides that's not really the point of the topic.

Well then I guess the point of my topic is that I can't understand how any intelligent American could stand to cast a vote for someone who has continually lied about something as inconsequential as this...I don't care if the candidate is Hillary, Trump, Reagan, Washington or Jefferson. I don't think this whole server thing is all that important, tbh, but when Comey comes out and directly contradicts multiple things that she has said, I'm left wondering how seemingly intelligent people can justify voting for her. When she lies about trivial things, do you really expect her to do anything different when she's in the Oval office talking about things that really matter?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by VPI97

I'm no fan of Trump nor Hillary, but after seeing Comey's press conference and remembering all of her denials, I can't understand how anyone can vote for Hillary. Trump may be a buffoon, but I prefer a buffoon to be in charge over an out and out liar like Hillary.

If lying is your problem, you certainly can't vote for Trump either.

Just to use your example, if he's going to lie about a tweet, what do you think he'll do with things that really matter?

[ISiddiqui]

There appears to me to be a strange weird standard where previous Presidents may have indicated that they recalled something which later turned out to not be the case, but folks either accepted the Presidents at their word (their recall was imperfect) or said, well politicians lie [obviously it depends on which said the politician is on]. Hillary Clinton finds herself in a similar situation and apparent she's the most calculating lying liar of all time.

I mean I don't have an issue with people saying Clinton lied on this, but to claim this to be uniquely disqualifying? C'mon.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If lying is your problem, you certainly can't vote for Trump either.

Just to use your example, if he's going to lie about a tweet, what do you think he'll do with things that really matter?

Exactly. Which is why I'm not voting for Trump either.

I guess what I'm really asking is how intelligent Americans continue to put up with these crap elections. Liar vs. Liar. Horrible person vs Horrible person. I came here to ask that because in 20 years on online message boards, FOFC is the place I've posted that typically contains level headed, intelligent people. So, how can anyone here justify a vote for either of these people? Is it solely because they are the only two options and the system forces us to choose a lesser evil? I'm seriously asking because, to me, choosing to vote for Trump vs Hillary is a no-win choice. They're both despicable people. At my age, I just don't think I can justify casting a vote for these types of individuals anymore...it's just not worth the time and effort to keep up with all the nonsense leading up to election day. Part of me has just come to the conclusion that I should bury my head in the sand and leave elections up to the idiots, but I'm still curious as to how intelligent people can justify voting for either of these candidates. Is it solely to see your "side" win? Is it because you choose to ignore a candidates personality flaws for a supposed "greater good" as indicated by their party's platform? or it it willful ignorance of your side's flaws? I'm genuinely curious.

[ISiddiqui]

That seems somewhat tainted by nostalgia to me. Aside from Obama, finding a 'decent' person who has run for President (not even been a nominee for his or her party, mind) in the 21st Century is difficult.

And if you expand that further, aside from Obama, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush (debatable), and Jimmy Carter (& possibly Gerald Ford) the Presidential nominees in the last 40 years have been morally questionable people at best.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That seems somewhat tainted by nostalgia to me. Aside from Obama, finding a 'decent' person who has run for President (not even been a nominee for his or her party, mind) in the 21 Century is difficult.

So that's your answer? Because no one that runs for President is a decent person?

Edit: That's a fair answer. It's the kind of response I'm looking for. I've just had enough of the morally corrupt people that are put forth as candidates. Maybe I'm late to the party in realizing this...maybe this is just a part of a mid life crisis...I don't know. I just can't stand either of these candidates at all. I find this to be the worst election in my lifetime in that there is nothing redeemable about either of them. At least in the past, I've thought that there was more good than bad. Not the case in this election.