1) I really wish the paper would stop every single one of this asshole's tweets. Haven't they learned their lesson? (Answer: no)
2) Wow, the WaPo and NYTimes really stepping up investigations into Trump's conflicts. Where was this reporting months ago? And hey, did this guy really get away with not releasing his tax returns? How did that happen?
3) Even if Trump/Pence is above conflict of interest, legally, what about Trump's kids? Putting aside Trump legal intervention/reprieve, could they be liable for sketchy stuff (not far) down the line, when conflicts start appearing? They are still subject to US law, right? They can be fined/sued, etc.? If a government body fails to take action against actionable crimes, can that organization be sued? How about if they show that Trump intervened on their behalf and prevented a government body from acting? Because I don't see how any/all of this will not happen. It seemed inevitable, even assuming the best of intentions on the part of Trump et al. And he does not have the best of intentions.
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 27 November 2016 15:57 (seven years ago) link
Wow, the WaPo and NYTimes really stepping up investigations into Trump's conflicts. Where was this reporting months ago?
This was happening late summer and early fall; it doesn't matter.
― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 27 November 2016 15:58 (seven years ago) link
The federal government could be sued, the Trumps themselves could be prosecuted by state AGs, the states could go after the federal government, the Trumps could be sued, etc. etc. There is recourse as long as we remain a nation that abides the rule of law. And hey, David Boies fired his client in the Theranos case so his firm is probably looking for stuff to do!
― El Tomboto, Sunday, 27 November 2016 16:02 (seven years ago) link
xpost I never saw anything as extensive and specific as the multiple-bylined Times piece that ran yesterday.
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 27 November 2016 16:12 (seven years ago) link
i'm not sure there were that many times and wapo subscribers who voted for trump. every day during the election, the times would show up in my driveway filled with articles on how unethical, untrustworthy trump is. the mind reels imaging a voter carefully reading all of that and then casting a vote for him.
on the other hand, re. sexiness discussion from above
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/11/27/opinion/sunday/27sestanovich/27sestanovich-master768.jpg
― Treeship, Sunday, 27 November 2016 16:26 (seven years ago) link
If there is anything this election has demonstrated to me, it's that plenty of people read accounts of his conflicts and corruption and crimes and still voted for him anyway, saying what the hell, better than the alternative!
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 27 November 2016 16:41 (seven years ago) link
yeah, i was really stunned by the extent of the hillaryphobia in the nation. like, she's got her flaws, but trump is nothing but flaws. he is a blight on the face of humanity. the world is a much worse place because he is in it, regardless of whether or not he is president. now that he is, well,
― Treeship, Sunday, 27 November 2016 16:44 (seven years ago) link
Trump is shaping up to be the least powerful President since before FDR remade the executive branch, which isn't exactly great if it means the country is pretty much governed by the Ryan agenda. Then again Ryan is probably loathed by a third of his caucus.
― slathered in cream and covered with stickers (silby), Sunday, 27 November 2016 16:44 (seven years ago) link
they'll stop loathing him once he can just ship radical GOP legislation straight to a friendly White House and buy everybody a round.
― walk back to the halftime long, billy lynn, billy lynn (Doctor Casino), Sunday, 27 November 2016 17:11 (seven years ago) link
The extent of Hillary disdain isn't really surprising - the right and center-right were still mad at "Hill and Billary" from 1992 and have never let it go, the left of the Democrats still doesn't like or trust the Clintons politically (cf. what happened with Bill's VP).
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Sunday, 27 November 2016 17:19 (seven years ago) link
hm, seems like maybe it was a bad idea for the DNC to decide like 5 years ago that she would be the nominee come hell or high water
― k3vin k., Sunday, 27 November 2016 17:28 (seven years ago) link
thanks for your insight at this important moment
― El Tomboto, Sunday, 27 November 2016 17:29 (seven years ago) link
ha sorry i'll take your lead and post paranoid articles about how we're slipping into autocracy
https://twitter.com/amjoyshow/status/802910629816172544
i do secretly enjoy following sarah kendzior's apocalyptics tbh
― k3vin k., Sunday, 27 November 2016 17:51 (seven years ago) link
i feel like she presents a valuable perspective. i don't things will go down like she says but i think it's possible. trump is being entirely unclear about his intentions.
― Treeship, Sunday, 27 November 2016 17:58 (seven years ago) link
the left of the Democrats still doesn't like or trust the Clintons politically (cf. what happened with Bill's VP).
Ironically, both Al Gore and HRC won the popular vote quite handily.
― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Sunday, 27 November 2016 18:03 (seven years ago) link
I hope the USA turns into a country of 500 independent city-states sometime soon
― slathered in cream and covered with stickers (silby), Sunday, 27 November 2016 18:11 (seven years ago) link
I've been off twitter since the election I'm just using ilx for my stupid quips
― slathered in cream and covered with stickers (silby), Sunday, 27 November 2016 18:12 (seven years ago) link
yo who gets the nukes in that scenario
― imago, Sunday, 27 November 2016 18:12 (seven years ago) link
every state gets 1 nuke lol
I assume an executive council of mayors gets to do the nukes
― slathered in cream and covered with stickers (silby), Sunday, 27 November 2016 18:14 (seven years ago) link
It kinda sorta feels like Trump, to the extent that his feeble synapses have any ability to generate an actual strategy, may still be perpetuating a Producers gambit. He wanted to win but never actually wanted the job. He can't quit without looking like a loser, so he figures that by doing everything in his power to visibly demonstrate how unfit he is for the job (hiring unqualified maniacs to cabinet positions, indicating a total lack of interest in security briefings, pooh-poohing qualms about his audacious conflicts of interest, etc.) before he's even sworn in, he can get somebody to chuck him out before he ever has to do anything. And then he would be able to more legitimately nurse the perpetual state of aggrievement that clearly gives his life meaning. But like The Producers, the thing he didn't want to happen is exactly what happened and will continue to happen, but in this case Bialystock is going to make us all suffer for being stupid enough to fall for his con and forcing him to live in some dumb house in DC.
― i need microsoft installed on my desktop, can you help (Old Lunch), Sunday, 27 November 2016 18:48 (seven years ago) link
Like, I wholeheartedly acknowledge how profoundly stupid and incurious Trump is, but it honestly seems like he's going out of his way to demonstrate how shitty a president he's going to be. The problem being that the people were already convinced don't need convincing and the people who backed him will double down on their support regardless of how many foreign dignitaries he waggles his shriveled penis at.
― i need microsoft installed on my desktop, can you help (Old Lunch), Sunday, 27 November 2016 18:53 (seven years ago) link
Don't you mean "waggles his small hands at"?
― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 27 November 2016 18:54 (seven years ago) link
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Sunday, 27 November 2016 18:55 (seven years ago) link
this article makes a pretty convincing (and beautifully written case) against using 'realist' political calculations vis-a-vis Trump (which informs the discussion about whether to stress 'identity' politics or not) http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/27/trump-realism-vs-moral-politics-choice-we-face/
― the ilx meme is critical of that line of thought (lion in winter), Sunday, 27 November 2016 19:00 (seven years ago) link
handily is... rather strong. .5% and less than 2% would either be the third and fourth-smallest or third and fifth (if Hillary surpasses Carter in the end) since 1900.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z)
Hm. I thought as of last week Clinton was at Tilden levels.
― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 27 November 2016 19:09 (seven years ago) link
is this nuts or otm?
https://twitter.com/summerbrennan/status/802302536761810944
― stevie, Sunday, 27 November 2016 21:47 (seven years ago) link
While she's tweeting about cyberwar, the prez-elect is tweeting:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/802972944532209664
In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally
― curmudgeon, Sunday, 27 November 2016 22:10 (seven years ago) link
Just about to post re: that. If the president elect, the guy who won, is alleging millions of fraudulent votes ...
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 27 November 2016 22:13 (seven years ago) link
care to share with the rest of the class mr trump
― illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Sunday, 27 November 2016 22:25 (seven years ago) link
So he cried fraud before the election, he cried fraud after the election, but he's dismissing recounts as a waste of time?
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 27 November 2016 22:28 (seven years ago) link
Politico says in part:
To bolster his claims, Trump has cited a 2014 blog post in The Washington Post by the authors of a disputed study that estimated that "6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010." That study has faced intense scrutiny from election experts, with one analyst telling factcheck.org earlier this year, “Their finding is entirely due to measurement error."
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-illegal-voting-clinton-231860
― curmudgeon, Sunday, 27 November 2016 22:31 (seven years ago) link
He's the president, he should appoint people to look into this.
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 27 November 2016 22:33 (seven years ago) link
we haven't even started yet
― the notes the loon doesn't play (ulysses), Sunday, 27 November 2016 22:33 (seven years ago) link
He should also look into how many of his voters host illegal off-highway tiger zoos.
i have been to to the tiger truck stop in louisiana and can confirm that there is one sad tiger in a concerte box there. also the jambalaya sucked
― the ilx meme is critical of that line of thought (lion in winter), Sunday, 27 November 2016 22:39 (seven years ago) link
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/962/640/658.png
― Surrounded by 62,212,752 fools + 7,143,756 morons (Sanpaku), Sunday, 27 November 2016 22:43 (seven years ago) link
i don't think congress has the constitutional authority to pass a nationwide voter ID law, thank god
― 龜, Sunday, 27 November 2016 22:50 (seven years ago) link
OTOH, proposals for national ID cards have been kicking around for awhile - especially in the 9/11 fallout. I certainly expect to see them again.
― Elvis Telecom, Sunday, 27 November 2016 23:13 (seven years ago) link
If there was a national ID (realizing the issues with hassle, threat of authoritarian rule, etc) that was enacted and in force years before an election, could it prevent some of the voter supression that has been a regular issue for a couple of decades?
In other words, we've had the issue of Republican secretaries of state disenfranchising hundreds of thousands in the weeks immediately preceding every election. An ID mandate, if issued a year or two before the next election, would be an equal hassle to all, but would prevent thousands from being turned away as they reached the ballot box.
Frankly, I don't have strongly informed opinions on the issue. I just want a way to prevent the sorts of voter list manipulation that has become the norm, especially in swing states, to stop. I understand voter/citizen ID is intended to disenfranchise, but perhaps if effectively countered at the local level it could backfire. We have the GOTV volunteers, they don't.
― Sanpaku, Sunday, 27 November 2016 23:25 (seven years ago) link
Imagine the uproar if senior citizens who got their news from racist nephews on Facebook were turned away, while people of all ethnicities who duly wasted an hour or two to get their national ID walked past to cast their vote. This is the sort of poetic justice I seek.
― Sanpaku, Sunday, 27 November 2016 23:33 (seven years ago) link
There would be no more than one office in every MSA unless you pay a fee to skip the line or something equally disenfranchising, but rural gas stations would be able to process the paperwork.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Sunday, 27 November 2016 23:36 (seven years ago) link
Again, we have the GOTV volunteers. They're shitheads relying upon Facebook for their worldview.
― Sanpaku, Sunday, 27 November 2016 23:54 (seven years ago) link
how would theoretical national id laws play out in vote by mail only states (which imo the entire country should be vote by mail bc it works and is easy)
― Clay, Monday, 28 November 2016 00:24 (seven years ago) link
Sanpaku wouldn't you just be offsetting the disenfranchisement from the weeks before the election to whenever it is that people are supposed to get these IDs?
― illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Monday, 28 November 2016 00:37 (seven years ago) link
No one can respond to the late period disenfranchisement. I just think there's ample opportunity for these measures to backfire, especially if they're in law for many months before a vote.
I trust that we are smarter and more committed. If some neo-nazi thinks posting Pepe memes is more important than getting their fucking diabetic uncle out to vote, too bad.
― Sanpaku, Monday, 28 November 2016 00:43 (seven years ago) link
Sorry about that, but I've got a lot of contempt issues around the electorate, right now.
― Sanpaku, Monday, 28 November 2016 00:45 (seven years ago) link
I guess I'm not following your argument completely, Sanpaku, since state-level voter ID is a device of disenfranchisement, and the arguments you're putting forward for how people would have plenty of time to get it taken care of in advance, are the same as those put forward by defenders of state voter ID measures. It leads rapidly to "If you can't be bothered to fill out a form you have no business voting!" in defiance of how things actually play out in reality, vis-a-vis disproportionate effects on certain populations. And yeah, unless a whole new federal voter-registration bureaucracy sprung into existence, with outposts and offices and sign-up vans in ever town, the actual implementation would fall to state-level agencies so it'd be the same old shit, as milo z suggests.
― walk back to the halftime long, billy lynn, billy lynn (Doctor Casino), Monday, 28 November 2016 00:52 (seven years ago) link
― Clay, Sunday, November 27, 2016 4:24 PM (twenty-five minutes ago)
There are states that require you to vote by mail? That seems like it has more opportunity for fraud, as well as disenfranchising people that move.
― sarahell, Monday, 28 November 2016 00:53 (seven years ago) link
overview here, I am in the "pro" camp:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote-by-mail_in_Oregon
― sleeve, Monday, 28 November 2016 01:02 (seven years ago) link