The President does have enough power to totally sink us IF they're volatile enough. Simple incompetence in a president doesn't sink us. However, that can cost lives. 1,833 people died officially from Katrina, although obviously not that many were directly from the utter incompetence of the Bush administration. 4,500 Americans have died in Iraq during the invasion and subsequent occupation. These things don't "sink" the US completely, but they're VERY consequential.

But Trump is incompetent AND volatile. Bringing both of those qualities to the table as president, and you've got much much bigger issues.

Finally, I absolutely do not get the charges of personal corruption against Hillary Clinton, especially when compared to Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton, so far as I can tell, is an agent who is operating within a system that has been corrupted, and not personally by her. The system needs to be reformed. She's done things to win within the system that you'd ideally not do. But I don't get how she is personally corrupt.

But you speak as if Clinton is the competent but corrupt one, and Trump is the incompetent but non-corrupt one, which blows my mind. How is the only way you can be corrupt is through accepting campaign contributions? How is Trump University not an indictment of how corrupt Trump personally is? How is it not corrupt to appeal to white supremacists? How is it not corrupt to name call, incite your supporters to violence, and dismiss women because they must be on their periods? How is it not corrupt to have your daughter make a speech at the RNC and then tweet how to buy the dress she was wearing, so she could make some coin?

Because one of those forms of corruption is being potentially corrupted by a corrupt system, but they're at least trying to reform that system. Hillary Clinton is the one against Citizens United, officially calling for a constitutional amendment to get rid of it. Has Donald Trump?

I don't think HRC will be a great president. I don't particularly like her much. However, she is qualified to be President. She's done nothing illegal, which is the hallmark of whether someone is corrupt.

And don't kid yourself about our government's ability containing a fascist. The Weimar Republic's government had structures in place to prevent the rise of Hitler, too. They had separation of powers. The government was one of the most democratic governments in the world. Fat lot of good that did.

I'm not saying necessarily that Trump is the next Hitler. But I am saying that there are enough similarities that I can't vote for him, and the mere fact he got a major party's nomination is scary beyond all reason. And voting for someone like that proves out their blueprint for future candidates across the board for offices in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches at all levels of government.

As much as I don't like HRC, Trump is easily the worse major party's nominee in a very very very long time.

@newtboy

now don't be confusing bob with your "facts" and "logic".allow the man his delusions please.

i think the most telling of this man's incredibly cherry picked diatribe is how he declares that republicans want smaller government,while at the VERY same time applauds corporations and the military!!!

where one has totally infiltrated,purchased and now controls our legislature and the other is literally..L.I.T.E.R.A.L.L.Y..a branch of the behemoth government republicans are said to despise.

a real,classic,republican is against money in politics in the form of a multi-national corporation,because that corporation was given it's privileges FROM the government.which in theory,is representative of the people.a classic republican is also against a free-standing army that just chews up money and resources and is an utter waste in regards to it's affects to the average citizen.the military should be for defense only.

but let us remember,this is bill whittle.a master in the art of sophistry.

Lynch broke the Law.

18 USC §§ 202 – 209; Executive Order 12674 on Principles of Ethical Conduct as amended by EO 12731; Uniform Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, 5 CFR Part 2635; Department of Justice regulations, 5 CFR Part 3801; Department of Justice regulations, 28 CFR Part 45; Executive branch standards of conduct, 5 USC § 735; and, United States Department of Justice Ethics Handbook for On and Off-Duty Conduct, 14 Principles for Ethical Conduct:

“14. Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in this part. Whether particular circumstances create an appearance that the law or these standards have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts.”

5 C.F.R 2635.101 (b)

“An employee shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that the employee is violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in this part.”

5 CFR 2635.101(b)(14)

Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s meeting with Bill Clinton severely undermined the already low public confidence in her agency’s criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton.



I truly think they new they would get caught.
The real question is Why?

This is interesting, because these ladies are famous (in Japan) Japanese comedians but I don't think they will actually be doing the voice-overs when the film comes to Japan (won't be out here for months). On the YouTube page for this video, it explains that these ladies are members of the Japanese Ghostbusters' "branch office," implying an international franchise.

I'm not well-informed enough about the contents of each of the 4 bills to concur with your "they were all shit" assessment (though I can certainly believe that might well be true).

But I bigtime agree with being against "knee jerk legislation" ... cough cough Patriot Act cough cough.

On the other hand, a very legitimate gripe about the Legislative branch of government is that it doesn't even pass "knee jerk" legislation because moving one's knees requires being alive with basic brain function. The Senate (and House) might as well be a fuckin' corpse with rigor mortis. Sits around and accomplishes nothing except getting increasingly putrefied as time goes by.

EDIT: According to 'separation of powers...and the roles defined for each branch, the Judicial has full power to interpret the laws as they interpret them. Period.

Exactly....but now it's been re-interpreted to give a right to a single individual...300000000 times.
Yes, you could, but that militia must be well regulated (which doesn't mean it never wets the bed or cries about it's parents being mean) before it meets the criteria to be protected...technically.

Your contention that "regulated" as a legal term actually means/meant "adjusted", as if a "well adjusted militia" was a phrase that makes any sense, or did back then, makes no sense. You may continue to claim it, I will continue to contradict it. Unless you have some written description by a founding father saying exactly that, it's just, like, your opinion...man. Try reading "Miracle at Philadelphia" for context.

If Y and Z didn't exist, but are incredibly similar to X, then it's reasonable to interpret laws to include Y and Z....if they existed and were not EXCLUDED, it's up to the judicial to interpret meaning...the less clear they are in meaning, the more power they give the judicial. Today, congress is as unclear as possible, and complain constantly that they are interpreted 'wrong'.

It's not a simple matter to make any law today....no matter how clear the need is for a law or how reasonable and universally the concept is accepted. Sadly. It SHOULD be a simple matter. It's not.

The court never "jumps the gun". They only interpret/re-interpret laws that are challenged, and a reasonable challenge means the law is in some way open to interpretation.

According to separation of powers... and the roles defined for each branch.

Parsing words is fine.
Persons vs people is moot. People = multiple persons. Unless your intent is to give a right to a single individual, you're always dealing with people.

The flip side is that if the 2nd amendment only protects militias and their armament, then it protects militias. So you are free to start a militia and get armed.
(Again, by 1791 parlance, well regulated meant well adjusted. There is no prerequisite for government regulation re the 1791 English it was written in.).


"well, they wrote X, but clearly the intent was to also cover Y and Z" doesn't work when :
- Y and Z did not even exist at the time of X.
- Y and Z did exist, and the writers chose not to include them.
In either case, you end up legislating from the bench.

It's a simple matter to make a new law covering Y and Z. There is no need for a court to jump the gun. Just find the case by the classic scope, and inform the legislature of the circumstances so they can take it into consideration. Heck, there is no guarantee that the legislature even wants the scope expanded. They could even want it contracted.
If it becomes a complicated matter with parties arguing - then it clearly needs debating and would have been inappropriate to decide elsewhere.

As a republic, the people are the state, and the state has all authority. The government exists strictly to record, execute, and enforce the state's will, by the state's authority (govt. has no authority inherent to itself).
The legislature is the channel that codifies the state's will. No other functional element serves that purpose. To codify something, it must go through the legislature. Else it does not carry state authority.

-scheherazade

Okay. You're right. He can be a politician. He is a politician. A stinking poor one, but since he is running for public office, he is by definition a "politician."

Doesn't change the fact he is unqualified to be President. He knows nothing. He promotes fear-mongering and encourages violence. He says he will do things as president that are clearly unconstitutional and outside his powers (banning Muslims, changing the libel laws so he can gain financially.) He is thin-skinned.

He has just revoked the press credentials of The Washington Post because he didn't like a front page story. The man doesn't understand the three branches of government plus the fourth estate of a free press.

I'm qualified to disqualify him because I am a thinking American who knows some history. Like Ken Burns. Like Mitt Romney.

Trump is a unifier, all right. For the first time in almost eight years, some Republicans are putting their love of country above partisanship. I've never been more proud of everyone who has the courage to tell the truth about Donald Trump.

He is patently unfit to serve our country. He has never done it before. He isn't interested in doing it now.

Of course no one is talking about a full gun ban. However, once you compromise the 2nd Amendment, you place the decision in the hands of our legislature. You know, the super functional branch of our government that never makes mistakes. You also allow them to decide 'what' you need.

I've not been to NZ, but I seriously doubt that the cultural dichotomy that is present in the USA is remotely represented in NZ.

I support abortion rights, I support gay marriage, I would love to be able to trip out to the local head shop and buy some weed, and I don't think heavily restricting guns would solve the issues we are looking at. The last two mass shootings were terrorist related. Prior to that, they have primarily been mental health related. We have one of the worst mental health policies and systems in the world. Medicate first, don't hospitalize, don't provide therapy, and other such bright ideas. Ever since we passed the Community Mental Health Centers Act of 1963, homelessness and acts of violence by the mentally ill have been on the rise. Inpatient centers have become rare and, like I said, most people get a pill and a swift kick in the ass out the door. I would be willing to bet if we fixed our health care issues in regards to the mentally ill and maybe put a 15 day waiting period on the purchase of ANY gun, we would stop 99% of these mass shootings.

I have paper wasps that look an awful lot like bees ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Wasp_May_2008-11.jpg )

I get dirty looks from my hippy neighbor when I'm spraying for them b/c he's retarded. Know the difference, paper wasps do pollinate, but they are fucking dangerous. I got stung once removing a nest (on accident, i was sawing a low hanging branch and didn't see the nest at all) and got stung on the top of my head. That fucking sting felt like a hot nail being driven into my skin by a hammer. And it felt like every few minutes someone hit the hammer again.

One sample "weird chicken behavior" is psychotically aggressive bantam (miniature) roosters.

Too small and ill equipped (not much spur, etc.) to do any damage to a human, but they *act* like they think they are velociraptors or something. Bring food in, fill their water, get vaguely close to them ... they attack your feet. My dad taught me to put my shoe between their legs and lift/kick them into a wall -- pretty hard. Stuns / dazes them for a minute or so -- long enough to fill their feed or whatever. But stay longer than that and they'll be right back to attacking your feet.


On the female side, hens sometimes choose very bizarre locations to lay their eggs. We had a metal cylindrical feeder thing with a tray at the bottom -- fill cracked corn or whatever into the cylinder (open on top), and it will gravity flow down as they eat some out of the bottom tray. We had one hen that liked to jump in the top of that cylinder (maybe 10 inch diameter) and then lay eggs on top of the food in there. Extremely tight fit, no room to move -- like putting your arm in a Pringles can. Sometimes she got stuck if the surface of the food was too far down.

I've even seen a hen that sat on the surface of a bough in a cedar tree. Enough branch and cedar foliage to hold up the hen's body, but then we found an egg right under her on the ground -- not dense enough material to actually keep the egg from falling through. The egg was broken, but the hen just stubbornly sat in that tree for a day or two, not realizing what had happened.

I like coming up with wild hypotheses and narratives, so here is one: The lizard saw its reflection in the camera phone. Being highly territorial, it therefore attempted to chase off the intruder who was staring him down in the reflection of the backside of the camera phone. Eventually, the "tree" supporting the camera phone reflected intruder stopped moving and the lizard ran up the "tree" and confronted the reflected intruder. However the camera phone was eventually moved for a side view causing the intruder to disappear. The lizard suddenly found itself upon a moving "tree" whose branches could move and grasp onto him, and it decided to get the heck out of Dodge.

Somewhat disappointed that he didn't include my personal favorite argument against Pascal's Wager: conflicting faiths.

Instead of a 4-cell chart (2x2 from believe/don't believe and god exists/doesn't), the chart should arguably be a LOT bigger. Plenty of individual branches of Christianity will tell you that *their* specific brand is the only one that will get you into heaven. And that's just relatively minor distinctions -- different sorts of Protestants, or Protestants vs Catholics, etc. We haven't even got to Christianity vs Judaism vs Islam -- all of which fall under the "Abrahamic" umbrella -- but very few Christian faiths think that Jews or Muslims are just as eligible to enter heaven as they are (or vice-versa). From there you can get to things as disparate as Hindu vs Ancient Egyptian vs Zoroastrianism, and everything else.

With that sort of chart, it is just as easy to say that choosing to believe in the *wrong* god could possibly be associated with a more negative outcome than washing your hands of it and going Atheist. Maybe I chose to believe in Ra the Sun God when Zeus ends up being the one true deity. Come to find that Zeus, as it turns out, tolerates people who don't believe in him as long as they don't believe in one of his competitors (like Ra). Therefore I get a lightning bolt to the keyster and a trip to Hades while my nonbeliever buddy gets a ticket to Elysium.

Of course it's all a load of bollocks, but if your argument is a load of bollocks (like Pascal's wager) you don't get to complain when somebody flips it on its head and uses it to argue the exact opposite...

As much as I am a Sander's supporter. I can't support the idea of him running as an independent. That would split the Democratic vote too much, and the idea of a Trump Presidency is far too dangerous. I think the fact that the polls show again and again that Sanders would do much better against Trump should show the DNC that Hillary needs Sanders and his supporters far more than Sanders needs her and her supporters.

If I were Hillary I'd offer Sanders the VP spot. Even if he doesn't accept, he gets the prime time keynote spot. Then you also promise the Congressional Progressive Caucus get's at least 60% of the rest of the prime time spots, with moderates getting 40% of the prime time spot. Off prime time the CPC still gets 40% (no less than 33%). Between Sanders and the CPC having the bulk of the prime time spots, it helps move the progressive message forward.

She then needs to have a known progressive on her ticket. If she can't secure Sanders, she'd probably consider Warren, but unfortunately, two women might make too many independent voters nervous. So I'd push for Dennis Kucinich. The advantage with Kucinich is that he's a known progressive, and he'd help give Clinton Ohio. If you can't get him, then find a rising member of the CPC. Again, the idea is to push the progressive agenda. Warren and Sanders have to have spots in the cabinet though if they want in.

There's enough hate of Trump in the Republican ranks that I think this year is the year to push for 3rd parties, especially the Libertarian party since that is the one most likely to pull votes from Republicans looking for an alternative to Trump... it won't pull the religious right who'll stick with Trump, but the more sane minded Republicans will probably consider it over absentee voting. The anti-Trump Republicans need to push the idea of the Libertarian party, and then push for Republicans for the Senate and House to avoid loosing the Senate, which is possible...

The Democrats meanwhile need to do something to get people out and vote. Democratic turnout keeps going down, beyond what one would expect purely from the Voter ID laws Republicans put in to lower Democratic votes. They need to rally the base into actually getting out and voting. To secure not only the Presidency from Trump, but to overtake the Senate and start making a push for the House. Of course one of the main way they do this is start appealing to Sanders supporters, and the party seems so intent on dissing his supporters.

The DNC is way too dismissive of the actions in Nevada. The Nevada people went out of their way to make sure Sanders didn't win, they knew people were still trying to get in when they made rule changes... people they were holding back on purpose so they could push those changes through, then when those people got in, they of course were upset. The DNC, a party that publicly tries to support those who have been disenfranchised from voting, is going out of their way to disenfranchise a large percentage of its base... all just because it's Clinton's turn or something. Fine, let it be her turn, but don't shut out the movement. She needs to step to the left, and add a large number of progressive voices to her team. She and the DNC needs to reach out to Sanders supporters and other progressives and unite the party... Trump seems to be pulling in the moderates to his side. As split as the Republicans were at the start, they are starting to pull together far better than the Democrats are... and it isn't up to Sanders to drop out and push his support to her, she needs to be the one to offer an olive branch and start wooing him and his supporters. Right now they seem to think it's Sander's job... no, it's the leader's job... It isn't the Republican moderates reaching out to Trump, it is Trump meeting with them and wooing them. Some to less success than others, true enough, but he's doing far better at starting an appeal to the moderates than Clinton is to Sanders, his supporters and the progressives.

But V.P. for whom? At this point, Clinton has said more disparaging, disrespectful, dismissive things about him than Trump has. In fact, Trump has actually said a few nice things about Bernie (and called him Crazy Bernie). That said...a Trump Sanders ticket might just kill a Trump candidacy, so I could support that...it won't happen though.

What I really hope for at this point is that he'll run as an independent after he gets hosed at the convention, and with Warren as his V.P. Maybe I'm wrong, but it feels to me that she has such credibility with all but staunch Republicans that they might have a chance of winning....and then we would have at least one branch of government not under either party's thumb. I get that it's a pipe dream, but a newt can dream, can't he? It does seem like both parties are doing their best to push the nation into electing a third party into power....or better, no party.