Random Politics & Religion #14

I must assume that you didn't read the article.

Mosin, the only thing really stopping Faithless Electors from not voting at all or voting contrary to pledge are monetary fines. Who knows what their stance is on Trump? They could've really wanted Kasich. They could even prefer Hillary over Trump for all we know. They aren't allowed to broadcast or share what their thoughts are prior to their December 18th vote. All I'm saying is, there could be Never Trumpers in the EC who might turn Faithless and either withhold their vote or go to Hillary instead.

Prior to the election, I didn't care which of these fools won but now I'm glad Trump did for one reason.

It's forcing liberals to recognize that it's more than the fringe that disagree with them, which is what they were so sure of.

What? lol...

Mosin, the only thing really stopping Faithless Electors from not voting at all or voting contrary to pledge are monetary fines. Who knows what their stance is on Trump? They could've really wanted Kasich. They could even prefer Hillary over Trump for all we know. They aren't allowed to broadcast or share what their thoughts are prior to their December 18th vote. All I'm saying is, there could be Never Trumpers in the EC who might turn Faithless and either withhold their vote or go to Hillary instead.

I did, but you cannot impeach a president outside of office.

Remember, Clinton wasn't impeached because he had sexual relations with a woman other than his wife, he was impeached because he lied under oath and obstructed an investigation in such matter.

Like I said, he has to do something illegal in office, not make ***up as you go.

Making ***up is precisely how liberals operate. If you dare to disagree they beat you over the head until you submit.

How many victim cards are in the deck you guys are using? Or is it just a 52 card deck of victim cards? Pathetic.

I guess I should hide this complimentary sack of oranges that don't leave any marks or bruising.

The Lawfare blog, run by the Brookings Institution, has long reliably been a good source to go to for reading what defenders of mass surveillance and the surveillance state are thinking -- in a non-hysterical way. While I disagree with much of what's posted on there, it tends to be thoughtful and interesting reading. Its founder and Editor-in-Chief is Ben Wittes, who's always good for an impassioned defense of the NSA's surveillance on Americans, and was all in on forcing tech companies to break encryption. He wasn't worried, you see, because he was quite sure the NSA would never spy on him. Because, you know, he's a good guy.

....

Maybe take the time to explore that strange feeling and you can start to understand why so many of us have been concerned about the entire apparatus that you've been cheering on for years, because, as you once said: "I have a great deal of confidence that the National Security Agency is not spying on me." There are an awful lot of people who haven't had that confidence for a while. And a great many more who won't have that confidence under the next administration. That strange feeling that Wittes has is finally a recognition that maybe he should be concerned about those people too.

This isn't a post to mock Ben, but to highlight why so many of us were so concerned all along, even as he mocked us. This is serious stuff and believing that unconstitutional warrantless mass surveillance is okay because you trust the guy in charge only works if you can always trust the guy in charge. And you can't... as Ben and others are suddenly discovering.

Donald Trump, whether he understands it or not, has won the presidency with a unique burden: Most serious national security experts regard him not merely as weak and unprepared for the roles of Commander in Chief and the country’s leader in foreign policy, but as an affiirmative national security threat.

When we founded this site more than six years ago, I never in my wildest dreams imagined myself writing these words about a man who will take the oath of office as President of the United States. We began Lawfare on the assumption that the U.S. federal executive branch was a tool with which to confront national security threats. While I accepted that its manner of doing so might threaten other values—like civil liberties—or prove counterproductive in protecting national security goods, I never imagined I would confront the day when I ranked the President himself among the major threats to the security of the country.

...

I have spelled out my concerns on these points at great length (see also here and here), as have many others of both political parties. They are, in fact, not really my concerns so much as a broadly shared set of anxieties about the man whom the American people have chosen to the lead them. The Washington Post reports today that “A palpable sense of dread [has] settled on the intelligence community.” The Post is understating the matter.

My point here is not to reiterate the concerns about Trump. It is too late for that; the time for persuading our countrymen not to elect the man has passed. My point now is to emphasize that because of these concerns, this is no normal presidential transition, and to acknowledge that Trump’s victory fundamentally changes how I understand what I do as a national security legal writer and analyst.

...

But there’s a risk, in saying these things, of normalizing Trump’s ascendancy. His victory triggers certain path dependencies associated with the peaceful transition of power, and those path dependencies have a soothing feel to them. We will talk about presidential appointments and policy priorities. And with respect to many domestic and economic matters, I suppose that all makes sense.

The problem is that it also has a way of whitewashing the multiple reasons to fear a Trump presidency on national security grounds. And that’s dangerous. Because winning an election doesn’t make normal or okay the things Trump has promised to do: killing terrorists’ families, torture, banning Muslims from the country. It doesn’t make normal or okay the erratic personal behavior, late-night tweet-storms, or inability to restrain himself from taking the bait when taunted. It doesn’t make okay or less scary his rejection of the conventional American defense posture.

...

How many victim cards are in the deck you guys are using?

They also have no clue how far Trump will be willing to take it. You see how petty he can be on Twitter, right? Now, imagine him with the authority to send the Military Police to kick your door in at three in the morning just because you somehow pissed him off.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that you don't have a clue what the President of the United States actually does, don't have a clue who Donald Trump is, and don't see the irony in how you so closely mirror the views of the Republicans who literally thought Obama was going to declare martial law.

The office alternates back and forth with must elections being very close; I would not be using hyperbole accurately here.

The time for sensationalism is taking a break.

Thanksgiving with be along shortly, we'll all eat some turkey and get shitplastered, and promptly begin to *** about something else. people have the attention span of a stoned goldfish.

Wait, are you saying that the democrats losing House/Senate seats, the PotUS, governorships, and state legislation are just flukes determined by a pendulum swing of viewpoints swinging between left and right ideologies?

Hate to break it to you, but these things happen for a reason. It's up to us to figure out what that reason is and either capitalize on it or fix the problem if it needs fixing.

Liberals have a major problem on their hands, and by the looks of the media, and even some of our own liberal posters here, they haven't even addressed that a problem exists. It's just that the mass is ignorant still, and they must double down on their rhetoric to help "educate" us all.

I don't think there was ever a Clinton cult, unless Katy Perry alone is defined as one.

Quite a few of the more liberal posters here have identified the problems - in a nut shell, Hillary managed to sabotage her own campaign.