Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 23, 2017, 01:34:25 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: TexasGurl, Torie, Senator PiT)
| | |-+  The current situation, or President Hillary with emails/Benghazi hearings?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Poll
Question: Which would you rather have?
The current situation with President Trump (D)   -9 (15.8%)
President Hillary, and more hearings on Benghazi and emails (D)   -33 (57.9%)
The current situation with President Trump (R)   -2 (3.5%)
President Hillary, and more hearings on Benghazi and emails (R)   -4 (7%)
The current situation with President Trump (I/O)   -3 (5.3%)
President Hillary, and more hearings on Benghazi and emails (I/O)   -6 (10.5%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 57

Author Topic: The current situation, or President Hillary with emails/Benghazi hearings?  (Read 440 times)
Blue3
Starwatcher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6628
United States


View Profile
« on: May 19, 2017, 09:27:43 pm »
Ignore

Your choice?
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20760


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2017, 09:31:37 pm »
Ignore

Obviously the Justice Garland scenario.
Logged

Hammy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1407
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2017, 09:34:32 pm »
Ignore

Obviously the Justice Garland scenario.
Logged



click to read my comics.
Clay
GWBFan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4486


Political Matrix
E: -4.00, S: -7.83

P

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2017, 09:51:03 pm »
Ignore

At least President Hillary wouldn't be whining on twitter every five seconds.

Nor did she collude with a foreign power to win the election, so there's that.

And she is BY FAR way more presidential than Trump.

And if she's removed from office, then we have Kaine, who is less crazy than Pence.
Logged
Invisible Obama
DrScholl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6845
United States



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2017, 10:00:47 pm »
Ignore

I'm glad that Hillary didn't win, because Democrats are in a better position to gain seats in Congress next year.
Logged

LOCK TRUMP UP!
hermit
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2285


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2017, 10:17:05 pm »
Ignore


I'm not much into "what if" stuff.

Dealing with reality today, Trump is the King of the throne and he's the one we need to focus on.

He's rather entertaining.

I am tired of having to defend Hillary, so in that sense I'm glad she's not the President. I was bored to tears with the way the other party was treating her.

It's refreshing to be on the offense now, bashing Trumpster right and left. So I'd rather have him in office. I don't think he'll be able to ruin the country because there are too many checks and balances stopping him.
Logged
PNM
Mizzouian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 812
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2017, 11:44:40 pm »
Ignore

Maybe Democrats should consider this scenario: Hillary wins, but Republicans control the Senate. You think McConnell lets Garland through knowing that he'll suffer zero electoral consequences if he doesn't? Hell no. Hillary would be a lame duck likely to inflict extreme downballot damage in the party in the midterms. With Trump, Democrats also have a chance of getting family leave through and at making significant inroads downballot, where there would've been a zero chance under President Hillary. And with President Hillary, they'd have been screwed for redistricting and thus out of the House for another decade. So, is the chance that you MIGHT get Garland really worth it? It's not like Trump has been able to do anything that significant anyway.
Logged
Dwarven Dragon
Wulfric
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14112
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.29, S: 0.70

P P P
View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 20, 2017, 12:25:19 am »
Ignore

^ On the Garland thing, I'm not sure what would have happened. Chuck Grassley, who has control over who gets a hearing in his committee, was very clear that he wouldn't treat a hypothetical President Hillary the same way he treated the outgoing President Obama on the issue. Obviously if Hillary put up, say, Ketanji Brown Jackson, it would be ignored, but Garland would likelier than not have been allowed a hearing. As far as how a hypothetical committee vote would go, democrats would need two republicans to approve the nomination to pass it by the minimum margin, 11-9 (no one on the committee was in a close race last year, so the committee would be the same people with Hillary + R senate) - so all they would need would be the two relative moderates - Graham and Flake. Doesn't sound terribly difficult. It looks bad if you're the Chairman and vote against what the majority of the committee wants, so if Graham and Flake were going to vote to advance the nomination, so would Grassley - so it passes 12-8. Then we come to the Senate Floor. Let's assume that McConnell doesn't just let the nomination take up space on the executive calendar for the next four years and holds a vote. Obviously he would keep the 60 vote rule intact in this scenario, but there is the question of whether the majority is still 52-48 R, or whether it is 51-49 R or 50+Pence-50 R - Depending on what it is, Democrats would need 10 to 12 republican votes. To scrounge up that much, one of two things would have needed to happen - either Hillary's image recovers greatly, like it did when she was SOS, and the party feels they have to staff the court to save Heller/Flake in '18, or Ginsburg/Breyer would have to leave the court, creating the scenario for a "great compromise" situation where Garland and some conservative are jointly confirmed.
Logged

○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40992


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 20, 2017, 12:30:23 am »
Ignore

Maybe Democrats should consider this scenario: Hillary wins, but Republicans control the Senate. You think McConnell lets Garland through knowing that he'll suffer zero electoral consequences if he doesn't? Hell no. Hillary would be a lame duck likely to inflict extreme downballot damage in the party in the midterms. With Trump, Democrats also have a chance of getting family leave through and at making significant inroads downballot, where there would've been a zero chance under President Hillary. And with President Hillary, they'd have been screwed for redistricting and thus out of the House for another decade. So, is the chance that you MIGHT get Garland really worth it? It's not like Trump has been able to do anything that significant anyway.

Yeah, Republicans were already planning on blocking any nominee from a very unpopular President Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/whats-the-opposite-of-court-packing/506081/
Logged

Angrie
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 438


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 20, 2017, 12:37:12 am »
Ignore

I think at this point the current situation is probably better for Democrats/left-of-center politics over the longer term, but it would be a heck of a lot better for the country (and the world) to have a sane/normal President without this chaos, and the small but real risk of Trump attacking North Korea to distract from certain other things, etc.
Logged

PNM
Mizzouian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 812
United States


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: May 20, 2017, 12:46:32 am »
Ignore

Maybe Democrats should consider this scenario: Hillary wins, but Republicans control the Senate. You think McConnell lets Garland through knowing that he'll suffer zero electoral consequences if he doesn't? Hell no. Hillary would be a lame duck likely to inflict extreme downballot damage in the party in the midterms. With Trump, Democrats also have a chance of getting family leave through and at making significant inroads downballot, where there would've been a zero chance under President Hillary. And with President Hillary, they'd have been screwed for redistricting and thus out of the House for another decade. So, is the chance that you MIGHT get Garland really worth it? It's not like Trump has been able to do anything that significant anyway.

Yeah, Republicans were already planning on blocking any nominee from a very unpopular President Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/whats-the-opposite-of-court-packing/506081/

And there's a good chance Hillary never would've gotten the chance to replace Breyer and Ginsburg before 2020. What, especially with an increased R Senate majority after 2018. In that scenario, I think it's likely that they would be replaced by whichever R would've won in 2020 (I stand by both Hillary and Trump being one-term presidents under about any scenario).
Logged
Solitude Without a Window
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 46296
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: May 20, 2017, 01:07:06 am »
Ignore

Ask me after 2018.
Logged

Our numbers are dwindling. Our words are confused.
Some of them have been twisted by the enemy
until they can no longer be recognized.

Now what is wrong, or false, in what we have said?
Just some parts, or everything?
On whom can we still rely? Are we survivors, cast
away by the current? Will we be left behind,
no longer understanding anyone and being understood by no one?
Must we rely on luck?

This is what you ask. Expect
no answer but your own.


Bertolt Brecht
President Johnson
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4343
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: May 20, 2017, 05:37:40 am »
Ignore

Still Hilldog with all her baggage
« Last Edit: May 20, 2017, 09:25:33 am by President Johnson »Logged

Socially liberal, economically moderate, fiscally lean conservative.

There is no problem that cannot be solved. - Nelson Rockefeller



Steve Bullock and/or Kamala Harris 2020
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15635
United States


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: May 20, 2017, 11:06:09 am »
Ignore

The e-mail scandal was basically a technical glitch that could be rectified quickly and decisively. President (in a better world) Hillary Clinton learns her lesson and we all concern ourselves with other matters. "Benghazi"? Show that the diplomat tried to do something heroic and died in the process. Heroism isn't always the safest choice of action.

...With President Trump we have someone unwilling to recognize a blunder or an affront for what it is.
Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
mathstatman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1425
United States


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: May 20, 2017, 12:17:09 pm »
Ignore

Which would you rather have? A headache or a rash?

Neither. I'd rather have President Johnson and Vice President Weld, and incipient talk of a "consistent freedom ethic" and how it compares/contrasts with some of the Christian Left's "consistent life ethic", especially at universities.
Logged
Representative Illiniwek
Governor Illiniwek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3497


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: May 20, 2017, 12:48:24 pm »
Ignore

Hilldawg, but I would probably want to jump from a building after 4 more years of MUH EMAILS.
Logged
Fearless Leader X
jdb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13442
United States


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: May 20, 2017, 01:18:23 pm »
Ignore

I'd rather President Hillary with email/Benghazi hearings and not for political reasons, tbh.  Sometimes you have to put your country ahead of the interests of your political party.
Logged

Cool Grin Tongue Smiley Sad Huh Angry Wink Roll Eyes Undecided Cheesy
Shocked Lips sealed
Blue3
Starwatcher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6628
United States


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: May 20, 2017, 02:15:49 pm »
Ignore

I'm glad that Hillary didn't win, because Democrats are in a better position to gain seats in Congress next year.
So you'd rather have a situation where US national security is compromised by Trump and his staff and decisions, because it might mean we win a few seats? Country before party.
Logged
Skill and Chance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3318
View Profile
« Reply #18 on: May 20, 2017, 02:42:00 pm »
Ignore

Maybe Democrats should consider this scenario: Hillary wins, but Republicans control the Senate. You think McConnell lets Garland through knowing that he'll suffer zero electoral consequences if he doesn't? Hell no. Hillary would be a lame duck likely to inflict extreme downballot damage in the party in the midterms. With Trump, Democrats also have a chance of getting family leave through and at making significant inroads downballot, where there would've been a zero chance under President Hillary. And with President Hillary, they'd have been screwed for redistricting and thus out of the House for another decade. So, is the chance that you MIGHT get Garland really worth it? It's not like Trump has been able to do anything that significant anyway.

Yeah, Republicans were already planning on blocking any nominee from a very unpopular President Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/whats-the-opposite-of-court-packing/506081/

And there's a good chance Hillary never would've gotten the chance to replace Breyer and Ginsburg before 2020. What, especially with an increased R Senate majority after 2018. In that scenario, I think it's likely that they would be replaced by whichever R would've won in 2020 (I stand by both Hillary and Trump being one-term presidents under about any scenario).

If Clinton won PA, she probably pulled McGinty across the line with her, but that's still a GOP majority unless Kander also gets swept in.  Even then, the Dem majority through VP Kaine could be gone as soon as Nov. 2017 with the special in VA.  Beyond McGinty and Kander, there almost surely wouldn't be any more Dem pickups if the presidential race was still close.

Garland almost surely would get through even with a 51-53 seat GOP senate, but there's no way the next vacancy gets filled by someone as liberal as Garland.  If there was a Dem senate, both Ginsburg and Breyer would have to retire in the summer of 2017 to ensure a long run left wing SCOTUS majority and the backlash would likely turn the VA senate special into a repeat of the MA 2010 special. 

It really comes down to whether at least 2 of Ginsburg, Kennedy and Breyer are still on the Court in 2021.  If they are, then Dems are no worse off than with a narrow Clinton win, and if they are still on the Court in 2023, then they are likely better off, even if Trump/Pence is still president.
Logged
TD
SilentCal1924
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3761
Political Matrix
E: 6.32, S: 2.61

View Profile
« Reply #19 on: May 20, 2017, 03:24:26 pm »
Ignore

Democrats must love the current set up. Nothing major is being done, the Republicans get all the blame, and they aren't saddled by the Obama/Clinton baggage. Legislation is at a standstill and the Republican agenda is on hold pending Mueller's investigation (or will be limited).
Logged

Between Two Majorities

I die the king's faithful servant, but God's first. -- St. Thomas More

"The wisest use of American strength is to advance freedom." -- President George W. Bush

#NeverTrump Republican
Skill and Chance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3318
View Profile
« Reply #20 on: May 20, 2017, 03:31:10 pm »
Ignore

Democrats must love the current set up. Nothing major is being done, the Republicans get all the blame, and they aren't saddled by the Obama/Clinton baggage. Legislation is at a standstill and the Republican agenda is on hold pending Mueller's investigation (or will be limited).

If most of Obamacare survives and none of Ginsburg/Breyer/Kennedy get replaced by someone right of Kennedy by the end of 2020, I would completely agree with that assessment.  Bonus points for Dems if paid family leave actually happens under Trump.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines