Support NeoGAF

[NYCmetsfan]

There is nothing clinton can do to appease the media. Any reasoning is going to be questioned (because the media decided that this was done to shield her), the emails the media wants to see, the private mail, is gone and likely didn't have anything on it anyways (the clintons aren't stupid).

They're resorting to pointing out that clinton had two phones or speculating on what was in the private email. There's nothing there unless there is some leak of that.

She will go before the committee and she'll say she gave everything under oath.

The GOP is hilariously thinking this is giving them a chance in 2016. They're gleefully posting that they now have a chance. I don't know how this helps them in Florida, how this helps them in WI, OH or PA though. And the sexism stuff is already starting with comments about "how old she looks" and "her body language" etc etc.

Clinton's fine. Or at least no worse off. The campaign isn't going to be about emails, its going to be about wages, social policy, etc, etc.

Edit: to that map above. I still wouldn't trust florida.

 

[B-Dubs]

And that's precisely why the nazis got into power.

Say whaaa?

 

[Coriolanus]

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Say whaaa?

There is nothing clinton can do to appease the media. Any reasoning is going to be questioned (because the media decided that this was done to shield her), the emails the media wants to see, the private mail, is gone and likely didn't have anything on it anyways (the clintons aren't stupid).

Pretty much. All she has to do is stay quiet, have a pint and wait for this to blow over.

 

[BertramCooper]

Guyz, Wisconsin is totes a swing state.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Pretty much.

Nah the liberal media is still concern trolling. The only thing I fear is the public not wanting to relive the 90s media circus.

Pretty much. All she has to do is stay quiet, have a pint and wait for this to blow over.

It would be frustraiting to be her. She gave an answer and the media said "no we want a different one". what else can she say? "I did this to hid my secret business and deleted the evidence" and end with a disney villian laugh? That's what it seems like they want.

Who cares that other officials did things differently? Who cares that she was the one deciding which emails were personal (if she had a government account she still could have skirted the rules). There's no way to win unless the government officals don't have private communications

 

[B-Dubs]

Guyz, Wisconsin is totes a swing state.

Don't forget about Pennsylvania, the Dems could totes lose it next go around!

 

[HylianTom]

They have a first round pick though.

Yup. It's more a personality cult thing than a strategic thing, I'd say. People looooved Jimmy..

And the Bill Clinton numbers from that NBC poll.. Damn. I knew he was still pretty popular, but not that popular.

Very positive: 27
Somewhat positive: 29
Neutral: 18
Somewhat negative: 15
Very negative: 11

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yup. It's more a personality cult thing than a strategic thing, I'd say. People looooved Jimmy..

And the Bill Clinton numbers from that NBC poll.. Damn. I knew he was still pretty popular, but not that popular.

Very positive: 27
Somewhat positive: 29
Neutral: 18
Somewhat negative: 15
Very negative: 11

People trust him. Which means when he goes to bat for hillary they're gonna trust the explanations.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Lastly, a number of terms were specifically searched for, including: “Benghazi”
and “Libya.”

LOLOLOL

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/ClintonEmail.pdf

When the emails provided to the Department are made available, what is an
example of what we will see?
You will see everything from the work of government, to emails with State and
other Administration colleagues, to LinkedIn invites, to talk about the weather --
essentially what anyone would see in their own email account.

LOL linkedIn invites

 

[Metaphoreus]

Don't forget about Pennsylvania, the Dems could totes lose it next go around!

Damn. Colin Powell's really let himself go.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Damn. Colin Powell's really let himself go.

Thatsracist.gif

Spoiler

just giving you a hard time

 

[Metaphoreus]

Regarding Cotton's letter, here's Brian Beutler writing in The New Republic:

First, imagine that Senator Tom Cotton, who drafted the offending document, had written it as an opinion column rather than an open letter. Senate Republicans didn’t send the Iranian government any private correspondence as far as we know. They didn’t “send” anything at all, really, except perhaps to select reporters. They issued a press release, and then slapped the equivalent of “Dear Sirs” on top of it. If 47 Republican senators had instead co-bylined an op-ed containing all of the same factual information that appears in the letter, and with Iranian officials as its intended audience, nobody would’ve questioned its legality or legitimacy.

The letter begins, “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution.” This is a genuinely preposterous supposition. But imagine it appeared in the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section rendered as, “It has come to our attention while observing nuclear negotiations between our government and the government of Iran that some of the parties may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to raise awareness of two features of our Constitution.”

This would have been a terrible, tedious op-ed. Its subversiveness might have caused a stir. But I can’t imagine anyone would have called it treasonous.

I believe someone said something about "partisan nonsense"?

(Beutler does seem unaware of Cotton's tweets, though, which changes the nature of his conduct, in my view.)

 

[ivysaur12]

Regarding Cotton's letter, here's Brian Beutler writing in The New Republic:



I believe someone said something about "partisan nonsense"?

(Beutler does seem unaware of Cotton's tweets, though, which changes the nature of his conduct, in my view.)

In which I never stated anything about treason:

There is no practical difference when those who are writing the op-ed know what they will achieve by releasing this correspondence as an "open letter." This is partisan nonsense.

You were trying to parse a difference in the nature of their content, which I find fundamentally the same.

 

[Coriolanus]

That whole article is just pointing out that Cotton isn't a traitor, he's just an abject idiot, and democrats should know better than to lower themselves to his grotesquely low level.

And yeah, the direct translated letter undermines it.

 

[Fenderputty]

(Beutler does seem unaware of Cotton's tweets, though, which changes the nature of his conduct, in my view.)

Until the tweets you were arguing that what these 47 morons did was A-OK because it wasn't direct communication to Iran.

I'm curious how you feel about this action undermining the power of the president to negotiate foreign affairs, which matters not what form of communication it was, nor who is / will be in the office.

I don't care about the legality issue either. I don't think this was treason, nor do I think it was some violation of the Logan Act. Just really shitty classless politicking that could have negative consequences.

 

[Metaphoreus]

In which I never stated anything about treason:

You were trying to parse a difference in the nature of their content, which I find fundamentally the same.

I identified a difference between private correspondence (I should have said direct correspondence, rather than "private") and a public op-ed. Brian Beutler--who, I remind you, writes for The New Republic--identified the same difference. The ability to differentiate the cases is evidently not "partisan nonsense."

I'm curious how you feel about this action undermining the power of the president to negotiate foreign affairs, which matters not what form of communication it was, nor who is / will be in the office.

I'm fine with members of Congress or other public officials (or, for that matter, anyone whatsoever) voicing their opinions on matters of foreign affairs, even when those opinions criticize the president or his approach to such matters.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Even the liberal new republic

 

[BertramCooper]

I'm fine with members of Congress or other public officials (or, for that matter, anyone whatsoever) voicing their opinions on matters of foreign affairs, even when those opinions criticize the president or his approach to such matters.

That's not an answer to his question.

 

[Crisco]

Hahahahah #47traitors is a thing? I bet those fucking assholes didn't see that coming.

 

[Fenderputty]

I'm fine with members of Congress or other public officials (or, for that matter, anyone whatsoever) voicing their opinions on matters of foreign affairs, even when those opinions criticize the president or his approach to such matters.

They didn't voice opinions or criticize the presidents approach. That's a disingenuous description of that "open letter". It seem like a nice way to avoid answering what I asked.

They basically said, "we'll work to undo whatever it is you're working to do"

That's not an answer to his question.

.

 

[ivysaur12]

I identified a difference between private correspondence (I should have said direct correspondence, rather than "private") and a public op-ed. Brian Beutler--who, I remind you, writes for The New Republic--identified the same difference. The ability to differentiate the cases is evidently not "partisan nonsense."

The article points out that Tom Cotton is not a traitor, just an idiot. I've never argued that I think that Tom Cotton was guilty of treason. Again:

There is no practical difference when those who are writing the op-ed know what they will achieve by releasing this correspondence as an "open letter."

Whether or not you agree with the content of the letter (which is deplorable), in practice, there really isn't any difference in undermining the president's authority with an open letter or direct open communication to Iranian officials. Now, if you've found someone who identifies as a liberal who agrees with you, congratulations Megamind. You did it.

I find the difference unsubstantial because the effect achieves the exact same goal, and trying to parse a difference takes away from the fact that the letter is terrible politics and foreign policy. And yes, I think focusing on the difference is partisan nonsense.

 

[Metaphoreus]

They didn't voice opinions or criticize the presidents approach. That's a disingenuous description of that "open letter". It seem like a nice way to avoid answering what I asked.

They basically said, "we'll work to undo whatever it is you're working to do"

Not really. What they basically said was, "If the Senate is not involved in the process, any agreement can be undone in less than two years." Had they said that in an op-ed or open letter not sent to Iranian leaders, I'd see nothing wrong with it. But, since they sent the open letter directly to Iranian leaders, as I've already said:

I can't support direct communications like this that bypass (and undermine) the president.

And yes, I think focusing on the difference is partisan nonsense.

Well, at least you've now moved the goalposts to a position that isn't refuted by that article by The New Republic's Brian Beutler.

EDIT:

Hahahahah #47traitors is a thing? I bet those fucking assholes didn't see that coming.

What's worse is that, should the Republicans point out that "treason" doesn't mean what the ignorantsia think it means, it can be pointed out to those Republicans that "ratify" doesn't mean what they think it means.

 

[Abinash117]

Probably because a bunch of people do what Hilary did, none of them would ever considering doing what those senators did.

Besides those senators. Oh and Bob wants the piece of the pie; I guess he is trying to remain relevant after that no go zone crap.

Hahahahah #47traitors is a thing? I bet those fucking assholes didn't see that coming.

It's still trending after a few hours and there's this petition .

I doubt it'll do anything, but it shows the thing is backfiring on there faces. I swear Republicans are just making this easier for dems to get ammo. I bet they'll be some that will start backtracking eventually.

I wonder if the deal fails I wonder how much blame the GOP will get.

 

[ivysaur12]

Well, at least you've now moved the goalposts to a position that isn't refuted by that article by The New Republic's Brian Beutler.

Not really, but okay.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Not really, but okay.

No, really. Beutler's article agrees with you that criticism should be focused on the Senators' goals, not the form of the letter, meaning that his article doesn't refute your brand new formulation of what is "partisan nonsense."

 

[Fenderputty]

Not really. What they basically said was, "If the Senate is not involved in the process, any agreement can be undone in less than two years." Had they said that in an op-ed or open letter not sent to Iranian leaders, I'd see nothing wrong with it.

How is that different than, "we'll undo what you're working to do". The Iranian response to the open letter pretty much proves my point. In any case thats quite the goalpost change. Your above post isn't critcism or opinions either.

You're dancing around the letters intent at undermining presidential power. You're hiding behind your initial squabbling over direct or indirect communication.

 

[ivysaur12]

No, really. Beutler's article agrees with you that criticism should be focused on the Senators' goals, not the form of the letter, meaning that his article doesn't refute your brand new formulation of what is "partisan nonsense."

I had a very long post as a reply, but I really just don't want to get into it with you because I'm tired. Congratulations, you win.

 

[Metaphoreus]

How is that different than, "we'll undo what you're working to do". The Iranian response to the open letter pretty much proves my point. In any case thats quite the goalpost change. Your above post isn't critcism or opinions either.

You're dancing around the letters intent at undermining presidential power. You're hiding behind your initial squabbling over direct or indirect communication.

"We will do X" is not the same as "X could happen." The fact you felt the need to mischaracterize the Senators' letter by using the former phrasing demonstrates that you understand that difference. I'm not sure what "goalposts" you think have been changed here. I'll readily concede that my opinion of a letter like the Senators' turns largely on whether the letter is directly communicated to the foreign leaders, and not at all on whether the Senators intended to undermine presidential power.

I had a very long post as a reply, but I really just don't want to get into it with you because I'm tired. Congratulations, you win.

I've already broken out the champagne.

 

[Fenderputty]

. I'll readily concede that my opinion of a letter like the Senators' turns largely on whether the letter is directly communicated to the foreign leaders, and not at all on whether the Senators intended to undermine presidential power.

This is all I wanted. Thanks.

 

[Black Mamba]

As always, there is a defense force for everything.

 

[Wilsongt]

As always, there is a defense force for everything.

Thisisneogaf.gif

 

[teiresias]

I love how Meta reads between the lines so incredibly much to justify this letter but apparently doesn't want to do so concerning the ACA.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I love how Meta reads between the lines so incredibly much to justify this letter but apparently doesn't want to do so concerning the ACA.

In both instances, I'm just correctly describing what is said by the relevant text.

 

[WayneMorse]

So the White House petition got over 100,000 votes. Nothing substantial will happen but it will be interesting to see what the White House's response is.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

In both instances, I'm just correctly describing what is said by the relevant text.

If you define a third party article as the "relevant text" then yes but you're clearly arguing that the letter to Iran has to be judged based on its intent and not what it actually says.

 

[Metaphoreus]

you're clearly arguing that the letter to Iran has to be judged based on its intent and not what it actually says.

You say this based on what post?

 

[Roland_Gunner]

You say this based on what post?

Your repeated appeals to the Beutler article which is entirely dedicated to arguing that the readers should focus on the letter's intent and not text?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Your repeated appeals to the Beutler article which is entirely dedicated to arguing that the readers should focus on the letter's intent and not text?

I only cited the Beutler article to show that the position I took yesterday was held by those who do not share my political beliefs, contradicting ivysaur12's claim that the distinction I drew was "partisan nonsense." But, even ignoring the purpose for which I cited Beutler's article, his point is not that critics should focus on the intent of the authors rather than its text, but that they should focus on the goals of the authors rather than the form used to pursue those goals.

 

[Abinash117]

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/235301-gop-letter-to-tehran-backfires

A letter from Senate Republicans to Iran’s leadership has divided the GOP and forced it to play defense, endangering the party’s chances of passing a new round of sanctions that would kill President Obama’s nuclear talks with Tehran.

The talks have long divided Democrats, and just last month it appeared nearly certain that Republicans would have enough votes in the Senate to override a presidential veto of new sanctions.

That has quickly changed, and the outrage over the letter from 47 Republicans to Tehran is threatening to scuttle Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) hopes of winning Senate approval of two bills that would hem in Obama’s talks with Iran.

Republicans Blame Obama For Tom Cotton Letter
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/10/gop-obama-cotton-letter_n_6843204.html



This year is off to a good start for the GOP.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I think suggestions that they're guilty of treason are ludicrous.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

I only cited the Beutler article to show that the position I took yesterday was held by those who do not share my political beliefs, contradicting ivysaur12's claim that the distinction I drew was "partisan nonsense." But, even ignoring the purpose for which I cited Beutler's article, his point is not that critics should focus on the intent of the authors rather than its text, but that they should focus on the goals of the authors rather than the form used to pursue those goals.

In what context are "goals" and "intent" substantially different? They both speak to the desired outcome of the creator. Text and form are obviously not the same but form is driven by text - you can't have the second without the first. You're creating differences that don't exist.

 

[Metaphoreus]

In what context are "goals" and "intent" substantially different? They both speak to the desired outcome of the creator. Text and form are obviously not the same but form is driven by text - you can't have the second without the first. You're creating differences that don't exist.

"Goal" and "intent" might sometimes bear similar meanings, but here, I interpret "goal" to refer to a broad policy goal (e.g., scuttle any Iran deal), and "intent" to refer to "intended but unexpressed meaning," based on teiresias' post contrasting my reading of the Senators' letter with my reading of the ACA (and your contrast of "intent" with "text"). If, by "intent," you mean what I mean by "goal," then there's no distinction (obviously). Equally obviously, "text" (which you define as "what [the letter] actually says") is not the same as "form" (in this case, an open letter to foreign leaders engaged in negotiations with the executive branch, as opposed to, e.g., an op-ed).

But all this is beside the point. As I already explained:

I only cited the Beutler article to show that the position I took yesterday was held by those who do not share my political beliefs, contradicting ivysaur12's claim that the distinction I drew was "partisan nonsense."

But note that neither I nor Beutler is arguing that anyone should consider the goals (or intent) of the letter in discerning the meaning of the words used. To understand what the letter says, one need only read it.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So the White House petition got over 100,000 votes. Nothing substantial will happen but it will be interesting to see what the White House's response is.

they didn't violate the logan act. liberals should stop being idiots about this

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/235301-gop-letter-to-tehran-backfires




Republicans Blame Obama For Tom Cotton Letter
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/10/gop-obama-cotton-letter_n_6843204.html



This year is off to a good start for the GOP.

Leave it to the GOP to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (I think its BS they had the votes to overturn a veto though)

 

[thepotatoman]

they didn't violate the logan act. liberals should stop being idiots about this

At least the website proves the idea is popular enough that a statement is deserved to maybe clear things up for the people that think otherwise.

I don't know how the white house feels about being forced to defend republicans in any way, and I know most people won't believe the response, but I still like the idea of the white house putting out an official statement on popular stuff a lot of people feel isn't being addressed.

I wonder if Hillary or whoever the next president is will continue it.

 

[HylianTom]

Diaper Dave strikes again, ladies & gents..

When folks from other countries give birth in the US, their kids become American citizens. This should be illegal.

Love that outreach.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

At least the website proves the idea is popular enough that a statement is deserved to maybe clear things up for the people that think otherwise.

I don't know how the white house feels about being forced to defend republicans in any way, and I know most people won't believe the response, but I still like the idea of the white house putting out an official statement on popular stuff a lot of people feel isn't being addressed.

I wonder if Hillary or whoever the next president is will continue it.

No it proves liberals can be cheneyites when they want to be.

This is stupid. Five minutes of googling would tell you it really doesn't apply to congress, its probably unconstitutionally vague and that tom cotton while and idiot isn't trying to help iran bomb the US or something stupid.

They shouldn't have address people who heard one law and pretend they know what they are talking about. The law was specifically written in regards to the Quasi war in the 18th century. It was passed at the same time as the alien and sedition acts and was a deeply partisan law and time. And hasn't been used for over 200 years.

The petition site is silly doesn't do anything, isn't democratic, and makes the white house respond to stupid ideas

 

[WayneMorse]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/u...adition-collide-over-iran-nuclear-talks.html?

The letter seemed aimed at sowing doubt among Iranian leaders that the United States would live up to the terms Mr. Obama is offering and therefore perhaps scuttle the talks. At first, Iran brushed off the threat, with its foreign minister dismissing it as a “propaganda ploy” with no legal impact.

But Hamid Abutalebi, a key adviser to President Hassan Rouhani, issued a statement warning that congressional interference should be taken seriously. “This move must not be easily ignored,” he said.

Ellie Geranmayeh, an Iran expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said the letter bolstered Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. “Even if the talks fail because Iran takes a maximalist position when negotiating behind closed doors, the blame will nevertheless be placed on the U.S. legislators for poisoning negotiations,” she said.

 

[Coriolanus]

No it proves liberals can be cheneyites when they want to be.

This is stupid. Five minutes of googling would tell you it really doesn't apply to congress, its probably unconstitutionally vague and that tom cotton while and idiot isn't trying to help iran bomb the US or something stupid.

They shouldn't have address people who heard one law and pretend they know what they are talking about. The law was specifically written in regards to the Quasi war in the 18th century. It was passed at the same time as the alien and sedition acts and was a deeply partisan law and time. And hasn't been used for over 200 years.

The petition site is silly doesn't do anything, isn't democratic, and makes the white house respond to stupid ideas

That position seems naive in the greater scheme. Forcing the white house to respond will trigger, as expected, an adult response. This will change sweet fuckall as far as already dem or rep voters are concerned, but will most likely help promote awareness of this particular issue (and foreign policy as a whole) with independents, who will see the representatives from one side flinging shit at the fan and from the other asking that the shit flinging stop.

Alas, more than twelve months out. At best, this will decrease current "gop is good at foreign policy" percentages.

Cant quite see the negative.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

If the deal falls apart its not the fault of the stupid letter. Its because the president or iran (likely Iran) didn't want a deal.

That position seems naive in the greater scheme. Forcing the white house to respond will trigger, as expected, an adult response. This will change sweet fuckall as far as already dem or rep voters are concerned, but will most likely help promote awareness of this particular issue (and foreign policy as a whole) with independents, who will see the representatives from one side flinging shit at the fan and from the other asking that the shit flinging stop.

Alas, more than twelve months out. At best, this will decrease current "gop is good at foreign policy" percentages.

Cant quite see the negative.

The white house has responded to the letter. They don't need to respond to idiots asking the white house to prosecute members of congress for disagreeing with the president.

 

[BSsBrolly]

If the deal falls apart its not the fault of the stupid letter. Its because the president or iran (likely Iran) didn't want a deal.



The white house has responded to the letter. They don't need to respond to idiots asking the white house to prosecute members of congress for disagreeing with the president.

You think that's what this is about? Lol