One week out, Don't Panic....?

by Ugh

Grab your towel it's one week to go and per the radio this morning Trump leads by 1% in at least one poll among likely voters post-James Comey's stupidity (I'm being generous, but, please resign, thx).  

In the latest news, unsurprisingly, Trump's tax losses may not be kosher for tax purposes.  Will he release his returns and prove the haters wrong? No.  The Nixon Administration wasn't a cautionary tale, it was a how-to manual!  

More broadly, it seems the GOP has realized a few things.  One, they will not be punished by voters for blocking any and all Democratic SCOTUS nominees, so why not?  Even showing their "letting the voters have their say" via the Presidential election rhetoric was transparent BS is not going to stop or harm them (and, I mean, sh1t, "let the voters have their say" and then decide that you're not going to let voters have their say after all really should be beyond the pale).  I predict if Hillary wins and the GOP retains control of the Senate, we will have an 8 member (or fewer) SCOTUS until after the 2020 election, absent something extraordinary happening.  

Two, that the Democrats weakness is, in the immortal words of General Zod, that they "actually care[] about these . . . . . .these People. These earth People."*  Whereas the GOP, ISTM, in large measure does not, in a kind of "fnck this we're shutting down the federal government and let people suffer, they mostly vote Democratic anyway."  See also, aforementioned SCOTUS nomination, vote suppression, opposition to LGBT rights, promotion of torture, etc.

Three, there is no penalty for straight out lying to the public.  The GOP has so severely discredited the dreaded MSM^TM that even indisputable proof will not impact the minds of the GOP base, which is unsurprising, but also it seems large swaths of independent voters.  So, if the NYTimes, or WaPo, or ABC/NBC/CBS or heck even the WSJ report that X is not true with proof, it's just more lies.  

I could go on, but why?

UPDATE:  To go on, one party seems to think widespread, organized, and invidious voter suppression and intimidation is just fine and dandy, thank you. Lying to the federal courts, also, too. But both sides, people, both sides.

*To which Ursa responded in a GOP tone perfect "Sentimental idiot."

Comments

[David Morris]

You: "I predict if Hillary wins and the GOP retains control of the Senate, we will have an 8 member (or less) SCOTUS until after the 2020 election, absent something extraordinary happening."

Me: Nuclear Option for SCOTUS nominee within 6 months post election.

[Ugh]

Except if the GOP is in control there will be no nuclear option. If the Democrats win then yes, that will be the end of the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees if the GOP goes that route. Dems need 50 senators first (and Hillary). Comey may have prevented it.

[cleek]

If the Democrats win then yes, that will be the end of the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees

indeed.

and, i wonder who will get the blame for that...

[Snarki, child of Loki]

"if the GOP is in control there will be no nuclear option."

There's ALWAYS a nuclear option. Here, let's give the GOP Senate caucus a "special" tour of the Nevada Test Range.

[Ugh]

Words fail.....

[McKinneyTexas]

i wonder who will get the blame for that

For the last month or so, OBWI has been pretty much unusually amped up but otherwise universal (and risible) partisan hyperbole, but every once in a while a point emerges.

By declaring their unwillingness to consider any HRC nominee, the GOP is inviting the nuclear option and it is on them.

[cleek]

the GOP is inviting the nuclear option and it is on them.

i suspect this opinion will make you unpopular at GOP gatherings, come 2017.

[McKinneyTexas]

i suspect this opinion will make you unpopular at GOP gatherings, come 2017.

This would be true if I attended GOP gatherings. I don't.

[Ugh]

It's all due to the Borking.

[Slartibartfast]

I have voted early, due to a short-lead-time business trip next week.

It's over. I didn't vote for Trump. I didn't vote for Clinton, either. I could not in good conscience vote for either.

[cleek]

This would be true if I attended GOP gatherings. I don't.

it will always be true, regardless if you attend or not.

[Ugh]

Nothing but 100% truth here at ObWi Intergalactic HQ.

I report, y'all decide.

That said I'm happy to correct the record.

[bobbyp]

The current Senate filibuster rules have become a political joke, and they should be thrown out...same goes for "holds". Small population states (cf. Vermont, NH, Idaho, etc.) will still have an outlandishly overstated amount of political power, but the institution is on the verge of self immolation.

[bobbyp]

"risible"....I love the drive by contempt conveyed with those soft vowels. You and Scott Lemieux have more in common than you think.

[wj]

"we're shutting down the federal government and let people suffer, they mostly vote Democratic anyway."

It occurs to me to wonder what the effect will be if, rather than a shutdown, there is simple refusal to pass a farm bill. If that can't get out of the House, it might cause a sea change in the politics of a lot of (small) farm states.

[wj]

I predict if Hillary wins and the GOP retains control of the Senate, we will have an 8 member (or less) SCOTUS until after the 2020 election, absent something extraordinary happening.

Does having another of the conservative Justices be the next to die count as "something extraordinary"?

[Snarki, child of Loki]

I predict if Hillary wins and the GOP retains control of the Senate, we will have an 8 member (or less) SCOTUS until after the 2020 election, absent something extraordinary happening.

Does having another of the conservative Justices be the next to die count as "something extraordinary"?

Could be! But for extra extraordinariness, it would have to be John "lawless" Roberts that descends to his well-earned spot in Hel.

A Supreme Court without a Chief Justice? That would be new.

[Marty]

1) I voted today, well I mailed my absentee ballot.

2) It really didn't feel much like voting. So I sent several more just in case they got lost.

3) No one cares who I voted for, unless Hillary(or Trump but I am speaking of mostly people here) loses Florida by one vote. Then I really didn't vote at all, wait that doesn't help. Oh well, what are the chances there would be a recount in Florida in my lifetime anyway?

[Marty]

I think it is entirely too hard to capture the SCOTUS with nine so we should just go back to 5, I get to pick who stays.

[bobbyp]

I know this is unconscionable, but hey, you know, risibility rocks!

hyperbole!

Real, as opposed to illegitimate, principles!

don't Bork me br'er wabbit!

[bobbyp]

I get to pick who stays.

Nope. Let it go to zero. Who cares, right? And let's choose Senators by random lot while we're at it.

Government should be fun.

[cleek]

someone at the FBI is looking to stir up trouble.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fbi-twitter-link-william-clinton-foundation-marc-rich

[Ugh]

Whomever it is at the FBI that thinks things will be better for them under a Trump rather than Clinton administration will be sorely mistaken, especially when someone informs President Trump that J. Edgar Hoover no longer runs the place....

[Marty]

There you go, just because "they" say its so doesn't mean J. Edgar isn't still running the place.

[Ugh]

A fair point.

[DRickard]

If the GOP holds the Senate, then we'll probably have a full Supreme Court earlier than 2020... because after Clinton and Kaine get impeached in the first 100 days, the Senate will rubber-stamp whatever Federalist Society drone gets nominated by President Ryan.

[dr ngo]

Thanks for the link to LGM provided by bobbyp, (2d of 3 above), with two caveats:

1) The list of newspapers endorsing Trump omits The Crusader, official organ of the Ku Klux Klan.

2) Bobbie Joe McAllister did not jump off the Waxahachie Bridge (in Texas), but the Tallahatchie Bridge (in Mississippi)

If you can't trust Lawyers, Guns, OR Money, whom can you trust?

[bobbyp]

Per the Constitution, the Senate would have to cough up a 2/3 majority for conviction of an impeached Hillary Clinton.

Ain't gonna' happen. + the fact that the last time they (GOP) tried that stunt it didn't turn out so well for them.

[Marty]

Billie Joe jumped off the bridge Billie

[Ugh]

Lots of people eagerly awaiting a Trump victory so they can take the mask off.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sid-miller-clinton-tweet

[sapient]

Lots of people eagerly awaiting a Trump victory so they can take the mask off.

Must be another economically anxious person. No? Oh, surprise!

[dr ngo]

I knew that, Marty. I was just testing you.

[sapient]

I see that the nature of the anxiety has changed color so to speak.

[Ugh]

Strong leadership from the speaker of the house (who I shall not name because I, too, am 5 years old)

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/01/politics/paul-ryan-trump-name/index.html

[wj]

Well, if the "Freedom Caucus" has its way, Ryan won't have to agonize over trying to work with lunatics for much longer. Not that it's obvious who might be able to square the necessary circles any better.

[russell]

"risible"

hey, that's my 25 cent word!

I got dibs on "mendacious", too.

In any case, we'll see what there is to laugh about this time next week.

[Ugh]

I have to say it would be very strange to have Clinton plus a democratic Senate and "Freedom Caucus" led House, all after a single election. Would say something about how gerrymandered the House is.

[Ugh]

Hey I was kidding about that whole J. Edgar thing!

https://twitter.com/chucklane1/status/793648612467154944

[Nombrilisme Vide]

Too late, Ugh. Nice knowing ya.

[bobbyp]

we'll see what there is to laugh about this time next week.

There's always something.

[wj]

Always something, even if you are just laughing to keep from crying.

[bobbyp]

Bookmark this guy.

Sigh.

[cleek]

Would say something about how gerrymandered the House is.

i haven't seen a single commercial for any NC House races. i see dozens per hour on the Senate race. quite a few Clinton, fewer Trump. but no House races at all. i don't think i have seen signs for either person in the House race in my district. and apparently there hasn't been any polling done.

[Donald]

There will be nothing to laugh about next week or for the foreseeable future, even if Trump loses, though it might be worth laughing at him in that case, just to distract oneself from all the other crap that is happening.

This is an interview with Lawrence Wilkerson about Syria.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=17551#newsletter1

[Donald]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/clinton-adviser-lets-attack-iran-to-aid-saudis-in-yemen.html

More reasons to stop laughing even if Clinton wins. (Sam Wang still gave her a 98-99 percent chance when I checked yesterday.)

[Ugh]

Trump and the GOP inspiring all the right people:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/suppress-black-vote-trump-campaign-230616

[cleek]

Donald, that NYMag piece starts:

Michael Morell is a former acting director of the CIA and a national security adviser to Hillary Clinton — one who is widely expected to occupy a senior post in her administration.

i looked, briefly, but found no evidence at all that Morell is linked in any way to the Clinton campaign, that he ever worked for her as an advisor, or that he was "expected to occupy a senior post in her administration".

do you have any info on this?

[Doctor Science]

Anil Dash's 10 Rules of Internet include what he calls "The Law of Fail":

Once a web community has decided to dislike a person, topic, or idea, the conversation will shift from criticizing the idea to become a competition about who can be most scathing in their condemnation.

I've seen this play out in all kinds of communities, from elementary school onward, so I figure there should be a sociology/social psych term for it. What is it?

[Ugh]

Bullying

[McKinneyTexas]

so I figure there should be a sociology/social psych term for it. What is it?

Privilege.

Risible privilege.

[Ugh]

Risible privilege in a white wine sauce.

[Nigel]

Herd instinct ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_behavior#In_human_societies

One way the group defines itself is by identifying an outsider.

And yes, bullying.

[Doctor Science]

Russell:

It's not bullying, because it's not necessarily directed at a *person*. Also, bullying is often done where no-one but the target can see. I'm talking about a kind of performative hate, where status in a social group is enhanced by how nastily/creatively you hate the right thing/person.

McKinneyTexas:

I don't think that's what social psychologists call it. And I don't really see the connection between "privilege" and performative hate, either.

[Doctor Science]

Nigel:

Closer, I think, is outgroup derogation. But that misses A) how the outside element doesn't have to be a group, it can be an individual, an idea, a style, etc.; and B) the positive feedback cycle of derogation.

[McKinneyTexas]

Risible privilege in a white wine sauce.

Even better.

I don't think that's what social psychologists call it. And I don't really see the connection between "privilege" and performative hate, either.

Doc, I'm having a bit of fun in these unfun times. You raise a very real point and it deserves serious discussion. Everyone is a little batty these days. Maybe in a couple of weeks you can post on this topic in more detail and maybe we can all talk about how we start talking to each other again.

[Girl from the North Country]

(OT: Just out of hospital, bleeding and miserable, a much bigger deal than I expected. Plus, mouse situation is yuuuge and we have had to call in professionals who will charge a fortune, but are much more au fait with what needs to be done with an infestation of this sort.)

But, more to the point: I have a feeling that the kind of partisan ObWi comment that McKT found risible could have been exemplified by one of mine, in which I said that even a criminal HRC (if that is what she turned out to be) would be much preferable as President to a Trump as President. I actually hold to that comment, with even more certainty than when I made it. Whatever her (arguable) malfeasance, the record shows she has devoted a large part of her professional life to what she (and many reasonable people) think is the common good: e.g. women's rights, child health etc. Trump has devoted himself to bugger all except Trump, his whole entire life. His lies dwarf hers, many of his supporters are the lowest of the low (KKK etc), and his knowledge of the world (economics, international affairs etc) is the truly risible thing. Risible if it wasn't so serious. Whatever Marty, McKT or any other conservatives may think, Trump is a danger to the world, and HRC (pace NV and Donald) is not. The rest of the world knows this, and is watching in horror. Marty, IIRC, says he doesn't care about the opinion of the rest of the world, but repercussions in the wider world affect the US, just as the reverse is true. Whatever Marty or McKT say about the moral equivalence between HRC and Trump, one of them is going to be President, and anybody who thinks there is nothing to choose between them is not living in the real world. I'm with sapient, this is the most nervewracking and terrifying US election (or any election) I have ever seen.

[hairshirthedonist]

WGFTNCS. (And get well soon!)

[cleek]

seems like there may be a term for this somewhere in the world of 'social identity theory'.

[hairshirthedonist]

I'm talking about a kind of performative hate, where status in a social group is enhanced by how nastily/creatively you hate the right thing/person.

Like making fun of Kenny G and/or his music?

[cleek]

Risible if it wasn't so serious

indeed.

but, those of us who can stomach a little compromise will do our best to keep Trump out of office - even if it means we have to accept the responsibility of allowing Clinton to disappoint us all somehow.

[bobbyp]

Like making fun of Kenny G and/or his music?

Sorta'. But do people derive status from deriding G's stuff, or is it just the right thing to do?

[McKinneyTexas]

Whatever Marty, McKT or any other conservatives may think, Trump is a danger to the world, and HRC (pace NV and Donald) is not.

Have I ever argued against this statement? Interestingly, I was visiting with a client yesterday--a Balkans intervention vet (and no fan of HRC) and as conservative as anyone in TX--who, like the majority of conservative Texans I speak to, raised exactly the point you make here.

Whatever Marty or McKT say about the moral equivalence between HRC and Trump, one of them is going to be President, and anybody who thinks there is nothing to choose between them is not living in the real world.

Again, these are not my words. Even if I find HRC to be less distasteful than Trump, which I do, I'm not voting for her.

I get it from both sides that my decision is tantamount to a vote for the greater of two evils. Ok, fine. Sue me.

If we get HRC as president, it's because the idiot Republicans picked Trump as their candidate.

If we get Trump as president, it's because the idiot Democrats picked HRC as their candidate.

We are in an election in which the principal driving factor in favor of the two major candidates is the pitiful state of their respective opponent.

I'm not dropping in to tell HRC's supporters why she's awful anymore than I look for opportunities to argue with Trump supporters (most of whom NV/HRC analogues).

In fact, I'm through with discussions about how shitty people are who don't agree with X, Y, Z or me, which is becoming the default position in almost any discussion about current affairs, regardless of where people fall on the political spectrum.

I'm also out on discussions that begin and end with name calling and assumptions of bad faith.

I think the Doc's idea is a good one and one well worth keeping in mind.

[liberal japonicus]

I'm also out on discussions that begin and end with name calling and assumptions of bad faith.

When you start by terming discussion as 'risible', that seems like you are asking for it...

[Girl from the North Country]

I certainly don't think you're shitty, McKinney, despite the fact that you (mostly) don't agree with me, specifically about not taking the opportunity to make the only meaningful vote against Trump. And I don't assume bad faith on your part, just lack of imagination. Perhaps it's easier in Europe to see how even mediocre demagogues like Trump, appealing to people's worst instincts, can morph into, or at least usher in, something really, truly horrific? Whatever the reason, roll on the 9th, when we can go back to arguing about less weighty matters.

[Nous]

DocSci - I've seen this play out in all kinds of communities, from elementary school onward, so I figure there should be a sociology/social psych term for it. What is it?

Don't know about the soc/psych term for this, but in the literature of online interactions they refer to these pile-ons as "cybercascades."

[McKinneyTexas]

I certainly don't think you're shitty, McKinney, despite the fact that you (mostly) don't agree with me, specifically about not taking the opportunity to make the only meaningful vote against Trump. And I don't assume bad faith on your part, just lack of imagination.

GFTNC, I was speaking generally, not to any one person and certainly not you. You're one of the kindest people here.

[russell]

"so I figure there should be a sociology/social psych term for it. What is it?"

the dozens?

[Girl from the North Country]

Thanks hsh, and you too McKinney. Over and out.

[Ugh]

I'd still like to know what the Democratic equivalent of this sort of thing is:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/02/justice_department_to_north_carolina_stop_purging_black_voters.html

[bobbyp]

To hear NC officials say it, those letters are being sent out by "private" parties, so the local government officials are responding with the old, "What? Who, me? How dare you!" line (what I think I heard on NPR this am).

Yeah, some guy(s) in a garage just decided to mail out thousands of letters at considerable expense to randomly chosen names on the rolls fishing for "undeliverable" returned mail.

Riiiiiiiiiigght.

[bobbyp]

I'm also out on discussions that begin and end with name calling and assumptions of bad faith.

Hell's bells, man. All I want to do is swindle you on the golf course.

[cleek]

the private parties are various wingnut "vote integrity" groups including (these clowns: http://voterintegrityproject.com/). they've been using that undelilverable mail trick to get lists of people who they then submit to local election boards.

[Ugh]

So I see a tweet that says Trump said today there will be additional WikiLeaks emails released later today and he will comment on them tomorrow. WTF?

[cleek]

prediction: they contain absolutely nothing. but the press will wet themselves in glee over having another reason to say "Hillary Clinton" and "email" in the same sentence.

[McKinneyTexas]

Hell's bells, man. All I want to do is swindle you on the golf course.

If I can find a business reason to get to Seattle with a day on one side or the other, you will have an unrestricted shot at my wallet. I will take only 2.5 extra strokes a side (in addition to the handicap differential) to balance out the home course advantage, even if honor compels you to demand that I take more. And, you will need to publicly declare your handicap in advance. You may send me your GHIN in a private email.

Seriously, I'd love to play a round with you and have no objection to a modest wager.

[Ugh]

You'd think following hilzoy and Katherine on the twitters would be less depressing than it is.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Is 2016 the year when the twits took over the USA?

[Tony P.]

A recent poll had Hillary at 59% disapproval -- just like Donald Trump.

Treating this sort of poll as non-risible (pending McKinney's infallible judgement) it would be nice to know which of the following extreme inferences is closer to reality:

1) Maximum overlap: about 60% of the electorate disapproves of both candidates and will let the other 40% decide the election.

2) Minimum overlap: about 20% of the electorate disapproves of both candidates and will let the other 80% decide the election.

I find it hard to believe in the maximum-overlap case, myself. But even in the minimum-overlap case, it would be interesting to compare the reasons the 20% give for disapproving each candidate at the same time. Given the completely different personas and histories of HRC and DJT it seems unlikely that a rational, reasonably-informed 20%er disapproves of both for the same reasons.

The validity of the reasons is of course irrelevant at this point. We're holding an election next week, not refereeing an Oxford Union debate. Still, some poor sap a hundred years from now will be trying to write a history of early 21st century America. From the vantage point of a century later, the reasons will be judged, and some of them will surely seem risible.

--TP

[bobbyp]

McKinney,

In the spirit of being a gracious host, no problem. Looking forward to it. You'll lay me 10-1, right? If I ever get to Dallas (I think that's where you reside?) you will undoubtedly give me 5 strokes at the start in exchange! Thanks.

Best Regards,

theonlyalmostmarxistgolferyouwillmostlikelyeverencounter.

[Donald]

There's been a lot for f interesting stuff in the wikileaks emails, though I suppose if people only look at it for the pov of how it helps or hurts Clinton in the election attitudes will differ. But it does show how the sausage is made on some issues or shows people saying in private things they deny in public. One email says the Saudi government supports ISIS, for instance. In a normal world that would be front page stuff and people would be asking Clinton and/or Obama to confirm or deny it. Another shows Clinton admitting that a no fly zone would involve killing many Syrians. And here is a piece about the behind the scenes politicking and lobbying about Israel that one sees in the emails--

http://www.jta.org/2016/10/20/news-opinion/politics/leaked-emails-show-hillary-clinton-eager-to-patch-things-up-with-netanyahu

[russell]

"If I ever get to Dallas (I think that's where you reside?) "

watch out man, you're getting close to fighting words!

[sapient]

In a normal world that would be front page stuff and people would be asking Clinton and/or Obama to confirm or deny it.

In a normal world, people wouldn't be celebrating the fact that private correspondence is published on the Internet.

[sapient]

In a normal world, people wouldn't be celebrating the fact that private correspondence is published on the Internet.

Let me revise that: In a normal world, people wouldn't be celebrating the fact that private correspondence is stolen, and then published on the Internet by foreign gangsters eager to see a right wing dictatorship take over the U.S. government.

[Ugh]

So...we should ignore it sapient?

[sapient]

So...we should ignore it sapient?

Well, I am not giddy about reading all of it, but if you are, go right ahead. It's "out there" and obviously we can't put it back. But cherry picking whatever seems sensational during an election in order to help out the perpetrators of the crime seems in bad taste. (And, by the way, it is a crime to steal electronic information, so thanks, FBI!) Publishing stolen private information is also rather sketchy, and I'm not sure the First Amendment really was designed to suborn theft, although that's all the rage now.

Ignore it? I guess we can't ignore it, but putting it into very careful context, and keeping in mind that its value as "truth" is questionable, since much of it might be gossip, or banter, or just a free exchange of ideas, or misinformed opinion, or careless speech, or whatever. If you like spying on other people's private conversations, it's certainly a goldmine.

[sapient]

I also love the fact that so many people here have held Snowden in such high regard and were shocked, just shocked and appalled that the NSA might have been collecting people's metadata in order to search it (with a warrant), but are perfectly fine with Russian agents collecting actual private data in order to embarrass people.

And Donald loves calling people hypocrites.

[Doctor Science]

Got back a little bit ago from 3 hours of phone banking. I'll go again on Friday eve & Saturday afternoon, and then put in LOTS of hours on Tuesday. I'm not pollworking this year, my health has been too fragile this summer & fall to sign up for a 16-hour work day. Working the phones for Hillary I can take breaks & stretch from time to time. Also, we're working out of an office upstairs from a brewpub. *G*

Yo, is Marty around? I'd be interested to hear how his SO's volunteering for Trump in FL is going, for comparison purposes.

[sapient]

So, Doc, are people answering their phones?

[Doctor Science]

A few! I left when the Series started. I got a lot of going-to-voicemail, but a decent # of conversations and 2 sets of canvassing volunteers.

[sapient]

2 sets of canvassing volunteers.

Wow! You're the bomb!

[Nombrilisme Vide]

sapient, there is perhaps a tiny sliver of daylight between the government clandestinely monitoring private conversations of all sorts between EVERY. CITIZEN. IN. THE. COUNTRY. and private work conversations between public officials on matters of national policy, proposed or otherwise. Should either be happening? No. Is one more troubling than the other? Yes. Is it the violation of poor Senator Clinton's privacy that is the much more dire, and far more upsetting of the two? I really can't see that there's any question there - and neither can you, albeit for all the wrong reasons.

Also, WTH do you mean "might have been" collecting domestic metadata (to say nothing of your risibly underqualified "with a warrant" parenthetical)? That much is not controversial. You want to sit and fling brickbats at Donald for being a hypocrite for not professing to adhere to the same moral outlook as you? Feel free to take one to the back of yer own noggin for professing to not adhere to the same reality as the government you so eagerly carry water for... Or in case I'm being too "vague", you're lying, sapient. You're lying about matters of well-established public record, and you're doing in the same breath that you're casting yourself as morally superior to those who disagree with you. Which, I will also note in the interest of not being vague, falls quite neatly under the other sense of the word "hypocrite"...

[Nombrilisme Vide]

sapient, there is perhaps a tiny sliver of daylight between the government clandestinely monitoring private conversations of all sorts between EVERY. CITIZEN. IN. THE. COUNTRY. and private work conversations between public officials on matters of national policy, proposed or otherwise. Should either be happening? No. Is one more troubling than the other? Yes. Is it the violation of poor Senator Clinton's privacy that is the much more dire, and far more upsetting of the two? I really can't see that there's any question there - and neither can you, albeit for all the wrong reasons.

Also, WTH do you mean "might have been" collecting domestic metadata (to say nothing of your risibly underqualified "with a warrant" parenthetical)? That much is not controversial. You want to sit and fling brickbats at Donald for being a hypocrite for not professing to adhere to the same moral outlook as you? Feel free to take one to the back of yer own noggin for professing to not adhere to the same reality as the government you so eagerly carry water for... Or in case I'm being too "vague", you're lying, sapient. You're lying about matters of well-established public record, and you're doing in the same breath that you're casting yourself as morally superior to those who disagree with you. Which, I will also note in the interest of not being vague, falls quite neatly under the other sense of the word "hypocrite"...

[Nombrilisme Vide]

Don't know if it was worth saying once, but definitely note twice. Grr.

[bobbyp]

watch out man, you're getting close to fighting words!

Apologies...old and forgetful. Hey, how 'bout those Cubs? Great 7th game.

[wj]

Great 7th game!

But extra innings AND a rain delay?? Here I thought torture was illegal.

[Hartmut]

Who says Trump is not a uniter? It seems he is supported by black supremacists too not just the KKK. ;-)

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/the-blacks-for-trump-guy-at-florida-rally-is-former-yahweh-ben-yahweh-cult-member-8843111

Rachel Maddow had a long segment on that but I know that some here won't go near anything MSNBC.

In all seriousness this is just another example that in cases of doubt extremists will unite against the moderates over fighting each other (like there were informal alliances between Nazis and communists in Weimar Germany to fight the Social Democrats).

[Marty]

Doc just phone bank work, three hour shifts.

The summary was that a few answer, most were polite, one started swearing. I didn't get much more, we avoid politics pretty much this election.

[sapient]

the government clandestinely monitoring private conversations of all sorts between EVERY. CITIZEN. IN. THE. COUNTRY.

the government storing metadata, not clandestinely monitoring private conversations, just as it now scans the outside of every envelope at the post office

[Ugh]

So clearly it's all ok.

[cleek]

and private work conversations between public officials on matters of national policy, proposed or otherwise

Podesta is not a public official. the emails published were not produced as official government business. he is a private citizen, working on a political campaign. that makes him a juicy target for opposition larcenists, sure. it doesn't give us any right or justification or excuse to see his emails; and it certainly doesn't lessen the crime, which was perpetrated by a foreign power for the sole purpose of influencing our elections.