It is not a new practice for former top officials to continue to get courtesy briefings, and for nominees as well. Blame FDR for keeping Truman in the dark about the Manhattan Project.
Well considering that at the time Egyptian investigators were stating that terrorism was probable, stating that it appeared to be a terrorism act does not seem too outrageous. It may not turn out to be, but it does appear to be.
I still think it was presumptuous. What it looked like to me was pandering to the inevitable chorus of criticism that Obama gets every time any type of multiple murders occur. What some of the public seems to want the president to do is every time there’s any possibility of such an event being terrorist related, he must run to the nearest microphone before the last bit of shrapnel hits the ground and shout “Terrorism! Islamic Terrorism! Fucking Muslims! We’re all gonna die!”
A few days in, we’re still not certain what happened. I don’t think a catastrophic mechanical failure is out of the question. Perhaps a bomb is more likely, but there really isn’t any point to start waving the bloody flag of terrorism.
There are no claims of responsibility yet, but there might not be if this was private enterprise. And it might also be genuinely a mechanical failure - there are still people today claiming TWA 800 was bombed, for instance. There have been enough pilot suicides/mass murders to leave that a possibility, too.
But a terrorist bomb is certainly the way to bet based on public (and maybe classified) information today, and it’s hardly irresponsible for anyone to say so, even a candidate.
Nothing to debate when the opponent keeps moving the goal posts. I seem to recall that this had to do with stopping illegal immigration, then it moved to how illegal immigrants are somehow a threat because they have a crime rate (duh), then to reducing crime in general. And it wasn’t me doing the moving. Stick to one point and defend it, or don’t even bother calling it a debate.
Ah yes, let’s devolve this into a logical fallacy name game! The SDMB modus operandi! When you can’t refute evidence, attack it’s presentation!
You decided to move the goal posts when you cited a separate demographic’s crime rate. Crime sucks no matter who is committing but the point and facts still stand: illegal immigrants account for a substantial amount of crime and this crime can drastically be reduced through more border security. I have provided evidence for both.
I think this depends on Bernie. Under ideal circumstances he would give a solid speech at the convention endorsing Clinton and explaining all the good reasons why a democrat shouldn’t vote for Trump EVEN if you are disillusioned with the corrupt political system. That would go a long way. Bernie withholding an endorsement is going to be very bad for Clinton if that happens.
I don’t agree it’s too late. Bernie is playing Brinkmanship to get as much as he can, that’s just part of politics. He can mollify most of his supporters by keeping his campaign apparatus around and transforming it into progressive lobbying group. He can also point out that they can achieve a lot more working with the system than tearing it down like some of the Trump supporters want to do.
At the end of the day he knows how much damage a Trump Presidency would do.
I would love to hear from a Sanders supporter who would vote for Trump over Hilary. I can’t imagine 2 candidates who are more opposite. Is it just that they want to vote anti-establishment regardless of the candidates policies?
Yes I do realize that. But imo illegal immigrants do more good than harm, so we need a solution that doesn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I am not fine with *anyone *committing crimes, but the California economy would collapse without migrant farm workers, most of whom are here illegally. We need a solution that does not keep everyone out–just the bad guys.
If you’re in a safe D state then I can understand voting for Trump as a way to send a message that you’re pissed off with the establishment. But yeah anyone that would do this in a swing state where it counts is being pretty stupid.