Clinton's transition team starts preparing cabinet nominee shortlists - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51243239]Apparently bog standard strategic campaign planning is "rigging the election" now.[/QUOTE] I feel like a big part of this "Hillary is rigging the election! corruption!" stuff is just trying to play into Trump's uneducated fanbase not knowing how the fuck a standard campaign is run.

[QUOTE=Paramud;51243267]I feel like a big part of this "Hillary is rigging the election! corruption!" stuff is just trying to play into Trump's uneducated fanbase not knowing how the fuck a standard campaign is run.[/QUOTE] You could same the same shit about all the anti-Hillary people on the left.

[QUOTE=Sableye;51241568]rigged doesnt apply well with reality :smug:[/QUOTE] Neither does Hilliary :smug:

[QUOTE=Kigen;51242380]In the words of WikiLeaks.... [media]https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/789296990127427588[/media] But yeah, never too late for Giant Meteor 2016! btw, pied piper comes from [url]https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1120[/url] in the attachment. They purposely used their influence to push for Trump to be the Republican nominee.[/QUOTE] it's really bad that wikileaks went from seemingly apolitical to supporting a specific candidate. clinton does have some sketchy connections though

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51243239] Much as I respect and appreciate Obama, he doesn't really seem qualified for that position. SC justices usually have extensive judicial backgrounds, and Obama really doesn't. Going to law school ain't quite the same as a lifetime adjudicating in actual courts.[/QUOTE] There's a lot to be said about qualifications of office this election

To be honest, I'm surprised that the process of preparing a shortlist for cabinet positions had not been done any sooner. On a kind of related topic, has there ever been any precedent for promoting the Vice President to a job that is more than just attending funerals? For example, would it be possible for a Vice President to also be the Secretary of State? Or is the Vice President, by convention, only supposed to be a ceremonial title?

[QUOTE=BF;51251596]To be honest, I'm surprised that the process of preparing a shortlist for cabinet positions had not been done any sooner. On a kind of related topic, has there ever been any precedent for promoting the Vice President to a job that is more than just attending funerals? For example, would it be possible for a Vice President to also be the Secretary of State? Or is the Vice President, by convention, only supposed to be a ceremonial title?[/QUOTE] in short, you can't hold multiple positions at the same time. Yes the president could say "hey i want my VP to work closely with X cabinet position" and they would do so out of respect but the VP is just figuratively a beating heart and someone who can work behind the scenes with lawmakers as an advisor or speaking piece for the president historically VPs don't usually have much of a political future left. While there have been a few that have gotten elected after their president's terms are over, its very difficult for a party to hold the WH for more than 8 years

the VP is the president of the senate

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51247018]it's really bad that wikileaks went from seemingly apolitical to supporting a specific candidate. clinton does have some sketchy connections though[/QUOTE] I get that Wikileaks fight to expose corruption and promote transparency, and that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats haven't exactly been squeaky clean with regard to either. But what I don't get is why they would take such a hardline stance against her, for the benefit of Donald Trump. A man who ran a press blackout earlier in his campaign, and who is perhaps the most-dangerous threat to freedom of the media and press in modern American history.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;51251617]the VP is the president of the senate[/QUOTE] ya but the catch is that the senate has passed rules basically forbidding him from speaking in the senate or addressing the senate. his vote is only allowed as a technicality when there is a tie, and the senate majority leader essentially controls the governance of the senate.

[QUOTE=Sableye;51251615]in short, you can't hold multiple positions at the same time. Yes the president could say "hey i want my VP to work closely with X cabinet position" and they would do so out of respect but the VP is just figuratively a beating heart and someone who can work behind the scenes with lawmakers as an advisor or speaking piece for the president historically VPs don't usually have much of a political future left. While there have been a few that have gotten elected after their president's terms are over, its very difficult for a party to hold the WH for more than 8 years[/QUOTE] Thanks for the insight! Being Vice President must be incredibly boring to say the least!

[QUOTE=BF;51251625]I get that Wikileaks fight to expose corruption and promote transparency, and that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats haven't exactly been squeaky clean with regard to either. But what I don't get is why they would take such a hardline stance against her, for the benefit of Donald Trump. A man who ran a press blackout earlier in his campaign, and who is perhaps the most-dangerous threat to freedom of the media and press in modern American history.[/QUOTE] Assange blames her, and anybody connected to the Obama admin for illuminati conspiracies to takeover the world. He would have to be stupid to not know that the DNC emails he got were from russia, yet he's willing to do the bidding of one despot because he thinks he's fighting against another one.

[QUOTE=BF;51251625]I get that Wikileaks fight to expose corruption and promote transparency, and that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats haven't exactly been squeaky clean with regard to either. But what I don't get is why they would take such a hardline stance against her, for the benefit of Donald Trump. A man who ran a press blackout earlier in his campaign, and who is perhaps the most-dangerous threat to freedom of the media and press in modern American history.[/QUOTE] Because Assange has a personal vendetta against Clinton. He has said as much.

[QUOTE=BF;51251625]I get that Wikileaks fight to expose corruption and promote transparency, and that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats haven't exactly been squeaky clean with regard to either. But what I don't get is why they would take such a hardline stance against her, for the benefit of Donald Trump. A man who ran a press blackout earlier in his campaign, and who is perhaps the most-dangerous threat to freedom of the media and press in modern American history.[/QUOTE] This is why [url]https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/heres-what-i-learned-about-julian-assange?utm_term=.hdj0mYwDQ#.jyzEvgPy6[/url]