1 term president?

[CapelDodger]

The rise of Trumpism will allow the GOP to put off their moment of reckoning for another four years. Eventually, though, they will have to confront the fact that their policies are out of step with 21st-century America. There was an element that tried to point this out after Romney's loss, but the Tea Party shouted them down. I believe that by 2020 the Tea Party will be well on its way to irrelevance, if not actually there. Hopefully, at that time the GOP will be able to reinvent itself.

Or the party will spend four years fixated on impeaching Clinton for something, anything, and hit 2020 entirely unreconstructed. Another wall of GOP candidates emerges and the most rabid loon wins again.

 

[pgwenthold]

Flawed? So sending some emails from the wrong computer is about equal in your mind to being a pathological liar currently on trial for fraud?

My SIL posted something on FB about Hillary's "immoral" behavior.

This is just bizarre. Immoral? Where in the world do you get that? Even if you criticize her for the server thing, since when is the security of State dept emails a moral question? Or is it Benghazi, the situation so morally wrong that the congressional enquiry couldn't conclude any wrongdoing?

 

[Foolmewunz]

I don't think that Hillary and Bill are on trial for fraud yet.

Ho ho ho. Another Big Dog "I know you are but what am I" funny. I love how you do that. I mean no one expects it so it just works so well.....

By the way, super nifty Rule of So!

There is no rule of so. There is a rule of common courtesy under which we cite or link to frothing at the mouth right wing web sites we're quoting. My browser is set to block "stupid" so I can't locate the source of your quote on the scandalous school. I'm just betting it's from a really neutral source like the LA Times or Washington Post, right?


ETA: Well, color me surprised. I went in on an incognito page and found the source. Hot Air. Taken from.... that reliable and non-partisan beacon of honesty.... Breitbart and their spoon fed darling of the right wing.. Clinton-on-on-on Cash-ash-ash. Cue ominous music.

 

[Upchurch]

Hardly the same context.

If I understand correctly, there are administrative rules (laws?) that banned use of private email servers for official business when Clinton was Secretary of State. Those restrictions did not apply previously, and so the actions of previous Secretaries of State or Presidents really isn't comparable.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

You are mistaken. It violated the Presidental Records Act, which predates the Bush Administration. However, it also wasn't prosecuted. But, yeah, pretty much the exact same context, except the Bush Administration didn't turn over any emails and the Republicans didn't lose their ...stuff... over it.

 

[Ambrosia]

It is my hypothesis, that in a 2020 reelection campaign with Hillary, a more professionally run and supported campaign by the Republican candidate would make better use of these negatives.

[More views from across the pond]

Surely in a new election campaign ~4 years down the road an incumbent is judged on their ~4 years on office?

If Clinton wins this election, as seems highly likely, and then is a decent POTUS, how damaging would the email "scandal" be by that point?

 

[seayakin]

[More views from across the pond]

Surely in a new election campaign ~4 years down the road an incumbent is judged on their ~4 years on office?

If Clinton wins this election, as seems highly likely, and then is a decent POTUS, how damaging would the email "scandal" be by that point?

It may not be the email scandal. I think a lot depends also on whether the Congress remains in Republican control. If they do, I would plan for continued investigations.

 

[Upchurch]

Surely in a new election campaign ~4 years down the road an incumbent is judged on their ~4 years on office?

I think I've spotted the flaw in your logic. If the last eight years are any indication, Republicans will not judge a Democratic President on the merits of their actions.

 

[The Don]

It may not be the email scandal. I think a lot depends also on whether the Congress remains in Republican control. If they do, I would plan for continued investigations.

The U.S. comedy Alpha House covered this. In the show, the Tea Party Republicans want to make Benghazi the equivalent of Watergate (or worse) for the Democratic Party. They want a continual 20-year investigation as a constant reminder to the voting public about how terrible the Democratic Party is.

 

[CapelDodger]

It may not be the email scandal. I think a lot depends also on whether the Congress remains in Republican control. If they do, I would plan for continued investigations.

And I would expect those not already convinced to remain unconvinced while the democratic imperative removes a disproportionate number of the already convinced. With that and the never-ending Climate Change Hoax investigation they'd have precious little time and energy left for substantive criticism and the factor would reach 11 by 2020.

 

[CapelDodger]

[More views from across the pond]

Hopefully a safe distance. Sadly probably not.

Surely in a new election campaign ~4 years down the road an incumbent is judged on their ~4 years on office?

Bless.

Of course, for many people that will be true but some will claim that the record has been faked by the crooked media.

If Clinton wins this election, as seems highly likely, and then is a decent POTUS, how damaging would the email "scandal" be by that point?

Pretty damaging to the GOP's credibility, I suspect. Which is to say, reducing rubble to gravel.

 

[applecorped]

100% chance that there was a one-term president and there will be another one term president

 

[phiwum]

You are mistaken. It violated the Presidental Records Act, which predates the Bush Administration. However, it also wasn't prosecuted. But, yeah, pretty much the exact same context, except the Bush Administration didn't turn over any emails and the Republicans didn't lose their ...stuff... over it.

A quick search based on what you said suggests that the issue with Clinton involves the Federal Records Act, not the Presidential Records Act, but the former is even older, and so I accept your correction.

Thanks.