These polls were conducted by Bloomberg and the Des Moines Register. The Republican poll shows Trump leading at 23% followed by a surprising showing by Carson at 18%. All the rest have single digits.
In the Democratic poll, Hillary still leads with 37% with Sanders getting close with 30% and the unannounced Biden at 14%.
Link - (
New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
I think the real voters are unsure of who they will be voting for. They'll wait through all the debates before making a decision. Trump is appealing to people that may or not even vote.
Trump may be leading because he isn't the political insider or lifetime politician. But, when you get down to wanting to know what he would actually do if he were elected president then things get a bit murky. He's going to build a wall at the Mexican border....yeah, right.
Trump is just a flash in the pan. When it comes time to get real about electing a nominee, I think you'll see his popularity fade in a hurry.
I heard this morning that a lot of supporters in Iowa like him because of his brashness. It's nothing about actual policy. They just think we need the President to be a bully.
I still don't think Trump is serious about this. He's getting a ton of publicity, which is something Trump craves. In the end, I don't think he'll be willing to step down from his business empire for 4-8 years.
I heard this morning that a lot of supporters in Iowa like him because of his brashness. It's nothing about actual policy. They just think we need the President to be a bully.
I still don't think Trump is serious about this. He's getting a ton of publicity, which is something Trump craves. In the end, I don't think he'll be willing to step down from his business empire for 4-8 years.
So, the rest of the candidates explain in detail their policies?
Part of me thinks Trump is a joke, part of me fears he will win because people of sick of politics as usual.
A virtual political lifetime.
Policy is important, but, on the R side at least, we had Senators and Reps run on specific policy and then do the complete opposite when they get into office. I think people like Trump's attitude (anti-establishment politics) and don't care that much about specific policies.
I also think this could be the year that a 3rd party candidate has a legitimate shot at the Presidency. It probably won't happen, but I could see Bloomberg or Elizabeth Warren making a successful run at the White House if Hillary and/or Bush fail to win their party's nomination because they aren't extreme enough for those who vote in the primaries.
For example, he's saying Hedge Funds should pay the same taxes as everyone else. I'd bet 99% of America believes that but no Republican will say it since Hedge Funds are among their biggest donors.
In these instances Trump is taking real positions that voters will like and they're positions only he can take. If you think he doesn't have a strategy or isn't in it for the long run you're sorely mistaken.
And LOL Carson. That dude is a lightweight.
For example, he's saying Hedge Funds should pay the same taxes as everyone else. I'd bet 99% of America believes that but no Republican will say it since Hedge Funds are among their biggest donors.
I think 99% of American doesn't even know what a hedge fund is.
And LOL Carson. That dude is a lightweight.
but Carson is by far the smartest candidate. Would like to see him as a running mate
Really, 2008's run with Obama is the only time in the modern era that there was an "upset" - and that "upset" involved a rather moderate candidate who was clearly being primed for the big stage prior to 2008, likely elevating himself earlier than the DNC machine had projected and winning before when they thought he could. And even then, Obama's understanding of the delegate game and having an unmatched ground game (that Clinton no owns) allowed him to narrowly edge out Clinton - who actually had more votes (though some shenanigans in place like Michigan impact that).
Bernie Sanders' current run projects to John Edwards in 2008, not President Obama's. He doesn't have the money, support of the DNC, nor mass appeal/appeal outside of the predominantly white Iowa/New Hampshire (he's polling at about 4% with African Americans right now). Add in the fact that Clinton is leading the current pledged delegates to the tune of ~300 to nothing and its kind of clear only she is going to take herself out.
That Hillary Clinton has the appeal of a gas station bathroom likely compounds things, but that this is a competitive race on the D's side is much more a narrative that sells stories and gets clicks than anything grounded in reality. The only real litmus test for her viability as a candidate is where Joe Biden stands on announcing/not announcing. Otherwise Bernie gets NH narrowly, puts up a valiant effort in Iowa and gets slaughtered when the voters turning out don't look like an Eddie Bauer catalog shoot.
On the Republican side, I know there was a Trump thread where this was dissected every which way, but he'll fade quickly once he's forced to do more than produce easily consumable soundbites. Similar to the Democrats, you can see the fringe Republican candidates who made noise and had strong polling in Iowa/NH ahead of the vote, but faded once things got "real" and people weren't clicking "Like" on Facebook (or the equivalent). Pat Robertson hit ~25-30% in Iowa in '88, Huckabee was in the mid-30s in '08, etc. There's a precedent for this kind of thing and Trump is pretty much following the standard trajectory. That he's even more recognizable and is a lightning rod for attention/controversy amplifies things a bit, but uncharted territory this is not.
Maybe it is wishful thinking, but this whole election stuff (at least in the US) seems to have a pretty predictable pattern on things. We're in the low-information stage right now and things will even out when people start tuning in for more than a quick hit piece. If nothing else, lack of strategy/ground game and a Republican party that will do everything in its power to deny Trump a place on the ticket will eventually end this - and I don't see him running 3rd party, as I think attention is his end-game not the presidency (and eventually he'll hit a threshold of spending he doesn't want to exceed when his attention has already hit maximum levels).
Trump - cannot believe he is doing this well.
Sanders way too far to the left.
Sanders versus Trump - which end of that shit sandwich do you want to bite off?
Bernie Sanders' current run projects to John Edwards in 2008, not President Obama's.
Actually, IMHO, it's closer to Gene McCarthy in '68 than Edwards who was a political insider (besides being one of the sleaziest candidates in recent history) in 2008.
Quote:
midgets.
And LOL Carson. That dude is a lightweight.
but Carson is by far the smartest candidate. Would like to see him as a running mate
Not the most mensa-esque crew.
He's smart enough to have basically no policy ideas and instead push platitudes. I'll give him that.
Quote:
Bernie Sanders' current run projects to John Edwards in 2008, not President Obama's.
Actually, IMHO, it's closer to Gene McCarthy in '68 than Edwards who was a political insider (besides being one of the sleaziest candidates in recent history) in 2008.
Fair, though there's a near-obsession of calling back to 2008's election (due to Clinton's epic fall) - so its easier to compare to that race than one 50 years ago to draw parallels.
In reality, you can call out to Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, etc. - Sanders is not a unique story, he's the most recent entry to fit the far-left progressive candidate that rolls out each election, fires up the progressive base and gracefully bow out after making early noise.
2 - the people of this country are horrified about the amount of money in our politics. Republicans are 91% unsatisfied or mad as hell on this, and the Dems are 94%. To me this is biggest easily fixable issue facing the country right now. Not easy because the solutions are easy, but easy because there is broad based support for a new approach. Now we did get some change thru congress but 5 activist votes on the US Supreme Court struck that change down, and then overruled the OLD campaign finance precedents. But it can be done.
2 - the people of this country are horrified about the amount of money in our politics. Republicans are 91% unsatisfied or mad as hell on this, and the Dems are 94%. To me this is biggest easily fixable issue facing the country right now. Not easy because the solutions are easy, but easy because there is broad based support for a new approach. Now we did get some change thru congress but 5 activist votes on the US Supreme Court struck that change down, and then overruled the OLD campaign finance precedents. But it can be done.
The "activists" represent an almost absolutist understanding of the First Amendment that does not seem to trouble us in most of its other manifestations.
Quote:
1 - just how strong the anti-establishment vibe is in the GOP electorate
2 - the people of this country are horrified about the amount of money in our politics. Republicans are 91% unsatisfied or mad as hell on this, and the Dems are 94%. To me this is biggest easily fixable issue facing the country right now. Not easy because the solutions are easy, but easy because there is broad based support for a new approach. Now we did get some change thru congress but 5 activist votes on the US Supreme Court struck that change down, and then overruled the OLD campaign finance precedents. But it can be done.
The "activists" represent an almost absolutist understanding of the First Amendment that does not seem to trouble us in most of its other manifestations.
Dunedin, FTW
Call me when Roberts invalidates the anti-child porn laws. That's what a real absolutist would do. Until then he has just decided to drawn the line in favor of unrestrained campaign spending and the most narrow conception of corruption imaginable (effectively, express proven quid pro quo only).
And in any event, principled or not it is still activism. The conservative wing of the US Supreme Court (particularly Scalia-Thomas-Alito) routinely substitute their judgment for that of a co-equal branch of government. You can defend their decisions (though it's a tough slog for the most part), but you cant deny the deep activism on their side.
And LOL Carson. That dude is a lightweight.
Carson is hardly a "lightweight" - he is a world-renowned neurosurgeon - but he is not qualified to be president, imho. If he is serious about wanting to be president, I think he should run for and win a lesser office first. His home state of Maryland for governor or Senator, for instance. When Michael Steele, a no one next to Carson, ran for Senate, he got something like 25% of the black vote in Maryland. Carson could and probably would do better.
Call me when Roberts invalidates the anti-child porn laws. That's what a real absolutist would do. Until then he has just decided to drawn the line in favor of unrestrained campaign spending and the most narrow conception of corruption imaginable (effectively, express proven quid pro quo only).
And in any event, principled or not it is still activism. The conservative wing of the US Supreme Court (particularly Scalia-Thomas-Alito) routinely substitute their judgment for that of a co-equal branch of government. You can defend their decisions (though it's a tough slog for the most part), but you cant deny the deep activism on their side.
But the "wise Latina," who thinks we should decide cases based on who the litigants are, is fair and dispassionate?
Disrespecting a co-equal branch of government? The opinions of this "activist" wing you decry are based on reason, history, and an attempt to discern original intent of the people who actually wrote the document. The "Living Constitution" theory of jurisprudence, on the other hand, could be summarized by saying, "I am going to back into the result I want by inventing any crackpot theory I can imagine." Have you ever actually read Roe v. Wade, for instance? I remember going into law school thinking that it was going to be a grand, carefully thought out, well-reasoned opinion. Instead, it was a total power play that could be summarized as, "we have the power to do this, and so we're doing it."
The "Living Constitution" wing is the one who is a real threat to our country. They would read a specifically enumerated right in the Bill of Rights out of the document (the 2nd Amendment, and increasingly the 1st) and yet routinely discern penumbral and other highly dubious rights to further their own political preferences.
Quote:
midgets.
And LOL Carson. That dude is a lightweight.
Carson is hardly a "lightweight" - he is a world-renowned neurosurgeon - but he is not qualified to be president, imho. If he is serious about wanting to be president, I think he should run for and win a lesser office first. His home state of Maryland for governor or Senator, for instance. When Michael Steele, a no one next to Carson, ran for Senate, he got something like 25% of the black vote in Maryland. Carson could and probably would do better.
I'm not sizing up his skills in neurosurgery. He's a lightweight and even on that dais of dunces they had in the first debate, he was a lightweight there, too. Go to his website and read his one or two sentence positions on the issues. There's nothing there. It appears his campaign is basically, "Vote for me, I'm a super polite black conservative with no political record." As was eluded to, he probably is basically running for Vice President.
Please explain how that fits into the original intent of founders.
Please explain how that fits into the original intent of founders.
They are entities made up of a group of people. And the money is to 'speak' about their political choice.
I find it hilarious that only when conservative groups sued for the right for political speech that liberals are in a snit about it. As if they haven't been getting money from unions forever.
Hmm, what happened after the last government shut down?
Quote:
and corporations are people?
Please explain how that fits into the original intent of founders.
They are entities made up of a group of people. And the money is to 'speak' about their political choice.
I find it hilarious that only when conservative groups sued for the right for political speech that liberals are in a snit about it. As if they haven't been getting money from unions forever.
A typical and yet fundamental and complete misunderstanding of the issues that come out of C.U. decision.
And in any event, principled or not it is still activism. The conservative wing of the US Supreme Court (particularly Scalia-Thomas-Alito) routinely substitute their judgment for that of a co-equal branch of government. You can defend their decisions (though it's a tough slog for the most part), but you cant deny the deep activism on their side.
Seriously? The conservative wing does this? That's a laugh.
Hm, how did Dole, McCain and Romney do???
She's never going to be thrown in jail or maybe not even indicted (see Gen Petreaus). But it is political hard ball, just like Clinton calling Repubs terrorists for talking about defunding abortions at PP...
I'll be embarrassed if she gets the nomination. People may not like President Obama's agenda, but I don't think anybody would ever say he was dishonest or purposely untrustworthy. I just cannot see anything positive that she brings to the table, except for the Democrats that she is a Democrat.
Walker is neither a moderate nor strong. Fiorina's reputation as an executive and her lack of political experience won't work in a general election.
I guess that leaves Rubio and Kasich. Rubio doesn't impress me much; Kasich does, but his 7 years at Lehman may be an impediment. I also wonder whether he can build momentum. A breathtaking speaker he ain't. But he best fits the definition of a "strong moderate," I think.
His views linked. That's a pretty good site, btw.
Link - ( New Window )
And a strong moderate would help with independents by countering the perception that the Republican Party has moved too far right in a country edging more center/left at the national level on social issues.
Link - ( New Window )
I find it hilarious that only when conservative groups sued for the right for political speech that liberals are in a snit about it. As if they haven't been getting money from unions forever.
I love this false equivalency narrative that is always pushed by the right about Unions. Every dollar spent by unions is so dwarfed by the amount spent by corporations each cycle it's scary. Not to mention its hard to get a handle on just how much money is even being spent by these corporate entities because they set up shadow organizations and Pacs where the donors are not disclosed. At least Unions are up front in reporting what they spend.
And a strong moderate would help with independents by countering the perception that the Republican Party has moved too far right in a country edging more center/left at the national level on social issues.
I agree and think Romney would have been a "good" choice. But he is a two time loser...
More than anything a change in congress is needed. The gridlock has to stop. Problem is a "weak" Speaker. I like John Boehner, think he is a good man, but he just cannot reign in the Repubs like Pelosi did with the Dems. Pelosi is a loathsome person whom I despise, but she could twist arms. Where is Tip O'Neill when you need him?
Nothing wrong with that. How much money comes from corporate America? Whether you like it or not, unions are there to protect their members.
Quote:
the AFL-CIO really puts into political campaigns...
Nothing wrong with that. How much money comes from corporate America? Whether you like it or not, unions are there to protect their members.
Their numbers look big on their own, but are kinda small compared to what others do. It's all relative.
Quote:
the AFL-CIO really puts into political campaigns...
Nothing wrong with that. How much money comes from corporate America? Whether you like it or not, unions are there to protect their members.
So unions (different than union members) are "people"?
Quote:
the AFL-CIO really puts into political campaigns...
Nothing wrong with that. How much money comes from corporate America? Whether you like it or not, unions are there to protect their members.
That was my point. It is a rather small figure of their total expenditures.
This is what interests me. I mean, Obama had a light resume but is clearly charismatic. Rubio has a light resume but is clearly charismatic. Even Cruz has a light resume but is kinda charismatic (he's fun to listen to on TV). Why do people support Carson? I just don't see why anyone would be interested in the guy one way or the other. Can't be his policy ideas either. Maybe in the slew of bombast and bumbling, the boring guy is gaining support?
Quote:
In comment 12444799 kicker said:
Quote:
the AFL-CIO really puts into political campaigns...
Nothing wrong with that. How much money comes from corporate America? Whether you like it or not, unions are there to protect their members.
That was my point. It is a rather small figure of their total expenditures.
But there's another point. Should union members be required to pay compulsory dues, a part of which can be donated to candidates whom the member may not support? Unions and corporations, either they are both "people" or neither are "people".
That is far from the main reason why corporations exist.
Quote:
I have to be thrilled at the numbers he's doing, given how little media coverage he receives, and how uncharismatic he is. He doesn't just lack the political knowledge and experience for the job he's running for, he also lacks the ability to perform on camera (which, say what you want about Trump, is definitely not a problem he has).
This is what interests me. I mean, Obama had a light resume but is clearly charismatic. Rubio has a light resume but is clearly charismatic. Even Cruz has a light resume but is kinda charismatic (he's fun to listen to on TV). Why do people support Carson? I just don't see why anyone would be interested in the guy one way or the other. Can't be his policy ideas either. Maybe in the slew of bombast and bumbling, the boring guy is gaining support?
I'm not a supporter of Carson's but compared to Obama and Clinton, he has actually accomplished much in the world prior to entering into politics, is a great story, and I think that everybody (but the idiots on both sides) can agree that a strong minority republican candidate is a good thing.)
That is far from the main reason why corporations exist.
Irrespective of who has greater power, not all states are "right to work" so there is the fact that compulsory dues can be used for political contributions. Either both are "people" or neither are "people". If "right to work" is extended to 50 states and the District we can revisit this.
To my knowledge and believe it is the law, no dues money is used for political donations - that is a separate, voluntary fund. Nobody can force you to donate to the PACs. Some unions do use some form of retribution for not donating.
And BTW, unions have an unimaginable burden of proving where every dollar is used.
Corporations mission is to make money/build capital, so any expenditure should be assessed by its potential return. In politics, this amounts to bibery.
Unions mission are to represent workers interests for the purpose of labor negotiators. When making a political donation, interests could be met by material or non-material benefit. So its got a grey area.
But there's another point. Should union members be required to pay compulsory dues, a part of which can be donated to candidates whom the member may not support? Unions and corporations, either they are both "people" or neither are "people".
NJM once again you are spewing another talking point from the right that has literally no basis in reality. I am in a union and in virtually every union not one dollar of "cumpolsory union dues" goes towards a political candidate. Dues go towards the every day running of the union. The union sets up a pac where they solicit separate donations that go towards lobbying. Those donations are 100% voluntary.
To my knowledge and believe it is the law, no dues money is used for political donations - that is a separate, voluntary fund. Nobody can force you to donate to the PACs. Some unions do use some form of retribution for not donating.
And BTW, unions have an unimaginable burden of proving where every dollar is used.
Actually, I believe you're spelling out the rules that applied to corporations prior to Citizen's United. My understanding is that union dues could be used for political contributions.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
I have to be thrilled at the numbers he's doing, given how little media coverage he receives, and how uncharismatic he is. He doesn't just lack the political knowledge and experience for the job he's running for, he also lacks the ability to perform on camera (which, say what you want about Trump, is definitely not a problem he has).
This is what interests me. I mean, Obama had a light resume but is clearly charismatic. Rubio has a light resume but is clearly charismatic. Even Cruz has a light resume but is kinda charismatic (he's fun to listen to on TV). Why do people support Carson? I just don't see why anyone would be interested in the guy one way or the other. Can't be his policy ideas either. Maybe in the slew of bombast and bumbling, the boring guy is gaining support?
Fridge, Carson is a brilliant man, but I don't know what he brings, either. Conservative, African American and renowned surgeon from Johns Hopkins.
Cruz - good heavens please, I think he has a screw loose.
Rubio is charismatic, but even though I live in Florida, I haven't a clue as to what he's done. His speech in April was excellent. But do we want charisma as the most important aspect a candidate has? In reality he has a lot more experience than President Obama had in 2008. Just not sure he has Obama's brilliance(?).
Quote:
If you think that unions and corporations have equal power, you are sorely mistaken. Unions organize to eliminate some of the negotiating disadvantage employees have with employers.
That is far from the main reason why corporations exist.
Irrespective of who has greater power, not all states are "right to work" so there is the fact that compulsory dues can be used for political contributions. Either both are "people" or neither are "people". If "right to work" is extended to 50 states and the District we can revisit this.
Incorrect interpretation. Two distinctly different entities should be lumped together?
And, as to the point as to what union dues should be used for, the use of regular dues for political contributions is the outlier, not the norm. And, of course, you can opt out of the full union coverage and only pay to be included as part of the bargaining unit, paying a reduced fee, where those dues CANNOT be used for political contributions.
Convenient how you stopped at 6, when the next two are not unions are contribute to conservative pols (#7 slightly, #8 overwhelmingly.
Quote:
But there's another point. Should union members be required to pay compulsory dues, a part of which can be donated to candidates whom the member may not support? Unions and corporations, either they are both "people" or neither are "people".
NJM once again you are spewing another talking point from the right that has literally no basis in reality. I am in a union and in virtually every union not one dollar of "cumpolsory union dues" goes towards a political candidate. Dues go towards the every day running of the union. The union sets up a pac where they solicit separate donations that go towards lobbying. Those donations are 100% voluntary.
Well we can look at Knox v. SEIU(2012) where non-union members in a shop that had voted to be an "agency shop" had been subject to a surcharge that was used for political purposes. They weren't even given an "opt out" right which I believe was required even at that time under earlier precedent. It didn't pass muster with the court which changed the requirement to an opt in. My question is whether union members have the same right to opt out.
Union members who have a different political point of view?
People who think that it their influence offsets the influence of corporations.
Seriously, that guy is so far right (and anybody that kowtows to Evangelicals as he does) that even I wouldn't consider him. He is like the second coming of Rick Perry.
Quote:
give to Democrats?
Union members who have a different political point of view?
Then they can run to be part of union leadership. Or vote the union out of existence. Or opt out (if in a public union) of paying the full dues.
Perhaps unions have been created, in the U.S., to mimic a political system where individual votes matter but representatives are put into place to guide the will of the majority? Or, should this aggrieved minority give back all its benefits from unionization?
Quote:
give to Democrats?
Union members who have a different political point of view?
You take the good with the bad. Unions are throwing their money to politicians that back workers rights, etc. I don't agree with where all the donations go, but by and large they are used to the benefit of the majority of the members.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
four of the top six are unions and all of the to 6 contribute to Dems Link - ( New Window )
Convenient how you stopped at 6, when the next two are not unions are contribute to conservative pols (#7 slightly, #8 overwhelmingly.
Oh please, the top 6 dwarf all the others.
I do believe that the way it works for us is that they use normal dues (required of every employee) for political campaigns but then there is some kind of legislative act that enables you to request that the portion of your dues used for politics is returned to you. The default is they use the dues and you have to specifically make the refund request. There is a very narrow window for it and the union is not obligated (or at least they don't do it for us) to tell you about your rights or the deadline for exercising them. The few people that I know who filed the refund request got a ton of grief from the union. They said it was a miserable, almost intimidating, experience.
I think one of the recent (failed) campaign finance reform bills had a requirement that the union inform people of their rights and there was a fair amount of opposition to that.
The teachers union is having issues because the management has come out to support Hillary. Well the rank and file is a bit upset, because they want to endorse Bernie Sanders. But they are not given a voice. Also, when you see fast food workers protesting, most of them are union workers protesting, not actual fast food workers.
Link - ( New Window )
There may be some of that. It's a lot easier to second guess an executive, be it governmental (e.g. governor) or business (e.g. CEO). But on the other hand, you cant give people a free pass. If the argument is that "I ran a company so I know how to put people to work etc." then you need to test the theory. Romney's Bain was not about putting people to work -- it was a model of borrow, bleed cash for immediate guaranteed profit, effectively turning the acquired company into a sick patient. Bain would then take steps to make the patient better -- with no $$ to invest, the course of treatment was almost always to cut costs including jobs. The model was not about taking struggling companies and running them "better"; it was about using cheap borrowed money to gamble smartly. We could get into why Romney lost, but I dont think it was anything directly having to do with Bain (he was in a terrible spot running against an incumbent; as a relative moderate, he had to stay to the right because his "base" didnt trust him; he seems like a really decent guy but every time he opened his mouth we got a C. Montgomery Burns type answer).
Fiorina ran HP poorly. There is no one out there arguing that she did a good job (and her spin about her tenue and firing is ridiculous). It would be one thing if she did 30k layoffs as the white knight. I literally have no idea how she could run on her HP record.
There are tens of thousands of Republicans who ran/run businesses that overall have a good record of success on job creation. But not Romney and Fiorina.
OTOH, there have been tons of candidates who have had less or have never been tested at all and were voted for because they could articulate a plan for the country going forward. I find her very credible as a candidate.
Could be. There are two major employee unions in NYS (not counting specialized teachers or prison guard unions) and mine is the smaller of the two.
A “super PAC” supporting Carly Fiorina is defending her record as chief executive of Hewlett-Packard in a full-page ad in The New York Times that promotes her strength as a leader of the technology company.
Tom Perkins, the founder of the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and a member of the board that ultimately ousted Ms. Fiorina in 2005, described the Republican presidential candidate as a visionary executive who helped to revive the company during hard times.
“Not only did she save the company from the dire straits it was in, she laid the foundation for HP’s future growth,” Mr. Perkins wrote, pointing to an increase in revenues and patents during her time there.
The endorsement from Mr. Perkins comes a week after The Times’s Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote a column detailing Mrs. Fiorina’s woes at Hewlett-Packard and calling her business record “not so sterling.”
Mr. Perkins said that the much maligned merger with Compaq turned out to be a good thing, and that Mrs. Fiorina was the victim of board members — some of whom were family members of the company’s founders — who were protecting their own interests.
“While Carly fought to save the company and the employees within, some board members fought for their own power or advancement,” Mr. Perkins wrote.
While Mr. Perkins was one of the board members who voted to fire Mrs. Fiorina, he now calls that move a mistake.
Link - ( New Window )
The teachers union is having issues because the management has come out to support Hillary. Well the rank and file is a bit upset, because they want to endorse Bernie Sanders. But they are not given a voice. Also, when you see fast food workers protesting, most of them are union workers protesting, not actual fast food workers. Link - ( New Window )
You are right that SOME union donations are not what the majority would like and if my union backs Hillary I'll scream bloody murder.
But I can tell you that the vast majority of union officials are looking out for their members which IS the union's best interest.(And it extends to many non union employees because companies are willing to give better pay and benefits to keep unions out.)
Quote:
In comment 12444922 buford said:
Quote:
four of the top six are unions and all of the to 6 contribute to Dems Link - ( New Window )
Convenient how you stopped at 6, when the next two are not unions are contribute to conservative pols (#7 slightly, #8 overwhelmingly.
Oh please, the top 6 dwarf all the others.
Do think that this shows that Unions spend more on elections than conservative PACs?
Unfortunately kicker there are some that miss the point of unions and only see the evils of the 1960/70 era Teamsters, UAW etc. What they don't see or hear are the horror stories pre-union or the vast benefits of the unions.
No unions are not perfect, but in an age of ACA and people without medical insurance most unions have medical insurance or members can get it at a very cheap price, for example.
They serve their purpose and the benefits to the members far outweigh the disadvantages.
Quote:
Who has pretended that unions are 100% beneficent here?
Unfortunately kicker there are some that miss the point of unions and only see the evils of the 1960/70 era Teamsters, UAW etc. What they don't see or hear are the horror stories pre-union or the vast benefits of the unions.
No unions are not perfect, but in an age of ACA and people without medical insurance most unions have medical insurance or members can get it at a very cheap price, for example.
They serve their purpose and the benefits to the members far outweigh the disadvantages.
But more importantly, Tom Perkins is a batshit crazy octogenarian. He wrote a universally panned letter to the WSJ last year which began:
He concluded his obscene garbage rambling by warning:
His old firm quickly distanced itself from him, tweeting:
"Tom Perkins has not been involved in KPCB in years. We were shocked by his views expressed today in the WSJ and do not agree." He followed up that crazy with public remarks where he proposed that people who pay more in taxes should get more votes.
So he's a biased nut job.
Evidence shows they are much more effective than private sector unions recently. Their role is a bit muddier.
problem at the state and local level, but not at the national level.
Walker in Wisconsin and Kasich in Ohio had some valid arguments about the excess power of public sector unions. Their way of articulating those points was world-class incompetent. And of course in Walker's case, he tied Public Pension issues to Right to Work, largely on behalf of the Koch Brothers and their buddies. Kasich didn't attempt that, nor does he agree with it.
Santorum won Iowa in 2012, I believe. It's early and they aren't necessarily representative of anything but Iowa.
That isn't the point. The point is that there is a lot of crying about the Koch Brothers and Citizens United but the amounts of money that flow to the Democrats is never mentioned.
The reason Walker was against the unions was that they were bankrupting the states. Look at Illinois, Detroit and other municipalities that are having severe financial issues, yet the unions ask for more and more. Even Rahm Emanuel, dem mayor of Chicago had to say no to the Teachers union there.
problem at the state and local level, but not at the national level.
Walker in Wisconsin and Kasich in Ohio had some valid arguments about the excess power of public sector unions. Their way of articulating those points was world-class incompetent. And of course in Walker's case, he tied Public Pension issues to Right to Work, largely on behalf of the Koch Brothers and their buddies. Kasich didn't attempt that, nor does he agree with it.
KOCH BROTHERS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote:
are on of the 3-4 key reasons why Republicans dominate at the state and local level. Taxpayers have no say in the fact that public pensions in many cases are vast overpromises, and they are rightfully pissed about it. The public sector union link with the Democrats is thus a
problem at the state and local level, but not at the national level.
Walker in Wisconsin and Kasich in Ohio had some valid arguments about the excess power of public sector unions. Their way of articulating those points was world-class incompetent. And of course in Walker's case, he tied Public Pension issues to Right to Work, largely on behalf of the Koch Brothers and their buddies. Kasich didn't attempt that, nor does he agree with it.
KOCH BROTHERS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who spends more, Buford? Koch brothers or all unions combined? - ( New Window )
Their mistake, because if you own an NBA team, Scott Walker gives you $250 million in state money for your new arena. Teachers are so stupid.
Their mistake, because if you own an NBA team, Scott Walker gives you $250 million in state money for your new arena. Teachers are so stupid.
Its known as UW stadium because 250M is the same amount he deducted from the University of Wisconsin budget that year.
Not sure how he's going to get past that.
Quote:
In comment 12445061 kicker said:
Quote:
Who has pretended that unions are 100% beneficent here?
Unfortunately kicker there are some that miss the point of unions and only see the evils of the 1960/70 era Teamsters, UAW etc. What they don't see or hear are the horror stories pre-union or the vast benefits of the unions.
No unions are not perfect, but in an age of ACA and people without medical insurance most unions have medical insurance or members can get it at a very cheap price, for example.
They serve their purpose and the benefits to the members far outweigh the disadvantages.
DOes that include public sector unions? I've always had a difficult time seeing them in the same light as those fighting the robber barons.
Is there a bigger "robber baron" than the government? The government "owns" the courts system. Their lawyers are on "retainer." Do you think a public employee has the resources to fight the city, county, state, or federal government. Look at what Walker did in Wisconsin even with union resources...
He is.....
Quote:
In comment 12445115 manh george said:
Quote:
are on of the 3-4 key reasons why Republicans dominate at the state and local level. Taxpayers have no say in the fact that public pensions in many cases are vast overpromises, and they are rightfully pissed about it. The public sector union link with the Democrats is thus a
problem at the state and local level, but not at the national level.
Walker in Wisconsin and Kasich in Ohio had some valid arguments about the excess power of public sector unions. Their way of articulating those points was world-class incompetent. And of course in Walker's case, he tied Public Pension issues to Right to Work, largely on behalf of the Koch Brothers and their buddies. Kasich didn't attempt that, nor does he agree with it.
KOCH BROTHERS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who spends more, Buford? Koch brothers or all unions combined? - ( New Window )
All unions combined (just in the top 100 of donors) top the Koch's at 1,207,000,000.
Quote:
Make a Law that God is a White Male?
He is.....
And he lives in "real America". And is in talks with TLC for a show.
Quote:
In comment 12445143 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12445115 manh george said:
Quote:
are on of the 3-4 key reasons why Republicans dominate at the state and local level. Taxpayers have no say in the fact that public pensions in many cases are vast overpromises, and they are rightfully pissed about it. The public sector union link with the Democrats is thus a
problem at the state and local level, but not at the national level.
Walker in Wisconsin and Kasich in Ohio had some valid arguments about the excess power of public sector unions. Their way of articulating those points was world-class incompetent. And of course in Walker's case, he tied Public Pension issues to Right to Work, largely on behalf of the Koch Brothers and their buddies. Kasich didn't attempt that, nor does he agree with it.
KOCH BROTHERS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who spends more, Buford? Koch brothers or all unions combined? - ( New Window )
All unions combined (just in the top 100 of donors) top the Koch's at 1,207,000,000.
NOPE. That's the "All Cycles" number. That's 12 years of elections.
And this database you present just shows the money that needs to be reported. It doesn't show the 501c money, which is where the real money is spent nowadays. We don't know how much the Kochs, Unions or anyone is spending there - because of Citizen's United.
And Buford, when you haven't the vaguest fucking idea what you are talking about, you would do all of us, including yourself, a favor by staying away from the conversation. I'm not comparing Koch brothers spending nationally to union spending. It is a dead-on fact that Walker, in particular, got considerable help in his recall election and re-election from the Kochs and their buddies, and that they continue to support him (link). The Kochs have made impressive headway in a handful of pockets nationwide--see North Carolina if you want a major example--and the unions couldn't do thing one about it. In fact in NC it wasn't even ABOUT unions.
This has absolutely nothing to do with aggregate Koch spending nationwide or union spending nationwide.
But, of course, you couldn't comprehend that if we spotted you 50 IQ points and a two day head start.
And people wonder why you get picked on.
Link - ( New Window )
Well with Christie is was a question of who gets fucked over, the teachers who at early retirement in their 50's got 100% state paid for family health insurance or the state's taxpayers who were going to pay for it. Yes, they were promised that, but it was so typical of politicians (neither party is innocent) who traded future benefits that would be paid for after they were dead or out of office for short term electability.
I like to think of myself as a sufferable snob.
That's because they generally choose to try to raise taxes rather than reduce benefits. And the taxpayers look at it and say: "Really, health care plans with no employee/retiree contribution and my taxes are going up to pay for it?"
You cant look at healthcare spend in a vacuum. The gold plated plans may be a substitute for market competitive wages.
Teachers in many cases are still underpaid, but pensions are a lousy way to offset that.
Teachers in many cases are still underpaid, but pensions are a lousy way to offset that.
Not my area of expertise. Your post doesnt make any sense to me. Are you suggesting that we reduce benefits and increase wages? Or reduce teacher benefits and hold wages constant? Because the first one is no savings, and the second one is to effectively pay teachers less. But we already have a hard time recruiting teachers as is -- I saw a study that said you cant get anyone in the top 1/3 of college grads to teach, and you cant get the middle 1/3 to teach in poor schools.
Compensation is compensation. What this fight really seems to be to me is a bunch of politicians/taxpayers who financed their kids educations with debt (future benefits) rather than pay the bill when the services were rendered (in the form of immediate wages or funding these benefits). And now they're trying to blame teachers for taking deferred benefits. Im more okay with changing the rules for new hires and recent hires (which is all that some districts are doing).
And quality of life. I know a number of attorneys working at DOJ who bust their asses, but you wouldn't compare their existence to that of the first year associate.
Teachers in many cases are still underpaid, but pensions are a lousy way to offset that.
Compensation varies widely at the state and local level. Some teaching and law enforcement salaries and benefits packages are very competitive, others are not. To insure my family on my county's healthcare plan would cost me more than 1/4 of my take-home pay. For the majority of county law enforcement it's more than 1/3. Other counties have comparable salaries but out of pocket for healthcare is from 2/3 to 1/2 ours. Other counties have higher salaries and the more competitive benefits packages.
Quote:
I know that for lawyers (my field), the government way underpays for the best and brightest. Sure there are some government lawyers who are doing better on the inside than they could on the outside, but almost all government lawyers and judges make less in cash compensation than the thousands of junior associates at "big law" firms. Now a lot of these people like the power/prestige of government jobs or like the "do good" aspect. But things like job security and retirement benefits help make up some of the gap versus private sector wages.
And quality of life. I know a number of attorneys working at DOJ who bust their asses, but you wouldn't compare their existence to that of the first year associate.
Some of the DOJ and public service lawyers are in it for the prestige so that they can boost future reputation/earnings. (Or, e.g., to get to do more hands-on trial work earlier in their careers.) I therefore don't think law is a great comp for other fields.
--Take a sharp reduction in future cost of living increases;
--Take a modest reduction in annual payouts, especially in the extreme cases, such as police and fire who get over $100,000 a year and then can double dip with another job; and
--Permit new employees to come in under a much less expensive system.
Only wherever any of that has been tried, the unions went to court, and a a large proportion of cases, the courts have usually insisted on the status quo.
So, taxpayers take all the burden, until the bridges fall into the river, potholes devoure roads, and water/sewer systems fall apart because there is no money to pay for infrastructure, and the economic value of a governmental entity begins to collapse. It's called a death spiral.
And Democrats will continue to take it in the neck at the state and local level so long as they support this mess.
If you couple this with what are, on average, more generous non-wage benefits and much less employment turnover, it appears that federal workers are in a much better position than private workers.
A note: one explanation for this is that federal workers are, en masse, slightly above average in terms of ability. There is little deviation in pay between the workers in this system, meaning that the private sector comprises 2 groups: below average and superior. Since, by simple numbers, below average comprises the majority of the private sector workforce, the wage gap can be explained away almost wholly.
So, taxpayers take all the burden, until the bridges fall into the river, potholes devoure roads, and water/sewer systems fall apart because there is no money to pay for infrastructure, and the economic value of a governmental entity begins to collapse. It's called a death spiral.
And Democrats will continue to take it in the neck at the state and local level so long as they support this mess.
...and we know who the democrats will blame
I'd really like to see a couple immediat changes in some structural obscenities like forfeiting pension if you go to jail for govt office related offenses, and making pensions based on last (or highest) three years of salary rather than salary plus overtime. People pad that shit like crazy where I am and it's totally horrendous.
Absolutely! A friend of mine had both of his parents working for the Port Authority. Their pension was 70% of their last two years avg take home. So, they worked all kinds of overtime the last two years ended up with a pension that was equal to 100% of their base pay.
This is a very new development. Like collapse of Lehman new. At least on masse. It was so rare that before the recent financial crisis, we generally knew each firm that had EVER done mass layoffs, and it was only a handful. And even then, it was like <10% I think.
But job security and prestige were things I mentioned. Dune said quality of life -- probably somewhat true, but from what I can tell it is pretty comparable now at least some places. AUSAs are working harder due to underfunding, and many big firm lawyers are struggling to fill their hours requirements.
The employment situation at big firms got him with a brutal tri-fecta (at least): (1) the financial crisis hurt all industries, and for lawyers crush deal work and didnt create the expected bankruptcy/litigation boom that usually accompanies recessions since no one had money to pay lawyers, (2) the 2000s have been a big time of transition for large firms, as lateral partner movement really forced firms to start operating like businesses rather than associations of gentlemen, and (3) overhang of associates from the go-go 2000s dealmaking and the era of big electronic doc reviews and mega-bankruptcies following the Enron/dot com era collpase.
Quote:
firms routinely fire associates, often because of reasons completely unrelated to associate performance. Government lawyers have much more job security and many would opt for that security over the massive salary biglaw lawyers make.
This is a very new development. Like collapse of Lehman new. At least on masse. It was so rare that before the recent financial crisis, we generally knew each firm that had EVER done mass layoffs, and it was only a handful. And even then, it was like <10% I think.
But job security and prestige were things I mentioned. Dune said quality of life -- probably somewhat true, but from what I can tell it is pretty comparable now at least some places. AUSAs are working harder due to underfunding, and many big firm lawyers are struggling to fill their hours requirements.
The employment situation at big firms got him with a brutal tri-fecta (at least): (1) the financial crisis hurt all industries, and for lawyers crush deal work and didnt create the expected bankruptcy/litigation boom that usually accompanies recessions since no one had money to pay lawyers, (2) the 2000s have been a big time of transition for large firms, as lateral partner movement really forced firms to start operating like businesses rather than associations of gentlemen, and (3) overhang of associates from the go-go 2000s dealmaking and the era of big electronic doc reviews and mega-bankruptcies following the Enron/dot com era collpase.
Agree generally. As I understand it though, the scaling back of federal anti-drug efforts has helped to balance out any heightened workload from "underfunding."
she's asking the wrong people.
Cant wait to find out how this proves HRC is the worstest human ever.
Link - ( New Window )
What's the troubling stuff?
If she and her staff let those slip through, it makes you wonder what was in the ones they deleted/scrubbed.
Emails from political operatives are always going to look not great. Nature of the work. Not every such email, but one of several hundred, yeah. Lets look at Karl Rove's campaign emails. I cant imagine what Lee Atwater's outbox would look like had he lived.
In litigation, that's called spoliation of evidence, and if you're lucky, you'll get away with the operative facts being resolved against you. If you're not so lucky, your whole pleading is stricken, you're sanctioned, you're held in contempt of court, and perhaps your attorney is referred to the disciplinary committee as well.
We're quibbling over the stuff Hillary chose to release. When you look at everything in context and consider that she pulled a stunt that would land anyone on this thread in jail, I'm going to go ahead and presume that she erased some terribly damning things from her email.
In litigation, that's called spoliation of evidence, and if you're lucky, you'll get away with the operative facts being resolved against you. If you're not so lucky, your whole pleading is stricken, you're sanctioned, you're held in contempt of court, and perhaps your attorney is referred to the disciplinary committee as well.
We're quibbling over the stuff Hillary chose to release. When you look at everything in context and consider that she pulled a stunt that would land anyone on this thread in jail, I'm going to go ahead and presume that she erased some terribly damning things from her email.
I certainly thought the same when the Bush Administration pulled the exact same stunt with 'as many as FIVE MILLION' e-mails.
No heads rolled from that one, and if you think it's different this time - even with Clinton rules in play - I've got a bridge to sell you.
Quote:
and the server was scrubbed.
In litigation, that's called spoliation of evidence, and if you're lucky, you'll get away with the operative facts being resolved against you. If you're not so lucky, your whole pleading is stricken, you're sanctioned, you're held in contempt of court, and perhaps your attorney is referred to the disciplinary committee as well.
We're quibbling over the stuff Hillary chose to release. When you look at everything in context and consider that she pulled a stunt that would land anyone on this thread in jail, I'm going to go ahead and presume that she erased some terribly damning things from her email.
I would agree.
I certainly thought the same when the Bush Administration pulled the exact same stunt with 'as many as FIVE MILLION' e-mails.
No heads rolled from that one, and if you think it's different this time - even with Clinton rules in play - I've got a bridge to sell you.
The Secretary of State had a private server located in his house, not appropriate for the receipt of classified material, and received numerous classified emails on said server? That happened during the Bush Administration? Or are you just parroting bullshit talking points?
Quote:
making pensions based on last (or highest) three years of salary rather than salary plus overtime. People pad that shit like crazy where I am and it's totally horrendous.
Absolutely! A friend of mine had both of his parents working for the Port Authority. Their pension was 70% of their last two years avg take home. So, they worked all kinds of overtime the last two years ended up with a pension that was equal to 100% of their base pay.
"Pension spiking" is almost universally agreed to be a significant problem. Even Robert Reich has asserted that this must be dealt with and eliminated.
86% of republican voters either do not believe or aren't sure if Obama is indeed a Christian
71% of republican voters either do not believe or are not sure if Obama was born in America (as a follow up question, a higher percentage of republican voters believed ted Cruz was born in America, even though he was actually born in Canada. So add low information to their affinity for stupid conspiracy theories).
If you are one of the few (sadly) republican voters with a brain in your head, how do you defend this idiocy? Sure, some on the left believe wacky things, but not in those numbers. I'm not a partisan guy on the issues. I actually lean right on many issues even though I identify as a democrat. But the total lunacy of the republican base is so off putting it's depressing. There's no classy way to put it. There is no spinning the shear idiocy it takes to hold positions like this
Quote:
In comment 12446015 lawguy9801 said:
Quote:
and the server was scrubbed.
In litigation, that's called spoliation of evidence, and if you're lucky, you'll get away with the operative facts being resolved against you. If you're not so lucky, your whole pleading is stricken, you're sanctioned, you're held in contempt of court, and perhaps your attorney is referred to the disciplinary committee as well.
We're quibbling over the stuff Hillary chose to release. When you look at everything in context and consider that she pulled a stunt that would land anyone on this thread in jail, I'm going to go ahead and presume that she erased some terribly damning things from her email.
I would agree.
I certainly thought the same when the Bush Administration pulled the exact same stunt with 'as many as FIVE MILLION' e-mails.
No heads rolled from that one, and if you think it's different this time - even with Clinton rules in play - I've got a bridge to sell you.
The Secretary of State had a private server located in his house, not appropriate for the receipt of classified material, and received numerous classified emails on said server? That happened during the Bush Administration? Or are you just parroting bullshit talking points?
Because, you know. Clinton rules. I fergetted.
My bad.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that while the system has a tendency to over-classify that some of these e-mails contain sensitive information that clearly s/b considered secret. I'll leave the legalities to the FBI and the various inspector generals, but this certainly weighs on the recipient's competence and fitness to hold higher office.
Quote:
and my understanding is that the emails she received are being marked classified now, not when she received them.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that while the system has a tendency to over-classify that some of these e-mails contain sensitive information that clearly s/b considered secret. I'll leave the legalities to the FBI and the various inspector generals, but this certainly weighs on the recipient's competence and fitness to hold higher office.
SMOKING GUN! She's going down, baby!
Because, you know. Clinton rules. I fergetted.
My bad.
"Clinton rules" were the only reason this set up was allowed to exist. Anyone else who would have tried it would have been slapped down the minute it was discovered.
What she *said* was that she never possessed classified material. Proven false.
*Then* she said, she never received material that was classified at the time and that the classified material being made publi is a new categorization (your point, I think). That's only partially true. Some of the material from yesterday is being retroactively classified, according to State. There is a plethora of it which IMO is astounding. Material generally becomes *less* classified and less sensitive with time, not more. You can make of it what you will but to me that means either there is some covering up going on or the people who originally viewed the material and failed to mark it as classified were amazingly incompetent. Either way, not good. Further, she was also lying here as it has been previously shown that some of the material (a sizable percentage) was actually classified at the time it was generated and *not* retroactively.
So, *then* she said, she never received any material that had classified markings. This also points to a frightening institutional failure of considerable magnitude. Either the people generating the material failed to apply the proper markings (and, shockingly received security clearances in the first place and are still employed in the second) or someone on HRC's staff criminally stripped the markings off of the material before passing it on to her.
Then you are left with HRC herself who only has two explanations...either she is lying about the classified material or she received tons of sensitive material, much of which was either classified or classifiable, and did not have the requisite ability to recognize it as such. Dishonest or incompetent....neither really helps in her touting of her SoS experience.
SMOKING GUN! She's going down, baby!
Nope. I'd call it more like death by 1000 cuts, although the FBI and various IG's could alter that
Quote:
Because, you know. Clinton rules. I fergetted.
My bad.
"Clinton rules" were the only reason this set up was allowed to exist. Anyone else who would have tried it would have been slapped down the minute it was discovered.
I must have missed the thousands of outraged BBI posts on that.
Quote:
In comment 12446150 x meadowlander said:
Quote:
Because, you know. Clinton rules. I fergetted.
My bad.
"Clinton rules" were the only reason this set up was allowed to exist. Anyone else who would have tried it would have been slapped down the minute it was discovered.
Powell also used personal e-mail for SOS business.
I must have missed the thousands of outraged BBI posts on that.
Powell also used the official system and didn't set up his own private server for exclusive use.
Quote:
In comment 12446150 x meadowlander said:
Quote:
Because, you know. Clinton rules. I fergetted.
My bad.
"Clinton rules" were the only reason this set up was allowed to exist. Anyone else who would have tried it would have been slapped down the minute it was discovered.
Powell also used personal e-mail for SOS business.
I must have missed the thousands of outraged BBI posts on that.
Did Powell use his private email exclusively? I haven't heard anyone discuss this. If so, he may (or may not, Idk) have been able to separate classified from unclassified material. Did he have his own server and keep sole control of access? Was he the sole person deciding what to release and what to scrub?
He may have and if so, then people should be going after him as well. They should use this to question his running for president also.
I get that Bush dishonesty bugs you; I question why the outrage is not generally applicable. which is the charge you are levying against everyone else.
Unless you tie it to what she passionately says to the public and also regard honesty to be a virtue (which I honestly (no pun intended) do not believe anyone does anymore.
But I AM calling out an addiction to the Clinton rules on this site. Hillary Clinton hasn't done anything in her career to match the level of venom she receives on this site or in the nation in general.
She's a career politician with an excellent, distinguished record behind her, years in the White House, as a Senator, as Secretary of State. Many dislike her because she's cold. Not a great public speaker. Many dislike her because she's too Liberal. Many dislike her because she is the poster child for the Corporate/Government relationship.
So, what drives the hatred?
E-mail? Benghazi? Vince Foster boogeymen?
Nope. She's a WOMAN in a position of POWER. GET HER!!!!
The appropriate follow-up would be if you care if he's a Christian (I don't). I guess the purpose of that question is to see who believes he's a Muslim.
Quote:
lots of outrage and intrigue and nothing really damaging.
Unless you tie it to what she passionately says to the public and also regard honesty to be a virtue (which I honestly (no pun intended) do not believe anyone does anymore.
Meh, to really pin it on honesty, you have to have a true gotcha moment. Hasn't happened yet. Otherwise, you're banking on folks following the nuances in each statement she makes vs what's found, etc, etc. Ain't nobody got time for that. :) And without a gotcha moment, it will either appear that she's lying and getting away with it or that the republicans are making a mountain out of a molehill depending on your internal biases.
I missed that.
I thought he was a reasonable candidate forced into bizarre stances and talking points by what has become an insane Republican Party. They got the guy who SUCCESSFULLY implemented Obamacare in Massachusetts to campaign AGAINST it! Think about that!
Mitt wasn't racist. He wasn't half the shit that came out of his mouth. They all have to pander.
I wasn't afraid of Mitt Romney. I wasn't afraid of McCain. They would have been decent Presidents, I believe.
Jeb, I'm afraid of - because he is cut of the same cloth as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowicz, Perle. Thank God Jeb has the charisma of a snapping turtle.
Quote:
to add add to our resumes under being a racist because we voted for Romney.
Romney was racist?
I missed that.
I thought he was a reasonable candidate forced into bizarre stances and talking points by what has become an insane Republican Party. They got the guy who SUCCESSFULLY implemented Obamacare in Massachusetts to campaign AGAINST it! Think about that!
Mitt wasn't racist. He wasn't half the shit that came out of his mouth. They all have to pander.
I wasn't afraid of Mitt Romney. I wasn't afraid of McCain. They would have been decent Presidents, I believe.
Jeb, I'm afraid of - because he is cut of the same cloth as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowicz, Perle. Thank God Jeb has the charisma of a snapping turtle.
Top Secret documents were released. People may have died because of it. And it's nothing? Holy shit.
We know what that line of thinking brought us.
I'll pass on handing another one of those assholes the keys.
86% of republican voters either do not believe or aren't sure if Obama is indeed a Christian
71% of republican voters either do not believe or are not sure if Obama was born in America (as a follow up question, a higher percentage of republican voters believed ted Cruz was born in America, even though he was actually born in Canada. So add low information to their affinity for stupid conspiracy theories).
If you are one of the few (sadly) republican voters with a brain in your head, how do you defend this idiocy? Sure, some on the left believe wacky things, but not in those numbers. I'm not a partisan guy on the issues. I actually lean right on many issues even though I identify as a democrat. But the total lunacy of the republican base is so off putting it's depressing. There's no classy way to put it. There is no spinning the shear idiocy it takes to hold positions like this
Is Obama a Muslim? I would accept what people say they are so I would say no. This is unlike Obama who will not accept ISIS as being Islamic although they say they are.
I would say that religion is not really important to Obama so the question is not particularly relevant. Like me, he does not cling to his guns or religion.
I think the fact that so many think he is Muslim comes from his own actions and his perceived sympathies. He brings this on himself. He makes statements going back to the Crusades in regard to Christians but cannot bring himself to say that it was Coptic Christians killed by ISIS but "Egyptian citizans". And that it was just "folks: killed in that Jewish deli in Paris and then not sending any American representatives to that demonstration in Paris. People see very little outrage from him concerning persecution of Christians but see him jump right in when those young Muslims were killed by a nut in what many hear was a parking dispute.
I guess I will not say so many are stupid for saying something they suspect based on his actions although again I say I don't agree with the answer they give about him being Muslim.
Or more likely, I am stupid.
He's not a career politician similar to Trump. He's drawing most of his support from the Religious Right; his position on abortion and also believes homosexuality is a choice.
Headhunter, she sold influence for money, including to countries/companies in countries who are not our friends.
I can't believe that party loyalty has so badly blinded people here to how serious this situation is.
Why the heck do you think she had the private server in the first place?
Even if you want to bury your head in the sand with the influence pedaling, her criminal (yes CRIMINAL) incompetence in handling our nations top secrets has most likely cost the country billions of dollars and put lives at risk. For what?
She is broken so many laws with this server scandal it's outrageous she hasn't be indicted yet. Worse, the USG officials at State covering it up should have been indicted too.
Romney might have been okay for a Republican. He was level headed. No idea whether he would have moved left or right as president, since I could never tell what he believed in beyond his attitude toward business. I fear he would have been terrified of his own base.
Speaking of shit stirrers
Quote:
I get his rags to riches great inspiring story. Who is he? What is he all about?
He's not a career politician similar to Trump. He's drawing most of his support from the Religious Right; his position on abortion and also believes homosexuality is a choice.
But I think it's deeper than that. I think he hits the Trump/Sanders group but those who like the outsiderness but with a better, less strident, less a-hole of a messenger.
Romney might have been okay for a Republican. He was level headed. No idea whether he would have moved left or right as president, since I could never tell what he believed in beyond his attitude toward business. I fear he would have been terrified of his own base.
You didn't know what his attitude towards Russia was? The media sure did, and those condescending assholes sure turned out to be wrong.
Get behind Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders or someone else. She ought to be under indictment.
Let's say you don't care if government officials are held to a different standard...that the rules and laws shouldn't apply to them. Let's say you don't care if she was criminally careless about national security or if she influence pedaled...
Let's say you don't care about that.
What is there to like about her as a candidate? She's demonstrated a horrible lack of judgement. She accomplished very little as Secretary of State (and she won't even admit to the things she WAS involved in like TPP). She has pulled way to the left this year simply because the party has pulled to the left, begging the question what her real beliefs really are. She seems to have intimate ties to Wall Street. And she's a horrible campaigner (she's nothing like Bill...her press conferences are cringe-worthy). Is her only appeal is that she is a woman?
Did he know that she only used one device (her Blackberry-Iphone-Ipad-Galaxy)? Did he know that she never had or used a .gov email? Did he know that he said don't use your own server and she said fu? or that he said keep Blumenthal away from gov't business and she said fu?
I would think he would be pissed. He is such an autocrat that having a subordinate flaunt his orders would have to cut deeply.
I think he is going to have an awkward decision to make and it will probably be revealed by what Biden does. If justice comes to him and says "there's substance for an indictment, especially since look what we did to Petraeus et al" he either has to say yea or nay. There's a political versus a value judgment to be made and if he goes for the political and gets found out, then there is also a legacy issue he will have to weigh. I do feel it's going to come to his doorstep eventually.
Let's say you don't care if government officials are held to a different standard...that the rules and laws shouldn't apply to them. Let's say you don't care if she was criminally careless about national security or if she influence pedaled...
Let's say you don't care about that.
What is there to like about her as a candidate? She's demonstrated a horrible lack of judgement. She accomplished very little as Secretary of State (and she won't even admit to the things she WAS involved in like TPP). She has pulled way to the left this year simply because the party has pulled to the left, begging the question what her real beliefs really are. She seems to have intimate ties to Wall Street. And she's a horrible campaigner (she's nothing like Bill...her press conferences are cringe-worthy). Is her only appeal is that she is a woman?
And while he claimed vindication post-Crimea, I actually think it's much more of a mixed bag. I've said before that Russia is flexing its muscles as a purely regional power and not the #1 geopolitical foe Romney tagged them as. Ukraine, Crimea. Regional shit. Just like Iran with Iraq and Syria and Yemen. Regional. Russia's economy is collapsing because it's a petrostate suffering from low oil prices and sanctions and I see no signs of their influence in South America, Cuba, South East Asia, Africa etc.
And made up legal standards. For example, there was no legal prohibition on using private email for government work. Eric has said this a half dozen time and I've shown him the precise language proving that he's wrong each time. It is tiresome. He refuses to listen because he was told something else during training.
Now a server become the property of the government because she used it for her SOS duties? Where is that source of law? I've never seen that so it's new to me.
Manh George. She broke the law in the first place simply by having the private server/e-mail system. And the moment it was revealed that there were top secret documents on the system it went to a whole new level. (that was going to be automatic anyway...there is NO WAY a Secretary of State can even do her job without access to marked and non-marked top secret, secret, and confidential documents). She already broke the law...the only question now is whether the Justice Department does anything about it. She also destroyed the server and her staff destroyed their blackberries...another law broken.
Quote:
he's one of the least hard-core Republicans on the panel and that's part of why he's having his problem. You actually have to look beyond his last name.
I look at the fact that Jeb Bush was a signed founding member of the Plan For the New American Century - nearly the entire Bush43 Administration was represented there, as well as Jeb. This was the group that lobbied the Clinton Administration to take military action against Saddam Hussein.
We know what that line of thinking brought us.
I'll pass on handing another one of those assholes the keys.
Bush is establishment to his core and is only slightly right of the Dem party.
That's why I always thought political threads were banned, can't help himself.
On this thread, you called njm a "fucking angel" and Eric a "hyperbolic shit-stirrer".
Personally, I would take both as compliments, but I am weird that way and someone else might not.
Quote:
I'm so glad the site owner is not a hyperbolic shit stirrer
That's why I always thought political threads were banned, can't help himself.
Sorry but that's either a complete distortion or fogginess in your head or you just weren't here reading the forum at the point political threads were originally banned.
Quote:
In comment 12446312 Headhunter said:
Quote:
I'm so glad the site owner is not a hyperbolic shit stirrer
That's why I always thought political threads were banned, can't help himself.
Sorry but that's either a complete distortion or fogginess in your head or you just weren't here reading the forum at the point political threads were originally banned.
I probably wasn't here for the original banning, it was just a theory.
One of the first ones I remember was one he started and was off the rails. Much like the treason claim above.
Link - ( New Window )
I suspect that most Democrats that really follow the news know that this is true at this point. It's a question now of how much it really bothers them.
I suspect Bernie Sanders is doing so well not because of Bernie Sanders, but because of a negative reaction to Hilliary among loyal Democrats. That's my guess.
And as I've told you a half-dozen times, that is the rule now. The rule became effective post-HRC. I've previously showed you the State manual that talks about how the government has an obligation to preserve materials on a private email server, a rule which necessarily permits private email servers. All you ever say in response is that someone told you otherwise, as if that someone trumps written protocols. So instead I'll just quote State employees:
Marie Harf, Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, at official briefing 3/3/2015: "There was no prohibition on using a non-State.gov account for official business as long as it’s preserved.
John Kirby, State spokesman, on CNN 8/24/2015: "at the time she was not violating policy. I can tell you that there was no prohibition for her use of this, and we’ve since changed the policy to discourage that greatly, and in fact, the policy is that you have to use your government account for business."
Cant wait for you to tell me that you heard otherwise though.
If you don't think that, of course you would think it is over the top.
I couldn't take more than 45 seconds of that. And while I'm no supporter of Trump, I have to say that an equivalent (at least a 45 second equivalent) could be produced against just about anyone over some issue.
Clinton charity run by Bill taking donations for charitable purposes from foreign governments (many of them allies): obviously a bribe quid pro quo from a traitorous bitch.
Eric: what is your evidence of quid pro quo? Why was this selling influence, but actual political donations to campaigns or PACs doesnt have you shitting your pants? Oh wait, I know, it's because she was SOS so this is special. Special rules for a special lady.
Marie Harf, Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, at official briefing 3/3/2015: "There was no prohibition on using a non-State.gov account for official business as long as it’s preserved.
Am I wrong, or were more than 30,000 communications NOT preserved? Beyond that, were the determiners of what were NOT preserved any sort of official State Dept. vetting group?
Quote:
It is according to Xmead or, more to the point, that's the only reason you would not vote for her.
xmead has been critical of her handling of the e-mail scandal.
xmead has claimed that many dislike her because she is too Liberal.
xmead has pointed out that many dislike her because she strongly represents the ties to big money and politics.
There are many reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton.
I'm simply pointing out that America chose to completely ignore Colin Powell's use of personal e-mail during his term as SOS, America barely cared about the millions of deleted e-mails of the Bush43 Administration...
...but - this is different, because it's Hillary Clinton.
And it's nothing new. Hell, she was even vilified while suffering the public humiliation of the Lewinski scandal.
I'm not defending Hillary Clinton's actions. Just pointing out the double standard of America and of the people posting here.
Every year, every GS-13 or above has to fill out a form listing possible financial conflicts of interest. I even had to put BBI on mine and explain that the ad networks were general ad companies and not direct payments from specific companies.
I wasnt talking the classified issue (and again, the stuff is being classified after the fact). You are conflating issues.
Eric from BBI : Admin : 10:43 am : link : reply
and citing Harf's comment above, she didn't preserve it. (It being non-classified info I assume because you can't put classified info on a non-secure system...that's not even a question).
The Records Act requires preservation of certain information. What did she not preserve? She turned over 30k+ emails. What precisely are you saying she did not preserve and produce, without rampant speculation please.
More broadly, she is more of the same - anyone who rails against the influence of corporations and pulls a lever for her simply isn't paying attention.
More of the same from both sides no doubt explains the current status of wholly unpalatable candidates such as Trump and Carson.
Part of it is anti-establishment, part of it is nobody has really cared enough to put the effort into opposition research and publicity on the guy.
Quote:
In comment 12446212 Headhunter said:
Quote:
I get his rags to riches great inspiring story. Who is he? What is he all about?
He's not a career politician similar to Trump. He's drawing most of his support from the Religious Right; his position on abortion and also believes homosexuality is a choice.
Maybe.
But I think it's deeper than that. I think he hits the Trump/Sanders group but those who like the outsiderness but with a better, less strident, less a-hole of a messenger.
Bill, do agree. He comes across as a nice guy; religious beliefs sincere which would appeal to many voters not just evangelicals. In the first debate received criticism by pundits that he did not make a case for himself. However, he did make several humble comments. If that's how he's coming across on the stump, I can see the appeal.
Conversely, it was thought that Cruz would be the "champion" of the evangelicals. Regardless of your opinion of Cruz, he doesn't come across as nice or humble but more often than not the opposite.
1) nothing
2) fine
3) loss of ex USG priveldges
4) probaation
5) jail
You may say I'm conflating the two, but almost everything she did by e-mail was classified, whether marked or not.
It is a fact that there was classified material on her system. She broke the law...it was impossible for her not to break the law given her job and the information she had to access.
Then she had the server wiped. She's not allowed to do that.
Every year, every GS-13 or above has to fill out a form listing possible financial conflicts of interest. I even had to put BBI on mine and explain that the ad networks were general ad companies and not direct payments from specific companies.
You speak in sweeping generalities. There are ethics rules, so she must have violated them? Why dont you identify the specific rule you think was violated. And specifically how that ethics rule relates not to gifts to the government employee, but to a charity run by that employee's spouse. In fact, I think there was a specific ethics agreement with the administration and the charity. The agreement and charity predated her confirmation, where she was confirmed 94-2.
The charity identified a single breach of that agreement -- an unsolicited $500k donation from Algeria immediately following the Haiti quake. The charity disclosed the donation but mistakenly did not inform State. If you think that the charity's error makes her unethical, that's your right. Good on you.
Clinton private email violated 'clear-cut' State Dept. rules Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email-rule-hillary-clinton-115804#ixzz3kV1xIfYJ - ( New Window )
That's not all you can tell me. You can also tell me that the no rule actually said prohibited the use of private email for State business. You simply refuse to do so, and instead keep posting incorrectly that conducting USG business on a private server is breaking the law. I wish you would stop saying that because it is demonstrably wrong no matter what you were told.
Recall she made a $99,000.00 profit on a $1,000.00 investment in one day, when her husband was a governer, and it was found to be legal.
What did she not preserve? Apparently about 30,000 e-mails, although some may yet be recovered. Was there an official State Department vetting of what was erased? Not that I've heard about. So what did she, and the folks who serve HER and not State decide to delete? I don't know. What I do know is that there were substantial possibilities of conflict of interest with respect to the Clinton Foundation. I don't recall a similar Powell Foundation back in the day. She was communication with Sidney Blumenthal, someone who the WH deemed a persona non grata. We've seen some e-mails. What haven't we seen? Hopefully the FBI and the various IGs can give us a clue.
18 U.S.C. § 208: Acts affecting a personal financial interest - ( New Window )
18 U.S.C. 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy - ( New Window )
United States Code, 2008 Edition
Title 44 - PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS
CHAPTER 31 - RECORDS MANAGEMENT BY FEDERAL AGENCIES
Sec. 3101 - Records management by agency heads; general duties
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov
§3101. Records management by agency heads; general duties
The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency's activities.
(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1297.)
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material - ( New Window )
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally - ( New Window )
If you want to accuse her of breaking protocol by using the personal email you would be correct. You would also be correct in saying it's a problem. I am in favor of the justice department looking into it. But to insinuate the criminal disposal of classified documents without any proof makes it seem like your agenda is not to expose criminal wrongdoing, but to smear her campaign.
By "you," I mean anyone taking your position.
I,
(please type or print)
make the following statement in connection with my
separation from employment in the Department of State of the United States Information Agency. As used herein, the term "employment" includes all periods of assignment or detail, as well as any periods of temporary, part-time or intermittent employment therein, and the term "separation" includes suspension for any period in excess of 30 days, retirement from active duty, transfer to another agency, resignation, furlough to enter military service, etc.
1. I have surrendered to responsible officials all classified or administratively controlled documents and material with which I was charged or which I had in my possession, and I am not retaining in my possession, custody, or control, documents or material containing classified or administratively controlled information furnished to me during the course of such employment or developed as a consequence thereof, including any diaries, memorandums of conversation, or other documents of a personal nature that contain classified or administratively controlled information.
2. I have surrendered to responsible officials all unclassified documents and papers relating to the official business of the Government acquired by me while in the employ of the Department or USIA.
3. I shall not publish, nor reveal to any person, any classified or administratively controlled information of which I have knowledge, or any other information transmitted to me in confidence in the course of my official duties, except as may be authorized by officials of the employing Department or Agency empowered to grant permission for such disclosure.
4. I have been advised by the interviewing officer whose name appears below and understand the criminal penalties relating to U.S. Government records and information and the use thereof:
U.S. State Department Separation Statement - ( New Window )
I see literally no problem with the charity. It think it's pretty appalling that the right wing, which is doing everything it can to make politics the province of the highest bidder, is going after her for the most specious charges of general "influence peddling" relating to the charity. When the Clinton charity gets a donation, it's corruption. When the chair of the senate banking committee gets donations for his re-election/PAC from all the banks, it's just good government I guess.
Unless it wasnt classified when she had it.
I do agree with Dune that this is a problem of her own making. The private email route was stupid.
She had to - HAD to know that her method of using e-mail was going to raise a stink.
And she also had to have known whether or not she was doing something that could hang her.
And it has already been made public by the Inspectors General that she had Top Secret information on the system.
The fact that you won't accept this is mind-boggling.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but everything that was classified was retroactively classified. Again, I'm all for the justice department investigating this. She deserves having her emails and online activity to be examined with a find-tooth comb. That is her fault.
But as of now, there is not even a modicum of proof of illegal activity (if my reference to retroactive declassification is accurate). You said I'm right if I believe her. I think the justice department's investigation will be crucial to any reasonable opinion. But as of now... sure. I think it's pretty forthcoming that's turned over 30K emails or whatever the number is.
She clearly made a series of poor decisions by poo pooing the interest in this topic, but that's a sign of a woman trying to move forward in her campaign, not the sign of a woman who committed an illegal act. Now that it's pretty evident this issue has blown up, she's been immeasurably more transparent as she sees it's in her best interests.
But what defines her best interests now is different than what defined them when this story first broke. The issue is obviously much more of a talking point today than it ever was before. So with this shift, she's shifted her strategy.
I think she's guilty of making a poor campaign decision. I don't think she's deleting classified information.
If you want to accuse her of breaking protocol by using the personal email you would be correct. You would also be correct in saying it's a problem. I am in favor of the justice department looking into it. But to insinuate the criminal disposal of classified documents without any proof makes it seem like your agenda is not to expose criminal wrongdoing, but to smear her campaign.
By "you," I mean anyone taking your position.
This has already been proven to be a lie. There were emails to/from Blumenthal that she deleted even though they were related to (IIRC) Libya and other aspects of her job as SoS.
Quote:
that doesn't change the fact that she's violated federal statutes by having classified information on a private system. That's illegal.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but everything that was classified was retroactively classified. Again, I'm all for the justice department investigating this. She deserves having her emails and online activity to be examined with a find-tooth comb. That is her fault.
But as of now, there is not even a modicum of proof of illegal activity (if my reference to retroactive declassification is accurate). You said I'm right if I believe her. I think the justice department's investigation will be crucial to any reasonable opinion. But as of now... sure. I think it's pretty forthcoming that's turned over 30K emails or whatever the number is.
She clearly made a series of poor decisions by poo pooing the interest in this topic, but that's a sign of a woman trying to move forward in her campaign, not the sign of a woman who committed an illegal act. Now that it's pretty evident this issue has blown up, she's been immeasurably more transparent as she sees it's in her best interests.
You are wrong.
An earlier investigation by different IG found several pieces of material that was classified at the time it was generated and before it ended upon her server. Specifically said that the material was *not* retroactively classified. But, there is much more material that apparently was classified retroactively.
Besides that, the top secret documents that the Inspectors General had showed the markings at the top taken off but not the classified sub-markers. Whomever took those headers off is also in trouble (State or Hillary's staff).
Beyond all that, USG employees are responsible for sensitive information even if it is not officially classified. If Hillary sends NSA an e-mail on Russian sanctions, that's classified.
That may matter to the public, but it won't to the investigators (if they are allowed to do their job).
It demonstrates horrible judgment similar to how making Palin his VP showed idiotic judgment on McCain's part.
I think she decided to turn everything over when people decided to care about the issue. She's a politician. Perhaps forthcoming is the wrong word. But I don't think she was hiding anything.
That may matter to the public, but it won't to the investigators (if they are allowed to do their job).
That may matter to the public, but it won't to the investigators (if they are allowed to do their job).
It'll easily play with most of the public. Most know little to nothing about the handling of classified docs (whether properly marked or not) and half of those who claim to know are talking out of their ass.
Quote:
She didn't turn anything over until years after she was supposed to and then after first being directed to and also after sifting through it and deciding on her own what to turn over and what not to turn over.
I think she decided to turn everything over when people decided to care about the issue. She's a politician. Perhaps forthcoming is the wrong word. But I don't think she was hiding anything.
Quote:
She didn't turn anything over until years after she was supposed to and then after first being directed to and also after sifting through it and deciding on her own what to turn over and what not to turn over.
I think she decided to turn everything over when people decided to care about the issue. She's a politician. Perhaps forthcoming is the wrong word. But I don't think she was hiding anything.
Not "hiding" anything would be turning over the 30,000 emails but leaving the other 30,000 as is. Deleting the emails her team decided were not government matters gives a strong appearance of hiding something. Especially if she then opted to scrub the server afterwords (i.e. not just hitting the "delete" button in your email browser).
And you'd accept that if she were a Republican?
Quote:
narrative Hillary is going to spin with the public is that the documents were not marked classified. She has already parsed her words on this...she is saying "I did not send or receive documents MARKED classified."
That may matter to the public, but it won't to the investigators (if they are allowed to do their job).
That's the third iteration of her narrative and each comes after evidence proves the earlier iteration to be a falsehood. Her first and most public statement was a categorical I never received or possessed classified material.
I disagree with you totally, Bill. If the material wasn't marked classified, then it wasn't classified. She didn't have a crystal ball. She's only specifying that the emails weren't marked classified because it was irresponsibly reported that "Hilary deleted classified material." Of course she's going to explain why that's not true and use the word "marked" at that point.
Quote:
She says that she didn't.
And you'd accept that if she were a Republican?
Nope. I'm a Democrat and I'm not accepting it. I went on to say that I support the investigation. She brought that on herself.
What I took issue with is the assertion that she committed criminal activity without proof.
Based on what, the fact she said so?
Quote:
But I don't think she was hiding anything.
Based on what, the fact she said so?
The burden of proof is not on me, njm. That's not how it works.
These are Obama Administration officials.
And even if you don't accept that, I don't think you really understand what Top Secret means. It means the information is so sensitive that it can cause "exceptionally grave damage" to the United States.
No one with a brain could look at a top secret document and not know it wasn't classified.
Quote:
In comment 12446674 Mike in Long Beach said:
Quote:
But I don't think she was hiding anything.
Based on what, the fact she said so?
The burden of proof is not on me, njm. That's not how it works.
It is if you're concluding she's innocent before the FBI and IGs weigh in.
Quote:
In comment 12446672 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
narrative Hillary is going to spin with the public is that the documents were not marked classified. She has already parsed her words on this...she is saying "I did not send or receive documents MARKED classified."
That may matter to the public, but it won't to the investigators (if they are allowed to do their job).
That's the third iteration of her narrative and each comes after evidence proves the earlier iteration to be a falsehood. Her first and most public statement was a categorical I never received or possessed classified material.
I disagree with you totally, Bill. If the material wasn't marked classified, then it wasn't classified. She didn't have a crystal ball. She's only specifying that the emails weren't marked classified because it was irresponsibly reported that "Hilary deleted classified material." Of course she's going to explain why that's not true and use the word "marked" at that point.
Now if someone illegally stripped the markings before she received it, maybe you can give her a pass on that. Then someone else needs to go to jail but not her.
Of course in that case, you can't escape the fact that people could send her top secret material and she didn't have the wherewithal to recognize it. You don't need a crystal ball but you do need competence. So, how good would her capability as SoS be then?
These are Obama Administration officials.
And even if you don't accept that, I don't think you really understand what Top Secret means. It means the information is so sensitive that it can cause "exceptionally grave damage" to the United States.
No one with a brain could look at a top secret document and not know it wasn't classified.
I won't dispute what you're saying here because I'm not knowledgable of that topic. I've actually made a concerted effort in my responses to you to only tough on the details I know, and acknowledge the ones that I don't.
But what I will say is, your assertion that she deleted documents clearly marked top secret is not in line with the lack of criminal charges as of yet. That's why I went on to say I'll be very interested to see what happens (and how folks will react) once the investigation is complete.
She SHOULD be in trouble regardless simply based on what her staff has already handed over to State. Not only the top secret stuff but they had to redact 150 e-mails yesterday because they had classified info on them.
But I wasn't even focused on the criminality of it all as opposed to the lack of honesty and ethics. She said what she said and over and over again the facts contradict her.
She SHOULD be in trouble regardless simply based on what her staff has already handed over to State. Not only the top secret stuff but they had to redact 150 e-mails yesterday because they had classified info on them.
Honest question to you Eric. If you had emails about your wife's birthday party and your yoga classes that you considered private, would you stop at deleting your emails and emptying your trash or would you have the server professionally scrubbed? I would only do the former because it's all I can do being not very well versed in technical stuff.
Quote:
Same response to you. If classification is determined by content and not labels, then surely charges are going to be filed at some point in the near future.
We shall see. Charges in this are not necessarily going to be separated from politics.
But I wasn't even focused on the criminality of it all as opposed to the lack of honesty and ethics. She said what she said and over and over again the facts contradict her.
Fair enough, Bill (my previous post was directed at Eric, FYI).
Ethics I will sort of give you. It was unethical to open these doors in the first place by using the personal account... though I would argue ethics are a strong word here. Irresponsible behavior, sure. And it would be a very fair callout from the Republican opposition.
"Dishonesty" is a word I just don't agree with. If you were committing a criminal act that would put a future Presidential campaign in grave jeopardy, would you use the same email account to take part in this illegal activity as you do to schedule your Pilates class? We can argue her level of intelligence till we are blue in the face, but I just can't imagine there was some disingenuous agenda here. I think she was lazy and perhaps irresponsible, but that's where it ends.
I didn't even want to use my personal email to talk about (legal) strippers for my buddy's bachelor party :). She's going to use hers for hidden criminal acts? If so, she is one of the worst criminals of all time... something that wouldn't really be in line with the notion that she orchestrated some massive cover up in Benghazi.
I just don't see this as any more than a minor (but fair) talking point being blown up into far worse and very baseless accusations.
Now that all said, she isn't the only one who should be in trouble. A whole bunch of USG employees should be fired and arrested.
Can't say I disagree with you. She played politics. Once she saw this was problematic for her, her comments and her strategy became very different.
But with respect to your opinion, one that I ultimately do agree with, everyone running for President is guilty of this in some capacity. She's just the biggest Democratic name (and most likely winner at this point), so the microscope is particularly focused on her.
Carson is eventually going to get destroyed if he continues to move up in the polls. His stances on abortion directly contradict not only his education, but comments he's made numerous times in the past. It's just the dirty nature of our political system.
But we do have the Hudson river!
I don't like Hilliary but I'm more worked up about this about the double-standard. It's unbelievable to me that the Office of Security at State would allow this situation, and worse, give her attorney to keep the thumb drives in. They should all be out of a job.
Actually I dont know that either of these are lies. In January 2009 she became SOS and set up the server. She didnt want to carry two phones. Ipad launched in April 2010 and she got one in June 2010. And so she started carrying the second device then. So is it a lie to say she set up the server to carry one device if the fact disproving it is a development 1+ year later? No.
Almost all or all of the classified data she possessed was not marked classified until she turned it over. As I understand it (and Im not 100% upto date) there is an allegation that some of the stuff she possessed was classified when she received it but not marked as such (maybe?). She did say none of it was classified, which was a lie/error depending on how you want to classify it. But I think her corrected statement that none of it was marked classified when she got it was correct. Not sure what you are referring to w/ subpoena.
I don't like Hilliary but I'm more worked up about this about the double-standard. It's unbelievable to me that the Office of Security at State would allow this situation, and worse, give her attorney to keep the thumb drives in. They should all be out of a job.
Totally understand and respect where you're coming from. That's a larger issue I won't challenge (nor would I have the knowledge or desire to do so).
I don't like Hilliary but I'm more worked up about this about the double-standard. It's unbelievable to me that the Office of Security at State would allow this situation, and worse, give her attorney to keep the thumb drives in. They should all be out of a job.
Meh. You also called her a traitor for influence peddling despite no evidence of influence peddling whatsoever.
I don't like Hilliary but I'm more worked up about this about the double-standard. It's unbelievable to me that the Office of Security at State would allow this situation, and worse, give her attorney to keep the thumb drives in. They should all be out of a job.
The onus is on the person with the clearance.
Quote:
My passion about this subject is actually more related to my own personal experience as a USG employee with a secret clearance.
I don't like Hilliary but I'm more worked up about this about the double-standard. It's unbelievable to me that the Office of Security at State would allow this situation, and worse, give her attorney to keep the thumb drives in. They should all be out of a job.
Actually that I don't get at all. Even if HRC was truthful, David Kendall should have been immediately put in jail. He was holding material that the State definitely marked classified and we know this because they were releasing redacted material contemporaneous with Kendall possessing copies of it. AFAIK he had zero security clearance.
Kendall has TS/SCI clearance. Boom.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12446796 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
My passion about this subject is actually more related to my own personal experience as a USG employee with a secret clearance.
I don't like Hilliary but I'm more worked up about this about the double-standard. It's unbelievable to me that the Office of Security at State would allow this situation, and worse, give her attorney to keep the thumb drives in. They should all be out of a job.
Actually that I don't get at all. Even if HRC was truthful, David Kendall should have been immediately put in jail. He was holding material that the State definitely marked classified and we know this because they were releasing redacted material contemporaneous with Kendall possessing copies of it. AFAIK he had zero security clearance.
Kendall has TS/SCI clearance. Boom. Link - ( New Window )
Yes, I really do. Tell me the opposite story. The foreign minister of Terrorismstan calls up who in this fantasy? Bill (who expressly agreed not to solicit funds)? Or Hillary? Or Hillary calls up Terrorismstan and says "I HRC will approve the arms shipment if you give my husband's charity some money". It's fantasy man. Too many moving parts for "strings attached" deals. Again, you're fabricating from no where some grand conspiracy of corruption and treason by a sitting SOS and former president where the payoff is ... money for HIV/AIDS patients, disaster relief, poor people in Africa etc. It's just bizarre man.
Moreover, I think it's galling that you'd call someone a traitor to her country based on no evidence whatsoever. Just your suspicion.
12/2008 MOU - ( New Window )
State Department has an Office of General Counsel (as do all USG agencies). Hillary felt the need to give her lawyer this info. It's up to the investigators to determine if that was appropriate. Clearly State thought it was OK.
The info that the government put in a government safe in his office? Are you just fishing for a problem at this point?
Quote:
Okay then maybe he shouldn't be in jail? Was he entitled to hold the info?
The info that the government put in a government safe in his office? Are you just fishing for a problem at this point?
Most of the contributions were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations.
The agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels.
...
Foreign governments and individuals are prohibited from giving money to U.S. political candidates, to prevent outside influence over national leaders. But the foundation has given donors a way to potentially gain favor with the Clintons outside the traditional political limits.
In a presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton would be likely to showcase her foreign-policy expertise, yet the foundation’s ongoing reliance on foreign governments’ support opens a potential line of attack for Republicans eager to question her independence as secretary of state and as a possible president.
At the VERY LEAST, it raises another example of a serious lack of judgement on her part.
Assuming they are innocent - like you do - why do they take these risks?
Foreign governments gave millions to foundation while Clinton was at State Dept. - ( New Window )
And even some Democrats with ties to Clinton have become quietly uncomfortable with the foundation stories.
Looking to signal they would stop collecting foreign donations if Clinton runs for president, the foundation said in another unsigned foundation statement last week said that, "should Secretary Clinton decide to run for office, we will continue to ensure the foundation's policies and practices regarding support from international partners are appropriate, just as we did when she served as secretary of state."
CNN: Clinton Foundation: 2010 donation broke Obama administration agreement - ( New Window )
There are ethics rules (see my links above). You can get waivers.
My guess is that her continuing to receive donations after becoming Secretary even shocked the Administration, and as the two article allude to, she had to agree to knock it off.
Assume Deej is right and I'm just a conservative nut looking for hidden ghosts and conspiracies that don't exist. Say I'm 100 percent wrong about the influence pedaling.
But the Foundation's ties to foreign countries/companies COMBINED with her decision to use a non-USG server (not just e-mail but here own server) opens her up to the obvious charges that she is hiding dirty business.
Optically, it looks terrible. If she is innocent, why do these things? She was a shoe-in for the Democratic nomination and likely the next president (still might). But why take these risks?
Quote:
Rarely, if ever, has a potential commander in chief been so closely associated with an organization that has solicited financial support from foreign governments. Clinton formally joined the foundation in 2013 after leaving the State Department, and the organization was renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
I dont agree. I dont even think the Washington Post has a basis to make that statement. Just look at the Bush family for god's sake. I think there are a lot more questions that should be raised about how GWB was running Arbusto/Spectrum 7/Harken in the 1980s when his dad was VP and about to run for President, and especially when the Saudis owned a big piece of it. And how Harken got offshore drilling contracts from Baharain in 1990 despite no international experience and no offshore experience. GHWB was a "member" (I think that means partner) in the Carlyle Group in his 70s and traveled to the Middle East and Asia on behalf of the CG while GWB was running for president. After 9/11 the WSJ had to report this gem: "George H.W. Bush, the father of President Bush, works for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group, an international consulting firm" and that Poppy got the bin laden family to invest millions with the CG.
Does this make the Bush family dirty or influence peddlers? I cant say that because I dont go making baseless accusations against people. But it certainly looks a lot worse than the CHARITABLE EFFORTS that are garnering the Clintons the evidence-free recriminations seen here. If you're going to pick on the Clintons, why do it with (1) no evidence and (2) with regards to their charity which anyone with half a brain can see is doing good work. But I guess if you think the Clintons are scum, then even their charitable efforts are scum.
Now that all said, she isn't the only one who should be in trouble. A whole bunch of USG employees should be fired and arrested.
Reluctant to chime in until all is known. But there seems to be somethings that appear to be apparent as I understand it. State department has 2 separate systems by which info. is electronically archived and communicated.
First, unclassified server (state personnel refer to it as "low side" communication) which may contain sensitive (SBU) info. but not classified. This is the stuff that can be communicated via email. It doesn't appear that a .gov is required. Also permitted on home computer but once done must be removed (scrubbed not just deleted?) Just because something is not classified doesn't mean it's should be subject to public distribution hense rules on SBU. For the most part, this is why 300 of the latest batch of emails were redacted and NOW classified as confidential.
The second is the secured server which contains classified info. and can only be distributed through a secured network (state refers to it as "high side" communication); it can't be directly emailed. So if the info. is correctly coded when received and put on the right server it should never be in anyone's email account .gov or otherwise unless someone has purposely mis-handled.
As to the Top Secret info., I believe there has been 2 emails reference. Would appear that State and Intel. are not in agreement; state contending info. not received as secret nor should it be. As such placed on unclassified server and eventually ended up being emailed to HRC. Since not all emails had been reviewed and because of the dispute, the FBI was asked to check out HRC computer to insure no further leakage.
This appears to be where we are now (at least what has been publicly made available). Perhaps I've overlooked something, if so would be interested to know. Just my opinion but maybe should wait to see how this plays out before we take out the pitchforks. Sorry this got long.
Link - ( New Window )
Sounds like VP candidate material.
Sounds like VP candidate material.
For once Trump is right.
Donald Trump openly boasts that he donates to politicians so he can exact favors from them after they reach office.
He did so for Jeb Bush in 1998, holding a high-dollar fundraiser for the gubernatorial candidate in Trump Tower and shelling out $50,000 to the Florida Republican Party. But when Bush took office in 1999, Trump didn't get the political help he needed to make his casino dreams a reality in the Sunshine State.
Instead, Bush maintained his hardline stance against gambling in the state, delivering a death blow to Trump's hopes of building out a multi-million dollar casino endeavor with the Seminole Tribe of Florida and prompting him to abandon those plans.
Link - ( New Window )
the United States? Is Barack Obama a Christian in his opinion. He will be asked and how he answers IMO will determine his ceiling
So will the religious which is total hypocrisy too.
My facebook page has plenty of loony right winged people focused on mostly batshit crazy stuff.
Unfortunately we are left with a binary decision here
Link - ( New Window )
Agree on the self inflicted part. However, I dont get people with their panties in a bunch over HRC lying about never sending/receiving classified info because things were subsequently marked classified. Do people have no conception of time? If I say today that the Eagles have never won a Super Bowl, and then they (god forbid) win a Super Bowl next season, does that render my statement a lie? Of course not. Similarly, HRC's statement that she didnt send/receive classified material was not dishonest when made IF docs are later deemed classified.
Look, the private email server was allowed. It was stupid, and Im glad they changed the rule. But I think beyond that, the real problem here is the misclassification of documents. If docs are top secret but are only deemed top secret years later, what's the point?
Quote:
even in a relatively sympathetic take, it goes through some of these issues and explains how the facts contradict many of her assertions, specifically her sending material that was subsequently classified (it wasn't marked classified, of course, because she was the originator of the information, but it concerned materials so sensitive that some of them were blacked out in their entirety). And again, the operative feature of this entire story is that the wound is self-inflicted. Link - ( New Window )
Agree on the self inflicted part. However, I dont get people with their panties in a bunch over HRC lying about never sending/receiving classified info because things were subsequently marked classified. Do people have no conception of time? If I say today that the Eagles have never won a Super Bowl, and then they (god forbid) win a Super Bowl next season, does that render my statement a lie? Of course not. Similarly, HRC's statement that she didnt send/receive classified material was not dishonest when made IF docs are later deemed classified.
Look, the private email server was allowed. It was stupid, and Im glad they changed the rule. But I think beyond that, the real problem here is the misclassification of documents. If docs are top secret but are only deemed top secret years later, what's the point?
I think the point is that as she both wrote and sent the e-mails before anyone at State could vet them and any determination could be made as to whether they were classified or not. The fact is that at least some of these documents SHOULD have been deemed classified when they sent but the internal security system was systematically bypassed. Yes, you can say overclassification goes on, but that doesn't justify bypassing the system when you are SOS and clearly dealing with information as part of your job that's legitimately classified. That's the problem with your Eagles (ugh) analogy. What if they really WON the SB way back when?
I'll let the FBI and the IGs sort out the legalities, but if nothing else it reflects negligence and incompetence with regards to national security.
The second point and the more troubling one is the notion that someone removed the classified markings. That's not something that happens by accident, certainly not multiple times. This almost certainly happened at someone's direction. Was it Hillary? Was it an underling acting on her behalf? She is smart enough that this particular charge probably won't be lain on her doorstep, but it probably gets close enough to seriously dent her reputation for honesty.
The second point and the more troubling one is the notion that someone removed the classified markings. That's not something that happens by accident, certainly not multiple times. This almost certainly happened at someone's direction. Was it Hillary? Was it an underling acting on her behalf? She is smart enough that this particular charge probably won't be lain on her doorstep, but it probably gets close enough to seriously dent her reputation for honesty.
If someone removed the markings I'd think that's clear criminality. Only question is the identity of the criminal(s).
Quote:
The second point and the more troubling one is the notion that someone removed the classified markings. That's not something that happens by accident, certainly not multiple times. This almost certainly happened at someone's direction. Was it Hillary? Was it an underling acting on her behalf? She is smart enough that this particular charge probably won't be lain on her doorstep, but it probably gets close enough to seriously dent her reputation for honesty.
If someone removed the markings I'd think that's clear criminality. Only question is the identity of the criminal(s).
I agree. And if Hillary had someone do that, throw the book at her. That's ridiculous.
I know someone mentioned removing markings a week or two ago. Anyone have a reputable source on this?
Quote:
In comment 12448757 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
The second point and the more troubling one is the notion that someone removed the classified markings. That's not something that happens by accident, certainly not multiple times. This almost certainly happened at someone's direction. Was it Hillary? Was it an underling acting on her behalf? She is smart enough that this particular charge probably won't be lain on her doorstep, but it probably gets close enough to seriously dent her reputation for honesty.
If someone removed the markings I'd think that's clear criminality. Only question is the identity of the criminal(s).
I agree. And if Hillary had someone do that, throw the book at her. That's ridiculous.
I know someone mentioned removing markings a week or two ago. Anyone have a reputable source on this?
For previously classified information there is no innocent explanation for them ending up on a server without markings. If there was no previously classified information so be it, but if there was signals intelligence and such it almost certainly classified at the time of dissemination.
For previously classified information there is no innocent explanation for them ending up on a server without markings. If there was no previously classified information so be it, but if there was signals intelligence and such it almost certainly classified at the time of dissemination.
Depends on what the SI was. If it was a formal SI report or a satellite image then sure, everyone seeing it should have known. If it was an assessment based on SI or sat images (e.g. "the boat put to sea"), it should still be marked Top Secret //SI/TK. But if it wasnt marked as such, seeing those 5 words doesnt immediately suggest the source. We could know that the boat put to see based on satellite images, intercepting a call, or just looking at a website that tracks commercial vessel movement.
Apparently non-news people at Fox News like Napolitano and Doocy misunderstood an IG report as meaning that because docs should have been marked SI/TK, it means that there was satellite images in her email. But the AP reported:
That AP piece goes on to suggest that the issue on one of the emails was parallel reporting -- a fact was communicated; it was known independently from highly classified sources but also not HC sources; on recent review, someone decided to mark the email classified.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
For previously classified information there is no innocent explanation for them ending up on a server without markings. If there was no previously classified information so be it, but if there was signals intelligence and such it almost certainly classified at the time of dissemination.
Depends on what the SI was. If it was a formal SI report or a satellite image then sure, everyone seeing it should have known. If it was an assessment based on SI or sat images (e.g. "the boat put to sea"), it should still be marked Top Secret //SI/TK. But if it wasnt marked as such, seeing those 5 words doesnt immediately suggest the source. We could know that the boat put to see based on satellite images, intercepting a call, or just looking at a website that tracks commercial vessel movement.
Apparently non-news people at Fox News like Napolitano and Doocy misunderstood an IG report as meaning that because docs should have been marked SI/TK, it means that there was satellite images in her email. But the AP reported:
Quote:
The officials who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity work in intelligence and other agencies. They wouldn't detail the contents of the emails because of ongoing questions about classification level. Clinton did not transmit the sensitive information herself, they said, and nothing in the emails she received makes clear reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or any other form of sensitive sourcing.
That AP piece goes on to suggest that the issue on one of the emails was parallel reporting -- a fact was communicated; it was known independently from highly classified sources but also not HC sources; on recent review, someone decided to mark the email classified. Link - ( New Window )
Today's WaPo article indicates that Clinton herself wrote and transmitted material that was later classified. The PBS link is from mid-August so things appear to have changed. What's the date on the AP story?
I noticed you side with Hillary, I was wondering if I could ask you a question?
We all know the Republican field is filled with a lot of putzes...
but is it discouraging that the Dems cant offer anyone credible to run against her. I make no bones that I am not a Hillary fan. And with her skeletons, you'd figure someone would be running that could take herdown, but the best they have is Bernie. Is this a bad sign to come for Dems?
It's not good for the party or country that no one is running against her though. I think choice is good, and I dont consider Bernie Sanders a credible choice. If he is the nominee, there are Republican candidates I'd look at voting for. I wish some of the Dem governors were running, but they decided not to so far.
Hillary isnt entitled to my vote in the primary. I voted for her over Obama (and a lot of my concerns are the ones Republicans raised -- experience, too hopey-changey, aloof). I dont mind voting for her again. If we had a candidate I liked better, I'd vote for that person.
Not just governors. Although he's a former governor, if it was Joe Manchin vs. Trump I vote Manchin.
Environmental concerns tend not to drive dem party voting. However, a died in the wool coal/crude guy may struggle going forward. Take me for example -- I've NEVER thought much about environmental stuff. But I'm increasingly starting to believe that is is a massive issue we need to look at ASAP. The warnings from scientists are just too dire. Moreover, a healthy subset of the dem side money (particularly left coast $$) is more focused on environmental stuff. One guy, Tom Steyer, is handing out millions to try to stop Keystone (which seems to me like the wrong fight).
I would never vote for the person who "negotiated" that cluster fuck of a deal.
Quote:
much stronger candidate than in '04
I would never vote for the person who "negotiated" that cluster fuck of a deal.
You really think he's a stronger candidate HH? I don't mean it sarcastically, but he retains most of the negatives he used to have and adds in his term as Secretary of State where he had the misfortune to be in office when a number of bad things happened. Rightly or wrongly they will be imputed at least in part to him.
I've heard great things about Hickenlooper (CO) but I dont know a lot about him. And part of me thinks Cuomo (NY) could do a decent job, even though he's not my kind of candidate (I just think he's dumb). Tom Wolf (PA) is a guy I dont know a lot about but he gets some buzz.
I do think there is something to the notion of having someone who actually ran a real, non-political business in charge. Bloomberg was a good mayor because of the nitty gritty stuff -- like getting lots sold and back on the tax roll. Wolf was a business owner too, before selling to a PE firm.
Wolf has been a mixed bag so far. His biggest knock here so far has been his lack of support for local businesses and no strong plan to build the PA economy through local business.
"Do not balance the budget on the backs of small businesses," Lewis said. "That is all we're asking."
Wolf's spending plan features an increase in the state's personal income tax from 3.07 percent to 3.7 percent, an increase in sales tax from 6 percent to 6.6 percent and more than $3 billion in property tax relief. The governor vetoed a Republican-passed no-tax-increase budget on the June 30 deadline, and broad-based tax hikes have been the center of negotiations with the governor since then."
http://www.pennlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/07/business_leaders.html
Wolf is all about taxing the "rich", but small local businesses should not be part of that.
Same thing nationally. The more you tax businesses (small or larger), the less likely they are to thrive in the economy or hire more employees. It's counter productive to what your original purpose is.
It's almost like they raise taxes to fund the unemployed that are unemployed BECAUSE they raised taxes.
I've heard great things about Hickenlooper (CO) but I dont know a lot about him. And part of me thinks Cuomo (NY) could do a decent job, even though he's not my kind of candidate (I just think he's dumb). Tom Wolf (PA) is a guy I dont know a lot about but he gets some buzz.
I do think there is something to the notion of having someone who actually ran a real, non-political business in charge. Bloomberg was a good mayor because of the nitty gritty stuff -- like getting lots sold and back on the tax roll. Wolf was a business owner too, before selling to a PE firm.
There are a few things I don't particularly like about Hickenlooper but he wouldn't be a terrible candidate. Not sure if he's ready for prime time but you never know. And if the Republican nominee was Donald Trump I'd pull the lever for Hickenlooper in a heartbeat. Wolf's CV as a politician is pretty light but his resume prior to politics is relatively impressive. Same deal. If the Republican candidate is shitty enough I would contemplate. Cuomo I don't care for, less for his ideology than because he comes across as a prick.
Hell, so would I. He was the best administrator in the NYC Mayor's position in my lifetime. And the city was lucky to have him and Giuliani in the order they served. If only Bloomberg could get over his nanny state obsessions.
Sorry, I don't feel your pain. Any New Jersey resident who makes more than 40k (single) or 80k (married/Joint) is in a higher tax bracket (although the rate on the first 20k is zero). And Christie gets constantly vilified for vetoing legislation to take the rates even higher. On top of that, we pay a 7% sales tax.
It's almost like they raise taxes to fund the unemployed that are unemployed BECAUSE they raised taxes.
This is actually debatable. Small movements in income/profit related taxes probably have no practical impact on decisions to expand etc. Much more relevant is stuff like having to cover payroll tax and health insurance for a new employee on top of wages.
But putting tax issues aside (Im unimpressed by pols who push tax cuts without paying for them). There is just a mindboggling amount of regulation applicable to businesses. But regulated and unregulated businesses. Indeed, established firms now use it as a weapon; regulation has become a huge barrier to entry. No one talks about it seriously, but I'd like to see someone hatchet down the regs.
Quote:
I'd vote Bloomberg over Hillary. The guy is just ultra competent.
Hell, so would I. He was the best administrator in the NYC Mayor's position in my lifetime. And the city was lucky to have him and Giuliani in the order they served. If only Bloomberg could get over his nanny state obsessions.
I dont think you saying that you'd vote for someone over Hillary is a terribly useful datapoint.
Giuliani got a lot of credit for shit that he wasnt responsible for. Crime was down everywhere; Rudy didnt take the lead out of gasoline. And he didnt cause the Clinton era economic boom, which in particular enriched NY b/c of the bank/legal work. He was a walking, talking piece of shit. Though he performed very well on/after Sept. 11.
Quote:
In comment 12449151 Deej said:
Quote:
I'd vote Bloomberg over Hillary. The guy is just ultra competent.
Hell, so would I. He was the best administrator in the NYC Mayor's position in my lifetime. And the city was lucky to have him and Giuliani in the order they served. If only Bloomberg could get over his nanny state obsessions.
I dont think you saying that you'd vote for someone over Hillary is a terribly useful datapoint.
Giuliani got a lot of credit for shit that he wasnt responsible for. Crime was down everywhere; Rudy didnt take the lead out of gasoline. And he didnt cause the Clinton era economic boom, which in particular enriched NY b/c of the bank/legal work. He was a walking, talking piece of shit. Though he performed very well on/after Sept. 11.
C'mon, NYC under Guiliani undoubtedly benefited from a national decline in crime but the difference between the city at the beginning of his tenure and at the end was huge, and other cities in the Northeast saw little or no comparable improvements (and in some cases actually declined).
Quote:
In comment 12449151 Deej said:
Quote:
I'd vote Bloomberg over Hillary. The guy is just ultra competent.
Hell, so would I. He was the best administrator in the NYC Mayor's position in my lifetime. And the city was lucky to have him and Giuliani in the order they served. If only Bloomberg could get over his nanny state obsessions.
I dont think you saying that you'd vote for someone over Hillary is a terribly useful datapoint.
Giuliani got a lot of credit for shit that he wasnt responsible for. Crime was down everywhere; Rudy didnt take the lead out of gasoline. And he didnt cause the Clinton era economic boom, which in particular enriched NY b/c of the bank/legal work. He was a walking, talking piece of shit. Though he performed very well on/after Sept. 11.
Yes there was a national trend. But having worked in the city during Koch, Dinkins and Giuliani administrations I can tell you with certainty that he made a difference. All you had to do is walk from the PA Bus Terminal to the Flatiron District on a daily basis and drive a car around the city during that time to know that it was a lot more than a national trend.
Quote:
In comment 12449056 Headhunter said:
Quote:
much stronger candidate than in '04
I would never vote for the person who "negotiated" that cluster fuck of a deal.
You really think he's a stronger candidate HH? I don't mean it sarcastically, but he retains most of the negatives he used to have and adds in his term as Secretary of State where he had the misfortune to be in office when a number of bad things happened. Rightly or wrongly they will be imputed at least in part to him.
I wouldn't want either one, but heck yeah John Kerry over Hillary. Almost zero baggage, trustworthy (as far a politician can be), and I think a decent man.
Quote:
In comment 12449267 njm said:
Quote:
In comment 12449151 Deej said:
Quote:
I'd vote Bloomberg over Hillary. The guy is just ultra competent.
Hell, so would I. He was the best administrator in the NYC Mayor's position in my lifetime. And the city was lucky to have him and Giuliani in the order they served. If only Bloomberg could get over his nanny state obsessions.
I dont think you saying that you'd vote for someone over Hillary is a terribly useful datapoint.
Giuliani got a lot of credit for shit that he wasnt responsible for. Crime was down everywhere; Rudy didnt take the lead out of gasoline. And he didnt cause the Clinton era economic boom, which in particular enriched NY b/c of the bank/legal work. He was a walking, talking piece of shit. Though he performed very well on/after Sept. 11.
Yes there was a national trend. But having worked in the city during Koch, Dinkins and Giuliani administrations I can tell you with certainty that he made a difference. All you had to do is walk from the PA Bus Terminal to the Flatiron District on a daily basis and drive a car around the city during that time to know that it was a lot more than a national trend.
Talk about revisionist history, holy denial Batman. Giuliani didn't clean up NYC? Giuliani started the trend (with help from a good economy).
The city was undoubtedly safer and cleaner after Rudy. New York's comparative improvements were better than most every other city. New York also had more room to improve and had economic advantages other cities lacked. It's easy to say that because it happened on his watch, he's responsible for it. I think that the swing in crime rates nationwide over that period makes it too hard to credit his efforts. It was literally a night and day change.
The city was undoubtedly safer and cleaner after Rudy. New York's comparative improvements were better than most every other city. New York also had more room to improve and had economic advantages other cities lacked. It's easy to say that because it happened on his watch, he's responsible for it. I think that the swing in crime rates nationwide over that period makes it too hard to credit his efforts. It was literally a night and day change.
Economists and social scientists love to crap on Rudy's record, but did Philly, did Baltimore, did the major cities in New Jersey (presumably bearing comparable advantages to the Big Apple) see comparable improvements in quality of life in the same timeframe? And individual neighborhoods were turned around by concerted action on the City's part. I'm not an unequivocal fan, I draw the line between liberty and security quite differently than does Rudy, but I won't deny him his achievement.
Immigration Issue Can Ensure Dem Dominance - Michael Kazin, Politico
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/how-trump-can-ensure-democratic-dominance-for-generations-213102
Article #4:
The Dems' Illegal Immigration Problem - Noah Rothman, Commentary
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/09/01/the-left-is-not-serious-about-border-enforcement/
Just wild.
That's the whole evidence for the weak-kneed lefties on immigration, in a piece titled "The Left Is Not Serious About Border Enforcement". What a fucking joke.
Its way too early to judge Wolf on his job, but I have been very meh about what he has done and wants to do.
That actually may be the most shocking thing on the Dem side. Other than early Warren talk (blech), there has been no Draft XXX talk that I've heard of. I guess Biden, but that's not really a movement. It's just Biden (also blech).
Its way too early to judge Wolf on his job, but I have been very meh about what he has done and wants to do.
I don't think he can do what he wants (which is very progressive ) with the current lineup in Harrisburg. Not without the current representation being elected out.
Tom Cotten of La. is a great example. He's 38, bright, articulate and just to the left of Atilla the Hun.
This was supposed to be the year where the GOP had all these candidates in reserve. Hasnt panned out so far, and non-benchers like Trump and Carson are garnering half the support.
What's interesting is that Hillary cleared the field so hard, so early, that there was never even a discussion of the dem bench.
Warren has repeatedly said she’s not running for president in 2016 and in August, disavowed Ready for Warren via her lawyer. “This letter serves as a formal disavowal of the organization and its activity,” Warren’s attorney wrote to the Federal Election Commission. “The Senator has not, and does not, explicitly or implicitly, authorize, endorse, or otherwise approve of the organization’s activities.”
When asked about the group that month, Lacey Rose, the senator’s press secretary, said only, “Senator Warren does not support this effort.”
Link - ( New Window )
Especially if Trump vs. Bush spins out of control; Carson will look like the voice of calm and reason.
Yahoo: Ben Carson on the issues: Inside the mind of the retired neurosurgeon surging in polls, rivaling Trump - ( New Window )
The real point here is that every email she is receiving is going through that unsafe server. So, if and when a classified e-mail is sent to her, it IS going to that server.
She said she was using just one e-mail, so where did the classified e-mails get sent to? Is someone going to tell me that in her position as Secretary, she never sent or received a classified e-mail? Really?
The real point here is that every email she is receiving is going through that unsafe server. So, if and when a classified e-mail is sent to her, it IS going to that server.
She said she was using just one e-mail, so where did the classified e-mails get sent to? Is someone going to tell me that in her position as Secretary, she never sent or received a classified e-mail? Really?
Except marked classified info isnt emailed. There is a seperate system
The real point here is that every email she is receiving is going through that unsafe server. So, if and when a classified e-mail is sent to her, it IS going to that server.
She said she was using just one e-mail, so where did the classified e-mails get sent to? Is someone going to tell me that in her position as Secretary, she never sent or received a classified e-mail? Really?
Except marked classified info isnt emailed. There is a separate system for transmission of classified material.
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
And because Cotton served in OIF I have a great deal more sympathy for his anti-Iranian animus than I do for random right winger mugging for the camera.
I'd do it if I was wrapped up in this, whether I knew anything or not. Not good optically for HRC though.
Quote:
she says that the e-mails in question were not "marked" classified at that time.
The real point here is that every email she is receiving is going through that unsafe server. So, if and when a classified e-mail is sent to her, it IS going to that server.
She said she was using just one e-mail, so where did the classified e-mails get sent to? Is someone going to tell me that in her position as Secretary, she never sent or received a classified e-mail? Really?
Except marked classified info isnt emailed. There is a separate system for transmission of classified material.
Eric posted yesterday at 3:29; short explanation of two systems. Classified info can only be transmitted via secured server and network. Wish I could give better explanation, but actual details are classified :)
However, one of the emails released from Jake Sullivan to HRC may clear this up for you. HRC wanted a transcript of a public statement made by Tony Blair. Since public not secret. However in error it was archived on the secured server. Sullivan advised couldn't send until corrected; no physically way to email.
He is hawkish but the bulk of his foreign policy stuff people have found objectionable has been specific to Iran.
Again, it doesn't matter if the info was marked classified or not (and the IG ones still has classified sub-markings).
Interestingly what came out this week is the British knew her system was compromised.
Problem is that won't matter to the FBI if they take this seriously. Some State Department employees had better start looking out for themselves or they are going to jail.
Again, given the very nature of her position, almost all intergovernmental and intragovernmental correspondence would have been considered classified (whether marked or unmarked).
She simply could not have done her job otherwise.
This whole debate has become downright silly. She broke the law. Why do you think she and her staff have destroyed the evidence (servers and blackberries)?
Guiliani said he has found 12 federal statutes that she has APPEARED (his word) to have violated.
Quote:
is just Cheney on steroids. Am I wrong?
He is hawkish but the bulk of his foreign policy stuff people have found objectionable has been specific to Iran.
It goes well beyond that. He has expressed positioned himself as Bush's heir on foreign policy. With McCain's hair-trigger impulse to use force.
Cant say I've read a ton about him though.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
she says that the e-mails in question were not "marked" classified at that time.
The real point here is that every email she is receiving is going through that unsafe server. So, if and when a classified e-mail is sent to her, it IS going to that server.
She said she was using just one e-mail, so where did the classified e-mails get sent to? Is someone going to tell me that in her position as Secretary, she never sent or received a classified e-mail? Really?
Except marked classified info isnt emailed. There is a seperate system
If we wanted to receive classified (Confidential or Secret), we had to go to a secure room within the building on a SIPRNet system (see link below).
You were not allowed to even take your phones, electronic devices, and thumb drives into that room.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRNet - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12449859 EricJ said:
Quote:
she says that the e-mails in question were not "marked" classified at that time.
The real point here is that every email she is receiving is going through that unsafe server. So, if and when a classified e-mail is sent to her, it IS going to that server.
She said she was using just one e-mail, so where did the classified e-mails get sent to? Is someone going to tell me that in her position as Secretary, she never sent or received a classified e-mail? Really?
Except marked classified info isnt emailed. There is a seperate system
even if we get away from parsing English, according to that link, at least 6 emails that she sent from that account were redacted completely because the information, if got it, would be substantially harmful to national security. Can you honestly, deep down honest, say that she was acting responsibly and putting a priority on the country's interest?
What did the emails say?
Deej, with all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about here. I am not making up the rules and regulations. Even the legal analysts have pointed out she is simply parsing her words with that. She is responsible for protecting all classified material whether marked or unmarked. Period. And again, almost every e-mail correspondence she would have had with a foreign government and many internal ones would have automatically been considered classified. That's why so much stuff that even her staff sorted through has already had to be redacted.
You don't have to believe me.
Again, it doesn't matter if the info was marked classified or not (and the IG ones still has classified sub-markings).
Interestingly what came out this week is the British knew her system was compromised.
Eric as noted in a post above I tried to explain this yesterday. The unclassified server which permits emails includes sensitive but unclassified (SBU). This is for the most part the reason why emails are redacted and NOW are marked confidential. It is also why State indicated info was not classified at the time.
so i dont know what is in the email. not sure how I can respond. And a google news search for [substantially harmful to national security] turns up nothing. do you have a link?
Quote:
.
so i dont know what is in the email. not sure how I can respond. And a google news search for [substantially harmful to national security] turns up nothing. do you have a link?
That is not consistent with what I've read.
It's the fact that the State Department allowed it. Hillary was the Secretary of State, but unless everyone was afraid to death of her, some people have put their careers on the line here.
The Office of Security at State simply should have put the kibosh on all this from the start. It's incredible that this was even allowed to happen.
I don't think everyone fully understand the magnitude of the secrets (Russia, China, Iran, etc) that have been exposed. People's lives may have been put at risk.
So that says "Large portions of those e-mails were redacted before their release, on the argument that their publication could harm national security." That is so open ended I dont know what to make of it. If she called Angela Merkl "unfuckable" in an email, that could harm national security.
Quote:
its in Dune's link above. And I did misspeak. It was redacted completely, it was "large portions were redacted". Mea culpa there.
So that says "Large portions of those e-mails were redacted before their release, on the argument that their publication could harm national security." That is so open ended I dont know what to make of it. If she called Angela Merkl "unfuckable" in an email, that could harm national security.
State made the categorization...it could be launch codes as much as Merkel commentary. I should think that the content or whether it's meh harmful or serious harmful is not up to you or I. But we differ in that I think releasing "harmful" is sufficient to say it was an irresponsible and...harmful? Action.
(1) She is responsible for classified material whether marked or unmarked. Period. There is no question. Think of it logically...just because something is secret but unmarked, it does not mean it must not be protected.
(2) Hillary had Original Classification Authority (OCA). Not many USG employees have this authority. It means she had the power to self-classify documents, including up to TOP SECRET. She was given this authority because she needed it to do her job. Most USG employees with security clearance only have Derivative Classification Authority (use what other people have already classified).
(3) Again, most of her correspondence would have been considered classified simply by its very nature. If the German Foreign Secretary sent her an e-mail about Russian sanctions over the Ukraine, that would have been considered classified. Everyone knows that. She knows that. That's why the stuff you are seeing has been redacted.
If you question was, criminality aside, isnt it irresponsible to have stuff on a private email server that COULD be deemed confidential on re-review, I'd say yeah it's a problem. I dont know if steps were taken to ameliorate any security concerns that would make it more responsible. It seems so odd to me that you'd do private server emails that I feel like Im missing part of the story. But a lot of people just jump to conclusions and fill in blanks on this story without knowledge. So as I've said, I'll waith until an actual investigation is complete to draw conclusions. I dont know why that is such a repugnant position.
Again mentioned in my post of yesterday. When controversy first came up, about the 2 "top secret emails" state disputed. But since there was a disagreement and not all emails had been reviewed, FBI was asked to check out server to make sure it had appropriate security. Wanted to assess damage if any.
Biden or Warren or someone else has to jump in at this point. This is out of her hands now as long as there isn't White House pressure to stop the investigation (I'm not sure Obama would risk that for HRC at this point).
I don't think this is all doom and gloom for the Democrats. The Trump campaign really has screwed the Republicans.
This is going to be a really weird election.
(1) She is responsible for classified material whether marked or unmarked. Period. There is no question. Think of it logically...just because something is secret but unmarked, it does not mean it must not be protected.
That logic doesnt make sense to me. IF you get a document and dont know that it has classified material, and isnt marked classified, the DOJ can come by 5 years later and say it should have been classified and you therefore mishandled classified material? Go to jail now? How can you possibly know if you're complying with the law?
Essentially what you're saying is that every document must be handled as if it was classified, because, well you never know. So why is there any email at State? if everything is maybe classified?
2) Michael Bloomberg (if being Jewish isn't a deal-breaker).
If something is TOP SECRET or SECRET, it is obvious. It's not hard.
A confidential document could be more difficult. I've used this example before but that would be along the lines of "U.S. Ambassador to Japan Kennedy had a dinner conversation with Prime Minister Abe about the Japanese domestic political situation." But even that would be obviously considered sensitive to to an experienced USG employee. (And again, as I mentioned above, it's been pointed out that the IG documents that had their TOP SECRET markings removed at the top still had the clear sub-markings on them).
But to get back to my point. A TOP SECRET document would have things like, "Iranian political opposition report from the CIA". It doesn't matter if her staff or State wiped the markings from it...it's clearly classified and highly classified.
Beyond all the "official" cables, reports, etc., she knew her personal correspondence with foreign ministers and the NSA and other high-ranking officials (including the President) would be considered classified.
so i put [security expert hillary] into google news. First hit, from CBS:
...
Clinton's critics have focused on the unusual, home-brew email server Clinton used while in office and suggested that she should have known that secrets were improperly coursing through an unsecure system, leaving them easily hackable for foreign intelligence agencies. But to prove a crime, the government would have to demonstrate that Clinton or aides knew they were mishandling the information - not that she should have known.
A case would be possible if material emerges that is so sensitive Clinton must have known it was highly classified, whether marked or not, McAdoo said. But no such email has surfaced. And among the thousands of documents made public, nothing appears near the magnitude of the Top Secret material Petraeus and Deutch mishandled.
Link - ( New Window )
In any event, Im off to bed so I'll continue this in the AM.
It's the fact that the State Department allowed it. Hillary was the Secretary of State, but unless everyone was afraid to death of her, some people have put their careers on the line here.
The IG already found two TP documents.
But even if they didn't, as it states in the article, "A case would be possible if material emerges that is so sensitive Clinton must have known it was highly classified, whether marked or not, McAdoo said. But no such email has surfaced."
Unless she actually didn't do her job, there is no way this is true. She could not have done her job without receiving information electronically and she and her staff used an unsecure server, unsecure blackberries, and unsecure e-mail. Again, that's why so much has been redacted.
I feel like you aren't think about this logically. Do you honestly think she deleted 30,000 personal e-mails and then had the servers wiped and blackberries destroyed for no reason? She has changed her story every few weeks on this as soon as she has been caught in a fib.
I've made my case on this with you. We'll see what the FBI does. But she's broken the law. I listed the few links above you asked me where she has. (We haven't even talked about that she did not have the legal authority to wipe the server - it wasn't her property as soon as she was doing USG business on it. She also wasn't allowed to destroy it because there was a Congressional investigation...she could be charged with obstruction of justice).
In my job, if I get caught with a security violation, my Office of Security would not give a rats ass if knew the rules or not. That's why every year we took mandatory IT Security and regular Security training courses and had to sign that we accepted the responsibility to protect the information. In other words, their attitude was YOU DO KNOW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BECAUSE YOU WERE TAUGHT. Ignorance/forgetfulness of the rules would not have been any defense.
2) Michael Bloomberg (if being Jewish isn't a deal-breaker).
Warren isn't running. Posted this earlier from an MSNBC articule.
"Warren has repeatedly said she’s not running for president in 2016 and in August, disavowed Ready for Warren via her lawyer. “This letter serves as a formal disavowal of the organization and its activity,” Warren’s attorney wrote to the Federal Election Commission. “The Senator has not, and does not, explicitly or implicitly, authorize, endorse, or otherwise approve of the organization’s activities"
Also Bloomberg as said he would run if he thought he had a chance to win as an Independent. But impossible as an Independent so will not run.
When I left the USG, all my Secret documents had to be accounted for. I had to sign a separation agreement that I turned everything over and would not reveal anything. They inspected my safe. I had to undergo a mandatory debriefing.
What I can't still figure out too is how she was allowed to maintain the classified info on her system once she separated from the USG. It didn't belong to her. She was required by law to turn it in, but the State Department didn't insist that she did so.
Like I've said, a whole lot of people should be in trouble here. It's not just her.
You can argue about semantics all you want. She is unfit to be President and was likely unfit to be SoS.
In my job, if I get caught with a security violation, my Office of Security would not give a rats ass if knew the rules or not. That's why every year we took mandatory IT Security and regular Security training courses and had to sign that we accepted the responsibility to protect the information. In other words, their attitude was YOU DO KNOW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BECAUSE YOU WERE TAUGHT. Ignorance/forgetfulness of the rules would not have been any defense.
Your Security Office wouldn't care whether you "knew" it was classified and would likely have you fired, but I don't believe there would be enough to proceed with a criminal case against you. Plenty have been fired/reprimanded for mishandling classified material that *should* have been marked, but far fewer have been imprisoned for it.
I believe that's where you and Deej are talking past each other.
You are confused. She turned over the emails per the FOIA request pursuant to the Records Act. The DOJ investigation (still not clear whether it is criminal) is something else entirely. The only thing we know about that is that she did turn over the server recently.
Quote:
she surrendered. It really is unacceptable for her to be the decider re: which EMails were personal and which were not. I have never heard of a criminal investigation in which the suspect can selectively turn over evidence. A neutral 3rd party should have made those decisions.
You are confused. She turned over the emails per the FOIA request pursuant to the Records Act. The DOJ investigation (still not clear whether it is criminal) is something else entirely. The only thing we know about that is that she did turn over the server recently.
Once again, here's the conundrum based on yesterday's WaPo article. She WROTE and SENT e-mails from her private server that were later classified as Top Secret. There was no opportunity nor process to vet those communications before transmission. You seem to be saying there's carte blanche to end run the system if you complete the transmission before the safeguards have a chance to kick in.
Quote:
she surrendered. It really is unacceptable for her to be the decider re: which EMails were personal and which were not. I have never heard of a criminal investigation in which the suspect can selectively turn over evidence. A neutral 3rd party should have made those decisions.
You are confused. She turned over the emails per the FOIA request pursuant to the Records Act. The DOJ investigation (still not clear whether it is criminal) is something else entirely. The only thing we know about that is that she did turn over the server recently.
My understanding is that she DID NOT turn over approximately 30,000 e-mails that she and her representative, not any independent reviewer, deemed personal.
It's an issue because of what she did in the first place. The single account, the melding of business, personal, and personal business, the private-unsecure-stored-in-a-bathroom server were conscious decisions. It's the actions, not so much the story which is the problem. Although I do agree that her susbequent fabrications about her actions hurt her hugely as well
It will be interesting to see what the next poll shows, but its also worth noting that the ~15% Biden is pulling in almost entirely goes to Clinton when he's excluded, as well.
Quote:
and only to a degree her actions.
I suppose. The true answer to that will only likely come when (if) we find out how many of our national secrets China now possesses.
Don't you mean China, Russia, North Korea, Israel and probably France, Germany and the UK thrown in for good measure?
Who are you going to vote for, Eric? :)
Who are you going to vote for, Eric? :)
Nothing cones of this. That's a rather gigantic leap of faith.
All their info? I highly doubt it. But I'm sure it was a far easier target then most USG systems. And a pretty prominent politician as well.
I'm not sure why percentages matter. It's not like SoS material and Ashley Madison accounts are equivalent.
I couls be wrong, of course, depending on who the AM clients are.
In terms of # of pages probably. In terms of useful info, doubtful considering she was SoS. Unless you think she was just a useless figurehead?
*****************
xmeadowlander.... I'll probably be dead wrong, but I think Bush and HRC are both toast. I don't think it is about the money this time.
That is an easy conundrum to deal with. If she knew her emails contained classified info then it was improper to send them. However, if she knew info that was not classified, and then 5 years down the road someone said "well based on current developments it should now be classified" then it is not a rules violation. My understanding is that there is an aweful lot of after the fact designation of stuff that wasnt confidential (and a lot of variation among reviewers as to what should be confidential).
She also didnt turn over her taxes, her car insurance forms, and a half eaten birthday cake that said Hap- Bir- Bi- on it. What is your point?
Think of it this way. Lets say she used a state.gov email address for usual work emails. Would she have to turn over 30k emails on a private server that were not work related? Under what authority? The Federal Records Act speaks to records, not receptacles. Im a litigator. I sue some company about a deal gone wrong; do I get all their emails about that bad deal, or do I get all their emails about any topic at all?
She was not using the state department server. So, no matter how you spin it, there MUST HAVE been sensitive info that was exposed.
Regarding her personal e-mails. IMO, once she essentially setup a state department server in her house, than ALL e-mails flowing through that server should be made available for review.
Finally, the individual who setup the server in her house has just exercised his right to not speak under protection of the 5th amendment. WHY?
Because if you were an IT schmuck who had NOTHING to with the government would YOU want YOUR life to become a circus in front of Congress and the American public? I'd be taking the 5th so many times people would be throwing rocks at me, but at least I go back to my life and everyone forgets I existed
As for the first part of your post, I think you're ignoring the part in the process where, when she wants to talk about things that she thinks are classified, she doesnt send an email. She communicates securely. You're just getting at what Eric from BBI said, which is that effectively all her communications are inherently classified (a position that is simply irreconcilable with the fact that they just publicly released like 98-99% of that batch of 7000 emails).
As for the first part of your post, I think you're ignoring the part in the process where, when she wants to talk about things that she thinks are classified, she doesnt send an email. She communicates securely. You're just getting at what Eric from BBI said, which is that effectively all her communications are inherently classified (a position that is simply irreconcilable with the fact that they just publicly released like 98-99% of that batch of 7000 emails).
and why is the person who installed the server pleading the 5th? Because he fears he may end up dead if he speaks? What is the purpose of there was nothing wrong?
Quote:
She turned over the emails per the FOIA request pursuant to the Records Act.
My understanding is that she DID NOT turn over approximately 30,000 e-mails that she and her representative, not any independent reviewer, deemed personal.
Deej - To your 10:05. My point is that she did NOT turn over all her email pursuant to the request. There were roughly 30,000 that were NOT turned over.
Quote:
Once again, here's the conundrum based on yesterday's WaPo article. She WROTE and SENT e-mails from her private server that were later classified as Top Secret. There was no opportunity nor process to vet those communications before transmission. You seem to be saying there's carte blanche to end run the system if you complete the transmission before the safeguards have a chance to kick in.
That is an easy conundrum to deal with. If she knew her emails contained classified info then it was improper to send them. However, if she knew info that was not classified, and then 5 years down the road someone said "well based on current developments it should now be classified" then it is not a rules violation. My understanding is that there is an aweful lot of after the fact designation of stuff that wasnt confidential (and a lot of variation among reviewers as to what should be confidential).
Quote:
My understanding is that she DID NOT turn over approximately 30,000 e-mails that she and her representative, not any independent reviewer, deemed personal.
She also didnt turn over her taxes, her car insurance forms, and a half eaten birthday cake that said Hap- Bir- Bi- on it. What is your point?
Think of it this way. Lets say she used a state.gov email address for usual work emails. Would she have to turn over 30k emails on a private server that were not work related? Under what authority? The Federal Records Act speaks to records, not receptacles. Im a litigator. I sue some company about a deal gone wrong; do I get all their emails about that bad deal, or do I get all their emails about any topic at all?
On the other part, when you litigate this stuff, do you allow the person you want emails from to decide what to give you and what not? Assuming there is work and maybe some non-work material on their work computer? Is that person really the only one who makes the decision what to turn over and you have to accept that? I'm not a lawyer so I don't know. But as a lay person that seems dangerous. In HRC case, it's already been shown that some work emails contain a bit of personal "so how's the kids.." Did she include those as personal or work? And if she is turning stuff over under duress and then combing it first, would a reasonable person expect that she would not try to protect herself?
We need to test this,
I am not sure why you are asking that. My comment about someone ending up dead was of course sarcastic (because I did not think that BBI was a serious place) but the rest of it is absolutely possibility. Why is it so hard to believe that she may have been exchanging delicate information on an unsecured server?
Her own comments about this whole thing since the beginning has been inconsistent as well.
I am just waiting for Bernie Sanders to begin chiming in. My feeling is that the Democratic party (who is far more competent politically than the GOP) has instructed him to leave her alone.
Deej - To your 10:05. My point is that she did NOT turn over all her email pursuant to the request. There were roughly 30,000 that were NOT turned over.
That's an assertion of fact, not a point. I believe it is correct. Maybe Im dense, but what is my takeaway supposed to be from that fact?
Same here. Maybe it's the lawyer in me. I try not to read anything into people pleading the 5th. I wouldnt hold it against a criminal suspect who didnt testify.
Though remember that pleading the 5th is often just temporary. If this is just a geek who set up a server, then he cant get in trouble. I suspect DOJ is calling him, and they'll give him immunity.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Deej - To your 10:05. My point is that she did NOT turn over all her email pursuant to the request. There were roughly 30,000 that were NOT turned over.
That's an assertion of fact, not a point. I believe it is correct. Maybe Im dense, but what is my takeaway supposed to be from that fact?
That she didn't turn over 100% of he e-mails.
Link - ( New Window )
And when he runs as a 3rd party candidate he'll say: "When I signed that they were being nice to me and treating me fairly. Since they stopped doing that they can take their pledge and shove it. I'm going to run a separate campaign. And it will be great. Not low energy like all these stupid people I'm running against."
You hope so? Now what kind of lame statement is that? Really low energy and stupid. Now when I support someone I do it in a magnificent way. World class. Not low energy like that. By the way, what's your cell phone number?
It's troubling because your loyalty should be to country before party. On a more practical level, it makes no sense. Every republican candidate is saying that every other republican candidate, including the ones who havent declared, is fit to be president? Ben Carson is legit nuts. Christie and Paul are screaming at eachother over national security. People have dynastic concerns over Bush (how many here have said as much). Rick Perry is under indictment. But none of that matters -- they'll all lock in right now to support the GOP nominee?
That's a powerful endorsement right there. A blanket endorsement of any of the 16 candidates (and more could still join) made in September 2015. Real considered and heartfelt. Like the End User License Agreement of endorsements.
Link - ( New Window )
I am NOT a Rick Perry fan, but please. That indictment is nothing more than a testament to the wisdom and veracity of Frank Hogan.
Link - ( New Window )
i guess you don't remember the hastert rule which was that if a majority of republicans did not support a bill in the house it would never come up for a vote.
People can say its early all they want, I think Jeb is done. All the money in the world and the backing of the establishment still cant make up for the fact that Donald Trump has been utterly emasculating him daily. Thats a bigger problem than the Bush last name. He looks like Donald Trumps bitch and i dont know that he can come back from that.
People can say its early all they want, I think Jeb is done. All the money in the world and the backing of the establishment still cant make up for the fact that Donald Trump has been utterly emasculating him daily. Thats a bigger problem than the Bush last name. He looks like Donald Trumps bitch and i dont know that he can come back from that.
At what point do we start to get scared of the prospect of a Trump presidency? When you look beyond the entertainment, it's a scary prospect.
And I agree about Jeb. And for that, I am grateful to Donald Trump.
He just doesn't have his feet planted in YOUR reality. But it is a reality for his people.
Just like I cannot for the life of me understand what anybody sees in Hillary, you cannot see what Carson brings to the table because what he stands for is not what you want. I thought Hillary was strong enough to be SoS and that she was a good choice by Obama. She was for the most part. However her constant lies and coverups just leave me cold. I think these vastly out weigh her positives.
Ben Carson on why Obamacare is worse than 9/11: “Because 9/11 is an isolated incident. Things that are isolated issues as opposed to things that fundamentally change the United Sates of America and shift power from the people to the government. That is a huge shift. You have to take a long-term look at something that fundamentally changes the power structure of America.”
Ben Carson on the VA crisis: “I think what’s happening with the veterans is a gift from God to show us what happens when you take layers and layers of bureaucracy and place them between the patients and the health care provider. And if we can’t get it right, with the relatively small num¬ber of veterans, how in the world are you going to do it with the entire population?”
Ben Carson on Obama: When a colleague said the president “looks clean. Shirt’s white. The tie. He looks elegant,” Carson responded: “Like most psychopaths. That’s why they’re successful. That’s the way they look. They all look great.”
Ben Carson groups in gays with people who have sex with children and animals as groups that just need to STFU about marriage rights: “Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality. It doesn’t matter what they are. They don’t get to change the definition.”
Ben Carson’s reasoning on why being gay is a choice: “Because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight and when they come out, they’re gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question.” [after hearing this, Glenn Beck dubbed Carson a “lunatic” unfit for the presidency]
Ben Carson also sees Nazi Germany everywhere:
On progressives and the PC culture: “I mean, [our society is] very much like Nazi Germany. And I know you’re not supposed to say ‘Nazi Germany,’ but I don’t care about political correctness. You know, you had a government using its tools to intimidate the population. We now live in a society where people are afraid to say what they actually believe.”
On the IRS: “You know, we live in a Gestapo age, people don’t realize it.”
Ben Carson on the AP US History curriculum: “I think most people, when they finish that course, they’d be ready to go sign up for ISIS.”
Before the 2014 midterms, Carson said that if the GOP lost he couldn’t be sure “there will even be an election in 2016”. That is, he was warning that the Democrats would cancel the 2016 elections. When pressed, he explained: “Certainly there’s the potential because you have to recognize that we have a rapidly increasing national debt, a very unstable financial foundation, and you have all these things going on like the ISIS crisis that could very rapidly change things that are going on in our nation. And unless we begin to deal with these things in a comprehensive way and in a logical way there is no telling what could happen in just a couple of years.”
Ben Carson does not believe in the laws of war or war crime prosecutions, because of this stunning logic: “If you’re gonna have rules for war, you should just have a rule that says no war,” he said. “Other than that, we have to win.”
Ben Carson on Ray Rice’s wife: “Let’s not all jump on the bandwagon of demonizing this guy. He obviously has some real problems. And his wife obviously knows that because she subsequently married him. So they both need some help.”
So you're right section. Ben Carson's reality is not my reality.
I dont see the appeal, and ill just come out and say i think a lot of it is the fact that republicans love black people who play respectability politics because it makes them feel justified about a lot of their own sentiments. If that milwaukee sherrif they put on fox news every 2 minutes got in this race he would have his moments too. Carson going after black lives matter has won him many fans
Ben Carson on why Obamacare is worse than 9/11: “Because 9/11 is an isolated incident. Things that are isolated issues as opposed to things that fundamentally change the United Sates of America and shift power from the people to the government. That is a huge shift. You have to take a long-term look at something that fundamentally changes the power structure of America.”
Ben Carson on the VA crisis: “I think what’s happening with the veterans is a gift from God to show us what happens when you take layers and layers of bureaucracy and place them between the patients and the health care provider. And if we can’t get it right, with the relatively small num¬ber of veterans, how in the world are you going to do it with the entire population?”
Ben Carson on Obama: When a colleague said the president “looks clean. Shirt’s white. The tie. He looks elegant,” Carson responded: “Like most psychopaths. That’s why they’re successful. That’s the way they look. They all look great.”
Ben Carson groups in gays with people who have sex with children and animals as groups that just need to STFU about marriage rights: “Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality. It doesn’t matter what they are. They don’t get to change the definition.”
Ben Carson’s reasoning on why being gay is a choice: “Because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight and when they come out, they’re gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question.” [after hearing this, Glenn Beck dubbed Carson a “lunatic” unfit for the presidency]
Ben Carson also sees Nazi Germany everywhere:
On progressives and the PC culture: “I mean, [our society is] very much like Nazi Germany. And I know you’re not supposed to say ‘Nazi Germany,’ but I don’t care about political correctness. You know, you had a government using its tools to intimidate the population. We now live in a society where people are afraid to say what they actually believe.”
On the IRS: “You know, we live in a Gestapo age, people don’t realize it.”
Ben Carson on the AP US History curriculum: “I think most people, when they finish that course, they’d be ready to go sign up for ISIS.”
Before the 2014 midterms, Carson said that if the GOP lost he couldn’t be sure “there will even be an election in 2016”. That is, he was warning that the Democrats would cancel the 2016 elections. When pressed, he explained: “Certainly there’s the potential because you have to recognize that we have a rapidly increasing national debt, a very unstable financial foundation, and you have all these things going on like the ISIS crisis that could very rapidly change things that are going on in our nation. And unless we begin to deal with these things in a comprehensive way and in a logical way there is no telling what could happen in just a couple of years.”
Ben Carson does not believe in the laws of war or war crime prosecutions, because of this stunning logic: “If you’re gonna have rules for war, you should just have a rule that says no war,” he said. “Other than that, we have to win.”
Ben Carson on Ray Rice’s wife: “Let’s not all jump on the bandwagon of demonizing this guy. He obviously has some real problems. And his wife obviously knows that because she subsequently married him. So they both need some help.”
So you're right section. Ben Carson's reality is not my reality.
There are some quotes in there that are nuts and there are some that while looking nuts are true.
You think the IRS isn't "gestapo."? Listen to anybody that deals with them.
What was wrong with the quote on Ray Rice. He does have a problem and his wife did stay with him.
What is wrong with the war quote. You don't like ending wars?
Have you seen the AP course curriculum to comment on it? I haven't, but I would bet it contains a lot of revisionist history and the whacky leftist view on the evils of the western world.
You are right on the gay quotes - absurd in this day and age and reality. And he does have some views that are head scratching.
But again, you are a liberal and some of his views which are realistic to half the country are incredulous to you.
BTW, I'm not a Ben Carson fan.
Oh, and didn't Obama just say he would win a third term if he ran (could run).. Didn't Rudy Giuliani try to change the law to run for a third term as mayor in NYC; didn't Bloomberg succeed?
There is some merit to some of his whacky comments, even if they are not credible.
But again, you are a liberal and some of his views which are realistic to half the country are incredulous to you.
Mostly correct. Im liberal on most "social" issues (I consider myself moderate on economic issues). I think if you look at my postings Im understanding of right wing positions that I sympathize with, even if I ultimately disagree with them. So I dont think it's just that all right wing positions are crazy to me. Look at what I've said about abortion, immigration (Im pro-enforcement and anti-amnesty), the Kim Davis situation (where Im more sympathetic than most conservatives on BBI), and the unfreezing of Iranian funds.
My problem with Walker, Rubio, Bush etc. is their policies. My problem with Carson is that he's fucking nuts. I stayed out of the weeds that would have required more explanation. Basically, he's a conspiracy nut of the highest order. To Carson, every Dem policy is not an attempt to pass an incremental improvement in this country. Rather, every Dem policy/bill is a secret plot to totally change the fundamental nature of America.
Gestapo and the Nazi's are easily identified as hateful entities. Everybody but white supremacists see this. I take it as that. It isn't the first time nor will it be the last time somebody calls a despised group by either of the two names. Heavy handed description, yes. It is not the only time somebody has said the same thing about the IRS.
Anytime hes asked about race he pivots to black on black crime talking points, never a challenging word to say about anything else at play. Points to himself and success as definitive evidence that any talk about inequities are just noise. Republicans love hearing this from a black guy because it legitimizes (in their view) a lot of what part of the party thinks. Also here is this black guy destroying all the accomplishments of the first black president, calling obama care worse than slavery itself. Instant hard ons for a piece of the party. His place in the polls is very much based on respectability politics in my view, thats his appeal on the right
I can see your point and to the Evangelical crowd that is their viewpoint. A big reason I don't like that particular group and cannot fathom pandering to (to me anyway) a bunch of nutjobs.
Named after Saul Alinksy, the late comunity organizer who inspired both Hillary and Barack Obama, the model calls for destabilizing the existing system from the inside and paving the way for radical social change.
Despite his mild manner and soft voice, it may be that Ben Carson is the candidate on tonight’s stage who is privately the most deeply ideological.
To Carson, the Dems want to destabilize the existing America and fundamentally remake it as a purely secular nation where religious people are persecuted. CRAZY.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
To Carson, the Dems want to destabilize the existing America and fundamentally remake it as a purely secular nation where religious people are persecuted. CRAZY. Link - ( New Window )
Ok I get it, you hate Carson.
Again, I'm not a Carson fan, but the Dems do want to fundamentally change America. It was in Obama's platform. But I guess that depends on the observer's view on what fundamentally is. They do want a more socialistic country. However, I don't believe that they want to persecute religions at all. Hell Joe Biden is Catholic ( you know what stigma that carries with it).
I'm even for ACA and its expansion (single payer) because it is cheaper to have the un-wealthy (not just poor) have access to healthcare then have them show up in ERs for expensive limited care. The problem with ACA is it hits the very people it is supposed to help more than any other group because it doesn't go far enough.
For whatever the reason, Carson is popular with the religious right.
Sanders is not unlike Carson in that if you actually laid down his specific policy platforms you'd realize they're not realistic and a touch scary. So long as the attention is on Hillary as the tottering favorite he won't have that kind of scrutiny, but the Democratic establishment isn't stupid. If it looks like Hillary is cooked they'll back another horse and they'll lead the charge against Bernie.
Ok I get it, you hate Carson.
No, you dont get it. I dont hate Ben Carson. I dont even dislike him. But I think he's a loon.
As for Bernie Sanders, he's the anti-Hillary vote. He's a less electable version of Howard Dean. He has no shot at the nomination. If he continues to be strong, a better candidate will declare and run between HRC and Sanders.
I dont hate Bernie, but the man has no record of working with anyone to accomplish anything. Bernie plus the current Congressional GOP would mean nothing would get accomplished for 4 or 8 years. Perma grid lock.
Id add that polls cant be trusted right now. I saw a clip from a pollster on Fox News who was explaining why the British and Israeli pre-election polls were so bad, and then showing why its going to be the same way in the US going forward. People dont respond to pollsters anymore. They're lucky if 8% of people participate. With participation so low, you start to get a bias towards the kind of people who will participate in a poll.
You have to remember that some of Obama's negative job review comes from the left. Those people arent voting for Rubio/Walker over Obama. So at best they're a half-neg (maybe wont vote for, but not against). GWB was negative for long stretches before 11/2004, and he smoked Kerry.
Quote:
Why is your opinion about what emails should be available for review relevant? Can we also make her Federal Records Act obligations subject to your feelings? Whims?
As for the first part of your post, I think you're ignoring the part in the process where, when she wants to talk about things that she thinks are classified, she doesnt send an email. She communicates securely. You're just getting at what Eric from BBI said, which is that effectively all her communications are inherently classified (a position that is simply irreconcilable with the fact that they just publicly released like 98-99% of that batch of 7000 emails).
and why is the person who installed the server pleading the 5th? Because he fears he may end up dead if he speaks? What is the purpose of there was nothing wrong?
lol...that has to be one of the sillier ass posts I have read on here. Yeah...that's it, they will put a hit on him because...well...its Hilary man!
Sander's "huge" lead in NH is +7 (on average of recent polls), which pales in comparison to Clinton's +70 in South Carolina (and the NH polls includes Biden, who again sees the majority of his support go to Clinton - though NH will likely play out differently due to its demographics). As others have already pointed out, he'll follow every other candidate from the far left that the Democrats have a summer fling with, make noise early and then get buried when he doesn't have his demographics (very white, very liberal) propping him in the rest of the states. He's Howard Dean, post scream and with enough tape of him describing himself as a Socialist for the Republicans to have their ad and marketing team salivating if the DNC loses its mind and actually runs him.
Due to social issues, I typically find myself on the left of the voting column - but the prospect of a Sander's presidency is scary to the degree of a Trump presidency. If Clinton falters, Biden is running within 24 hours - Sanders is a gadfly for the DNC who is out there to prevent this from looking like a coronation. Sander's major accomplishment in his time in politics are renaming a few post offices and winning costume of the year for 3 years running in Congress with his impeccable Doc Brown from Back to the Future getup.
I don't like Hillary, but this "contest" is mostly manufactured drama to get clicks at this point in time. Sanders just coalesced the Warren crowd and brought in the "anyone but Hillary" voters - that's great in places that look like an Eddie Bauer magazine demographically speaking, but once he leaves LL Bean land, he gets crushed. For all the cries of the need for more debates from his camp, O'Malley is likely the one who will benefit the most from more exposure while Sander's working of social sites like Reddit (ala Ron Paul) dies out.
Here was the findings of the Congressional investigation:
At least eighty-eight Republican National Committee email accounts were granted to senior Bush administration officials, not "just a handful" as previously reported by the White House spokesperson Dana Perino in March 2007. Her estimate was later revised to "about fifty."
Officials with accounts included: Karl Rove, the President’s senior advisor; Andrew Card, the former White House Chief of Staff; Ken Mehlman, the former White House Director of Political Affairs; and many other officials in the Office of Political Affairs, the Office of Communications, and the Office of the Vice President.
The RNC has 140,216 emails sent or received by Karl Rove. Over half of these emails (75,374) were sent to or received from individuals using official ".gov" email accounts. Other users of RNC email accounts include former Director of Political Affairs Sara Taylor (66,018 emails) and Deputy Director of Political Affairs Scott Jennings (35,198 emails). These email accounts were used by White House officials for official purposes, such as communicating with federal agencies about federal appointments and policies.
Of the 88 White House officials who received RNC email accounts, the RNC has preserved no emails for 51 officials.
There is evidence that the Office of White House Counsel under Alberto Gonzales may have known that White House officials were using RNC email accounts for official business, but took no action to preserve these presidential records.
The evidence obtained by the Committee indicates that White House officials used their RNC email accounts in a manner that circumvented these requirements. At this point in the investigation, it is not possible to determine precisely how many presidential records may have been destroyed by the RNC. Given the heavy reliance by White House officials on RNC email accounts, the high rank of the White House officials involved, and the large quantity of missing emails, the potential violation of the Presidential Records Act may be extensive.
There are estimates that up to 22 million Emails were deleted.
So I am sure all of you bitching about Hillary's Email situation were SURELY up in arms over this one ...right?
I dont want to get into a debate about the AP History framework. I understand that it was upsetting to those who like the great man theory of history, and but into a robust theory of American exceptionalism. But no matter how you feel about it, Carson's comment was idiotic and unhelpful. So unless we want to dismiss all of his crazy rhetoric as just over the top bomb throwing, he's a nut job ideologue. And in any event, we need to stop confusing his soft-spoken voice with the content of his words.
Quote:
I assume you are aware that they have been again revised after prominent historians and historical associations who are not part of the vast right wing conspiracy found the original revised curriculum to be slightly to the left of Howard Zinn.
I dont want to get into a debate about the AP History framework. I understand that it was upsetting to those who like the great man theory of history, and but into a robust theory of American exceptionalism. But no matter how you feel about it, Carson's comment was idiotic and unhelpful. So unless we want to dismiss all of his crazy rhetoric as just over the top bomb throwing, he's a nut job ideologue. And in any event, we need to stop confusing his soft-spoken voice with the content of his words.
As extreme as you might view "great men" or "exceptionalism" the original revisions went just as far in the opposite direction. They made Richard Hofstedter look like William F. Buckley Jr..
Ben Carson on why Obamacare is worse than 9/11: “Because 9/11 is an isolated incident. Things that are isolated issues as opposed to things that fundamentally change the United Sates of America and shift power from the people to the government. That is a huge shift. You have to take a long-term look at something that fundamentally changes the power structure of America.”
Ben Carson on the VA crisis: “I think what’s happening with the veterans is a gift from God to show us what happens when you take layers and layers of bureaucracy and place them between the patients and the health care provider. And if we can’t get it right, with the relatively small num¬ber of veterans, how in the world are you going to do it with the entire population?”
Ben Carson on Obama: When a colleague said the president “looks clean. Shirt’s white. The tie. He looks elegant,” Carson responded: “Like most psychopaths. That’s why they’re successful. That’s the way they look. They all look great.”
Ben Carson groups in gays with people who have sex with children and animals as groups that just need to STFU about marriage rights: “Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality. It doesn’t matter what they are. They don’t get to change the definition.”
Ben Carson’s reasoning on why being gay is a choice: “Because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight and when they come out, they’re gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question.” [after hearing this, Glenn Beck dubbed Carson a “lunatic” unfit for the presidency]
Ben Carson also sees Nazi Germany everywhere:
On progressives and the PC culture: “I mean, [our society is] very much like Nazi Germany. And I know you’re not supposed to say ‘Nazi Germany,’ but I don’t care about political correctness. You know, you had a government using its tools to intimidate the population. We now live in a society where people are afraid to say what they actually believe.”
On the IRS: “You know, we live in a Gestapo age, people don’t realize it.”
Ben Carson on the AP US History curriculum: “I think most people, when they finish that course, they’d be ready to go sign up for ISIS.”
Before the 2014 midterms, Carson said that if the GOP lost he couldn’t be sure “there will even be an election in 2016”. That is, he was warning that the Democrats would cancel the 2016 elections. When pressed, he explained: “Certainly there’s the potential because you have to recognize that we have a rapidly increasing national debt, a very unstable financial foundation, and you have all these things going on like the ISIS crisis that could very rapidly change things that are going on in our nation. And unless we begin to deal with these things in a comprehensive way and in a logical way there is no telling what could happen in just a couple of years.”
Ben Carson does not believe in the laws of war or war crime prosecutions, because of this stunning logic: “If you’re gonna have rules for war, you should just have a rule that says no war,” he said. “Other than that, we have to win.”
Ben Carson on Ray Rice’s wife: “Let’s not all jump on the bandwagon of demonizing this guy. He obviously has some real problems. And his wife obviously knows that because she subsequently married him. So they both need some help.”
So you're right section. Ben Carson's reality is not my reality.
Holy shit, that guy really is a nut. I double-checked a few of those quotes and they are legit. I really don't know much about him, but holy shit he's a nut.
Quote:
To me Carson goes well beyond the fears of evangelicals. He's in Glenn Beck territory. He made a point of name-checking the "Alinsky Model" at the first debate. Writing at the National Review, John Fund says:
Quote:
To Carson, the Dems want to destabilize the existing America and fundamentally remake it as a purely secular nation where religious people are persecuted. CRAZY. Link - ( New Window )
Ok I get it, you hate Carson.
Again, I'm not a Carson fan, but the Dems do want to fundamentally change America. It was in Obama's platform. But I guess that depends on the observer's view on what fundamentally is. They do want a more socialistic country. However, I don't believe that they want to persecute religions at all. Hell Joe Biden is Catholic ( you know what stigma that carries with it).
I'm even for ACA and its expansion (single payer) because it is cheaper to have the un-wealthy (not just poor) have access to healthcare then have them show up in ERs for expensive limited care. The problem with ACA is it hits the very people it is supposed to help more than any other group because it doesn't go far enough.
For whatever the reason, Carson is popular with the religious right.
So what "fundamental" changes do you think Dems want to make? What do you describe as fundamental?
In the words of Inigo Montoya "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Anyone who cannot adequately distinguish between genocide and (as he sees it) totalitarianism is not just an extremist, he's a sick, ignorant individual. And that he would make comparisons like this means that as the number of candidates dwindles and people look more closely at his views on this and all the other crazy shit, he will vanish. Bye, bye, Ben.
Oh, and btw, who exactly is afraid to say what they actually believe?
Quote:
“I mean, [our society is] very much like Nazi Germany. And I know you’re not supposed to say ‘Nazi Germany,’ but I don’t care about political correctness. You know, you had a government using its tools to intimidate the population. We now live in a society where people are afraid to say what they actually believe.
Anyone who cannot adequately distinguish between genocide and (as he sees it) totalitarianism is not just an extremist, he's a sick, ignorant individual. And that he would make comparisons like this means that as the number of candidates dwindles and people look more closely at his views on this and all the other crazy shit, he will vanish. Bye, bye, Ben.
Oh, and btw, who exactly is afraid to say what they actually believe?
Such a weird summer. And I expect this narrative to continue into the fall. A Trump Clinton race doesn't seem so farfetched. And that'll be a spectacle. Hell, in this climate, I'd consider Trump the favorite.
Such a weird summer. And I expect this narrative to continue into the fall. A Trump Clinton race doesn't seem so farfetched. And that'll be a spectacle. Hell, in this climate, I'd consider Trump the favorite.
NFW Trump wins a general election. I still can't see him winning the Republican nomination, but there are millions of rock-ribbed Republicans (myself included) who wouldn't vote for him in a million years, even if the Democrats nominate Hillary.
I dont know who the "establishment" guy is to take trump and/or Carson down. I dont see it in Bush or Walker. Kasich is too center in my view for where the republicans are at. Hes doing well in new hampshire but thats an outlier. Marco rubio just doesnt do it for republicans nationally. I wouldnt write off ted cruz, but hes also clearly not establishment even though hes in goverment unlike some of the others. I personally think cruz is scary and obnoxious and probably my least favorite guy in this field. He also has such a punchable douche face. Ive said it before but its true. More punchable than Jay cutler
As for what to make of it, I discount Carson -- he'll have his month like Newt, Cain, and Perry all had last time. Trump is a different nut to crack. I cant picture him being the GOP nominee. I just think one of the governors+Rubio crowd needs to start running away with that segment of the vote.
Put aside the personality -- once more Republicans really look at what Trump's policy positions are, they'll move on. Either that or the right is just an unserious troll of the left and not a real governing party. Or a white nationalist coalition. Their choice.
Walker lacks charisma and he gives evasive or contradictory answers to what are for serious pols almost softball questions. Not ready for prime time.
Too many point to the Tea Party and Occupy Democracy wingnuts as the drivers of either party when in reality each are lucky to represent 15% of their parties.
That leaves the 70% in the middle plus the independents not affiliated.
Lets see, so far he has come out for universal health care of some sort (everyone deserves health care), raising taxes on the rich (hedge fund managers), a strong military and taking care of our vets, growing small businesses, rule of law (see Kentucky), Honoring the Iran deal even though he thinks it sucks (contract is a contract) but will make it work, has effeminately started a conversation on illegal immigration that never would have happened, etc, etc.
People are sick of politicians, period. Doesn't matter what party, DC is bought and paid for. Nothing changes no matter who is in charge.
Now, as I stated to start this, there is a long, long was to go. An eternity in the political world. Anything can and will happen.
As far as a third party run, unless it comes fro the democratic side it won't happen. As Trump said on MSNBC, too hard to get in on the primaries in each state and and if you were lucky enough to get 35% it goes to the House which is full of Democrats and Republicans.
Not a pro or con on the man. Just an opinion on why he is so appealing across party lines.
I have ~6 months before I vote in a primary.
Quote:
Trump is dominating, Carson is surging, Bush is sinking, HRC is floundering, Bernie is rising, and Biden is deciding.
Such a weird summer. And I expect this narrative to continue into the fall. A Trump Clinton race doesn't seem so farfetched. And that'll be a spectacle. Hell, in this climate, I'd consider Trump the favorite.
NFW Trump wins a general election. I still can't see him winning the Republican nomination, but there are millions of rock-ribbed Republicans (myself included) who wouldn't vote for him in a million years, even if the Democrats nominate Hillary.
I wouldn't vote for Trump under any circumstance. Unless a centrist Democrat who's not in the race currently enters I'd vote for the other races and leave the presidential ballot blank, similar to what I did the first time I was eligible to vote in the '72 election.
Link - ( New Window )