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 )
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.