Anyone watching? Interested? Obviously this is a two person debate tonight with 3 others joining. Curious to see HC take on the TPP questions. I am sure her emails/Benghazi will be brought up ad nausum, but the TPP has me interested.
Actually watching the Canadian debates, the Republican ones were rather embarrassing in comparison.
It seems that Sanders and Clinton at least have agreed on staying substantive. I guess some would see that as disappointing as banning fighting in hockey.
She has had a brutal 4 months because of the email issue. That and her lurch to the left/departure from Obama on some issues are the only things you've really heard about her since mid-summer. She needs tonight to seize the mojo back IMO. Otherwise there will be a call for some people to get in the race. Particularly from the governor ranks. Probably too late though.
I'm a Hillary supporter, but I do wish that this was more of a contest. I think the competition is a good thing. Im not all that convinced that she's good at electoral politics.
a love fest.
No controversy, softball questions.
JB needs to toss his hat in so it goes from a sublime to a ridiculous debate.
Then, to quote JB: it'll be 'a big f*n deal'.
trying her latest weekly spin to see if it resonates.
TPP is bad.
Need gun control.
Benghazi didn't happen.
All emails were turned over, I think, maybe, oops they found more, a back up to the server is where?
GOP has a war on women's health.
you are pretty darned partisan on here, I must say.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
I could be wrong, but it seems when you post political, there is very little nuance--you side right. Always. Which is fine. But then here we can't even start a discussion about this (probably crappy) debate without your heading down the liberal media bias path.
The folks at CNN only really hit trump hard, which you can make a pretty good case for--he's said some mouthy and irreverent things pretty often, so he SHOULD be questioned about them.
tonight don't need softball questions. This isn't a Republican debate filled with people who don't believe in global warming but do believe any heavily edited video they watch. This debate is about the only 2 candidates (currently) who are actually qualified to be the next POTUS.
be substantive? I don't know if I've ever heard he directly answer a question about the issues without using misdirection, subterfuge or downright deceit.
If anything marks her past, it is an intentional avoidance of substance.
trying her latest weekly spin to see if it resonates.
TPP is bad.
Need gun control.
Benghazi didn't happen.
All emails were turned over, I think, maybe, oops they found more, a back up to the server is where?
GOP has a war on women's health.
Does that cover it?
Especially she'll harp on that silly notion on Benghazi being a Republican plot to get her. LOL.
that a person who has held office for several years without a substantive contribution or even an accomplishment to point to should hardly have them described as qualified for POTUS.
you are pretty darned partisan on here, I must say.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
I could be wrong, but it seems when you post political, there is very little nuance--you side right. Always. Which is fine. But then here we can't even start a discussion about this (probably crappy) debate without your heading down the liberal media bias path.
The folks at CNN only really hit trump hard, which you can make a pretty good case for--he's said some mouthy and irreverent things pretty often, so he SHOULD be questioned about them.
I'm not lock step with the right. There is a media bias. To deny it is lunacy. The side it is on depends on who you're watching.
I think that issue might not only go away, unless the FBI finds something substantial, it might actually work to her advantage with people who are inclined to like her. McCarthy gave her the greatest gift when he told the truth about the Bengazi hearings. The people who see Bengazi as Hilary deliberately withholding security from the staff there would never have voted for her anyway. But, between McCarthy and the Republican intelligence guy yesterday who spoke of what is basically a witch hunt now feeds into the Clinton line that this is all political and there could be a backlash in her direction at least among moderates and liberals.
tonight don't need softball questions. This isn't a Republican debate filled with people who don't believe in global warming but do believe any heavily edited video they watch. This debate is about the only 2 candidates (currently) who are actually qualified to be the next POTUS.
Tell us, which of the Republicans in the last debate denied the existence of climate change.
you are pretty darned partisan on here, I must say.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
I could be wrong, but it seems when you post political, there is very little nuance--you side right. Always. Which is fine. But then here we can't even start a discussion about this (probably crappy) debate without your heading down the liberal media bias path.
The folks at CNN only really hit trump hard, which you can make a pretty good case for--he's said some mouthy and irreverent things pretty often, so he SHOULD be questioned about them.
I'm not lock step with the right. There is a media bias. To deny it is lunacy. The side it is on depends on who you're watching.
A slight media bias which might reflect more people in the business perhaps coming from the left in their own politics, is different than saying that "tonight's gonna be one of those night where the evil media tries to make the LEFT look good!!"
if people stopped talking about this vast right-wing echo chamber and instead point to some accomplishments.
If she was effective, it shouldn't be that hard to do. Hell, Obama wasn't even in positions all that long and people could at least tell you what he did prior to taking office.
Jeb Bush might not be liked, but he has specific accomplishments.
RE: The right wing echo chamber on HRC is hilarious
she isnt just dishonest. rather she has never and cannot tell the truth.
And she has done nothing, ever. Her years as a senator and SOS were empty calories. Nothing happened.
And she did Benghazi. And Vince Foster fathered her baby so Hillary has him murdered. Travelgate.
Everything you just posted is from the Left Wing echo chamber. She didn't "do Benghazi". that's a smoke screen.
True or false: She and her department most certainly told the American people that the attack was started as a protest to a video? When was the last time Foster or Travelgate was brought up?
you are pretty darned partisan on here, I must say.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
I could be wrong, but it seems when you post political, there is very little nuance--you side right. Always. Which is fine. But then here we can't even start a discussion about this (probably crappy) debate without your heading down the liberal media bias path.
The folks at CNN only really hit trump hard, which you can make a pretty good case for--he's said some mouthy and irreverent things pretty often, so he SHOULD be questioned about them.
I'm not lock step with the right. There is a media bias. To deny it is lunacy. The side it is on depends on who you're watching.
A slight media bias which might reflect more people in the business perhaps coming from the left in their own politics, is different than saying that "tonight's gonna be one of those night where the evil media tries to make the LEFT look good!!"
It's almost like we never ever watched Wolf Blitzer, Candy Crowley, and Chuck Todd interview or moderate.
you are pretty darned partisan on here, I must say.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
I could be wrong, but it seems when you post political, there is very little nuance--you side right. Always. Which is fine. But then here we can't even start a discussion about this (probably crappy) debate without your heading down the liberal media bias path.
The folks at CNN only really hit trump hard, which you can make a pretty good case for--he's said some mouthy and irreverent things pretty often, so he SHOULD be questioned about them.
I'm not lock step with the right. There is a media bias. To deny it is lunacy. The side it is on depends on who you're watching.
A slight media bias which might reflect more people in the business perhaps coming from the left in their own politics, is different than saying that "tonight's gonna be one of those night where the evil media tries to make the LEFT look good!!"
Since CNN is on the left leaning side of the media, do you expect them to ask HRC about the other 28,000 emails that weren't returned because they were personal. She kept telling Chuch Todd of NBC she was vindicated because 1500 were deemed to be personal.
if people stopped talking about this vast right-wing echo chamber and instead point to some accomplishments.
If she was effective, it shouldn't be that hard to do. Hell, Obama wasn't even in positions all that long and people could at least tell you what he did prior to taking office.
Jeb Bush might not be liked, but he has specific accomplishments.
Yeah, his accomplishments include crazy tax cuts for the rich.... Because they will "trickle it down" to the poor right? Please. Jeb might be a bigger joke than his brother was. We don't need another Bush. We don't need another war. We don't need any of the Republican candidates. More money for the rich at the expense of the poor - ( New Window )
to catapult themselves to at least the second tier. I'm not holding my breath, but I really want to see a mainstream Democrat alternative (yes I realize Webb is probably not a mainstream Democrat, at least not in perception).
if people stopped talking about this vast right-wing echo chamber and instead point to some accomplishments.
If she was effective, it shouldn't be that hard to do. Hell, Obama wasn't even in positions all that long and people could at least tell you what he did prior to taking office.
Jeb Bush might not be liked, but he has specific accomplishments.
I'd say her biggest accomplishment as Sec of State was getting Russia and China to agree to the harshest sanctions on Iran to date.
Whatever you think of the deal they struck, the only reason there was a deal at all was because Iran came crawling to the table to get the sanctions lifted.
A pretty big deal, IMO.
RE: RE: The right wing echo chamber on HRC is hilarious
she isnt just dishonest. rather she has never and cannot tell the truth.
And she has done nothing, ever. Her years as a senator and SOS were empty calories. Nothing happened.
And she did Benghazi. And Vince Foster fathered her baby so Hillary has him murdered. Travelgate.
Everything you just posted is from the Left Wing echo chamber. She didn't "do Benghazi". that's a smoke screen.
True or false: She and her department most certainly told the American people that the attack was started as a protest to a video? When was the last time Foster or Travelgate was brought up?
So is that the only criticism of HRC on Benghazi? What state said about it after the fact? I just want to be clear here.
I dont remember if HRC herself said that the protests led to the attack, but it doesnt matter. That is what 21 intelligence reports indicated.
Quote:
Some of the harshest charges have been leveled at Rice, now Obamas national security adviser, who represented the Obama administration on Sunday talk shows the weekend after the attack. Rice repeated talking points that wrongly described a protest over a video deemed offensive to Muslims.
But Rices comments were based on faulty intelligence from multiple agencies, according to the report. Analysts received 21 reports that a protest occurred in Benghazi, the report said 14 from the Open Source Center, which reviews news reports; one from the CIA; two from the Defense Department; and four from the National Security Agency.
In the years since, some participants in the attack have said they were motivated by the video. The attackers were a mix of extremists and hangers on, the investigation found.
That is from an writeup of the GOP-led House Intel Committee Report. Whether they were right or wrong, that was the intelligence.
So let me ask you -- if HRC/State said it, why does that make HRC any more or less unfit to be president? Merely because it was (arguably) wrong? Link - ( New Window )
RE: RE: Rubio absolutely denies the human link in climate change
than most of the right would give her credit for being, but if she is going to "own" her tenure we also have to acknowledge that the Middle East started going to shit at the end of her run and that any good we got out of Russia was dwarfed by the bad over the last seven years. But of course she hasn't figured out whether she wants to run in part on her tenure or to run from it.
RE: RE: RE: The right wing echo chamber on HRC is hilarious
she isnt just dishonest. rather she has never and cannot tell the truth.
And she has done nothing, ever. Her years as a senator and SOS were empty calories. Nothing happened.
And she did Benghazi. And Vince Foster fathered her baby so Hillary has him murdered. Travelgate.
Everything you just posted is from the Left Wing echo chamber. She didn't "do Benghazi". that's a smoke screen.
True or false: She and her department most certainly told the American people that the attack was started as a protest to a video? When was the last time Foster or Travelgate was brought up?
So is that the only criticism of HRC on Benghazi? What state said about it after the fact? I just want to be clear here.
I dont remember if HRC herself said that the protests led to the attack, but it doesnt matter. That is what 21 intelligence reports indicated.
Quote:
Some of the harshest charges have been leveled at Rice, now Obamas national security adviser, who represented the Obama administration on Sunday talk shows the weekend after the attack. Rice repeated talking points that wrongly described a protest over a video deemed offensive to Muslims.
But Rices comments were based on faulty intelligence from multiple agencies, according to the report. Analysts received 21 reports that a protest occurred in Benghazi, the report said 14 from the Open Source Center, which reviews news reports; one from the CIA; two from the Defense Department; and four from the National Security Agency.
In the years since, some participants in the attack have said they were motivated by the video. The attackers were a mix of extremists and hangers on, the investigation found.
That is from an writeup of the GOP-led House Intel Committee Report. Whether they were right or wrong, that was the intelligence.
So let me ask you -- if HRC/State said it, why does that make HRC any more or less unfit to be president? Merely because it was (arguably) wrong? Link - ( New Window )
Notwithstanding the irony that this was also what happened wrt WMD in Iraq, there has been lots of reports that Intelligence knew at the time (and relayed the info) that it was an organized terror attack.
RE: RE: RE: Rubio absolutely denies the human link in climate change
and effectively says he would do nothing about climate change because it would hurt the economy.
Doing nothing about it or making different choices is not exactly the same thing as disbelieving.
Yes. But denying the human link IS disbelieving. You skipped the first half of my post.
I've seen many people separate climate change from man-made climate change. Also, why include the second part of the post if it had nothing to do with your point?
Before the 2nd republican debate I read news stories on how the questions were designed to start verbal fights between the candidates. That doesn't cast a good light on the candidates. If the democrats don't get the same kind of questions (and therefore probably give the appearance of looking more statesmen-like) then I think it shows the moderators have an agenda. If, however, they ask the same kinds of questions then this debate will have some kick to it.
that a person who has held office for several years without a substantive contribution or even an accomplishment to point to should hardly have them described as qualified for POTUS.
I've addressed the bullshit argument about lack of accomplishment in the past.
Tell me, what has Rubio accomplished? Since he is the "smart" pick to be the eventual winner. Link - ( New Window )
RE: RE: RE: RE: Rubio absolutely denies the human link in climate change
I've seen many people separate climate change from man-made climate change. Also, why include the second part of the post if it had nothing to do with your point?
Yes. Many people do separate climate change from man-made climate change. And the people who do so are charlatans who are denying science. The vastly overwhelming consensus of scientists is not merely that there is climate change, but that it is in part caused by human activity. So Rubio denying that is Rubio denying the whole ballgame.
Before the 2nd republican debate I read news stories on how the questions were designed to start verbal fights between the candidates. That doesn't cast a good light on the candidates. If the democrats don't get the same kind of questions (and therefore probably give the appearance of looking more statesmen-like) then I think it shows the moderators have an agenda. If, however, they ask the same kinds of questions then this debate will have some kick to it.
I thin kit's highly unlikely that you will see that. Not necessarily because of media bias, although previous Dem debates had some lovefests from the panel, but largely because of the candidates' personalities. All of them, including Sanders, have steadfastly refrained from being harsh on their competitors. That may be to their credit or, it may be in recognition that all but one are fighting losing causes and they know that and they don't want to damage the front-runner since eventually they need to win the presidency. The republicans have real contests, so damaging each other is part of the need to win the nomination. It's unlikely that they will shift from that perspective even in a debate format.
that a person who has held office for several years without a substantive contribution or even an accomplishment to point to should hardly have them described as qualified for POTUS.
I've addressed the bullshit argument about lack of accomplishment in the past.
Tell me, what has Rubio accomplished? Since he is the "smart" pick to be the eventual winner. Link - ( New Window )
Rubio is a steaming turd. There is nothing "smart" about that pick at all. Now with the Tea Party running the Republican party currently we can pretty much agree that some "not so smart" decisions were made by Republican "leaders". LOL
Under Bush, there were 13 attacks on US embassies, with numerous deaths. Many of the deaths were of non-Americans. Only one death was a consulate member, but there were 11 were Americans serving various functions, and lots of others were our guests at the time of the attacks? Not identical, but similar enough. (link) I won't get into the WTC argument, but what about the death of 241 marines? Not similar enough? Why didn't that turn into an unending series of investigations?
The e-mails are a much bigger problem, imo. The Republicans probably did Hillary a favor by linking them to Benghazi for no good reason.
In other news, the House can't find a speaker, and aside from the fact that he doesn't want the job, Ryan is now being attacked by the Freedom Caucus as being too liberal.
I expect the disfunctionality of the House to come up a number of times tonight. Link - ( New Window )
Aside from being a terrible Governor, I heard him say the other day words to the effect that the US should shoot down Russian jets that violated the no fly zone he would set up in Syria. We're now ready to go to war over Syria. And, he's one of the normal candidates.
the same people who yammer on about how the GOP has moved so far
I've seen many people separate climate change from man-made climate change. Also, why include the second part of the post if it had nothing to do with your point?
Yes. Many people do separate climate change from man-made climate change. And the people who do so are charlatans who are denying science. The vastly overwhelming consensus of scientists is not merely that there is climate change, but that it is in part caused by human activity. So Rubio denying that is Rubio denying the whole ballgame.
Personally if I were running for President, whether or not I believed in climate change or who caused it would be irrelevant. I would end up in the same place you say Rubio is from a policy perspective. So, it's a non-issue for me.
Before the 2nd republican debate I read news stories on how the questions were designed to start verbal fights between the candidates. That doesn't cast a good light on the candidates. If the democrats don't get the same kind of questions (and therefore probably give the appearance of looking more statesmen-like) then I think it shows the moderators have an agenda. If, however, they ask the same kinds of questions then this debate will have some kick to it.
Before the 2nd debate means that you're discussing a critique of the Fox News debate. So you're saying that if CNN does not ask the sort of questions Fox asked then it shows CNN has an agenda? Why does Fox get to dictate the question style for all subsequent debates?
Before the 2nd republican debate I read news stories on how the questions were designed to start verbal fights between the candidates. That doesn't cast a good light on the candidates. If the democrats don't get the same kind of questions (and therefore probably give the appearance of looking more statesmen-like) then I think it shows the moderators have an agenda. If, however, they ask the same kinds of questions then this debate will have some kick to it.
I thin kit's highly unlikely that you will see that. Not necessarily because of media bias, although previous Dem debates had some lovefests from the panel, but largely because of the candidates' personalities. All of them, including Sanders, have steadfastly refrained from being harsh on their competitors. That may be to their credit or, it may be in recognition that all but one are fighting losing causes and they know that and they don't want to damage the front-runner since eventually they need to win the presidency. The republicans have real contests, so damaging each other is part of the need to win the nomination. It's unlikely that they will shift from that perspective even in a debate format.
I 100% agree with this. I could see the prickly Webb changing things up if he ever got momentum (he wont).
RE: the same people who yammer on about how the GOP has moved so far
to the right are often big fans of Bernie the fucking socialist. Curious.....
Bernie Sanders's socialism is more bark than bite. It's a silly label at this point. Moreover there is very good social science showing that the Republican party has indeed drifted rightwards, agnostic about whether that is a good or bad thing.
RE: RE: I'll be watching with my 16-yr-old daughter
tough as Megan Kelly and the others on Fox were on the GOP debate. I thought Hugh Hewitt would have been nice to have on CNN since he is like the only conservative at CNN but apparently he was replaced with Juan Carlos Lopez I guess to appeal to the hispanic vote.
Moreover there is very good social science showing that the Republican party has indeed drifted rightwards, agnostic about whether that is a good or bad thing.
There is also a study that says that the Democratic Party has moved further left than the GOP has to the right:
Quote:
The studys overall argument is that income inequality has increased political polarization at the state level since the 1990s. But the authors find that that this happens more by moving state Democratic parties to the left than by moving state Republican parties to the right. As the Democratic Party lost power at the state level over the past 15 years, it also effectively shed its moderate wing. Centrist Democrats have increasingly lost seats to Republicans, resulting in a more liberal Democratic party overall. The authors find that the ideological median of Republican legislators has shifted much less.
First and foremost, this is a runaway for Clinton in current state. The false narrative of the race tightening is created by a spectral candidate in Biden - who effectively peals most of his support from Clinton's base. Even with Clinton's rough few months, his removal from polling shows her in the 50-60% range and a +30 lead on Bernie Sanders (and she's already well ahead in all states not named New Hampshire or Vermont).
That isn't going to change and is the reason why Biden is going to stay on the sideline unless an unforeseen (or inevitable depending on your vantage point/party affiliation) Clinton disaster occurs. The DNC is more than content running Clinton and Biden is not going to jump in, split the base and complicate things. He's also been a lousy presidential candidate historically and looking to put a capstone on his political career. A failed bid at the presidency is not that.
Sanders is the latest entry in the progressive wing of the Democrat's summer fling, but the leaves are turning and things are turning "real". He'll make some noise and may grab New Hampshire - then follow Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, etc. out the door when the voting base in states are not predominantly white and very liberal.
The people who can make noise tonight are O'Malley and Webb. Chafee may bring some attention to the metric system, but he will likely be the first to drop and really offers nothing else of value.
O'Malley is not going to win, but he's the actual mainstream alternative to Clinton in the current field. If Clinton was really in any kind of danger, his polling would be significantly better. I think he can benefit the most from getting attention on a stage and have the ability to spin his story, but he's too far behind to even be relevant.
Webb is a Dem that will play well with the moderate base, but the Democratic party in current state is not positioned as such currently. He'll play well in the Appalachian Belt the way Sanders is playing well in New England, but has no chance anywhere else.
Honestly, this should be a low-viewership snooze fest. Clinton will likely play it overly safe and do her best to position herself as affable/likable to the overall base, taking on some more liberal talking points to meet the Sanders base halfway and ensure the Democratic voters will turn out when she inevitably wins.
I honestly think the debates will hurt Sanders, as he (and his appearance/presentation) is not going to play well in this medium. Shallow, but that's how these things work.
to the right are often big fans of Bernie the fucking socialist. Curious.....
Bernie Sanders's socialism is more bark than bite. It's a silly label at this point. Moreover there is very good social science showing that the Republican party has indeed drifted rightwards, agnostic about whether that is a good or bad thing.
Check out the article (not op ed) in today's WSJ. Yes, the Republicans have drifted to the right. But at the same time the Democrats have drifted to the left. It's NOT a 1 party phenomenon.
Under Bush, there were 13 attacks on US embassies, with numerous deaths. Many of the deaths were of non-Americans. Only one death was a consulate member, but there were 11 were Americans serving various functions, and lots of others were our guests at the time of the attacks? Not identical, but similar enough. (link) I won't get into the WTC argument, but what about the death of 241 marines? Not similar enough? Why didn't that turn into an unending series of investigations?
The e-mails are a much bigger problem, imo. The Republicans probably did Hillary a favor by linking them to Benghazi for no good reason.
In other news, the House can't find a speaker, and aside from the fact that he doesn't want the job, Ryan is now being attacked by the Freedom Caucus as being too liberal.
I expect the disfunctionality of the House to come up a number of times tonight. Link - ( New Window )
I'm sure all 87 viewers who tune in tonight will be most interested in that POV.
Whether Republicans moved too far right is a different issue, Greg.
The power grab within the House has two parts that are moving aggressively rightward, which is what gives the Freedom Caucus so much power. First, with about 40 of them, no bill can get a majority without either their consent or Democratic help, which gives them power all out of proportion to their numbers.
Second, related to Democratic help, a lot of more moderate Republicans come from districts where all of the pressure for change comes from their right flank. See: Eric Cantor. So, many moderates are fearful of taking stances in Congress which actually match up with their governing philosophy, if it puts them at risk of being primaried from the right.
So, the issue isn't so much how many Republican voters have moved rightward, its whether the governing center of gravity in the House has moved rightward. And if this bunch thinks that Ryan is too liberal, than they are off the reservation on the right side relative to actual voters. Ryan wants to turn Medicaid into declining block grants and Medicare into vouchers, while gutting AFDC and other food programs. Not conservative enough for you? He isn't for the Freedom Caucus.
tonight don't need softball questions. This isn't a Republican debate filled with people who don't believe in global warming but do believe any heavily edited video they watch. This debate is about the only 2 candidates (currently) who are actually qualified to be the next POTUS.
Tell us, which of the Republicans in the last debate denied the existence of climate change.
Looking to see if Jim Webb pulls a Fiorina and earns (figuratively) a seat at the adults table.
Both Fox and CNN didn't pull any punches with respect to the front runner (Duracell). And they asked some pretty demanding questions of the others. Let's see if that also holds true here. Hillary and the "gold standard" TPP is the most obvious.
While it shouldn't be a love fest between the moderators and the candidates, it's up to the candidates to determine how they treat each other. I expect kid gloves in their interactions. If anyone will violate the code it will be O'Malley.
I know nothing about state level trends. Here are the House trends based on Poole and Rosenthal's data (and P&R's DW NOMINATE data is considered the gold standard):
It's that the Republicans are using their scripts now, in a variety of forms, while the Democrats have a number of powerful scripts that they have yet to use aggressively--not the least of which, of course relate to the Freedom Caucus and to responses to the Benghazi crap.
You are right. Watching Trump, Carson and the other wackiest Republican candidates is much more fun than watching Hillary and Bernie. The point is that these scripts will come back, and back and back, when the time comes.
RE: the same people who yammer on about how the GOP has moved so far
First and foremost, this is a runaway for Clinton in current state. The false narrative of the race tightening is created by a spectral candidate in Biden - who effectively peals most of his support from Clinton's base. Even with Clinton's rough few months, his removal from polling shows her in the 50-60% range and a +30 lead on Bernie Sanders (and she's already well ahead in all states not named New Hampshire or Vermont).
That isn't going to change and is the reason why Biden is going to stay on the sideline unless an unforeseen (or inevitable depending on your vantage point/party affiliation) Clinton disaster occurs. The DNC is more than content running Clinton and Biden is not going to jump in, split the base and complicate things. He's also been a lousy presidential candidate historically and looking to put a capstone on his political career. A failed bid at the presidency is not that.
Sanders is the latest entry in the progressive wing of the Democrat's summer fling, but the leaves are turning and things are turning "real". He'll make some noise and may grab New Hampshire - then follow Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, etc. out the door when the voting base in states are not predominantly white and very liberal.
The people who can make noise tonight are O'Malley and Webb. Chafee may bring some attention to the metric system, but he will likely be the first to drop and really offers nothing else of value.
O'Malley is not going to win, but he's the actual mainstream alternative to Clinton in the current field. If Clinton was really in any kind of danger, his polling would be significantly better. I think he can benefit the most from getting attention on a stage and have the ability to spin his story, but he's too far behind to even be relevant.
Webb is a Dem that will play well with the moderate base, but the Democratic party in current state is not positioned as such currently. He'll play well in the Appalachian Belt the way Sanders is playing well in New England, but has no chance anywhere else.
Honestly, this should be a low-viewership snooze fest. Clinton will likely play it overly safe and do her best to position herself as affable/likable to the overall base, taking on some more liberal talking points to meet the Sanders base halfway and ensure the Democratic voters will turn out when she inevitably wins.
I honestly think the debates will hurt Sanders, as he (and his appearance/presentation) is not going to play well in this medium. Shallow, but that's how these things work.
It's all over but the crying. Hilary has the money and she has the organization. D's have no choice but to hold their noses and vote for her.
Under Bush, there were 13 attacks on US embassies, with numerous deaths. Many of the deaths were of non-Americans. Only one death was a consulate member, but there were 11 were Americans serving various functions, and lots of others were our guests at the time of the attacks? Not identical, but similar enough. (link) I won't get into the WTC argument, but what about the death of 241 marines? Not similar enough? Why didn't that turn into an unending series of investigations?
The e-mails are a much bigger problem, imo. The Republicans probably did Hillary a favor by linking them to Benghazi for no good reason.
In other news, the House can't find a speaker, and aside from the fact that he doesn't want the job, Ryan is now being attacked by the Freedom Caucus as being too liberal.
I expect the disfunctionality of the House to come up a number of times tonight. Link - ( New Window )
The email scandal came to light in large part because of Benghazi. I'm not terribly concerned about the embassy attacks. A tragedy and a crime, to be sure, but it could have happened on anyone's watch. Blaming a video was shameful. Sid Blumenthal's involvement in that was sheisty as fuck. But it doesn't take clairvoyance to figure out what they were trying to keep a lid on and why it isn't and shouldn't be a partisan issue. But the email controversy implicates a shitload of ancillary issues that should matter.
so around 10% of House Dems are "ideologically moderate"?
have gotten explosively more conservative. The House Dem caucus has gotten a more liberal but nothing approaching what has happened on the right. The shift left in the House Dem caucus is entirely explainable by the inability of more conservative southern Dems to win seats. That is, the NY delegation hasnt gotten more liberal, it's just not offset by southern Dems.
The corresponding realignment loss of north east Republican seats does not come close to explaining the hard right turn of house republicans, though it obviously plays some contributing role.
Deej - that's the major index most political scientists use.
Uh oh Ash, you used the word "scientist", you know the righties don't believe in science. To them that's just crap that the liberal media makes up.
I'm deeply skeptical of the idea of social science nor do I think most of the people I'm speaking to here are science skeptics. I'm not interested in joining this sort of argument (or any argument to be honest). I only think the idea of taking Bernie Sanders's supposed socialism seriously is silly given his actual positions and the general complexity of the socialist tradition.
All of that is largely academic, since he'll be tarred with the label for better or worse.
How can he be tarred with a label that he enthusiastically self-applies?
Because the label will come with silly implications that don't match his actual policies. There will be no abolition of private property, no governmental control of the means of production, etc. It's just a stupid debate.
most closely resembles the socialists of yore is his rather humorless approach to everything. Even his ideological allies attest to his zeal, his temper and his ability to pick fights with people whose views appear quite close to his from outside. With a couple of exceptions I don't think Ash is wrong, he is far closer to being a vanilla left-wing Democrat than he is to being a Communist or even an old-Labour socialist. But he is still to the left of the Democratic Party.
NOT moderate. I assume you understood that and your post is a typo.
Not sure if your question is real or snarky. If it is real, go look up Poole & Rosenthal's DW NOMINATE scoring.
He in fact does not understand it. He clearly has no clue what the difference between Communism and Democratic Socialism is either. He just knows that Faux News says it's the same thing and bad for the country.
is part of his charm given the pretty appalling lack of social mobility and skewed wealth distribution in this country, but I'm just an angry dude who thinks general immiseration is a shitty strategy for political stability.
It's that the Republicans are using their scripts now, in a variety of forms, while the Democrats have a number of powerful scripts that they have yet to use aggressively--not the least of which, of course relate to the Freedom Caucus and to responses to the Benghazi crap.
You are right. Watching Trump, Carson and the other wackiest Republican candidates is much more fun than watching Hillary and Bernie. The point is that these scripts will come back, and back and back, when the time comes.
"powerful scripts"? If you say so.
It would make more sense to run as "Bill's third term" but Hilary doesn't want to do that.
But at what point does it no longer really matter if he completely fits the academic, according-to-Marx definition of socialist?
Also I largely don't care about this presidential election because I think HRC is very likely the next POTUS. The Republican candidates are silly and the Democratic candidate a Clinton. It's mindbogglingly sad. My interest is in the senate elections and to a lesser extent the House elections.
is part of his charm given the pretty appalling lack of social mobility and skewed wealth distribution in this country, but I'm just an angry dude who thinks general immiseration is a shitty strategy for political stability.
I get anger, I just don't get the moral and practical certainty that can so fervidly and angrily defend policy prescriptions that aren't obviously the best way of addressing income inequality or the plight of the poor. You (the generic you, not the personal you) have to be open to the notion that others, especially those on your side, are well-intentioned and are advancing prescriptions because they genuinely believe they are the best way of helping those who need help. In Vermont, progressives fighting other progressives - the old wagon wheel joke - were clearly fighting over the best way to attack what they perceived to be the same ills.
I think that what has happened is that the voting base has become stronger and more adept at getting their voice heard (and that includes electing more conservative representatives that don't turn into establishment drones when they get to DC).
Everyone concentrates on the 40 or so in the Freedom Caucus, but the voters in all districts are more conservative and are unhappy with the leadership and the direction of the GOP. And there are at least 100 in the House who are more conservative than the direction the establishment wants to go.
As for Ryan, he is a fiscal conservative, but he's pro-immigration. But I don't think he'll sell out to Obama on it before the election. But Rubio will if he gets elected.
I'll just call him an extreme statist. He most certainly is that.
Again I think that's a historically naive characterization and that matters. I also feel a Sanders presidency (again not happening) would be push towards moderate-left positions by the rest of the party and other republicans, where as HRC begins as a third way liberal whose instincts are basically center-right.
I'll just call him an extreme statist. He most certainly is that.
Again I think that's a historically naive characterization and that matters. I also feel a Sanders presidency (again not happening) would be push towards moderate-left positions by the rest of the party and other republicans, where as HRC begins as a third way liberal whose instincts are basically center-right.
But isn't that simply a brainier version of the guy who thinks everyone without the Glenn Beck seal of approval is a RINO? It's establishing the Center on your terms, in your case based on concepts of left and right that were true for a period of time and aren't necessarily true now.
Ash, your concept of left/right seems to be much more European
in nature. HRC would be center-right there, not so much here. If you assume that a strong strain of the right in the US is inclined towards limited government (which it really isn't in any meaningful sense, but that's what it purports to be) then there really isn't much in Europe that can be characterized as "right" by American standards.
Under Bush, there were 13 attacks on US embassies, with numerous deaths. Many of the deaths were of non-Americans. Only one death was a consulate member, but there were 11 were Americans serving various functions, and lots of others were our guests at the time of the attacks? Not identical, but similar enough. (link) I won't get into the WTC argument, but what about the death of 241 marines? Not similar enough? Why didn't that turn into an unending series of investigations?
- ( New Window )
george - in exactly how many of the 13 attacks was the ambassador left to die?
In exactly how many of those 13 embassy attacks did the attackers breach the embassy walls?
In exactly how many of those embassy attacks did the ambassador ask for additional security and was denied?
In exactly how many of those embassy attacks did outside contractors come to the aid of the embassy (without weapons)?
In exactly how many of those embassy attacks did the administration blame a small time video producer for causing the riots.
241 Marines? - in Lebanon 1983, The Reagan Administration?
Why don't you bring up Mogadishu - Blackhawk Down. If you're going back to Reagan, why did you bypass Bill and Les Aspin denying the Army's request for Bradleys and armored vehicles. Now that is a better comparison because there, a request for additional aid was denied, just like Benghazi. But what difference does it make.......
is part of his charm given the pretty appalling lack of social mobility and skewed wealth distribution in this country, but I'm just an angry dude who thinks general immiseration is a shitty strategy for political stability.
I get anger, I just don't get the moral and practical certainty that can so fervidly and angrily defend policy prescriptions that aren't obviously the best way of addressing income inequality or the plight of the poor. You (the generic you, not the personal you) have to be open to the notion that others, especially those on your side, are well-intentioned and are advancing prescriptions because they genuinely believe they are the best way of helping those who need help. In Vermont, progressives fighting other progressives - the old wagon wheel joke - were clearly fighting over the best way to attack what they perceived to be the same ills.
A very smart post, especially the bolded part. Here's the thing -- Bernie is trailing in the Dem race, and I think he's hit his absolute high point. He's going to fade from here. Because he is well, well, well to the left of most Dems.
Now can we apply the same question on the GOP side? The only policy prescription we've heard from the right since 2000 is more tax cuts. Tax cuts when times are good, tax cuts when times are bad, tax cuts all the time. And make believe dynamic scoring math that makes the tax cuts look like they're not blowing a hole through the budget. Is there anyone running on the right who isnt advocating for big tax cuts?
I'll just call him an extreme statist. He most certainly is that.
Again I think that's a historically naive characterization and that matters. I also feel a Sanders presidency (again not happening) would be push towards moderate-left positions by the rest of the party and other republicans, where as HRC begins as a third way liberal whose instincts are basically center-right.
But isn't that simply a brainier version of the guy who thinks everyone without the Glenn Beck seal of approval is a RINO? It's establishing the Center on your terms, in your case based on concepts of left and right that were true for a period of time and aren't necessarily true now.
Not necessarily. Whereas the person who indiscriminately throws around RINO is drawing from some ideal conception of a conservative, my and political scientists' spectrum is drawn more from historical precedent, one that goes beyond the last 35 years.
RE: Ash, your concept of left/right seems to be much more European
in nature. HRC would be center-right there, not so much here. If you assume that a strong strain of the right in the US is inclined towards limited government (which it really isn't in any meaningful sense, but that's what it purports to be) then there really isn't much in Europe that can be characterized as "right" by American standards.
I think that's fair.
and look, I'm not a social scientist nor a scholar
I don't have the ability to read a lot of literature on this. I can't quantify this statement, but given the expansion of government going back to the Bush administration, I don't see how anything that's happened in at least the past 15 years or so reflects any real shift towards conservatism.
RE: and look, I'm not a social scientist nor a scholar
I don't have the ability to read a lot of literature on this. I can't quantify this statement, but given the expansion of government going back to the Bush administration, I don't see how anything that's happened in at least the past 15 years or so reflects any real shift towards conservatism.
Well I think the big government/small government divide is a little silly, since Reagan was hardly a small spender. The better question is where government does its spending as a way of capturing the right/left spectrum.
the European right tends to be much more slanted towards
a sort of nationalistic populism coupled with economic protectionism, with much more of a grounding in ethnic and, sometimes, explicitly racial terms. Sort of a Pat Buchanan on steroids thing.
What's wrong with a HRC nomination? She's the most vetted candidate in history, she'll have the best advisor of our generation, she's super smart and has a set of balls on her. A little shady? Perhaps , what politician isn't .
RE: the European right tends to be much more slanted towards
a sort of nationalistic populism coupled with economic protectionism, with much more of a grounding in ethnic and, sometimes, explicitly racial terms. Sort of a Pat Buchanan on steroids thing.
Certainly. It's therefore disconcerting to see that same brand of ethnic or implicitly ethnic populism being used to good effect by Carson and Trump. Romney was more palatable than most of the candidates this year.
It's amazing people still are attempting to defend
and will never make politically costly decisions. Even LBJ, who was as calculating and self-serving a politician as there ever was, pushed the Civil Rights Bill through despite effectively giving up the South. I despise the Clintons.
I don't have the ability to read a lot of literature on this. I can't quantify this statement, but given the expansion of government going back to the Bush administration, I don't see how anything that's happened in at least the past 15 years or so reflects any real shift towards conservatism.
I love how every republican starts off with "i'm not a scientist" HAHAHAHA!! No shit, we couldn't tell.
Now back to telling us about the global warming hoax.
1. An ambassador was not left to die. That's a slur. The House Intel committee refuted that notion. And is an ambassador's life that much more valuable? Nothing else matters?
2. Benghazi did not involve an embassy. It was a temporary mission. Thus by its nature it wasnt as secure as a permanent embassy.
3. Stevens did ask for 5 total security agents for the Benghazi mission. There were 5 there at the time of the attack. There were not always 5 there, but there were during the attack. Moreover, State has said that no reasonable security presence could have fended off the attack. You get a big enough armed mob and it really doesnt matter whether there are 3 or 5 or 10 people attacking a semi-secure structure. So what is your point?
I've already addressed the video above.
But we get the point. Bad things only happen because Hillary and Obama is bad and made them happen. I think the outrage here is that Congress hasnt even looked into Benghazi! What are they waiting for?
RE: and look, I'm not a social scientist nor a scholar
I don't have the ability to read a lot of literature on this. I can't quantify this statement, but given the expansion of government going back to the Bush administration, I don't see how anything that's happened in at least the past 15 years or so reflects any real shift towards conservatism.
Well as a dyed in the wool libertarian, that it what overwhelmingly matters to YOU. But that is not the only measure of what is conservative.
is part of his charm given the pretty appalling lack of social mobility and skewed wealth distribution in this country, but I'm just an angry dude who thinks general immiseration is a shitty strategy for political stability.
I get anger, I just don't get the moral and practical certainty that can so fervidly and angrily defend policy prescriptions that aren't obviously the best way of addressing income inequality or the plight of the poor. You (the generic you, not the personal you) have to be open to the notion that others, especially those on your side, are well-intentioned and are advancing prescriptions because they genuinely believe they are the best way of helping those who need help. In Vermont, progressives fighting other progressives - the old wagon wheel joke - were clearly fighting over the best way to attack what they perceived to be the same ills.
A very smart post, especially the bolded part. Here's the thing -- Bernie is trailing in the Dem race, and I think he's hit his absolute high point. He's going to fade from here. Because he is well, well, well to the left of most Dems.
Now can we apply the same question on the GOP side? The only policy prescription we've heard from the right since 2000 is more tax cuts. Tax cuts when times are good, tax cuts when times are bad, tax cuts all the time. And make believe dynamic scoring math that makes the tax cuts look like they're not blowing a hole through the budget. Is there anyone running on the right who isnt advocating for big tax cuts?
There are plenty of avowedly ideological, virtually humorless Republicans. In the field I'd say Cruz is probably the closest to that, perhaps a good bit of why he is utterly despised by most of his Senate colleagues, but that is as much an issue of ambition as it is purity.
What's wrong with a HRC nomination? She's the most vetted candidate in history, she'll have the best advisor of our generation, she's super smart and has a set of balls on her. A little shady? Perhaps , what politician isn't .
Maybe because she cannot give a straight answer on anything?
Maybe because after 8 years as Senator and 4 years as Sec State she does not have a defined policy on anything? She cannot give a straight answer or say what she if for. At least Donald Trump swears he will build a wall on the Mexican border (not agreeing with that - just that he has said something definite as far as a policy.)
Look, you can crap on the Republicans all day long and they deserve it. But HRC is as bad as any of those, and maybe worse than some. There is NOTHING she brings to the table that will help this country, NOTHING.
She just wants to be president to be the 1st woman.
RE: RE: and look, I'm not a social scientist nor a scholar
I don't have the ability to read a lot of literature on this. I can't quantify this statement, but given the expansion of government going back to the Bush administration, I don't see how anything that's happened in at least the past 15 years or so reflects any real shift towards conservatism.
Well as a dyed in the wool libertarian, that it what overwhelmingly matters to YOU. But that is not the only measure of what is conservative.
Greg is a libertarian and I am not, but it's certainly a tension for a lot of people who consider themselves to be conservatives. Yes law and order, yes strong defense, but at what point have you surrendered too much liberty or encouraged too large a government to effect those? The simple and unfortunate answer is who gives a fuck, I'm not the one who is going to get cavity searched at the airport or get pulled over because my tag light is dim, but for the people who actually think about such things and/or aren't assholes that's not acceptable.
Your earlier post is essentially the Matt Yglesias take on it, the notion that she would be effective precisely because she is willing to ignore or at least play fast and loose with the rules and is unlikely to be bound by mere formalities. How that is distinguished from the whole "trains run on time" bit is perhaps too nuanced for me, other than that she would flout that authority in the service of a perceived good. Link - ( New Window )
1. An ambassador was not left to die. That's a slur. The House Intel committee refuted that notion. And is an ambassador's life that much more valuable? Nothing else matters?
2. Benghazi did not involve an embassy. It was a temporary mission. Thus by its nature it wasnt as secure as a permanent embassy.
3. Stevens did ask for 5 total security agents for the Benghazi mission. There were 5 there at the time of the attack. There were not always 5 there, but there were during the attack. Moreover, State has said that no reasonable security presence could have fended off the attack. You get a big enough armed mob and it really doesnt matter whether there are 3 or 5 or 10 people attacking a semi-secure structure. So what is your point?
I've already addressed the video above.
But we get the point. Bad things only happen because Hillary and Obama is bad and made them happen. I think the outrage here is that Congress hasnt even looked into Benghazi! What are they waiting for?
I'm a hack - just the pot calling the kettle..... Great, Anybody with an opposing view is a hack.
You are right it was a "mission" and I should have said that and was going to put that in but did not and neither did manhgeorge, but no he asked for additional security which was turned down.
And a Marine Fast team would have fended off that attack. Woods and Dougherty killed between 80 and 100 attackers by themselves and they arrived at the place unarmed.
So what is the problem if Hillary acts by Executive Order where allowable? I mean, if she said do X when a statute specifically said dont do X (say, by supplying weapons to the Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment) then it would be illegal.
The interesting thing about Hillary is that there are actually a bunch of quotes from Republicans who served with her in the Senate and worked with her in her capacity at State to the effect that she is very good to work with. I dont expect some grand new era of bipartisanship if she is elected, but I am pretty positive that she will do a much better job than Obama did in reaching out to the Congressional GOP.
So what is the problem if Hillary acts by Executive Order where allowable? I mean, if she said do X when a statute specifically said dont do X (say, by supplying weapons to the Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment) then it would be illegal.
The interesting thing about Hillary is that there are actually a bunch of quotes from Republicans who served with her in the Senate and worked with her in her capacity at State to the effect that she is very good to work with. I dont expect some grand new era of bipartisanship if she is elected, but I am pretty positive that she will do a much better job than Obama did in reaching out to the Congressional GOP.
I've heard two versions. One is that she is a wretched human being, a horrible and unlovable piece of human garbage who is mean and vindictive to those who cross her over even the most trivial of stuff. And the other is that regardless of whether or not she is capable of inching the personal thermometer north of 32 degrees she is a capable leader and that compared to her tenure Kerry's has been almost rudderless. Now the former may be an exaggeration, the latter may simply be the slanted takes of people who admire her, but I'm not sure those are irreconcilable.
So what is the problem if Hillary acts by Executive Order where allowable? I mean, if she said do X when a statute specifically said dont do X (say, by supplying weapons to the Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment) then it would be illegal.
The interesting thing about Hillary is that there are actually a bunch of quotes from Republicans who served with her in the Senate and worked with her in her capacity at State to the effect that she is very good to work with. I dont expect some grand new era of bipartisanship if she is elected, but I am pretty positive that she will do a much better job than Obama did in reaching out to the Congressional GOP.
I've heard two versions. One is that she is a wretched human being, a horrible and unlovable piece of human garbage who is mean and vindictive to those who cross her over even the most trivial of stuff. And the other is that regardless of whether or not she is capable of inching the personal thermometer north of 32 degrees she is a capable leader and that compared to her tenure Kerry's has been almost rudderless. Now the former may be an exaggeration, the latter may simply be the slanted takes of people who admire her, but I'm not sure those are irreconcilable.
Let me just ask this -- what are the sources for Hillary being this vile and wretched human? I hear it all the time from the right, and even from some on the left. Who are the people that have actually dealt with her who are coming out and saying "my dealings with HRC demonstrate that she is just awful and terrible". That has always been my disconnect. Rush Limbaugh hates her. Breitbart hates her. The whole ed/op-ed page of the NY Times hates her. But where does it come from? The amount of amateur psychoanalyzing of her is really astounding. It has astounded me for 20 years.
Sheldon Adelson, one of the Republican Party's most sought-after contributors, is leaning increasingly toward supporting Marco Rubio and the Florida senator is racing to win the backing of other uncommitted megadonors who have the potential to direct tens of millions of dollars his way and alter the contours of the Republican primary fight.
And while she's not my ideal candidate, I'll certainly take it. The Republicans have basically made the trade of the House of Reps for the Presidency with the Senate swinging back and forth.
I dont doubt it. The establishment money has to go somewhere. The "problem" with Rubio is that his momentum seems to be by process of elimination (a corollary of the HRC problem of no competition whatsoever). I mean, he's not doing well in the polls - still at only 10% (Romney never fell below 20% even during the Perry-Cain-Newt monthly spotlights). Is the money flocking to him because Rubio is good, or because the other "serious" candidates (Bush, Walker, Christie, Kasich) have been bad?
Now, that's not to say Rubio is a bad candidate. He has a lot of good political qualities/skills and is solidly conservative. But he isnt generating the excitement of say a 2008 Obama.
Re Shelly: I do hate how much our politics can be dictated by a few mega donors. NYTimes had a big piece about how half the giving so far is from <200 families. GOP is getting a lot more of its money from that small base, but even the Dems have 20 givers or so who are megafunding them. It is just so bad for democracy. And we get policy outcomes favored by this small cadre rather than what is popularly wanted.
Let me just ask this -- what are the sources for Hillary being this vile and wretched human? I hear it all the time from the right, and even from some on the left. Who are the people that have actually dealt with her who are coming out and saying "my dealings with HRC demonstrate that she is just awful and terrible". That has always been my disconnect. Rush Limbaugh hates her. Breitbart hates her. The whole ed/op-ed page of the NY Times hates her. But where does it come from? The amount of amateur psychoanalyzing of her is really astounding. It has astounded me for 20 years.
Interesting Vanity Fair piece on Hillary. As opposed to vile and wretched, it suggests an almost maniacal obsession with secrecy and privacy along with demands for total loyalty (which are returned). Sounds vaguely like Nixon to me. Link - ( New Window )
Let me just ask this -- what are the sources for Hillary being this vile and wretched human? I hear it all the time from the right, and even from some on the left. Who are the people that have actually dealt with her who are coming out and saying "my dealings with HRC demonstrate that she is just awful and terrible". That has always been my disconnect. Rush Limbaugh hates her. Breitbart hates her. The whole ed/op-ed page of the NY Times hates her. But where does it come from? The amount of amateur psychoanalyzing of her is really astounding. It has astounded me for 20 years.
Interesting Vanity Fair piece on Hillary. As opposed to vile and wretched, it suggests an almost maniacal obsession with secrecy and privacy along with demands for total loyalty (which are returned). Sounds vaguely like Nixon to me. Link - ( New Window )
Nixon, at least temperamentally, is a good comparison. It makes a HRC presidency with our current security apparatus that much more terrifying.
Interesting Vanity Fair piece on Hillary. As opposed to vile and wretched, it suggests an almost maniacal obsession with secrecy and privacy along with demands for total loyalty (which are returned). Sounds vaguely like Nixon to me. Link - ( New Window )
See that I buy in some form (Nixonian comp aside). Will read the article, thanks. It at least makes sense given what facts we can observe from the outside. E.g. the email fuckup obviously started with a drive for privacy/secrecy.
The "worst person ever" stuff just doesnt make any sense to me. I'd just think you'd hear elected officials she dealt with coming out and saying this. If she's so awful, how come the whole party lined up behind her? And before people say they're scared of her, remember that she was inevitable in 2008 and Obama got plenty of supporters in the 2008 primary, including Kennedy. If there was ever fear of Billary, it would have to be diminished 15 years after Bill left the WH, right? It just doesnt seem plausible to me that you dont have people from her caucus ever parroting this worst person shit.
Now, I bet she isnt so warm and fuzzy. I could see her not passing the "do I want a beer with this person test". I just think that's a stupid test. I wasnt some asshole in my leader. It's a scary world.
Hillary Clinton is a dirtbag, I don't care she has ovaries
I'm not cutting her any slack. And I'm a registered Democrat. No way is she ever getting my vote. And quite a few Democrats feel that way in urban cities. She has the perfect candidate to go up against this time in Sanders. The man is too scared to correct a woman let alone debate them.
Her whole life is a big lie and no one calls her out on anything anymore. I mean that TPP should be hammering stuff from the media. Gay marriage reversal after a whole two years. 1999 Financial Act. Don't ask don't tell. Iraq vote. The 1994 crime bill. NAFTA.
A better debate would be between current as of today Hillary vs past Hillary which apparently can include a few months ago Hillary too. They seem to disagree with each other on some many topics.
She just dismissed her so called gold standard achievement as SOS. So... what's left to rely on then as evidence of her achievements or some great bill that she championed before. See above.
But when it comes to poitics, the only reason why you hate her is because she does not representing your views or your interests. This will probably be 47% of the country, or about 150 million people. That's alot of hate.
Interesting Vanity Fair piece on Hillary. As opposed to vile and wretched, it suggests an almost maniacal obsession with secrecy and privacy along with demands for total loyalty (which are returned). Sounds vaguely like Nixon to me. Link - ( New Window )
See that I buy in some form (Nixonian comp aside). Will read the article, thanks. It at least makes sense given what facts we can observe from the outside. E.g. the email fuckup obviously started with a drive for privacy/secrecy.
The "worst person ever" stuff just doesnt make any sense to me. I'd just think you'd hear elected officials she dealt with coming out and saying this. If she's so awful, how come the whole party lined up behind her? And before people say they're scared of her, remember that she was inevitable in 2008 and Obama got plenty of supporters in the 2008 primary, including Kennedy. If there was ever fear of Billary, it would have to be diminished 15 years after Bill left the WH, right? It just doesnt seem plausible to me that you dont have people from her caucus ever parroting this worst person shit.
Now, I bet she isnt so warm and fuzzy. I could see her not passing the "do I want a beer with this person test". I just think that's a stupid test. I wasnt some asshole in my leader. It's a scary world.
Ted Kennedy, and it holds pretty much for the whole Kennedy family, didn't have to be afraid of anyone, particularly in the Democratic Party.
but I do hear her critics rail on everything she does and everything she is, every single day.
And then, every now and then, I see her at a press conference or giving a speech, and I always have the same feeling - "Really? She's not *that* bad."
There are a lot of people I trust more than Hillary Clinton, but among the people I trust a lot LESS are the folks who insist that she's the worst human being in the world, and demonstrates it every single day.
But when it comes to poitics, the only reason why you hate her is because she does not representing your views or your interests. This will probably be 47% of the country, or about 150 million people. That's alot of hate.
That's the point right there. NO ONE is sure who views she represents. Because she keeps flipping all the time. And no one seriously calls her out. It's just oh that Hillary has changed her mind. Or she has reviewed the matter BS. Come on. It's flipping for polls. The lady needs handlers and pollsters to tell her to be warm and have heart. That ridiculous that they even her campaign had to announce it.
but the wider characterization is cobbled together from everything from personal snippets (most of which are pretty complimentary of Bill and even Obama) to the stories about the way this and that Democratic political figure was treated, the veritable peace treaty with the Obamas that saw Hillary take over state, etc etc. The fact that the NYT editorial page has had enough of her should tell you all that you need to know.
I'm a partisan conservative, I vote Republican the overwhelming majority of the time, I make no bones about that. My dislike for Hillary isn't because she is especially electable or because she might be too effective as a Democrat, I just find nothing redeeming about her. Given a choice between Trump or Carson or Cruz and Martin O'Malley or Jim Webb I'd give the Democrat a shot. Given a choice between Hillary and any of those three I'd vote third party and feel very pessimistic about America's chances.
forever. It's not recent. It's from the 1990s. I dont know why.
There are many reasons but the biggest one is her treatment of some of those women who came forward accusing her husband. Despite the claims now, Hillary wasn't some lily, she went on the offensive to disparage some of those women. It was a lot more than just stand by your man stuff.
forever. It's not recent. It's from the 1990s. I dont know why.
There are many reasons but the biggest one is her treatment of some of those women who came forward accusing her husband. Despite the claims now, Hillary wasn't some lily, she went on the offensive to disparage some of those women. It was a lot more than just stand by your man stuff.
And of course at odds with her "come forward and you will be believed" rhetoric now.
What's wrong with a HRC nomination? She's the most vetted candidate in history, she'll have the best advisor of our generation, she's super smart and has a set of balls on her. A little shady? Perhaps , what politician isn't .
Most people I know who aren't enthused about Hillary think of her as an opportunistic hawk. I feel like she tends to represent her positions based upon what's politically prudent at the time, and without the need to do so as President, she'd be a little scary to me.
Fatman, OF COURSE most Republicans do not discuss...
things like climate change by starting off with the phrase, "I'm not a scientist, but..."
The point is that nearly all--if not all--of the Republican candidates for the Presidency say EXACTLY THAT, and the Republican voters let them get away with it.
Same goes with letting the Freedom Caucus bully the House of Representatives. No, most Republicans aren't that far to the right, and don't want to see a default on US debt, for example. But they don't squeal all that loudly when 40 or so members of the House hold the other 395 hostage to their demands.
Let's see if they can maintain their really obnoxious list of demands and actually get someone closer to the center of gravity of the Republican party--which is still pretty conservative, like Ryan--to go along with them.
Doubtful.
RE: Everything about her is irritating and annoying
But when it comes to poitics, the only reason why you hate her is because she does not representing your views or your interests. This will probably be 47% of the country, or about 150 million people. That's alot of hate.
I don't agree much with Bernie Sanders, but I think he's a decent person and I certainly don't hate him.
over whether Anderson Cooper was ever a member of the Clinton Global Initiative. Cooper, who will moderate the debate, dismissed it as "total bunk" but he was apparently listed as a past member on the CGI website. Link - ( New Window )
Well I'm gonna watch the debate tomorrow, since the Mets
over whether Anderson Cooper was ever a member of the Clinton Global Initiative. Cooper, who will moderate the debate, dismissed it as "total bunk" but he was apparently listed as a past member on the CGI website. Link - ( New Window )
I think that hack on ABC George Stephannoplis was as well. Would love to see some of those hidden emails, I'll bet it has some names on there that some do not want to see the light of day.
over whether Anderson Cooper was ever a member of the Clinton Global Initiative. Cooper, who will moderate the debate, dismissed it as "total bunk" but he was apparently listed as a past member on the CGI website. Link - ( New Window )
I think that hack on ABC George Stephannoplis was as well. Would love to see some of those hidden emails, I'll bet it has some names on there that some do not want to see the light of day.
I don't particularly dislike either one of them. However, the notion that many in that class of hosts and journalists and agenda-setters have both ideological affinity and some express ties to prominent Democrats, including the presumptive nominee, is not a figment of the Republican imagination. "Yes but Fox News!" Fox News is a caricature, as was MSNBC before their recent changes. ABC and CNN and CBS are ostensibly objective outlets. Do we expect them to hold feet to fire if they do have these ties?
the media has the dem candidate under the microscope in a very critical way. Conservatives whining about "the media" has always struck me as meek and small, but this year in particular it is just hollow.
but if you want to start talking about media bias on certain issues there are a handful on which the narrative is extremely biased, most notably the A word.
could single handedly cure the nation of insomnia.
He was so f'ing bad corporations actually left the state over to virginia and all the traffic patterns changed against existing highway improvements around the beltway and 270. That is just scratching the surface of what that fucking moron did.
Let me just ask this -- what are the sources for Hillary being this vile and wretched human? I hear it all the time from the right, and even from some on the left. Who are the people that have actually dealt with her who are coming out and saying "my dealings with HRC demonstrate that she is just awful and terrible". That has always been my disconnect. Rush Limbaugh hates her. Breitbart hates her. The whole ed/op-ed page of the NY Times hates her. But where does it come from? The amount of amateur psychoanalyzing of her is really astounding. It has astounded me for 20 years.
Interesting Vanity Fair piece on Hillary. As opposed to vile and wretched, it suggests an almost maniacal obsession with secrecy and privacy along with demands for total loyalty (which are returned). Sounds vaguely like Nixon to me. Link - ( New Window )
The funny thing about the emails are that during the Clinton term there was a whole investigation into their email servers during the Lewinkski thing and they apparently lost or deleted emails. Kind of funny as this was a case study for many ethics courses in universities. These actions and behavior are not something new for them and systemic. I'll bet the reason the FBI has this in its special handling teams are that it probably has many things as well as classified information they do not want to get out in open. Could be damaging to many people.
His reasoning is right. Why punish manufactures or sellers if they sell guns to mentally sane/law abiding citizens who go out and do stupid things?
Should we do the same to beer distributors when people get drunk and kill people on the roads?
But if they did that there wouldnt be liability. So you wouldnt need to give them immunity.
The only argument for immunity I think is the fear that gun mfrs would be subject to unending frivolous litigation, which imposes some costs. Immunity would let those cases get dismissed very early. However, it is a very broad remedy and there are more limited things you could do (e.g. heightened pleading requirements). Every industry could benefit from immunity from prosecution; but the gun lobby is very rich/powerful, so they get it when others dont.
Two things. 1, it seems like the purpose of this debate is to get them to attack one another. 2, it should just be a nice conversation between HRC and Sanders rather than a debate. The 'debate' aspect is silly.
Sanders is not only holding his own but surprising me with his straight answers. O'Malley started off slow, I thought he would come out like gangbusters. Is Hillary going to participate? These short answers. Like she doesn't even want to get involve.
Snappy comeback. Sanders applied for conscientious objector status - not just a student deferment, not sit out the war in a Guard unit, conscientious objector status - and now wants to be Commander in Chief. Think about that for a second.
Snappy comeback. Sanders applied for conscientious objector status - not just a student deferment, not sit out the war in a Guard unit, conscientious objector status - and now wants to be Commander in Chief. Think about that for a second.
I agree, he was much more open about it than just avoiding service. Seems more principled though.
Webb surges after this debate how can anyone watching this not see he is destroying the rest?
I agree he is impressive.
I like Webb, but I doubt he surges because that's not where the Party has been for a long time. The Democrats of Appalachia who used to have a somewhat outsized role (Gore, Bill) no longer exist as a meaningful constituency because they're no longer necessary to win the general election.
Snappy comeback. Sanders applied for conscientious objector status - not just a student deferment, not sit out the war in a Guard unit, conscientious objector status - and now wants to be Commander in Chief. Think about that for a second.
I agree, he was much more open about it than just avoiding service. Seems more principled though.
Principle is nice. Relying on a guy who used to be a pacifist and hasn't moved much on anything else to effectively run a military and confront foreign policy threats is not.
If Hillary thinks that we need better education in
Snappy comeback. Sanders applied for conscientious objector status - not just a student deferment, not sit out the war in a Guard unit, conscientious objector status - and now wants to be Commander in Chief. Think about that for a second.
I agree, he was much more open about it than just avoiding service. Seems more principled though.
Principle is nice. Relying on a guy who used to be a pacifist and hasn't moved much on anything else to effectively run a military and confront foreign policy threats is not.
If Bush was able to start two of our longest conflicts in American history, I'm missing why Sanders can't. There's hope for all.
RE: If Hillary thinks that we need better education in
poor neighborhoods, why is she against school vouchers. Because the Teachers Unions are supporting her.
Because the evidence is decidedly mixed on vouchers.
[And for full disclosure: I dont have an opinion on what to do about schools. I am neither pro-union nor pro-voucher/charter; I think it is something that requires more experimentation and study, and probably depends a lot on a community-by-community assessment.]
perhaps beyond its ability to respond to the conflicts it is asked to respond to. Bernie, who has never governed anything larger than a college town, who conducted foreign policy while a mayor of said college town, is not an adult in the room when it comes to running a real foreign policy and maintaining a military power capable of standing behind it. He makes Jimmy Carter look like Harry Truman. If nominated, he would have to be the most dovish major party candidate since Henry Wallace, no?
acting like a tough guy to Lincoln fucking Chafee. What a fucking pompous ass.
Can't do that to Hillary she'll have him murdered lol
He tried it over the e-mails and I thought she was going to come down there and smack him. He tried to get Sanders to go after her about it but instead he got Bern.
who are you talking to? I dont think there are Sanders voters on this thread. You're railing against a guy who has no shot.
Right now he's the only other candidate with respectable poll numbers. No, it is extremely unlikely to last, but I also don't think anyone else on the stage broke through.
Dems have said they would raise taxes. Are you deaf and blind, or just reading from a list of talking points.
You dont seem to raise this on your side. All your candidates are proposing deficit-financed tax cuts. How come you dont complain about no one explaining how they would pay for the tax cuts? Other than by the magic of tax cuts that purportedly raise tax revenues.
Dems have said they would raise taxes. Are you deaf and blind, or just reading from a list of talking points.
You dont seem to raise this on your side. All your candidates are proposing deficit-financed tax cuts. How come you dont complain about no one explaining how they would pay for the tax cuts? Other than by the magic of tax cuts that purportedly raise tax revenues.
Obviously you have to cut spending. Which is always brought up by Republicans.
Hillary has rules just for her in the debate. Just like real life.
The thought of your reaction if she wins it all gives me a good chuckle.
Actually it is a real problem. If she wins, half the country is going to be apoplectic on day one. While I think that it is based on derangement, it is nevertheless a fact. Now I think the GOP will hate any Dem who won, but part of me wishes we had some decent, non-controversial Dem governor running who could make a real contest of this (also because I think the competition is good for the party and country).
Dems have said they would raise taxes. Are you deaf and blind, or just reading from a list of talking points.
You dont seem to raise this on your side. All your candidates are proposing deficit-financed tax cuts. How come you dont complain about no one explaining how they would pay for the tax cuts? Other than by the magic of tax cuts that purportedly raise tax revenues.
Bernie Sanders and Grover Norquist drink the same Kool Aid.
Quote:........ but part of me wishes we had some decent, non-controversial Dem governor running who could make a real contest of this (also because I think the competition is good for the party and country).
she's just a better debater than the rest on the stage. When you know how to give clear and compressed answers and remain on topic, you get more lenience from the moderators with the time allowed to answer before getting cut off. If you spend time bitching about how little time you're getting and get off topic, like Jim Webb has done repeatedly, you're more likely to lose talk time.
RE: Hillary isn't getting special treatment in this debate
she's just a better debater than the rest on the stage. When you know how to give clear and compressed answers and remain on topic, you get more lenience from the moderators with the time allowed to answer before getting cut off. If you spend time bitching about how little time you're getting and get off topic, like Jim Webb has done repeatedly, you're more likely to lose talk time.
Compressed? The only one who has given short and concise and on point answers has been Webb....
Bernie Sanders and Grover Norquist drink the same Kool Aid.
And tell me how Bush and Rubio's tax plans are not of the same kool aid?
The difference is that Sanders policy platform would never come to be. He'll never be elected, but putting that aside he'd only get some of that passed at best. On the other hand, Rubio and Bush if elected will likely get massive, deficit-financed tax cuts put through on the specious logic of perfectly dynamic scoring.
she's just a better debater than the rest on the stage. When you know how to give clear and compressed answers and remain on topic, you get more lenience from the moderators with the time allowed to answer before getting cut off. If you spend time bitching about how little time you're getting and get off topic, like Jim Webb has done repeatedly, you're more likely to lose talk time.
Cant say I agree. I think Cooper has served up easier questions, and Hillary gives the answers that people want to hear. Cooper has not pressed her whatsoever.
The others are taking too the issues and Cooper is grilling them at any cost.
Bernie Sanders and Grover Norquist drink the same Kool Aid.
And tell me how Bush and Rubio's tax plans are not of the same kool aid?
The difference is that Sanders policy platform would never come to be. He'll never be elected, but putting that aside he'd only get some of that passed at best. On the other hand, Rubio and Bush if elected will likely get massive, deficit-financed tax cuts put through on the specious logic of perfectly dynamic scoring.
Hillary and others are also touting free college, healthcare for illegal immigrants and a lot of other spending. Where is that money coming from?
to pay for all free college for Americans and expand Social Security is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, and I'm staunchly liberal. It wouldn't raise nearly enough money to pay for everything he is proposing
Bernie Sanders and Grover Norquist drink the same Kool Aid.
And tell me how Bush and Rubio's tax plans are not of the same kool aid?
The difference is that Sanders policy platform would never come to be. He'll never be elected, but putting that aside he'd only get some of that passed at best. On the other hand, Rubio and Bush if elected will likely get massive, deficit-financed tax cuts put through on the specious logic of perfectly dynamic scoring.
The Republicans' policy on taxation is among my least favorite things about them. I still think we crossed a Rubicon when Bush agreeing to a tax hike was perceived to be the nail in his coffin. Whether that was true or not, it was the takeaway for too many Republicans.
to pay for all free college for Americans and expand Social Security is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, and I'm staunchly liberal. It wouldn't raise nearly enough money to pay for everything he is proposing
Right and what about everyone with current student debt why do they never address this?
to pay for all free college for Americans and expand Social Security is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, and I'm staunchly liberal. It wouldn't raise nearly enough money to pay for everything he is proposing
I touched on it earlier, but its been an unmitigated disaster anywhere they've tried it.
Webb, when not complaining about his alloted time, really hit Bernie hard with that last exchange. The revolution is not coming and a President is not going to transform an economy to the degree Sanders seems to think he'll be able to.
If you're a Democrat, you have to pray that man does not pick up steam and get elected - it would set the party back quite a ways long-term. He's a good man that has conviction, but is more in-tune with a freshman in Poli Sci 101 than reality.
You know I dont pile on you like other posters do, but you're just impossible to have a discussion with. You just ignore, ignore, ignore. How many different new sources of revenue do they have to address before you stop saying that they wont tell you have they're paying for this stuff?
She just keep smiling and saying how Republicans are different from Democrats. I hope she isn't trying to do a big picture general election move in these debates. She is not doing as well as I anticipated in this debate at all. And had to be bailed out by "rivals" when Cooper actually asked a tough question about her scandal or integrity. I mean her response to her flip flopping was she was always for protecting the climate.
is to take the wealth of the 1%. I'm not blind or deaf. You are hearing voices that no one else is. And you are right, it is impossible for you to have a conversation with me because you are delusional about HRC and the Dems and not only completely wrong in most of your views on Conservatives but you are incredibly intolerant and just downright rude and nasty. Just ignore me from now on and I'll do the same.
RE: RE: Hillary isn't getting special treatment in this debate
she's just a better debater than the rest on the stage. When you know how to give clear and compressed answers and remain on topic, you get more lenience from the moderators with the time allowed to answer before getting cut off. If you spend time bitching about how little time you're getting and get off topic, like Jim Webb has done repeatedly, you're more likely to lose talk time.
Compressed? The only one who has given short and concise and on point answers has been Webb....
By "compressed", I'm not talking about the length of the response but the content and cadence of it. The slow Stephen Hawking-like response is usually an indication of a response that's either not well thought out or not quick enough to the point. Those responses are most likely to get cut off.
there is some clear oppo material here, but nobody else looks remotely presidential. Bernie is what he is, Webb is a representative of a party that no longer exists, Chafee sucks and O'Malley has done nothing to improve his stature.
you dont get to spout nonsense and then call people nasty when they disagree with you. Feel free to ignore me though.
You are nasty. I never resort to personal attacks. You do completely unprovoked. I stick to the issues. When you can do that, maybe I'll respond to you.
You say pacifist like it's a dirty word. There are many of us who are opposed to almost all military intervention. I believe the history over the last 50 years is on our side. How many "wars" were worth the cost?
there is some clear oppo material here, but nobody else looks remotely presidential. Bernie is what he is, Webb is a representative of a party that no longer exists, Chafee sucks and O'Malley has done nothing to improve his stature.
The candidates are pretty lame for the Dems. Even if HRC wins, who do they have planned to come up and then replace her? I really believe if the GOP ever gets their shit together, they may get the presidency sooner rather than later.
you dont get to spout nonsense and then call people nasty when they disagree with you. Feel free to ignore me though.
You are nasty. I never resort to personal attacks. You do completely unprovoked. I stick to the issues. When you can do that, maybe I'll respond to you.
5 minutes ago you called me "you are incredibly intolerant and just downright rude and nasty". But you dont resort to personal attacks.
You say pacifist like it's a dirty word. There are many of us who are opposed to almost all military intervention. I believe the history over the last 50 years is on our side. How many "wars" were worth the cost?
Nothing wrong with principled pacifism, but most pacifists don't aspire to head armed forces that are millions strong.
there is some clear oppo material here, but nobody else looks remotely presidential. Bernie is what he is, Webb is a representative of a party that no longer exists, Chafee sucks and O'Malley has done nothing to improve his stature.
The candidates are pretty lame for the Dems. Even if HRC wins, who do they have planned to come up and then replace her? I really believe if the GOP ever gets their shit together, they may get the presidency sooner rather than later.
Is your question, who would run in 2024? That's a long way off. Governors, young senators. Who knows. Maybe Joe Biden? He'll only be in his 80s.
I think if Elizabeth Warren were running, she'd a) be killing this debate and b) be the clear Democratic choice.
I think she would win the nomination but lose the general. Her style is great for the senate but I'm unsure how it carries on a national campaign trail. I think her policies are reasonable. Hillary championed that 99 financial bill as FLOTUS. Along with the 94 Crime Bill. Her staff made sure to let you know this during that time as well.
I think if Elizabeth Warren were running, she'd a) be killing this debate and b) be the clear Democratic choice.
I think she would win the nomination but lose the general. Her style is great for the senate but I'm unsure how it carries on a national campaign trail. I think her policies are reasonable. Hillary championed that 99 financial bill as FLOTUS. Along with the 94 Crime Bill. Her staff made sure to let you know this during that time as well.
No matter who wins the nomination is likely to lose the election
as I said I didnt see the debate, but is he really a pacifist (I'll admit, I dismiss his economic policies so I never looked much into him). Bernie says he isnt:
Quote:
Sen. Bernie Sanders insisted he wouldn't hesitate to employ military force if he becomes the next commander in chief so long as it's a last resort.
"I am not a pacifist," he said when questioned about his decision to register as a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War. "I supported the war in Afghanistan."
He added that he supported the Clinton administration's actions in Kosovo and President Barack Obama's air strikes in Syria.
"I happen to believe from the bottom of my heart that war should be the last resort," Sanders said.
I think if Elizabeth Warren were running, she'd a) be killing this debate and b) be the clear Democratic choice.
I think she would win the nomination but lose the general. Her style is great for the senate but I'm unsure how it carries on a national campaign trail. I think her policies are reasonable. Hillary championed that 99 financial bill as FLOTUS. Along with the 94 Crime Bill. Her staff made sure to let you know this during that time as well.
No matter who wins the nomination is likely to lose the election
Demographics and the Electoral College would tend to disagree with that.
As long as the D's pick a mainstream candidate, they should win.
you dont get to spout nonsense and then call people nasty when they disagree with you. Feel free to ignore me though.
You are nasty. I never resort to personal attacks. You do completely unprovoked. I stick to the issues. When you can do that, maybe I'll respond to you.
5 minutes ago you called me "you are incredibly intolerant and just downright rude and nasty". But you dont resort to personal attacks.
That's after you called me 'deaf or blind' twice. And said I was impossible to have a discussion with. Well will discourse like that, it's no wonder. Work on your people skills.
Hillary with a chance to be spontaneous on weed...
was wrong. And diplomacy should be practiced first and war should be the last resort. The majority of the country now feels the same way after seeing how cowboy diplomacy has played out. Don't need Putin telling I told ya so again.
as I said I didnt see the debate, but is he really a pacifist (I'll admit, I dismiss his economic policies so I never looked much into him). Bernie says he isnt:
Quote:
Sen. Bernie Sanders insisted he wouldn't hesitate to employ military force if he becomes the next commander in chief so long as it's a last resort.
"I am not a pacifist," he said when questioned about his decision to register as a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War. "I supported the war in Afghanistan."
He added that he supported the Clinton administration's actions in Kosovo and President Barack Obama's air strikes in Syria.
"I happen to believe from the bottom of my heart that war should be the last resort," Sanders said.
Link - ( New Window )
He applied for CO status as a pacifist during Vietnam. He says he isn't a pacifist now.
She showed a lot of energy and accomplished her goal of reaffirming her liberal status, at least in comparison to Sanders. Sanders had a good showing, he actually did much better than I expected - he may actually get a bump in his polling. O'Malley was boring, Chafee was a mess, and Webb was abrasive - I don't expect their campaigns to last much longer.
It's about leading the country first not the military. It's time to rethink our strategy starting with the size and cost of the military. I disagree with Sanders on economic issues but he's right on foreign policy. Again, how many wars in the last 50 years resulted in a positive outcome?
It's about leading the country first not the military. It's time to rethink our strategy starting with the size and cost of the military. I disagree with Sanders on economic issues but he's right on foreign policy. Again, how many wars in the last 50 years resulted in a positive outcome?
AP I think you are right. We need to let the military reduce it's size just like before WW1 and WW2.
I liked Sanders over all of them. He's more libertarian then socialist. Still wouldn't vote him. But would be curious to see what he would get done as president.
Nothing else of value really gained with this - Clinton is just on another level in this format and it showed.
The major buzz will be Bernie's "damn email" comment, but...that helps Hillary, not him. He was hot/cold, but won't be hurt by anything (though don't see how he gains anything either).
it was kind of boring. no one was grilled. hillary was most definitely not challenged by cooper.
cooper was the biggest loser of them all.
She was asked to give a response about Benghazi. She was asked to give a response about emails. She was even asked to give a response about her vote on the Iraq war despite it being brought up ad nauseum in the 2008 election. Exactly what kind of "grilling" did you want to see?
It's about leading the country first not the military. It's time to rethink our strategy starting with the size and cost of the military. I disagree with Sanders on economic issues but he's right on foreign policy. Again, how many wars in the last 50 years resulted in a positive outcome?
How many wars didn't happen, with or without us, because we presented a credible military deterrent?
between an attack on Wall Street, an attack on overly advantaged investors/traders, and an attack on investments generally, and Sanders seems extremely inarticulate in explaining the difference.
Yes, a very small transactions tax wold raise a decent amount of money ($185 billion in 10 years) and fall heavily on high frequency traders. I strongly support that, but it isn't going to replace a whole lot of middle class taxation at the rate of $18.5 billion per year. (link) Larger transaction taxes a la Sanders fall much heavier on the entire class of investors, and tend to reduce the value of securities. And, neither of these has any major impact on "Wall Street," which is entirely different that the class of investors generally.
With respect to Wall Street, the goal should be to disincentivize bad behavior, put the worst transgressors in prison, and limit excess pay. I am not entirely sure what the best ways are to do that, but apparently neither is Sanders. ( Bill2 probably has some better ideas than I do on that.) Bernie mainly just grandstands on the topic. Dodd-Frank, Basel III and Volcker already limit an awful lot of leveraged behavior by Wall Street firms. It's the high-end earners, including HFT and private equity, that need to be boxed in.
Sanders either doesn't understand that, or can't articulate it. "Let's get Wall Street, grrr."
1) criminal prosecutions for corporate malfeasance -- problem is that prosecutors have a bad, bad track record on complex cases like this. Insider trading can be proven since it is simple. ABACUS is kind of simply. Beyond that, hard hard case. And a lot of the excesses are simply not criminal. Being a fucking idiot or a greedy idiot is not criminal. And unlike most criminal defendants, a lot of the bank officers have advancement rights (the companies must pay for their lawyers), which robs prosecutors of one of their biggest levers. OTOH, I dont understand why no one ever went after the mortgage originators.
2) Massive fines. Fines that wipe out capital, not just a few weeks profits. Theory being that shareholders will then start policing things. I havent given this a lot of thought, but it was discussed on the most recent Slate Money podcast re VW.
3) More regulation. But regulation tends to be reactive and/or prohibitive of okay transactions.
I'll leave off stuff like "people need to be more ethical and less greedy" because the cat is out of the bag on that.
I actually think Hillary got hurt tonight myself. Because her rivals appear genuine and compensate. I just finished talking to a family member who said that only Hillary could win against the Republicans for the last two years. Now honestly think that everyone other than Chafee could easily beat anyone in the Republican field.
Also, the legacy question is what the internet is talking about right now. She no longer considers her trade negotiations a gold standard and that some women are insulted that she is using the gender card. I was wondering how that would play out, particularly in a debate where an old man had to come to her rescue about her e-mails the one time Cooper tried to stay firm on getting a satisfactory answer from her. Cooper using Obama quote from two days ago could have put her in a bad way.
I actually think Hillary got hurt tonight myself. Because her rivals appear genuine and compensate. I just finished talking to a family member who said that only Hillary could win against the Republicans for the last two years. Now honestly think that everyone other than Chafee could easily beat anyone in the Republican field.
Also, the legacy question is what the internet is talking about right now. She no longer considers her trade negotiations a gold standard and that some women are insulted that she is using the gender card. I was wondering how that would play out, particularly in a debate where an old man had to come to her rescue about her e-mails the one time Cooper tried to stay firm on getting a satisfactory answer from her. Cooper using Obama quote from two days ago could have put her in a bad way.
Her answer to the outsider question (Bush/Clinton) "I'm a woman" was so cringeworthy
is that you have to remember that some of these entities were foisted on these banks. Did BAC and JPM make those acquisitions totally out of free will, or did the regulators encourage them to save the banking system. JPM was certainly leaned on to buy Bear Sterns. I want to believe that no executive bought Countrywide totally out of free will.
So then the question needs to be asked: if Treasury lobbied JPM hard to buy Bear rather than risk another Lehman-style liquidation event, why do we then need to punish JPM as the surviving entity? If my brother is a deadbeat and I set him up in a spare bedroom, should I become liable for his debts?
It's a tough question.
Hillary should stop talking about the fact that she's a woman
Something tells me we would never agree. FWIW, I believe our history of intervention since WW II has done more harm than good. If the only good is preventing a war we can't identify then..... History will not treat us kindly.
Section, I'm not sure what the right level of spending, troops, etc is but I would favor a 10 year plan to dramatically reduce the size and scope of the military.
I actually think Hillary got hurt tonight myself. Because her rivals appear genuine and compensate. I just finished talking to a family member who said that only Hillary could win against the Republicans for the last two years. Now honestly think that everyone other than Chafee could easily beat anyone in the Republican field.
Also, the legacy question is what the internet is talking about right now. She no longer considers her trade negotiations a gold standard and that some women are insulted that she is using the gender card. I was wondering how that would play out, particularly in a debate where an old man had to come to her rescue about her e-mails the one time Cooper tried to stay firm on getting a satisfactory answer from her. Cooper using Obama quote from two days ago could have put her in a bad way.
Her answer to the outsider question (Bush/Clinton) "I'm a woman" was so cringeworthy
She has been using it to small women groups but apparently it was seen as a negative in some of the polls among democrats. Interesting. I think issue is personal to some women about their reason for voting for a woman or not. But like it has been pointed out before this is second run at it. The time to use it was 7 years ago.
"I went to Wall Street and told them to cut it out"
Chafee telling Anderson Cooper he voted for Iraq and the Patriot Act because everyone else did and he just got to DC was I can't believe it moment for me.
when asked what enemy are you most proud to have made, "the enemy soldier who threw a grenade at me and is no longer around anymore." Need to get rid of Web and Chaffe, the Daily Show is going to have a field day with those two. This race is between Clinton, Sanders, and nominally O'Malley.
I'd love a case of whatever he drinks to make him think he could be President.
The look on Clinton and O'Malley's faces were priceless. I think O'Malley did a double take when he made that statement. Very good job from the CNN production crew.
when asked what enemy are you most proud to have made, "the enemy soldier who threw a grenade at me and is no longer around anymore." Need to get rid of Web and Chaffe, the Daily Show is going to have a field day with those two. This race is between Clinton, Sanders, and nominally O'Malley.
How is that creepy? I think he took the high road out of all the candidates with that answer.
when asked what enemy are you most proud to have made, "the enemy soldier who threw a grenade at me and is no longer around anymore." Need to get rid of Web and Chaffe, the Daily Show is going to have a field day with those two. This race is between Clinton, Sanders, and nominally O'Malley.
How is that creepy? I think he took the high road out of all the candidates with that answer.
That's a weird answer for someone who wants to be president...that might have gone over well at a GOP debate, but I don't see that as high road (or low road) answer, just a weird fucking answer. Complete silence in the audience.
I tend to agree. As I get older I am becoming more of a pacifist. Most of the things we have engaged in have had poor results. There is no winning. There are social, cultural, institutional aspects that we can't change
Anyone else catch the anti-Hillary ad where they misspelled "Libya"?
She showed tonight that she's head and shoulders above the other candidates on both sides. Rubio gives her the best run but she still wins going away ala Obama.
The more I think about it the more I think she'll do a pretty good job. Basically an Obama third term with some tweaks. We could do a lot worse.
She showed tonight that she's head and shoulders above the other candidates on both sides. Rubio gives her the best run but she still wins going away ala Obama.
The more I think about it the more I think she'll do a pretty good job. Basically an Obama third term with some tweaks. We could do a lot worse.
In response to the simultaneous eye rolls of millions of Democrats as Webb dusted off the old, "Politicians who favor gun control have armed bodyguards, but the American public doesn't have that!" ball of bullshit.
It's such a predictable question, and there are effective ways to turn it around. The hair-splitting about "socialism" vs. "social democracy" might be solid lecture material for Gov 101, but it's not good TV, and Sanders didn't even explain the difference very well, or tie it effectively to his point about the corrupting influence of big-money politics. If that's going to be the message, he needs a much better script to sell it.
Labeling him as a socialist is supposed to drive a wedge between Sanders and moderate voters (plus the electability-focused liberals who crave those moderate votes). One important thing about moderates, though, is that they tend to care less about labels than voters on either pole. Sanders can turn the "Socialist" thing around with a sharp "Is that the best you've got?" response, reinforcing his claim to be the candidate who rises above name-calling and conventional politics to address real issues. That could help widen his appeal from Candidate of the Pissed-Off Left to Candidate of the Pissed-Off Electorate. It might not work, but it's better than extolling the virtues of tiny Scandinavian constitutional monarchies, or parliamentary democracies, or whatever they are. I love Norway as much as anyone (ask my Norwegian wife); I still cringe when Bernie says we should emulate the Norwegians.
Another, riskier tack he could take is that we're all socialists. You don't want to abolish Medicare? Socialist. You think military pensions are OK? Pinko. And don't get me started on progressive taxation or Social Security. Those are just flat-out red. Bernie can make a reasonable point that the American center abides a lot of socialism, so we need to get over our McCarthyite aversion to the word and focus on the real problem (in his view): that the influence of money prevents us from having a true social democracy.
I expected Sanders to struggle with foreign policy; that's a huge, unpredictable minefield for him. I thought he would handle predictable economic questions much better. It's one thing to run a campaign that seeks to transcend sound bites and talking points; that's no excuse for being unprepared for obvious questions in the area that's supposed to be your strength. More evidence that Bernie Sanders isn't Elizabeth Warren, no matter how much progressives might wish he were.
I do think Hillary did well for her. But according to Social Media stats, Webb did better than O'Malley and Chaffe for searches. So maybe he will get a bump.
should handle the Socialist label. Of the three candidates who haven't been scoring well in the polls, the only one that is impressing me is Chafee. He seems the least political and most sincere of the three and maybe all five.
is not what you expect from someone who actually wants to win.
Actually on second hearing, it was a brilliant line. The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your email could be a criticism of her GOP critics. It could be a criticism of Clinton too -- that she has created a focus point in the election that is distracting from the issues.
HRC - neutral. Her answers reminded me of a beauty pageant contestant. Better education, tax the rich, wall street is bad. She should have been grilled over her statement that America is better when the democrats are in the white house, and then followed it by saying this is the worst time since the 1920s.
Bernie - straight forward, honest. Didnt shine over HRC. Think he remained on the same path.... dont think he picked up a lot of votes.
O'Malley - practically begging HRC to pick him for VP. He was ok though, little better than I would have thought.
Chafee - please drop out. Embarrassement.
Webb - probably had the best debate, but his attitude towards Cooper and complaining probably hurt him in the long run.
Anderson Cooper - should be called to task. Absolutely horrific job. Grilled the likes of Chafee and Webb, but not the top 2.
have HRC as runaway winner. Even Trump gave her credit
There's a few reasons why I believe this too.
1. She is too smart to say anything incriminating about herself. So, when she spoke it was everything people wanted to hear.
2. Cooper gave her the pass of a lifetime on some of the issues (not referring to the emails or benghazi - lets move on from them)
3. The other candidates didnt take her to task either. WHen they disagreed with her, they were respectful and didnt take shots.
So it was literally impossible for her to look bad unless she said something stupid, which she didnt.
In retrospect, perhaps watching the Rangers wasn't my best choice. But:
1. An apolitical point, I think CNN ran more commercials in the first 20 minutes of the debate than any HOUR of either Republican debate. Seems like they wanted to cash in before people potentially got bored. changed channels and the ratings dropped.
2. Chafee was the worst in the entire field, Dem and Rep.
3. O'Malley got himself to the adult table.
4. Webb eliminated himself from being seriously considered by Dem voters and wasn't reality TV enough to interest independents.
5. Sanders was mediocre, but is in no danger of losing his base.
6. Clinton was the best prepared, but got away with stuff that would have gotten her toasted if the Republican format had been followed. "Hoped" the TPP was the gold standard? That never would have gone unchallenged. "I didn't take a position until I took a position"? And while I might have missed it, it looked like everyone allowed her to skate on the e-mails.
Not sure what anyone could possibly want to be different--he asked all pointed questions, if they veered away from answering he then interrupted and brought them back, and then they moved on to the next person. Maybe you wanted him to be more of the focal point which would be stupid?
In retrospect, perhaps watching the Rangers wasn't my best choice. But:
1. An apolitical point, I think CNN ran more commercials in the first 20 minutes of the debate than any HOUR of either Republican debate. Seems like they wanted to cash in before people potentially got bored. changed channels and the ratings dropped.
2. Chafee was the worst in the entire field, Dem and Rep.
3. O'Malley got himself to the adult table.
4. Webb eliminated himself from being seriously considered by Dem voters and wasn't reality TV enough to interest independents.
5. Sanders was mediocre, but is in no danger of losing his base.
6. Clinton was the best prepared, but got away with stuff that would have gotten her toasted if the Republican format had been followed. "Hoped" the TPP was the gold standard? That never would have gone unchallenged. "I didn't take a position until I took a position"? And while I might have missed it, it looked like everyone allowed her to skate on the e-mails.
RE: Sanders- his base is almost a cult at this point (of under 30 kids and unrealistic adults for the most part). It'll be impossible to lose it.
What he's failing to do is reach beyond that base. He's not getting the nomination without spreading out beyond his "cult."
I like some of what he wants to do (in a very broad sense), but so much of it is so completely naive and unrealistic I have a difficult time taking him seriously.
she isnt just dishonest. rather she has never and cannot tell the truth.
And she has done nothing, ever. Her years as a senator and SOS were empty calories. Nothing happened.
And she did Benghazi. And Vince Foster fathered her baby so Hillary has him murdered. Travelgate.
Everything you just posted is from the Left Wing echo chamber. She didn't "do Benghazi". that's a smoke screen.
True or false: She and her department most certainly told the American people that the attack was started as a protest to a video? When was the last time Foster or Travelgate was brought up?
LOL. You speak of a Left Wing echo chamber, and then drag up the long dead and discredited talking points from the Right Wing echo chamber, about the video having nothing to do with the start of violence in Benghazi. You are parroting lies. Political posturing by the Republican party designed only to hurt HRC. When the Republicans are forced to tell the truth, such as in every report they have put out about Benghazi, the truth is admitted, that the video *DID* play a major part in the start of violence in Benghazi. The terrorist who started the violence SAY SO THEMSELVES, but that is not good enough for you because it goes against your political talking points....
you are pretty darned partisan on here, I must say.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
I could be wrong, but it seems when you post political, there is very little nuance--you side right. Always. Which is fine. But then here we can't even start a discussion about this (probably crappy) debate without your heading down the liberal media bias path.
The folks at CNN only really hit trump hard, which you can make a pretty good case for--he's said some mouthy and irreverent things pretty often, so he SHOULD be questioned about them.
I'm not lock step with the right. There is a media bias. To deny it is lunacy. The side it is on depends on who you're watching.
A slight media bias which might reflect more people in the business perhaps coming from the left in their own politics, is different than saying that "tonight's gonna be one of those night where the evil media tries to make the LEFT look good!!"
It's almost like we never ever watched Wolf Blitzer, Candy Crowley, and Chuck Todd interview or moderate.
Am I the only one in the world who see's Chuck Todd beneath all that fake non partisanship is a pretty mainline conservative???? I would be totally shocked if somehow is voting record was revealed, and it turned out he ever voted D, even once in his life.... As far as the others, yes, they are clearly liberals.
Hillary - She just looked like someone who has been doing the debate thing on a big stage for a long time now. She was comfortable, prepared and didn't come out of it looking poorly. I wasn't impressed with her talking points at all but as long as she didn't hurt herself during the debate, she was going to be fine. And she was fine. She dodged a number of questions while Bernie actually had direct answers/decisions about them. I think the plus side is the fact that she was actually able to show a humorous side of herself to people. I think that helps her out some. She looked foolish with some of her answers like the whole "I went to Wall Street and told them to cut it out" where I think Bernie just laughed at her for that... along with probably most people watching. And the whole "vote for me, I'm a woman" vibe she gave off during one response which I didn't care for. Other people have mentioned both of those things already. But I think the average voter won't notice or care about either of them.
Bernie - You can say he's unrealistic with what he wants to accomplish but I can't help but enjoy the passion that he speaks with. You can tell he really cares about the country, doing the right thing and wanting to make things better. I don't know if he won over many undecided voters, I doubt that he did. But he didn't hurt himself at all and looked pretty good overall. The only time he looked really weak was the gun control part and when he looked like he fell asleep at the wheel when AC asked him to respond to what Webb said and he looked like he wasn't paying attention. lol. But even the "damn emails" thing didn't hurt him. I think he looked strong despite that.
O'Malley - Started off very slow and mundane. I thought I was going to fall asleep whenever he had to answer a question... but he really picked it up after that rocky start. He finished strong and looked good in the end but not good enough to make noise in the polls compared to the top two in my opinion. But he set himself up for some kind of position, whether it's VP or something else. I wasn't really expecting that heading into the debate so I guess he surprised me the most out of all five of them.
Chafee - I can't believe someone in the thread thought that he did well. He embarrassed himself and I hope he's not in the next debate. Don't take time away from better candidates.
Webb - He had a strong presence but that's about it. He came off as whiny during the debate and didn't help himself much. Still, he did better than Chafee. I don't know if that's saying much though. He also wins the weird/creepy moment of the night though when he basically said he killed a guy in Vietnam. Really weird moment. lol
At this point, I like Sanders personally. I doubt he can win but I prefer him over Hillary. If Biden got involved, I'm not sure who I would prefer between him and Bernie.
There's been like, 36 people on the podium for both party's and they all suck. hard.
Yep. I put on the GOP debates to see which one will make the biggest fool of himself or herself, and I put on the Democrat debate to see if anyone is capable of keeping me awake.
Well spend the money then, just stop engaging in wars that serve no useful purpose
As referenced earlier, any reduction in defense spending is seen as harming to our security and position in the world.
Buford mentioned that all GOP candidates want to reduce spending, but I haven't seen any of them talk about reducing the military.
Is seen as by who? Take a look at where the US ranks in military spending and you may rethink that remark. I believe a case could be made that our excessive military spending is actually making us less secure over the long term.
I do agree that Bernie does seem to have a genuine passion
Am I the only one in the world who see's Chuck Todd beneath all that fake non partisanship is a pretty mainline conservative???? I would be totally shocked if somehow is voting record was revealed, and it turned out he ever voted D, even once in his life.... As far as the others, yes, they are clearly liberals.
Yes, you're the only one. He once worked for Tom Harkin.
Wow, thank you for sharing. That was HI larious! I don't even like Drake much, and can't stand the original song. That remake is waaaaay better. Drake should take some rapping lessons from that dude.
watched the first 45 minutes this morning. Shouldnt have bothered with the Rangers and Mets games.
I didnt care for just how inquisitorial Cooper was but it worked in this odd format wherein the people running behind were not really looking to knock the leader off her perch.
Agree that it would be nice if a more moderate governor type got in, but that ship has sailed. Hillary has always been a bit to the left of me, but Sanders is really pulling her further left that Im comfortable with. I still support her, but I'd like to reverse her back towards the center.
he has to attack HRC eventually. She has been set up to win this ever since 2008. Cooper basically plated her the questions for her to do well yesterday. No one took HRC to task. If no one is going to challenge her, she is going to win in a landslide.
She said a lot of questionable things last night, and dodged some important questions - and no one went after her over it. Thats a big, big mistake. I understand why O'Malley didnt, because he would blow her to become VP.... but Sanders has to do something.
He has a backing, but Clinton has over 20 years of supporters backing her. He needs to crack that somehow. Dont think he can do it.
Well spend the money then, just stop engaging in wars that serve no useful purpose
As referenced earlier, any reduction in defense spending is seen as harming to our security and position in the world.
Buford mentioned that all GOP candidates want to reduce spending, but I haven't seen any of them talk about reducing the military.
The sequester has reduced military spending and Obama has made further cuts. There is a lot of different cuts that need to be made, but the core of the military needs to be built up seeing what is happening in the world. And military cuts are not the only spending cuts that can be made. Fiorina has mentioned attrition of government workers, we know that the VA wastes millions and they are not the only ones. The government is too big and spends/wastes too much money. The best way to get it under control is to make across the board cuts (similar to the sequester, but with more direction) in some areas. Also entitlements need to be reformed. Also, by reforming the tax code and eliminating harmful regulations, the economy would be boosted which would increase revenues. I didn't hear any of that last night. Sure, we are going to 'create jobs' how? Hillary mentioned that small businesses are hurting. Well how does free college and free healthcare and free maternity leave help small businesses who have to pay for it? Taxing the 1% 90% will not pay for all of Bernies goodies.
And what exactly will we do with the "built up military"? That sounds like a talking point with no specifics or substance. Where do you see the military being deployed?
Well spend the money then, just stop engaging in wars that serve no useful purpose
As referenced earlier, any reduction in defense spending is seen as harming to our security and position in the world.
Buford mentioned that all GOP candidates want to reduce spending, but I haven't seen any of them talk about reducing the military.
Is seen as by who? Take a look at where the US ranks in military spending and you may rethink that remark. I believe a case could be made that our excessive military spending is actually making us less secure over the long term.
Why would I rethink my remark, it's categorically true. Any proposed reduction in military spending is met by fierce resistance.
I also dont like that no credible Democrat ran against HRC
But the next debate needs to get paired down to people with some traction. Just because Webb, Linc, and O'Malley filed papers to run does not mean that America has to watch them on the big boy stage. Now I like Webb as the voice of a certain segment of the Dems (MO and LC add nothing). But none have plausible arguments for being up there next time. This isnt debating society, it is an election. I'd say you need to be at 5%, but to be charitable how about 2%?
Am I the only one in the world who see's Chuck Todd beneath all that fake non partisanship is a pretty mainline conservative???? I would be totally shocked if somehow is voting record was revealed, and it turned out he ever voted D, even once in his life.... As far as the others, yes, they are clearly liberals.
I doubt we'll ever get the answer. but I'd wager a $50 contribution to the winner's choice of a 501(c)(3) charity that Todd voted Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008 & 2012.
on resistance but that resistance is completely without merit. The GOP debates remind me of the Family Guy episode where Lois is running for mayor. She just keeps mentioning 911 and the crowd cheers.
watched the first 45 minutes this morning. Shouldnt have bothered with the Rangers and Mets games.
I didnt care for just how inquisitorial Cooper was but it worked in this odd format wherein the people running behind were not really looking to knock the leader off her perch.
Agree that it would be nice if a more moderate governor type got in, but that ship has sailed. Hillary has always been a bit to the left of me, but Sanders is really pulling her further left that Im comfortable with. I still support her, but I'd like to reverse her back towards the center.
Deej, once Bernie is done and the nomination is in, she'll turn away from the far left. All candidates do what they need to do to get the nomination and then revert to what they really stand for( yeah wishful thinking). Once and if nominated there is nothing HRC needs to do to get the vast majority of the Dem vote. The one thing that the Dem party has going for it is "blind" loyalty. Unlike the dimwit Repubs (i.e., Evangelicals and pseudo Tea Party), the Dems rally behind their candidate.
And what exactly will we do with the "built up military"? That sounds like a talking point with no specifics or substance. Where do you see the military being deployed?
"Built up military" is the generic stance by anyone who does not have a clue about our military, its strength, or our enemies. It gets thrown out there because it's so broad without details that the person saying it thinks they sound knowledgable.
It's a cut and paste talking point which is all you ever get from Buford
And what exactly will we do with the "built up military"? That sounds like a talking point with no specifics or substance. Where do you see the military being deployed?
"Built up military" is the generic stance by anyone who does not have a clue about our military, its strength, or our enemies. It gets thrown out there because it's so broad without details that the person saying it thinks they sound knowledgable.
It's a cut and paste talking point which is all you ever get from Buford
On BBI I think there are only a few that can truly speak to military size and function. Obviously RC, Dunedin, Greg to name a few quickly off the top of my head...
With an absolutely brilliant move in defending Clinton and her emails. Not sure if it was planned but it didn't seem like it. It gets him a lot of respect from moderate to liberal democrats, and the media is not going to let up on the email controversy any time soon.
Sanders' gun control position was by far the most reasonable, even though democrats don't think critically enough about the topic to understand what he is saying. Vermont loves guns and has little to no gun violence. There is a HUGE difference between how gun control should be handled in Rural and Urban states. This was a great point although it was not well received during the debate.
Not sure how anyone thinks Clinton was a runaway, or won this debate at all. The only people I've seen saying this are major media pundits. Every poll I've seen is Bernie in a landslide. I also think people are underestimating Bernie in the grand scheme. He's leading in NH and they are about even in IA. Also, Bernie has a huge fan base with young voters and is pulling people out of the woodwork, many who have never even voted before.
he has to attack HRC eventually. She has been set up to win this ever since 2008. Cooper basically plated her the questions for her to do well yesterday. No one took HRC to task. If no one is going to challenge her, she is going to win in a landslide.
She said a lot of questionable things last night, and dodged some important questions - and no one went after her over it. Thats a big, big mistake. I understand why O'Malley didnt, because he would blow her to become VP.... but Sanders has to do something.
He has a backing, but Clinton has over 20 years of supporters backing her. He needs to crack that somehow. Dont think he can do it.
He has no chance and unless he is delusional, he knows that. He's there to represent the extreme left wing of the Party and to do so without making any enemies. He's not about to be confrontational.
he has to attack HRC eventually. She has been set up to win this ever since 2008. Cooper basically plated her the questions for her to do well yesterday. No one took HRC to task. If no one is going to challenge her, she is going to win in a landslide.
She said a lot of questionable things last night, and dodged some important questions - and no one went after her over it. Thats a big, big mistake. I understand why O'Malley didnt, because he would blow her to become VP.... but Sanders has to do something.
He has a backing, but Clinton has over 20 years of supporters backing her. He needs to crack that somehow. Dont think he can do it.
He has no chance and unless he is delusional, he knows that. He's there to represent the extreme left wing of the Party and to do so without making any enemies. He's not about to be confrontational.
I agree with you that he has little chance to win. But if he wants any chance to win, he has to knock down HRC some. Whether Hillary wants to admit it or not, her husband's last name has given her such an advantage that it will be tough for anyone to overcome.
watched the first 45 minutes this morning. Shouldnt have bothered with the Rangers and Mets games.
I didnt care for just how inquisitorial Cooper was but it worked in this odd format wherein the people running behind were not really looking to knock the leader off her perch.
Agree that it would be nice if a more moderate governor type got in, but that ship has sailed. Hillary has always been a bit to the left of me, but Sanders is really pulling her further left that Im comfortable with. I still support her, but I'd like to reverse her back towards the center.
Deej, once Bernie is done and the nomination is in, she'll turn away from the far left. All candidates do what they need to do to get the nomination and then revert to what they really stand for( yeah wishful thinking). Once and if nominated there is nothing HRC needs to do to get the vast majority of the Dem vote. The one thing that the Dem party has going for it is "blind" loyalty. Unlike the dimwit Repubs (i.e., Evangelicals and pseudo Tea Party), the Dems rally behind their candidate.
Agree that she will probably pivot back to center as all general candidates tend to do, but no one can go all the way back. I tend to like free trade deals (havent looked at TPP), and I dont think she can pivot back on that one. I dont like selling tax raises on the idea that they rich dont pay a "fair share" (they pay a lot and I dont know what a fair share is anyway), and I wish she'd stop hyping gun control measures that I can 100% guarantee will not be prioritized in a Clinton administration (I dont have an opinion on whether her gun ideas are good or bad).
Dont agree on Dems being blindly loyal more or less than Republicans. I think there is a lot of party loyalty these days -- very much tied into the loss of federally elected moderates and a real feeling on both sides that while their side aint perfect, the other guys are dangerous imbeciles (indeed, my Dem partisanship is very much based on my problems with the modern GOP). However, the rank & file Dems dont feel the sense of betrayal that the the r&f GOPers feel right now. Maybe the Dem pols have done a better job delivering on promises, or maybe Dem voters are more realistic -- whatever the reason, Dems are a lot less furious with their own party.
Am I the only one in the world who see's Chuck Todd beneath all that fake non partisanship is a pretty mainline conservative???? I would be totally shocked if somehow is voting record was revealed, and it turned out he ever voted D, even once in his life.... As far as the others, yes, they are clearly liberals.
Yes, you're the only one. He once worked for Tom Harkin.
And spent 15 years writing and managing at the National Journal, which has a slight but distinct right bias.
what little core political beliefs Hillary has are fairly leftist, IMO
I assume they are veterans? Are you suggesting only those who serve are qualified to say how much we should spend? how large our military should be? where should we have troops? It would be impossible for me disagree more.
watched the first 45 minutes this morning. Shouldnt have bothered with the Rangers and Mets games.
I didnt care for just how inquisitorial Cooper was but it worked in this odd format wherein the people running behind were not really looking to knock the leader off her perch.
Agree that it would be nice if a more moderate governor type got in, but that ship has sailed. Hillary has always been a bit to the left of me, but Sanders is really pulling her further left that Im comfortable with. I still support her, but I'd like to reverse her back towards the center.
Deej, once Bernie is done and the nomination is in, she'll turn away from the far left. All candidates do what they need to do to get the nomination and then revert to what they really stand for( yeah wishful thinking). Once and if nominated there is nothing HRC needs to do to get the vast majority of the Dem vote. The one thing that the Dem party has going for it is "blind" loyalty. Unlike the dimwit Repubs (i.e., Evangelicals and pseudo Tea Party), the Dems rally behind their candidate.
Agree that she will probably pivot back to center as all general candidates tend to do, but no one can go all the way back. I tend to like free trade deals (havent looked at TPP), and I dont think she can pivot back on that one. I dont like selling tax raises on the idea that they rich dont pay a "fair share" (they pay a lot and I dont know what a fair share is anyway), and I wish she'd stop hyping gun control measures that I can 100% guarantee will not be prioritized in a Clinton administration (I dont have an opinion on whether her gun ideas are good or bad).
Dont agree on Dems being blindly loyal more or less than Republicans. I think there is a lot of party loyalty these days -- very much tied into the loss of federally elected moderates and a real feeling on both sides that while their side aint perfect, the other guys are dangerous imbeciles (indeed, my Dem partisanship is very much based on my problems with the modern GOP). However, the rank & file Dems dont feel the sense of betrayal that the the r&f GOPers feel right now. Maybe the Dem pols have done a better job delivering on promises, or maybe Dem voters are more realistic -- whatever the reason, Dems are a lot less furious with their own party.
To me, the far left is just less split in two and organized than the far right. They hold less power within their party. The tea party phenomenon really changed the dynamics in the GOP. Despite Occupy or the success of Bernie, those folks haven't tried to exert influence on the Democratic agenda. When you see some lefties tossing out democratic incumbents the way the Tea Party tossed out a few moderate republicans, you may see the same dynamic.
Also, I think that the lefties are willing to vote for a centrist democrat like Hillary when it comes down to it just out of a willingness to not have a conservative agenda blast through all the things in place that are important to them. Because it seems like most republicans think the government is basically a disaster, they have less interest in keeping the status quo functional.
And what exactly will we do with the "built up military"? That sounds like a talking point with no specifics or substance. Where do you see the military being deployed?
Take your pick, the Middle East, the Pacific, anywhere we need a show of strength. I'm not talking about war, but preparedness and deterrent. China is increasing their military. We are cutting ours. It's a bad formula.
Did you feel the Bern during Tuesday nights Democratic debate?
Twitter users certainly did.
Bernie Sanders cleaned up on the social media service, rapidly outpacing the other four candidates when it came to adding new followers.
Sanders gained 35,163 new followers during the 150-minute debate. Meanwhile, the other four Democrats gained a total of just 23,219 new followers combined led by Hillary Clinton, who added 13,252 new Twitter followers by herself.
I assume they are veterans? Are you suggesting only those who serve are qualified to say how much we should spend? how large our military should be? where should we have troops? It would be impossible for me disagree more.
Not entirely, but they would have a better idea on requirements to maintain the doctrine as stated by the government.
The average BBIer would have no clue.
As far as I know, the required capability is to sustain two wars at opposite side of the world. But that may no longer be the requirement.
So as far as being able to speak to the requirements and capabilities, they would be able to give a better answer than buford.
So you want to borrow money from China so we can be prepared to engage them in war? Does that make sense to you?
Consider this for a minute. IMO, it's absolutely insane.
"The $682 billion spent by the U.S. in 2012, according to the Office of Management and Budget, was more than the combined military spending of China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Italy and Brazil which spent $652 billion, according to the SIPRI Military Expenditure Database"
To me, the far left is just less split in two and organized than the far right. They hold less power within their party. The tea party phenomenon really changed the dynamics in the GOP. Despite Occupy or the success of Bernie, those folks haven't tried to exert influence on the Democratic agenda. When you see some lefties tossing out democratic incumbents the way the Tea Party tossed out a few moderate republicans, you may see the same dynamic.
Also, I think that the lefties are willing to vote for a centrist democrat like Hillary when it comes down to it just out of a willingness to not have a conservative agenda blast through all the things in place that are important to them. Because it seems like most republicans think the government is basically a disaster, they have less interest in keeping the status quo functional.
Probably correct. There has been a lot of writing on the right in the wake of Boehner's fall about the outsized power of the far right and their everyone is an enemy mentality. The far left I think is much more humble in its understanding of where it sits on the spectrum; the far right doesnt get that they are by definition at an extreme wing of the country. What will be curious is whether the far left takes the ball from the far right and runs with it. Is Bernie just getting the same youth and ultra lib support that Dean and other got, which will dissipate for the general, or is the Bern the start of a new more politically vocal left? I think it is the former, but cant guarantee that.
I think they're wrong. Putting aside the difficulty of attributing something a subordinate says while serving an official function -- her job was to carry the water for Obama's policies -- if you look at the broader quote and history the problem with the whopper is clear. From Factcheck:
Quote:
This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field, Clinton remarked in Adelaide, Australia, on Nov. 15, 2012. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the worlds total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.
This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field, Clinton remarked in Adelaide, Australia, on Nov. 15, 2012. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the worlds total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.
TPP was finalized this summer. Her quote was from 2012. The quote was plainly about the concepts embodied in the ongoing TPP negotiations -- topics covered and scale. Now it may be that her current opposition is purely a nod to the left politically (no idea), but the notion that she 100% signed on board to the still being negotiated TPP in 2012 regardless of what the final would look like 3 years later I think is pretty asinine.
I think they're wrong. Putting aside the difficulty of attributing something a subordinate says while serving an official function -- her job was to carry the water for Obama's policies -- if you look at the broader quote and history the problem with the whopper is clear. From Factcheck:
Quote:
This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field, Clinton remarked in Adelaide, Australia, on Nov. 15, 2012. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the worlds total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.
This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field, Clinton remarked in Adelaide, Australia, on Nov. 15, 2012. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the worlds total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.
TPP was finalized this summer. Her quote was from 2012. The quote was plainly about the concepts embodied in the ongoing TPP negotiations -- topics covered and scale. Now it may be that her current opposition is purely a nod to the left politically (no idea), but the notion that she 100% signed on board to the still being negotiated TPP in 2012 regardless of what the final would look like 3 years later I think is pretty asinine.
She had great things to say about it in her 2014 book.
I think they're wrong. Putting aside the difficulty of attributing something a subordinate says while serving an official function -- her job was to carry the water for Obama's policies -- if you look at the broader quote and history the problem with the whopper is clear. From Factcheck:
Quote:
This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field, Clinton remarked in Adelaide, Australia, on Nov. 15, 2012. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the worlds total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.
This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field, Clinton remarked in Adelaide, Australia, on Nov. 15, 2012. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the worlds total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.
TPP was finalized this summer. Her quote was from 2012. The quote was plainly about the concepts embodied in the ongoing TPP negotiations -- topics covered and scale. Now it may be that her current opposition is purely a nod to the left politically (no idea), but the notion that she 100% signed on board to the still being negotiated TPP in 2012 regardless of what the final would look like 3 years later I think is pretty asinine.
Asinine unless the terms of the final deal were better than those under discussion in 2012. And that's what some commentators have said with respect to the pharmaceutical provisions which she has cited as problematic.
he was woefully out of his depth and the bit about his father dying and him being a new senator was just sad. He was honest - but perhaps a bit too honest. And get a better suit please. Good lord.
Asinine unless the terms of the final deal were better than those under discussion in 2012. And that's what some commentators have said with respect to the pharmaceutical provisions which she has cited as problematic.
I guess if every problematic provision was actually improved from her perspective it would be a whopper. But pointing to one provision and saying it got better doesnt do much for the whopper argument if other things didnt get better or got worse. I dont know much about TPP (and havent read her book, or any pol's book, so I cant respond to Peter's point).
Chafee looked meek and namby pamby. He had the look of the weak liberal stereotype I grew up with. I'm really trying to figure out who in his life encouraged him to run for president, and what the argument was.
HRC said Barack trusted her to be Secretary of State after she voted for Iraq War. But our foreign relations with countries has gotten progressively worse each year, including when she was SoS.
Asinine unless the terms of the final deal were better than those under discussion in 2012. And that's what some commentators have said with respect to the pharmaceutical provisions which she has cited as problematic.
I guess if every problematic provision was actually improved from her perspective it would be a whopper. But pointing to one provision and saying it got better doesnt do much for the whopper argument if other things didnt get better or got worse. I dont know much about TPP (and havent read her book, or any pol's book, so I cant respond to Peter's point).
So unless EVERY provision is equal to or better than the 2012 "draft" it goes from "gold standard" to an unsupportable agreement? That's quite a stretch.
Agree that comments about the TPP weren't exactly a whopper
"We should note that Clintons comments were made, in part, to promote the administrations ongoing negotiations of the TPP."
RE: RE: Factcheck.org weighs in
Peter in Atl : 11:24 am : link : reply
She had great things to say about it in her 2014 book.
Peter the article also states:
"As she wrote in her 2014 book Hard Choices: Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement".
So you want to borrow money from China so we can be prepared to engage them in war? Does that make sense to you?
Consider this for a minute. IMO, it's absolutely insane.
"The $682 billion spent by the U.S. in 2012, according to the Office of Management and Budget, was more than the combined military spending of China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Italy and Brazil which spent $652 billion, according to the SIPRI Military Expenditure Database"
Where did I say go to war. I said deterrence. And of course we spend more than anyone else. Is anyone afraid of the Italian Army?
RE: Agree that comments about the TPP weren't exactly a whopper
RE: RE: Factcheck.org weighs in
Peter in Atl : 11:24 am : link : reply
She had great things to say about it in her 2014 book.
Peter the article also states:
"As she wrote in her 2014 book Hard Choices: Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement".
Then she should have stated what provisions CHANGED since 2014 to turn this from a "great deal" or "Gold standard" to something she opposes. A great question for the next debate that I'd lay odds will never be asked.
HRC said Barack trusted her to be Secretary of State after she voted for Iraq War. But our foreign relations with countries has gotten progressively worse each year, including when she was SoS.
Shouldnt that be a deterrent?
That wasn't the attack on her. She was attacked specifically for her vote for the Iraq war. She correctly pointed out that that topic was pinned on her endlessly by the Obama campaign in 2008 and it didn't seem to deter him from choosing her for SoS. Her performance as Sos is a matter of opinion. Of course those on the right will tear it down, big surprise.
Asinine unless the terms of the final deal were better than those under discussion in 2012. And that's what some commentators have said with respect to the pharmaceutical provisions which she has cited as problematic.
I guess if every problematic provision was actually improved from her perspective it would be a whopper. But pointing to one provision and saying it got better doesnt do much for the whopper argument if other things didnt get better or got worse. I dont know much about TPP (and havent read her book, or any pol's book, so I cant respond to Peter's point).
So unless EVERY provision is equal to or better than the 2012 "draft" it goes from "gold standard" to an unsupportable agreement? That's quite a stretch.
Maybe not every. But if 80% got better and 20% worse, I still dont think it is a whopper.
RE: Agree that comments about the TPP weren't exactly a whopper
"We should note that Clintons comments were made, in part, to promote the administrations ongoing negotiations of the TPP."
RE: RE: Factcheck.org weighs in
Peter in Atl : 11:24 am : link : reply
She had great things to say about it in her 2014 book.
Peter the article also states:
"As she wrote in her 2014 book Hard Choices: Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement".
The rest of quote:Its safe to say that the TPP wont be perfect no deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers.
So you want to borrow money from China to spend on the military to deter them from some unidentified action they may take? We already spend 5 times more than China. Wouldn't 3 times be sufficient to "deter" them?
HRC said Barack trusted her to be Secretary of State after she voted for Iraq War. But our foreign relations with countries has gotten progressively worse each year, including when she was SoS.
Shouldnt that be a deterrent?
It would be, if you actually believed that "our foreign relations with countries has gotten progressively worse each year, including when she was SoS." I see no evidence of such a broad based slide. Maybe a country here or there, certainly Israel, but overall our foreign relations have gotten better IMO.
Debate drew an 11% share last night - one of the higher rated DNC Debate.
The only thing that really interests me is what happens to polling now that Biden seems to definitely be out of the equation. The overall narrative from the media is that Clinton crushed this, so with that positive news spin and apparently no Biden in the mix - will be interesting to see what happens.
Which is to say, this is an inevitable coronation of Clinton and none of this has really been that interesting.
njm - I don't know what the difference is between 2012 and actual
negotiated deal. But think it would be very fair a good follow up question to ask her. She's indicated no negotiated agreement is ever perfect, but she should be asked what changes could be made for her to be in favor.
Is he definitely out? I'm holding out hope he throws his hat in the ring.
Nothing is official - but it's the middle of October, he has no infrastructure, missed the first debate and will be entering a race that has a candidate that is polling like an incumbent (with the majority of the mainstream party support, money and backing).
I do not like Hillary Clinton, but she's the Democratic nominee - barring a major change in the way things are going currently.
RE: njm - I don't know what the difference is between 2012 and actual
negotiated deal. But think it would be very fair a good follow up question to ask her. She's indicated no negotiated agreement is ever perfect, but she should be asked what changes could be made for her to be in favor.
I for one would be interested in her answers.
Fair enough, though she was still saying it was a good deal in 2014.
And what exactly will we do with the "built up military"? That sounds like a talking point with no specifics or substance. Where do you see the military being deployed?
Take your pick, the Middle East, the Pacific, anywhere we need a show of strength. I'm not talking about war, but preparedness and deterrent. China is increasing their military. We are cutting ours. It's a bad formula.
Do you have any idea the capabilities our standing military has in comparison to those you mention? You speak as if we are still doing trench warfare in WWI. Force size means naught if you lack the technology and logistic capabilities to supply those forces. Do you even realize that we have 10 operational Aircraft Carriers in service vs 1 each for Russia and China? Do you understand that each Carrier has about 5-6 ships whose main task is to protect the carrier from Subs, and that each one of them is a massive increase in power from just 15 years ago?
We currently control around 50% of all the navel power in the world, while Russia is about 11% (Which was our level of navy power back in 1910). We don't need more ships to just show power, that is a silly thing to say since our enemies understand our power and fear the shit out of it
moderate Dems who would vote for Jeb or Kasich (who?) over HRC because they dont like her but if the GOP nom is any of the top 3 or 4 atm they will vote for Hill.
..... either aren't paying attention or are clinging to an outdated perception of electability politics. The times, they are a-changing, gang. Enough is enough.
The Democrats have their eye on the Grand Prize, the presidency. Can you imagine what would have happened in either of the Republican debates with respect to an issue like the private e-mail server? Hillary skated away from that essentially scot free. And ironically, she's the only one in the segments I saw that played hard ball (Sanders and socialism and guns). But the overwhelming sense I got was that while there was criticism, almost nothing was thrown at rivals that could come back and haunt them in the general.
Donald Trump has almost singlehandedly done the opposite with his campaign. Scorched earth with essentially the goal that if he doesn't win none of the other candidates have a prayer in the general. He's already written all the snark ads and personal attacks needed for the general. I don't mean by the Democratic nominee's official campaign or the DRC, I mean for the David Brock's and Daily Kos's and their upcoming internet and social media campaigns. I didn't see 1 personal attack last night, though admittedly I didn't see the whole debate. Any differences were issues based. 80% of Trump's campaign consists of personal attacks and issues outside of immigration have come late and vague.
I fear the difference will be significant and telling in the general.
RE: Those who believe that Sanders has no chance.....
..... either aren't paying attention or are clinging to an outdated perception of electability politics. The times, they are a-changing, gang. Enough is enough.
Empty platitudes don't really cover the fact that he is getting slaughtered everywhere that isn't New Hampshire and has abysmal minority support.
He is not a mainstream candidate.
RE: The other, larger point, I took away from this
The Democrats have their eye on the Grand Prize, the presidency. Can you imagine what would have happened in either of the Republican debates with respect to an issue like the private e-mail server? Hillary skated away from that essentially scot free. And ironically, she's the only one in the segments I saw that played hard ball (Sanders and socialism and guns). But the overwhelming sense I got was that while there was criticism, almost nothing was thrown at rivals that could come back and haunt them in the general.
Donald Trump has almost singlehandedly done the opposite with his campaign. Scorched earth with essentially the goal that if he doesn't win none of the other candidates have a prayer in the general. He's already written all the snark ads and personal attacks needed for the general. I don't mean by the Democratic nominee's official campaign or the DRC, I mean for the David Brock's and Daily Kos's and their upcoming internet and social media campaigns. I didn't see 1 personal attack last night, though admittedly I didn't see the whole debate. Any differences were issues based. 80% of Trump's campaign consists of personal attacks and issues outside of immigration have come late and vague.
I fear the difference will be significant and telling in the general.
Curses you say! A debate based on the issues and not what Carly Fiorina looks like? what a travesty.
Empty platitudes don't really cover the fact that he is getting slaughtered everywhere that isn't New Hampshire and has abysmal minority support
Sanders as recently as two weeks ago was also leading in Iowa, has a National poll number anywhere between 25 and 30% and is only slightly behind Hillary even in NC and SC.
Where are you getting your numbers from that he's getting "slaughtered" outside of New Hampshire?
Empty platitudes don't really cover the fact that he is getting slaughtered everywhere that isn't New Hampshire and has abysmal minority support.
He is not a mainstream candidate.
I think you are greatly underestimating the groundswell of support Sanders is mounting. And I don't know how you arrived at the idea that he has abysmal minority support, when he is truly the ONLY candidate willing to address issues like mass incarceration and institutional racism in anything resembling a meaningful way.
Dems were much more focused on unity and presenting for the middle voters (put aside policies).
I wouldnt blame the in fighting on just Trump. Kasich has a lot of Huntsman in him. Christie attacks everything that moves. Paul attacks a lot. Bush generally isnt an attack dog but recently said Rubio lacks "leadership skills". Cruz goes after McConnell and Boehner like nothing I've seen.
And excepting Cruz they all attack Trump, like morons. You defuse the Donald with kindness, not attacks: "Donald is great, but I have to disagree when he says..." That is how you deal with the thin skinned Trump.
Empty platitudes don't really cover the fact that he is getting slaughtered everywhere that isn't New Hampshire and has abysmal minority support.
He is not a mainstream candidate.
I think you are greatly underestimating the groundswell of support Sanders is mounting. And I don't know how you arrived at the idea that he has abysmal minority support, when he is truly the ONLY candidate willing to address issues like mass incarceration and institutional racism in anything resembling a meaningful way.
I posted this before, but...
Sanders is the prototypical progressive that specific pockets of Democratic voters can't help but fall for every cycle it seems. If you peal off the NH polls, Hillary is lightyears ahead of him in all other races and Sanders lacks the key things that Obama had when he very narrowly edged out Clinton almost 8 years ago.
First off - he has next to no party/delegate support. Maybe not a shocker as he is an Independent coming to the DNC's tent to run, but he only has two delegates who have announced support for him. Hillary already has 356 endorsements and the backing of every major union that's announced thus far (which is a huge blow for Sanders - given his position/messaging). Even Joe Biden has more endorsements than Sanders (16 to Bernie's 2).
Second - his ground game is a disaster. A lot of his noise is coming from slacktivist havens like Reddit, who are great at making noise and ballooning apparent support (ala Ron Paul in previous election cycles) - but leave polls empty when it matters. This is likely why you think there's a groundswell coming when there never has historically. We've seen this type of "revolution" before and frankly it doesn't amount to anything but a bunch of dislocated arms from over excited 19 year olds patting themselves on the back for getting more likes on Facebook than Hillary Clinton.
Offline, he has no money and there is no presence in the field. 8 years ago I saw a well organized and efficient group of Obama supporters strategically canvas the area I live/work in - non-obtrusively putting up signs, providing documentation and seeking to get voters registered. Bernie had an online video chat with supporters streaming from their houses and a chaotic, poorly organized and fragmented ground game spearheaded by well-meaning (but clueless) supporters, many of which have been hijacked by other, better organized groups. That Hillary has largely inherited Obama's ground game is even more damning to Sanders. I have seen similarly well-organized Clinton canvasing in my area this cycle and a poorly painted piece of plyboard that has the god-awful slogan "Feel the Bern" painted on it with a re-purposed Occupy Wall Street slogan on it, hastily thrown up on someone's yard - not a great unifying message.
Finally - his support in the minority community is bad. Very bad. He's doing well in Iowa and NH because its a very white, very liberal voting block. Clinton's numbers are impressively high with African Americans and Latino voters and Sanders hasn't even put a dent in that lead as his awareness levels have risen. Further, Sanders does nothing to energize a base that would otherwise not show up to the booths. Well-informed, white, college educated democratic voters are going to be there regardless. That he's able to get 51% of them to Hillary's 49% is not going to make this close. Obama moved a base to get the vote out and Hillary will have the vast majority of those that come back to the polls to vote. As soon as we hit Super Tuesday, Clinton will be winning races to the tune of +30-40% - its not even close, at least not right now.
Make no mistake, Hillary has been on an all-out barrage from every angle. Some of it deserved, some of it due to the pure hatred she evokes in the opposition, some of it from the Sanders camp trying to torpedo her further. She's sitting back and saying nothing right now, letting the Republicans dirty their hands and staying as clean as a Clinton can prior to the "real" race. This is pretty much to be expected, as she was polling as an incumbent - it happened to Gore when he ran against Bradley, Howard Dean is a more electable version of Sanders, etc.
Sanders is a well-meaning, honest man who truly believes in what he is saying, but his lack of accomplishing anything in DC (despite spending 3-4 decades there - he's renamed a couple post offices and....that's about it), his total lack of international diplomatic experience and his propensity to spout economic theories from schools of thought like MMT (that are more at home with an angsty 18 year old in his 2nd semester at college) make me think he's better kept as the goofy grandpa senator from an offbeat state than leading anything "real".
While websites like Reddit are quick to make his online presence seem huge, it is going to be Ron Paul 2.0.
Empty platitudes don't really cover the fact that he is getting slaughtered everywhere that isn't New Hampshire and has abysmal minority support.
He is not a mainstream candidate.
I think you are greatly underestimating the groundswell of support Sanders is mounting. And I don't know how you arrived at the idea that he has abysmal minority support, when he is truly the ONLY candidate willing to address issues like mass incarceration and institutional racism in anything resembling a meaningful way.
Up to now, in all the polls, Sanders' support among black and Latino votes has ranged from 5-15%. Unless the debate changed that, it's a valid comment.
Empty platitudes don't really cover the fact that he is getting slaughtered everywhere that isn't New Hampshire and has abysmal minority support.
He is not a mainstream candidate.
I think you are greatly underestimating the groundswell of support Sanders is mounting. And I don't know how you arrived at the idea that he has abysmal minority support, when he is truly the ONLY candidate willing to address issues like mass incarceration and institutional racism in anything resembling a meaningful way.
Srsly? Even some on the right are looking at the issue of mass incarceration and over criminalization and asking if there is a better way. This is like Trump saying that he's the only one talking about immigration.
BTW, I havent seen the whole Dem debate yet. Any immigration questions?
IMO, the doctrine should be protecting our shores, aiding a coalition if absolutely necessary and humanitarian aid (tsunami relief, etc)
Personally, I think Bill2 has one of the best take on the use of military and its impact on global stability with regards to regional security and global economy. While as section125 states, there are several of us, who can speak to the military capabilities and functions at an educated level when it comes to actual conduct of military operations, to consider the military as strictly an implement to wage war is both shortsighted and ignorant.
We impact global stability through various means, including diplomacy, soft power (cultural), and military. However, when it comes to the most tangible and effective ways to maintain regional security and economic stability, the use of the military and its presence in key locations (both land and sea) cannot be understated. So while our military spending may be extremely high compared to our allies and foes alike, it is a necessary evil in remaining a global stabilizer (although I'm sure others will argue that our actions have destabilized many areas). And this is even before we ever decide to conduct combat operations against enemies that are state, state-sponsored, and state-less.
Just think about what the presence of our carrier battle groups in key areas can achieve. It's not cheap to develop, maintain, and use those assets.
In the end, you cannot divorce or separate having a strong military capable of extreme power projection over tens of thousands of miles for extended periods of time with being able to keep the world stable. And before you say it's not our job to keep the world stable, think about who else will do it and how having the world run amok will impact your daily lives.
Empty platitudes don't really cover the fact that he is getting slaughtered everywhere that isn't New Hampshire and has abysmal minority support
Sanders as recently as two weeks ago was also leading in Iowa, has a National poll number anywhere between 25 and 30% and is only slightly behind Hillary even in NC and SC.
Where are you getting your numbers from that he's getting "slaughtered" outside of New Hampshire?
huh??? every SC poll has him down at least 25. Check out the latest Florida/SC and basically any state that isn't Iowa or NH. Shit even most poll have him down in Iowa almost double digits. Listen I love Bernie and his ideas, but lets not make Sh%&t up. Link - ( New Window )
Empty platitudes don't really cover the fact that he is getting slaughtered everywhere that isn't New Hampshire and has abysmal minority support
Sanders as recently as two weeks ago was also leading in Iowa, has a National poll number anywhere between 25 and 30% and is only slightly behind Hillary even in NC and SC.
Where are you getting your numbers from that he's getting "slaughtered" outside of New Hampshire?
Clinton has retaken the lead in Iowa (and was always within the margin of error) and he has been a non-factor in every major poll conducted in SC, Florida, Nevada, etc.
I'm not trying to cheerlead Clinton here, but look at the demographics that support each candidate - he doesn't have support outside of the "typical" progressive candidate (ala Bradley, Dean, etc.).
He is not a historical outlier - this kind of candidate pops up every cycle.
had Sanders down 5 in Iowa after being in the lead a few weeks ago. Before last night's primary, the poll for SC was Hillary 40 Bernie 28 and NC was 42 and 27.
So Sanders has between 25 and 30% of the vote and isn't considered a mainstream candidate?
had Sanders down 5 in Iowa after being in the lead a few weeks ago. Before last night's primary, the poll for SC was Hillary 40 Bernie 28 and NC was 42 and 27.
So Sanders has between 25 and 30% of the vote and isn't considered a mainstream candidate?
We may need to define "mainstream" candidate to come to any kind of agreement, but I should clarify it as meaning a candidate that has no chance at the nomination, nor one that the base could/would coalesce around to win a General.
had Sanders down 5 in Iowa after being in the lead a few weeks ago. Before last night's primary, the poll for SC was Hillary 40 Bernie 28 and NC was 42 and 27.
So Sanders has between 25 and 30% of the vote and isn't considered a mainstream candidate?
That's polling with Biden running. But Biden isnt running.
Bernie is doing a great job capturing a voting segment that is about 1/3 of the party -- the hard left, the affluent white liberal left, and the kids. I think most observers think he'll have an impossible time breaking out past that segment. Iowa and NH lack the hispanic and black vote he isnt reaching.
Remove Biden from the polling and she takes nearly 90% of his supporters.
The "tightening" of the race in recent weeks/months can be seen to be more directly tied to Biden taking away her supporters when included in polls. When he is not in the equation, she's leading as comfortably as she was when this was openly acknowledged to be a coronation for Clinton.
Sanders pulled the Liz Warren voters together and the sheer lack of any other viable candidate has him chewing up the "Anyone but Clinton" voters - but that is a finite population of Democrats. She's relatively popular in the party.
If there is no real groundswell support for Sanders,....
..... then how do you account for the massive crowds he is drawing whenever and wherever he speaks?
He has a very specific group that is supporting him that is extremely loud, but its a very "vanilla" crowd (demographically speaking) and candidates like Eugene McCarthy kind of had the same thing going 5-6 decades ago. His base also hasn't grown in a month - as he's polling where he was in mid-September (even into late August).
He is not a historical outlier and is following the same trajectory of progressive candidates, only in a race with only two candidates that have proven to be "viable" to voters. Ron Paul did the same exact thing on the other side of the aisle.
The only Democrat nominee that really can be considered an outsider that shocked the system is Obama - and he was being groomed for the role, he just jumped the gun from when they likely had envisioned his run.
Again - this is using history, polls, key indicators to arrive at this. Could he shock the system? Maybe, but it would require every piece of historical data on American politics to be 100% wrong.
Donald Trump outdrew Sanders with some of the crowds he's drawn, leads the Republican polls and is more financially set to run - yet no one gives him a chance. If any "oustider" candidate had a case to why history doesn't hold them, its Trump - not Sanders.
Ran as the liberal alternative to Gore. Gore was further right than HRC, but he was also the VP is a hugely popular President within the party, times were great, and he lack Hill's "baggage".
Bradly did 37% in Iowa, 46% in NH, 40% in DE -- after a caucus and a few primaries, it was a race! No, it wasnt. Then came Wash (35%), ok. But then March 7, where Gore just gored Bradley over 15 states, including CA 81-18 and NY 66-33. Because the race expanded beyond the first few primaries and beyond the unbalanced demographics of IO and NH. Link - ( New Window )
The other consideration regarding combativeness...
is that generally speaking the Republicans don't fear a particular candidate or a particular machine. Cruz may fear Trump's ire for tactical reasons, but Jeb doesn't. Christie may be targeting a cabinet position in a Republican Administration and so may soft-peddle around Rubio and Bush to the extent he won't with Rand Paul. But if Trump is the nominee, much less the President, Republicans have a bigger problem than worrying about whether they pissed him off along the way.
Democrats have more to fear from the presumptive nominee, who (along with her husband) retains a lot of pull in the party. A lot of big-time Democratic donors are loyal to Bill if not necessarily to Hillary, they have acolytes in the press corps. So unless you really think you can pull it off, would you risk being shut out of a new Administration, maybe even facing a primary challenge or the hostility of attack dogs with decades of experience?
RE: RE: If there is no real groundswell support for Sanders,....
..... then how do you account for the massive crowds he is drawing whenever and wherever he speaks?
He has a very specific group that is supporting him that is extremely loud, but its a very "vanilla" crowd (demographically speaking) and candidates like Eugene McCarthy kind of had the same thing going 5-6 decades ago. His base also hasn't grown in a month - as he's polling where he was in mid-September (even into late August).
He is not a historical outlier and is following the same trajectory of progressive candidates, only in a race with only two candidates that have proven to be "viable" to voters. Ron Paul did the same exact thing on the other side of the aisle.
The only Democrat nominee that really can be considered an outsider that shocked the system is Obama - and he was being groomed for the role, he just jumped the gun from when they likely had envisioned his run.
Again - this is using history, polls, key indicators to arrive at this. Could he shock the system? Maybe, but it would require every piece of historical data on American politics to be 100% wrong.
Donald Trump outdrew Sanders with some of the crowds he's drawn, leads the Republican polls and is more financially set to run - yet no one gives him a chance. If any "oustider" candidate had a case to why history doesn't hold them, its Trump - not Sanders.
Sanders is very much the candidate of the college town. Progressive white liberals see something familiar in him because he is one of them and has been one of them since their professors started casting ballots. But that constituency is still a fraction of even the base, certainly of the coalition you have to animate come next November.
Ran as the liberal alternative to Gore. Gore was further right than HRC, but he was also the VP is a hugely popular President within the party, times were great, and he lack Hill's "baggage".
Bradly did 37% in Iowa, 46% in NH, 40% in DE -- after a caucus and a few primaries, it was a race! No, it wasnt. Then came Wash (35%), ok. But then March 7, where Gore just gored Bradley over 15 states, including CA 81-18 and NY 66-33. Because the race expanded beyond the first few primaries and beyond the unbalanced demographics of IO and NH. Link - ( New Window )
No he's not. Bill Bradley was involved for years in the 80's discussion about tax reform, and was given significant input in the drafting of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. And he used that as a selling point in 2000. No way in hell would Sanders support legislation that would reduce the top rate to 28%.
RE: The other consideration regarding combativeness...
Well it was an odd debate and I have no doubt that the others on stage were actively avoiding hurting HRC. And Im sure a lot of that is fear that she's likely going to win and for someone like OMalley or Webb, that could be damaging (O'Malley long term, Webb because I assume he's looking for some appointment). But what does Bernie have to lose? 50-50 this is his last election (Senate 2018?), and its not like he has a legislative portfolio that needs protecting. Meanwhile, I wont even try and understand Linc Chafee's logic. The man comes off like he wears pajamas with attached feet.
But as for the Republicans, I think your point is really just that they dont fear attacking the ones they're all convinced cant win. So Trump and Paul in particular are fair game. Otherwise, the ones like Rubio and Christie who may seek appointments or future party gigs are notably not attacking the plausible candidates. I take it out of the same "fear".
that is one issue. It's not a perfect comp (nothing is). But generally, Bradley ran as the liberal alternative to Gore in a 2 man race. That's my point.
RE: RE: RE: If there is no real groundswell support for Sanders,....
..... then how do you account for the massive crowds he is drawing whenever and wherever he speaks?
He has a very specific group that is supporting him that is extremely loud, but its a very "vanilla" crowd (demographically speaking) and candidates like Eugene McCarthy kind of had the same thing going 5-6 decades ago. His base also hasn't grown in a month - as he's polling where he was in mid-September (even into late August).
He is not a historical outlier and is following the same trajectory of progressive candidates, only in a race with only two candidates that have proven to be "viable" to voters. Ron Paul did the same exact thing on the other side of the aisle.
The only Democrat nominee that really can be considered an outsider that shocked the system is Obama - and he was being groomed for the role, he just jumped the gun from when they likely had envisioned his run.
Again - this is using history, polls, key indicators to arrive at this. Could he shock the system? Maybe, but it would require every piece of historical data on American politics to be 100% wrong.
Donald Trump outdrew Sanders with some of the crowds he's drawn, leads the Republican polls and is more financially set to run - yet no one gives him a chance. If any "oustider" candidate had a case to why history doesn't hold them, its Trump - not Sanders.
Sanders is very much the candidate of the college town. Progressive white liberals see something familiar in him because he is one of them and has been one of them since their professors started casting ballots. But that constituency is still a fraction of even the base, certainly of the coalition you have to animate come next November.
And those voters were already politically engaged and going to show up at the ballot before they knew Sanders existed - which is a problem. Its a finite group that is not demographically represented to any large degree after Iowa/New Hampshire and is not a major factor in Super Tuesday, etc.
As my long-winded response above lays out, Obama energized a base that does not historically turn out well - Bernie has captured a wing of the party that wants to fall in love with someone like him every cycle and is already there to vote. He needs to either move the moderate Democrats to vote for him (unlikely) or engage a specific demographic to get out and vote that would usually have poor participation (again - unlikely, especially considering Clinton does extremely well with minority voters).
This is not meant to be a total hatchet job on Sanders, but I'm going to challenge the notion that Bernie has a legit shot - at least with current data available.
RE: RE: The other consideration regarding combativeness...
Well it was an odd debate and I have no doubt that the others on stage were actively avoiding hurting HRC. And Im sure a lot of that is fear that she's likely going to win and for someone like OMalley or Webb, that could be damaging (O'Malley long term, Webb because I assume he's looking for some appointment). But what does Bernie have to lose? 50-50 this is his last election (Senate 2018?), and its not like he has a legislative portfolio that needs protecting. Meanwhile, I wont even try and understand Linc Chafee's logic. The man comes off like he wears pajamas with attached feet.
But as for the Republicans, I think your point is really just that they dont fear attacking the ones they're all convinced cant win. So Trump and Paul in particular are fair game. Otherwise, the ones like Rubio and Christie who may seek appointments or future party gigs are notably not attacking the plausible candidates. I take it out of the same "fear".
Yeah Bernie doesn't have a ton of reason to soft-peddle. It was ironic that she hit him much harder than he hit her, and she is the frontrunner with no shortage of baggage. And what is a primary challenge going to do to Bernie? When he ran for Senate for the first time he and Jim Douglas, the Republican gubernatorial candidate, each got roughly 60% of the vote.
Bernie doesnt believe he can win and is running as an issues candidate. Pull the party/country left. Plenty of history of these kinds of candidates. And if that is the play, no need to hammer HRC on non-policy stuff. His goal would be to be liked in the party so his ideas can take root.
its not in Bernie's mindset to sling mud and fight to the death with other candidates. He has his niche slot and I agree that pretty much every open cycle the Dems fall in love with one.The only one in recent memory that really resonated was Obama. I think that type of niche candidate that has the ability to climb above that in this cycle is Elizabeth Warren. For a number of reasons she didn't have interest in pursuing it right now.
specifically because Sanders and Webb were in it. I think it would be a terrible mistake to pare down the next debate to just Hilary and Sanders.
It is as clear as day that Hilary is winning the nomination. Sanders has a following, but Clinton's lead is insurmountable barring another scandal.
But I have concerns about Hilary's calculated behavior and her tiers on Wall Street, and her changing views on certain topics that seem to go beyond the persuasion of newer information and appear more the result of political shilling.
For that, I like that Sanders because his political stances have not wavered, he calls out the problems created on Wall Street, and he doesn't accept Super PAC funding.
I also like having Webb on the stage because he brings attention to one of the problems facing the democratic party-- that they sometimes forget that people in small-town, rural American have completely different ways of life and mindsets from people in fast-moving, big cities and urban areas. This was highlighted by is discussion about gun control (where massive regulation does not jibe with so much of America). I also think his military background gives credibility to discussions on foreign policy that won't completely turn off half of the country.
I vote for Democrats, but both parties have problems with relating to people in the other parties.
So often people talk about red state vs. blue state, but I think the real difference is urban vs. rural and I want both parties to discuss how to appeal and help both.
specifically because Sanders and Webb were in it. I think it would be a terrible mistake to pare down the next debate to just Hilary and Sanders.
It is as clear as day that Hilary is winning the nomination. Sanders has a following, but Clinton's lead is insurmountable barring another scandal.
But I have concerns about Hilary's calculated behavior and her tiers on Wall Street, and her changing views on certain topics that seem to go beyond the persuasion of newer information and appear more the result of political shilling.
For that, I like that Sanders because his political stances have not wavered, he calls out the problems created on Wall Street, and he doesn't accept Super PAC funding.
I also like having Webb on the stage because he brings attention to one of the problems facing the democratic party-- that they sometimes forget that people in small-town, rural American have completely different ways of life and mindsets from people in fast-moving, big cities and urban areas. This was highlighted by is discussion about gun control (where massive regulation does not jibe with so much of America). I also think his military background gives credibility to discussions on foreign policy that won't completely turn off half of the country.
I vote for Democrats, but both parties have problems with relating to people in the other parties.
So often people talk about red state vs. blue state, but I think the real difference is urban vs. rural and I want both parties to discuss how to appeal and help both.
Good points. I said above that Webb represents a constituency that no longer exists and in some ways that is true, but if you want to bring the country together advancing a narrative that effectively discounts wide geographical and demographic swaths of the population is a poor means of doing so. It may not change the platform but it at least puts a representative of some of those concerns on the stage.
I agree. Webb and Sanders present ideas and feelings shared by people who either identify as Democrat or who just can't vote for a Republican due to social issues. They may not have shots, but I still want their ideas to be a part of the conversation. There are things I really distrust and don't like about Hilary, but by having these discussions, she is at least forced to respond to these ideas and either support them, or explain a difference of opinion. Otherwise, if Hilary is just handed the nomination, she can ignore those issues and those challenges completely and run as an anti-Republican hoping the EC is aligned enough to win her the office.
did Hillary actually get to read the TPP? Apparently not according to the White House. Of course it's possible she got a copy (even though it's under lock and key). My guess is she is just waffling on it as to not upset the unions. Link - ( New Window )
Am I the only one in the world who see's Chuck Todd beneath all that fake non partisanship is a pretty mainline conservative???? I would be totally shocked if somehow is voting record was revealed, and it turned out he ever voted D, even once in his life.... As far as the others, yes, they are clearly liberals.
Yes, you're the only one. He once worked for Tom Harkin.
People change.... His anti liberal bias is pretty evident.
Interesting choice of headlines for USA Today's print edition
that I'm waiting to see what the real polls show when the ones taken after the debate come out. Right now, as a Democrat, I'm hoping the Republicans nominate Carson, who is even more of a joke than Trump. I think Republicans should be hoping they get to run against Bernie, who did a very dumb thing way back when by accepting the label of Socialist.
I wouldnt be surprised if currently engaged Dems gave the win to the Nard Dog. This group skews towards the demos that Sanders is winning.
Hillary didnt need more Dems to say she "won" to be the winner. She isnt really running against Bernie. She is running against herself, Biden, and the GOP. Herself because she's had a terrible 4-8 months since the email "scandal" became news. A good performance helps stem the bleeding. Whether/how much she recovers in light of the debate and the McCarthy "gaffe" will be really interesting. She's running against Biden because his reason for getting in is merely to be the "establishment" replacement for a "damaged" Hillary. If she swings back up, there is no Biden story. And against the GOP because, for the reasons UA outlines above, Sanders cant win and she's effectively running in the general right now (one might disagree with the assessment of Sanders' chances, but dollars to donuts HRC believes Sanders is not her opponent).
the BIden camp today and now as per Chuck Todd the goal line has been moved to next weeks Benghazi hearings...
The media is driving a bogus Biden story because they want a race. Biden isnt getting in. I think the linked Bloomberg View piece gets it better -- he lost the primary about 9 months ago when he lost the whole establishment to HRC in the shaddow primary. I mean, if the FBI drops the hammer on HRC, all bets are off.
Maybe Im crazy, but Biden would have to really have to be bad at this to continue this Mario Cuomo will-he-or-wont-he schtick if he was actually running. He isnt raising money. He isnt locking up key supporters and apparatus. He is building no ground game. I think he's flattered, and maybe putting out feelers in case something catastrophic happens with HRC, but otherwise he's sitting it out. Link - ( New Window )
Webb was right, they should have cut over to him more rather than let Clinton say something, Sanders say essentially 80% of the same thing, and OMalley agree with both. Whoever said that Webb lacks a constituency is most right -- he actually has a constituency, it just doesnt fit comfortably under the current 2 party system.
I dont feel bad for Webb on this though -- he's stiff and mean looking. He was never going to win, and I have to think he's not in it to win. He's a smart man. But if there were no primaries a more dynamic version of Webb could get a lot of votes.
but he was the poster boy for "stiff". and whether or not he was not getting adequate time - to keep repeating it came off as whining.
but he had some good answers - didn't pander to the black lives matter question, talked about affirmative action within the context of class and not race, talked about the fact that global warming is a global issue, - he is a thoughtful guy, IMO. but woefully out if place in today's political scene.
Depressing that Trump is doing so well and a guy like Webb has no legitimate shot at winning.
but he was the poster boy for "stiff". and whether or not he was not getting adequate time - to keep repeating it came off as whining.
but he had some good answers - didn't pander to the black lives matter question, talked about affirmative action within the context of class and not race, talked about the fact that global warming is a global issue, - he is a thoughtful guy, IMO. but woefully out if place in today's political scene.
Depressing that Trump is doing so well and a guy like Webb has no legitimate shot at winning.
Someone pointed out that a guy like Clinton, certainly the Clinton of recollection (if not necessarily the candidate of 1992), would not be a viable Democratic candidate today. Webb is not Bill Clinton, but I'm not sure that is wrong.
Clinton would be more centrist than HRC and Bernie
but he'd still be viable (assume you mean 1992 Bill -- right now he'd get 80% even if he brought a date to the debates). Remember he was pretty controversial on the left at the time for his relatively non-liberal ways. Dems want a winner more than anything.
I mean, you can look at his policies and struggle to fit them into the current party platform and it is tough. But you can say the same thing about Reagan, who is worshiped on the right. The things Reagan did and said would get him pilloried by the modern GOP if he was doing them now.
RE: Clinton would be more centrist than HRC and Bernie
but he'd still be viable (assume you mean 1992 Bill -- right now he'd get 80% even if he brought a date to the debates). Remember he was pretty controversial on the left at the time for his relatively non-liberal ways. Dems want a winner more than anything.
I mean, you can look at his policies and struggle to fit them into the current party platform and it is tough. But you can say the same thing about Reagan, who is worshiped on the right. The things Reagan did and said would get him pilloried by the modern GOP if he was doing them now.
I agree that the mantle of Reagan has been claimed by people who have little in common with Ronnie, though I would point out that he dealt with a Democratic Congress and so aside from tax policy (and even there) he had to make concessions to push his FP agenda.
But for Bill, on issues like free trade, Wall Street (rhetoric anyway), race, etc he just doesn't have much in common with the likely platform this election season.
a lot of Clinton democrats like me. As for Ronnie, it is not just the tax issues -- and remember, compromise is a dirty word right now so you cant even necessarily excuse that, let alone raising taxes which is something I assume Hitler did. He negotiated with and eventually armed the Iranians. He would get slammed for the lack of response in Lebannon. And for talking to the Russians, which Fiorina says is a no-no. For supporting the Brady Bill, and some environmental regulations, and his immigration policy. And Israel (Haaretzs Chemi Salev wrote: If Obama treated Israel like Reagan did, hed be impeached) Reagan would be the butt of jokes if he was a really GOP primary candidate.
Yes Im sure you can say Im wrong on one thing, another is complicated -- but can you dispute the broader point that the actual policies Reagan implemented and some of his FP stuff would get him killed in today's GOP?
a lot of Clinton democrats like me. As for Ronnie, it is not just the tax issues -- and remember, compromise is a dirty word right now so you cant even necessarily excuse that, let alone raising taxes which is something I assume Hitler did. He negotiated with and eventually armed the Iranians. He would get slammed for the lack of response in Lebannon. And for talking to the Russians, which Fiorina says is a no-no. For supporting the Brady Bill, and some environmental regulations, and his immigration policy. And Israel (Haaretzs Chemi Salev wrote: If Obama treated Israel like Reagan did, hed be impeached) Reagan would be the butt of jokes if he was a really GOP primary candidate.
Yes Im sure you can say Im wrong on one thing, another is complicated -- but can you dispute the broader point that the actual policies Reagan implemented and some of his FP stuff would get him killed in today's GOP?
Certainly true of some of it, but it was a very different landscape in 1980. The Soviets remained the elephant in the room until it was clear they were in a death spin. It was for Clinton too, so that "cashing the peace dividend" didn't mean he was particularly dovish on foreign policy.
Dun don't forget Clinton turned more towards the center
after he was elected. He most definately could win today. In Politics charm will get you far no matter what language you speak. Just about any president is going to govern more to the center than they ran. Its just the reality of the office and how it works. Obama ran on closing Gitmo, stopping the domestic surveillance policy and getting us out of all the wars. 7 years later we are out of Iraq, but still in Ahghanistan, Gitmo is still open and we are running more drone strikes and spying more than ever.
And Israel (Haaretzs Chemi Salev wrote: If Obama treated Israel like Reagan did, hed be impeached)
Reagan's administration was most definitely rough on Israel led by Cap Weinberger. Even more so than Carter's. Though Carter has been much worse to Israel after he left office.
admits that the Gowdy Committee was designed to go after Hillary.
Quote:
Sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth, Hanna said on the Keeler in the Morning radio show in New York. This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people, and an individual, Hillary Clinton.
After what Kevin McCarthy said, its difficult to accept at least a part of it was not, Hanna continued. I think thats the way Washington works. But youd like to expect more from a committee thats spent millions of dollars and tons of time.
admits that the Gowdy Committee was designed to go after Hillary.
Quote:
Sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth, Hanna said on the Keeler in the Morning radio show in New York. This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people, and an individual, Hillary Clinton.
After what Kevin McCarthy said, its difficult to accept at least a part of it was not, Hanna continued. I think thats the way Washington works. But youd like to expect more from a committee thats spent millions of dollars and tons of time.
Link - ( New Window )
Well, it was her server and her decision to use a separate server and her decision not to have it locked down and her decision to put sensitive communications on the server in the toilet or closet or wherever it was. Who is non-political on her side, Huma? Is the FBI investigating her for political reasons too?
She's like the speeder doing 90 who complains that the cops are out to get her because she's being pulled over.
But we might as well get used to it. Given her history, there will probably be an investigation into some new "not very smart decision" or money-grubbing scheme every couple of months during her Administration.
the BIden camp today and now as per Chuck Todd the goal line has been moved to next weeks Benghazi hearings...
The media is driving a bogus Biden story because they want a race. Biden isnt getting in. I think the linked Bloomberg View piece gets it better -- he lost the primary about 9 months ago when he lost the whole establishment to HRC in the shaddow primary. I mean, if the FBI drops the hammer on HRC, all bets are off.
Maybe Im crazy, but Biden would have to really have to be bad at this to continue this Mario Cuomo will-he-or-wont-he schtick if he was actually running. He isnt raising money. He isnt locking up key supporters and apparatus. He is building no ground game. I think he's flattered, and maybe putting out feelers in case something catastrophic happens with HRC, but otherwise he's sitting it out. Link - ( New Window )
Biden is the insurance policy. He is hanging around so if by some wild chance, Hilary crashes and burns, the Party won't be stuck with one of the guys who were on stage last night.
Trump is ahead in Iowa NH and the next big primaries SC and Nev Trump is running away with it. He wins the nomination if he doesn't get stopped in Iowa. All the deniers and bubble burst wishers should start getting used to the idea. Now if you want to shoot the messenger, fire away, I couldn't care less, but the guys numbers get stronger and stronger everyday and that is a fact
that showed that (at least according to voters via FB) Sanders overwhelmingly won the debate. He had 83% of the vote when it was taken down apparently.
I'm not sure that really proves anything other than what some have already said about 'slacktivists' and whatnot- which I don't necessarily dismiss.
The thing is- if these internet warriors could be somewhat organized and get people to understand that they have to vote in the Primary- it could get interesting.
Trump is ahead in Iowa NH and the next big primaries SC and Nev Trump is running away with it. He wins the nomination if he doesn't get stopped in Iowa. All the deniers and bubble burst wishers should start getting used to the idea. Now if you want to shoot the messenger, fire away, I couldn't care less, but the guys numbers get stronger and stronger everyday and that is a fact
It is October. Slow down. And ballpark, what percentage of Trump supporters are actual primary voters?
Trump is ahead in Iowa NH and the next big primaries SC and Nev Trump is running away with it. He wins the nomination if he doesn't get stopped in Iowa. All the deniers and bubble burst wishers should start getting used to the idea. Now if you want to shoot the messenger, fire away, I couldn't care less, but the guys numbers get stronger and stronger everyday and that is a fact
This would be fabulous. Just have him win some early.
"mainstream" candidates had these numbers, the race would be over. Yeah it's October, that what you said in June, July, August & September and I've got you down for November and December to save you time
RE: Dun don't forget Clinton turned more towards the center
Ron Paul used to dominate every non-scientific internet user poll. Slacktivists love them some ideologically pure grandpas.
Dune: my skepticism over Trump is high, but do you have a reason to believe that Trump's supporters in particular wont show up to vote in primaries (put aside caucuses)?
that showed that (at least according to voters via FB) Sanders overwhelmingly won the debate. He had 83% of the vote when it was taken down apparently.
I'm not sure that really proves anything other than what some have already said about 'slacktivists' and whatnot- which I don't necessarily dismiss.
The thing is- if these internet warriors could be somewhat organized and get people to understand that they have to vote in the Primary- it could get interesting.
I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
First article that popped up - ( New Window )
Cam I went around the internet after the debate Tuesday night. Virtually every online poll had Bernie winning and were virtually identical in number like 74-76%. Clearly his loyal army of supporters went around the internet voting in every one. Of course that's not scientific but I bet its true.
At a rally last night he said that if he had made a nasty personal attack on Hillary at the debate he would have been the headline in all the paper's and media the next day. Talking about income inequality (and you really could substitute any substantive issue) got him comparatively little publicity.
I may not agree with Sanders on the issues, but he has the National Enquirer, "The Apprentice" media down cold.
At a rally last night he said that if he had made a nasty personal attack on Hillary at the debate he would have been the headline in all the paper's and media the next day. Talking about income inequality (and you really could substitute any substantive issue) got him comparatively little publicity.
I may not agree with Sanders on the issues, but he has the National Enquirer, "The Apprentice" media down cold.
While I agree with Sanders in principle, he's fighting a losing campaign. Instead of his (theoretical) "attack" grabbing headlines, all the headlines went to HRC. It gets to the point that if you really want to affect change, then get elected.
not making a personal attack and shutting down the question of the emails. I do think it's an issue and should be in the primary because it sure will be in the general.
that showed that (at least according to voters via FB) Sanders overwhelmingly won the debate. He had 83% of the vote when it was taken down apparently.
I'm not sure that really proves anything other than what some have already said about 'slacktivists' and whatnot- which I don't necessarily dismiss.
The thing is- if these internet warriors could be somewhat organized and get people to understand that they have to vote in the Primary- it could get interesting.
I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
First article that popped up - ( New Window )
There's a dedicated forum (subreddit) on the popular site Reddit that is 100k strong (both US and non-US, voting age and under) that actively linked its user base to all of these polls right after the debate to vote in these online polls and create these results.
The issue with those numbers are:
- Its not representative - in other words, the vast majority of the people who watched the debate did not run to the various sites to vote for their candidate. Most Clinton supporters probably went to bed knowing their candidate did everything she needed to win the debate - which really amounted to keeping Joe Biden on the couch vs. joining the festivities.
- Not everyone who voted in those online surveys is able to vote, nor likely to vote. Again - slacktivisim at play.
- Sanders supporters skew as follows - White, Under 30, Male. Internet users who would take the time to flood every online forum they can to shill for a politician likely skews: White, Under 30, Male.
Again - Ron Paul dominated anything online related and won a few straw polls. The internet is a forum for very loud groups to create this kind of narrative.
What will be interesting is the brave new world of internet campaigning. This is not an accusation against the Sanders campaign, but there have been more than rumors about paid "shills" that infiltrate popular websites to form public opinion on a candidate. Especially in news aggregation sites like Reddit, where users are in control of what gets more predominant coverage through a Karma system - its an effective way to inform/misinform a low-effort/low-knowledge voting base and whip them into a frenzy.
Then again, Ron Paul's supporters were doing this on Digg a few years back. Reddit is just a larger platform.
from "likely voters" to "adults" to "registered Republicans" to "likely primary voters." Considering the typical turnout for these primaries, it is reasonable to suggest that the candidate with the greatest name recognition would be overrepresented among the first two categories and underrepresented among the last one.
not making a personal attack and shutting down the question of the emails. I do think it's an issue and should be in the primary because it sure will be in the general.
Eh, better ways for Sanders to "attack" HRC in the primary. He could start with her contradictory evolving stance on TPP.
I imagine there are also a number of FP differences between the candidates that he could seek to exploit.
not making a personal attack and shutting down the question of the emails. I do think it's an issue and should be in the primary because it sure will be in the general.
Its irrelevant whether its an issue or not for Bernie. In the general it will be there, and once its proven there's nothing there we'll move on to the next Clinton "scandal" manufactured by the right. We've seen his routine for over 20 years. Started back with Whitewater, when that didn't work lets move on to Paula Jones. Nothing much there but hmmm we found a nice little nugget with Monica Lewinsky. So Ken Starr spends years and millions and the best we come up with is a lie about a blow job. How did we get to the emails? Well lets form 7 committee's to investigate Benghazi even though every possible answer has been fleshed out 10 times over but as usual if we dig deep enough we'll find a nugget like the email server to make a lot of noise about for months. Hey while we're at it we might find something cool inside the Clinton foundation. If we dig deep enough we will overturn seedy stuff in any administration. Sure there were tinfoil hat accusations thrown at Bush by members of the far left. Difference is congress didn't spend millions upon millions investigating them. They chose to try and legislate instead.
not making a personal attack and shutting down the question of the emails. I do think it's an issue and should be in the primary because it sure will be in the general.
Its irrelevant whether its an issue or not for Bernie. In the general it will be there, and once its proven there's nothing there we'll move on to the next Clinton "scandal" manufactured by the right. We've seen his routine for over 20 years. Started back with Whitewater, when that didn't work lets move on to Paula Jones. Nothing much there but hmmm we found a nice little nugget with Monica Lewinsky. So Ken Starr spends years and millions and the best we come up with is a lie about a blow job. How did we get to the emails? Well lets form 7 committee's to investigate Benghazi even though every possible answer has been fleshed out 10 times over but as usual if we dig deep enough we'll find a nugget like the email server to make a lot of noise about for months. Hey while we're at it we might find something cool inside the Clinton foundation. If we dig deep enough we will overturn seedy stuff in any administration. Sure there were tinfoil hat accusations thrown at Bush by members of the far left. Difference is congress didn't spend millions upon millions investigating them. They chose to try and legislate instead.
Yes, manufactured. The right manufactured Hillary discussing classified FP and security information with Sid Blumenthal on her private server, which apparently permitted unencrypted remote access. The right manufactured Hillary's personal IT guy taking the Fifth.
That bad news being that in the cross-party presidential debate, there is much to attack that didn't even come up on Tuesday.
Quote:
On Tuesday night in Las Vegas, Clinton faced a set of Democratic rivals who seemed to lack the skill or the will to challenge her about her record on foreign policy, her changes in position, her handling of government data on a private e-mail server, or her claim to be an outsider after two decades in national politics.
When the former secretary of state praised Libya now a cauldron of chaos and Islamist militias as smart power at its best, nobody scoffed. When she was challenged about her e-mail practices, a controversy that has concerned many voters, top rival Bernie Sanders actually stepped in to dismiss the question. Americans are tired of hearing about it, he said.
For a night, the Democratic primary looked like what it was supposed to be a year ago: a coronation. On stage stood one dominant candidate, surrounded by others with other goals that didnt include actually taking her down.
For Clinton, this night was a win. But it wasnt great preparation. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she will face a Republican candidate who sees the very things she talked about Tuesday Libya, the e-mails and her closeness with President Obama as weapons to use against her.
I think that's entirely fair, but their is a counterpoint: what conceivable candidate is there on the Republican side that won't have a laundry list of vulnerabilities at least as long, as well as having the Republican clown show in the House as an extra 50-pound weight in their backpack?
The latter is a simple message: you are going to want a counterweight to a House of Representatives that is either incapable of governing or is dominated by roughly 40 individuals on the extreme right that do not represent your values or views.
Nevertheless, the point that the actual Presidential debates will look nothing like Tuesday is fair--but they won't look like the childish, name-calling, policy-free Republican debates, either.
email. However, the single minded concentration on it is purely political. The Bush White House did a ton of business off RNC servers, and when someone raised a question about it they destroyed 20 million emails. Wiped the server. No review for what was government business. It was raised as an issue, but no where near as much spilled ink as the HRC emails. This has become an obsession of the right, so much so that the Benghazi committee has PLAINLY given up looking at Benghazi and shifted solely to HRC's emails.
RE: I think there are legitimate questions that can be raised about her
email. However, the single minded concentration on it is purely political. The Bush White House did a ton of business off RNC servers, and when someone raised a question about it they destroyed 20 million emails. Wiped the server. No review for what was government business. It was raised as an issue, but no where near as much spilled ink as the HRC emails. This has become an obsession of the right, so much so that the Benghazi committee has PLAINLY given up looking at Benghazi and shifted solely to HRC's emails.
They uncovered evidence of apparent wrongdoing with implications for national security, including wrongdoing with implications for the Benghazi attack. Frankly the original focus of the committee was a lot more craven and grandstanding than this one.
If history is our guide, eventually they'll shift the investigations
the server issue was only discovered because of the Benghazi Special Committee. The Special Committee was formed because the State Dept and other departments were not forthcoming in the other investigations. And this Committee has uncovered a lot of things that the other investigations has not. They've interviewed many witnesses that were not interviewed before, including people who were at Benghazi.
it's a bit silly to complain that the investigation is concentrating on Hillary when her finger prints are all over it, including the bogus claim about the video and why Stevens was in Benghazi and why he didn't have adequate security.
Lol at Buford still holding out a candle for this committee
literally you have 2 members of the Republican caucus full out admitting on public record why it was formed. Don't worry, be happy it served it's purpose. Keep the faith though, when America shows at the polls that it doesn't care about this at it has for all the other ones over almost 25 years you'll have years of her administration to come up with numerous others.
that showed that (at least according to voters via FB) Sanders overwhelmingly won the debate. He had 83% of the vote when it was taken down apparently.
I'm not sure that really proves anything other than what some have already said about 'slacktivists' and whatnot- which I don't necessarily dismiss.
The thing is- if these internet warriors could be somewhat organized and get people to understand that they have to vote in the Primary- it could get interesting.
I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
First article that popped up - ( New Window )
Can you guys that keep repeating pretty much what I've said back to me as if you're countering some imaginary point I made please re-read what I wrote?
There is a possibility, no matter how slight, that 'slacktivists' could get their shit together.
Is it the line about the internet warriors that somehow makes you think that I think it is somehow likely? If so, please read the next line where I typed, "I wouldn't hold my breath." Most folks interpret that to mean that the person expressing it doesn't think it will happen.
It was an attack on a temporary US compound. Are you suggesting that she ordered it? The video canard has been specifically rejected by the intel committee. Rice (not Clinton) said it, and it was based on 21 separate pieces of intel.
Moreover, and I do not mean to minimize the loss of life, but the entirety of Benghazi has been overblown IMO for political reasons. Benghazi is not 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, and it doesnt need 8 separate investigations when the first 7 have said that there want wrongdoing but more could have been done (a truism if there ever was one). There were 13 attacks on embassies and consulates and other US diplomatic properties during the Bush administration, and 60 people died. I dont remember hundreds of hearings about those. An ambassador died, and I have no problem with thorough oversight. But that is not what Benghazi is on the right. It is just another rallying cry on the right, a shibboleth among those who righteously dismiss the president and Clinton as frauds, criminals, and dangerous incompetents. And it is the makework of an anti-government and out-of control Republican caucus.
that showed that (at least according to voters via FB) Sanders overwhelmingly won the debate. He had 83% of the vote when it was taken down apparently.
I'm not sure that really proves anything other than what some have already said about 'slacktivists' and whatnot- which I don't necessarily dismiss.
The thing is- if these internet warriors could be somewhat organized and get people to understand that they have to vote in the Primary- it could get interesting.
I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
First article that popped up - ( New Window )
Can you guys that keep repeating pretty much what I've said back to me as if you're countering some imaginary point I made please re-read what I wrote?
There is a possibility, no matter how slight, that 'slacktivists' could get their shit together.
Is it the line about the internet warriors that somehow makes you think that I think it is somehow likely? If so, please read the next line where I typed, "I wouldn't hold my breath." Most folks interpret that to mean that the person expressing it doesn't think it will happen.
So I have this straight, you want posters on BBI to be able read and comprehend what you actually wrote? Good luck with that.
that showed that (at least according to voters via FB) Sanders overwhelmingly won the debate. He had 83% of the vote when it was taken down apparently.
I'm not sure that really proves anything other than what some have already said about 'slacktivists' and whatnot- which I don't necessarily dismiss.
The thing is- if these internet warriors could be somewhat organized and get people to understand that they have to vote in the Primary- it could get interesting.
I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
First article that popped up - ( New Window )
Can you guys that keep repeating pretty much what I've said back to me as if you're countering some imaginary point I made please re-read what I wrote?
There is a possibility, no matter how slight, that 'slacktivists' could get their shit together.
Is it the line about the internet warriors that somehow makes you think that I think it is somehow likely? If so, please read the next line where I typed, "I wouldn't hold my breath." Most folks interpret that to mean that the person expressing it doesn't think it will happen.
My additional diatribe around slaktivism was unnecessary, so I'll own that one and take the deserved blow-back - but the item that is interesting on this is the piece on where we go with online presence and politics - beyond it just being a voting block.
Paid political "shills" are a real thing and they have easy access to low effort/low information voters. It's going to be interesting to see not only if these internet warriors can get things together and make a movement actually go anywhere besides producing witty memes and the most Facebook likes, but also to see if they don't just get "astroturfed" and lead astray. I don't think anyone can fully appreciate what it means to have a largely anonymous group of people be able to spread largely unsubstantiated information to readers who don't want to dig any deeper to verify.
It was an attack on a temporary US compound. Are you suggesting that she ordered it? The video canard has been specifically rejected by the intel committee. Rice (not Clinton) said it, and it was based on 21 separate pieces of intel.
Moreover, and I do not mean to minimize the loss of life, but the entirety of Benghazi has been overblown IMO for political reasons. Benghazi is not 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, and it doesnt need 8 separate investigations when the first 7 have said that there want wrongdoing but more could have been done (a truism if there ever was one). There were 13 attacks on embassies and consulates and other US diplomatic properties during the Bush administration, and 60 people died. I dont remember hundreds of hearings about those. An ambassador died, and I have no problem with thorough oversight. But that is not what Benghazi is on the right. It is just another rallying cry on the right, a shibboleth among those who righteously dismiss the president and Clinton as frauds, criminals, and dangerous incompetents. And it is the makework of an anti-government and out-of control Republican caucus.
The actions taken in Libya by Obama and Clinton were a disaster, regardless of how Hillary was trying to tout it in the debate. They had elections, big whoop! She and Obama made the same error that Bush made in Iraq but that is never brought up. Benghazi matters because we don't know why Stevens was there, we don't know what the purpose of the attack was (and no, it wasn't about the video). And, something that is rarely brought up now, this all happened during a Presidential election. But the song and dance about the video was put forward to protect Obama from having Libya blow up in his face. Romney was viciously attacked by the media for pointing this out, just like he was ridiculed about Russia. Candy Crowley ran defense for Obama in the debate about Benghazi. When the dust cleared from the election, it became obvious that the WH and State covered up the disaster that was Libya/Benghazi. The early investigations done were shams. There was little or no cooperation by either the WH or State. They continue to stall and withhold information to this day. The only reason some of the emails and other information has come out is because of lawsuits. Even so, the Clinton emails are only one small part of the investigation. And they only got their hands on Ambassador Steven's emails recently.
So no, it's not a sham and it's not over. As much as some wish it would be.
RE: RE: RE: So CNN deleted an online facebook poll
In comment 12551352 UAGiant said:
In comment 12551116 Cam in MO said
The thing is- if these internet warriors could be somewhat organized and get people to understand that they have to vote in the Primary- it could get interesting.
That's a major assumption
Quote:
I don't think anyone can fully appreciate what it means to have a largely anonymous group of people be able to spread largely unsubstantiated information to readers who don't want to dig any deeper to verify.
Even discounting the paid political shills, one only has to remember social media back in the days after the Boston Marathon bombing to realize that this can be a real problem
I agree. It'll be interesting if anyone can actually harvest/motivate enough slacktivists to actually do anything other than offer ctrl-v/ctrl-c support.
It's interesting to watch IMO.
I have a feeling that the folks that keep scoffing at it are going to be left behind/caught unawares when someone finally figures out how to leverage social media into real world action (at least when it comes to running for office).
we didnt invade Libya and topple a dictator on the basis of faulty or misleading intelligence.
Benghazi doesnt matter BECAUSE you dont know why Stevens was there. Enough investigation and ink has been spilled about the purpose of the attack that Im simply flabbergasted that you're still questioning this, though not surprised. Why do terrorists do terrorist things? Your ravings about the video disclose your true feelings on this -- big fraud, big coverup, CNN rigged the election, Gowdy has done no work this year because of Hillary, Obama/Clinton illegitimate. We get it. And as you say, all "The early investigations done were shams." Not the one that even GOP members of Congress are admitting is a political affair, but all of the 7 earlier ones. Because they did not bring down the presidency, and this is Obama's Watergate. 7 Republican led or co-led investigations published reports despite a no cooperation from the administration because why? Their in cahoots with Obama I assume.
Buford you have the Romney-Obama-Crowley debate thing so
wrong and misrepresented it's staggering. It was a simple issue. Romney made a big deal shooting his mouth off echoing the bogus talking point that Obama did not address it as a terrorist attack the next day in the Rose Garden. Obama said he in fact did call it an act of terror. He simply had Crowley verify this by reading off an actual transcript from the address that day. Simple as that. No grand conspiracy by Crowley and CNN to get Obama re-elected.
I agree. It'll be interesting if anyone can actually harvest/motivate enough slacktivists to actually do anything other than offer ctrl-v/ctrl-c support.
It's interesting to watch IMO.
I have a feeling that the folks that keep scoffing at it are going to be left behind/caught unawares when someone finally figures out how to leverage social media into real world action (at least when it comes to running for office).
To be clear, I don't think Sanders is that guy.
I think you can look at someone like Obama, who actually did use the internet effectively and had it as a communication chain to his supporters. It can be used to build excitement and noise for the campaign, but at some point - you need to bring the rest of the base (or engage a new base) to get anywhere "Big Picture".
Also, the candidate needs to be the central hub/connecting point to the voters. Sanders has no true organization and his support is an amorphous group with no leadership - some of whom have resorted to passive racism (especially when he was confronted by the BLM group in Oregon) to push for his candidacy. In other words, you can't have people co-opting your campaign and then allowing for that kind of behavior - the stink stays on you, even if you don't have a clue what's going on.
Online campaigning can grow from where Obama had utilized it, but to allow an unchecked collective like the Sanders subreddit is almost more damaging to the candidate that helpful.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the "engaged internet activist" is also not a homogenized group. Even if we take out factors like the shills who are going to either distort facts or provide FUD against other candidates, there are basically as many anarchists as there are activist (those who would rather watch it burn than pledge undying support for candidate XYZ). For every subreddit that wants to keep the "Bernie circlejerk" turned up to 11, there's a forum that will distort and distract just for the "lolz".
Not a lot of answers in this response, but its going to be very interesting to watch long-term (as was already stated numerous times...). As njm hit on, the internet can froth itself up into a lynch mob (see what Reddit did with the Boston Bombings) just as easy as it can launch a campaign.
if it is longer than 2 hours and if there are no opening/closing statements. Smart move by him -- enough time for some zingers, but will really reduce how much time he is subject to questioning. Link - ( New Window )
want the CNBC debate to have opening and closing statements. If that is what the contestants want, I think that's what they should get. Link - ( New Window )
this is not a hit piece per se, but just an excruciating post-debate takedown of Chafee from his home state. Paints him as the petulant child who is dishonoring his father's memory. Link - ( New Window )
want the CNBC debate to have opening and closing statements. If that is what the contestants want, I think that's what they should get. Link - ( New Window )
Since they all want that, they should have it and also, 2 hours is a reasonable limit. Also, both parties should raise the bar to 3% of recent polls to allow a candidate to participate. Candidates that haven't been generating that amount of interest should drop out anyway.
RE: Buford you have the Romney-Obama-Crowley debate thing so
wrong and misrepresented it's staggering. It was a simple issue. Romney made a big deal shooting his mouth off echoing the bogus talking point that Obama did not address it as a terrorist attack the next day in the Rose Garden. Obama said he in fact did call it an act of terror. He simply had Crowley verify this by reading off an actual transcript from the address that day. Simple as that. No grand conspiracy by Crowley and CNN to get Obama re-elected.
You and Deej are entitled to your opinions, even if they are wrong.
wrong and misrepresented it's staggering. It was a simple issue. Romney made a big deal shooting his mouth off echoing the bogus talking point that Obama did not address it as a terrorist attack the next day in the Rose Garden. Obama said he in fact did call it an act of terror. He simply had Crowley verify this by reading off an actual transcript from the address that day. Simple as that. No grand conspiracy by Crowley and CNN to get Obama re-elected.
You and Deej are entitled to your opinions, even if they are wrong.
Just curious what from that re-cap of what happened at the debate did I get wrong? It was a simple exchange that got you, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the right all butt-hurt and in an uproar because one of your BS talking points about Obama could be so easily refuted in 2 seconds by simply looking at a transcript from his speech that day in the Rose Garden. Done blame the messenger Crowley. Blame Romney and his debate prep team. It's not the best idea at a debate to shoot your mouth off on a talking point that can so easily be refuted.
Wayne Simmons regular guest commentator on Fox and identified by the network as a former CIA operative, has been arrested on fraud charges which includes he lied about working for the CIA.
On Fox, he had criticized the Obama Adminstration regarding Benghazi and praised Fox for their continual coverage.
Fox News Promoted Simmons' Call For A Benghazi Select Committee.
Fox News hosted Simmons to promote his call for a committee.
From the segment
UMA PEMMARAJU: Former CIA operative and author Wayne Simmons is one of those who signed that letter to the speaker of the House and he's joining us this now. Tell us more about why all of you have come together to sign this letter and do you think it's going to put more pressure to get the answers that you guys are looking for?
SIMMONS: The answer is we hope so. We hope that the pressure that we can continue to put on from the Citizens' Commission on Benghazi and along with Judicial Watch by delivering this very, very strong letter to Speaker Boehner, helps motivate him to begin this House Select Committee on Investigations.
[...]
We know that, of course, Hillary Clinton is the genesis of this. [JudicialWatch.org, 3/5/14; Fox News, America's News HQ, 3/8/14; Speaker.gov, 5/2/14]
wrong and misrepresented it's staggering. It was a simple issue. Romney made a big deal shooting his mouth off echoing the bogus talking point that Obama did not address it as a terrorist attack the next day in the Rose Garden. Obama said he in fact did call it an act of terror. He simply had Crowley verify this by reading off an actual transcript from the address that day. Simple as that. No grand conspiracy by Crowley and CNN to get Obama re-elected.
You and Deej are entitled to your opinions, even if they are wrong.
Just curious what from that re-cap of what happened at the debate did I get wrong? It was a simple exchange that got you, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the right all butt-hurt and in an uproar because one of your BS talking points about Obama could be so easily refuted in 2 seconds by simply looking at a transcript from his speech that day in the Rose Garden. Done blame the messenger Crowley. Blame Romney and his debate prep team. It's not the best idea at a debate to shoot your mouth off on a talking point that can so easily be refuted.
Cam I went around the internet after the debate Tuesday night. Virtually every online poll had Bernie winning and were virtually identical in number like 74-76%. Clearly his loyal army of supporters went around the internet voting in every one. Of course that's not scientific but I bet its true.
The democrats have done a great job during the last two presidential campaigns of putting an army of people out there on the internet. Whether it is to pump up these polls or more importantly to find every blog possible to spread their propoganda. That being said, I sincerely doubt that Sanders would have bean ahead of Hillary in this type of online initiative. With all of her money and prior campaign experience... you would think that she had thousands of her trolls out there clicking away.
Mitt was wrong. Stu is right. Let it go. Obama said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack:
Quote:
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
What the hell does that refer to if not calling Benghazi an act of terror?
Moreover, what sort of meek, irrelevant, infantile point was Romney making? Oh, Obama doesnt use precisely the words I would use, so he's soft on terrorism? What a vapid, empty point. It is so small to keep raising it, leaving aside the fact that Romney's rhetorical point was dead wrong.
Candy Crowley didnt steal the election from Romney. Let it go. Link - ( New Window )
you are staring up at a sunny blue sky and swearing to me that it is grey and raining. Deej is right. If he wasn't referring to Benghazi the goddamn morning after in the Rose Garden what was he referring to? Pearl Harbor? Geez the bubble you guys live in is staggering. Yep you are probably still telling yourself the polls are biased and Romney is going to win in a landslide.
Article by Heilemann about the controversy over the Dem debate schedule. Interesting point. The schedule is well designed to get Hillary the nomination, but maybe is not so good for the slate of candidates as a whole.
It's obvious they're attempting to limit the damage to Clinton. Primary races can be brutal. It's hard to imagine a scenario where she doesn't win so I don't fault the DNC for the strategy.
It's obvious they're attempting to limit the damage to Clinton. Primary races can be brutal. It's hard to imagine a scenario where she doesn't win so I don't fault the DNC for the strategy.
So should DNC be about maximizing the benefit to Clinton or maximize the benefit to the party's entire slate of candidate, House, Senate, state & local? There seems to be a disagreement.
It's obvious they're attempting to limit the damage to Clinton. Primary races can be brutal. It's hard to imagine a scenario where she doesn't win so I don't fault the DNC for the strategy.
DNC should not be making rules to favor a specific candidate, and it is fairly obvious that they did this. Now that doesnt mean that it should be totally passive. For example, I see no reason why the party must continue giving time to Chafee and Webb (both good men) when they're not really running. Chafee has two staffers and has raised $30k. Just because he once held office, NEVER AS A DEMOCRAT, and now self-identifies as a Democrat does not punch his ticket forever.
in the context of the President's remarks on the subject and analogizing it to the Petraeus case. Link - ( New Window )
It is staggering to me that the NY Times allows Michael Schmidt to continue to report on anything, but in particular the Clinton email issue. He has utterly embarrassed himself and his employer time and again on the Clinton emails. It is widely believed that Gowdy himself has been Schmidt's source on all of this. And look at this piece. Purely written from the FBI's perspective in a decades long turf war where the FBI thinks that they and not the DOJ should get to wield prosecutorial discretion.
Just one point though: He doesnt even anonymously source his assertion that the FBI agents on the case were angered by Obama's comments. Just assets it as known fact. Then he gives space to Hosko, who has a fucking hard-on for Obama and Holder because Holder likes to investigate cops. What a joke.
I agree but I believe they would say (if you injected them with truth serum) they're acting in the best interest of the party. It's all about keeping the White House and creating coat tails.
Overall GOP candidates raise $85 million and spend $65 million, Dems raise $58 and spend $39. Top 5 individually are HRC ($30 raised, $26 spent), Bernie (26, 11), Carson (21, 14), Bush (13, 11), Cruz (12, 7). Shockingly poor quarter for Rubio (5.7, 4.6) IMO, behind Walker (7.4, 6.4) and Fiorina (6.8, 2.2). Kasich and Christie raise low 4s, Rad at 2.5 (but spent 4.5). Trump raises and spends $4 million.
Rubio aside, this all makes a ton of sense. GOPers as a group outraise Dems because there are so many more of them, and so much of fundraising for most of these people requires calls and events, but with just 2 clear choices the Dems get individual spots #1 and 2. I have no explanation for Rubio, and his campaign's excuses about Walker being in early in the quarter ring pretty hollow. Overall disappointing quarter for Hillary IMO (havent see writeups calling it that). She had a brutal 3rd quarter in the news, and I think the donors sat back. But as the presumptive nominee, and with a rockstar husband who can headline events and make calls for her, that's a terrible number. One note re Carson -- he spent 11 million on fund raising. That is a horrific 50+% spend to get $20 million raised, when 10-15% is typical; suggests that his campaign is being run in the vanity style, where the real purpose is to enrich his advisors. Spent only 3 million on actually campaigning.
If Rubio has become the inevitable frontrunner, it is not reflected in the polls (still not breaking 10% consistently) or money hauls.
The more disappointing part for HRC is the amount of money she is burning through right now despite having no credible challengers on the Dem side. She should be building a war chest for the general election.
Super PACs dont report until 1/31. As of 6/30, Jeb's was at $108 raised, Cruz 38, HRC 29, Rubio 17. Sanders swore off a super PAC (but is there a shadow pro-Bern pac??), and Carson and Trump were effectively at zero. Those numbers are old.
Should also note that I believe 3rd quarter probably favored GOPers climate wise for fundraising. That first debate was a ratings blockbuster (2nd was post-3Q?). And as mentioned, Hillary had a brutal quarter vs. "the facts" and Biden left the race in a real state of flux.
though the general doesnt officially start until the conventions. If Hillary is spending millions getting the machine (inherited from Obama) running, then that is great spending. If she is spending it on fundraising not so good. Will try to get FEC form, but their site keeps crashing my browser (Thanks, Obama). Bottom line is that if she comes thru the primary in healthy shape w/in the parts, a few million in 3Q 2015 is meaningless. Money race is a lot more important on the right, where Jeb is belt tightening already. And also just to show momentum. Money begets money.
Im really interested to see how TV ads will impact the election. On the one hand, they really highlight the distinction between candidate and PAC money. Candidates by statute get the lowest rate stations charge for ads. Super PACs typically pay the highest rates since they dont get the protection AND they buy near the last minute. OTOH, there is a lot of debate about whether political ads work and particularly whether they work in the age of DVR and Netflix.
RE: RE: NYT talking about the FBI investigation...
in the context of the President's remarks on the subject and analogizing it to the Petraeus case. Link - ( New Window )
It is staggering to me that the NY Times allows Michael Schmidt to continue to report on anything, but in particular the Clinton email issue. He has utterly embarrassed himself and his employer time and again on the Clinton emails. It is widely believed that Gowdy himself has been Schmidt's source on all of this. And look at this piece. Purely written from the FBI's perspective in a decades long turf war where the FBI thinks that they and not the DOJ should get to wield prosecutorial discretion.
Just one point though: He doesnt even anonymously source his assertion that the FBI agents on the case were angered by Obama's comments. Just assets it as known fact. Then he gives space to Hosko, who has a fucking hard-on for Obama and Holder because Holder likes to investigate cops. What a joke.
Yes, Hosko has been a frequency critic. As president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, imo would suggest he spend more time cleaning up this "charity". This organization has been criticized in the past; small % of donations actually assisted officers in need. Still gets low grades by Charity Rating organizations.
Debate will be just 2 hours, with opening and closing statements.
Re the DNC thing, Chairwoman is now being accused of lying about consulting with others re the debates. I suspect she will eventually step down "for the good of the party" and/or "not to distract from the important issues".
Rubio has been courting the heavy-hitters for the last couple weeks...
particularly some of the folks who were in Walker's camp. If that doesn't come to fruition it suggests larger problems, but as of yet I wouldn't get too concerned.
RE: Rubio has been courting the heavy-hitters for the last couple weeks...
particularly some of the folks who were in Walker's camp. If that doesn't come to fruition it suggests larger problems, but as of yet I wouldn't get too concerned.
The process of elimination logic of Rubio still make a lot of sense. But he had a very strong 2nd debate. Where is the poll bounce? 2nd debate was Sept. 16, when he was a ~7 and Walker was at ~2.5. Now Rubio is at 9.4%. He appears to have absorbed the Walker voters (people willing to vote for establishment solid conservatives not named Jeb!). It's a month and there is no polling breakout.
I suspect that the donors willing to desert Jeb! are feeling burned by giving based on the logic if "it's him". I dont know that Rubio just automatically gets the money based on logic after the Bush debacle of a campaign.
And Im throwing out the conventional wisdom on the GOP side. It is worthless. The chattering class still cannot come to grips with Trump and Carson, and Bush is still considered the most likely to win. Except I havent spoken to a single rank and file republican who wants Jeb! to be the nominee.
Debate will be just 2 hours, with opening and closing statements.
Re the DNC thing, Chairwoman is now being accused of lying about consulting with others re the debates. I suspect she will eventually step down "for the good of the party" and/or "not to distract from the important issues".
yea I think she's dead chairwoman walking. She won't win the tiff she's in with her board. Its a shame because I think she's a good person and congresswoman but she's become overzealous with the position. I know those on the right would disagree as the chairperson of the opposite party is always the villain as they turn themselves into that for a reason. My nieces interned for her while they were in college at GW. She really is a good person but she's been too heavy handed here. Frankly I could care less about how many debates they have, too many is no good either. We all know barring a legal bombshell who the nominee will be. Now that might very well be her doing as well.
"Our job as a national party is to elect Republicans, and it generally means House, Senate, presidential," Priebus said. "We're viewed at in a presidential year as the presidential committee that is responsible for helping elect the president, but at the same time, we have a responsibility to help pay for the ground operation in every targeted U.S. Senate races and the targeted Congressional races as well, so it is our job to do all three."
"However, I think that we have become, unfortunately, a midterm party that doesn't lose and a presidential party that's had a really hard time winning," Priebus said. "We're seeing more and more that if you don't hold the White House, it's very difficult to govern in this country especially in Washington D.C."
"So I think that I do think that we're cooked as a party for quite a while as a party if we don't win in 2016. So I do think that it's going to be hard to dig out of something like that," Priebus told the Examiner. "I don't anticipate that. I think ... history is on our side."
The chairman went on to discuss issues surrounding Hillary Clinton and the "vastly improved" efforts undertaken at the RNC, adding that the "whole big picture" looks good for the GOP in 2016.
This is not the first time Priebus has hinted at the troubles facing the GOP on the national stage. In June, Priebus told radio host Laura Ingraham that a third straight presidential loss for the party would result in them relinquishing their spot as a national party.
Not sure I agree with the "national party" assessment (I mean, Romney lost with 47% -- lets not pretend it was 35%), and will likely hold the house even if the Dems win back the WH (although the lead will be narrower and might be purely dependent on population distribution patterns and gerrymandering, which is not the case now) but otherwise spot on, cheerleading aside. Link - ( New Window )
RE: RE: NYT talking about the FBI investigation...
in the context of the President's remarks on the subject and analogizing it to the Petraeus case. Link - ( New Window )
It is staggering to me that the NY Times allows Michael Schmidt to continue to report on anything, but in particular the Clinton email issue. He has utterly embarrassed himself and his employer time and again on the Clinton emails. It is widely believed that Gowdy himself has been Schmidt's source on all of this. And look at this piece. Purely written from the FBI's perspective in a decades long turf war where the FBI thinks that they and not the DOJ should get to wield prosecutorial discretion.
Just one point though: He doesnt even anonymously source his assertion that the FBI agents on the case were angered by Obama's comments. Just assets it as known fact. Then he gives space to Hosko, who has a fucking hard-on for Obama and Holder because Holder likes to investigate cops. What a joke.
So you're saying the FBI leaks to Gowdy who then leaks to Schmidt? That's a stretch even for an outfit like Media Matters. And whatever you think of Hosko, he speaks for the record, which certain doesn't suggest he leaks to Gowdy.
Debate will be just 2 hours, with opening and closing statements.
Re the DNC thing, Chairwoman is now being accused of lying about consulting with others re the debates. I suspect she will eventually step down "for the good of the party" and/or "not to distract from the important issues".
Wasserman Shultz only steps down if a Clinton tells her to fall on her sword. And if it does happen, it will when the calendar makes scheduling additional debates very difficult.
Schmidt is acting as Gowdy's mouthpiece. And Gowdy probably said "call Hosko, he'll give you stuff too". That 2nd step is pretty common among people who plant stories -- they dont just give you anonymous quotes, they point you to people you can also use for the plant story.
As for DWS, we'll see. This could come to a head fast. Also, if Hillary jumps in the polls post debate and post 10/22 testimony, the race will be effectively over. This is the problem with the call for more debates in the first place--it's already a 2 person show. How many debates should there be? Does America really want to see Hillary and Bernie debate for 50 hours? I dont. That's not a pro-HRC bias. It is a I have other shit to do (lies -- watching the Knicks/Rangers and stuff on Netflix) bias.
3 polls, first two are "scientific" internet polls.
She picked up 3-8 points overall in the race, at Biden's expense (Bernie was up too). Suffolk U/Globe poll of NH has her winning the debate 54-24 and retaking the lead for the first time since early August. Link - ( New Window )
And Gowdy probably said "call Hosko, he'll give you stuff too".
You're still saying Gowdy is leaking FBI leaks. David Brock would be proud.
No, Im suggesting that Gowdy said call Hosko, and Hosko probably leaked the FBI stuff. Although who really knows because Schmidt doesnt even claim that there is a source for the internal FBI stuff. He doesnt say that these people claim to be angry or that others describe them as angry. They just ARE angry.
So how do you think a story like this happens? You think the reporter gumshoed it and learned who the FBI agents were, got the phone numbers, and called them all? I think that is a fairly naive way of thinking about how the news gets written. Especially for a guy who has been the mouthpiece for the Gowdy committee for the better part of a year.
RE: RE: Rubio has been courting the heavy-hitters for the last couple weeks...
particularly some of the folks who were in Walker's camp. If that doesn't come to fruition it suggests larger problems, but as of yet I wouldn't get too concerned.
The process of elimination logic of Rubio still make a lot of sense. But he had a very strong 2nd debate. Where is the poll bounce? 2nd debate was Sept. 16, when he was a ~7 and Walker was at ~2.5. Now Rubio is at 9.4%. He appears to have absorbed the Walker voters (people willing to vote for establishment solid conservatives not named Jeb!). It's a month and there is no polling breakout.
I suspect that the donors willing to desert Jeb! are feeling burned by giving based on the logic if "it's him". I dont know that Rubio just automatically gets the money based on logic after the Bush debacle of a campaign.
And Im throwing out the conventional wisdom on the GOP side. It is worthless. The chattering class still cannot come to grips with Trump and Carson, and Bush is still considered the most likely to win. Except I havent spoken to a single rank and file republican who wants Jeb! to be the nominee.
The thing with Jeb - and Rubio - is that for most mainstream Republican voters will hold their nose and vote for him. That is not necessarily true of Christie with the more conservative swaths of the party (even those who are reasonably mainstream) and it isn't true of Carson and Cruz with the more centrist swaths of the party, and frankly there are folks who simply will not vote for Carson or Trump because they don't think they're serious candidates. Jeb may be uninspiring and there are some people who are repelled by his last name but he is conservative enough for most of that side of the party, not too conservative for most of the other side of the party. Rubio is the same way except with a few less concerns about his being uninspiring or having the wrong last name and a few more about his being "ready."
just to see all the idiots that claimed Obama was too green to be POTUS championing Rubio's experience and conversely to see all the morons that claimed Obama had plenty of experience now bashing Rubio for his lack thereof!
From where I sit, Rubio, Bush and a few others seem like perfectly solid choices.
The problem is that the same logic cannot explain the persistence of Trump, Carson, and even Fiorina. As a group the outsiders are at or near 60%, and if you factor in Cruz (fairly an outsider) it is 60-65%. That is a massive anti-establishment component of your electorate. Not reasonable IMO to assume that they jump to an establishment candidate because they want to win. They dont need to be awoken to the fact that if the Dems win, it is the dreaded HRC -- they get it. Moreover, Rubio in particular seems to be unlikely to pick up the populist, anti-immigration, possibly white nationalist, comparatively-dovish (for Republicans), fiscally ignorant/uncaring Trump voter.
If Cruz was less of an asshole he'd be in really good shape. Indeed, I'd say he'd be the smart choice for the GOP for two reasons. One, because of demographics, fame, and scandal it is prob. Hillary's election to win or lose so it doesnt totally matter who your nominee is, and (2) if he wins he will pull policy to the right and if he loses you all can have an internal conversation about whether you lose elections because you arent doctrinaire conservatives enough (as some on the right suggest) or whether there are other reasons (e.g. they way the party self-markets to non-whites).
just to see all the idiots that claimed Obama was too green to be POTUS championing Rubio's experience and conversely to see all the morons that claimed Obama had plenty of experience now bashing Rubio for his lack thereof!
Barring any scandals in his closet, Rubio looks like a strong nominee. Forceful speaker, positive enough message, and good at that trick/political skill where you say that there are strong considerations on both sides but then coming down hard to one side (Obama and Ryan are also good at this). Essentially being moderate in tone much more than position.
he is perceived to be exceedingly personally ambitious, he violates Reagan's Eleventh Commandment regularly, he comes across as disingenuous, and by most accounts is about the least liked senator in DC. He would probably alienate voters and especially endorsements in a way that nobody else outside of Carson and Trump would do. And I don't think that his defeat would force that conversation. Cuccinelli's defeat in an election that Bill Bolling might have won by double digits didn't prompt the right of the Republican Party in Virginia to come to Jesus.
that's why I said if he was less of an asshole. Purely hypothetically. Because he is much more positioned to say to the anti-establishment types that he is one of them.
announce his candidacy at Liberty U., mainly to pander to the Religious Right?
If he ends up running against Clinton, I'll have to vote for an Independant or choose a write-in candidate.
I'm not terribly concerned about those to whom he panders. I'll take a panderer whose values and policy preferences reasonably approximate my own. I just don't know that they are, and I think he'd sooner see a Hillary presidency with him as Cassandra than a Rubio presidency in which he's a senator or offered some minor cabinet post.
I'm still wondering who the hell is running Kasich's campaign
I've heard he's running ads in New Hampshire, but as far as the national media is concerned he is nonexistent. And what I'd like to know is if the media would accept him for a phone interview or is that only available to Trump?
As far as the general is concerned, my question is whether the fact that HRC will be the Democratic nominee will be inspirational enough for the insurgents' supporters to go out and vote even if it means holding their nose.
Best description I've heard of Cruz is when he was called Trump's pilot fish.
oxygen out of the room. Is Kasich not being interviewed at all?
To some extent it's market based, and that's fair. He's in 10th place. Guys in 10th place tend not to get much air time. It's a self-fulfilling spiral. He's not going to get the B-roll of gladhanding at the diner. He's not going to get look-ins 4 times a day at his events.
I mean, what should the media do? Give everyone equal time? What about Jim Gilmore? Kasich is immeasurably closer to Jindal than Trump right now, even though he's been given the breaks of being at the big boy debates including on in Ohio where he got some homecourt cheers.
Rubio has the potential to be the nominee but if he wants to peel off
voters from Trump, he needs to borrow. He needs to speak about big ideas, our problems have easy solutions, and maybe get a hat.
In the article linked below psychologists don't think Trump's base are the crazies.
"From a psychological perspective, though, the people backing Trump are perfectly normal. Interviews with psychologists and other experts suggest one explanation for the candidate's success -- and for the collective failure to anticipate it: The political elite hasn't confronted a few fundamental, universal and uncomfortable facts about the human mind.
We like people who talk big.
We like people who tell us that our problems are simple and easy to solve, even when they aren't.
And we don't like people who don't look like us.
Most people share these characteristics to some degree, but they seem to be especially prevalent among Trump's base."
njm, to answer your question, the people running Kasich's campaign are the same ones who ran Huntsman's campaign.
Quote:
Since the minute he announced his campaign, Ohio Gov. John Kasich has faced frequent comparisons to former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, the 2012 Republican contender who employed many of the same top advisers, ran on a similarly moderate message, and also bet his White House bid on victory in New Hampshire.
Same advisers, same strategy, same status as every Democrat's favorite GOP candidate. Done-zo? Link - ( New Window )
RE: Rubio has the potential to be the nominee but if he wants to peel off
Most people share these characteristics to some degree, but they seem to be especially prevalent among Trump's base."
Psychologist Analyze Trump Supporters - ( New Window )
Cuccinelli's defeat in an election that Bill Bolling might have won by double digits didn't prompt the right of the Republican Party in Virginia to come to Jesus.
This is neither here nor there, but Bill Bolling is a major, major pussy. I certainly have no love for VA GOP, but blaming them for his departure from that race really isn't accurate. He has always been too chickenshit to actually scrap for a nomination. If he wasn't going to be coronated, he wasn't interest. Trust me on that one - not going to go into how I know, but I know people who were very closely involved in multiple Bolling campaigns.
oxygen out of the room. Is Kasich not being interviewed at all?
To some extent it's market based, and that's fair. He's in 10th place. Guys in 10th place tend not to get much air time. It's a self-fulfilling spiral. He's not going to get the B-roll of gladhanding at the diner. He's not going to get look-ins 4 times a day at his events.
I mean, what should the media do? Give everyone equal time? What about Jim Gilmore? Kasich is immeasurably closer to Jindal than Trump right now, even though he's been given the breaks of being at the big boy debates including on in Ohio where he got some homecourt cheers.
I'm not saying equal time, I'm saying ANY time (or almost any time) on a national basis. Chris Christie has gotten a multiple of Kasich's air time, including the Sunday talk shows and Morning Joe.
RE: RE: Rubio has the potential to be the nominee but if he wants to peel off
Most people share these characteristics to some degree, but they seem to be especially prevalent among Trump's base."
Psychologist Analyze Trump Supporters - ( New Window )
So they're not crazy, they're just racists?
No. Read the article. Although conservatives might not like it, I thought it was interesting.
RE: RE: RE: Rubio has the potential to be the nominee but if he wants to peel off
Most people share these characteristics to some degree, but they seem to be especially prevalent among Trump's base."
Psychologist Analyze Trump Supporters - ( New Window )
So they're not crazy, they're just racists?
No. Read the article. Although conservatives might not like it, I thought it was interesting.
Psychologist quoted in the Washington Post finds racism a core psychological tenet of self-described conservatives. Film at eleven. Example 7,345 of people with letters trailing their names finding pseudo-scientific ways to sneer at people who don't share their political beliefs.
Hillary won big in the debates - she's polling ahead of Sanders in NH, where he enjoyed a (relatively) comfortable lead. This is an overnight 12-15 point swing, which is huge - even if we factor in margin of error.
If Sanders has to start opening his pockets and spending to keep up in NH, there is absolutely no hope (downgraded from "basically no hope").
Even more damning - Biden still ate up 11% of those polled, but that 11% most likely goes to Hillary (at least 8-10%, if not all). Link - ( New Window )
And while Webb might be a wooden and inept candidate....
Yes, the man who threw the grenade isn't around any more, but more importantly the man who my father shielded with his own body lived to see another day.
Trump Supporters because they're often refered to as the Crazies including on this board. From a psychological viewpoint, they are actually rather very normal people. The article goes on to explain. Whether you give any weight is up to you.
The article does say racists are more likely to support a conservative faction of the GOP. But that's a bit different than your dismissive comment - "Psychologist quoted in the Washington Post finds racism a core psychological tenet of self-described conservatives. Film at eleven."
I wish made what some of the Trump "crazies" make a year and I would of liked to have their advanced degrees next to my name. Yeah real crazies, the kind of people you hope would give you a job
RE: RE: Trump and the other candidates get their way
Debate will be just 2 hours, with opening and closing statements.
Re the DNC thing, Chairwoman is now being accused of lying about consulting with others re the debates. I suspect she will eventually step down "for the good of the party" and/or "not to distract from the important issues".
Wasserman Shultz only steps down if a Clinton tells her to fall on her sword. And if it does happen, it will when the calendar makes scheduling additional debates very difficult.
I think Obama would have to be the one to tell her. Supposedly no on likes Wasserman Schultz, but Obama kept her on as DNC chair because he knew the Clintons hated her.
RE: Dune, I posted the link to the article Psychologist Analyze
Trump Supporters because they're often refered to as the Crazies including on this board. From a psychological viewpoint, they are actually rather very normal people. The article goes on to explain. Whether you give any weight is up to you.
The article does say racists are more likely to support a conservative faction of the GOP. But that's a bit different than your dismissive comment - "Psychologist quoted in the Washington Post finds racism a core psychological tenet of self-described conservatives. Film at eleven."
My dismissive comment refers to the same bullshit story that recurs with regularity. Someone with great psychological or sociological or political insight inveighs that conservatives are racist or some other "honorific" and puts the imprimatur of science behind it.
And no, not all Trumpkins are crazy. Most of them aren't crazy. There are rational, sane reasons to dislike the Establishment, especially the Republican Establishment, and to feel as Trump purports to feel about certain issues or even to like Trump itself. But let's wait until they actually cast a ballot or two before we decide they're actually going to show up for him in the strength with which they reply to polls.
Cruz is ineligible to run as he was born in another country to a father who was not American
But his Mother was born in the US and therefore, Cruz is a natural born citizen. Can we please stop with all this Birther crap.
From the Harvard Review:
"While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a natural born Citizen means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law3 and enactments of the First Congress.4 Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase natural born Citizen includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent." Harvard Review - the meaning of a natural born citizen - ( New Window )
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A longtime aide to Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday she answered all questions posed by the House Benghazi committee after a daylong meeting behind closed doors that Democrats said was unnecessary. [...]
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., said questions to Abedin focused on the Benghazi attacks, but also touched on Clinton's use of a private email account and server while serving as secretary of state.
"If it had something to do with Benghazi and an email then that was asked. If it wasn't about Benghazi, it wasn't asked," Westmoreland told reporters.
The decision to question Abedin angered the panel's top Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, and the Clinton campaign.
"She had no policy responsibilities, no operational responsibilities and was not with Secretary Clinton on the night of this phenomenal tragedy," Cummings told reporters after breaking away momentarily from the day's proceedings. [...]
Gowdy was in South Carolina on Friday and did not attend the session in which committee staff and attorneys questioned Abedin. Republicans Westmoreland and Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas did attend the meeting, as did Cummings.
Asked about Gowdy's absence, spokesman Jamal Ware said, "no particular reason," and later added that the chairman discusses the questions with staff in advance and trusts his colleagues to pursue them.
Jihadist plot she is part off as a Manchurian candidate of sorts to get close to Hillary and instill Shariah law in the US. Don't worry though Pamela Geller, Debbie Schlussel and Buford are all over the case and will snuff this thing out...
Stu think Michele Bachmann already beat them to it :)
Bachmann charged Huma Abedin, born in the US of Pakistani decent, is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. Absolute proof that the Brotherhood is trying to infiltrate the highest levels of our govt. Oh no Sharia Law!
But his Mother was born in the US and therefore, Cruz is a natural born citizen. Can we please stop with all this Birther crap.
the birther crap was to prove Obama was not born in this country to a parent who was not born in US therefore he was not a Natural Born Citizen
(even though Obama was born in Hawaii so the whole argument is a racist dog whistle)
whereby it could ultimately be revealed that she committed a felony and her sycophants would still jump up and down and pretend that the "story" is not the criminal behavior but the fact that so much money was wasted on a meandering investigation. It's okay though, because if you discuss classified information with someone who isn't in government it's okay, right?
member of the Muslim Brotherhood? What if Hillary Clinton is a Manchurian Candidate? What if Joe Biden wears women's clothing? What if Bernie Sanders is a closet Neo Nazi? Boy are you syncophants look silly
Dune you try to come off here as this reasonable voice
since Obama was elected. Its just that crap. First in 2010 it was "elect us and we'll repeal Obamacare" when it was an utter impossibility with Obama still in office unless you had 67 Senators and 2/3 of the house. Then in 2012 it was elect Romney and I'll repeal Obamacare day one. Which once again was not going to happen. Then in 2014 it was elect us and we'll repeal everything Obama has done". Once gain this wasn't going to happen without 2/3 of both houses. Now its my republican friends facebook blasting me every day with "Hillary is about to be indicted! this is the bombshell that's going to take her down!" Because Sean Hannity and Breitbart told them. Listen fake campaign promises are older than the oldest profession. However its created this environment of fake expectations amongst their voter base that suddenly turns the whole process upside down when they revolt because these promises were never even remotely realistic. Now we have a friggen house with nobody in the party who even wants to be speaker. Government in this country works. It's worked for over 200 years. Sure it has its flaws. Like anything its far from perfect, but its the best we have. Grinding it to a halt like a bunch of toddlers that throw themselves on the ground in the middle of a store surely isn't the answer.
RE: Dune a big problem here is the repubs have been selling this crap
I believe Obama wanted to bring all the troops home and hates this endless midEast war to his core. However; the reality is that the facts on the ground outweigh any idealism
What's with this obsession about "George W kept us safe" or "My brother kept us safe."
What's that supposed to even mean? I'm not sure I get the origins of that line. Now with Trump going after him, I'm curious about what it's supposed to mean.
that when Bush & Company helped tank the economy his supporters had to come up with some kind of response so it was Well at least he kept us safe although 3,000 died under his watch. You don't hear anyone say about Obama Well he kept us safe although he really did to this point keep us safe and was the CiC when the guy behind the tragedy on Bush's watch was hunted down and killed. Yours truly,Democrat syncophant
usually campaign promises are realistic, even though circumstances may eventually make them not possible. The fact that Obama ended the war in Iraq probably proves that his Afghanistan promise was sincere, it just hasn't worked out. thats fine. The unrealistic pile of shit that the repubs have been shoveling for 7 years to their constituency has created this shitty position we are in.
usually campaign promises are realistic, even though circumstances may eventually make them not possible. The fact that Obama ended the war in Iraq probably proves that his Afghanistan promise was sincere, it just hasn't worked out. thats fine. The unrealistic pile of shit that the repubs have been shoveling for 7 years to their constituency has created this shitty position we are in.
Many would (and did) argue that ending both wars wasn't realistic though.
and that's a fact. He had success with The Surge. Obama following the deal Bush struck with Iraq to get all the troops out did just that. Taking all the troops out of Iraq has proved to be a mistake because it created a vacumn that created ISIL and a resurgent Al Qaeda and Obama did not act when the line in the sand was crossed by Assad.so Obama's foreign policy is a failure BUT if Bus Cheney NEVER went into Iraq and they were looking for a reason and Saddam was around Assad was in place and Qaddafi was alive this mess wouldn't be going on. The Middle East needs despots, those fuckers understand only one thing, brute power, negotiations are meaningless, just the fear of death keeps them in line because they have a 6th century mentality in the 21st century. Thank you Bush Cheney for this colossal clusterfuck that will last decades if not centuries if we don't blow up the world before then. It is ALL the fault of Bush Cheney. Democrat Syncophant in Residence
RE: Dune you try to come off here as this reasonable voice
but the syncophant comment exposed who you really are
Exposed? As I said I thought the Benghazi investigation was utter bullshit from the outset. I've always assumed they were tiptoeing around the fact that the embassy in Libya was probably involved in clandestine operations in the region and I assumed the Republicans had a pretty good idea this was taking place and so hammered them on something they could not effectively respond to. That struck me as dirty pool. The email piece is the only revelation from this committee that has ever struck me as a real one. But it is a real one, and one that would see the run of the mill State Department employee, much less the service member, hung out to dry and at risk of criminal charges. She has lied about it numerous times, backtracked and qualified previous statements, and her toadies -distinct from those who quite understandably intend to vote for her as better than available Democrats and more acceptable than the GOP - care more about the investigators' motives than hers.
Look Bengahzi was a tragedy for those who lost their lives
it hurt my sense of America takes care of its own. But you guys are making it out to be similar to "Remember The Alamo" in historic importance to this country. It is simply not. It was for the families of those that were killed, but Republicans are exploiting this for political gain. There have been deadlier attacks to Americans overseas in uniform and out of uniform from terrorists, but those don't get the Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi hand wringing and outcry like the results of that attack were more than what they were. You want to politicize it to bring down HRC,then when it claims the McCarthy's and the rest of the planners of the demise of her poll numbers, as they crash and burn,I will not shed a single tear but laugh my fucking ass off at them
What does the wants of Ron Labrador of Buttfuck Idaho, Chaffetz of somewhere I don't care about Utah, Amash of I never going to visit Michigan think that they run the country? Fuck the Freedom Caucus and the horses they rode in on. Syncophant out, peace!
But his Mother was born in the US and therefore, Cruz is a natural born citizen. Can we please stop with all this Birther crap.
the birther crap was to prove Obama was not born in this country to a parent who was not born in US therefore he was not a Natural Born Citizen
(even though Obama was born in Hawaii so the whole argument is a racist dog whistle)
that is exactly what Cruz is..
the same birthers are now supporters of Cruz ..
Hypocrisy thy name is Republican
The birthers were idiots. I said so at the time. His mother was an American citizen so it doesn't matter where he was born.
GREAT Op-Ed by Gail Collins on working women in the US.
Look, I am sure lots of you think of Collins as too leftie, so you don't need to deal with her viewpoint.
Wrong.
The piece today deals with how shabbily the US deals with working women, in terms of subsidized childcare, paid or even unpaid leave, and the like. That this pattern has caused the percentage of US women who work to drop to 20th in the world, from a recent 7th. And that this inability of many women to afford to work affects economic activity.
So, hate the messenger if you like (her or me), but I challenge you to find a single Republican presidential candidate who thinks that this is a subject even worth discussing. Link - ( New Window )
What's with this obsession about "George W kept us safe" or "My brother kept us safe."
What's that supposed to even mean? I'm not sure I get the origins of that line. Now with Trump going after him, I'm curious about what it's supposed to mean.
I believe it meant there were no terrorist attacks in the US after 911.
What's with this obsession about "George W kept us safe" or "My brother kept us safe."
What's that supposed to even mean? I'm not sure I get the origins of that line. Now with Trump going after him, I'm curious about what it's supposed to mean.
I believe it meant there were no terrorist attacks in the US after 911.
I guess but that's a weird thing to keep saying. Because the obvious rejoinder is, "well doesn't 9/11 cancel all that out?" I mean it brings the fact that he was President at the time to the front of the mind.
So I guess I don't really see why they say it all the time. But whatever, there are a lot of things that don't make sense to me.
Nor have there been any successful Muslim terrorist attacks under Obama.
Of course, the 40,000 Americans dead or wounded in Iraq (excluding PTSD) weren't kept quite so safe. Nor were Iraqis whose total casualties cannot estimated very well--or don't Iraqis count?
I don't think there is any answer as far as subsidized
child care or paid maternity leave. Many women have finally figured out that they would rather be home and tighten their belts a bit and stay home with the kids for a few years until they are in school. And there are some unintended consequences of paid maternity leave:
Quote:
In countries with big maternity benefits, mothers are (often) more likely to stay in the workforce, but are also more likely to get pulled off the management track and into dead-end jobs. The New York Times tackled this issue in a story last May pointing to several new studies that look at the before-and-after in countries that have increased benefits.
In Chile, a law requires employers to provide working mothers with child care. One result? Women are paid less.
In Spain, a policy to give parents of young children the right to work part-time has led to a decline in full-time, stable jobs available to all womeneven those who are not mothers.
Elsewhere in Europe, generous maternity leaves have meant that women are much less likely than men to become managers or achieve other high-powered positions at work.
the Benghazi Commission today spent 6 hours grilling Huma Abedin, even though her responsibilities wrt Beghazi were exactly zero. Link - ( New Window )
If that he kept us safe after 9/11 is the best that you can say about GWB 8 years it's great, but really? Other than giving me a basically free drug plan( Medicare Part D) that cost 7 Trillion( thanks for the meds at minimal cost) and not counting it toward the National Debt, what else did he do that history will remember him for?
The GOP base loves it. It's about time they got Clinton's number 1 Muslim under oath
This is really what it is about. She's a boogeyman to some on the right, literally a sleeper agent as if this was Homeland or something. Because no responsible committee would interview her on Benghazi. It's a waste of time.
First Bush was warned right from the start about AL Queda...Condo Rice etc....ignored so now we search for equivalency...which is Benghazi and somehow Hillary failed to act...obviosuly they are not close in scope but that is where it comessage from.
Then you have the emails and handling of classified information which is the false equivalency to the Bush administration outing a CIA agent ultimately because they didn't go along with the false intelligence they put out....imagine if Obama administration did that. Seriously think about that one.
good initial response in Afghanistan (Tora Bora notwithstanding)
Drudge Breibart Fox and 52 people running for President that all get quoted in print and mainstream TV for taking shots at Obama. Fair enough, but we are not stupid and will start firing back at the bullshit and reality check to remind you why you will continue to lose the White House
I am not fan of W. But seeing him out of the spotlight, enjoying retirement, and finding something he enjoys is nice to see.
Whether you love/hate a President, I am still of the mindset that they do for the nation what they think is best at the time. Whether its turns out well or not, is another story.
I dont think Obama's presidency will be historically pleasing, but I can appreciate his efforts at trying to make America a better country.
Here is the thing about Bush. I think he was a terrible, horrible president. But the guy had a heart. Undeniable. When the GOP wanted to cut the EITC while cutting taxes for the wealthy, he said he would not balance the budget off the "backs of the poor". 10 years later the GOP put forward C. Montgomery Burns Mitt Romney, who said of the purported 47% of Americans who pay no INCOME tax: "so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives" and then was backed by the WSJ editorial page who, I shit you not, called these people the "lucky duckies" of America.
In comment 12555486 AP in Halfmoon said: Quote: The GOP base loves it. It's about time they got Clinton's number 1 Muslim under oath
This is really what it is about. She's a boogeyman to some on the right, literally a sleeper agent as if this was Homeland or something. Because no responsible committee would interview her on Benghazi. It's a waste of time.
Per Megyn Kelly ... A Hillary Clinton confidante spent hours on Friday before the House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi, Libya, attack that left four Americans dead.
Huma Abedin, who served as an aide to Clinton at the State Department and is now the vice chairwoman of Clintons campaign, testified behind closed doors.
Many noticed a primary figure on the committee didnt attend the meeting. Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., committee chairman, was strangely absent. Those attending the meeting included Reps. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga.; Mike Pompeo, R-Kan.; and Elijah Cummings, D-Md.
Committee spokesman Jamal Ware said there was no particular reason for Gowdys absence, although some are speculating that recent criticism could be motivating his lack of attendance. Link - ( New Window )
He did some good (Africa), but historians will not look kindly upon him.
The whole 'He kept us safe' thing is a bit, well, weird considering 9/11 occurred on his watch. I appreciated his leadership in the days after, but he got way off course with Iraq.
RE: good initial response in Afghanistan (Tora Bora notwithstanding)
I've written and complimented GWB on his Africa work and AIDS a couple of times in this site. My question is what are the positives of his legacy that they will be talking about in 50 years?
I've written and complimented GWB on his Africa work and AIDS a couple of times in this site. My question is what are the positives of his legacy that they will be talking about in 50 years?
If I'm giving OBL to BO, got to be fair and give GWB credit for Hussein. I still believe what I believe if we would be better off if we left him in power. That's another story
Since he's rumored to be considering bring W on the campaign trail he knows he's going to be tied to his legacy. So he's trying to get out in front of the criticisms of his tenure in office.
He knows it will be damaging but parts of the base still love W so it will be a net positive in the primary. But it's going to kill him if he makes it as far as the general.
it hurt my sense of America takes care of its own. But you guys are making it out to be similar to "Remember The Alamo" in historic importance to this country. It is simply not. It was for the families of those that were killed, but Republicans are exploiting this for political gain. There have been deadlier attacks to Americans overseas in uniform and out of uniform from terrorists, but those don't get the Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi hand wringing and outcry like the results of that attack were more than what they were. You want to politicize it to bring down HRC,then when it claims the McCarthy's and the rest of the planners of the demise of her poll numbers, as they crash and burn,I will not shed a single tear but laugh my fucking ass off at them
It's not a "you guys." As I said, I am reasonably certain that their somewhat coy defense of themselves is because they were doing shady things. And that is fine. I expect them (CIA/State/DIA etc) to do shady things, I don't need to know about them. What happened to the ambassador and his security guys was a tragedy. Exploiting that for political points is shitty. There were aspects about it that pissed me off, most notably the bit about the video, but nothing new came up for years. But once the email thing came to light, it deserved (deserves) to be thoroughly investigated and taken seriously. A blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile. They found a nut.
RE: RE: good initial response in Afghanistan (Tora Bora notwithstanding)
Exactly. Iraq was a total diversion. I still will never understand why we went into that place.
This is such an article of faith for too many people, but it made plenty of sense at the time. You had a containment regime in tatters, you had what seemed to be a likelihood of WMD, you had a piece of shit who was abusing sanctions to enrich himself while his people suffered, and you had an ideology that seemed to be working in Afghanistan and seemed to mesh well with the way we wanted to see ourselves after 9/11. The decision looked like a much more reasonable one in 2002-2003 than it does now, after a bungled post-war order and that a cataclysm that ensued after we left.
it should be investigated seriously. I.e. not by the ridiculous political Benghazi committee. And I'd like to know why there seems to be so much reporting about the FBI investigation. Is the FBI leaking, or is the FBI dutifully keeping someone on the loop who is leaking (DOJ, WH, other admin, Benghazi committee, other MOCs)?
I have a suspicion that HRC is not being investigated criminally (anymore?). I think if she was, Obama wouldnt have said what he did on 60 Minutes, Biden would be more bold/getting in (ie would be suggesting to potential donors/staff that she could be indicted--that would surely leak), Clinton wouldnt be on the offensive, and the committee wouldnt be on the defensive. Frankly, I'd be surprised if the FBI/DOJ needed more than a few days to decide whether a crime was committed. Director Comey is not getting pushed around on this -- it's not in his character. It just strikes me as patently ridiculous that the whole Dem machine is operating in the blind, and that our presumptive nominee may or may not be going to jail.
Logic strongly suggests IMO that Hillary is criminally in the clear. The sources I've seen suggesting that this is a criminal probe are all from right leaning outlets (NY Post and worse), and it strikes me as more likely that at this point it is the routine non-punitive investigation they do to assess whether confidential information made its way out of controlled systems, and if so to what extent the info is disseminated.
Just my 2 cents. I havent seen this written up based on logic. But conservatives waiting for the Hillary indictment should probably not get too excited.
if she was under criminal investigation, there is 0% chance she would taunt the Behghazi committee into scheduling her testimony. She'd hang back, in case she needed to plead the 5th. Gowdy doesnt eat the shit he's eating right now over the committee if he can just hang back and have the FBI Huma probably doesnt go in front of this committee with immunity if the probe is criminal.
The people with reason to know whether this is criminal sure arent acting in a manner consistent with that reality.
This requirement to be perfect every time you say something is beyond ridiculous. Hillary has her fair share of gaffes, but many are just panded by the media. They all say stuff that is goofy. It is a game by media to see who can they can trip up.
imperfect wording should not ruin a candidate. Now, if a candidate says what is really on their mind it could be disqualifying (if bad) and you shouldnt let them dismiss it as a mere gaffe.
No opinion on Bush's purported gaffes though. Im not voting b/c of his policies.
it should be investigated seriously. I.e. not by the ridiculous political Benghazi committee. And I'd like to know why there seems to be so much reporting about the FBI investigation. Is the FBI leaking, or is the FBI dutifully keeping someone on the loop who is leaking (DOJ, WH, other admin, Benghazi committee, other MOCs)?
I have a suspicion that HRC is not being investigated criminally (anymore?). I think if she was, Obama wouldnt have said what he did on 60 Minutes, Biden would be more bold/getting in (ie would be suggesting to potential donors/staff that she could be indicted--that would surely leak), Clinton wouldnt be on the offensive, and the committee wouldnt be on the defensive. Frankly, I'd be surprised if the FBI/DOJ needed more than a few days to decide whether a crime was committed. Director Comey is not getting pushed around on this -- it's not in his character. It just strikes me as patently ridiculous that the whole Dem machine is operating in the blind, and that our presumptive nominee may or may not be going to jail.
Logic strongly suggests IMO that Hillary is criminally in the clear. The sources I've seen suggesting that this is a criminal probe are all from right leaning outlets (NY Post and worse), and it strikes me as more likely that at this point it is the routine non-punitive investigation they do to assess whether confidential information made its way out of controlled systems, and if so to what extent the info is disseminated.
Just my 2 cents. I havent seen this written up based on logic. But conservatives waiting for the Hillary indictment should probably not get too excited.
The Times piece analogized the Obama comments to what he said about Petraeus, where it seemed like he was almost trying to take the wind out of the sails of folks who wanted to hit him with felonies. That doesn't mean that Obama is trying to undercut a looming prosecution, there isn't a ton to suggest that is in the works. But what seems to be known strikes many of us as pointing to criminal activity and they - particularly if the "they" is the DOJ - acknowledge criminal conduct but decline to prosecute most of those conservative outlets will claim it's purely political.
suggests to me that he has been told that it is not criminal.
I very, very, very much doubt that the FBI will release something official that says there was criminal conduct, but whatevs. That would be a first. What I think you may get is blind FBI sources in conservative publications saying that there was a big coverup. I believe the NY Post is either fabricating its sources on most of its Hillary stories, or publishing the rantings of people out of the loop (every asshole has an opinion) as if they know something.
there is an awful lot of disinformation and supposition out there about stuff like obvious but unmarked classified info etc. I'll just say that the Petraeus prosecutor wrote a piece for US Today throwing fire on the hopes and dreams of the right that this is a criminal investigation or anything like the Petraeus investigation. Now this person is now a big firm lawyer who donated to HRC's campaign, so you can dismiss it as partisan if you want, but the woman is certainly well positioned to know what she's talking about. USA TODAY: -- Petraeus prosecutor: Clinton committed no crime - ( New Window )
suggests to me that he has been told that it is not criminal.
I very, very, very much doubt that the FBI will release something official that says there was criminal conduct, but whatevs. That would be a first. What I think you may get is blind FBI sources in conservative publications saying that there was a big coverup. I believe the NY Post is either fabricating its sources on most of its Hillary stories, or publishing the rantings of people out of the loop (every asshole has an opinion) as if they know something.
There will still be pressure to release results from an investigation, and if they suggest criminal conduct it won't require an express declaration for people to reach the same conclusion. The exchange with Sid Blumenthal, for instance, referenced matter that was almost certainly classified, and she suggested to Jake Tapper on an interview set to air tomorrow I think that it was a non-issue because he (Sid) was not in government. Huh?
You're pre-complaining about the potential non-disclosure of the results of an investigation. Consciously or not, you're deligitimizing the investigation in advance to the extent it doesnt deliver your seemingly desired outcome, criminal prosecution, which is unlikely for the reasons I said. I assure you that if she is cleared and the FBI goes open kimono on its investigation, you will see people saying she should have been prosecuted. Mukasey, Christie, and Rudy (3 partisans) have already said it any they DONT know what the FBI knows. People in the FBI are going to give blind quotes deligitimizing the outcome, I assure you.
Im making a very narrow point, which is this -- facts point to a non-criminal investigation. Do you agree?
You're pre-complaining about the potential non-disclosure of the results of an investigation. Consciously or not, you're deligitimizing the investigation in advance to the extent it doesnt deliver your seemingly desired outcome, criminal prosecution, which is unlikely for the reasons I said. I assure you that if she is cleared and the FBI goes open kimono on its investigation, you will see people saying she should have been prosecuted. Mukasey, Christie, and Rudy (3 partisans) have already said it any they DONT know what the FBI knows. People in the FBI are going to give blind quotes deligitimizing the outcome, I assure you.
Im making a very narrow point, which is this -- facts point to a non-criminal investigation. Do you agree?
She will not be "cleared." The behavior may not be criminal, if it is criminal she may not be prosecuted, but what is known now is still damning, and entirely self-inflicted. And suggesting that it isn't a criminal investigation - which it may not be - is not the same as saying the conduct isn't criminal. The imperative to discover the extent of the damage, or the risk of damage, may simply be more important than the imperative to punish wrongdoing.
This requirement to be perfect every time you say something is beyond ridiculous. Hillary has her fair share of gaffes, but many are just panded by the media. They all say stuff that is goofy. It is a game by media to see who can they can trip up.
How is he the best candidate? His gaffes may be just that, but he hasn't shown any connection with the voters and doesn't have any chance of beating Hillary.
sounds great for some but implementing it, especially in small to medium size companies is problematic. for example, who does the work when the person is out on leave? what if the person has 3 children - three years and you have to compensate for that person's absence. not saying it shouldn't happen, but it can be very problematic.
suggests to me that he has been told that it is not criminal.
I very, very, very much doubt that the FBI will release something official that says there was criminal conduct, but whatevs. That would be a first. What I think you may get is blind FBI sources in conservative publications saying that there was a big coverup. I believe the NY Post is either fabricating its sources on most of its Hillary stories, or publishing the rantings of people out of the loop (every asshole has an opinion) as if they know something.
There will still be pressure to release results from an investigation, and if they suggest criminal conduct it won't require an express declaration for people to reach the same conclusion. The exchange with Sid Blumenthal, for instance, referenced matter that was almost certainly classified, and she suggested to Jake Tapper on an interview set to air tomorrow I think that it was a non-issue because he (Sid) was not in government. Huh?
The Blumenthal emails also suggest there was another motive for Libya beyond some covert action by the CIA. He had business concerns there (as I'm sure others did too). Link - ( New Window )
RE: I don't think there is any answer as far as subsidized
child care or paid maternity leave. Many women have finally figured out that they would rather be home and tighten their belts a bit and stay home with the kids for a few years until they are in school. And there are some unintended consequences of paid maternity leave:
...
So you have paid maternity leave, women take more time off, and then wind up with a lesser career and then we have the 'income equality' argument.
So better to just not have a job and 'tighten your belt'?
And the only difference really seems to be paid or unpaid leave.
Women already are less likely to have management roles partially because of child-rearing. Somehow paying them rather than allowing unpaid leave (forcing many to return to work too early) is worse?
On the micro level where promotion decisions are made, whether or not the time is paid is basically irrelevant. It's the time missed that is the hindrance (subconsciously or not). So logically, not paying them and essentially making it not possible to take the time off to spend with their newborns is somehow better for women? Yet at the same time you say that women have just chosen to not work, and that's a better alternative than paid leave?
sounds great for some but implementing it, especially in small to medium size companies is problematic. for example, who does the work when the person is out on leave? what if the person has 3 children - three years and you have to compensate for that person's absence. not saying it shouldn't happen, but it can be very problematic.
FMLA provides 3months unpaid now.
Who does that work now?
3 children would be 9 months over 3 years, or 3months a year.
You're basically talking 2mos vacation when someone has a child. Yes, it would be a TON tougher on small to medium business, but just like FMLA, I imagine it wouldn't apply to companies with 100 or less employees (I think it is 100).
This requirement to be perfect every time you say something is beyond ridiculous. Hillary has her fair share of gaffes, but many are just panded by the media. They all say stuff that is goofy. It is a game by media to see who can they can trip up.
How is he the best candidate? His gaffes may be just that, but he hasn't shown any connection with the voters and doesn't have any chance of beating Hillary.
Geezus you are thick. He is the best person running to govern the country. Is that clear enough for you? Didn't say he would win the nomination. He won't.
I could give a crap about connection with voters who are sick of the Repubs refusal to compromise in Congress and your boy Ted is a main culprit of that group. He's one of the main reasons HRC will win the election. Now think about that. HRC couldn't be anymore vulnerable and Ted and the "No" team have disaffected pretty much an entire nation making her the leader.
The Blumenthal emails also suggest there was another motive for Libya beyond some covert action by the CIA. He had business concerns there (as I'm sure others did too). Link - ( New Window )
So Benghazi committee is looking at whether Sidney Blumenthal pushed Obama to bomb Libya? Yup, sure seems like they're investigating the attack on the Benghazi compound and not making this into a political to-do about Hillary.
What a fucking farce. Blumenthal sends Hillary emails, she typically doesnt right back, just forwards them dutifully to an underling, and suddenly Gowdy thinks that Sidney Blumenthal, detested in the White House, is driving Obama's Libya policy? Oh, and someone pushing the government to do something that might impact them financially? Stop the presses.
I should also note that this isnt even a discussion of the emails. It is a discussion of what Gowdy says the emails show, as if Gowdy is some fair neutral here and not someone who had the rug pulled out from under him by McCarthy, Hanna, and the ex-committee staffer. There is really no evidence that Blumenthal had any impact on US policy
The Blumenthal emails also suggest there was another motive for Libya beyond some covert action by the CIA. He had business concerns there (as I'm sure others did too). Link - ( New Window )
So Benghazi committee is looking at whether Sidney Blumenthal pushed Obama to bomb Libya? Yup, sure seems like they're investigating the attack on the Benghazi compound and not making this into a political to-do about Hillary.
What a fucking farce. Blumenthal sends Hillary emails, she typically doesnt right back, just forwards them dutifully to an underling, and suddenly Gowdy thinks that Sidney Blumenthal, detested in the White House, is driving Obama's Libya policy? Oh, and someone pushing the government to do something that might impact them financially? Stop the presses.
I should also note that this isnt even a discussion of the emails. It is a discussion of what Gowdy says the emails show, as if Gowdy is some fair neutral here and not someone who had the rug pulled out from under him by McCarthy, Hanna, and the ex-committee staffer. There is really no evidence that Blumenthal had any impact on US policy
Forgive Buford for her tardiness. Hannity and Rush aren't on on the weekends and Breitbart news show on Sirius was late getting their AM talking points out there.
Schiff, a Dem on the committee, said that notwithstanding the right wing noise, the CIA this week just said that there was nothing confidential in the Blumenthal emails. The Republican on the committee didnt disagree, instead just challenged Schiff to name the source on national TV. That same republican then said that Blumenthal was Clinton's top intel source on Libya, and Andrea Mitchell called total bullshit on that. She was flabbergasted.
from entertainers,Oxycontin junkies,yellow "journalists" . You then take that "knowledge" to a forum that has smart educated people and you get bitch slapped on a daily basis when the crap you took as gospel is exposed for the jingoistic nonsense it is
How does that work get done now? If there are hourly employees, then there are two choices - reduce the service provided or overtime, depending on the impact.
FMLA is a headache, although one of the problems is that employers have not taken the time to understand it.
Company size issue aside, I wonder how it impacts companies based on their percentage of women in their workforce?
Schiff, a Dem on the committee, said that notwithstanding the right wing noise, the CIA this week just said that there was nothing confidential in the Blumenthal emails. The Republican on the committee didnt disagree, instead just challenged Schiff to name the source on national TV.
Schiff, a Dem on the committee, said that notwithstanding the right wing noise, the CIA this week just said that there was nothing confidential in the Blumenthal emails. The Republican on the committee didnt disagree, instead just challenged Schiff to name the source on national TV.
That is completely incorrect.
Quote:
REP. ADAM SCHIFF:
This is very important because the way this committee has operated is by leak of damaging information with only one objective. And that is, all the leaks have a common denominator. All of the leaks are designed to hurt Secretary Clinton. They generate a new story as recently as the one about Mr. Blumenthal. And then within the last 24 to 48 hours, the C.I.A. informs us that notwithstanding the chairman's 13-page letter alleging a damaging leak of the C.I.A. source, the C.I.A. has now informed us there was nothing classified in this last tranche--
REP. MIKE POMPEO:
Do you want to name that source this morning on air? Do you want to name that source this morning on air?
REP. ADAM SCHIFF:
The C.I.A. has said that that source's name is not classified.
REP. MIKE POMPEO
Name him. Put the name on national TV this morning Mr. Schiff.
What did I get wrong there? The purported confidential Blumenthal stuff was from the last tranche. Link - ( New Window )
You don't see a difference in the actual exchange and your
This requirement to be perfect every time you say something is beyond ridiculous. Hillary has her fair share of gaffes, but many are just panded by the media. They all say stuff that is goofy. It is a game by media to see who can they can trip up.
How is he the best candidate? His gaffes may be just that, but he hasn't shown any connection with the voters and doesn't have any chance of beating Hillary.
Geezus you are thick. He is the best person running to govern the country. Is that clear enough for you? Didn't say he would win the nomination. He won't.
I could give a crap about connection with voters who are sick of the Repubs refusal to compromise in Congress and your boy Ted is a main culprit of that group. He's one of the main reasons HRC will win the election. Now think about that. HRC couldn't be anymore vulnerable and Ted and the "No" team have disaffected pretty much an entire nation making her the leader.
Ok, how is he the 'best person to govern the country'? I don't see him having any outstanding qualities at all. It would just be another segment
in the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Obama/BushClinton facade of a democracy.
that the charge this week has been that the name was classified. Schiff is saying that the CIA told them that the name isnt classified. And we're talking about a piece of info sent by someone outside of government to someone inside of government.
Ok, how is he the 'best person to govern the country'? I don't see him having any outstanding qualities at all. It would just be another segment
in the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Obama/BushClinton facade of a democracy.
What do the Clintons have to do with the Bushes? The Clintons are a a husband and wife, one having been president already. The Bushes are a 3 generation political dynasty that has already had the White House once on a one term presidency, and once for one of the worst presidencies in history.
I dont get the argument -- dont vote for a Clinton because the Bushes make bad presidents?
child care or paid maternity leave. Many women have finally figured out that they would rather be home and tighten their belts a bit and stay home with the kids for a few years until they are in school. And there are some unintended consequences of paid maternity leave:
...
So you have paid maternity leave, women take more time off, and then wind up with a lesser career and then we have the 'income equality' argument.
So better to just not have a job and 'tighten your belt'?
And the only difference really seems to be paid or unpaid leave.
Women already are less likely to have management roles partially because of child-rearing. Somehow paying them rather than allowing unpaid leave (forcing many to return to work too early) is worse?
On the micro level where promotion decisions are made, whether or not the time is paid is basically irrelevant. It's the time missed that is the hindrance (subconsciously or not). So logically, not paying them and essentially making it not possible to take the time off to spend with their newborns is somehow better for women? Yet at the same time you say that women have just chosen to not work, and that's a better alternative than paid leave?
I'm not following.
The article that mahn quoted said that less women were in the workforce and the blame was put on lack of paid parental leave. I personally know women (including my sister) who have decided to make the decision to stay home, and it's not all about paid parental leave or subsidized daycare. They'd rather raise their own kids than leave them with someone while they go to work. Some take part time jobs, some take lesser paying jobs closer to home. It's part of a life decision, not a pure economic one. If you want to pay women to stay home with kids, then just say that. But it won't do much to help them in their careers or pay equity. Even you said that the time off is what is detrimental to their career. How would that be different if it's paid time off? Also, if they are paid to stay home, how does that increase their numbers in the workforce?
The article I posted has stats that women in countries with paid parental leave are in the same boat. They are sometimes forced to take paid leave and then when they go back to work are in jobs outside of career track and for less pay. This is something that cannot be legislated. Companies will do what they have to do to make things work, and that will include a reluctance to hire women. Women who are serious about their career are going to have to make a choice, just like men do. Many men would like to have more time with their kids. Each family has to decide how to do the work/life balance thing work. I'd rather see more companies do flex time/telecommuting and shared jobs that would help women stay in the workforce and also have time with the kids.
sounds great for some but implementing it, especially in small to medium size companies is problematic. for example, who does the work when the person is out on leave? what if the person has 3 children - three years and you have to compensate for that person's absence. not saying it shouldn't happen, but it can be very problematic.
From a practical standpoint, it is hard. The people who are there have to pick up the slack. It is much harder in small companies. But even in large companies if there are a few people out in one department, it's difficult. It would be great if we had a more flexible workforce using temps. But for many industries, that would not work.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I know I get flak for Jeb hatred.
Ok, how is he the 'best person to govern the country'? I don't see him having any outstanding qualities at all. It would just be another segment
in the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Obama/BushClinton facade of a democracy.
What do the Clintons have to do with the Bushes? The Clintons are a a husband and wife, one having been president already. The Bushes are a 3 generation political dynasty that has already had the White House once on a one term presidency, and once for one of the worst presidencies in history.
I dont get the argument -- dont vote for a Clinton because the Bushes make bad presidents?
What was actually said: "the chairman's 13-page letter alleging a damaging leak of the C.I.A. source"
Deej:"right wing noise"
Deej: "The Republican on the committee didnt disagree, instead just challenged Schiff to name the source on national TV.
What actually happened: Since Schiff claimed the CIA source wasn't classified, Pompeo challenged him to name the aforementioned source. Schiff wouldn't do it.
I dont understand how my description isnt precisely what happened. Pompeo did not disagree with Schiff's representation about the CIA, but rather challenged Schiff to name the source. That is what I wrote. If he had disagreed he would have said "that's wrong", "I dont agree", "that's not what the CIA said"...
The Blumenthal emails also suggest there was another motive for Libya beyond some covert action by the CIA. He had business concerns there (as I'm sure others did too). Link - ( New Window )
So Benghazi committee is looking at whether Sidney Blumenthal pushed Obama to bomb Libya? Yup, sure seems like they're investigating the attack on the Benghazi compound and not making this into a political to-do about Hillary.
What a fucking farce. Blumenthal sends Hillary emails, she typically doesnt right back, just forwards them dutifully to an underling, and suddenly Gowdy thinks that Sidney Blumenthal, detested in the White House, is driving Obama's Libya policy? Oh, and someone pushing the government to do something that might impact them financially? Stop the presses.
I should also note that this isnt even a discussion of the emails. It is a discussion of what Gowdy says the emails show, as if Gowdy is some fair neutral here and not someone who had the rug pulled out from under him by McCarthy, Hanna, and the ex-committee staffer. There is really no evidence that Blumenthal had any impact on US policy
Actually Hillary often responded and sometimes encouraged them. Link - ( New Window )
The Blumenthal emails also suggest there was another motive for Libya beyond some covert action by the CIA. He had business concerns there (as I'm sure others did too). Link - ( New Window )
So Benghazi committee is looking at whether Sidney Blumenthal pushed Obama to bomb Libya? Yup, sure seems like they're investigating the attack on the Benghazi compound and not making this into a political to-do about Hillary.
What a fucking farce. Blumenthal sends Hillary emails, she typically doesnt right back, just forwards them dutifully to an underling, and suddenly Gowdy thinks that Sidney Blumenthal, detested in the White House, is driving Obama's Libya policy? Oh, and someone pushing the government to do something that might impact them financially? Stop the presses.
I should also note that this isnt even a discussion of the emails. It is a discussion of what Gowdy says the emails show, as if Gowdy is some fair neutral here and not someone who had the rug pulled out from under him by McCarthy, Hanna, and the ex-committee staffer. There is really no evidence that Blumenthal had any impact on US policy
Actually Hillary often responded and sometimes encouraged them. Link - ( New Window )
Shhh.... we dont' want to get Deej started again on the so-called "facts."
What was actually said: "the chairman's 13-page letter alleging a damaging leak of the C.I.A. source"
Deej:"right wing noise"
If you look at the full Schiff quote I think right wing noise is more than fair as far as Schiff's intent:
Quote:
This is very important because the way this committee has operated is by leak of damaging information with only one objective. And that is, all the leaks have a common denominator. All of the leaks are designed to hurt Secretary Clinton.They generate a new story as recently as the one about Mr. Blumenthal. And then within the last 24 to 48 hours, the C.I.A. informs us that notwithstanding the chairman's 13-page letter alleging a damaging leak of the C.I.A. source, the C.I.A. has now informed us there was nothing classified in this last tranche--
It's pretty ridiculous that you try to reduce Schiff's statment to "the chairman's 13-page letter alleging a damaging leak of the C.I.A. source" as if the point Schiff was making was pro-committee. But as you say, "I shouldn't be surprised."
I dont understand how my description isnt precisely what happened. Pompeo did not disagree with Schiff's representation about the CIA, but rather challenged Schiff to name the source. That is what I wrote. If he had disagreed he would have said "that's wrong", "I dont agree", "that's not what the CIA said"...
Are you really that obtuse? Schiff said the CIA source wasn't classified. Pompeo said, "Name him"
The clear import of that article is that she was engaged with SB on the emails re politics. Says she was sending them to Bill -- not Obama.
Doesnt say she was solicitous about national security issues, as a general matter (she may have followed up once or twice). That is what I was getting at -- no evidence that he was driving any Libya etc policy.
The clear import of that article is that she was engaged with SB on the emails re politics. Says she was sending them to Bill -- not Obama.
Doesnt say she was solicitous about national security issues, as a general matter (she may have followed up once or twice). That is what I was getting at -- no evidence that he was driving any Libya etc policy.
I am not getting into this discussion. My only point was your statement was clearly inaccurate. Not sure why you can't admit that.
I dont understand how my description isnt precisely what happened. Pompeo did not disagree with Schiff's representation about the CIA, but rather challenged Schiff to name the source. That is what I wrote. If he had disagreed he would have said "that's wrong", "I dont agree", "that's not what the CIA said"...
Are you really that obtuse? Schiff said the CIA source wasn't classified. Pompeo said, "Name him"
You really don't think that he's disagreeing?
My description was accurate Peter and you know it -- he did not disagree but rather challenged Schiff to name the source. You might be saying that Pompeo implied a disagreement. I say maybe. Seemed like a deflection by Pompeo -- if Schiff was wrong and the CIA didnt write that, why wouldnt Pompeo say so? Schiff said it once, Pompeo issued his challenge. Schiff said it again -- "The C.I.A. has said that that source's name is not classified." If that's wrong, at that point you'd expect Pompeo to skewer Schiff, right? But he doesnt. He just re-issues the challenge, which suggests strongly to me that Pompeo could not actually say that Schiff was wrong.
As for the challenge. there could be 100 reasons Schiff didnt want to answer Pompeo's challenge. Maybe Schiff doesnt feel the need to answer to this guy, maybe the answer was politically difficult for the Dems, or maybe the name isnt classified but it is a piece of information that could potentially be used to piece something together maybe, or maybe Schiff is just cautious and doesnt want to be goaded into putting national security related info out there on a dare. I wont guess all of them. I'll just note that Schiff said it twice and Pompeo did not say that he was wrong.
The clear import of that article is that she was engaged with SB on the emails re politics. Says she was sending them to Bill -- not Obama.
Doesnt say she was solicitous about national security issues, as a general matter (she may have followed up once or twice). That is what I was getting at -- no evidence that he was driving any Libya etc policy.
I am not getting into this discussion. My only point was your statement was clearly inaccurate. Not sure why you can't admit that.
I think the obvious import of my statement was regarding the emails about Libya/SOS business, not all Blumenthal emails generally. Hence the reference in that paragraph to underling and "driving Obama's Libya policy" and to pushing the government to do something that would benefit him financially. But I could see how someone would miss my intent to limit my statement to the SOS/Libya emails, so it was if anything unclear but not inaccurate.
The clear import of that article is that she was engaged with SB on the emails re politics. Says she was sending them to Bill -- not Obama.
Doesnt say she was solicitous about national security issues, as a general matter (she may have followed up once or twice). That is what I was getting at -- no evidence that he was driving any Libya etc policy.
I am not getting into this discussion. My only point was your statement was clearly inaccurate. Not sure why you can't admit that.
I think the obvious import of my statement was regarding the emails about Libya/SOS business, not all Blumenthal emails generally. Hence the reference in that paragraph to underling and "driving Obama's Libya policy" and to pushing the government to do something that would benefit him financially. But I could see how someone would miss my intent to limit my statement to the SOS/Libya emails, so it was if anything unclear but not inaccurate.
Obvious only to you. It is tough trying to have a discussion with someone who makes a clearly false statement, can't simply say I was wrong, and then uses stuff like the above to say not my fault that you can't understand.
Then dont have a discussion with me. In context I think it is obvious what I was saying, and I think taking anything out of context is not an appropriate way to read something.
But putting that aside, Im not sure why you're so hung up on it . Because even if you are right and what I wrote was incorrect (I disagree), it wasnt my intent to say what you think I was saying. So you want me to fall on my sword because of that? An alleged failure to communicate clearly?
That said, if HRC is the nominee, I'm obviously voting for her. And I imagine buford would say the same regarding Jeb.
Wouldn't expect it any other way except a vote down party lines.
It is just sick that the choices there are, are not enticing. I would not vote for Hillary for any reason except if Ted Cruz is the Republican candidate unless he changes some of his views/plans.
You can quibble all you want about the exchange between
Schiff and Pompeo. But the CIA did send a letter to both Republican and Democratic select committee staff, that they did not consider the info. to be classified.
Who knows, maybe Pompeo was not yet informed of the letter.
"The top Democrat on the House Benghazi Committee says the CIA has pulled the rug out from under a Republican claim that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received and forwarded the name of a sensitive CIA human source in her personal email account.
In a letter earlier this moth, Benghazi Committee Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) asserted that an email Clinton got from outside adviser Sidney Blumenthal contained what the U.S. government considers one of its most closely-held secrets: the name of a source relied on by the intelligence community.
However, the ranking member on the Benghazi panel--Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland--said the CIA advised the committee on Saturday that the information Gowdy suggested required extreme caution is, in fact, unclassified.
"The CIA yesterday informed both the Republican and Democratic staffs of the Select Committee that they do not consider the information you highlighted in your letter to be classified. Specifically, the CIA confirmed that 'the State Department consulted with the CIA on this production, the CIA reviewed these documents, and the CIA made no redactions to protect classified information,'" Cummings wrote in a new letter to Gowdy"
says in part (what I think are quotes from Gowdy's 13 page letter in italics):
Quote:
In your letter on October 7, 2015, you stated that Secretary Clinton received an email from Sidney Blumenthal on March 18, 2011, that included the name of someone who purportedly provided information to the CIA. You asserted that this information was classified, arguing that Secretary Clinton received classified information from Blumenthalinformation she should have known was classified at the time she received it. You then alleged:
Armed with that information, Secretary Clinton forwarded that email to a colleaguedebunking her claim that she never sent any classified information from her private email address.
In your letter, you went to great lengths to highlight the gravity of your accusation, stating:
This information, the name of a human source, is some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but human lives.
To further inflate your claim, you placed your own redactions over the name of the individual with the words, redacted due to sources and methods. To be clear, these redactions were not made, and these words were not added, by any agency of the federal government responsible for enforcing classification guidelines.
Predictably, commentators began repeating your accusations in even more extreme terms, suggesting in headlines for example that Clinton Burns CIA Libya Contact.
Contrary to your claims, the CIA yesterday informed both the Republican and Democratic staffs of the Select Committee that they do not consider the information you highlighted in your letter to be classified. Specifically, the CIA confirmed that the State Department consulted with the CIA on this production, the CIA reviewed these documents, and the CIA made no redactions to protect classified information.
Instead of focusing on the administration's questionable Libya handling, they've gone down a rabbit hole with Benghazi in an effort to destroy Hillary.
GOP can't help themselves with the Clintons. I'm still waiting on why they killed Vince Foster...
says in part (what I think are quotes from Gowdy's 13 page letter in italics):
Quote:
In your letter on October 7, 2015, you stated that Secretary Clinton received an email from Sidney Blumenthal on March 18, 2011, that included the name of someone who purportedly provided information to the CIA. You asserted that this information was classified, arguing that Secretary Clinton received classified information from Blumenthalinformation she should have known was classified at the time she received it. You then alleged:
Armed with that information, Secretary Clinton forwarded that email to a colleaguedebunking her claim that she never sent any classified information from her private email address.
In your letter, you went to great lengths to highlight the gravity of your accusation, stating:
This information, the name of a human source, is some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but human lives.
To further inflate your claim, you placed your own redactions over the name of the individual with the words, redacted due to sources and methods. To be clear, these redactions were not made, and these words were not added, by any agency of the federal government responsible for enforcing classification guidelines.
Predictably, commentators began repeating your accusations in even more extreme terms, suggesting in headlines for example that Clinton Burns CIA Libya Contact.
Contrary to your claims, the CIA yesterday informed both the Republican and Democratic staffs of the Select Committee that they do not consider the information you highlighted in your letter to be classified. Specifically, the CIA confirmed that the State Department consulted with the CIA on this production, the CIA reviewed these documents, and the CIA made no redactions to protect classified information.
Link - ( New Window )
Elijah Cummings is not exactly a bastion of truth. He very much is a democrat first and representative second. He supports my industry very well, but listening to him on numerous occasions has made me cringe. Please remember his job on that committee is to torpedo anything that will damage the administration and the party as much or more than Trey Gowdy's job is to at least find a cause for Benghazi and by default damage the administration.
Section are you suggesting Cummings made up the letter
I will not deny that Cummings is partisan. That's why I tried to clip not the part that was primarily his commentary but rather what Gowdy said vs. what Cummings quotes the CIA as saying with as little of Cumming's "flavor" as possible.
I dont know what to make of the rest of your post. You say: "Please remember his job on that committee is to torpedo anything that will damage the administration and the party as much or more than Trey Gowdy's job is to at least find a cause for Benghazi and by default damage the administration." That is neither of their job. It may be what they're doing, but it isnt their job, and I dont agree that somehow Cummings is out partisaning Gowdy on this. The whole purpose of this committee is partisan -- another stab because the first 7 congressional committees didnt ruin Hillary. You have the McCarthy and Rep. Hanna admission about the nature of the committee.
Gowdy sets the schedule and agenda as chair. If you dont think that he has abandoned the Benghazi investigation and turned this all about Hillary, I dont know what to tell you. They're totally off schedule. The Republicans point to Hillary's emails as the cause, but they're not doing interviews that have nothing at all to do with Hillary. Look at the committees press releases (link) -- from March until the McCarthy statement (when Gowdy got on the defensive), almost all the press releases are about Hillary and most of those are email specific. Looks like close to 2 dozen. Trey Gowdy sitting there and proclaiming that this isnt a political hunt targetting Clinton just lacks credibility given his own press releases, what other people on his side of the aisle are saying, and the undisputed focus of the committee's attention this summer. Link - ( New Window )
Instead of focusing on the administration's questionable Libya handling, they've gone down a rabbit hole with Benghazi in an effort to destroy Hillary.
GOP can't help themselves with the Clintons. I'm still waiting on why they killed Vince Foster...
Apparently the reason Schiff wouldnt meet Pompeo's challenge to name the source is known. From Cumming's letter:
Quote:
As a result of your actions, the State Department yesterday asked the Select Committee not to reveal the individuals name publicly, not for classification reasons, but to protect the individuals privacy and avoid bringing additional undue attention to this person.
So unless Cummings is lying (show me some proof please), Pompeo's challenge was a cheap stunt -- when reminded that the name isnt classified, he tried to dupe viewers into believing that it was classified with that challenge. Schiff didnt give in based on the PRIVACY request.
I wasnt being obtuse. A denial is a denial. Pompeo did not deny Schiff's statement that the name Gowdy got his panties we over was NOT classified, contrary to Gowdy's claim.
All of this after the fact information does not change your
off this board,Deej, he apparently has set his sights on you, he will try to get you to say something bannable, that is who he is. When he responds to this I won't be able to see it because he is the 2nd person I got rid of, but I'll check my iPhone later
off this board,Deej, he apparently has set his sights on you, he will try to get you to say something bannable, that is who he is. When he responds to this I won't be able to see it because he is the 2nd person I got rid of, but I'll check my iPhone later
Imagine that, a shit stirrer on this board. What a novel concept. Never seen THAT before.
off this board,Deej, he apparently has set his sights on you, he will try to get you to say something bannable, that is who he is. When he responds to this I won't be able to see it because he is the 2nd person I got rid of, but I'll check my iPhone later
Fuck you, asshole. I thought you left.
WaPo claiming that Trump's claim to be "above" super-PACs...
may be stretching it a bit. Not sure there are many startling revelations in here, or anything that succeeds with his minions where logic and gross gaffes have not, but who knows? Link - ( New Window )
Peter in Atl is just an instigator and a shit-stirrer. Nothing more, nothing less. He's been banned before. Posters have left for when Eric, for reasons unknown to man, let him back into the board.
Your point was as clear as day, just ignore him. He's one of the dregs of BBI.
Peter in Atl is just an instigator and a shit-stirrer. Nothing more, nothing less. He's been banned before. Posters have left for when Eric, for reasons unknown to man, let him back into the board.
Your point was as clear as day, just ignore him. He's one of the dregs of BBI.
may be stretching it a bit. Not sure there are many startling revelations in here, or anything that succeeds with his minions where logic and gross gaffes have not, but who knows? Link - ( New Window )
"It may LOOK like a low energy Super PAC, but it's really a world class Super PAC. I'd go into details but I can't go into details, but I want you to know that it's great."
I think we're going to have to bring the nickname Teflon Don out of retirement.
He specializes in absorbing rage and spewing out venom, with a nugget of truth thrown in every so often to keep everyone guessing.
It must be awfully uncomfortable to go through life that pissed off. I guess doing so on BBI reduces the likelihood of getting physical, so Eric is performing a community service for the entire city of Atlanta.
HowardKurtzVerified account
@HowardKurtz
MSNBC: Sources: Biden decision could come within 48 hours. After so many false alarms for weeks on end, can we stop predicting the timing?
____
The only piece of this that is really interesting, because I don't think Biden would be strong enough to win - especially without the ground game - would be the possibility that Obama's allies push back against Hillary. This is probably the greater danger to her than defeat, the notion that she could alienate some corners of the Obama coalition in beating back a challenge from the Veep.
Obama could absolutely sink Hillary if he OPENLY throws his weight behind Biden.
Maybe Im crazy, but I think Joe is stroking his ego with this Mario Cuomo dance. I think he lost the primary 10 months ago. The time to get in was January. That is when supporters (money and machine) started picking sides. That is when ground games started. Hillary has hired Obama's whole campaign infrastructure, save a few people who absolutely hate her guts from the 2008 primary. I think he made his calls then and people signed up for Hillary. Too late now.
And I dont say this over some abiding love of Hillary, the candidate. I recognize her flaws as a candidate and in many ways wish that we had a more generic candidate.
I'd bet he got beat up in school, got beat up as an adult and will get beat up again and again. Comes here to make up all the best downs he has taken and will take.
Dune, Biden entering the race imo would not be a bad thing
for either the Democratic Party or HRC. Adding a big boy to the table could equally benefit both particularly if Lincoln Chaffee is removed. He added nothing. Biden would make it a far better debate.
HRC had to assume Biden might declare even before the email controversy. Biden now entering late will be handicapped to win the nomination. Why would HRC have to push back so severely that Obama supporters would be alienated? Whether you like her or not, she is an able politician. Your also assuming the majority of Obama supporters would be more inclined to support Biden, which I don't think is true.
Imo, this could create more enthusiasm for the party as a whole. If HRC is further damaged, Democrats have a fall back. Seems more problematic for Republicans.
This probably has more implications for Jeb than Trump...
for either the Democratic Party or HRC. Adding a big boy to the table could equally benefit both particularly if Lincoln Chaffee is removed. He added nothing. Biden would make it a far better debate.
HRC had to assume Biden might declare even before the email controversy. Biden now entering late will be handicapped to win the nomination. Why would HRC have to push back so severely that Obama supporters would be alienated? Whether you like her or not, she is an able politician. Your also assuming the majority of Obama supporters would be more inclined to support Biden, which I don't think is true.
Imo, this could create more enthusiasm for the party as a whole. If HRC is further damaged, Democrats have a fall back. Seems more problematic for Republicans.
I think Chaffee is irrelevant, no matter what Biden does. My point is that if Biden is running on Obama's legacy and he presents a credible challenge, HRC has to run against it and against him (to an extent) which risks alienating some of his supporters. Whether that bleeds out of donors and endorsements into significant votes remains to be seen, but there is SOME peril there.
but if they want to beat HRC, they really have to concentrate their efforts on Rubio. Lets be honest, HRC isnt losing to Trump, Sanders, or Carly. It just isnt realistic.
She would be favored over Marco, but he probably has the best chance to beat her out of any of the republicans. He has a lot of weaknesses, immigration being one, however this should be the time to start cleaning up some of his ideas and pushing him to the public. He's a good speaker and intelligent.
Only bad thing to come of all these GOP'ers is that they are going to tear each other down, basically handing the election to HRC.
In the new CNN poll, both Hillary and Sanders beat Trump, although Sanders does better, but Carson edges out both of them within the margin of error.
Just goes to show how few people actually know Carson's views. Moderates and independents will run for the hills once they know more about him. Right now, I think many just view him as a soft-spoken smart doctor. As the field whittles down, his weirdness will become more apparent.
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton CNN/ORC Clinton 50, Trump 45 Clinton +5
General Election: Carson vs. Clinton CNN/ORC Carson 48, Clinton 47 Carson +1
General Election: Trump vs. Biden CNN/ORC Biden 53, Trump 43 Biden +10
General Election: Carson vs. Biden CNN/ORC Biden 52, Carson 44 Biden +8
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders CNN/ORC Sanders 53, Trump 44 Sanders +9
General Election: Carson vs. Sanders CNN/ORC Carson 48, Sanders 46 Carson +2
but there are some benefits for HRC if Biden enters:
1) Debates will be more interesting since they'll include someone well respected that HRC isn't expected to walk all over (no disrespect to O'Malley, Chaffee, Warner, and even Sanders)
2) Biden is far more of a centrist than Sanders (obviously) so his presence might help HRC from getting sucked too far left
3) Free air time for HRC if the primary battles drag on, rather than it all but being over after the first couple weeks (granted she doesn't really lack name recognition).
In the new CNN poll, both Hillary and Sanders beat Trump, although Sanders does better, but Carson edges out both of them within the margin of error.
Just goes to show how few people actually know Carson's views. Moderates and independents will run for the hills once they know more about him. Right now, I think many just view him as a soft-spoken smart doctor. As the field whittles down, his weirdness will become more apparent.
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton CNN/ORC Clinton 50, Trump 45 Clinton +5
General Election: Carson vs. Clinton CNN/ORC Carson 48, Clinton 47 Carson +1
General Election: Trump vs. Biden CNN/ORC Biden 53, Trump 43 Biden +10
General Election: Carson vs. Biden CNN/ORC Biden 52, Carson 44 Biden +8
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders CNN/ORC Sanders 53, Trump 44 Sanders +9
General Election: Carson vs. Sanders CNN/ORC Carson 48, Sanders 46 Carson +2
What that tells you is that generic Republican is beating both. That of course doesn't mean shit 12+ months before the election, but as you observe it's not an endorsement of Carson as a choice so much as a knock on HRC and the temporary state of the Democrats' brand name. Temporary should be emphasized, of course.
I think a lot of people are not checked into the election yet. They know about Trump acting like a bitch, know there is something going on with Hillary's emails, and have heard rumor that there is another fucking Bush running. 125 million votes were cast in the last presidential election. 25 million people watched the GOP debate (many just to see Trump), and 15 million watched the Dem debate, probably with substantial overlap.
I'd note that there is a lot of reason to distrust any 2016 polling. Not saying that there is a pro-GOP bias to those polls. Rather, the polling industry is in chaos. They dont know how to deal with the low-low response rates of ~8%. Gallup has gotten out of the presidential horse race business entirely -- Gallup!!
You also need to look at crosstabs. For example, Quinnipiac is using party splits that dont make any sense for a presidential election year.
Mostly political junky types, voters in early primary states and Iowa caucus goers (already getting ads.),maybe throw in some retirees as well. The diff. of 10 mil. most likely tuning in for Trump.
Everyone else is busy with their lives. So preference is mostly based on impressions. Before I retired, this was me. Didn't pay alot of attention until later in the cycle. When you are busy and alot can happen in a year, why waste your time.
I am at a loss to explain the popularity of a candidate who argues against the invasion of Afghanistan and says, instead, we could have gotten the Arabs to hand Bin Laden over by finding alternative sources of energy. And his poll numbers didn't budge.
I am at a loss to explain the popularity of a candidate who argues against the invasion of Afghanistan and says, instead, we could have gotten the Arabs to hand Bin Laden over by finding alternative sources of energy. And his poll numbers didn't budge.
Well, he is losing to the guy whose main campaign promise is to have Mexico build a massive wall for us. But he is beating a bunch of people who believe that tax cuts raise government revenues. And they all probably believe that climate change is just god farting.
will pay for itself. Top still makes out the best. Still ignoring the issue of demand. Claim will encourage investment & thus economic growth. People can get a job as a bartender like Rubio's Dad. We should all be thankful.
Rubio's plan a bit different than the rest. However, some middle class voters may not think such a good deal. To help pay, reduces income amount subject to highest rate. If you don't have a bunch of kids, middle earners could be subject to a tax increase. Link - ( New Window )
Here is Rubio this month telling CNBC that within 10 years his plan creates a surplus and "becomes revenue positive". (middle of video)
Josh Barro, a conservative is pretty critical of the right, panned it hard, calling it the puppies and rainbows plan. He quotes conservative think-tank AEI scholar James Pethokoukis as calling it sort of the Oprah Winfrey theory of tax cuts... She was like You get a car, you get a car. Well this is You get a tax cut, you get a tax cut. Barro explains:
Quote:
The main problem is that both puppies and rainbows are expensive. According to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a previous version of the plan advanced by Senator Lee would have cost the government $2.4 trillion in lost revenues over 10 years, and this plan adds new deep tax cuts (including the capital gains cut) that would cost trillions more.
So at least $4.4 trillion in increase deficits. Rubio would eliminate all cap gains and dividend taxes, while at the same time slashing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. He would abolish the tax on foreign income (something I agree with, but it does reduce corporate taxes with no offset in his plan). S-Corps would be subject to lower taxes -- meaning business owners would probably pay less in taxes than their employees.
Yeah, Rubio is throwing some cash at the middle class with an increased tax credit. Because under the Rubio plan, everybody gets a car. I dont understand why he doesnt just zero out taxes if he doesnt give a shit about deficits. And I REALLY dont understand why the Dems get harangued with "how are we going to pay for that" all the time (fairly) when the GOP's core policy solution is ALWAYS deficit-financed tax cuts that would primarily help the wealthy. It's like the fact that they're not paid for is so obvious that you dont even ask the question anymore. It's utterly unserious. And yet much more serious than Dr. Carson's 10% flat tax. Link - ( New Window )
Yes Rubio plan has a increase credit for kids but gets
rid of other tax deductions except home mortgage interest and charitable donations. It decreases top rate to 35% but would start applying to salary incomes as low as $75000 (individuals) & $150000 (joint). So if you live in a high tax state and few kids, no puppies and rainbows for you.
Small business owners (S Corp) would do real well. Where were you Rubio when it would be rainbows every day for me!
But in Canada it looks like the left is so fed up with Harper and his minority 40% government that they far left abandoned the far left NDP party to vote for the center-left Liberal party (so much so that the NDP could fail altogether), and the Liberals may be in the midst of a rout.
"You know, the President is thinking about signing an executive order where he wants to take your guns away. You hear about this? Not gonna happen. That won't happen. But that's a tough one, I think that's a tough one for him to do," Trump told the crowd. "There's plenty of executive orders being signed, you know that. And we can't let that go on." Link - ( New Window )
Trump is just a master of the 1 + 1 minus 1 plus 1 =4 argument.
1) Obama wants to control things through executive orders when he can't get Congress to respond, or when Congress simply disagrees.
2) Obama wants to expand background checks and limt a small handful of types of weapons, going as far as he can without Congress' help.
3) "Taking your guns" is unconstitutional.
4) Obama is going to enact an executive order taking your guns unless we stop him. Who will implement it? Will the Supreme Court stand silently by? Let me get back to you on that.
Of course none of that comes close to Ben Carson on getting Bin Ladin just by asking the Saudis, or Jews primarily dying during the Holocaust because of Nazi gun control.
(1 + 1 - 1 + 1) x 2 = 49%, of course.
Btw, Trump is about to pick up more votes as Carson begins to implode, I suspect. So will some others, such as Ted Cruz and Rubio.
He's a soft-spoken Ted Cruz. And his individual success is actually a complete disconnect from the constituency he wants to help. He's pretty oblivious to his inability to relate to his supporters. He just thinks everyone should be more like him.
Trump and Carson are pulling away, albeit with the lingering suspicion that they will eventually collapse. A lot of reason to believe that Trump, Carson, and Fiorina are all courting the same voter. Trump's persistence is amazing; while I can tell myself that people just dont know how radical Carson is, Im pretty sure that Trump's supporters know EXACTLY who he is at this point. Color me very surprised that Rubio has done absolutely nothing to break out after a strong debate performance, and given his lack of warts when compared to Bush, Christie, and Kasich. Really starting to wonder whether Walker bailed too early.
Cruz does better in the others, unfortunately, than he did in this one.
But more and more these polls reflect air time, with Carson being a slight exception. Trumps knows how to get air time, realizes he can say just about anything without consequences and takes advantage of it. Fiorina needs another debate to get off the side of the milk carton. Has she gotten more than 30 seconds of air time since the reviews of the 2nd debate? I'm wondering whether her campaign is inept or whether the media has decided "screw any sort of balanced coverage, we're going for eyeballs". Virtually the same holds true for Kasich although I'm more convinced in his case that it's an inept campaign. Rubio does a little better but still pales in comparison to Trump with respect to coverage.
Carson appears to have a strong underrated and underreported ground game and has captured the evangelicals.
that can be held in a broom closet, with room to spare.
Paaartay.
Deej, NBC/WSJ, also today, has Trump at his highest % ever at 25%, uptick for Carson, looks way better for Rubio and Cruz, and has Fiorina and Kasich dropping hard after brief upticks. In fact, this is a very, very good poll for Rubio. Link - ( New Window )
and considering a 3rd party run. Link - ( New Window )
I like Jim Webb, and if the choices are odious enough I might vote for him. But I don't see Webb picking off Democratic voters so much as disaffected Republicans. Likewise Bloomberg probably doesn't upset the Republican apple cart so much as the moderate Democratic one.
I'd consider him. He's not. He's a phony. For all his rootin' tootin' born fightin' Scots-Irish blather, his record in the Senate was one of a mainstream lefty Democrat.
Also, Deej, Josh Barro is in no way, shape or form conservative
No matter what he calls himself. His schtick is playing the part of a "conservative" who writes in the NYT about how appalled he is by how horrible conservatives are. It's a nice little racket and it's gotten him his gig at the Times, but it's rather tired and transparent. He's David Brooks Jr.
RE: if Jim Webb actually were what he purported to be
I'd consider him. He's not. He's a phony. For all his rootin' tootin' born fightin' Scots-Irish blather, his record in the Senate was one of a mainstream lefty Democrat.
Meh, generic Democrat with a nice resume is still more appealing than the rest of the Democratic field and a couple in the Republican field (who happen to be leading in the polls).
I have nothing against the guy, but it's a vanity campaign. He doesnt have an issue or issues to talk about. He is not popular and has no national support. He just thinks that he would make a good president. He's wasting time if he runs as an independent, and the networks should not put him in the debates.
As for Bloomberg, Im not thinking about him because he isnt even making noise.
how HRC is going to lose the primary or general election? The bridge closed for a little, but it seems like Sanders is fading and the GOP is still a hot mess with two leading candidates who are better off somewhere in another country.
Generic Democrat with a nice resume is still a Democrat
I'd sooner gouge my eyes out of my head with a stick than ever vote for a Democrat. By my estimation, I'll reach that same level of hatred for the GOP in another year or two.
RE: Generic Democrat with a nice resume is still a Democrat
I'd sooner gouge my eyes out of my head with a stick than ever vote for a Democrat. By my estimation, I'll reach that same level of hatred for the GOP in another year or two.
I can hold my nose and vote for most of them, but Fuck Trump and whether Ben Carson is a decent enough person or not I think his nomination would be a death knell for the GOP.
RE: if Jim Webb actually were what he purported to be
I'd consider him. He's not. He's a phony. For all his rootin' tootin' born fightin' Scots-Irish blather, his record in the Senate was one of a mainstream lefty Democrat.
Barro self-identifies as a conservative Republican, albeit one who grossly disrespects the right at the moment. I guess we could argue about how big a tent the term "conservative" applies to, but I just really see no reason to when the point is that Rubio's tax plan would blow a $4.5+ trillion hole in the budget (3x the combined Bush tax cuts) and is justified on the super ridiculous notion that it will start paying for itself after 10 years because it will grow the economy by 15%. There are justifications for tax cuts for sure -- e.g. people who just think the government should take less from its citizens and provide fewer services/transfers. That's a totally legit position. Hyper-voodoo economics is not a legit position. It is rainbows and puppies promises.
RE: Generic Democrat with a nice resume is still a Democrat
I'd sooner gouge my eyes out of my head with a stick than ever vote for a Democrat. By my estimation, I'll reach that same level of hatred for the GOP in another year or two.
how HRC is going to lose the primary or general election? The bridge closed for a little, but it seems like Sanders is fading and the GOP is still a hot mess with two leading candidates who are better off somewhere in another country.
100% agree. Short of some new bombshell I think its gonna be Madame President.
how HRC is going to lose the primary or general election? The bridge closed for a little, but it seems like Sanders is fading and the GOP is still a hot mess with two leading candidates who are better off somewhere in another country.
Well she can lose the primary if the FBI kills her on the emails. And she can lose the general if the people just dont trust her (and she's struggling in the polls on that issue; we'll see if the recent turn against the Benghazi committee helps her). Peel off enough people who would vote generic Dem, and then nominate an empty vessel type like Rubio (who in so many ways can be the Republican Obama), and it's a real race. I mean, she's losing to some of these people in a recent PA poll. I can point out a ton of problems -- voters not engaged yet, polling is getting less accurate etc. -- but it has still got to be jarring that the faux-purple PA is in play.
oh, don't take my comments about Barro as an endorsement of Rubio's
plan. Not at all. I just think Barro is a smarmy, disingenuous little shit, that's all.
Any Dem. Anyone I'd consider voting for wouldn't ever be nominated by the Democratic Party in the first place, because the expansion of state power is always the core of the Dem platform. Which, again, is mostly the case with the GOP as well now, which is why I've been resigning myself more and more to rarely voting in the future for anything more than protest reasons.
how HRC is going to lose the primary or general election? The bridge closed for a little, but it seems like Sanders is fading and the GOP is still a hot mess with two leading candidates who are better off somewhere in another country.
Well she can lose the primary if the FBI kills her on the emails. And she can lose the general if the people just dont trust her (and she's struggling in the polls on that issue; we'll see if the recent turn against the Benghazi committee helps her). Peel off enough people who would vote generic Dem, and then nominate an empty vessel type like Rubio (who in so many ways can be the Republican Obama), and it's a real race. I mean, she's losing to some of these people in a recent PA poll. I can point out a ton of problems -- voters not engaged yet, polling is getting less accurate etc. -- but it has still got to be jarring that the faux-purple PA is in play.
Yeah I think that's fair. There is a lot of game to be played. And don't rule out outside factors, like an economic downturn or something big in the foreign policy realm, like a significant terrorist attack or something in the Middle East that looks like it could degenerate from a proxy war into a real one.
Simple question: Who do you trust less to govern, Hillary or a Republican party where 40 or so of the hardest hard right Republicans in the House can control the functioning of government? Where Paul Ryan is considered insufficiently conservative to run the leadership?
There is also the concern that she is just not that at electoral politics. She isnt Bill, or even Obama. 2008 was supposed to be a coronation and she lost.
And then add in macro issues. Obama is actually sneaky popular on a personal level (given the circumstances: compare him to Congress and right track-wrong track). But even with an economy that is reviving on paper (GDP, stocks, UI%), people still feel a malaise (consumer confidence is at Obama high but not close to Bush & Clinton highs, underemployment and low quality employment persist). What if things take a down swing? What if the government shuts down and the Dems are blamed? Given her gender-based answer to Cooper's "Are you 4 more years of Obama" question (which I thought was silly at first, but on reflection was her basically just tying herself to a better pol), if Obama becomes less popular, HRC gets dragged down with him. I doubt foreign policy will drive the election cycle (who the fuck is a Syria voter?), but FP events can put a thumb on the scale. And Republican dominance at the state legislative and governor level could boost the party's GOTV efforts.
This election isnt won. Dems have a demographic/electoral college/non-Trump advantage, but it's a merely that -- an advantage.
RE: RE: if Jim Webb actually were what he purported to be
I'd consider him. He's not. He's a phony. For all his rootin' tootin' born fightin' Scots-Irish blather, his record in the Senate was one of a mainstream lefty Democrat.
Barro self-identifies as a conservative Republican, albeit one who grossly disrespects the right at the moment. I guess we could argue about how big a tent the term "conservative" applies to, but I just really see no reason to when the point is that Rubio's tax plan would blow a $4.5+ trillion hole in the budget (3x the combined Bush tax cuts) and is justified on the super ridiculous notion that it will start paying for itself after 10 years because it will grow the economy by 15%. There are justifications for tax cuts for sure -- e.g. people who just think the government should take less from its citizens and provide fewer services/transfers. That's a totally legit position. Hyper-voodoo economics is not a legit position. It is rainbows and puppies promises.
Of course the same holds true for those who believe that all the revenue needed for the spending Sanders proposes is going to come from the 1%. More like the 40%.
I am not a HRC, I do at least admit she is the overwhelming favorite. I am just angry that the Dems didnt throw a worthwhile candidate to against her and the GOP's are just bumbling over their own feet.
the American political class, on both sides, is a disgrace
What if the government shuts down and the Dems are blamed?
We'll get an idea of what the possibilities for that are if Obama vetoes the defense authorization act. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I think my chances of winning the MegaMillions first prize are better than the Dems being blamed by the media for any kind of shutdown.
RE: RE: RE: if Jim Webb actually were what he purported to be
Of course the same holds true for those who believe that all the revenue needed for the spending Sanders proposes is going to come from the 1%. More like the 40%.
Well Im not a BernieBaby. My preference is for no major new spending program should the Democrats win the White House. Continue reforming how we pay for medical including Medicare, get the cost of college down which I think can be done with mostly structural reform rather than spending, and if the economy starts humming, pay down some debt (including increase revenues, even if brackets are left untouched). I dont have a lot of hope for a grand bargain on social security, so we need to set up the economy for the probability of just continued increases in SS spend.
to go up against an "annointed" candidate, with an in-place organization which Hillary was, pre-emails. Many expect that if you run a losing campaign, for Pres. or Veep, it's difficult to get another shot. (See: Paul Ryan.)
but comparing his tax plan to Bernie's (vague though Bernie's might be) is not going to engender confidence in the prospective voter.
Understood. I've been an advocate for Simpson-Bowles since their report came out, but everybody in Washington ran and hid at the thought of lower rates, expanded base, fewer provisions that produce selective winners and losers.
to go up against an "annointed" candidate, with an in-place organization which Hillary was, pre-emails. Many expect that if you run a losing campaign, for Pres. or Veep, it's difficult to get another shot. (See: Paul Ryan.)
Also, pre-emails you had to consider the revenge of the Clintons if you got in the way of the coronation parade.
RE: RE: It's difficult to get a second candidate...
to go up against an "annointed" candidate, with an in-place organization which Hillary was, pre-emails. Many expect that if you run a losing campaign, for Pres. or Veep, it's difficult to get another shot. (See: Paul Ryan.)
Also, pre-emails you had to consider the revenge of the Clintons if you got in the way of the coronation parade.
That's why Biden makes sense. The only other Democrat with enough standing that the Clintons can't simply run him over is Obama, who may not have quite the same network of supporters but who can give her a lot of problems if he is ill-treated.
RE: RE: It's difficult to get a second candidate...
to go up against an "annointed" candidate, with an in-place organization which Hillary was, pre-emails. Many expect that if you run a losing campaign, for Pres. or Veep, it's difficult to get another shot. (See: Paul Ryan.)
Also, pre-emails you had to consider the revenge of the Clintons if you got in the way of the coronation parade.
Overstated. Obama wasnt afraid of them. Circa 2013-14, what were the Clinton's power within the party? There are not a ton of New Dems in positions of party power anymore.
The real issue is that Obama supported her, and very early she got the whole party on board with her campaign. Everybody wanted to back the winner. Endorsements and support begat endorsements and support. Im sure some feared being on the wrong side of President Hillary, but implicit in that is the belief that she would win. Another problem is that with control of the White House, others in the party dont have much room to become a known voice of the party. If Romney had won, Im sure a few of the Dem governors would have spent the last 3 years becoming better known on the national stage. But between Obama and the inevitability of Clinton, they didnt bother trying.
Obama gifted Hill his operation. If Biden wanted to run, he should have said so a year ago, and there would have been an equitable split of the talent.
That's another issue as to why people didnt come out of the woodwork to run -- the brilliants who ran Obama's operation were locked up early. Hillary really cornered the market on the apparatus of running a national Dem election. Sure there was some talent left over and a brilliant campaign director could cope, but it was nevertheless a formidable coup for her.
But it's not like Biden's a great candidate either. He's run for the nomination, what, at least three times and gotten nowhere. He's even older than Hillary. He's got permanent foot in the mouth. It would be hard for him to hit Hillary on integrity when he's got a long history of playing fast and loose with the truth.
I kinda think that Biden missed his window. He should have
jumped in when Hillary's email nonsense was peaking. Now it feels like it's subsiding and there's no sense of urgency to replace her. Plus, the GOP race is being dominated by numbskulls, so it's hard for folks to be longing for Biden.
Now he ought to just start campaigning for Hillary and call it a career.
and Obama puts his full support behind him... does that change the landscape of the election?
Im sounding like a broken record, but I believe this conversation was appropriate for a year ago. I think it happened. Biden didnt get Obama's full support (and maybe/probably Hillary got the support).
The media loves this Biden story because they want a horse race. And it's probably better for the party if he does get in (even better would be some fresh blood). But the late Biden noise makes little sense unless the hammer will fall on the emails. If Obama's support was available, the time to get it would have been when the campaign was starting. Why on earth would Biden have let Hillary run up such a massive money/org advantage?
and Obama puts his full support behind him... does that change the landscape of the election?
If her flip flop on TPP didn't provide an indication that would happen I can't see what would. Keystone was forgivable because he didn't want it either.
The one way I could see it happening is if the FBI came up with something on the emails, HRC refused to drop out and Obama put his full support behind Biden to push her out for the good of the party.
speaking of Joey Plugs and his complicated relationship with the truth
Vice President Biden on Tuesday offered a different account of his advice to President Obama on the Osama bin Laden raid, an issue that could haunt him if he decides to challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Biden said that only two advisers then-CIA Director Leon Panetta and Defense Secretary Robert Gates gave definitive answers on whether Obama should carry out the raid, contradicting Clintons claim she fully backed the mission.........
The vice president disputed claims he opposed the mission. He said he privately supported the raid, but while in a room with other advisers, recommended that Obama wait to verify whether bin Laden was actually in the Abottabad, Pakistan, compound before launching the strike.
Biden said he only advised Obama to go when the two were alone to avoid boxing the president in on a decision......
Bidens account, however, differs from the one he gave in 2012. At that time, he told House Democrats he warned against the operation, one of the most consequential decisions of Obamas presidency.
Mr. President, my suggestion is, dont go, Biden told lawmakers, according to The New York Times. We have to do two more things to see if hes there.
dont think Obama cares about Hillary's position on TPP. TPP doesnt really need much/any rank & file Dem support to pass. The GOP will pass it at the behest of their corporate donors, with support of however many similarly-enthralled Dems are necessary should factions of the GOP break off. Hillary being against it probably makes it easier for GOP leaders (whomever they may be) to promote it internally. The major hurdle was getting fast track authority (preventing amendment by Congress), which BO got already.
I've been meaning to learn more about the nuts and bolts of TPP. Im generally pro trade agreements. I saw a description of one term that looks horrible (re compensating corps for changes in generally applicable law), but Im betting that the description I saw was overwrought and the provision isnt all that different from some standard stuff in Bilateral Investment Treaty contracts that I've actually handled professionally.
Not excusing HRC. Says was a mistake. What's with are officials. No one learns from others? CIA no less.
"The FBI is investigating claims by an anonymous computer hacker that he stole potentially sensitive files from the private e-mail account of CIA Director John Brennan and posted them online, U.S. officials said.
The exposed documents appear to include a roster of senior U.S. national security officials with their phone and Social Security numbers, a log of calls made by former CIA deputy director Avril Haines and a list of e-mail addresses that the hacker claimed were taken from Brennans AOL account."
Not excusing HRC. Says was a mistake. What's with are officials. No one learns from others? CIA no less.
"The FBI is investigating claims by an anonymous computer hacker that he stole potentially sensitive files from the private e-mail account of CIA Director John Brennan and posted them online, U.S. officials said.
The exposed documents appear to include a roster of senior U.S. national security officials with their phone and Social Security numbers, a log of calls made by former CIA deputy director Avril Haines and a list of e-mail addresses that the hacker claimed were taken from Brennans AOL account." Link - ( New Window )
Why do these idiots have confidential work related (roster + SSNs) info in their private accounts?
Webb said at a news conference that he is "withdrawing from any consideration" of becoming the Democratic party's nominee and would spend the coming weeks exploring his options about a possible independent bid.....
Webb said many of the issues that he cares about are not in line with the hierarchy of the Democratic party, saying he did not have a "clear, exact fit" in either party. Asked if he still considers himself a Democrat, Webb said, "We'll think about that."
Have no idea what these guys are thinking. When I read it this morning, I was dumbfounded. With all the attention regarding HRC emails, you would think using AOL for business not such a good thing.
Have no idea what these guys are thinking. When I read it this morning, I was dumbfounded. With all the attention regarding HRC emails, you would think using AOL for business not such a good thing.
The sad thing is, this will likely get swept under the rug while if any manager/HR person at any Fortune 500 company had this type of data (particularly SSNs) on their private accounts, they'd be fired immediately.
Have no idea what these guys are thinking. When I read it this morning, I was dumbfounded. With all the attention regarding HRC emails, you would think using AOL for business not such a good thing.
You could just delete "for business" and your comment would be at least as true.
that the House Dems and Reid are openly signalling approval of Paul Ryan specifically to torpedo his chances of becoming Speaker? Because if Harry Reid wants the GOP to pick Paul Ryan, then Harry Reid's public support of Paul Ryan is only going to hurt Ryan. Feels like the Dems are throwing gas on the fire.
"I like Paul Ryan. Hes a friend of mine. This is obviously a question that is wrapped up in the Speaker of the House deliberations," Cruz told NBC News' Meet the Press host Chuck Todd. Cruz refused to give an opinion that could influence the speaker race. When pressed, he doubled down and added that he thinks syndicated conservative Radio Host Mark Levin is a "true conservative." Levin has recently said he does not think Ryan is in that category.
Levin actually used to be sane, but it had a negative impact on his book sales. Cruz needs to find another mission in life over and above enforcing ideological purity. If your conservative tent is not big enough to fit Paul Ryan, it's a fucking pup tent.
Cruz is by no means interested in ideological purity.
Mo Brooks: Congressman, R-Ala, Says Hillary Clinton Is 'Subject to Impeachment' if Elected President
Brooks told radio host Matt Murphy that the day Clinton is "sworn in is the day that shes subject to impeachment because she has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
RE: Cruz is by no means interested in ideological purity.
He is interested in attention. Pretending to be a purist gets him attention.
Cruz fancies himself Barry Goldwater, and if that means the GOP loses in '16 but he comes back at the helm of a more conservative party he is fine with that.
Came off like a total Dino (is that even a thing? I've only heard Rino used before, but the same principle holds) He is the Kasich of the other side, the guy the opposite party likes more than the party whose nomination he seeks. The john huntsman.
Get Lincoln chaffe off that stage too. I wish they had mixed debates because I'm convinced donald trump could make lincoln chaffe cry right there on stage, and it will be great tv
Speaking more generally about the campaign, I'm no Hillary fan (though I will vote for her) but I really think she has hit her stride here in this campaign after that McCarthy mess and her debate performance on top of it. The bottom line is in addition to her personal challenges (baggage, not a great political athlete) her candidacy faced obstacles not often seen for people trying to get a campaign off the ground due to this air of inevitability. It has allowed the other side to incessantly beat the shit out of her for years on a daily basis. Once Obama got re elected, FOX news shifted their focus to crushing Hillary over the head daily with an eye on 2016. The right has been campaigning against Hillary 3 years ago with an eye on this cycle. In some ways you could probably say the campaign against Hillary for 2016 started in 2008, but they were more worried about stopping an Obama 2nd term to just go all out on her. The opposition research on her also has to be as exhaustive as anything ever.
From a political theater perspective I am thrilled that trump continues to hold this lead as time advances and we enter the holiday season where things usually stay stagnant for a couple months barring a major event. He figures to hold his lead into 2016
RE: Jim Webb didn't belong on that stage to begin with
Came off like a total Dino (is that even a thing? I've only heard Rino used before, but the same principle holds) He is the Kasich of the other side, the guy the opposite party likes more than the party whose nomination he seeks. The john huntsman.
Get Lincoln chaffe off that stage too. I wish they had mixed debates because I'm convinced donald trump could make lincoln chaffe cry right there on stage, and it will be great tv
Speaking more generally about the campaign, I'm no Hillary fan (though I will vote for her) but I really think she has hit her stride here in this campaign after that McCarthy mess and her debate performance on top of it. The bottom line is in addition to her personal challenges (baggage, not a great political athlete) her candidacy faced obstacles not often seen for people trying to get a campaign off the ground due to this air of inevitability. It has allowed the other side to incessantly beat the shit out of her for years on a daily basis. Once Obama got re elected, FOX news shifted their focus to crushing Hillary over the head daily with an eye on 2016. The right has been campaigning against Hillary 3 years ago with an eye on this cycle. In some ways you could probably say the campaign against Hillary for 2016 started in 2008, but they were more worried about stopping an Obama 2nd term to just go all out on her. The opposition research on her also has to be as exhaustive as anything ever.
From a political theater perspective I am thrilled that trump continues to hold this lead as time advances and we enter the holiday season where things usually stay stagnant for a couple months barring a major event. He figures to hold his lead into 2016
Jim Webb had a place on that stage a couple decades ago, fighting for the nomination of a party that insists that only the GOP has moved markedly toward its pole.
After seeing this election for a new Speaker play out,
Cruz fancies himself Barry Goldwater, and if that means the GOP loses in '16 but he comes back at the helm of a more conservative party he is fine with that.
Ted Cruz is hated by fellow Republicans in the Senate - He is doomed to be a one term Senator.
He is running merely to burnish his credentials for his post political career of being a professional conservative activist i e a GRIFTER.
because putting his politics aside, he's not a good politician. In a world where a true moderate could win the presidency, Jim Webb would still never be elected president. So he was wasting everyone's time.
And gf2000: Ted Cruz is the most popular Republican in Texas. The seat is his if he still wants it. I believe his play is to pull the Senate GOP to the right, get something like a Freedom Caucus going in the Senate, and be a conservative icon, policy maker, and even king maker ala a late stage Teddy Kennedy (and I dont want to start a fucking debate about Teddy Kennedy's personal life). However I think it is backfiring, as even his one true ally in the Senate, Mike Lee, is moving away from Cruz's game.
is trying to release documents over State's objections, last minute. Also, Cummings is going to town on him. From Cummings' letter today:
Quote:
You made yet another inaccurate statement on Sunday during your appearance on CBSs Face the Nation. Arguing that the Select Committee is not focused on Secretary Clintons emails in order to damage her campaign for president, you stated:
There are other folks who may have equities in her e-mails and there may be other entities who are evaluating her e-mails. But my interest in them is solely making sure that I get everything Im entitled to, so I can do my job. The rest of it, classification, Clinton Foundation, you name it, I have zero interest in, which is why you havent seen me send a subpoena related to it or interview a single person, other than Bryan Pagliano, because I need to know that the record is complete.
Your statement is inaccurate. You issued a subpoena on May 19, 2015, to require Sidney Blumenthal to appear before the Select Committee for a deposition on June 16, 2015. You issued this subpoena unilaterallywithout any debate or vote by Select Committee Membersand you sent two armed Marshals to serve this subpoena on his wife without ever sending him a request to participate in a voluntary interview, which he would have accepted.
You personally attended Mr. Blumenthals deposition, you personally asked Mr. Blumenthal about the Clinton Foundation, and you personally directed your staffon the recordto ask more than 50 questions specifically about the Clinton Foundation. Republicans also asked more than 45 questions about David Brock, Media Matters, and affiliated entities, and they asked more than 160 questions about Mr. Blumenthals relationship and communications with the Clintons.
Is every time I see the guy he has a different haircut. His entire life is just this one long odyssey desperately trying to find a look that works for him. A couple hair styles back he was just straight up looking ridiculous
But two developments have been killers for the optics of the big Hillary Goes To Washington Day at the Committee, which has been circled on their calendar forever. First, the McCarthy (and subsequent) comments flipped the script a bit, putting the alleged partisanship of the committee front and center. Second, Trump is fucking killing the Benghazi narrative right now by getting the GOP and Fox to say lay off GWB for 9/11 just as Hillary is supposed to be skewered for Benghazi. And then you dont have to agree with it, but Gowdy is tripping over his own feet right now, and Cummings is just killing him (Cummings has a huge advantage because partisan bickering doesnt hurt his cause).
we came to the same conclusion that the Republicans are full of shit. They are trying to stiff 10 lbs of prime crap in a 5lb bag. Shits going to flying and spraying those Republicans on Thursday
really reflects that poorly on Marco Rubio or even Jeb Bush? It's like comparing your tax plan to Bernie Sanders. You might win on the merits, but you lose because the comparison is being made.
we came to the same conclusion that the Republicans are full of shit. They are trying to stiff 10 lbs of prime crap in a 5lb bag. Shits going to flying and spraying those Republicans on Thursday
essentially ended George Allen's political career and it allowed the Democrats to take control of the Senate. Considering that and his service to his country, he had every right to be on the stage. However, when you consider his almost non-existent poll numbers, funding, and infrastructure, he also should've been more cognizant that he was lucky to be on that stage in the first place.
Tell me why this committee will be different than the previous 7 that investigated Benghazi. Totally partisan effort to destroy Democrats.
Well for one, they just got 1600 pages of Steven's emails. Printed out, literally just a few hours ago. Don't you think that would have been important for previous committees?
I'm sure those emails will cripple HRC and prove Obama and HRC screwed up, just like Reagan in Lebanon. #benghazi #saintronnie
You can't question why there is another investigation and then ignore that there was evidence that was not presented at the previous investigations. The Administration, the State Department and Clinton have stonewalled all of this from the beginning. And if Hillary is going to talk about her tenure as SoS and say what a fabulous thing they did in Libya, I think we need to know exactly what happened there.
I'm not expecting anything too exciting. Hillary's toadies will find sound bytes to titter about and the morons who idolize Trey Gowdy will find sound bytes to gloat about. I don't see her coming off particularly well for the exchange or for the attention, especially if she looks evasive. The committee brought the email issue to light and so has been important, but it is unlikely to accomplish more than that.
when you run it like a prosecution. It's an old trick, lawyer pull it all the time. We need more witnesses! They're withholding documents! The truth is out there!
Or maybe the story just isnt that difficult to understand, and the 7 previous GOP led committees were not incompetent boobs. Maybe they just didnt treat this like a prosecution, which is why after 7 tries the GOP needed a special do-over that the #2 leader in the house admits is a political attempt to hurt Clinton. Dont give me Gowdy's bullshit numbers (he's been caught lying about the 50 new witnesses issue). Tell me content, because if his extra efforts are just to harass people who had nothing to do with the events at Benghazi, he's wasting time.
And these arent the first Stevens emails given prior comments by Gowdy about Stevens' emails, so dont give me raw #s. What are these emails about? When were they requested (they could very well be follow up requests)? And why is a non-partisan committee re-tweet blasting shit like this on twitter:
Quote:
The Kansas City Star @KCStar Oct 18
U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas: Benghazi worse than Watergate: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article39860598.html#storylink=twt_staff
Why is Gowdy lying on TV about issuing subpoenas? Why is he lying about not caring about non-Benghazi stuff, given the questioning of Blumenthal?
Just tell me why Gowdy is lying when he says "none of the seven previous committees bothered to access the emails of our Ambassador" and that "How on earth could any of the other committees have completed their work properly without access to the senior person on the grounds emails?" and that "Wouldnt you want to know the emails of the guy that was there that was murdered and what he had asked for as far as help from the people he worked for? Weve just now gotten those emails. We have just now gotten them. Nobody else had requested them. I havent had a chance to read them. We didnt get them until the day before yesterday."
Because the representation that none of the other committees looked at Stevens' emails is a bald-face lie.
Productions to the Benghazi committee included docs produced to the other committees, including:
- an August 19, 2011, email exchange between Special Envoy Stevens and the Deputy Director of the Office of Maghreb Affairs about the logistics of providing security for a temporary duty officer to be assigned to eastern Libya (C05392462);
- a September 6, 2011, email from Special Envoy Stevens explaining why he felt it was important to maintain a U.S. presence in Benghazi (C05389447);
- a June 12, 2012, email exchange between Ambassador Stevens and the Director of the Office of Maghreb Affairs about the security situation in Benghazi (C05409960);
- a June 13, 2012, email exchange between Ambassador Stevens and State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland about the Departments public statements in light of recent violence in Libya (C05391866);
- an August 30, 2012, email exchange between Ambassador Stevens and the Principal Officer in Benghazi discussing a press report about the security situation in Benghazi (C05397290); and
- a September 8, 2012, email exchange between Ambassador Stevens and the Political Officer in Tripoli discussing a schedule for Ambassador Stevens upcoming travel to Benghazi (C05395356).
but Gowdy's only comeback to McCarthy telling Hannity -- that the committee is a political accomplishment of this congress because it hurt Hillary -- was that no one off-committee know anything about the committee's work and should STFU.
Why is there a Benghazi committee given the 7 prior Republican led committees? What was the deficiency with them, beyond the fact that they didnt destroy Hillary? How were 7 committees, some run by serious people, so incompetent, in the GOP-universe, that they missed a Watergate level scandal? What is it about Benghazi other than Hillary that is causing it to be investigated like it was 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.
And why was this super duper important committee put in the hands of a 3rd year Congressman, who is an ex-state prosecutor? Did Gowdy have any previous security/intel type experience, or was he just valued for being a prosecutor? Why did the GOP staff this committee with 3 second-termers and 1 first-termer (out of seven overall)?
but Gowdy's only comeback to McCarthy telling Hannity -- that the committee is a political accomplishment of this congress because it hurt Hillary -- was that no one off-committee know anything about the committee's work and should STFU.
Why is there a Benghazi committee given the 7 prior Republican led committees? What was the deficiency with them, beyond the fact that they didnt destroy Hillary? How were 7 committees, some run by serious people, so incompetent, in the GOP-universe, that they missed a Watergate level scandal? What is it about Benghazi other than Hillary that is causing it to be investigated like it was 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.
And why was this super duper important committee put in the hands of a 3rd year Congressman, who is an ex-state prosecutor? Did Gowdy have any previous security/intel type experience, or was he just valued for being a prosecutor? Why did the GOP staff this committee with 3 second-termers and 1 first-termer (out of seven overall)?
Why did the administration say that an obscure anti-muslim film caused the "riot?" Why and what were they hiding? You don't think lying to the world was nothing but CYA 2 months before the election? Purposely sending Susan Rice out, for what 4 weeks, pushing this lie when they knew this was a planned attack isn't a problem?
Why did Hillary apparently ask for an open committee when offered a behind the door hearing? (could be a smart move by her if the committee looks to be bullying her).
I think you are correct about him being a prosecutor as the reason he's on that committee as chair. Have no idea why the newbies.
Also somebody here told me said Stevens asked for only 5 extra security and it was 12. VP Biden said the House only approved $2.37 bill as opposed to $2.6 bill requested for State's budget and that was why they didn't get the extra people.
Deej, I'm not denying it is a political move to weaken Hillary, as well as finding just exactly who knew what, where and when. But she's running on how well she did as Sec State. When you lie about Benghazi and hide the use of a personal server, you don't think that is a character flaw for potentially most powerful person on earth? CNN fact check - ( New Window )
because there were 20+ separate points of intel suggesting that (and to this day, the best explanation is that it was both). That is what the Intel Committee found. Do you disagree? Is it so hard to believe that things were confusing during a mobbed attack?
Why did Hillary ask for an open hearing? Because the Benghazi committee leaks like a sieve, and only Gowdy has the power to release depo transcripts. He's sitting on the Blumenthal transcript even though the Dems are asking for its release.
The security allotment and requests were the subject of the other committee investigations. I dont agree that she lied about Benghazi or hid the existence of her personal server (how does that work? Did they ask and she said "no, my emails are at @state.gov?").
Look, I have no problem with investigating Benghazi. But it was the subject of 7 investigations. There is no justification for the 8th. And when it is being run in such a comically partisan manner that even the GOPers are admitting to its goals, it is time to shut it down. Trying to blame Hillary for the death of these 4 people when the first 7 committees refute such misconduct is tilting at windmills and abusing the machinery of government. It's yet another distraction from a ridiculous party that has a carnival barker leading its presidential polls and is so ungovernable that they're begging a guy to be Speaker. The #2 most powerful position in government, and they have to beg a man to do it.
Look, 4 people died. I have no problem with an investigation. My problem is that after 7 investigations were complete but didnt bury the Dem presidential nominee, it was decided that we needed an 8th. Show me how this is consistent with the investigations under Bush and Reagan. In a SERIES of attacks over months in Beirut, 300 people were killed. Did the Dems turn it into years of successive committees politically designed to hurt Reagan or Bush? No, they investigated for 2 months and issued a report. Reagan's Assistant SecDef wrote: "The Democratically controlled House, rather than getting involved in playing gotcha or the blame game, urged the President to withdraw from Lebanon, which he did by February 1984, and began to work with the Republican controlled-Senate on a bill to make sure such a tragedy would not occur ever again." If the GOP was not behaving like fucking animals, with idiots proclaiming that it is worse than Watergate and that it will be Hillary's Waterloo, I wouldnt have such a problem with them. But they wont take their job seriously, so I wont take them seriously.
There is also a ridiculous echo chamber on the right. Quite simply the rank and file is being suckered by a false narrative by the GOP and the right wing media. So many persistently false allegations. I can list dozens of false charges. Hillary called off an military rescue. US arms shipments from Libya to Turkey. Issa saying HRC personally signed cables about security when as a matter of form every one of the 1000s of cables from State-DC is signed by her. No ownership of Congress giving State $270 less million for security than State asked for, as if that is irrelevant. Just a fucking GOP clown show.
told DC within in very short period (hours) that it was a terrorist attack and not a spontaneous uprising. So again, the commanding general reported to the the Pentagon(who reported to the President) that it was an attack. Of course it was confusing at the start, but the military figured it out before it was over.
Why 8 hearings? Maybe because something hidden comes to light every time after each hearing. Sorry I admit that I thought it was less than 7 previous. Seems a bit unorganized for something like this, but doesn't mean it is not warranted if previous testimony was distorted.
She was instructed not to have a private server. Hell, they took the President's Blackberry away from him and did something so he only had 5 contacts in it. I think it was a directive from the President that no private servers or electronic comms were to be used. So if she ignored the directive, she was in effect lying about it.
Sorry about the late response, the wifey came home from work.
I don't take your despair/disgust about this lightly as you truly believe it as frivolous witch hunt, but I also think the attitude of the administration was disdainful of the public with the sole purpose of hiding a perceived ineptness of the administration 2 months before the election.
but what they thought is a total fucking distraction. What is the relevance of it? If you listen to the right wing it was because there was some massive electoral fraud being perpetrated. The crazy shit that is mainstream on the right re Benghazi is the shit that is dismissed as trutherism with respect to 9/11.
This is what the Intel Committee found: "Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assess,ents and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support the CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on Sepember 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012."
There you go. No conspiracy. Just contradictory intelligence. The collective explosion on the right is not justified. It is a disgusting political temper tantrum by a broken, unserious Congressional caucus.
Also, it's not 7 hearings. It's 7 investigations. There have already been 7 different committees that have issued a report on Benghazi. As former Rep. Dingell explained today:
Quote:
Chairman Gowdy claims there are unanswered questions about what happened in Benghazi. But there have already been seven previous congressional investigations into the attacks. More congressional reports have been written about Benghazi than the combined total of all the congressional reports on the 9-11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 224, the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168, the U.S.S. Cole bombing that killed 17 sailors, and the Boston Marathon bombing that killed three and injured 260.
So I ask again. Why 8 Benghazi investigation? Other than the fact that the GOP is a joke of a party that is not serious about governing?
People with "questions" about Benghazi should read them. I dont know why the Republicans pretend like they dont exist, and then continue to say "but there are unanswered questions". Well, I do know. They dont like the answers. Instead they say that they prior reports are crap or a sham, and insist that a new committee does a new report that will come up with a different answer. It's absurd and disgusting.
But par for the course from a right wing that literally rejects reality because it doesnt jive with their dogma, be it scientific consensus over climate change, the lack of in-person voter fraud, the fact that tax cuts do not increase revenue, or that fact that Benghazi is neither a huge scandal nor a conspiracy. The right needs to take 10 steps back from Hannity, Rush, and Beck, and tell its Congressmen to grow the fuck up.
And lower ratings.
Go figure.
It seems that Sanders and Clinton at least have agreed on staying substantive. I guess some would see that as disappointing as banning fighting in hockey.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
I'm a Hillary supporter, but I do wish that this was more of a contest. I think the competition is a good thing. Im not all that convinced that she's good at electoral politics.
Quote:
you are pretty darned partisan on here, I must say.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
Agreed. The fact that you are wrong has nothing to do with the fact that you are partisan.
No controversy, softball questions.
JB needs to toss his hat in so it goes from a sublime to a ridiculous debate.
Then, to quote JB: it'll be 'a big f*n deal'.
TPP is bad.
Need gun control.
Benghazi didn't happen.
All emails were turned over, I think, maybe, oops they found more, a back up to the server is where?
GOP has a war on women's health.
Does that cover it?
Quote:
you are pretty darned partisan on here, I must say.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
The folks at CNN only really hit trump hard, which you can make a pretty good case for--he's said some mouthy and irreverent things pretty often, so he SHOULD be questioned about them.
If anything marks her past, it is an intentional avoidance of substance.
TPP is bad.
Need gun control.
Benghazi didn't happen.
All emails were turned over, I think, maybe, oops they found more, a back up to the server is where?
GOP has a war on women's health.
Does that cover it?
Especially she'll harp on that silly notion on Benghazi being a Republican plot to get her. LOL.
Ooops...
Quote:
In comment 12547214 Randy in CT said:
Quote:
you are pretty darned partisan on here, I must say.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
I could be wrong, but it seems when you post political, there is very little nuance--you side right. Always. Which is fine. But then here we can't even start a discussion about this (probably crappy) debate without your heading down the liberal media bias path.
The folks at CNN only really hit trump hard, which you can make a pretty good case for--he's said some mouthy and irreverent things pretty often, so he SHOULD be questioned about them.
I'm not lock step with the right. There is a media bias. To deny it is lunacy. The side it is on depends on who you're watching.
And she has done nothing, ever. Her years as a senator and SOS were empty calories. Nothing happened.
And she did Benghazi. And Vince Foster fathered her baby so Hillary has him murdered. Travelgate.
Tell us, which of the Republicans in the last debate denied the existence of climate change.
Quote:
In comment 12547226 Peter in Atl said:
Quote:
In comment 12547214 Randy in CT said:
Quote:
you are pretty darned partisan on here, I must say.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
I could be wrong, but it seems when you post political, there is very little nuance--you side right. Always. Which is fine. But then here we can't even start a discussion about this (probably crappy) debate without your heading down the liberal media bias path.
The folks at CNN only really hit trump hard, which you can make a pretty good case for--he's said some mouthy and irreverent things pretty often, so he SHOULD be questioned about them.
I'm not lock step with the right. There is a media bias. To deny it is lunacy. The side it is on depends on who you're watching.
If she was effective, it shouldn't be that hard to do. Hell, Obama wasn't even in positions all that long and people could at least tell you what he did prior to taking office.
Jeb Bush might not be liked, but he has specific accomplishments.
And she has done nothing, ever. Her years as a senator and SOS were empty calories. Nothing happened.
And she did Benghazi. And Vince Foster fathered her baby so Hillary has him murdered. Travelgate.
Everything you just posted is from the Left Wing echo chamber. She didn't "do Benghazi". that's a smoke screen.
True or false: She and her department most certainly told the American people that the attack was started as a protest to a video? When was the last time Foster or Travelgate was brought up?
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12547237 Randy in CT said:
Quote:
In comment 12547226 Peter in Atl said:
Quote:
In comment 12547214 Randy in CT said:
Quote:
you are pretty darned partisan on here, I must say.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
I could be wrong, but it seems when you post political, there is very little nuance--you side right. Always. Which is fine. But then here we can't even start a discussion about this (probably crappy) debate without your heading down the liberal media bias path.
The folks at CNN only really hit trump hard, which you can make a pretty good case for--he's said some mouthy and irreverent things pretty often, so he SHOULD be questioned about them.
I'm not lock step with the right. There is a media bias. To deny it is lunacy. The side it is on depends on who you're watching.
A slight media bias which might reflect more people in the business perhaps coming from the left in their own politics, is different than saying that "tonight's gonna be one of those night where the evil media tries to make the LEFT look good!!"
Quote:
In comment 12547237 Randy in CT said:
Quote:
In comment 12547226 Peter in Atl said:
Quote:
In comment 12547214 Randy in CT said:
Quote:
you are pretty darned partisan on here, I must say.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
I could be wrong, but it seems when you post political, there is very little nuance--you side right. Always. Which is fine. But then here we can't even start a discussion about this (probably crappy) debate without your heading down the liberal media bias path.
The folks at CNN only really hit trump hard, which you can make a pretty good case for--he's said some mouthy and irreverent things pretty often, so he SHOULD be questioned about them.
I'm not lock step with the right. There is a media bias. To deny it is lunacy. The side it is on depends on who you're watching.
A slight media bias which might reflect more people in the business perhaps coming from the left in their own politics, is different than saying that "tonight's gonna be one of those night where the evil media tries to make the LEFT look good!!"
Since CNN is on the left leaning side of the media, do you expect them to ask HRC about the other 28,000 emails that weren't returned because they were personal. She kept telling Chuch Todd of NBC she was vindicated because 1500 were deemed to be personal.
If she was effective, it shouldn't be that hard to do. Hell, Obama wasn't even in positions all that long and people could at least tell you what he did prior to taking office.
Jeb Bush might not be liked, but he has specific accomplishments.
Yeah, his accomplishments include crazy tax cuts for the rich.... Because they will "trickle it down" to the poor right? Please. Jeb might be a bigger joke than his brother was. We don't need another Bush. We don't need another war. We don't need any of the Republican candidates.
More money for the rich at the expense of the poor - ( New Window )
I'm squarely in Bernie's corner myself.
If she was effective, it shouldn't be that hard to do. Hell, Obama wasn't even in positions all that long and people could at least tell you what he did prior to taking office.
Jeb Bush might not be liked, but he has specific accomplishments.
I'd say her biggest accomplishment as Sec of State was getting Russia and China to agree to the harshest sanctions on Iran to date.
Whatever you think of the deal they struck, the only reason there was a deal at all was because Iran came crawling to the table to get the sanctions lifted.
A pretty big deal, IMO.
Quote:
she isnt just dishonest. rather she has never and cannot tell the truth.
And she has done nothing, ever. Her years as a senator and SOS were empty calories. Nothing happened.
And she did Benghazi. And Vince Foster fathered her baby so Hillary has him murdered. Travelgate.
Everything you just posted is from the Left Wing echo chamber. She didn't "do Benghazi". that's a smoke screen.
True or false: She and her department most certainly told the American people that the attack was started as a protest to a video? When was the last time Foster or Travelgate was brought up?
So is that the only criticism of HRC on Benghazi? What state said about it after the fact? I just want to be clear here.
I dont remember if HRC herself said that the protests led to the attack, but it doesnt matter. That is what 21 intelligence reports indicated.
But Rices comments were based on faulty intelligence from multiple agencies, according to the report. Analysts received 21 reports that a protest occurred in Benghazi, the report said 14 from the Open Source Center, which reviews news reports; one from the CIA; two from the Defense Department; and four from the National Security Agency.
In the years since, some participants in the attack have said they were motivated by the video. The attackers were a mix of extremists and hangers on, the investigation found.
That is from an writeup of the GOP-led House Intel Committee Report. Whether they were right or wrong, that was the intelligence.
So let me ask you -- if HRC/State said it, why does that make HRC any more or less unfit to be president? Merely because it was (arguably) wrong?
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
and effectively says he would do nothing about climate change because it would hurt the economy.
Doing nothing about it or making different choices is not exactly the same thing as disbelieving.
Yes. But denying the human link IS disbelieving. You skipped the first half of my post.
Quote:
In comment 12547251 Deej said:
Quote:
she isnt just dishonest. rather she has never and cannot tell the truth.
And she has done nothing, ever. Her years as a senator and SOS were empty calories. Nothing happened.
And she did Benghazi. And Vince Foster fathered her baby so Hillary has him murdered. Travelgate.
Everything you just posted is from the Left Wing echo chamber. She didn't "do Benghazi". that's a smoke screen.
True or false: She and her department most certainly told the American people that the attack was started as a protest to a video? When was the last time Foster or Travelgate was brought up?
So is that the only criticism of HRC on Benghazi? What state said about it after the fact? I just want to be clear here.
I dont remember if HRC herself said that the protests led to the attack, but it doesnt matter. That is what 21 intelligence reports indicated.
Quote:
Some of the harshest charges have been leveled at Rice, now Obamas national security adviser, who represented the Obama administration on Sunday talk shows the weekend after the attack. Rice repeated talking points that wrongly described a protest over a video deemed offensive to Muslims.
But Rices comments were based on faulty intelligence from multiple agencies, according to the report. Analysts received 21 reports that a protest occurred in Benghazi, the report said 14 from the Open Source Center, which reviews news reports; one from the CIA; two from the Defense Department; and four from the National Security Agency.
In the years since, some participants in the attack have said they were motivated by the video. The attackers were a mix of extremists and hangers on, the investigation found.
That is from an writeup of the GOP-led House Intel Committee Report. Whether they were right or wrong, that was the intelligence.
So let me ask you -- if HRC/State said it, why does that make HRC any more or less unfit to be president? Merely because it was (arguably) wrong? Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12547271 Deej said:
Quote:
and effectively says he would do nothing about climate change because it would hurt the economy.
Doing nothing about it or making different choices is not exactly the same thing as disbelieving.
Yes. But denying the human link IS disbelieving. You skipped the first half of my post.
Back 2 back Obama - ( New Window )
I've addressed the bullshit argument about lack of accomplishment in the past.
Tell me, what has Rubio accomplished? Since he is the "smart" pick to be the eventual winner.
Link - ( New Window )
Yes. Many people do separate climate change from man-made climate change. And the people who do so are charlatans who are denying science. The vastly overwhelming consensus of scientists is not merely that there is climate change, but that it is in part caused by human activity. So Rubio denying that is Rubio denying the whole ballgame.
Quote:
that a person who has held office for several years without a substantive contribution or even an accomplishment to point to should hardly have them described as qualified for POTUS.
I've addressed the bullshit argument about lack of accomplishment in the past.
Tell me, what has Rubio accomplished? Since he is the "smart" pick to be the eventual winner. Link - ( New Window )
Rubio is a steaming turd. There is nothing "smart" about that pick at all. Now with the Tea Party running the Republican party currently we can pretty much agree that some "not so smart" decisions were made by Republican "leaders". LOL
The e-mails are a much bigger problem, imo. The Republicans probably did Hillary a favor by linking them to Benghazi for no good reason.
In other news, the House can't find a speaker, and aside from the fact that he doesn't want the job, Ryan is now being attacked by the Freedom Caucus as being too liberal.
I expect the disfunctionality of the House to come up a number of times tonight.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
I've seen many people separate climate change from man-made climate change. Also, why include the second part of the post if it had nothing to do with your point?
Yes. Many people do separate climate change from man-made climate change. And the people who do so are charlatans who are denying science. The vastly overwhelming consensus of scientists is not merely that there is climate change, but that it is in part caused by human activity. So Rubio denying that is Rubio denying the whole ballgame.
Before the 2nd debate means that you're discussing a critique of the Fox News debate. So you're saying that if CNN does not ask the sort of questions Fox asked then it shows CNN has an agenda? Why does Fox get to dictate the question style for all subsequent debates?
However, even with fewer candidates, I still think the debates will lack substance. I'm not going to watch.
Why would you waste her time with this kind of pernicious nonsense?
Quote:
Before the 2nd republican debate I read news stories on how the questions were designed to start verbal fights between the candidates. That doesn't cast a good light on the candidates. If the democrats don't get the same kind of questions (and therefore probably give the appearance of looking more statesmen-like) then I think it shows the moderators have an agenda. If, however, they ask the same kinds of questions then this debate will have some kick to it.
I thin kit's highly unlikely that you will see that. Not necessarily because of media bias, although previous Dem debates had some lovefests from the panel, but largely because of the candidates' personalities. All of them, including Sanders, have steadfastly refrained from being harsh on their competitors. That may be to their credit or, it may be in recognition that all but one are fighting losing causes and they know that and they don't want to damage the front-runner since eventually they need to win the presidency. The republicans have real contests, so damaging each other is part of the need to win the nomination. It's unlikely that they will shift from that perspective even in a debate format.
I 100% agree with this. I could see the prickly Webb changing things up if he ever got momentum (he wont).
Bernie Sanders's socialism is more bark than bite. It's a silly label at this point. Moreover there is very good social science showing that the Republican party has indeed drifted rightwards, agnostic about whether that is a good or bad thing.
Quote:
It will be her first taste of electoral politics. She expressed an interest and I want to encourage that.
Why would you waste her time with this kind of pernicious nonsense?
Dont listen to Greg. He thinks its acceptable to just hold your hors d'oeuvres plate in the other hand.
There is also a study that says that the Democratic Party has moved further left than the GOP has to the right:
Link - ( New Window )
That isn't going to change and is the reason why Biden is going to stay on the sideline unless an unforeseen (or inevitable depending on your vantage point/party affiliation) Clinton disaster occurs. The DNC is more than content running Clinton and Biden is not going to jump in, split the base and complicate things. He's also been a lousy presidential candidate historically and looking to put a capstone on his political career. A failed bid at the presidency is not that.
Sanders is the latest entry in the progressive wing of the Democrat's summer fling, but the leaves are turning and things are turning "real". He'll make some noise and may grab New Hampshire - then follow Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, etc. out the door when the voting base in states are not predominantly white and very liberal.
The people who can make noise tonight are O'Malley and Webb. Chafee may bring some attention to the metric system, but he will likely be the first to drop and really offers nothing else of value.
O'Malley is not going to win, but he's the actual mainstream alternative to Clinton in the current field. If Clinton was really in any kind of danger, his polling would be significantly better. I think he can benefit the most from getting attention on a stage and have the ability to spin his story, but he's too far behind to even be relevant.
Webb is a Dem that will play well with the moderate base, but the Democratic party in current state is not positioned as such currently. He'll play well in the Appalachian Belt the way Sanders is playing well in New England, but has no chance anywhere else.
Honestly, this should be a low-viewership snooze fest. Clinton will likely play it overly safe and do her best to position herself as affable/likable to the overall base, taking on some more liberal talking points to meet the Sanders base halfway and ensure the Democratic voters will turn out when she inevitably wins.
I honestly think the debates will hurt Sanders, as he (and his appearance/presentation) is not going to play well in this medium. Shallow, but that's how these things work.
Quote:
to the right are often big fans of Bernie the fucking socialist. Curious.....
Bernie Sanders's socialism is more bark than bite. It's a silly label at this point. Moreover there is very good social science showing that the Republican party has indeed drifted rightwards, agnostic about whether that is a good or bad thing.
Check out the article (not op ed) in today's WSJ. Yes, the Republicans have drifted to the right. But at the same time the Democrats have drifted to the left. It's NOT a 1 party phenomenon.
The e-mails are a much bigger problem, imo. The Republicans probably did Hillary a favor by linking them to Benghazi for no good reason.
In other news, the House can't find a speaker, and aside from the fact that he doesn't want the job, Ryan is now being attacked by the Freedom Caucus as being too liberal.
I expect the disfunctionality of the House to come up a number of times tonight. Link - ( New Window )
Second, related to Democratic help, a lot of more moderate Republicans come from districts where all of the pressure for change comes from their right flank. See: Eric Cantor. So, many moderates are fearful of taking stances in Congress which actually match up with their governing philosophy, if it puts them at risk of being primaried from the right.
So, the issue isn't so much how many Republican voters have moved rightward, its whether the governing center of gravity in the House has moved rightward. And if this bunch thinks that Ryan is too liberal, than they are off the reservation on the right side relative to actual voters. Ryan wants to turn Medicaid into declining block grants and Medicare into vouchers, while gutting AFDC and other food programs. Not conservative enough for you? He isn't for the Freedom Caucus.
Republican Debate Bad Lip Reading - ( New Window )
Quote:
tonight don't need softball questions. This isn't a Republican debate filled with people who don't believe in global warming but do believe any heavily edited video they watch. This debate is about the only 2 candidates (currently) who are actually qualified to be the next POTUS.
Tell us, which of the Republicans in the last debate denied the existence of climate change.
Here ju go!
Global warming stance of all candidates - ( New Window )
Both Fox and CNN didn't pull any punches with respect to the front runner (Duracell). And they asked some pretty demanding questions of the others. Let's see if that also holds true here. Hillary and the "gold standard" TPP is the most obvious.
While it shouldn't be a love fest between the moderators and the candidates, it's up to the candidates to determine how they treat each other. I expect kid gloves in their interactions. If anyone will violate the code it will be O'Malley.
sorry if these render large.
Link - ( New Window )
It's that the Republicans are using their scripts now, in a variety of forms, while the Democrats have a number of powerful scripts that they have yet to use aggressively--not the least of which, of course relate to the Freedom Caucus and to responses to the Benghazi crap.
You are right. Watching Trump, Carson and the other wackiest Republican candidates is much more fun than watching Hillary and Bernie. The point is that these scripts will come back, and back and back, when the time comes.
HAHAHAHA, Rush Limbaugh? Is that you?
That isn't going to change and is the reason why Biden is going to stay on the sideline unless an unforeseen (or inevitable depending on your vantage point/party affiliation) Clinton disaster occurs. The DNC is more than content running Clinton and Biden is not going to jump in, split the base and complicate things. He's also been a lousy presidential candidate historically and looking to put a capstone on his political career. A failed bid at the presidency is not that.
Sanders is the latest entry in the progressive wing of the Democrat's summer fling, but the leaves are turning and things are turning "real". He'll make some noise and may grab New Hampshire - then follow Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, etc. out the door when the voting base in states are not predominantly white and very liberal.
The people who can make noise tonight are O'Malley and Webb. Chafee may bring some attention to the metric system, but he will likely be the first to drop and really offers nothing else of value.
O'Malley is not going to win, but he's the actual mainstream alternative to Clinton in the current field. If Clinton was really in any kind of danger, his polling would be significantly better. I think he can benefit the most from getting attention on a stage and have the ability to spin his story, but he's too far behind to even be relevant.
Webb is a Dem that will play well with the moderate base, but the Democratic party in current state is not positioned as such currently. He'll play well in the Appalachian Belt the way Sanders is playing well in New England, but has no chance anywhere else.
Honestly, this should be a low-viewership snooze fest. Clinton will likely play it overly safe and do her best to position herself as affable/likable to the overall base, taking on some more liberal talking points to meet the Sanders base halfway and ensure the Democratic voters will turn out when she inevitably wins.
I honestly think the debates will hurt Sanders, as he (and his appearance/presentation) is not going to play well in this medium. Shallow, but that's how these things work.
The e-mails are a much bigger problem, imo. The Republicans probably did Hillary a favor by linking them to Benghazi for no good reason.
In other news, the House can't find a speaker, and aside from the fact that he doesn't want the job, Ryan is now being attacked by the Freedom Caucus as being too liberal.
I expect the disfunctionality of the House to come up a number of times tonight. Link - ( New Window )
The email scandal came to light in large part because of Benghazi. I'm not terribly concerned about the embassy attacks. A tragedy and a crime, to be sure, but it could have happened on anyone's watch. Blaming a video was shameful. Sid Blumenthal's involvement in that was sheisty as fuck. But it doesn't take clairvoyance to figure out what they were trying to keep a lid on and why it isn't and shouldn't be a partisan issue. But the email controversy implicates a shitload of ancillary issues that should matter.
Trump is going to be live tweeting the debate. That should be great.
Uh oh Ash, you used the word "scientist", you know the righties don't believe in science. To them that's just crap that the liberal media makes up.
Quote:
Deej - that's the major index most political scientists use.
Uh oh Ash, you used the word "scientist", you know the righties don't believe in science. To them that's just crap that the liberal media makes up.
You are one of the worst political posters on BBI. You provide nothing more than insipid talking points.
The corresponding realignment loss of north east Republican seats does not come close to explaining the hard right turn of house republicans, though it obviously plays some contributing role.
Quote:
Deej - that's the major index most political scientists use.
Uh oh Ash, you used the word "scientist", you know the righties don't believe in science. To them that's just crap that the liberal media makes up.
I'm deeply skeptical of the idea of social science nor do I think most of the people I'm speaking to here are science skeptics. I'm not interested in joining this sort of argument (or any argument to be honest). I only think the idea of taking Bernie Sanders's supposed socialism seriously is silly given his actual positions and the general complexity of the socialist tradition.
All of that is largely academic, since he'll be tarred with the label for better or worse.
Because the label will come with silly implications that don't match his actual policies. There will be no abolition of private property, no governmental control of the means of production, etc. It's just a stupid debate.
NOT moderate. I assume you understood that and your post is a typo.
Not sure if your question is real or snarky. If it is real, go look up Poole & Rosenthal's DW NOMINATE scoring.
Quote:
I'm very curious as to how that is determined.
NOT moderate. I assume you understood that and your post is a typo.
Not sure if your question is real or snarky. If it is real, go look up Poole & Rosenthal's DW NOMINATE scoring.
He in fact does not understand it. He clearly has no clue what the difference between Communism and Democratic Socialism is either. He just knows that Faux News says it's the same thing and bad for the country.
It's that the Republicans are using their scripts now, in a variety of forms, while the Democrats have a number of powerful scripts that they have yet to use aggressively--not the least of which, of course relate to the Freedom Caucus and to responses to the Benghazi crap.
You are right. Watching Trump, Carson and the other wackiest Republican candidates is much more fun than watching Hillary and Bernie. The point is that these scripts will come back, and back and back, when the time comes.
It would make more sense to run as "Bill's third term" but Hilary doesn't want to do that.
The 1956 Republican platform listed these seven tenets:
1. Provide federal assistance to low-income communities;
2. Protect Social Security;
3. Provide asylum for refugees;
4. Extend minimum wage;
5. Improve unemployment benefit system so it covers more people;
6. Strengthen labor laws so workers can more easily join a union;
7. Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.
George HW Bush famously raised taxes.
Ronald Reagan gave illegal immigrants amnesty and bailed out social security.
I think it's fair to say the Republican party has moved substantially to the right in the last 10-15 years.
It matters insofar as the word carries the residue of a concept to which it no longer refers.
The 1956 Republican platform listed these seven tenets:
1. Provide federal assistance to low-income communities;
2. Protect Social Security;
3. Provide asylum for refugees;
4. Extend minimum wage;
5. Improve unemployment benefit system so it covers more people;
6. Strengthen labor laws so workers can more easily join a union;
7. Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.
George HW Bush famously raised taxes.
Ronald Reagan gave illegal immigrants amnesty and bailed out social security.
I think it's fair to say the Republican party has moved substantially to the right in the last 10-15 years.
Are you seriously suggesting that you couldn't do this exact same thing with John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton or even Jimmy Carter?
Also I largely don't care about this presidential election because I think HRC is very likely the next POTUS. The Republican candidates are silly and the Democratic candidate a Clinton. It's mindbogglingly sad. My interest is in the senate elections and to a lesser extent the House elections.
I get anger, I just don't get the moral and practical certainty that can so fervidly and angrily defend policy prescriptions that aren't obviously the best way of addressing income inequality or the plight of the poor. You (the generic you, not the personal you) have to be open to the notion that others, especially those on your side, are well-intentioned and are advancing prescriptions because they genuinely believe they are the best way of helping those who need help. In Vermont, progressives fighting other progressives - the old wagon wheel joke - were clearly fighting over the best way to attack what they perceived to be the same ills.
Everyone concentrates on the 40 or so in the Freedom Caucus, but the voters in all districts are more conservative and are unhappy with the leadership and the direction of the GOP. And there are at least 100 in the House who are more conservative than the direction the establishment wants to go.
As for Ryan, he is a fiscal conservative, but he's pro-immigration. But I don't think he'll sell out to Obama on it before the election. But Rubio will if he gets elected.
Again I think that's a historically naive characterization and that matters. I also feel a Sanders presidency (again not happening) would be push towards moderate-left positions by the rest of the party and other republicans, where as HRC begins as a third way liberal whose instincts are basically center-right.
Quote:
I'll just call him an extreme statist. He most certainly is that.
Again I think that's a historically naive characterization and that matters. I also feel a Sanders presidency (again not happening) would be push towards moderate-left positions by the rest of the party and other republicans, where as HRC begins as a third way liberal whose instincts are basically center-right.
But isn't that simply a brainier version of the guy who thinks everyone without the Glenn Beck seal of approval is a RINO? It's establishing the Center on your terms, in your case based on concepts of left and right that were true for a period of time and aren't necessarily true now.
- ( New Window )
george - in exactly how many of the 13 attacks was the ambassador left to die?
In exactly how many of those 13 embassy attacks did the attackers breach the embassy walls?
In exactly how many of those embassy attacks did the ambassador ask for additional security and was denied?
In exactly how many of those embassy attacks did outside contractors come to the aid of the embassy (without weapons)?
In exactly how many of those embassy attacks did the administration blame a small time video producer for causing the riots.
241 Marines? - in Lebanon 1983, The Reagan Administration?
Why don't you bring up Mogadishu - Blackhawk Down. If you're going back to Reagan, why did you bypass Bill and Les Aspin denying the Army's request for Bradleys and armored vehicles. Now that is a better comparison because there, a request for additional aid was denied, just like Benghazi. But what difference does it make.......
Quote:
is part of his charm given the pretty appalling lack of social mobility and skewed wealth distribution in this country, but I'm just an angry dude who thinks general immiseration is a shitty strategy for political stability.
I get anger, I just don't get the moral and practical certainty that can so fervidly and angrily defend policy prescriptions that aren't obviously the best way of addressing income inequality or the plight of the poor. You (the generic you, not the personal you) have to be open to the notion that others, especially those on your side, are well-intentioned and are advancing prescriptions because they genuinely believe they are the best way of helping those who need help. In Vermont, progressives fighting other progressives - the old wagon wheel joke - were clearly fighting over the best way to attack what they perceived to be the same ills.
A very smart post, especially the bolded part. Here's the thing -- Bernie is trailing in the Dem race, and I think he's hit his absolute high point. He's going to fade from here. Because he is well, well, well to the left of most Dems.
Now can we apply the same question on the GOP side? The only policy prescription we've heard from the right since 2000 is more tax cuts. Tax cuts when times are good, tax cuts when times are bad, tax cuts all the time. And make believe dynamic scoring math that makes the tax cuts look like they're not blowing a hole through the budget. Is there anyone running on the right who isnt advocating for big tax cuts?
Quote:
In comment 12547511 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
I'll just call him an extreme statist. He most certainly is that.
Again I think that's a historically naive characterization and that matters. I also feel a Sanders presidency (again not happening) would be push towards moderate-left positions by the rest of the party and other republicans, where as HRC begins as a third way liberal whose instincts are basically center-right.
But isn't that simply a brainier version of the guy who thinks everyone without the Glenn Beck seal of approval is a RINO? It's establishing the Center on your terms, in your case based on concepts of left and right that were true for a period of time and aren't necessarily true now.
Not necessarily. Whereas the person who indiscriminately throws around RINO is drawing from some ideal conception of a conservative, my and political scientists' spectrum is drawn more from historical precedent, one that goes beyond the last 35 years.
I think that's fair.
Well I think the big government/small government divide is a little silly, since Reagan was hardly a small spender. The better question is where government does its spending as a way of capturing the right/left spectrum.
Certainly. It's therefore disconcerting to see that same brand of ethnic or implicitly ethnic populism being used to good effect by Carson and Trump. Romney was more palatable than most of the candidates this year.
I love how every republican starts off with "i'm not a scientist" HAHAHAHA!! No shit, we couldn't tell.
Now back to telling us about the global warming hoax.
1. An ambassador was not left to die. That's a slur. The House Intel committee refuted that notion. And is an ambassador's life that much more valuable? Nothing else matters?
2. Benghazi did not involve an embassy. It was a temporary mission. Thus by its nature it wasnt as secure as a permanent embassy.
3. Stevens did ask for 5 total security agents for the Benghazi mission. There were 5 there at the time of the attack. There were not always 5 there, but there were during the attack. Moreover, State has said that no reasonable security presence could have fended off the attack. You get a big enough armed mob and it really doesnt matter whether there are 3 or 5 or 10 people attacking a semi-secure structure. So what is your point?
I've already addressed the video above.
But we get the point. Bad things only happen because Hillary and Obama is bad and made them happen. I think the outrage here is that Congress hasnt even looked into Benghazi! What are they waiting for?
Well as a dyed in the wool libertarian, that it what overwhelmingly matters to YOU. But that is not the only measure of what is conservative.
I guess you are proposing that the entire scientific population is Democrats? Are they all atheists too?
Jesus - at least your stupidity goes further than football posts.
I dont know a lot about Bunga-Bunga other than the scandal, but a lot of people throw him around as an apt comparison to Trump.
Quote:
In comment 12547495 Ash_3 said:
Quote:
is part of his charm given the pretty appalling lack of social mobility and skewed wealth distribution in this country, but I'm just an angry dude who thinks general immiseration is a shitty strategy for political stability.
I get anger, I just don't get the moral and practical certainty that can so fervidly and angrily defend policy prescriptions that aren't obviously the best way of addressing income inequality or the plight of the poor. You (the generic you, not the personal you) have to be open to the notion that others, especially those on your side, are well-intentioned and are advancing prescriptions because they genuinely believe they are the best way of helping those who need help. In Vermont, progressives fighting other progressives - the old wagon wheel joke - were clearly fighting over the best way to attack what they perceived to be the same ills.
A very smart post, especially the bolded part. Here's the thing -- Bernie is trailing in the Dem race, and I think he's hit his absolute high point. He's going to fade from here. Because he is well, well, well to the left of most Dems.
Now can we apply the same question on the GOP side? The only policy prescription we've heard from the right since 2000 is more tax cuts. Tax cuts when times are good, tax cuts when times are bad, tax cuts all the time. And make believe dynamic scoring math that makes the tax cuts look like they're not blowing a hole through the budget. Is there anyone running on the right who isnt advocating for big tax cuts?
There are plenty of avowedly ideological, virtually humorless Republicans. In the field I'd say Cruz is probably the closest to that, perhaps a good bit of why he is utterly despised by most of his Senate colleagues, but that is as much an issue of ambition as it is purity.
Maybe because she cannot give a straight answer on anything?
Maybe because after 8 years as Senator and 4 years as Sec State she does not have a defined policy on anything? She cannot give a straight answer or say what she if for. At least Donald Trump swears he will build a wall on the Mexican border (not agreeing with that - just that he has said something definite as far as a policy.)
Look, you can crap on the Republicans all day long and they deserve it. But HRC is as bad as any of those, and maybe worse than some. There is NOTHING she brings to the table that will help this country, NOTHING.
She just wants to be president to be the 1st woman.
Quote:
I don't have the ability to read a lot of literature on this. I can't quantify this statement, but given the expansion of government going back to the Bush administration, I don't see how anything that's happened in at least the past 15 years or so reflects any real shift towards conservatism.
Well as a dyed in the wool libertarian, that it what overwhelmingly matters to YOU. But that is not the only measure of what is conservative.
Greg is a libertarian and I am not, but it's certainly a tension for a lot of people who consider themselves to be conservatives. Yes law and order, yes strong defense, but at what point have you surrendered too much liberty or encouraged too large a government to effect those? The simple and unfortunate answer is who gives a fuck, I'm not the one who is going to get cavity searched at the airport or get pulled over because my tag light is dim, but for the people who actually think about such things and/or aren't assholes that's not acceptable.
Your earlier post is essentially the Matt Yglesias take on it, the notion that she would be effective precisely because she is willing to ignore or at least play fast and loose with the rules and is unlikely to be bound by mere formalities. How that is distinguished from the whole "trains run on time" bit is perhaps too nuanced for me, other than that she would flout that authority in the service of a perceived good.
Link - ( New Window )
1. An ambassador was not left to die. That's a slur. The House Intel committee refuted that notion. And is an ambassador's life that much more valuable? Nothing else matters?
2. Benghazi did not involve an embassy. It was a temporary mission. Thus by its nature it wasnt as secure as a permanent embassy.
3. Stevens did ask for 5 total security agents for the Benghazi mission. There were 5 there at the time of the attack. There were not always 5 there, but there were during the attack. Moreover, State has said that no reasonable security presence could have fended off the attack. You get a big enough armed mob and it really doesnt matter whether there are 3 or 5 or 10 people attacking a semi-secure structure. So what is your point?
I've already addressed the video above.
But we get the point. Bad things only happen because Hillary and Obama is bad and made them happen. I think the outrage here is that Congress hasnt even looked into Benghazi! What are they waiting for?
I'm a hack - just the pot calling the kettle..... Great, Anybody with an opposing view is a hack.
You are right it was a "mission" and I should have said that and was going to put that in but did not and neither did manhgeorge, but no he asked for additional security which was turned down.
And a Marine Fast team would have fended off that attack. Woods and Dougherty killed between 80 and 100 attackers by themselves and they arrived at the place unarmed.
The interesting thing about Hillary is that there are actually a bunch of quotes from Republicans who served with her in the Senate and worked with her in her capacity at State to the effect that she is very good to work with. I dont expect some grand new era of bipartisanship if she is elected, but I am pretty positive that she will do a much better job than Obama did in reaching out to the Congressional GOP.
The interesting thing about Hillary is that there are actually a bunch of quotes from Republicans who served with her in the Senate and worked with her in her capacity at State to the effect that she is very good to work with. I dont expect some grand new era of bipartisanship if she is elected, but I am pretty positive that she will do a much better job than Obama did in reaching out to the Congressional GOP.
I've heard two versions. One is that she is a wretched human being, a horrible and unlovable piece of human garbage who is mean and vindictive to those who cross her over even the most trivial of stuff. And the other is that regardless of whether or not she is capable of inching the personal thermometer north of 32 degrees she is a capable leader and that compared to her tenure Kerry's has been almost rudderless. Now the former may be an exaggeration, the latter may simply be the slanted takes of people who admire her, but I'm not sure those are irreconcilable.
Quote:
So what is the problem if Hillary acts by Executive Order where allowable? I mean, if she said do X when a statute specifically said dont do X (say, by supplying weapons to the Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment) then it would be illegal.
The interesting thing about Hillary is that there are actually a bunch of quotes from Republicans who served with her in the Senate and worked with her in her capacity at State to the effect that she is very good to work with. I dont expect some grand new era of bipartisanship if she is elected, but I am pretty positive that she will do a much better job than Obama did in reaching out to the Congressional GOP.
I've heard two versions. One is that she is a wretched human being, a horrible and unlovable piece of human garbage who is mean and vindictive to those who cross her over even the most trivial of stuff. And the other is that regardless of whether or not she is capable of inching the personal thermometer north of 32 degrees she is a capable leader and that compared to her tenure Kerry's has been almost rudderless. Now the former may be an exaggeration, the latter may simply be the slanted takes of people who admire her, but I'm not sure those are irreconcilable.
Let me just ask this -- what are the sources for Hillary being this vile and wretched human? I hear it all the time from the right, and even from some on the left. Who are the people that have actually dealt with her who are coming out and saying "my dealings with HRC demonstrate that she is just awful and terrible". That has always been my disconnect. Rush Limbaugh hates her. Breitbart hates her. The whole ed/op-ed page of the NY Times hates her. But where does it come from? The amount of amateur psychoanalyzing of her is really astounding. It has astounded me for 20 years.
All proceeding as I have foreseen.
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
I'll take that deal 10 out of 10 times.
Now, that's not to say Rubio is a bad candidate. He has a lot of good political qualities/skills and is solidly conservative. But he isnt generating the excitement of say a 2008 Obama.
Re Shelly: I do hate how much our politics can be dictated by a few mega donors. NYTimes had a big piece about how half the giving so far is from <200 families. GOP is getting a lot more of its money from that small base, but even the Dems have 20 givers or so who are megafunding them. It is just so bad for democracy. And we get policy outcomes favored by this small cadre rather than what is popularly wanted.
Let me just ask this -- what are the sources for Hillary being this vile and wretched human? I hear it all the time from the right, and even from some on the left. Who are the people that have actually dealt with her who are coming out and saying "my dealings with HRC demonstrate that she is just awful and terrible". That has always been my disconnect. Rush Limbaugh hates her. Breitbart hates her. The whole ed/op-ed page of the NY Times hates her. But where does it come from? The amount of amateur psychoanalyzing of her is really astounding. It has astounded me for 20 years.
Interesting Vanity Fair piece on Hillary. As opposed to vile and wretched, it suggests an almost maniacal obsession with secrecy and privacy along with demands for total loyalty (which are returned). Sounds vaguely like Nixon to me.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Let me just ask this -- what are the sources for Hillary being this vile and wretched human? I hear it all the time from the right, and even from some on the left. Who are the people that have actually dealt with her who are coming out and saying "my dealings with HRC demonstrate that she is just awful and terrible". That has always been my disconnect. Rush Limbaugh hates her. Breitbart hates her. The whole ed/op-ed page of the NY Times hates her. But where does it come from? The amount of amateur psychoanalyzing of her is really astounding. It has astounded me for 20 years.
Interesting Vanity Fair piece on Hillary. As opposed to vile and wretched, it suggests an almost maniacal obsession with secrecy and privacy along with demands for total loyalty (which are returned). Sounds vaguely like Nixon to me. Link - ( New Window )
Nixon, at least temperamentally, is a good comparison. It makes a HRC presidency with our current security apparatus that much more terrifying.
Interesting Vanity Fair piece on Hillary. As opposed to vile and wretched, it suggests an almost maniacal obsession with secrecy and privacy along with demands for total loyalty (which are returned). Sounds vaguely like Nixon to me. Link - ( New Window )
See that I buy in some form (Nixonian comp aside). Will read the article, thanks. It at least makes sense given what facts we can observe from the outside. E.g. the email fuckup obviously started with a drive for privacy/secrecy.
The "worst person ever" stuff just doesnt make any sense to me. I'd just think you'd hear elected officials she dealt with coming out and saying this. If she's so awful, how come the whole party lined up behind her? And before people say they're scared of her, remember that she was inevitable in 2008 and Obama got plenty of supporters in the 2008 primary, including Kennedy. If there was ever fear of Billary, it would have to be diminished 15 years after Bill left the WH, right? It just doesnt seem plausible to me that you dont have people from her caucus ever parroting this worst person shit.
Now, I bet she isnt so warm and fuzzy. I could see her not passing the "do I want a beer with this person test". I just think that's a stupid test. I wasnt some asshole in my leader. It's a scary world.
Her whole life is a big lie and no one calls her out on anything anymore. I mean that TPP should be hammering stuff from the media. Gay marriage reversal after a whole two years. 1999 Financial Act. Don't ask don't tell. Iraq vote. The 1994 crime bill. NAFTA.
A better debate would be between current as of today Hillary vs past Hillary which apparently can include a few months ago Hillary too. They seem to disagree with each other on some many topics.
She just dismissed her so called gold standard achievement as SOS. So... what's left to rely on then as evidence of her achievements or some great bill that she championed before. See above.
But when it comes to poitics, the only reason why you hate her is because she does not representing your views or your interests. This will probably be 47% of the country, or about 150 million people. That's alot of hate.
Quote:
Interesting Vanity Fair piece on Hillary. As opposed to vile and wretched, it suggests an almost maniacal obsession with secrecy and privacy along with demands for total loyalty (which are returned). Sounds vaguely like Nixon to me. Link - ( New Window )
See that I buy in some form (Nixonian comp aside). Will read the article, thanks. It at least makes sense given what facts we can observe from the outside. E.g. the email fuckup obviously started with a drive for privacy/secrecy.
The "worst person ever" stuff just doesnt make any sense to me. I'd just think you'd hear elected officials she dealt with coming out and saying this. If she's so awful, how come the whole party lined up behind her? And before people say they're scared of her, remember that she was inevitable in 2008 and Obama got plenty of supporters in the 2008 primary, including Kennedy. If there was ever fear of Billary, it would have to be diminished 15 years after Bill left the WH, right? It just doesnt seem plausible to me that you dont have people from her caucus ever parroting this worst person shit.
Now, I bet she isnt so warm and fuzzy. I could see her not passing the "do I want a beer with this person test". I just think that's a stupid test. I wasnt some asshole in my leader. It's a scary world.
Ted Kennedy, and it holds pretty much for the whole Kennedy family, didn't have to be afraid of anyone, particularly in the Democratic Party.
And then, every now and then, I see her at a press conference or giving a speech, and I always have the same feeling - "Really? She's not *that* bad."
There are a lot of people I trust more than Hillary Clinton, but among the people I trust a lot LESS are the folks who insist that she's the worst human being in the world, and demonstrates it every single day.
But when it comes to poitics, the only reason why you hate her is because she does not representing your views or your interests. This will probably be 47% of the country, or about 150 million people. That's alot of hate.
That's the point right there. NO ONE is sure who views she represents. Because she keeps flipping all the time. And no one seriously calls her out. It's just oh that Hillary has changed her mind. Or she has reviewed the matter BS. Come on. It's flipping for polls. The lady needs handlers and pollsters to tell her to be warm and have heart. That ridiculous that they even her campaign had to announce it.
I'm a partisan conservative, I vote Republican the overwhelming majority of the time, I make no bones about that. My dislike for Hillary isn't because she is especially electable or because she might be too effective as a Democrat, I just find nothing redeeming about her. Given a choice between Trump or Carson or Cruz and Martin O'Malley or Jim Webb I'd give the Democrat a shot. Given a choice between Hillary and any of those three I'd vote third party and feel very pessimistic about America's chances.
There are many reasons but the biggest one is her treatment of some of those women who came forward accusing her husband. Despite the claims now, Hillary wasn't some lily, she went on the offensive to disparage some of those women. It was a lot more than just stand by your man stuff.
Quote:
forever. It's not recent. It's from the 1990s. I dont know why.
There are many reasons but the biggest one is her treatment of some of those women who came forward accusing her husband. Despite the claims now, Hillary wasn't some lily, she went on the offensive to disparage some of those women. It was a lot more than just stand by your man stuff.
And of course at odds with her "come forward and you will be believed" rhetoric now.
Most people I know who aren't enthused about Hillary think of her as an opportunistic hawk. I feel like she tends to represent her positions based upon what's politically prudent at the time, and without the need to do so as President, she'd be a little scary to me.
The point is that nearly all--if not all--of the Republican candidates for the Presidency say EXACTLY THAT, and the Republican voters let them get away with it.
Same goes with letting the Freedom Caucus bully the House of Representatives. No, most Republicans aren't that far to the right, and don't want to see a default on US debt, for example. But they don't squeal all that loudly when 40 or so members of the House hold the other 395 hostage to their demands.
Let's see if they can maintain their really obnoxious list of demands and actually get someone closer to the center of gravity of the Republican party--which is still pretty conservative, like Ryan--to go along with them.
Doubtful.
But when it comes to poitics, the only reason why you hate her is because she does not representing your views or your interests. This will probably be 47% of the country, or about 150 million people. That's alot of hate.
I don't agree much with Bernie Sanders, but I think he's a decent person and I certainly don't hate him.
Link - ( New Window )
I think that hack on ABC George Stephannoplis was as well. Would love to see some of those hidden emails, I'll bet it has some names on there that some do not want to see the light of day.
Quote:
over whether Anderson Cooper was ever a member of the Clinton Global Initiative. Cooper, who will moderate the debate, dismissed it as "total bunk" but he was apparently listed as a past member on the CGI website. Link - ( New Window )
I think that hack on ABC George Stephannoplis was as well. Would love to see some of those hidden emails, I'll bet it has some names on there that some do not want to see the light of day.
I don't particularly dislike either one of them. However, the notion that many in that class of hosts and journalists and agenda-setters have both ideological affinity and some express ties to prominent Democrats, including the presumptive nominee, is not a figment of the Republican imagination. "Yes but Fox News!" Fox News is a caricature, as was MSNBC before their recent changes. ABC and CNN and CBS are ostensibly objective outlets. Do we expect them to hold feet to fire if they do have these ties?
If the republicans wanted to bomb jerry world or the linc, ill be all for it!!!!
Quote:
there is a massive media bias towards hawkishness in foreign policy. Bombing something = leadership. So that favors the Republicans.
If the republicans wanted to bomb jerry world or the linc, ill be all for it!!!!
And yet when Obama tried to do that in Jade Helm 15, everyone got all upset.
His smile is even creepier than jared from subway.
As someone who had him as a governor, no you do not. The damage he caused we are still cleaning up.
He was so f'ing bad corporations actually left the state over to virginia and all the traffic patterns changed against existing highway improvements around the beltway and 270. That is just scratching the surface of what that fucking moron did.
After she said she wouldnt throw candidates in the mud.... it took less than 30 minutes for her just to do that....
Quote:
on guns.
After she said she wouldnt throw candidates in the mud.... it took less than 30 minutes for her just to do that....
Not watching yet but checking in. Define "mud". Did she say that Sanders fathered a black pistol out of wedlock? Or disagree on policy/past vote?
His reasoning is right. Why punish manufactures or sellers if they sell guns to mentally sane/law abiding citizens who go out and do stupid things?
Should we do the same to beer distributors when people get drunk and kill people on the roads?
Quote:
Let me just ask this -- what are the sources for Hillary being this vile and wretched human? I hear it all the time from the right, and even from some on the left. Who are the people that have actually dealt with her who are coming out and saying "my dealings with HRC demonstrate that she is just awful and terrible". That has always been my disconnect. Rush Limbaugh hates her. Breitbart hates her. The whole ed/op-ed page of the NY Times hates her. But where does it come from? The amount of amateur psychoanalyzing of her is really astounding. It has astounded me for 20 years.
Interesting Vanity Fair piece on Hillary. As opposed to vile and wretched, it suggests an almost maniacal obsession with secrecy and privacy along with demands for total loyalty (which are returned). Sounds vaguely like Nixon to me. Link - ( New Window )
The funny thing about the emails are that during the Clinton term there was a whole investigation into their email servers during the Lewinkski thing and they apparently lost or deleted emails. Kind of funny as this was a case study for many ethics courses in universities. These actions and behavior are not something new for them and systemic. I'll bet the reason the FBI has this in its special handling teams are that it probably has many things as well as classified information they do not want to get out in open. Could be damaging to many people.
Quote:
the party on the issue of guns.
His reasoning is right. Why punish manufactures or sellers if they sell guns to mentally sane/law abiding citizens who go out and do stupid things?
Should we do the same to beer distributors when people get drunk and kill people on the roads?
But if they did that there wouldnt be liability. So you wouldnt need to give them immunity.
The only argument for immunity I think is the fear that gun mfrs would be subject to unending frivolous litigation, which imposes some costs. Immunity would let those cases get dismissed very early. However, it is a very broad remedy and there are more limited things you could do (e.g. heightened pleading requirements). Every industry could benefit from immunity from prosecution; but the gun lobby is very rich/powerful, so they get it when others dont.
Best answer from anyone in any party.
I have a feeling it's O'Malley or Biden
I know why rush through the most important question one can ask of a presidential candidate to get to commercials?
Well, Bush started a couple of wars.
Quote:
and is ready to take the country into war
Well, Bush started a couple of wars.
Snappy comeback. Sanders applied for conscientious objector status - not just a student deferment, not sit out the war in a Guard unit, conscientious objector status - and now wants to be Commander in Chief. Think about that for a second.
I agree he is impressive.
Quote:
In comment 12548198 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
and is ready to take the country into war
Well, Bush started a couple of wars.
Snappy comeback. Sanders applied for conscientious objector status - not just a student deferment, not sit out the war in a Guard unit, conscientious objector status - and now wants to be Commander in Chief. Think about that for a second.
I agree, he was much more open about it than just avoiding service. Seems more principled though.
Quote:
Webb surges after this debate how can anyone watching this not see he is destroying the rest?
I agree he is impressive.
I like Webb, but I doubt he surges because that's not where the Party has been for a long time. The Democrats of Appalachia who used to have a somewhat outsized role (Gore, Bill) no longer exist as a meaningful constituency because they're no longer necessary to win the general election.
Quote:
In comment 12548207 schabadoo said:
Quote:
In comment 12548198 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
and is ready to take the country into war
Well, Bush started a couple of wars.
Snappy comeback. Sanders applied for conscientious objector status - not just a student deferment, not sit out the war in a Guard unit, conscientious objector status - and now wants to be Commander in Chief. Think about that for a second.
I agree, he was much more open about it than just avoiding service. Seems more principled though.
Principle is nice. Relying on a guy who used to be a pacifist and hasn't moved much on anything else to effectively run a military and confront foreign policy threats is not.
Yeah, I was waiting for Cooper to hit her with that. She just got the endorsement.
Quote:
In comment 12548217 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
In comment 12548207 schabadoo said:
Quote:
In comment 12548198 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
and is ready to take the country into war
Well, Bush started a couple of wars.
Snappy comeback. Sanders applied for conscientious objector status - not just a student deferment, not sit out the war in a Guard unit, conscientious objector status - and now wants to be Commander in Chief. Think about that for a second.
I agree, he was much more open about it than just avoiding service. Seems more principled though.
Principle is nice. Relying on a guy who used to be a pacifist and hasn't moved much on anything else to effectively run a military and confront foreign policy threats is not.
If Bush was able to start two of our longest conflicts in American history, I'm missing why Sanders can't. There's hope for all.
Because the evidence is decidedly mixed on vouchers.
[And for full disclosure: I dont have an opinion on what to do about schools. I am neither pro-union nor pro-voucher/charter; I think it is something that requires more experimentation and study, and probably depends a lot on a community-by-community assessment.]
Can't do that to Hillary she'll have him murdered lol
Quote:
acting like a tough guy to Lincoln fucking Chafee. What a fucking pompous ass.
Can't do that to Hillary she'll have him murdered lol
He tried it over the e-mails and I thought she was going to come down there and smack him. He tried to get Sanders to go after her about it but instead he got Bern.
Sanders said Wall street will pay for it
Great talking point and bonus points for populism, but based soundly in "Back to the Future Hoverboards" kind of reality (ie - it ain't gonna work).
Right now he's the only other candidate with respectable poll numbers. No, it is extremely unlikely to last, but I also don't think anyone else on the stage broke through.
The thought of your reaction if she wins it all gives me a good chuckle.
Dems have said they would raise taxes. Are you deaf and blind, or just reading from a list of talking points.
You dont seem to raise this on your side. All your candidates are proposing deficit-financed tax cuts. How come you dont complain about no one explaining how they would pay for the tax cuts? Other than by the magic of tax cuts that purportedly raise tax revenues.
Somehow, I don't think that will cover it.
Quote:
who's going to pay for all this free shit?
Dems have said they would raise taxes. Are you deaf and blind, or just reading from a list of talking points.
You dont seem to raise this on your side. All your candidates are proposing deficit-financed tax cuts. How come you dont complain about no one explaining how they would pay for the tax cuts? Other than by the magic of tax cuts that purportedly raise tax revenues.
Obviously you have to cut spending. Which is always brought up by Republicans.
Quote:
Hillary has rules just for her in the debate. Just like real life.
The thought of your reaction if she wins it all gives me a good chuckle.
Actually it is a real problem. If she wins, half the country is going to be apoplectic on day one. While I think that it is based on derangement, it is nevertheless a fact. Now I think the GOP will hate any Dem who won, but part of me wishes we had some decent, non-controversial Dem governor running who could make a real contest of this (also because I think the competition is good for the party and country).
Quote:
who's going to pay for all this free shit?
Dems have said they would raise taxes. Are you deaf and blind, or just reading from a list of talking points.
You dont seem to raise this on your side. All your candidates are proposing deficit-financed tax cuts. How come you dont complain about no one explaining how they would pay for the tax cuts? Other than by the magic of tax cuts that purportedly raise tax revenues.
Bernie Sanders and Grover Norquist drink the same Kool Aid.
Quote:........ but part of me wishes we had some decent, non-controversial Dem governor running who could make a real contest of this (also because I think the competition is good for the party and country).
Thank you.
Hillary' I'm different because I have a vagina!'
Compressed? The only one who has given short and concise and on point answers has been Webb....
Bernie Sanders and Grover Norquist drink the same Kool Aid.
And tell me how Bush and Rubio's tax plans are not of the same kool aid?
The difference is that Sanders policy platform would never come to be. He'll never be elected, but putting that aside he'd only get some of that passed at best. On the other hand, Rubio and Bush if elected will likely get massive, deficit-financed tax cuts put through on the specious logic of perfectly dynamic scoring.
Cant say I agree. I think Cooper has served up easier questions, and Hillary gives the answers that people want to hear. Cooper has not pressed her whatsoever.
The others are taking too the issues and Cooper is grilling them at any cost.
Quote:
Bernie Sanders and Grover Norquist drink the same Kool Aid.
And tell me how Bush and Rubio's tax plans are not of the same kool aid?
The difference is that Sanders policy platform would never come to be. He'll never be elected, but putting that aside he'd only get some of that passed at best. On the other hand, Rubio and Bush if elected will likely get massive, deficit-financed tax cuts put through on the specious logic of perfectly dynamic scoring.
Hillary and others are also touting free college, healthcare for illegal immigrants and a lot of other spending. Where is that money coming from?
Quote:
Bernie Sanders and Grover Norquist drink the same Kool Aid.
And tell me how Bush and Rubio's tax plans are not of the same kool aid?
The difference is that Sanders policy platform would never come to be. He'll never be elected, but putting that aside he'd only get some of that passed at best. On the other hand, Rubio and Bush if elected will likely get massive, deficit-financed tax cuts put through on the specious logic of perfectly dynamic scoring.
The Republicans' policy on taxation is among my least favorite things about them. I still think we crossed a Rubicon when Bush agreeing to a tax hike was perceived to be the nail in his coffin. Whether that was true or not, it was the takeaway for too many Republicans.
Right and what about everyone with current student debt why do they never address this?
I touched on it earlier, but its been an unmitigated disaster anywhere they've tried it.
Webb, when not complaining about his alloted time, really hit Bernie hard with that last exchange. The revolution is not coming and a President is not going to transform an economy to the degree Sanders seems to think he'll be able to.
If you're a Democrat, you have to pray that man does not pick up steam and get elected - it would set the party back quite a ways long-term. He's a good man that has conviction, but is more in-tune with a freshman in Poli Sci 101 than reality.
You know I dont pile on you like other posters do, but you're just impossible to have a discussion with. You just ignore, ignore, ignore. How many different new sources of revenue do they have to address before you stop saying that they wont tell you have they're paying for this stuff?
Quote:
she's just a better debater than the rest on the stage. When you know how to give clear and compressed answers and remain on topic, you get more lenience from the moderators with the time allowed to answer before getting cut off. If you spend time bitching about how little time you're getting and get off topic, like Jim Webb has done repeatedly, you're more likely to lose talk time.
Compressed? The only one who has given short and concise and on point answers has been Webb....
By "compressed", I'm not talking about the length of the response but the content and cadence of it. The slow Stephen Hawking-like response is usually an indication of a response that's either not well thought out or not quick enough to the point. Those responses are most likely to get cut off.
Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) October 14, 2015
And dog lovers?
You are nasty. I never resort to personal attacks. You do completely unprovoked. I stick to the issues. When you can do that, maybe I'll respond to you.
The candidates are pretty lame for the Dems. Even if HRC wins, who do they have planned to come up and then replace her? I really believe if the GOP ever gets their shit together, they may get the presidency sooner rather than later.
Quote:
you dont get to spout nonsense and then call people nasty when they disagree with you. Feel free to ignore me though.
You are nasty. I never resort to personal attacks. You do completely unprovoked. I stick to the issues. When you can do that, maybe I'll respond to you.
5 minutes ago you called me "you are incredibly intolerant and just downright rude and nasty". But you dont resort to personal attacks.
Nothing wrong with principled pacifism, but most pacifists don't aspire to head armed forces that are millions strong.
Quote:
there is some clear oppo material here, but nobody else looks remotely presidential. Bernie is what he is, Webb is a representative of a party that no longer exists, Chafee sucks and O'Malley has done nothing to improve his stature.
The candidates are pretty lame for the Dems. Even if HRC wins, who do they have planned to come up and then replace her? I really believe if the GOP ever gets their shit together, they may get the presidency sooner rather than later.
Is your question, who would run in 2024? That's a long way off. Governors, young senators. Who knows. Maybe Joe Biden? He'll only be in his 80s.
I think she would win the nomination but lose the general. Her style is great for the senate but I'm unsure how it carries on a national campaign trail. I think her policies are reasonable. Hillary championed that 99 financial bill as FLOTUS. Along with the 94 Crime Bill. Her staff made sure to let you know this during that time as well.
Quote:
I think if Elizabeth Warren were running, she'd a) be killing this debate and b) be the clear Democratic choice.
I think she would win the nomination but lose the general. Her style is great for the senate but I'm unsure how it carries on a national campaign trail. I think her policies are reasonable. Hillary championed that 99 financial bill as FLOTUS. Along with the 94 Crime Bill. Her staff made sure to let you know this during that time as well.
No matter who wins the nomination is likely to lose the election
"I am not a pacifist," he said when questioned about his decision to register as a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War. "I supported the war in Afghanistan."
He added that he supported the Clinton administration's actions in Kosovo and President Barack Obama's air strikes in Syria.
"I happen to believe from the bottom of my heart that war should be the last resort," Sanders said.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12548398 ilikethenygiants said:
Quote:
I think if Elizabeth Warren were running, she'd a) be killing this debate and b) be the clear Democratic choice.
I think she would win the nomination but lose the general. Her style is great for the senate but I'm unsure how it carries on a national campaign trail. I think her policies are reasonable. Hillary championed that 99 financial bill as FLOTUS. Along with the 94 Crime Bill. Her staff made sure to let you know this during that time as well.
No matter who wins the nomination is likely to lose the election
Demographics and the Electoral College would tend to disagree with that.
As long as the D's pick a mainstream candidate, they should win.
Quote:
In comment 12548381 Deej said:
Quote:
you dont get to spout nonsense and then call people nasty when they disagree with you. Feel free to ignore me though.
You are nasty. I never resort to personal attacks. You do completely unprovoked. I stick to the issues. When you can do that, maybe I'll respond to you.
5 minutes ago you called me "you are incredibly intolerant and just downright rude and nasty". But you dont resort to personal attacks.
That's after you called me 'deaf or blind' twice. And said I was impossible to have a discussion with. Well will discourse like that, it's no wonder. Work on your people skills.
Quote:
Sen. Bernie Sanders insisted he wouldn't hesitate to employ military force if he becomes the next commander in chief so long as it's a last resort.
"I am not a pacifist," he said when questioned about his decision to register as a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War. "I supported the war in Afghanistan."
He added that he supported the Clinton administration's actions in Kosovo and President Barack Obama's air strikes in Syria.
"I happen to believe from the bottom of my heart that war should be the last resort," Sanders said.
Link - ( New Window )
He applied for CO status as a pacifist during Vietnam. He says he isn't a pacifist now.
Sometimes she lets herself look to disheveled and she looks tired and I'm sure she is tired.
cooper was the biggest loser of them all.
He applied for CO status as a pacifist during Vietnam. He says he isn't a pacifist now.
Well did he support the Afghanistan war? Isnt that more relevant than CO status as a kid 50 years ago?
AP I think you are right. We need to let the military reduce it's size just like before WW1 and WW2.
The major buzz will be Bernie's "damn email" comment, but...that helps Hillary, not him. He was hot/cold, but won't be hurt by anything (though don't see how he gains anything either).
Chaffee was candid, but embarrassing nonetheless.
Webb isn't positioned where the party is today.
cooper was the biggest loser of them all.
She was asked to give a response about Benghazi. She was asked to give a response about emails. She was even asked to give a response about her vote on the Iraq war despite it being brought up ad nauseum in the 2008 election. Exactly what kind of "grilling" did you want to see?
How many wars didn't happen, with or without us, because we presented a credible military deterrent?
Yes, a very small transactions tax wold raise a decent amount of money ($185 billion in 10 years) and fall heavily on high frequency traders. I strongly support that, but it isn't going to replace a whole lot of middle class taxation at the rate of $18.5 billion per year. (link) Larger transaction taxes a la Sanders fall much heavier on the entire class of investors, and tend to reduce the value of securities. And, neither of these has any major impact on "Wall Street," which is entirely different that the class of investors generally.
With respect to Wall Street, the goal should be to disincentivize bad behavior, put the worst transgressors in prison, and limit excess pay. I am not entirely sure what the best ways are to do that, but apparently neither is Sanders. ( Bill2 probably has some better ideas than I do on that.) Bernie mainly just grandstands on the topic. Dodd-Frank, Basel III and Volcker already limit an awful lot of leveraged behavior by Wall Street firms. It's the high-end earners, including HFT and private equity, that need to be boxed in.
Sanders either doesn't understand that, or can't articulate it. "Let's get Wall Street, grrr."
Yawn.
Link - ( New Window )
Im guessing that he can believe that he's gotten this far.
1) criminal prosecutions for corporate malfeasance -- problem is that prosecutors have a bad, bad track record on complex cases like this. Insider trading can be proven since it is simple. ABACUS is kind of simply. Beyond that, hard hard case. And a lot of the excesses are simply not criminal. Being a fucking idiot or a greedy idiot is not criminal. And unlike most criminal defendants, a lot of the bank officers have advancement rights (the companies must pay for their lawyers), which robs prosecutors of one of their biggest levers. OTOH, I dont understand why no one ever went after the mortgage originators.
2) Massive fines. Fines that wipe out capital, not just a few weeks profits. Theory being that shareholders will then start policing things. I havent given this a lot of thought, but it was discussed on the most recent Slate Money podcast re VW.
3) More regulation. But regulation tends to be reactive and/or prohibitive of okay transactions.
I'll leave off stuff like "people need to be more ethical and less greedy" because the cat is out of the bag on that.
Also, the legacy question is what the internet is talking about right now. She no longer considers her trade negotiations a gold standard and that some women are insulted that she is using the gender card. I was wondering how that would play out, particularly in a debate where an old man had to come to her rescue about her e-mails the one time Cooper tried to stay firm on getting a satisfactory answer from her. Cooper using Obama quote from two days ago could have put her in a bad way.
Quote:
is not what you expect from someone who actually wants to win.
Im guessing that he can believe that he's gotten this far.
It's what is getting the most play post debate. Also people love O'Malley closing argument.
Also, the legacy question is what the internet is talking about right now. She no longer considers her trade negotiations a gold standard and that some women are insulted that she is using the gender card. I was wondering how that would play out, particularly in a debate where an old man had to come to her rescue about her e-mails the one time Cooper tried to stay firm on getting a satisfactory answer from her. Cooper using Obama quote from two days ago could have put her in a bad way.
Her answer to the outsider question (Bush/Clinton) "I'm a woman" was so cringeworthy
So then the question needs to be asked: if Treasury lobbied JPM hard to buy Bear rather than risk another Lehman-style liquidation event, why do we then need to punish JPM as the surviving entity? If my brother is a deadbeat and I set him up in a spare bedroom, should I become liable for his debts?
It's a tough question.
Section, I'm not sure what the right level of spending, troops, etc is but I would favor a 10 year plan to dramatically reduce the size and scope of the military.
Quote:
I actually think Hillary got hurt tonight myself. Because her rivals appear genuine and compensate. I just finished talking to a family member who said that only Hillary could win against the Republicans for the last two years. Now honestly think that everyone other than Chafee could easily beat anyone in the Republican field.
Also, the legacy question is what the internet is talking about right now. She no longer considers her trade negotiations a gold standard and that some women are insulted that she is using the gender card. I was wondering how that would play out, particularly in a debate where an old man had to come to her rescue about her e-mails the one time Cooper tried to stay firm on getting a satisfactory answer from her. Cooper using Obama quote from two days ago could have put her in a bad way.
Her answer to the outsider question (Bush/Clinton) "I'm a woman" was so cringeworthy
She has been using it to small women groups but apparently it was seen as a negative in some of the polls among democrats. Interesting. I think issue is personal to some women about their reason for voting for a woman or not. But like it has been pointed out before this is second run at it. The time to use it was 7 years ago.
Chafee telling Anderson Cooper he voted for Iraq and the Patriot Act because everyone else did and he just got to DC was I can't believe it moment for me.
The look on Clinton and O'Malley's faces were priceless. I think O'Malley did a double take when he made that statement. Very good job from the CNN production crew.
How is that creepy? I think he took the high road out of all the candidates with that answer.
Quote:
when asked what enemy are you most proud to have made, "the enemy soldier who threw a grenade at me and is no longer around anymore." Need to get rid of Web and Chaffe, the Daily Show is going to have a field day with those two. This race is between Clinton, Sanders, and nominally O'Malley.
How is that creepy? I think he took the high road out of all the candidates with that answer.
That's a weird answer for someone who wants to be president...that might have gone over well at a GOP debate, but I don't see that as high road (or low road) answer, just a weird fucking answer. Complete silence in the audience.
She showed tonight that she's head and shoulders above the other candidates on both sides. Rubio gives her the best run but she still wins going away ala Obama.
The more I think about it the more I think she'll do a pretty good job. Basically an Obama third term with some tweaks. We could do a lot worse.
She showed tonight that she's head and shoulders above the other candidates on both sides. Rubio gives her the best run but she still wins going away ala Obama.
The more I think about it the more I think she'll do a pretty good job. Basically an Obama third term with some tweaks. We could do a lot worse.
Nope
Hillary' I'm different because I have a vagina!'
You somehow see tension between holding both positions?
I think some people eat too much. Doesn't mean I think they should eat nothing at all.
It ain't right!
Labeling him as a socialist is supposed to drive a wedge between Sanders and moderate voters (plus the electability-focused liberals who crave those moderate votes). One important thing about moderates, though, is that they tend to care less about labels than voters on either pole. Sanders can turn the "Socialist" thing around with a sharp "Is that the best you've got?" response, reinforcing his claim to be the candidate who rises above name-calling and conventional politics to address real issues. That could help widen his appeal from Candidate of the Pissed-Off Left to Candidate of the Pissed-Off Electorate. It might not work, but it's better than extolling the virtues of tiny Scandinavian constitutional monarchies, or parliamentary democracies, or whatever they are. I love Norway as much as anyone (ask my Norwegian wife); I still cringe when Bernie says we should emulate the Norwegians.
Another, riskier tack he could take is that we're all socialists. You don't want to abolish Medicare? Socialist. You think military pensions are OK? Pinko. And don't get me started on progressive taxation or Social Security. Those are just flat-out red. Bernie can make a reasonable point that the American center abides a lot of socialism, so we need to get over our McCarthyite aversion to the word and focus on the real problem (in his view): that the influence of money prevents us from having a true social democracy.
I expected Sanders to struggle with foreign policy; that's a huge, unpredictable minefield for him. I thought he would handle predictable economic questions much better. It's one thing to run a campaign that seeks to transcend sound bites and talking points; that's no excuse for being unprepared for obvious questions in the area that's supposed to be your strength. More evidence that Bernie Sanders isn't Elizabeth Warren, no matter how much progressives might wish he were.
It ain't right!
Smith and Wesson.
Actually on second hearing, it was a brilliant line. The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your email could be a criticism of her GOP critics. It could be a criticism of Clinton too -- that she has created a focus point in the election that is distracting from the issues.
Indulge me - outside of foreign policy, what is remotely libertarian about Bernie Sanders???
Bernie - straight forward, honest. Didnt shine over HRC. Think he remained on the same path.... dont think he picked up a lot of votes.
O'Malley - practically begging HRC to pick him for VP. He was ok though, little better than I would have thought.
Chafee - please drop out. Embarrassement.
Webb - probably had the best debate, but his attitude towards Cooper and complaining probably hurt him in the long run.
Anderson Cooper - should be called to task. Absolutely horrific job. Grilled the likes of Chafee and Webb, but not the top 2.
There's a few reasons why I believe this too.
1. She is too smart to say anything incriminating about herself. So, when she spoke it was everything people wanted to hear.
2. Cooper gave her the pass of a lifetime on some of the issues (not referring to the emails or benghazi - lets move on from them)
3. The other candidates didnt take her to task either. WHen they disagreed with her, they were respectful and didnt take shots.
So it was literally impossible for her to look bad unless she said something stupid, which she didnt.
As a very liberal person on this board .. i truly wish there was a Progressive Republican that could break thru ..
what the US needs now is a Teddy Roosevelt type
as Mr Spock said " only Nixon could go to China"
I really believe only a Republican can break the grip that the Oligachy influence have on our government .
if 138 families are contributing half the money for this election we have a huge problem in this country
1. An apolitical point, I think CNN ran more commercials in the first 20 minutes of the debate than any HOUR of either Republican debate. Seems like they wanted to cash in before people potentially got bored. changed channels and the ratings dropped.
2. Chafee was the worst in the entire field, Dem and Rep.
3. O'Malley got himself to the adult table.
4. Webb eliminated himself from being seriously considered by Dem voters and wasn't reality TV enough to interest independents.
5. Sanders was mediocre, but is in no danger of losing his base.
6. Clinton was the best prepared, but got away with stuff that would have gotten her toasted if the Republican format had been followed. "Hoped" the TPP was the gold standard? That never would have gone unchallenged. "I didn't take a position until I took a position"? And while I might have missed it, it looked like everyone allowed her to skate on the e-mails.
And I truly wish a more centrist Democrat (Manchin?) was in the field.
As a very liberal person on this board .. i truly wish there was a Progressive Republican that could break thru ..
what the US needs now is a Teddy Roosevelt type
as Mr Spock said " only Nixon could go to China"
I really believe only a Republican can break the grip that the Oligachy influence have on our government .
if 138 families are contributing half the money for this election we have a huge problem in this country
Sounds like you should vote for Trump.
HRC did better than I expected her to do.
Sanders is an interesting guy--unlike the others.
Small group on the left side this election.
1. An apolitical point, I think CNN ran more commercials in the first 20 minutes of the debate than any HOUR of either Republican debate. Seems like they wanted to cash in before people potentially got bored. changed channels and the ratings dropped.
2. Chafee was the worst in the entire field, Dem and Rep.
3. O'Malley got himself to the adult table.
4. Webb eliminated himself from being seriously considered by Dem voters and wasn't reality TV enough to interest independents.
5. Sanders was mediocre, but is in no danger of losing his base.
6. Clinton was the best prepared, but got away with stuff that would have gotten her toasted if the Republican format had been followed. "Hoped" the TPP was the gold standard? That never would have gone unchallenged. "I didn't take a position until I took a position"? And while I might have missed it, it looked like everyone allowed her to skate on the e-mails.
RE: Sanders- his base is almost a cult at this point (of under 30 kids and unrealistic adults for the most part). It'll be impossible to lose it.
What he's failing to do is reach beyond that base. He's not getting the nomination without spreading out beyond his "cult."
I like some of what he wants to do (in a very broad sense), but so much of it is so completely naive and unrealistic I have a difficult time taking him seriously.
As referenced earlier, any reduction in defense spending is seen as harming to our security and position in the world.
Buford mentioned that all GOP candidates want to reduce spending, but I haven't seen any of them talk about reducing the military.
Quote:
she isnt just dishonest. rather she has never and cannot tell the truth.
And she has done nothing, ever. Her years as a senator and SOS were empty calories. Nothing happened.
And she did Benghazi. And Vince Foster fathered her baby so Hillary has him murdered. Travelgate.
Everything you just posted is from the Left Wing echo chamber. She didn't "do Benghazi". that's a smoke screen.
True or false: She and her department most certainly told the American people that the attack was started as a protest to a video? When was the last time Foster or Travelgate was brought up?
LOL. You speak of a Left Wing echo chamber, and then drag up the long dead and discredited talking points from the Right Wing echo chamber, about the video having nothing to do with the start of violence in Benghazi. You are parroting lies. Political posturing by the Republican party designed only to hurt HRC. When the Republicans are forced to tell the truth, such as in every report they have put out about Benghazi, the truth is admitted, that the video *DID* play a major part in the start of violence in Benghazi. The terrorist who started the violence SAY SO THEMSELVES, but that is not good enough for you because it goes against your political talking points....
Quote:
In comment 12547248 Peter in Atl said:
Quote:
In comment 12547237 Randy in CT said:
Quote:
In comment 12547226 Peter in Atl said:
Quote:
In comment 12547214 Randy in CT said:
Quote:
you are pretty darned partisan on here, I must say.
And that has what do with my post? Doesn't make me wrong.
I could be wrong, but it seems when you post political, there is very little nuance--you side right. Always. Which is fine. But then here we can't even start a discussion about this (probably crappy) debate without your heading down the liberal media bias path.
The folks at CNN only really hit trump hard, which you can make a pretty good case for--he's said some mouthy and irreverent things pretty often, so he SHOULD be questioned about them.
I'm not lock step with the right. There is a media bias. To deny it is lunacy. The side it is on depends on who you're watching.
A slight media bias which might reflect more people in the business perhaps coming from the left in their own politics, is different than saying that "tonight's gonna be one of those night where the evil media tries to make the LEFT look good!!"
It's almost like we never ever watched Wolf Blitzer, Candy Crowley, and Chuck Todd interview or moderate.
Am I the only one in the world who see's Chuck Todd beneath all that fake non partisanship is a pretty mainline conservative???? I would be totally shocked if somehow is voting record was revealed, and it turned out he ever voted D, even once in his life.... As far as the others, yes, they are clearly liberals.
Bernie - You can say he's unrealistic with what he wants to accomplish but I can't help but enjoy the passion that he speaks with. You can tell he really cares about the country, doing the right thing and wanting to make things better. I don't know if he won over many undecided voters, I doubt that he did. But he didn't hurt himself at all and looked pretty good overall. The only time he looked really weak was the gun control part and when he looked like he fell asleep at the wheel when AC asked him to respond to what Webb said and he looked like he wasn't paying attention. lol. But even the "damn emails" thing didn't hurt him. I think he looked strong despite that.
O'Malley - Started off very slow and mundane. I thought I was going to fall asleep whenever he had to answer a question... but he really picked it up after that rocky start. He finished strong and looked good in the end but not good enough to make noise in the polls compared to the top two in my opinion. But he set himself up for some kind of position, whether it's VP or something else. I wasn't really expecting that heading into the debate so I guess he surprised me the most out of all five of them.
Chafee - I can't believe someone in the thread thought that he did well. He embarrassed himself and I hope he's not in the next debate. Don't take time away from better candidates.
Webb - He had a strong presence but that's about it. He came off as whiny during the debate and didn't help himself much. Still, he did better than Chafee. I don't know if that's saying much though. He also wins the weird/creepy moment of the night though when he basically said he killed a guy in Vietnam. Really weird moment. lol
At this point, I like Sanders personally. I doubt he can win but I prefer him over Hillary. If Biden got involved, I'm not sure who I would prefer between him and Bernie.
Yep. I put on the GOP debates to see which one will make the biggest fool of himself or herself, and I put on the Democrat debate to see if anyone is capable of keeping me awake.
Quote:
Well spend the money then, just stop engaging in wars that serve no useful purpose
As referenced earlier, any reduction in defense spending is seen as harming to our security and position in the world.
Buford mentioned that all GOP candidates want to reduce spending, but I haven't seen any of them talk about reducing the military.
Is seen as by who? Take a look at where the US ranks in military spending and you may rethink that remark. I believe a case could be made that our excessive military spending is actually making us less secure over the long term.
Yes, you're the only one. He once worked for Tom Harkin.
Wow, thank you for sharing. That was HI larious! I don't even like Drake much, and can't stand the original song. That remake is waaaaay better. Drake should take some rapping lessons from that dude.
I didnt care for just how inquisitorial Cooper was but it worked in this odd format wherein the people running behind were not really looking to knock the leader off her perch.
Agree that it would be nice if a more moderate governor type got in, but that ship has sailed. Hillary has always been a bit to the left of me, but Sanders is really pulling her further left that Im comfortable with. I still support her, but I'd like to reverse her back towards the center.
She said a lot of questionable things last night, and dodged some important questions - and no one went after her over it. Thats a big, big mistake. I understand why O'Malley didnt, because he would blow her to become VP.... but Sanders has to do something.
He has a backing, but Clinton has over 20 years of supporters backing her. He needs to crack that somehow. Dont think he can do it.
Quote:
Well spend the money then, just stop engaging in wars that serve no useful purpose
As referenced earlier, any reduction in defense spending is seen as harming to our security and position in the world.
Buford mentioned that all GOP candidates want to reduce spending, but I haven't seen any of them talk about reducing the military.
The sequester has reduced military spending and Obama has made further cuts. There is a lot of different cuts that need to be made, but the core of the military needs to be built up seeing what is happening in the world. And military cuts are not the only spending cuts that can be made. Fiorina has mentioned attrition of government workers, we know that the VA wastes millions and they are not the only ones. The government is too big and spends/wastes too much money. The best way to get it under control is to make across the board cuts (similar to the sequester, but with more direction) in some areas. Also entitlements need to be reformed. Also, by reforming the tax code and eliminating harmful regulations, the economy would be boosted which would increase revenues. I didn't hear any of that last night. Sure, we are going to 'create jobs' how? Hillary mentioned that small businesses are hurting. Well how does free college and free healthcare and free maternity leave help small businesses who have to pay for it? Taxing the 1% 90% will not pay for all of Bernies goodies.
Quote:
In comment 12548516 AP in Halfmoon said:
Quote:
Well spend the money then, just stop engaging in wars that serve no useful purpose
As referenced earlier, any reduction in defense spending is seen as harming to our security and position in the world.
Buford mentioned that all GOP candidates want to reduce spending, but I haven't seen any of them talk about reducing the military.
Is seen as by who? Take a look at where the US ranks in military spending and you may rethink that remark. I believe a case could be made that our excessive military spending is actually making us less secure over the long term.
Why would I rethink my remark, it's categorically true. Any proposed reduction in military spending is met by fierce resistance.
I doubt we'll ever get the answer. but I'd wager a $50 contribution to the winner's choice of a 501(c)(3) charity that Todd voted Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008 & 2012.
I didnt care for just how inquisitorial Cooper was but it worked in this odd format wherein the people running behind were not really looking to knock the leader off her perch.
Agree that it would be nice if a more moderate governor type got in, but that ship has sailed. Hillary has always been a bit to the left of me, but Sanders is really pulling her further left that Im comfortable with. I still support her, but I'd like to reverse her back towards the center.
Deej, once Bernie is done and the nomination is in, she'll turn away from the far left. All candidates do what they need to do to get the nomination and then revert to what they really stand for( yeah wishful thinking). Once and if nominated there is nothing HRC needs to do to get the vast majority of the Dem vote. The one thing that the Dem party has going for it is "blind" loyalty. Unlike the dimwit Repubs (i.e., Evangelicals and pseudo Tea Party), the Dems rally behind their candidate.
"Built up military" is the generic stance by anyone who does not have a clue about our military, its strength, or our enemies. It gets thrown out there because it's so broad without details that the person saying it thinks they sound knowledgable.
It's a cut and paste talking point which is all you ever get from Buford
Quote:
And what exactly will we do with the "built up military"? That sounds like a talking point with no specifics or substance. Where do you see the military being deployed?
"Built up military" is the generic stance by anyone who does not have a clue about our military, its strength, or our enemies. It gets thrown out there because it's so broad without details that the person saying it thinks they sound knowledgable.
It's a cut and paste talking point which is all you ever get from Buford
On BBI I think there are only a few that can truly speak to military size and function. Obviously RC, Dunedin, Greg to name a few quickly off the top of my head...
Sanders' gun control position was by far the most reasonable, even though democrats don't think critically enough about the topic to understand what he is saying. Vermont loves guns and has little to no gun violence. There is a HUGE difference between how gun control should be handled in Rural and Urban states. This was a great point although it was not well received during the debate.
Not sure how anyone thinks Clinton was a runaway, or won this debate at all. The only people I've seen saying this are major media pundits. Every poll I've seen is Bernie in a landslide. I also think people are underestimating Bernie in the grand scheme. He's leading in NH and they are about even in IA. Also, Bernie has a huge fan base with young voters and is pulling people out of the woodwork, many who have never even voted before.
She said a lot of questionable things last night, and dodged some important questions - and no one went after her over it. Thats a big, big mistake. I understand why O'Malley didnt, because he would blow her to become VP.... but Sanders has to do something.
He has a backing, but Clinton has over 20 years of supporters backing her. He needs to crack that somehow. Dont think he can do it.
Quote:
he has to attack HRC eventually. She has been set up to win this ever since 2008. Cooper basically plated her the questions for her to do well yesterday. No one took HRC to task. If no one is going to challenge her, she is going to win in a landslide.
She said a lot of questionable things last night, and dodged some important questions - and no one went after her over it. Thats a big, big mistake. I understand why O'Malley didnt, because he would blow her to become VP.... but Sanders has to do something.
He has a backing, but Clinton has over 20 years of supporters backing her. He needs to crack that somehow. Dont think he can do it.
He has no chance and unless he is delusional, he knows that. He's there to represent the extreme left wing of the Party and to do so without making any enemies. He's not about to be confrontational.
I agree with you that he has little chance to win. But if he wants any chance to win, he has to knock down HRC some. Whether Hillary wants to admit it or not, her husband's last name has given her such an advantage that it will be tough for anyone to overcome.
Quote:
watched the first 45 minutes this morning. Shouldnt have bothered with the Rangers and Mets games.
I didnt care for just how inquisitorial Cooper was but it worked in this odd format wherein the people running behind were not really looking to knock the leader off her perch.
Agree that it would be nice if a more moderate governor type got in, but that ship has sailed. Hillary has always been a bit to the left of me, but Sanders is really pulling her further left that Im comfortable with. I still support her, but I'd like to reverse her back towards the center.
Deej, once Bernie is done and the nomination is in, she'll turn away from the far left. All candidates do what they need to do to get the nomination and then revert to what they really stand for( yeah wishful thinking). Once and if nominated there is nothing HRC needs to do to get the vast majority of the Dem vote. The one thing that the Dem party has going for it is "blind" loyalty. Unlike the dimwit Repubs (i.e., Evangelicals and pseudo Tea Party), the Dems rally behind their candidate.
Agree that she will probably pivot back to center as all general candidates tend to do, but no one can go all the way back. I tend to like free trade deals (havent looked at TPP), and I dont think she can pivot back on that one. I dont like selling tax raises on the idea that they rich dont pay a "fair share" (they pay a lot and I dont know what a fair share is anyway), and I wish she'd stop hyping gun control measures that I can 100% guarantee will not be prioritized in a Clinton administration (I dont have an opinion on whether her gun ideas are good or bad).
Dont agree on Dems being blindly loyal more or less than Republicans. I think there is a lot of party loyalty these days -- very much tied into the loss of federally elected moderates and a real feeling on both sides that while their side aint perfect, the other guys are dangerous imbeciles (indeed, my Dem partisanship is very much based on my problems with the modern GOP). However, the rank & file Dems dont feel the sense of betrayal that the the r&f GOPers feel right now. Maybe the Dem pols have done a better job delivering on promises, or maybe Dem voters are more realistic -- whatever the reason, Dems are a lot less furious with their own party.
Quote:
Am I the only one in the world who see's Chuck Todd beneath all that fake non partisanship is a pretty mainline conservative???? I would be totally shocked if somehow is voting record was revealed, and it turned out he ever voted D, even once in his life.... As far as the others, yes, they are clearly liberals.
Yes, you're the only one. He once worked for Tom Harkin.
And spent 15 years writing and managing at the National Journal, which has a slight but distinct right bias.
Quote:
In comment 12548837 Deej said:
Quote:
watched the first 45 minutes this morning. Shouldnt have bothered with the Rangers and Mets games.
I didnt care for just how inquisitorial Cooper was but it worked in this odd format wherein the people running behind were not really looking to knock the leader off her perch.
Agree that it would be nice if a more moderate governor type got in, but that ship has sailed. Hillary has always been a bit to the left of me, but Sanders is really pulling her further left that Im comfortable with. I still support her, but I'd like to reverse her back towards the center.
Deej, once Bernie is done and the nomination is in, she'll turn away from the far left. All candidates do what they need to do to get the nomination and then revert to what they really stand for( yeah wishful thinking). Once and if nominated there is nothing HRC needs to do to get the vast majority of the Dem vote. The one thing that the Dem party has going for it is "blind" loyalty. Unlike the dimwit Repubs (i.e., Evangelicals and pseudo Tea Party), the Dems rally behind their candidate.
Agree that she will probably pivot back to center as all general candidates tend to do, but no one can go all the way back. I tend to like free trade deals (havent looked at TPP), and I dont think she can pivot back on that one. I dont like selling tax raises on the idea that they rich dont pay a "fair share" (they pay a lot and I dont know what a fair share is anyway), and I wish she'd stop hyping gun control measures that I can 100% guarantee will not be prioritized in a Clinton administration (I dont have an opinion on whether her gun ideas are good or bad).
Dont agree on Dems being blindly loyal more or less than Republicans. I think there is a lot of party loyalty these days -- very much tied into the loss of federally elected moderates and a real feeling on both sides that while their side aint perfect, the other guys are dangerous imbeciles (indeed, my Dem partisanship is very much based on my problems with the modern GOP). However, the rank & file Dems dont feel the sense of betrayal that the the r&f GOPers feel right now. Maybe the Dem pols have done a better job delivering on promises, or maybe Dem voters are more realistic -- whatever the reason, Dems are a lot less furious with their own party.
To me, the far left is just less split in two and organized than the far right. They hold less power within their party. The tea party phenomenon really changed the dynamics in the GOP. Despite Occupy or the success of Bernie, those folks haven't tried to exert influence on the Democratic agenda. When you see some lefties tossing out democratic incumbents the way the Tea Party tossed out a few moderate republicans, you may see the same dynamic.
Also, I think that the lefties are willing to vote for a centrist democrat like Hillary when it comes down to it just out of a willingness to not have a conservative agenda blast through all the things in place that are important to them. Because it seems like most republicans think the government is basically a disaster, they have less interest in keeping the status quo functional.
Take your pick, the Middle East, the Pacific, anywhere we need a show of strength. I'm not talking about war, but preparedness and deterrent. China is increasing their military. We are cutting ours. It's a bad formula.
Twitter users certainly did.
Bernie Sanders cleaned up on the social media service, rapidly outpacing the other four candidates when it came to adding new followers.
Sanders gained 35,163 new followers during the 150-minute debate. Meanwhile, the other four Democrats gained a total of just 23,219 new followers combined led by Hillary Clinton, who added 13,252 new Twitter followers by herself.
Forbes - ( New Window )
Not entirely, but they would have a better idea on requirements to maintain the doctrine as stated by the government.
The average BBIer would have no clue.
As far as I know, the required capability is to sustain two wars at opposite side of the world. But that may no longer be the requirement.
So as far as being able to speak to the requirements and capabilities, they would be able to give a better answer than buford.
Link - ( New Window )
Consider this for a minute. IMO, it's absolutely insane.
"The $682 billion spent by the U.S. in 2012, according to the Office of Management and Budget, was more than the combined military spending of China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Italy and Brazil which spent $652 billion, according to the SIPRI Military Expenditure Database"
And the lives matter subject is just horrible.
To me, the far left is just less split in two and organized than the far right. They hold less power within their party. The tea party phenomenon really changed the dynamics in the GOP. Despite Occupy or the success of Bernie, those folks haven't tried to exert influence on the Democratic agenda. When you see some lefties tossing out democratic incumbents the way the Tea Party tossed out a few moderate republicans, you may see the same dynamic.
Also, I think that the lefties are willing to vote for a centrist democrat like Hillary when it comes down to it just out of a willingness to not have a conservative agenda blast through all the things in place that are important to them. Because it seems like most republicans think the government is basically a disaster, they have less interest in keeping the status quo functional.
Probably correct. There has been a lot of writing on the right in the wake of Boehner's fall about the outsized power of the far right and their everyone is an enemy mentality. The far left I think is much more humble in its understanding of where it sits on the spectrum; the far right doesnt get that they are by definition at an extreme wing of the country. What will be curious is whether the far left takes the ball from the far right and runs with it. Is Bernie just getting the same youth and ultra lib support that Dean and other got, which will dissipate for the general, or is the Bern the start of a new more politically vocal left? I think it is the former, but cant guarantee that.
Link - ( New Window )
I think they're wrong. Putting aside the difficulty of attributing something a subordinate says while serving an official function -- her job was to carry the water for Obama's policies -- if you look at the broader quote and history the problem with the whopper is clear. From Factcheck:
This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field, Clinton remarked in Adelaide, Australia, on Nov. 15, 2012. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the worlds total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.
TPP was finalized this summer. Her quote was from 2012. The quote was plainly about the concepts embodied in the ongoing TPP negotiations -- topics covered and scale. Now it may be that her current opposition is purely a nod to the left politically (no idea), but the notion that she 100% signed on board to the still being negotiated TPP in 2012 regardless of what the final would look like 3 years later I think is pretty asinine.
Quote:
Hillary on the TPP was the whopper of the night
Link - ( New Window )
I think they're wrong. Putting aside the difficulty of attributing something a subordinate says while serving an official function -- her job was to carry the water for Obama's policies -- if you look at the broader quote and history the problem with the whopper is clear. From Factcheck:
Quote:
This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field, Clinton remarked in Adelaide, Australia, on Nov. 15, 2012. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the worlds total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.
This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field, Clinton remarked in Adelaide, Australia, on Nov. 15, 2012. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the worlds total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.
TPP was finalized this summer. Her quote was from 2012. The quote was plainly about the concepts embodied in the ongoing TPP negotiations -- topics covered and scale. Now it may be that her current opposition is purely a nod to the left politically (no idea), but the notion that she 100% signed on board to the still being negotiated TPP in 2012 regardless of what the final would look like 3 years later I think is pretty asinine.
She had great things to say about it in her 2014 book.
Quote:
Hillary on the TPP was the whopper of the night
Link - ( New Window )
I think they're wrong. Putting aside the difficulty of attributing something a subordinate says while serving an official function -- her job was to carry the water for Obama's policies -- if you look at the broader quote and history the problem with the whopper is clear. From Factcheck:
Quote:
This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field, Clinton remarked in Adelaide, Australia, on Nov. 15, 2012. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the worlds total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.
This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field, Clinton remarked in Adelaide, Australia, on Nov. 15, 2012. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the worlds total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.
TPP was finalized this summer. Her quote was from 2012. The quote was plainly about the concepts embodied in the ongoing TPP negotiations -- topics covered and scale. Now it may be that her current opposition is purely a nod to the left politically (no idea), but the notion that she 100% signed on board to the still being negotiated TPP in 2012 regardless of what the final would look like 3 years later I think is pretty asinine.
Asinine unless the terms of the final deal were better than those under discussion in 2012. And that's what some commentators have said with respect to the pharmaceutical provisions which she has cited as problematic.
James Monroe called, and wants his foreign policy back. Wait, even Monroe wanted capabilities with respect to this hemisphere.
Clinton/Sanders 2016! hahaha.
Asinine unless the terms of the final deal were better than those under discussion in 2012. And that's what some commentators have said with respect to the pharmaceutical provisions which she has cited as problematic.
I guess if every problematic provision was actually improved from her perspective it would be a whopper. But pointing to one provision and saying it got better doesnt do much for the whopper argument if other things didnt get better or got worse. I dont know much about TPP (and havent read her book, or any pol's book, so I cant respond to Peter's point).
Chafee looked meek and namby pamby. He had the look of the weak liberal stereotype I grew up with. I'm really trying to figure out who in his life encouraged him to run for president, and what the argument was.
Shouldnt that be a deterrent?
Quote:
Asinine unless the terms of the final deal were better than those under discussion in 2012. And that's what some commentators have said with respect to the pharmaceutical provisions which she has cited as problematic.
I guess if every problematic provision was actually improved from her perspective it would be a whopper. But pointing to one provision and saying it got better doesnt do much for the whopper argument if other things didnt get better or got worse. I dont know much about TPP (and havent read her book, or any pol's book, so I cant respond to Peter's point).
So unless EVERY provision is equal to or better than the 2012 "draft" it goes from "gold standard" to an unsupportable agreement? That's quite a stretch.
"We should note that Clintons comments were made, in part, to promote the administrations ongoing negotiations of the TPP."
RE: RE: Factcheck.org weighs in
Peter in Atl : 11:24 am : link : reply
She had great things to say about it in her 2014 book.
Peter the article also states:
"As she wrote in her 2014 book Hard Choices: Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement".
Consider this for a minute. IMO, it's absolutely insane.
"The $682 billion spent by the U.S. in 2012, according to the Office of Management and Budget, was more than the combined military spending of China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Italy and Brazil which spent $652 billion, according to the SIPRI Military Expenditure Database"
Where did I say go to war. I said deterrence. And of course we spend more than anyone else. Is anyone afraid of the Italian Army?
RE: RE: Factcheck.org weighs in
Peter in Atl : 11:24 am : link : reply
She had great things to say about it in her 2014 book.
Peter the article also states:
"As she wrote in her 2014 book Hard Choices: Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement".
Then she should have stated what provisions CHANGED since 2014 to turn this from a "great deal" or "Gold standard" to something she opposes. A great question for the next debate that I'd lay odds will never be asked.
Shouldnt that be a deterrent?
That wasn't the attack on her. She was attacked specifically for her vote for the Iraq war. She correctly pointed out that that topic was pinned on her endlessly by the Obama campaign in 2008 and it didn't seem to deter him from choosing her for SoS. Her performance as Sos is a matter of opinion. Of course those on the right will tear it down, big surprise.
Quote:
In comment 12549205 njm said:
Quote:
Asinine unless the terms of the final deal were better than those under discussion in 2012. And that's what some commentators have said with respect to the pharmaceutical provisions which she has cited as problematic.
I guess if every problematic provision was actually improved from her perspective it would be a whopper. But pointing to one provision and saying it got better doesnt do much for the whopper argument if other things didnt get better or got worse. I dont know much about TPP (and havent read her book, or any pol's book, so I cant respond to Peter's point).
So unless EVERY provision is equal to or better than the 2012 "draft" it goes from "gold standard" to an unsupportable agreement? That's quite a stretch.
Maybe not every. But if 80% got better and 20% worse, I still dont think it is a whopper.
"We should note that Clintons comments were made, in part, to promote the administrations ongoing negotiations of the TPP."
RE: RE: Factcheck.org weighs in
Peter in Atl : 11:24 am : link : reply
She had great things to say about it in her 2014 book.
Peter the article also states:
"As she wrote in her 2014 book Hard Choices: Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement".
The rest of quote:Its safe to say that the TPP wont be perfect no deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers.
Shouldnt that be a deterrent?
It would be, if you actually believed that "our foreign relations with countries has gotten progressively worse each year, including when she was SoS." I see no evidence of such a broad based slide. Maybe a country here or there, certainly Israel, but overall our foreign relations have gotten better IMO.
The only thing that really interests me is what happens to polling now that Biden seems to definitely be out of the equation. The overall narrative from the media is that Clinton crushed this, so with that positive news spin and apparently no Biden in the mix - will be interesting to see what happens.
Which is to say, this is an inevitable coronation of Clinton and none of this has really been that interesting.
I for one would be interested in her answers.
Nothing is official - but it's the middle of October, he has no infrastructure, missed the first debate and will be entering a race that has a candidate that is polling like an incumbent (with the majority of the mainstream party support, money and backing).
I do not like Hillary Clinton, but she's the Democratic nominee - barring a major change in the way things are going currently.
I for one would be interested in her answers.
Fair enough, though she was still saying it was a good deal in 2014.
Quote:
And what exactly will we do with the "built up military"? That sounds like a talking point with no specifics or substance. Where do you see the military being deployed?
Take your pick, the Middle East, the Pacific, anywhere we need a show of strength. I'm not talking about war, but preparedness and deterrent. China is increasing their military. We are cutting ours. It's a bad formula.
We currently control around 50% of all the navel power in the world, while Russia is about 11% (Which was our level of navy power back in 1910). We don't need more ships to just show power, that is a silly thing to say since our enemies understand our power and fear the shit out of it
Donald Trump has almost singlehandedly done the opposite with his campaign. Scorched earth with essentially the goal that if he doesn't win none of the other candidates have a prayer in the general. He's already written all the snark ads and personal attacks needed for the general. I don't mean by the Democratic nominee's official campaign or the DRC, I mean for the David Brock's and Daily Kos's and their upcoming internet and social media campaigns. I didn't see 1 personal attack last night, though admittedly I didn't see the whole debate. Any differences were issues based. 80% of Trump's campaign consists of personal attacks and issues outside of immigration have come late and vague.
I fear the difference will be significant and telling in the general.
Empty platitudes don't really cover the fact that he is getting slaughtered everywhere that isn't New Hampshire and has abysmal minority support.
He is not a mainstream candidate.
Donald Trump has almost singlehandedly done the opposite with his campaign. Scorched earth with essentially the goal that if he doesn't win none of the other candidates have a prayer in the general. He's already written all the snark ads and personal attacks needed for the general. I don't mean by the Democratic nominee's official campaign or the DRC, I mean for the David Brock's and Daily Kos's and their upcoming internet and social media campaigns. I didn't see 1 personal attack last night, though admittedly I didn't see the whole debate. Any differences were issues based. 80% of Trump's campaign consists of personal attacks and issues outside of immigration have come late and vague.
I fear the difference will be significant and telling in the general.
Curses you say! A debate based on the issues and not what Carly Fiorina looks like? what a travesty.
Sanders as recently as two weeks ago was also leading in Iowa, has a National poll number anywhere between 25 and 30% and is only slightly behind Hillary even in NC and SC.
Where are you getting your numbers from that he's getting "slaughtered" outside of New Hampshire?
He is not a mainstream candidate.
I think you are greatly underestimating the groundswell of support Sanders is mounting. And I don't know how you arrived at the idea that he has abysmal minority support, when he is truly the ONLY candidate willing to address issues like mass incarceration and institutional racism in anything resembling a meaningful way.
I wouldnt blame the in fighting on just Trump. Kasich has a lot of Huntsman in him. Christie attacks everything that moves. Paul attacks a lot. Bush generally isnt an attack dog but recently said Rubio lacks "leadership skills". Cruz goes after McConnell and Boehner like nothing I've seen.
And excepting Cruz they all attack Trump, like morons. You defuse the Donald with kindness, not attacks: "Donald is great, but I have to disagree when he says..." That is how you deal with the thin skinned Trump.
Quote:
Empty platitudes don't really cover the fact that he is getting slaughtered everywhere that isn't New Hampshire and has abysmal minority support.
He is not a mainstream candidate.
I think you are greatly underestimating the groundswell of support Sanders is mounting. And I don't know how you arrived at the idea that he has abysmal minority support, when he is truly the ONLY candidate willing to address issues like mass incarceration and institutional racism in anything resembling a meaningful way.
I posted this before, but...
Sanders is the prototypical progressive that specific pockets of Democratic voters can't help but fall for every cycle it seems. If you peal off the NH polls, Hillary is lightyears ahead of him in all other races and Sanders lacks the key things that Obama had when he very narrowly edged out Clinton almost 8 years ago.
First off - he has next to no party/delegate support. Maybe not a shocker as he is an Independent coming to the DNC's tent to run, but he only has two delegates who have announced support for him. Hillary already has 356 endorsements and the backing of every major union that's announced thus far (which is a huge blow for Sanders - given his position/messaging). Even Joe Biden has more endorsements than Sanders (16 to Bernie's 2).
Second - his ground game is a disaster. A lot of his noise is coming from slacktivist havens like Reddit, who are great at making noise and ballooning apparent support (ala Ron Paul in previous election cycles) - but leave polls empty when it matters. This is likely why you think there's a groundswell coming when there never has historically. We've seen this type of "revolution" before and frankly it doesn't amount to anything but a bunch of dislocated arms from over excited 19 year olds patting themselves on the back for getting more likes on Facebook than Hillary Clinton.
Offline, he has no money and there is no presence in the field. 8 years ago I saw a well organized and efficient group of Obama supporters strategically canvas the area I live/work in - non-obtrusively putting up signs, providing documentation and seeking to get voters registered. Bernie had an online video chat with supporters streaming from their houses and a chaotic, poorly organized and fragmented ground game spearheaded by well-meaning (but clueless) supporters, many of which have been hijacked by other, better organized groups. That Hillary has largely inherited Obama's ground game is even more damning to Sanders. I have seen similarly well-organized Clinton canvasing in my area this cycle and a poorly painted piece of plyboard that has the god-awful slogan "Feel the Bern" painted on it with a re-purposed Occupy Wall Street slogan on it, hastily thrown up on someone's yard - not a great unifying message.
Finally - his support in the minority community is bad. Very bad. He's doing well in Iowa and NH because its a very white, very liberal voting block. Clinton's numbers are impressively high with African Americans and Latino voters and Sanders hasn't even put a dent in that lead as his awareness levels have risen. Further, Sanders does nothing to energize a base that would otherwise not show up to the booths. Well-informed, white, college educated democratic voters are going to be there regardless. That he's able to get 51% of them to Hillary's 49% is not going to make this close. Obama moved a base to get the vote out and Hillary will have the vast majority of those that come back to the polls to vote. As soon as we hit Super Tuesday, Clinton will be winning races to the tune of +30-40% - its not even close, at least not right now.
Make no mistake, Hillary has been on an all-out barrage from every angle. Some of it deserved, some of it due to the pure hatred she evokes in the opposition, some of it from the Sanders camp trying to torpedo her further. She's sitting back and saying nothing right now, letting the Republicans dirty their hands and staying as clean as a Clinton can prior to the "real" race. This is pretty much to be expected, as she was polling as an incumbent - it happened to Gore when he ran against Bradley, Howard Dean is a more electable version of Sanders, etc.
Sanders is a well-meaning, honest man who truly believes in what he is saying, but his lack of accomplishing anything in DC (despite spending 3-4 decades there - he's renamed a couple post offices and....that's about it), his total lack of international diplomatic experience and his propensity to spout economic theories from schools of thought like MMT (that are more at home with an angsty 18 year old in his 2nd semester at college) make me think he's better kept as the goofy grandpa senator from an offbeat state than leading anything "real".
While websites like Reddit are quick to make his online presence seem huge, it is going to be Ron Paul 2.0.
Quote:
Empty platitudes don't really cover the fact that he is getting slaughtered everywhere that isn't New Hampshire and has abysmal minority support.
He is not a mainstream candidate.
I think you are greatly underestimating the groundswell of support Sanders is mounting. And I don't know how you arrived at the idea that he has abysmal minority support, when he is truly the ONLY candidate willing to address issues like mass incarceration and institutional racism in anything resembling a meaningful way.
Up to now, in all the polls, Sanders' support among black and Latino votes has ranged from 5-15%. Unless the debate changed that, it's a valid comment.
Quote:
Empty platitudes don't really cover the fact that he is getting slaughtered everywhere that isn't New Hampshire and has abysmal minority support.
He is not a mainstream candidate.
I think you are greatly underestimating the groundswell of support Sanders is mounting. And I don't know how you arrived at the idea that he has abysmal minority support, when he is truly the ONLY candidate willing to address issues like mass incarceration and institutional racism in anything resembling a meaningful way.
Srsly? Even some on the right are looking at the issue of mass incarceration and over criminalization and asking if there is a better way. This is like Trump saying that he's the only one talking about immigration.
BTW, I havent seen the whole Dem debate yet. Any immigration questions?
Personally, I think Bill2 has one of the best take on the use of military and its impact on global stability with regards to regional security and global economy. While as section125 states, there are several of us, who can speak to the military capabilities and functions at an educated level when it comes to actual conduct of military operations, to consider the military as strictly an implement to wage war is both shortsighted and ignorant.
We impact global stability through various means, including diplomacy, soft power (cultural), and military. However, when it comes to the most tangible and effective ways to maintain regional security and economic stability, the use of the military and its presence in key locations (both land and sea) cannot be understated. So while our military spending may be extremely high compared to our allies and foes alike, it is a necessary evil in remaining a global stabilizer (although I'm sure others will argue that our actions have destabilized many areas). And this is even before we ever decide to conduct combat operations against enemies that are state, state-sponsored, and state-less.
Just think about what the presence of our carrier battle groups in key areas can achieve. It's not cheap to develop, maintain, and use those assets.
In the end, you cannot divorce or separate having a strong military capable of extreme power projection over tens of thousands of miles for extended periods of time with being able to keep the world stable. And before you say it's not our job to keep the world stable, think about who else will do it and how having the world run amok will impact your daily lives.
Quote:
Empty platitudes don't really cover the fact that he is getting slaughtered everywhere that isn't New Hampshire and has abysmal minority support
Sanders as recently as two weeks ago was also leading in Iowa, has a National poll number anywhere between 25 and 30% and is only slightly behind Hillary even in NC and SC.
Where are you getting your numbers from that he's getting "slaughtered" outside of New Hampshire?
huh??? every SC poll has him down at least 25. Check out the latest Florida/SC and basically any state that isn't Iowa or NH. Shit even most poll have him down in Iowa almost double digits. Listen I love Bernie and his ideas, but lets not make Sh%&t up.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Empty platitudes don't really cover the fact that he is getting slaughtered everywhere that isn't New Hampshire and has abysmal minority support
Sanders as recently as two weeks ago was also leading in Iowa, has a National poll number anywhere between 25 and 30% and is only slightly behind Hillary even in NC and SC.
Where are you getting your numbers from that he's getting "slaughtered" outside of New Hampshire?
Clinton has retaken the lead in Iowa (and was always within the margin of error) and he has been a non-factor in every major poll conducted in SC, Florida, Nevada, etc.
I'm not trying to cheerlead Clinton here, but look at the demographics that support each candidate - he doesn't have support outside of the "typical" progressive candidate (ala Bradley, Dean, etc.).
He is not a historical outlier - this kind of candidate pops up every cycle.
So Sanders has between 25 and 30% of the vote and isn't considered a mainstream candidate?
So Sanders has between 25 and 30% of the vote and isn't considered a mainstream candidate?
We may need to define "mainstream" candidate to come to any kind of agreement, but I should clarify it as meaning a candidate that has no chance at the nomination, nor one that the base could/would coalesce around to win a General.
So Sanders has between 25 and 30% of the vote and isn't considered a mainstream candidate?
That's polling with Biden running. But Biden isnt running.
Bernie is doing a great job capturing a voting segment that is about 1/3 of the party -- the hard left, the affluent white liberal left, and the kids. I think most observers think he'll have an impossible time breaking out past that segment. Iowa and NH lack the hispanic and black vote he isnt reaching.
The "tightening" of the race in recent weeks/months can be seen to be more directly tied to Biden taking away her supporters when included in polls. When he is not in the equation, she's leading as comfortably as she was when this was openly acknowledged to be a coronation for Clinton.
Sanders pulled the Liz Warren voters together and the sheer lack of any other viable candidate has him chewing up the "Anyone but Clinton" voters - but that is a finite population of Democrats. She's relatively popular in the party.
And how many of the faces in those crowds are black or Latino, especially aged 30 and over?
He has a very specific group that is supporting him that is extremely loud, but its a very "vanilla" crowd (demographically speaking) and candidates like Eugene McCarthy kind of had the same thing going 5-6 decades ago. His base also hasn't grown in a month - as he's polling where he was in mid-September (even into late August).
He is not a historical outlier and is following the same trajectory of progressive candidates, only in a race with only two candidates that have proven to be "viable" to voters. Ron Paul did the same exact thing on the other side of the aisle.
The only Democrat nominee that really can be considered an outsider that shocked the system is Obama - and he was being groomed for the role, he just jumped the gun from when they likely had envisioned his run.
Again - this is using history, polls, key indicators to arrive at this. Could he shock the system? Maybe, but it would require every piece of historical data on American politics to be 100% wrong.
Donald Trump outdrew Sanders with some of the crowds he's drawn, leads the Republican polls and is more financially set to run - yet no one gives him a chance. If any "oustider" candidate had a case to why history doesn't hold them, its Trump - not Sanders.
Even in the scenario where they are actually competitive in the race they're in, which Sanders largely is not.
Bradly did 37% in Iowa, 46% in NH, 40% in DE -- after a caucus and a few primaries, it was a race! No, it wasnt. Then came Wash (35%), ok. But then March 7, where Gore just gored Bradley over 15 states, including CA 81-18 and NY 66-33. Because the race expanded beyond the first few primaries and beyond the unbalanced demographics of IO and NH.
Link - ( New Window )
Democrats have more to fear from the presumptive nominee, who (along with her husband) retains a lot of pull in the party. A lot of big-time Democratic donors are loyal to Bill if not necessarily to Hillary, they have acolytes in the press corps. So unless you really think you can pull it off, would you risk being shut out of a new Administration, maybe even facing a primary challenge or the hostility of attack dogs with decades of experience?
Quote:
..... then how do you account for the massive crowds he is drawing whenever and wherever he speaks?
He has a very specific group that is supporting him that is extremely loud, but its a very "vanilla" crowd (demographically speaking) and candidates like Eugene McCarthy kind of had the same thing going 5-6 decades ago. His base also hasn't grown in a month - as he's polling where he was in mid-September (even into late August).
He is not a historical outlier and is following the same trajectory of progressive candidates, only in a race with only two candidates that have proven to be "viable" to voters. Ron Paul did the same exact thing on the other side of the aisle.
The only Democrat nominee that really can be considered an outsider that shocked the system is Obama - and he was being groomed for the role, he just jumped the gun from when they likely had envisioned his run.
Again - this is using history, polls, key indicators to arrive at this. Could he shock the system? Maybe, but it would require every piece of historical data on American politics to be 100% wrong.
Donald Trump outdrew Sanders with some of the crowds he's drawn, leads the Republican polls and is more financially set to run - yet no one gives him a chance. If any "oustider" candidate had a case to why history doesn't hold them, its Trump - not Sanders.
Sanders is very much the candidate of the college town. Progressive white liberals see something familiar in him because he is one of them and has been one of them since their professors started casting ballots. But that constituency is still a fraction of even the base, certainly of the coalition you have to animate come next November.
Bradly did 37% in Iowa, 46% in NH, 40% in DE -- after a caucus and a few primaries, it was a race! No, it wasnt. Then came Wash (35%), ok. But then March 7, where Gore just gored Bradley over 15 states, including CA 81-18 and NY 66-33. Because the race expanded beyond the first few primaries and beyond the unbalanced demographics of IO and NH. Link - ( New Window )
No he's not. Bill Bradley was involved for years in the 80's discussion about tax reform, and was given significant input in the drafting of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. And he used that as a selling point in 2000. No way in hell would Sanders support legislation that would reduce the top rate to 28%.
But as for the Republicans, I think your point is really just that they dont fear attacking the ones they're all convinced cant win. So Trump and Paul in particular are fair game. Otherwise, the ones like Rubio and Christie who may seek appointments or future party gigs are notably not attacking the plausible candidates. I take it out of the same "fear".
Quote:
In comment 12549627 Bluenatic said:
Quote:
..... then how do you account for the massive crowds he is drawing whenever and wherever he speaks?
He has a very specific group that is supporting him that is extremely loud, but its a very "vanilla" crowd (demographically speaking) and candidates like Eugene McCarthy kind of had the same thing going 5-6 decades ago. His base also hasn't grown in a month - as he's polling where he was in mid-September (even into late August).
He is not a historical outlier and is following the same trajectory of progressive candidates, only in a race with only two candidates that have proven to be "viable" to voters. Ron Paul did the same exact thing on the other side of the aisle.
The only Democrat nominee that really can be considered an outsider that shocked the system is Obama - and he was being groomed for the role, he just jumped the gun from when they likely had envisioned his run.
Again - this is using history, polls, key indicators to arrive at this. Could he shock the system? Maybe, but it would require every piece of historical data on American politics to be 100% wrong.
Donald Trump outdrew Sanders with some of the crowds he's drawn, leads the Republican polls and is more financially set to run - yet no one gives him a chance. If any "oustider" candidate had a case to why history doesn't hold them, its Trump - not Sanders.
Sanders is very much the candidate of the college town. Progressive white liberals see something familiar in him because he is one of them and has been one of them since their professors started casting ballots. But that constituency is still a fraction of even the base, certainly of the coalition you have to animate come next November.
And those voters were already politically engaged and going to show up at the ballot before they knew Sanders existed - which is a problem. Its a finite group that is not demographically represented to any large degree after Iowa/New Hampshire and is not a major factor in Super Tuesday, etc.
As my long-winded response above lays out, Obama energized a base that does not historically turn out well - Bernie has captured a wing of the party that wants to fall in love with someone like him every cycle and is already there to vote. He needs to either move the moderate Democrats to vote for him (unlikely) or engage a specific demographic to get out and vote that would usually have poor participation (again - unlikely, especially considering Clinton does extremely well with minority voters).
This is not meant to be a total hatchet job on Sanders, but I'm going to challenge the notion that Bernie has a legit shot - at least with current data available.
But as for the Republicans, I think your point is really just that they dont fear attacking the ones they're all convinced cant win. So Trump and Paul in particular are fair game. Otherwise, the ones like Rubio and Christie who may seek appointments or future party gigs are notably not attacking the plausible candidates. I take it out of the same "fear".
Yeah Bernie doesn't have a ton of reason to soft-peddle. It was ironic that she hit him much harder than he hit her, and she is the frontrunner with no shortage of baggage. And what is a primary challenge going to do to Bernie? When he ran for Senate for the first time he and Jim Douglas, the Republican gubernatorial candidate, each got roughly 60% of the vote.
It is as clear as day that Hilary is winning the nomination. Sanders has a following, but Clinton's lead is insurmountable barring another scandal.
But I have concerns about Hilary's calculated behavior and her tiers on Wall Street, and her changing views on certain topics that seem to go beyond the persuasion of newer information and appear more the result of political shilling.
For that, I like that Sanders because his political stances have not wavered, he calls out the problems created on Wall Street, and he doesn't accept Super PAC funding.
I also like having Webb on the stage because he brings attention to one of the problems facing the democratic party-- that they sometimes forget that people in small-town, rural American have completely different ways of life and mindsets from people in fast-moving, big cities and urban areas. This was highlighted by is discussion about gun control (where massive regulation does not jibe with so much of America). I also think his military background gives credibility to discussions on foreign policy that won't completely turn off half of the country.
I vote for Democrats, but both parties have problems with relating to people in the other parties.
So often people talk about red state vs. blue state, but I think the real difference is urban vs. rural and I want both parties to discuss how to appeal and help both.
It is as clear as day that Hilary is winning the nomination. Sanders has a following, but Clinton's lead is insurmountable barring another scandal.
But I have concerns about Hilary's calculated behavior and her tiers on Wall Street, and her changing views on certain topics that seem to go beyond the persuasion of newer information and appear more the result of political shilling.
For that, I like that Sanders because his political stances have not wavered, he calls out the problems created on Wall Street, and he doesn't accept Super PAC funding.
I also like having Webb on the stage because he brings attention to one of the problems facing the democratic party-- that they sometimes forget that people in small-town, rural American have completely different ways of life and mindsets from people in fast-moving, big cities and urban areas. This was highlighted by is discussion about gun control (where massive regulation does not jibe with so much of America). I also think his military background gives credibility to discussions on foreign policy that won't completely turn off half of the country.
I vote for Democrats, but both parties have problems with relating to people in the other parties.
So often people talk about red state vs. blue state, but I think the real difference is urban vs. rural and I want both parties to discuss how to appeal and help both.
Good points. I said above that Webb represents a constituency that no longer exists and in some ways that is true, but if you want to bring the country together advancing a narrative that effectively discounts wide geographical and demographic swaths of the population is a poor means of doing so. It may not change the platform but it at least puts a representative of some of those concerns on the stage.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Am I the only one in the world who see's Chuck Todd beneath all that fake non partisanship is a pretty mainline conservative???? I would be totally shocked if somehow is voting record was revealed, and it turned out he ever voted D, even once in his life.... As far as the others, yes, they are clearly liberals.
Yes, you're the only one. He once worked for Tom Harkin.
People change.... His anti liberal bias is pretty evident.
Link - ( New Window )
And all the headline writer had to do was use "Debate Vet". Probably earned the Press Secretary job in the Clinton Administration.
Hillary didnt need more Dems to say she "won" to be the winner. She isnt really running against Bernie. She is running against herself, Biden, and the GOP. Herself because she's had a terrible 4-8 months since the email "scandal" became news. A good performance helps stem the bleeding. Whether/how much she recovers in light of the debate and the McCarthy "gaffe" will be really interesting. She's running against Biden because his reason for getting in is merely to be the "establishment" replacement for a "damaged" Hillary. If she swings back up, there is no Biden story. And against the GOP because, for the reasons UA outlines above, Sanders cant win and she's effectively running in the general right now (one might disagree with the assessment of Sanders' chances, but dollars to donuts HRC believes Sanders is not her opponent).
The media is driving a bogus Biden story because they want a race. Biden isnt getting in. I think the linked Bloomberg View piece gets it better -- he lost the primary about 9 months ago when he lost the whole establishment to HRC in the shaddow primary. I mean, if the FBI drops the hammer on HRC, all bets are off.
Maybe Im crazy, but Biden would have to really have to be bad at this to continue this Mario Cuomo will-he-or-wont-he schtick if he was actually running. He isnt raising money. He isnt locking up key supporters and apparatus. He is building no ground game. I think he's flattered, and maybe putting out feelers in case something catastrophic happens with HRC, but otherwise he's sitting it out.
Link - ( New Window )
Two horse race for now.
I dont feel bad for Webb on this though -- he's stiff and mean looking. He was never going to win, and I have to think he's not in it to win. He's a smart man. But if there were no primaries a more dynamic version of Webb could get a lot of votes.
but he had some good answers - didn't pander to the black lives matter question, talked about affirmative action within the context of class and not race, talked about the fact that global warming is a global issue, - he is a thoughtful guy, IMO. but woefully out if place in today's political scene.
Depressing that Trump is doing so well and a guy like Webb has no legitimate shot at winning.
but he had some good answers - didn't pander to the black lives matter question, talked about affirmative action within the context of class and not race, talked about the fact that global warming is a global issue, - he is a thoughtful guy, IMO. but woefully out if place in today's political scene.
Depressing that Trump is doing so well and a guy like Webb has no legitimate shot at winning.
Someone pointed out that a guy like Clinton, certainly the Clinton of recollection (if not necessarily the candidate of 1992), would not be a viable Democratic candidate today. Webb is not Bill Clinton, but I'm not sure that is wrong.
I mean, you can look at his policies and struggle to fit them into the current party platform and it is tough. But you can say the same thing about Reagan, who is worshiped on the right. The things Reagan did and said would get him pilloried by the modern GOP if he was doing them now.
I mean, you can look at his policies and struggle to fit them into the current party platform and it is tough. But you can say the same thing about Reagan, who is worshiped on the right. The things Reagan did and said would get him pilloried by the modern GOP if he was doing them now.
I agree that the mantle of Reagan has been claimed by people who have little in common with Ronnie, though I would point out that he dealt with a Democratic Congress and so aside from tax policy (and even there) he had to make concessions to push his FP agenda.
But for Bill, on issues like free trade, Wall Street (rhetoric anyway), race, etc he just doesn't have much in common with the likely platform this election season.
Yes Im sure you can say Im wrong on one thing, another is complicated -- but can you dispute the broader point that the actual policies Reagan implemented and some of his FP stuff would get him killed in today's GOP?
Daily Beast: Lincoln Chafee Once Used Taxpayer Money to Buy Frogs For His Office - ( New Window )
Yes Im sure you can say Im wrong on one thing, another is complicated -- but can you dispute the broader point that the actual policies Reagan implemented and some of his FP stuff would get him killed in today's GOP?
Certainly true of some of it, but it was a very different landscape in 1980. The Soviets remained the elephant in the room until it was clear they were in a death spin. It was for Clinton too, so that "cashing the peace dividend" didn't mean he was particularly dovish on foreign policy.
Quote:
And Israel (Haaretzs Chemi Salev wrote: If Obama treated Israel like Reagan did, hed be impeached)
Reagan's administration was most definitely rough on Israel led by Cap Weinberger. Even more so than Carter's. Though Carter has been much worse to Israel after he left office.
After what Kevin McCarthy said, its difficult to accept at least a part of it was not, Hanna continued. I think thats the way Washington works. But youd like to expect more from a committee thats spent millions of dollars and tons of time.
Link - ( New Window )
Wow, just when you think this election cycle can't possible get any more bizarre, it does!
Quote:
Sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth, Hanna said on the Keeler in the Morning radio show in New York. This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people, and an individual, Hillary Clinton.
After what Kevin McCarthy said, its difficult to accept at least a part of it was not, Hanna continued. I think thats the way Washington works. But youd like to expect more from a committee thats spent millions of dollars and tons of time.
Link - ( New Window )
She's like the speeder doing 90 who complains that the cops are out to get her because she's being pulled over.
But we might as well get used to it. Given her history, there will probably be an investigation into some new "not very smart decision" or money-grubbing scheme every couple of months during her Administration.
Lincoln Chafeethe deer-in-headlights, generally perplexing fifth human on stage at the Democratic debatehad one thing going for him Tuesday night.
Quote:
the BIden camp today and now as per Chuck Todd the goal line has been moved to next weeks Benghazi hearings...
The media is driving a bogus Biden story because they want a race. Biden isnt getting in. I think the linked Bloomberg View piece gets it better -- he lost the primary about 9 months ago when he lost the whole establishment to HRC in the shaddow primary. I mean, if the FBI drops the hammer on HRC, all bets are off.
Maybe Im crazy, but Biden would have to really have to be bad at this to continue this Mario Cuomo will-he-or-wont-he schtick if he was actually running. He isnt raising money. He isnt locking up key supporters and apparatus. He is building no ground game. I think he's flattered, and maybe putting out feelers in case something catastrophic happens with HRC, but otherwise he's sitting it out. Link - ( New Window )
I'm not sure that really proves anything other than what some have already said about 'slacktivists' and whatnot- which I don't necessarily dismiss.
The thing is- if these internet warriors could be somewhat organized and get people to understand that they have to vote in the Primary- it could get interesting.
I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
First article that popped up - ( New Window )
It is October. Slow down. And ballpark, what percentage of Trump supporters are actual primary voters?
This would be fabulous. Just have him win some early.
I think it would be more accurate to say the turn happened after the 1994 elections. Add to that he was willing to compromise.
Dune: my skepticism over Trump is high, but do you have a reason to believe that Trump's supporters in particular wont show up to vote in primaries (put aside caucuses)?
I'm not sure that really proves anything other than what some have already said about 'slacktivists' and whatnot- which I don't necessarily dismiss.
The thing is- if these internet warriors could be somewhat organized and get people to understand that they have to vote in the Primary- it could get interesting.
I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
First article that popped up - ( New Window )
Cam I went around the internet after the debate Tuesday night. Virtually every online poll had Bernie winning and were virtually identical in number like 74-76%. Clearly his loyal army of supporters went around the internet voting in every one. Of course that's not scientific but I bet its true.
I may not agree with Sanders on the issues, but he has the National Enquirer, "The Apprentice" media down cold.
I may not agree with Sanders on the issues, but he has the National Enquirer, "The Apprentice" media down cold.
While I agree with Sanders in principle, he's fighting a losing campaign. Instead of his (theoretical) "attack" grabbing headlines, all the headlines went to HRC. It gets to the point that if you really want to affect change, then get elected.
I'm not sure that really proves anything other than what some have already said about 'slacktivists' and whatnot- which I don't necessarily dismiss.
The thing is- if these internet warriors could be somewhat organized and get people to understand that they have to vote in the Primary- it could get interesting.
I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
First article that popped up - ( New Window )
There's a dedicated forum (subreddit) on the popular site Reddit that is 100k strong (both US and non-US, voting age and under) that actively linked its user base to all of these polls right after the debate to vote in these online polls and create these results.
The issue with those numbers are:
- Its not representative - in other words, the vast majority of the people who watched the debate did not run to the various sites to vote for their candidate. Most Clinton supporters probably went to bed knowing their candidate did everything she needed to win the debate - which really amounted to keeping Joe Biden on the couch vs. joining the festivities.
- Not everyone who voted in those online surveys is able to vote, nor likely to vote. Again - slacktivisim at play.
- Sanders supporters skew as follows - White, Under 30, Male. Internet users who would take the time to flood every online forum they can to shill for a politician likely skews: White, Under 30, Male.
Again - Ron Paul dominated anything online related and won a few straw polls. The internet is a forum for very loud groups to create this kind of narrative.
What will be interesting is the brave new world of internet campaigning. This is not an accusation against the Sanders campaign, but there have been more than rumors about paid "shills" that infiltrate popular websites to form public opinion on a candidate. Especially in news aggregation sites like Reddit, where users are in control of what gets more predominant coverage through a Karma system - its an effective way to inform/misinform a low-effort/low-knowledge voting base and whip them into a frenzy.
Then again, Ron Paul's supporters were doing this on Digg a few years back. Reddit is just a larger platform.
Eh, better ways for Sanders to "attack" HRC in the primary. He could start with her contradictory evolving stance on TPP.
I imagine there are also a number of FP differences between the candidates that he could seek to exploit.
Its irrelevant whether its an issue or not for Bernie. In the general it will be there, and once its proven there's nothing there we'll move on to the next Clinton "scandal" manufactured by the right. We've seen his routine for over 20 years. Started back with Whitewater, when that didn't work lets move on to Paula Jones. Nothing much there but hmmm we found a nice little nugget with Monica Lewinsky. So Ken Starr spends years and millions and the best we come up with is a lie about a blow job. How did we get to the emails? Well lets form 7 committee's to investigate Benghazi even though every possible answer has been fleshed out 10 times over but as usual if we dig deep enough we'll find a nugget like the email server to make a lot of noise about for months. Hey while we're at it we might find something cool inside the Clinton foundation. If we dig deep enough we will overturn seedy stuff in any administration. Sure there were tinfoil hat accusations thrown at Bush by members of the far left. Difference is congress didn't spend millions upon millions investigating them. They chose to try and legislate instead.
Under oath. I believe that's called perjury.
I'll refrain from responding to the rest.
Quote:
not making a personal attack and shutting down the question of the emails. I do think it's an issue and should be in the primary because it sure will be in the general.
Its irrelevant whether its an issue or not for Bernie. In the general it will be there, and once its proven there's nothing there we'll move on to the next Clinton "scandal" manufactured by the right. We've seen his routine for over 20 years. Started back with Whitewater, when that didn't work lets move on to Paula Jones. Nothing much there but hmmm we found a nice little nugget with Monica Lewinsky. So Ken Starr spends years and millions and the best we come up with is a lie about a blow job. How did we get to the emails? Well lets form 7 committee's to investigate Benghazi even though every possible answer has been fleshed out 10 times over but as usual if we dig deep enough we'll find a nugget like the email server to make a lot of noise about for months. Hey while we're at it we might find something cool inside the Clinton foundation. If we dig deep enough we will overturn seedy stuff in any administration. Sure there were tinfoil hat accusations thrown at Bush by members of the far left. Difference is congress didn't spend millions upon millions investigating them. They chose to try and legislate instead.
Yes, manufactured. The right manufactured Hillary discussing classified FP and security information with Sid Blumenthal on her private server, which apparently permitted unencrypted remote access. The right manufactured Hillary's personal IT guy taking the Fifth.
When the former secretary of state praised Libya now a cauldron of chaos and Islamist militias as smart power at its best, nobody scoffed. When she was challenged about her e-mail practices, a controversy that has concerned many voters, top rival Bernie Sanders actually stepped in to dismiss the question. Americans are tired of hearing about it, he said.
For a night, the Democratic primary looked like what it was supposed to be a year ago: a coronation. On stage stood one dominant candidate, surrounded by others with other goals that didnt include actually taking her down.
For Clinton, this night was a win. But it wasnt great preparation. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she will face a Republican candidate who sees the very things she talked about Tuesday Libya, the e-mails and her closeness with President Obama as weapons to use against her.
I think that's entirely fair, but their is a counterpoint: what conceivable candidate is there on the Republican side that won't have a laundry list of vulnerabilities at least as long, as well as having the Republican clown show in the House as an extra 50-pound weight in their backpack?
The latter is a simple message: you are going to want a counterweight to a House of Representatives that is either incapable of governing or is dominated by roughly 40 individuals on the extreme right that do not represent your values or views.
Nevertheless, the point that the actual Presidential debates will look nothing like Tuesday is fair--but they won't look like the childish, name-calling, policy-free Republican debates, either.
Link - ( New Window )
They uncovered evidence of apparent wrongdoing with implications for national security, including wrongdoing with implications for the Benghazi attack. Frankly the original focus of the committee was a lot more craven and grandstanding than this one.
Unless Hillary murdered one in a fit of rage and relied on Huma to dispose of the body, that will probably be a less fruitful inquiry. Probably.
it's a bit silly to complain that the investigation is concentrating on Hillary when her finger prints are all over it, including the bogus claim about the video and why Stevens was in Benghazi and why he didn't have adequate security.
I would sooner put my own eyes out than open that attachment.
I'm not sure that really proves anything other than what some have already said about 'slacktivists' and whatnot- which I don't necessarily dismiss.
The thing is- if these internet warriors could be somewhat organized and get people to understand that they have to vote in the Primary- it could get interesting.
I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
First article that popped up - ( New Window )
Can you guys that keep repeating pretty much what I've said back to me as if you're countering some imaginary point I made please re-read what I wrote?
There is a possibility, no matter how slight, that 'slacktivists' could get their shit together.
Is it the line about the internet warriors that somehow makes you think that I think it is somehow likely? If so, please read the next line where I typed, "I wouldn't hold my breath." Most folks interpret that to mean that the person expressing it doesn't think it will happen.
Moreover, and I do not mean to minimize the loss of life, but the entirety of Benghazi has been overblown IMO for political reasons. Benghazi is not 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, and it doesnt need 8 separate investigations when the first 7 have said that there want wrongdoing but more could have been done (a truism if there ever was one). There were 13 attacks on embassies and consulates and other US diplomatic properties during the Bush administration, and 60 people died. I dont remember hundreds of hearings about those. An ambassador died, and I have no problem with thorough oversight. But that is not what Benghazi is on the right. It is just another rallying cry on the right, a shibboleth among those who righteously dismiss the president and Clinton as frauds, criminals, and dangerous incompetents. And it is the makework of an anti-government and out-of control Republican caucus.
Quote:
that showed that (at least according to voters via FB) Sanders overwhelmingly won the debate. He had 83% of the vote when it was taken down apparently.
I'm not sure that really proves anything other than what some have already said about 'slacktivists' and whatnot- which I don't necessarily dismiss.
The thing is- if these internet warriors could be somewhat organized and get people to understand that they have to vote in the Primary- it could get interesting.
I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
First article that popped up - ( New Window )
Can you guys that keep repeating pretty much what I've said back to me as if you're countering some imaginary point I made please re-read what I wrote?
There is a possibility, no matter how slight, that 'slacktivists' could get their shit together.
Is it the line about the internet warriors that somehow makes you think that I think it is somehow likely? If so, please read the next line where I typed, "I wouldn't hold my breath." Most folks interpret that to mean that the person expressing it doesn't think it will happen.
So I have this straight, you want posters on BBI to be able read and comprehend what you actually wrote? Good luck with that.
False. Hillary's is probably bigger.
Quote:
that showed that (at least according to voters via FB) Sanders overwhelmingly won the debate. He had 83% of the vote when it was taken down apparently.
I'm not sure that really proves anything other than what some have already said about 'slacktivists' and whatnot- which I don't necessarily dismiss.
The thing is- if these internet warriors could be somewhat organized and get people to understand that they have to vote in the Primary- it could get interesting.
I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
First article that popped up - ( New Window )
Can you guys that keep repeating pretty much what I've said back to me as if you're countering some imaginary point I made please re-read what I wrote?
There is a possibility, no matter how slight, that 'slacktivists' could get their shit together.
Is it the line about the internet warriors that somehow makes you think that I think it is somehow likely? If so, please read the next line where I typed, "I wouldn't hold my breath." Most folks interpret that to mean that the person expressing it doesn't think it will happen.
My additional diatribe around slaktivism was unnecessary, so I'll own that one and take the deserved blow-back - but the item that is interesting on this is the piece on where we go with online presence and politics - beyond it just being a voting block.
Paid political "shills" are a real thing and they have easy access to low effort/low information voters. It's going to be interesting to see not only if these internet warriors can get things together and make a movement actually go anywhere besides producing witty memes and the most Facebook likes, but also to see if they don't just get "astroturfed" and lead astray. I don't think anyone can fully appreciate what it means to have a largely anonymous group of people be able to spread largely unsubstantiated information to readers who don't want to dig any deeper to verify.
Moreover, and I do not mean to minimize the loss of life, but the entirety of Benghazi has been overblown IMO for political reasons. Benghazi is not 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, and it doesnt need 8 separate investigations when the first 7 have said that there want wrongdoing but more could have been done (a truism if there ever was one). There were 13 attacks on embassies and consulates and other US diplomatic properties during the Bush administration, and 60 people died. I dont remember hundreds of hearings about those. An ambassador died, and I have no problem with thorough oversight. But that is not what Benghazi is on the right. It is just another rallying cry on the right, a shibboleth among those who righteously dismiss the president and Clinton as frauds, criminals, and dangerous incompetents. And it is the makework of an anti-government and out-of control Republican caucus.
The actions taken in Libya by Obama and Clinton were a disaster, regardless of how Hillary was trying to tout it in the debate. They had elections, big whoop! She and Obama made the same error that Bush made in Iraq but that is never brought up. Benghazi matters because we don't know why Stevens was there, we don't know what the purpose of the attack was (and no, it wasn't about the video). And, something that is rarely brought up now, this all happened during a Presidential election. But the song and dance about the video was put forward to protect Obama from having Libya blow up in his face. Romney was viciously attacked by the media for pointing this out, just like he was ridiculed about Russia. Candy Crowley ran defense for Obama in the debate about Benghazi. When the dust cleared from the election, it became obvious that the WH and State covered up the disaster that was Libya/Benghazi. The early investigations done were shams. There was little or no cooperation by either the WH or State. They continue to stall and withhold information to this day. The only reason some of the emails and other information has come out is because of lawsuits. Even so, the Clinton emails are only one small part of the investigation. And they only got their hands on Ambassador Steven's emails recently.
So no, it's not a sham and it's not over. As much as some wish it would be.
In comment 12551116 Cam in MO said
The thing is- if these internet warriors could be somewhat organized and get people to understand that they have to vote in the Primary- it could get interesting.
That's a major assumption
Even discounting the paid political shills, one only has to remember social media back in the days after the Boston Marathon bombing to realize that this can be a real problem
It's interesting to watch IMO.
I have a feeling that the folks that keep scoffing at it are going to be left behind/caught unawares when someone finally figures out how to leverage social media into real world action (at least when it comes to running for office).
To be clear, I don't think Sanders is that guy.
Benghazi doesnt matter BECAUSE you dont know why Stevens was there. Enough investigation and ink has been spilled about the purpose of the attack that Im simply flabbergasted that you're still questioning this, though not surprised. Why do terrorists do terrorist things? Your ravings about the video disclose your true feelings on this -- big fraud, big coverup, CNN rigged the election, Gowdy has done no work this year because of Hillary, Obama/Clinton illegitimate. We get it. And as you say, all "The early investigations done were shams." Not the one that even GOP members of Congress are admitting is a political affair, but all of the 7 earlier ones. Because they did not bring down the presidency, and this is Obama's Watergate. 7 Republican led or co-led investigations published reports despite a no cooperation from the administration because why? Their in cahoots with Obama I assume.
It's interesting to watch IMO.
I have a feeling that the folks that keep scoffing at it are going to be left behind/caught unawares when someone finally figures out how to leverage social media into real world action (at least when it comes to running for office).
To be clear, I don't think Sanders is that guy.
I think you can look at someone like Obama, who actually did use the internet effectively and had it as a communication chain to his supporters. It can be used to build excitement and noise for the campaign, but at some point - you need to bring the rest of the base (or engage a new base) to get anywhere "Big Picture".
Also, the candidate needs to be the central hub/connecting point to the voters. Sanders has no true organization and his support is an amorphous group with no leadership - some of whom have resorted to passive racism (especially when he was confronted by the BLM group in Oregon) to push for his candidacy. In other words, you can't have people co-opting your campaign and then allowing for that kind of behavior - the stink stays on you, even if you don't have a clue what's going on.
Online campaigning can grow from where Obama had utilized it, but to allow an unchecked collective like the Sanders subreddit is almost more damaging to the candidate that helpful.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the "engaged internet activist" is also not a homogenized group. Even if we take out factors like the shills who are going to either distort facts or provide FUD against other candidates, there are basically as many anarchists as there are activist (those who would rather watch it burn than pledge undying support for candidate XYZ). For every subreddit that wants to keep the "Bernie circlejerk" turned up to 11, there's a forum that will distort and distract just for the "lolz".
Not a lot of answers in this response, but its going to be very interesting to watch long-term (as was already stated numerous times...). As njm hit on, the internet can froth itself up into a lynch mob (see what Reddit did with the Boston Bombings) just as easy as it can launch a campaign.
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
Since they all want that, they should have it and also, 2 hours is a reasonable limit. Also, both parties should raise the bar to 3% of recent polls to allow a candidate to participate. Candidates that haven't been generating that amount of interest should drop out anyway.
You and Deej are entitled to your opinions, even if they are wrong.
Quote:
wrong and misrepresented it's staggering. It was a simple issue. Romney made a big deal shooting his mouth off echoing the bogus talking point that Obama did not address it as a terrorist attack the next day in the Rose Garden. Obama said he in fact did call it an act of terror. He simply had Crowley verify this by reading off an actual transcript from the address that day. Simple as that. No grand conspiracy by Crowley and CNN to get Obama re-elected.
You and Deej are entitled to your opinions, even if they are wrong.
Just curious what from that re-cap of what happened at the debate did I get wrong? It was a simple exchange that got you, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the right all butt-hurt and in an uproar because one of your BS talking points about Obama could be so easily refuted in 2 seconds by simply looking at a transcript from his speech that day in the Rose Garden. Done blame the messenger Crowley. Blame Romney and his debate prep team. It's not the best idea at a debate to shoot your mouth off on a talking point that can so easily be refuted.
On Fox, he had criticized the Obama Adminstration regarding Benghazi and praised Fox for their continual coverage.
Fox News Promoted Simmons' Call For A Benghazi Select Committee.
Fox News hosted Simmons to promote his call for a committee.
From the segment
UMA PEMMARAJU: Former CIA operative and author Wayne Simmons is one of those who signed that letter to the speaker of the House and he's joining us this now. Tell us more about why all of you have come together to sign this letter and do you think it's going to put more pressure to get the answers that you guys are looking for?
SIMMONS: The answer is we hope so. We hope that the pressure that we can continue to put on from the Citizens' Commission on Benghazi and along with Judicial Watch by delivering this very, very strong letter to Speaker Boehner, helps motivate him to begin this House Select Committee on Investigations.
[...]
We know that, of course, Hillary Clinton is the genesis of this. [JudicialWatch.org, 3/5/14; Fox News, America's News HQ, 3/8/14; Speaker.gov, 5/2/14]
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12551793 Stu11 said:
Quote:
wrong and misrepresented it's staggering. It was a simple issue. Romney made a big deal shooting his mouth off echoing the bogus talking point that Obama did not address it as a terrorist attack the next day in the Rose Garden. Obama said he in fact did call it an act of terror. He simply had Crowley verify this by reading off an actual transcript from the address that day. Simple as that. No grand conspiracy by Crowley and CNN to get Obama re-elected.
You and Deej are entitled to your opinions, even if they are wrong.
Just curious what from that re-cap of what happened at the debate did I get wrong? It was a simple exchange that got you, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the right all butt-hurt and in an uproar because one of your BS talking points about Obama could be so easily refuted in 2 seconds by simply looking at a transcript from his speech that day in the Rose Garden. Done blame the messenger Crowley. Blame Romney and his debate prep team. It's not the best idea at a debate to shoot your mouth off on a talking point that can so easily be refuted.
You may want to read this link Stu.
Link - ( New Window )
Cam I went around the internet after the debate Tuesday night. Virtually every online poll had Bernie winning and were virtually identical in number like 74-76%. Clearly his loyal army of supporters went around the internet voting in every one. Of course that's not scientific but I bet its true.
The democrats have done a great job during the last two presidential campaigns of putting an army of people out there on the internet. Whether it is to pump up these polls or more importantly to find every blog possible to spread their propoganda. That being said, I sincerely doubt that Sanders would have bean ahead of Hillary in this type of online initiative. With all of her money and prior campaign experience... you would think that she had thousands of her trolls out there clicking away.
What the hell does that refer to if not calling Benghazi an act of terror?
Moreover, what sort of meek, irrelevant, infantile point was Romney making? Oh, Obama doesnt use precisely the words I would use, so he's soft on terrorism? What a vapid, empty point. It is so small to keep raising it, leaving aside the fact that Romney's rhetorical point was dead wrong.
Candy Crowley didnt steal the election from Romney. Let it go.
Link - ( New Window )
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/10/house-benghazi-committee-will-dunk-hilla-0 - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
So should DNC be about maximizing the benefit to Clinton or maximize the benefit to the party's entire slate of candidate, House, Senate, state & local? There seems to be a disagreement.
DNC should not be making rules to favor a specific candidate, and it is fairly obvious that they did this. Now that doesnt mean that it should be totally passive. For example, I see no reason why the party must continue giving time to Chafee and Webb (both good men) when they're not really running. Chafee has two staffers and has raised $30k. Just because he once held office, NEVER AS A DEMOCRAT, and now self-identifies as a Democrat does not punch his ticket forever.
It is staggering to me that the NY Times allows Michael Schmidt to continue to report on anything, but in particular the Clinton email issue. He has utterly embarrassed himself and his employer time and again on the Clinton emails. It is widely believed that Gowdy himself has been Schmidt's source on all of this. And look at this piece. Purely written from the FBI's perspective in a decades long turf war where the FBI thinks that they and not the DOJ should get to wield prosecutorial discretion.
Just one point though: He doesnt even anonymously source his assertion that the FBI agents on the case were angered by Obama's comments. Just assets it as known fact. Then he gives space to Hosko, who has a fucking hard-on for Obama and Holder because Holder likes to investigate cops. What a joke.
Rubio aside, this all makes a ton of sense. GOPers as a group outraise Dems because there are so many more of them, and so much of fundraising for most of these people requires calls and events, but with just 2 clear choices the Dems get individual spots #1 and 2. I have no explanation for Rubio, and his campaign's excuses about Walker being in early in the quarter ring pretty hollow. Overall disappointing quarter for Hillary IMO (havent see writeups calling it that). She had a brutal 3rd quarter in the news, and I think the donors sat back. But as the presumptive nominee, and with a rockstar husband who can headline events and make calls for her, that's a terrible number. One note re Carson -- he spent 11 million on fund raising. That is a horrific 50+% spend to get $20 million raised, when 10-15% is typical; suggests that his campaign is being run in the vanity style, where the real purpose is to enrich his advisors. Spent only 3 million on actually campaigning.
If Rubio has become the inevitable frontrunner, it is not reflected in the polls (still not breaking 10% consistently) or money hauls.
Should also note that I believe 3rd quarter probably favored GOPers climate wise for fundraising. That first debate was a ratings blockbuster (2nd was post-3Q?). And as mentioned, Hillary had a brutal quarter vs. "the facts" and Biden left the race in a real state of flux.
Im really interested to see how TV ads will impact the election. On the one hand, they really highlight the distinction between candidate and PAC money. Candidates by statute get the lowest rate stations charge for ads. Super PACs typically pay the highest rates since they dont get the protection AND they buy near the last minute. OTOH, there is a lot of debate about whether political ads work and particularly whether they work in the age of DVR and Netflix.
Quote:
in the context of the President's remarks on the subject and analogizing it to the Petraeus case. Link - ( New Window )
It is staggering to me that the NY Times allows Michael Schmidt to continue to report on anything, but in particular the Clinton email issue. He has utterly embarrassed himself and his employer time and again on the Clinton emails. It is widely believed that Gowdy himself has been Schmidt's source on all of this. And look at this piece. Purely written from the FBI's perspective in a decades long turf war where the FBI thinks that they and not the DOJ should get to wield prosecutorial discretion.
Just one point though: He doesnt even anonymously source his assertion that the FBI agents on the case were angered by Obama's comments. Just assets it as known fact. Then he gives space to Hosko, who has a fucking hard-on for Obama and Holder because Holder likes to investigate cops. What a joke.
Yes, Hosko has been a frequency critic. As president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, imo would suggest he spend more time cleaning up this "charity". This organization has been criticized in the past; small % of donations actually assisted officers in need. Still gets low grades by Charity Rating organizations.
Re the DNC thing, Chairwoman is now being accused of lying about consulting with others re the debates. I suspect she will eventually step down "for the good of the party" and/or "not to distract from the important issues".
The process of elimination logic of Rubio still make a lot of sense. But he had a very strong 2nd debate. Where is the poll bounce? 2nd debate was Sept. 16, when he was a ~7 and Walker was at ~2.5. Now Rubio is at 9.4%. He appears to have absorbed the Walker voters (people willing to vote for establishment solid conservatives not named Jeb!). It's a month and there is no polling breakout.
I suspect that the donors willing to desert Jeb! are feeling burned by giving based on the logic if "it's him". I dont know that Rubio just automatically gets the money based on logic after the Bush debacle of a campaign.
And Im throwing out the conventional wisdom on the GOP side. It is worthless. The chattering class still cannot come to grips with Trump and Carson, and Bush is still considered the most likely to win. Except I havent spoken to a single rank and file republican who wants Jeb! to be the nominee.
Re the DNC thing, Chairwoman is now being accused of lying about consulting with others re the debates. I suspect she will eventually step down "for the good of the party" and/or "not to distract from the important issues".
yea I think she's dead chairwoman walking. She won't win the tiff she's in with her board. Its a shame because I think she's a good person and congresswoman but she's become overzealous with the position. I know those on the right would disagree as the chairperson of the opposite party is always the villain as they turn themselves into that for a reason. My nieces interned for her while they were in college at GW. She really is a good person but she's been too heavy handed here. Frankly I could care less about how many debates they have, too many is no good either. We all know barring a legal bombshell who the nominee will be. Now that might very well be her doing as well.
"However, I think that we have become, unfortunately, a midterm party that doesn't lose and a presidential party that's had a really hard time winning," Priebus said. "We're seeing more and more that if you don't hold the White House, it's very difficult to govern in this country especially in Washington D.C."
"So I think that I do think that we're cooked as a party for quite a while as a party if we don't win in 2016. So I do think that it's going to be hard to dig out of something like that," Priebus told the Examiner. "I don't anticipate that. I think ... history is on our side."
The chairman went on to discuss issues surrounding Hillary Clinton and the "vastly improved" efforts undertaken at the RNC, adding that the "whole big picture" looks good for the GOP in 2016.
This is not the first time Priebus has hinted at the troubles facing the GOP on the national stage. In June, Priebus told radio host Laura Ingraham that a third straight presidential loss for the party would result in them relinquishing their spot as a national party.
Not sure I agree with the "national party" assessment (I mean, Romney lost with 47% -- lets not pretend it was 35%), and will likely hold the house even if the Dems win back the WH (although the lead will be narrower and might be purely dependent on population distribution patterns and gerrymandering, which is not the case now) but otherwise spot on, cheerleading aside.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
in the context of the President's remarks on the subject and analogizing it to the Petraeus case. Link - ( New Window )
It is staggering to me that the NY Times allows Michael Schmidt to continue to report on anything, but in particular the Clinton email issue. He has utterly embarrassed himself and his employer time and again on the Clinton emails. It is widely believed that Gowdy himself has been Schmidt's source on all of this. And look at this piece. Purely written from the FBI's perspective in a decades long turf war where the FBI thinks that they and not the DOJ should get to wield prosecutorial discretion.
Just one point though: He doesnt even anonymously source his assertion that the FBI agents on the case were angered by Obama's comments. Just assets it as known fact. Then he gives space to Hosko, who has a fucking hard-on for Obama and Holder because Holder likes to investigate cops. What a joke.
So you're saying the FBI leaks to Gowdy who then leaks to Schmidt? That's a stretch even for an outfit like Media Matters. And whatever you think of Hosko, he speaks for the record, which certain doesn't suggest he leaks to Gowdy.
Re the DNC thing, Chairwoman is now being accused of lying about consulting with others re the debates. I suspect she will eventually step down "for the good of the party" and/or "not to distract from the important issues".
Wasserman Shultz only steps down if a Clinton tells her to fall on her sword. And if it does happen, it will when the calendar makes scheduling additional debates very difficult.
As for DWS, we'll see. This could come to a head fast. Also, if Hillary jumps in the polls post debate and post 10/22 testimony, the race will be effectively over. This is the problem with the call for more debates in the first place--it's already a 2 person show. How many debates should there be? Does America really want to see Hillary and Bernie debate for 50 hours? I dont. That's not a pro-HRC bias. It is a I have other shit to do (lies -- watching the Knicks/Rangers and stuff on Netflix) bias.
She picked up 3-8 points overall in the race, at Biden's expense (Bernie was up too). Suffolk U/Globe poll of NH has her winning the debate 54-24 and retaking the lead for the first time since early August.
Link - ( New Window )
You're still saying Gowdy is leaking FBI leaks. David Brock would be proud.
Quote:
And Gowdy probably said "call Hosko, he'll give you stuff too".
You're still saying Gowdy is leaking FBI leaks. David Brock would be proud.
No, Im suggesting that Gowdy said call Hosko, and Hosko probably leaked the FBI stuff. Although who really knows because Schmidt doesnt even claim that there is a source for the internal FBI stuff. He doesnt say that these people claim to be angry or that others describe them as angry. They just ARE angry.
So how do you think a story like this happens? You think the reporter gumshoed it and learned who the FBI agents were, got the phone numbers, and called them all? I think that is a fairly naive way of thinking about how the news gets written. Especially for a guy who has been the mouthpiece for the Gowdy committee for the better part of a year.
Quote:
particularly some of the folks who were in Walker's camp. If that doesn't come to fruition it suggests larger problems, but as of yet I wouldn't get too concerned.
The process of elimination logic of Rubio still make a lot of sense. But he had a very strong 2nd debate. Where is the poll bounce? 2nd debate was Sept. 16, when he was a ~7 and Walker was at ~2.5. Now Rubio is at 9.4%. He appears to have absorbed the Walker voters (people willing to vote for establishment solid conservatives not named Jeb!). It's a month and there is no polling breakout.
I suspect that the donors willing to desert Jeb! are feeling burned by giving based on the logic if "it's him". I dont know that Rubio just automatically gets the money based on logic after the Bush debacle of a campaign.
And Im throwing out the conventional wisdom on the GOP side. It is worthless. The chattering class still cannot come to grips with Trump and Carson, and Bush is still considered the most likely to win. Except I havent spoken to a single rank and file republican who wants Jeb! to be the nominee.
The thing with Jeb - and Rubio - is that for most mainstream Republican voters will hold their nose and vote for him. That is not necessarily true of Christie with the more conservative swaths of the party (even those who are reasonably mainstream) and it isn't true of Carson and Cruz with the more centrist swaths of the party, and frankly there are folks who simply will not vote for Carson or Trump because they don't think they're serious candidates. Jeb may be uninspiring and there are some people who are repelled by his last name but he is conservative enough for most of that side of the party, not too conservative for most of the other side of the party. Rubio is the same way except with a few less concerns about his being uninspiring or having the wrong last name and a few more about his being "ready."
The problem is that the same logic cannot explain the persistence of Trump, Carson, and even Fiorina. As a group the outsiders are at or near 60%, and if you factor in Cruz (fairly an outsider) it is 60-65%. That is a massive anti-establishment component of your electorate. Not reasonable IMO to assume that they jump to an establishment candidate because they want to win. They dont need to be awoken to the fact that if the Dems win, it is the dreaded HRC -- they get it. Moreover, Rubio in particular seems to be unlikely to pick up the populist, anti-immigration, possibly white nationalist, comparatively-dovish (for Republicans), fiscally ignorant/uncaring Trump voter.
If Cruz was less of an asshole he'd be in really good shape. Indeed, I'd say he'd be the smart choice for the GOP for two reasons. One, because of demographics, fame, and scandal it is prob. Hillary's election to win or lose so it doesnt totally matter who your nominee is, and (2) if he wins he will pull policy to the right and if he loses you all can have an internal conversation about whether you lose elections because you arent doctrinaire conservatives enough (as some on the right suggest) or whether there are other reasons (e.g. they way the party self-markets to non-whites).
Barring any scandals in his closet, Rubio looks like a strong nominee. Forceful speaker, positive enough message, and good at that trick/political skill where you say that there are strong considerations on both sides but then coming down hard to one side (Obama and Ryan are also good at this). Essentially being moderate in tone much more than position.
If he ends up running against Clinton, I'll have to vote for an Independant or choose a write-in candidate.
If he ends up running against Clinton, I'll have to vote for an Independant or choose a write-in candidate.
I'm not terribly concerned about those to whom he panders. I'll take a panderer whose values and policy preferences reasonably approximate my own. I just don't know that they are, and I think he'd sooner see a Hillary presidency with him as Cassandra than a Rubio presidency in which he's a senator or offered some minor cabinet post.
As far as the general is concerned, my question is whether the fact that HRC will be the Democratic nominee will be inspirational enough for the insurgents' supporters to go out and vote even if it means holding their nose.
Best description I've heard of Cruz is when he was called Trump's pilot fish.
To some extent it's market based, and that's fair. He's in 10th place. Guys in 10th place tend not to get much air time. It's a self-fulfilling spiral. He's not going to get the B-roll of gladhanding at the diner. He's not going to get look-ins 4 times a day at his events.
I mean, what should the media do? Give everyone equal time? What about Jim Gilmore? Kasich is immeasurably closer to Jindal than Trump right now, even though he's been given the breaks of being at the big boy debates including on in Ohio where he got some homecourt cheers.
In the article linked below psychologists don't think Trump's base are the crazies.
"From a psychological perspective, though, the people backing Trump are perfectly normal. Interviews with psychologists and other experts suggest one explanation for the candidate's success -- and for the collective failure to anticipate it: The political elite hasn't confronted a few fundamental, universal and uncomfortable facts about the human mind.
We like people who talk big.
We like people who tell us that our problems are simple and easy to solve, even when they aren't.
And we don't like people who don't look like us.
Most people share these characteristics to some degree, but they seem to be especially prevalent among Trump's base."
Psychologist Analyze Trump Supporters - ( New Window )
Same advisers, same strategy, same status as every Democrat's favorite GOP candidate. Done-zo?
Link - ( New Window )
And we don't like people who don't look like us.
Most people share these characteristics to some degree, but they seem to be especially prevalent among Trump's base."
Psychologist Analyze Trump Supporters - ( New Window )
So they're not crazy, they're just racists?
This is neither here nor there, but Bill Bolling is a major, major pussy. I certainly have no love for VA GOP, but blaming them for his departure from that race really isn't accurate. He has always been too chickenshit to actually scrap for a nomination. If he wasn't going to be coronated, he wasn't interest. Trust me on that one - not going to go into how I know, but I know people who were very closely involved in multiple Bolling campaigns.
To some extent it's market based, and that's fair. He's in 10th place. Guys in 10th place tend not to get much air time. It's a self-fulfilling spiral. He's not going to get the B-roll of gladhanding at the diner. He's not going to get look-ins 4 times a day at his events.
I mean, what should the media do? Give everyone equal time? What about Jim Gilmore? Kasich is immeasurably closer to Jindal than Trump right now, even though he's been given the breaks of being at the big boy debates including on in Ohio where he got some homecourt cheers.
I'm not saying equal time, I'm saying ANY time (or almost any time) on a national basis. Chris Christie has gotten a multiple of Kasich's air time, including the Sunday talk shows and Morning Joe.
Quote:
And we don't like people who don't look like us.
Most people share these characteristics to some degree, but they seem to be especially prevalent among Trump's base."
Psychologist Analyze Trump Supporters - ( New Window )
So they're not crazy, they're just racists?
No. Read the article. Although conservatives might not like it, I thought it was interesting.
Quote:
In comment 12554430 Watson said:
Quote:
And we don't like people who don't look like us.
Most people share these characteristics to some degree, but they seem to be especially prevalent among Trump's base."
Psychologist Analyze Trump Supporters - ( New Window )
So they're not crazy, they're just racists?
No. Read the article. Although conservatives might not like it, I thought it was interesting.
Psychologist quoted in the Washington Post finds racism a core psychological tenet of self-described conservatives. Film at eleven. Example 7,345 of people with letters trailing their names finding pseudo-scientific ways to sneer at people who don't share their political beliefs.
If Sanders has to start opening his pockets and spending to keep up in NH, there is absolutely no hope (downgraded from "basically no hope").
Even more damning - Biden still ate up 11% of those polled, but that 11% most likely goes to Hillary (at least 8-10%, if not all).
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
The article does say racists are more likely to support a conservative faction of the GOP. But that's a bit different than your dismissive comment - "Psychologist quoted in the Washington Post finds racism a core psychological tenet of self-described conservatives. Film at eleven."
Quote:
Debate will be just 2 hours, with opening and closing statements.
Re the DNC thing, Chairwoman is now being accused of lying about consulting with others re the debates. I suspect she will eventually step down "for the good of the party" and/or "not to distract from the important issues".
Wasserman Shultz only steps down if a Clinton tells her to fall on her sword. And if it does happen, it will when the calendar makes scheduling additional debates very difficult.
I think Obama would have to be the one to tell her. Supposedly no on likes Wasserman Schultz, but Obama kept her on as DNC chair because he knew the Clintons hated her.
The article does say racists are more likely to support a conservative faction of the GOP. But that's a bit different than your dismissive comment - "Psychologist quoted in the Washington Post finds racism a core psychological tenet of self-described conservatives. Film at eleven."
My dismissive comment refers to the same bullshit story that recurs with regularity. Someone with great psychological or sociological or political insight inveighs that conservatives are racist or some other "honorific" and puts the imprimatur of science behind it.
And no, not all Trumpkins are crazy. Most of them aren't crazy. There are rational, sane reasons to dislike the Establishment, especially the Republican Establishment, and to feel as Trump purports to feel about certain issues or even to like Trump itself. But let's wait until they actually cast a ballot or two before we decide they're actually going to show up for him in the strength with which they reply to polls.
But his Mother was born in the US and therefore, Cruz is a natural born citizen. Can we please stop with all this Birther crap.
From the Harvard Review:
"While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a natural born Citizen means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law3 and enactments of the First Congress.4 Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase natural born Citizen includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent."
Harvard Review - the meaning of a natural born citizen - ( New Window )
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., said questions to Abedin focused on the Benghazi attacks, but also touched on Clinton's use of a private email account and server while serving as secretary of state.
"If it had something to do with Benghazi and an email then that was asked. If it wasn't about Benghazi, it wasn't asked," Westmoreland told reporters.
The decision to question Abedin angered the panel's top Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, and the Clinton campaign.
"She had no policy responsibilities, no operational responsibilities and was not with Secretary Clinton on the night of this phenomenal tragedy," Cummings told reporters after breaking away momentarily from the day's proceedings. [...]
Gowdy was in South Carolina on Friday and did not attend the session in which committee staff and attorneys questioned Abedin. Republicans Westmoreland and Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas did attend the meeting, as did Cummings.
Asked about Gowdy's absence, spokesman Jamal Ware said, "no particular reason," and later added that the chairman discusses the questions with staff in advance and trusts his colleagues to pursue them.
Link - ( New Window )
the birther crap was to prove Obama was not born in this country to a parent who was not born in US therefore he was not a Natural Born Citizen
(even though Obama was born in Hawaii so the whole argument is a racist dog whistle)
that is exactly what Cruz is..
the same birthers are now supporters of Cruz ..
Hypocrisy thy name is Republican
Fake campaign promises are exactly equivalent to the oldest profession.
What's that supposed to even mean? I'm not sure I get the origins of that line. Now with Trump going after him, I'm curious about what it's supposed to mean.
Many would (and did) argue that ending both wars wasn't realistic though.
Exposed? As I said I thought the Benghazi investigation was utter bullshit from the outset. I've always assumed they were tiptoeing around the fact that the embassy in Libya was probably involved in clandestine operations in the region and I assumed the Republicans had a pretty good idea this was taking place and so hammered them on something they could not effectively respond to. That struck me as dirty pool. The email piece is the only revelation from this committee that has ever struck me as a real one. But it is a real one, and one that would see the run of the mill State Department employee, much less the service member, hung out to dry and at risk of criminal charges. She has lied about it numerous times, backtracked and qualified previous statements, and her toadies -distinct from those who quite understandably intend to vote for her as better than available Democrats and more acceptable than the GOP - care more about the investigators' motives than hers.
Quote:
But his Mother was born in the US and therefore, Cruz is a natural born citizen. Can we please stop with all this Birther crap.
the birther crap was to prove Obama was not born in this country to a parent who was not born in US therefore he was not a Natural Born Citizen
(even though Obama was born in Hawaii so the whole argument is a racist dog whistle)
that is exactly what Cruz is..
the same birthers are now supporters of Cruz ..
Hypocrisy thy name is Republican
The birthers were idiots. I said so at the time. His mother was an American citizen so it doesn't matter where he was born.
Wrong.
The piece today deals with how shabbily the US deals with working women, in terms of subsidized childcare, paid or even unpaid leave, and the like. That this pattern has caused the percentage of US women who work to drop to 20th in the world, from a recent 7th. And that this inability of many women to afford to work affects economic activity.
So, hate the messenger if you like (her or me), but I challenge you to find a single Republican presidential candidate who thinks that this is a subject even worth discussing.
Link - ( New Window )
What's that supposed to even mean? I'm not sure I get the origins of that line. Now with Trump going after him, I'm curious about what it's supposed to mean.
I believe it meant there were no terrorist attacks in the US after 911.
Quote:
What's with this obsession about "George W kept us safe" or "My brother kept us safe."
What's that supposed to even mean? I'm not sure I get the origins of that line. Now with Trump going after him, I'm curious about what it's supposed to mean.
I believe it meant there were no terrorist attacks in the US after 911.
I guess but that's a weird thing to keep saying. Because the obvious rejoinder is, "well doesn't 9/11 cancel all that out?" I mean it brings the fact that he was President at the time to the front of the mind.
So I guess I don't really see why they say it all the time. But whatever, there are a lot of things that don't make sense to me.
Of course, the 40,000 Americans dead or wounded in Iraq (excluding PTSD) weren't kept quite so safe. Nor were Iraqis whose total casualties cannot estimated very well--or don't Iraqis count?
In Chile, a law requires employers to provide working mothers with child care. One result? Women are paid less.
In Spain, a policy to give parents of young children the right to work part-time has led to a decline in full-time, stable jobs available to all womeneven those who are not mothers.
Elsewhere in Europe, generous maternity leaves have meant that women are much less likely than men to become managers or achieve other high-powered positions at work.
https://reason.com/blog/2015/10/14/sanders-when-a-mother-has-a-baby-she-sho
So you have paid maternity leave, women take more time off, and then wind up with a lesser career and then we have the 'income equality' argument.
Link - ( New Window )
Bullcrap.
This is really what it is about. She's a boogeyman to some on the right, literally a sleeper agent as if this was Homeland or something. Because no responsible committee would interview her on Benghazi. It's a waste of time.
Attempted education reform, albeit missed results.
Then you have the emails and handling of classified information which is the false equivalency to the Bush administration outing a CIA agent ultimately because they didn't go along with the false intelligence they put out....imagine if Obama administration did that. Seriously think about that one.
I am not fan of W. But seeing him out of the spotlight, enjoying retirement, and finding something he enjoys is nice to see.
Whether you love/hate a President, I am still of the mindset that they do for the nation what they think is best at the time. Whether its turns out well or not, is another story.
I dont think Obama's presidency will be historically pleasing, but I can appreciate his efforts at trying to make America a better country.
He did. Period, full stop.
Here is the thing about Bush. I think he was a terrible, horrible president. But the guy had a heart. Undeniable. When the GOP wanted to cut the EITC while cutting taxes for the wealthy, he said he would not balance the budget off the "backs of the poor". 10 years later the GOP put forward C. Montgomery Burns Mitt Romney, who said of the purported 47% of Americans who pay no INCOME tax: "so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives" and then was backed by the WSJ editorial page who, I shit you not, called these people the "lucky duckies" of America.
This is really what it is about. She's a boogeyman to some on the right, literally a sleeper agent as if this was Homeland or something. Because no responsible committee would interview her on Benghazi. It's a waste of time.
Per Megyn Kelly ...
A Hillary Clinton confidante spent hours on Friday before the House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi, Libya, attack that left four Americans dead.
Huma Abedin, who served as an aide to Clinton at the State Department and is now the vice chairwoman of Clintons campaign, testified behind closed doors.
Many noticed a primary figure on the committee didnt attend the meeting. Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., committee chairman, was strangely absent. Those attending the meeting included Reps. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga.; Mike Pompeo, R-Kan.; and Elijah Cummings, D-Md.
Committee spokesman Jamal Ware said there was no particular reason for Gowdys absence, although some are speculating that recent criticism could be motivating his lack of attendance.
Link - ( New Window )
The whole 'He kept us safe' thing is a bit, well, weird considering 9/11 occurred on his watch. I appreciated his leadership in the days after, but he got way off course with Iraq.
Exactly. Iraq was a total diversion. I still will never understand why we went into that place.
Hussein? Maybe?
He knows it will be damaging but parts of the base still love W so it will be a net positive in the primary. But it's going to kill him if he makes it as far as the general.
Looking increasingly likely that he won't.
It's not a "you guys." As I said, I am reasonably certain that their somewhat coy defense of themselves is because they were doing shady things. And that is fine. I expect them (CIA/State/DIA etc) to do shady things, I don't need to know about them. What happened to the ambassador and his security guys was a tragedy. Exploiting that for political points is shitty. There were aspects about it that pissed me off, most notably the bit about the video, but nothing new came up for years. But once the email thing came to light, it deserved (deserves) to be thoroughly investigated and taken seriously. A blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile. They found a nut.
Quote:
then got off track into Iraq
Exactly. Iraq was a total diversion. I still will never understand why we went into that place.
This is such an article of faith for too many people, but it made plenty of sense at the time. You had a containment regime in tatters, you had what seemed to be a likelihood of WMD, you had a piece of shit who was abusing sanctions to enrich himself while his people suffered, and you had an ideology that seemed to be working in Afghanistan and seemed to mesh well with the way we wanted to see ourselves after 9/11. The decision looked like a much more reasonable one in 2002-2003 than it does now, after a bungled post-war order and that a cataclysm that ensued after we left.
I have a suspicion that HRC is not being investigated criminally (anymore?). I think if she was, Obama wouldnt have said what he did on 60 Minutes, Biden would be more bold/getting in (ie would be suggesting to potential donors/staff that she could be indicted--that would surely leak), Clinton wouldnt be on the offensive, and the committee wouldnt be on the defensive. Frankly, I'd be surprised if the FBI/DOJ needed more than a few days to decide whether a crime was committed. Director Comey is not getting pushed around on this -- it's not in his character. It just strikes me as patently ridiculous that the whole Dem machine is operating in the blind, and that our presumptive nominee may or may not be going to jail.
Logic strongly suggests IMO that Hillary is criminally in the clear. The sources I've seen suggesting that this is a criminal probe are all from right leaning outlets (NY Post and worse), and it strikes me as more likely that at this point it is the routine non-punitive investigation they do to assess whether confidential information made its way out of controlled systems, and if so to what extent the info is disseminated.
Just my 2 cents. I havent seen this written up based on logic. But conservatives waiting for the Hillary indictment should probably not get too excited.
The people with reason to know whether this is criminal sure arent acting in a manner consistent with that reality.
But he is still the best candidate for president.
This requirement to be perfect every time you say something is beyond ridiculous. Hillary has her fair share of gaffes, but many are just panded by the media. They all say stuff that is goofy. It is a game by media to see who can they can trip up.
No opinion on Bush's purported gaffes though. Im not voting b/c of his policies.
I have a suspicion that HRC is not being investigated criminally (anymore?). I think if she was, Obama wouldnt have said what he did on 60 Minutes, Biden would be more bold/getting in (ie would be suggesting to potential donors/staff that she could be indicted--that would surely leak), Clinton wouldnt be on the offensive, and the committee wouldnt be on the defensive. Frankly, I'd be surprised if the FBI/DOJ needed more than a few days to decide whether a crime was committed. Director Comey is not getting pushed around on this -- it's not in his character. It just strikes me as patently ridiculous that the whole Dem machine is operating in the blind, and that our presumptive nominee may or may not be going to jail.
Logic strongly suggests IMO that Hillary is criminally in the clear. The sources I've seen suggesting that this is a criminal probe are all from right leaning outlets (NY Post and worse), and it strikes me as more likely that at this point it is the routine non-punitive investigation they do to assess whether confidential information made its way out of controlled systems, and if so to what extent the info is disseminated.
Just my 2 cents. I havent seen this written up based on logic. But conservatives waiting for the Hillary indictment should probably not get too excited.
The Times piece analogized the Obama comments to what he said about Petraeus, where it seemed like he was almost trying to take the wind out of the sails of folks who wanted to hit him with felonies. That doesn't mean that Obama is trying to undercut a looming prosecution, there isn't a ton to suggest that is in the works. But what seems to be known strikes many of us as pointing to criminal activity and they - particularly if the "they" is the DOJ - acknowledge criminal conduct but decline to prosecute most of those conservative outlets will claim it's purely political.
I very, very, very much doubt that the FBI will release something official that says there was criminal conduct, but whatevs. That would be a first. What I think you may get is blind FBI sources in conservative publications saying that there was a big coverup. I believe the NY Post is either fabricating its sources on most of its Hillary stories, or publishing the rantings of people out of the loop (every asshole has an opinion) as if they know something.
USA TODAY: -- Petraeus prosecutor: Clinton committed no crime - ( New Window )
I very, very, very much doubt that the FBI will release something official that says there was criminal conduct, but whatevs. That would be a first. What I think you may get is blind FBI sources in conservative publications saying that there was a big coverup. I believe the NY Post is either fabricating its sources on most of its Hillary stories, or publishing the rantings of people out of the loop (every asshole has an opinion) as if they know something.
There will still be pressure to release results from an investigation, and if they suggest criminal conduct it won't require an express declaration for people to reach the same conclusion. The exchange with Sid Blumenthal, for instance, referenced matter that was almost certainly classified, and she suggested to Jake Tapper on an interview set to air tomorrow I think that it was a non-issue because he (Sid) was not in government. Huh?
Im making a very narrow point, which is this -- facts point to a non-criminal investigation. Do you agree?
Im making a very narrow point, which is this -- facts point to a non-criminal investigation. Do you agree?
She will not be "cleared." The behavior may not be criminal, if it is criminal she may not be prosecuted, but what is known now is still damning, and entirely self-inflicted. And suggesting that it isn't a criminal investigation - which it may not be - is not the same as saying the conduct isn't criminal. The imperative to discover the extent of the damage, or the risk of damage, may simply be more important than the imperative to punish wrongdoing.
Quote:
But the dude is a gaffe machine.
But he is still the best candidate for president.
This requirement to be perfect every time you say something is beyond ridiculous. Hillary has her fair share of gaffes, but many are just panded by the media. They all say stuff that is goofy. It is a game by media to see who can they can trip up.
How is he the best candidate? His gaffes may be just that, but he hasn't shown any connection with the voters and doesn't have any chance of beating Hillary.
Bullcrap.
Did you read the article? They may be successful in providing paid leave, but that doesn't mean it's the best for everyone.
Quote:
suggests to me that he has been told that it is not criminal.
I very, very, very much doubt that the FBI will release something official that says there was criminal conduct, but whatevs. That would be a first. What I think you may get is blind FBI sources in conservative publications saying that there was a big coverup. I believe the NY Post is either fabricating its sources on most of its Hillary stories, or publishing the rantings of people out of the loop (every asshole has an opinion) as if they know something.
There will still be pressure to release results from an investigation, and if they suggest criminal conduct it won't require an express declaration for people to reach the same conclusion. The exchange with Sid Blumenthal, for instance, referenced matter that was almost certainly classified, and she suggested to Jake Tapper on an interview set to air tomorrow I think that it was a non-issue because he (Sid) was not in government. Huh?
The Blumenthal emails also suggest there was another motive for Libya beyond some covert action by the CIA. He had business concerns there (as I'm sure others did too).
Link - ( New Window )
...
So you have paid maternity leave, women take more time off, and then wind up with a lesser career and then we have the 'income equality' argument.
So better to just not have a job and 'tighten your belt'?
And the only difference really seems to be paid or unpaid leave.
Women already are less likely to have management roles partially because of child-rearing. Somehow paying them rather than allowing unpaid leave (forcing many to return to work too early) is worse?
On the micro level where promotion decisions are made, whether or not the time is paid is basically irrelevant. It's the time missed that is the hindrance (subconsciously or not). So logically, not paying them and essentially making it not possible to take the time off to spend with their newborns is somehow better for women? Yet at the same time you say that women have just chosen to not work, and that's a better alternative than paid leave?
I'm not following.
FMLA provides 3months unpaid now.
Who does that work now?
3 children would be 9 months over 3 years, or 3months a year.
You're basically talking 2mos vacation when someone has a child. Yes, it would be a TON tougher on small to medium business, but just like FMLA, I imagine it wouldn't apply to companies with 100 or less employees (I think it is 100).
Quote:
In comment 12555604 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
But the dude is a gaffe machine.
But he is still the best candidate for president.
This requirement to be perfect every time you say something is beyond ridiculous. Hillary has her fair share of gaffes, but many are just panded by the media. They all say stuff that is goofy. It is a game by media to see who can they can trip up.
How is he the best candidate? His gaffes may be just that, but he hasn't shown any connection with the voters and doesn't have any chance of beating Hillary.
Geezus you are thick. He is the best person running to govern the country. Is that clear enough for you? Didn't say he would win the nomination. He won't.
I could give a crap about connection with voters who are sick of the Repubs refusal to compromise in Congress and your boy Ted is a main culprit of that group. He's one of the main reasons HRC will win the election. Now think about that. HRC couldn't be anymore vulnerable and Ted and the "No" team have disaffected pretty much an entire nation making her the leader.
The Blumenthal emails also suggest there was another motive for Libya beyond some covert action by the CIA. He had business concerns there (as I'm sure others did too). Link - ( New Window )
So Benghazi committee is looking at whether Sidney Blumenthal pushed Obama to bomb Libya? Yup, sure seems like they're investigating the attack on the Benghazi compound and not making this into a political to-do about Hillary.
What a fucking farce. Blumenthal sends Hillary emails, she typically doesnt right back, just forwards them dutifully to an underling, and suddenly Gowdy thinks that Sidney Blumenthal, detested in the White House, is driving Obama's Libya policy? Oh, and someone pushing the government to do something that might impact them financially? Stop the presses.
I should also note that this isnt even a discussion of the emails. It is a discussion of what Gowdy says the emails show, as if Gowdy is some fair neutral here and not someone who had the rug pulled out from under him by McCarthy, Hanna, and the ex-committee staffer. There is really no evidence that Blumenthal had any impact on US policy
Quote:
The Blumenthal emails also suggest there was another motive for Libya beyond some covert action by the CIA. He had business concerns there (as I'm sure others did too). Link - ( New Window )
So Benghazi committee is looking at whether Sidney Blumenthal pushed Obama to bomb Libya? Yup, sure seems like they're investigating the attack on the Benghazi compound and not making this into a political to-do about Hillary.
What a fucking farce. Blumenthal sends Hillary emails, she typically doesnt right back, just forwards them dutifully to an underling, and suddenly Gowdy thinks that Sidney Blumenthal, detested in the White House, is driving Obama's Libya policy? Oh, and someone pushing the government to do something that might impact them financially? Stop the presses.
I should also note that this isnt even a discussion of the emails. It is a discussion of what Gowdy says the emails show, as if Gowdy is some fair neutral here and not someone who had the rug pulled out from under him by McCarthy, Hanna, and the ex-committee staffer. There is really no evidence that Blumenthal had any impact on US policy
Forgive Buford for her tardiness. Hannity and Rush aren't on on the weekends and Breitbart news show on Sirius was late getting their AM talking points out there.
FMLA is a headache, although one of the problems is that employers have not taken the time to understand it.
Company size issue aside, I wonder how it impacts companies based on their percentage of women in their workforce?
That is completely incorrect.
Quote:
Schiff, a Dem on the committee, said that notwithstanding the right wing noise, the CIA this week just said that there was nothing confidential in the Blumenthal emails. The Republican on the committee didnt disagree, instead just challenged Schiff to name the source on national TV.
That is completely incorrect.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF:
This is very important because the way this committee has operated is by leak of damaging information with only one objective. And that is, all the leaks have a common denominator. All of the leaks are designed to hurt Secretary Clinton. They generate a new story as recently as the one about Mr. Blumenthal. And then within the last 24 to 48 hours, the C.I.A. informs us that notwithstanding the chairman's 13-page letter alleging a damaging leak of the C.I.A. source, the C.I.A. has now informed us there was nothing classified in this last tranche--
REP. MIKE POMPEO:
Do you want to name that source this morning on air? Do you want to name that source this morning on air?
REP. ADAM SCHIFF:
The C.I.A. has said that that source's name is not classified.
REP. MIKE POMPEO
Name him. Put the name on national TV this morning Mr. Schiff.
What did I get wrong there? The purported confidential Blumenthal stuff was from the last tranche.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12555952 section125 said:
Quote:
In comment 12555604 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
But the dude is a gaffe machine.
But he is still the best candidate for president.
This requirement to be perfect every time you say something is beyond ridiculous. Hillary has her fair share of gaffes, but many are just panded by the media. They all say stuff that is goofy. It is a game by media to see who can they can trip up.
How is he the best candidate? His gaffes may be just that, but he hasn't shown any connection with the voters and doesn't have any chance of beating Hillary.
Geezus you are thick. He is the best person running to govern the country. Is that clear enough for you? Didn't say he would win the nomination. He won't.
I could give a crap about connection with voters who are sick of the Repubs refusal to compromise in Congress and your boy Ted is a main culprit of that group. He's one of the main reasons HRC will win the election. Now think about that. HRC couldn't be anymore vulnerable and Ted and the "No" team have disaffected pretty much an entire nation making her the leader.
Ok, how is he the 'best person to govern the country'? I don't see him having any outstanding qualities at all. It would just be another segment
in the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Obama/BushClinton facade of a democracy.
That's all you see? Really? Actually, I shouldn't be surprised.
Ok, how is he the 'best person to govern the country'? I don't see him having any outstanding qualities at all. It would just be another segment
in the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Obama/BushClinton facade of a democracy.
What do the Clintons have to do with the Bushes? The Clintons are a a husband and wife, one having been president already. The Bushes are a 3 generation political dynasty that has already had the White House once on a one term presidency, and once for one of the worst presidencies in history.
I dont get the argument -- dont vote for a Clinton because the Bushes make bad presidents?
Quote:
its that it? fine, nothing classified. I was typing quickly.
That's all you see? Really? Actually, I shouldn't be surprised.
Just say what you're pointing to. This is tiresome.
Quote:
child care or paid maternity leave. Many women have finally figured out that they would rather be home and tighten their belts a bit and stay home with the kids for a few years until they are in school. And there are some unintended consequences of paid maternity leave:
...
So you have paid maternity leave, women take more time off, and then wind up with a lesser career and then we have the 'income equality' argument.
So better to just not have a job and 'tighten your belt'?
And the only difference really seems to be paid or unpaid leave.
Women already are less likely to have management roles partially because of child-rearing. Somehow paying them rather than allowing unpaid leave (forcing many to return to work too early) is worse?
On the micro level where promotion decisions are made, whether or not the time is paid is basically irrelevant. It's the time missed that is the hindrance (subconsciously or not). So logically, not paying them and essentially making it not possible to take the time off to spend with their newborns is somehow better for women? Yet at the same time you say that women have just chosen to not work, and that's a better alternative than paid leave?
I'm not following.
The article that mahn quoted said that less women were in the workforce and the blame was put on lack of paid parental leave. I personally know women (including my sister) who have decided to make the decision to stay home, and it's not all about paid parental leave or subsidized daycare. They'd rather raise their own kids than leave them with someone while they go to work. Some take part time jobs, some take lesser paying jobs closer to home. It's part of a life decision, not a pure economic one. If you want to pay women to stay home with kids, then just say that. But it won't do much to help them in their careers or pay equity. Even you said that the time off is what is detrimental to their career. How would that be different if it's paid time off? Also, if they are paid to stay home, how does that increase their numbers in the workforce?
The article I posted has stats that women in countries with paid parental leave are in the same boat. They are sometimes forced to take paid leave and then when they go back to work are in jobs outside of career track and for less pay. This is something that cannot be legislated. Companies will do what they have to do to make things work, and that will include a reluctance to hire women. Women who are serious about their career are going to have to make a choice, just like men do. Many men would like to have more time with their kids. Each family has to decide how to do the work/life balance thing work. I'd rather see more companies do flex time/telecommuting and shared jobs that would help women stay in the workforce and also have time with the kids.
From a practical standpoint, it is hard. The people who are there have to pick up the slack. It is much harder in small companies. But even in large companies if there are a few people out in one department, it's difficult. It would be great if we had a more flexible workforce using temps. But for many industries, that would not work.
Quote:
Ok, how is he the 'best person to govern the country'? I don't see him having any outstanding qualities at all. It would just be another segment
in the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Obama/BushClinton facade of a democracy.
What do the Clintons have to do with the Bushes? The Clintons are a a husband and wife, one having been president already. The Bushes are a 3 generation political dynasty that has already had the White House once on a one term presidency, and once for one of the worst presidencies in history.
I dont get the argument -- dont vote for a Clinton because the Bushes make bad presidents?
Oy vey.
What was actually said: "the chairman's 13-page letter alleging a damaging leak of the C.I.A. source"
Deej:"right wing noise"
Deej: "The Republican on the committee didnt disagree, instead just challenged Schiff to name the source on national TV.
What actually happened: Since Schiff claimed the CIA source wasn't classified, Pompeo challenged him to name the aforementioned source. Schiff wouldn't do it.
Quote:
The Blumenthal emails also suggest there was another motive for Libya beyond some covert action by the CIA. He had business concerns there (as I'm sure others did too). Link - ( New Window )
So Benghazi committee is looking at whether Sidney Blumenthal pushed Obama to bomb Libya? Yup, sure seems like they're investigating the attack on the Benghazi compound and not making this into a political to-do about Hillary.
What a fucking farce. Blumenthal sends Hillary emails, she typically doesnt right back, just forwards them dutifully to an underling, and suddenly Gowdy thinks that Sidney Blumenthal, detested in the White House, is driving Obama's Libya policy? Oh, and someone pushing the government to do something that might impact them financially? Stop the presses.
I should also note that this isnt even a discussion of the emails. It is a discussion of what Gowdy says the emails show, as if Gowdy is some fair neutral here and not someone who had the rug pulled out from under him by McCarthy, Hanna, and the ex-committee staffer. There is really no evidence that Blumenthal had any impact on US policy
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12556428 buford said:
Quote:
The Blumenthal emails also suggest there was another motive for Libya beyond some covert action by the CIA. He had business concerns there (as I'm sure others did too). Link - ( New Window )
So Benghazi committee is looking at whether Sidney Blumenthal pushed Obama to bomb Libya? Yup, sure seems like they're investigating the attack on the Benghazi compound and not making this into a political to-do about Hillary.
What a fucking farce. Blumenthal sends Hillary emails, she typically doesnt right back, just forwards them dutifully to an underling, and suddenly Gowdy thinks that Sidney Blumenthal, detested in the White House, is driving Obama's Libya policy? Oh, and someone pushing the government to do something that might impact them financially? Stop the presses.
I should also note that this isnt even a discussion of the emails. It is a discussion of what Gowdy says the emails show, as if Gowdy is some fair neutral here and not someone who had the rug pulled out from under him by McCarthy, Hanna, and the ex-committee staffer. There is really no evidence that Blumenthal had any impact on US policy
Actually Hillary often responded and sometimes encouraged them. Link - ( New Window )
Shhh.... we dont' want to get Deej started again on the so-called "facts."
What was actually said: "the chairman's 13-page letter alleging a damaging leak of the C.I.A. source"
Deej:"right wing noise"
If you look at the full Schiff quote I think right wing noise is more than fair as far as Schiff's intent:
This is very important because the way this committee has operated is by leak of damaging information with only one objective. And that is, all the leaks have a common denominator. All of the leaks are designed to hurt Secretary Clinton. They generate a new story as recently as the one about Mr. Blumenthal. And then within the last 24 to 48 hours, the C.I.A. informs us that notwithstanding the chairman's 13-page letter alleging a damaging leak of the C.I.A. source, the C.I.A. has now informed us there was nothing classified in this last tranche--
It's pretty ridiculous that you try to reduce Schiff's statment to "the chairman's 13-page letter alleging a damaging leak of the C.I.A. source" as if the point Schiff was making was pro-committee. But as you say, "I shouldn't be surprised."
Are you really that obtuse? Schiff said the CIA source wasn't classified. Pompeo said, "Name him"
You really don't think that he's disagreeing?
Doesnt say she was solicitous about national security issues, as a general matter (she may have followed up once or twice). That is what I was getting at -- no evidence that he was driving any Libya etc policy.
Doesnt say she was solicitous about national security issues, as a general matter (she may have followed up once or twice). That is what I was getting at -- no evidence that he was driving any Libya etc policy.
Quote:
I dont understand how my description isnt precisely what happened. Pompeo did not disagree with Schiff's representation about the CIA, but rather challenged Schiff to name the source. That is what I wrote. If he had disagreed he would have said "that's wrong", "I dont agree", "that's not what the CIA said"...
Are you really that obtuse? Schiff said the CIA source wasn't classified. Pompeo said, "Name him"
You really don't think that he's disagreeing?
My description was accurate Peter and you know it -- he did not disagree but rather challenged Schiff to name the source. You might be saying that Pompeo implied a disagreement. I say maybe. Seemed like a deflection by Pompeo -- if Schiff was wrong and the CIA didnt write that, why wouldnt Pompeo say so? Schiff said it once, Pompeo issued his challenge. Schiff said it again -- "The C.I.A. has said that that source's name is not classified." If that's wrong, at that point you'd expect Pompeo to skewer Schiff, right? But he doesnt. He just re-issues the challenge, which suggests strongly to me that Pompeo could not actually say that Schiff was wrong.
As for the challenge. there could be 100 reasons Schiff didnt want to answer Pompeo's challenge. Maybe Schiff doesnt feel the need to answer to this guy, maybe the answer was politically difficult for the Dems, or maybe the name isnt classified but it is a piece of information that could potentially be used to piece something together maybe, or maybe Schiff is just cautious and doesnt want to be goaded into putting national security related info out there on a dare. I wont guess all of them. I'll just note that Schiff said it twice and Pompeo did not say that he was wrong.
That makes two of us.
Quote:
The clear import of that article is that she was engaged with SB on the emails re politics. Says she was sending them to Bill -- not Obama.
Doesnt say she was solicitous about national security issues, as a general matter (she may have followed up once or twice). That is what I was getting at -- no evidence that he was driving any Libya etc policy.
I am not getting into this discussion. My only point was your statement was clearly inaccurate. Not sure why you can't admit that.
I think the obvious import of my statement was regarding the emails about Libya/SOS business, not all Blumenthal emails generally. Hence the reference in that paragraph to underling and "driving Obama's Libya policy" and to pushing the government to do something that would benefit him financially. But I could see how someone would miss my intent to limit my statement to the SOS/Libya emails, so it was if anything unclear but not inaccurate.
Quote:
In comment 12556899 Deej said:
Quote:
The clear import of that article is that she was engaged with SB on the emails re politics. Says she was sending them to Bill -- not Obama.
Doesnt say she was solicitous about national security issues, as a general matter (she may have followed up once or twice). That is what I was getting at -- no evidence that he was driving any Libya etc policy.
I am not getting into this discussion. My only point was your statement was clearly inaccurate. Not sure why you can't admit that.
I think the obvious import of my statement was regarding the emails about Libya/SOS business, not all Blumenthal emails generally. Hence the reference in that paragraph to underling and "driving Obama's Libya policy" and to pushing the government to do something that would benefit him financially. But I could see how someone would miss my intent to limit my statement to the SOS/Libya emails, so it was if anything unclear but not inaccurate.
But putting that aside, Im not sure why you're so hung up on it . Because even if you are right and what I wrote was incorrect (I disagree), it wasnt my intent to say what you think I was saying. So you want me to fall on my sword because of that? An alleged failure to communicate clearly?
Wouldn't expect it any other way except a vote down party lines.
It is just sick that the choices there are, are not enticing. I would not vote for Hillary for any reason except if Ted Cruz is the Republican candidate unless he changes some of his views/plans.
Who knows, maybe Pompeo was not yet informed of the letter.
"The top Democrat on the House Benghazi Committee says the CIA has pulled the rug out from under a Republican claim that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received and forwarded the name of a sensitive CIA human source in her personal email account.
In a letter earlier this moth, Benghazi Committee Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) asserted that an email Clinton got from outside adviser Sidney Blumenthal contained what the U.S. government considers one of its most closely-held secrets: the name of a source relied on by the intelligence community.
However, the ranking member on the Benghazi panel--Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland--said the CIA advised the committee on Saturday that the information Gowdy suggested required extreme caution is, in fact, unclassified.
"The CIA yesterday informed both the Republican and Democratic staffs of the Select Committee that they do not consider the information you highlighted in your letter to be classified. Specifically, the CIA confirmed that 'the State Department consulted with the CIA on this production, the CIA reviewed these documents, and the CIA made no redactions to protect classified information,'" Cummings wrote in a new letter to Gowdy"
Link - ( New Window )
Armed with that information, Secretary Clinton forwarded that email to a colleaguedebunking her claim that she never sent any classified information from her private email address.
In your letter, you went to great lengths to highlight the gravity of your accusation, stating:
This information, the name of a human source, is some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but human lives.
To further inflate your claim, you placed your own redactions over the name of the individual with the words, redacted due to sources and methods. To be clear, these redactions were not made, and these words were not added, by any agency of the federal government responsible for enforcing classification guidelines.
Predictably, commentators began repeating your accusations in even more extreme terms, suggesting in headlines for example that Clinton Burns CIA Libya Contact.
Contrary to your claims, the CIA yesterday informed both the Republican and Democratic staffs of the Select Committee that they do not consider the information you highlighted in your letter to be classified. Specifically, the CIA confirmed that the State Department consulted with the CIA on this production, the CIA reviewed these documents, and the CIA made no redactions to protect classified information.
Link - ( New Window )
GOP can't help themselves with the Clintons. I'm still waiting on why they killed Vince Foster...
Quote:
In your letter on October 7, 2015, you stated that Secretary Clinton received an email from Sidney Blumenthal on March 18, 2011, that included the name of someone who purportedly provided information to the CIA. You asserted that this information was classified, arguing that Secretary Clinton received classified information from Blumenthalinformation she should have known was classified at the time she received it. You then alleged:
Armed with that information, Secretary Clinton forwarded that email to a colleaguedebunking her claim that she never sent any classified information from her private email address.
In your letter, you went to great lengths to highlight the gravity of your accusation, stating:
This information, the name of a human source, is some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but human lives.
To further inflate your claim, you placed your own redactions over the name of the individual with the words, redacted due to sources and methods. To be clear, these redactions were not made, and these words were not added, by any agency of the federal government responsible for enforcing classification guidelines.
Predictably, commentators began repeating your accusations in even more extreme terms, suggesting in headlines for example that Clinton Burns CIA Libya Contact.
Contrary to your claims, the CIA yesterday informed both the Republican and Democratic staffs of the Select Committee that they do not consider the information you highlighted in your letter to be classified. Specifically, the CIA confirmed that the State Department consulted with the CIA on this production, the CIA reviewed these documents, and the CIA made no redactions to protect classified information.
Link - ( New Window )
Elijah Cummings is not exactly a bastion of truth. He very much is a democrat first and representative second. He supports my industry very well, but listening to him on numerous occasions has made me cringe. Please remember his job on that committee is to torpedo anything that will damage the administration and the party as much or more than Trey Gowdy's job is to at least find a cause for Benghazi and by default damage the administration.
I dont know what to make of the rest of your post. You say: "Please remember his job on that committee is to torpedo anything that will damage the administration and the party as much or more than Trey Gowdy's job is to at least find a cause for Benghazi and by default damage the administration." That is neither of their job. It may be what they're doing, but it isnt their job, and I dont agree that somehow Cummings is out partisaning Gowdy on this. The whole purpose of this committee is partisan -- another stab because the first 7 congressional committees didnt ruin Hillary. You have the McCarthy and Rep. Hanna admission about the nature of the committee.
Gowdy sets the schedule and agenda as chair. If you dont think that he has abandoned the Benghazi investigation and turned this all about Hillary, I dont know what to tell you. They're totally off schedule. The Republicans point to Hillary's emails as the cause, but they're not doing interviews that have nothing at all to do with Hillary. Look at the committees press releases (link) -- from March until the McCarthy statement (when Gowdy got on the defensive), almost all the press releases are about Hillary and most of those are email specific. Looks like close to 2 dozen. Trey Gowdy sitting there and proclaiming that this isnt a political hunt targetting Clinton just lacks credibility given his own press releases, what other people on his side of the aisle are saying, and the undisputed focus of the committee's attention this summer.
Link - ( New Window )
GOP can't help themselves with the Clintons. I'm still waiting on why they killed Vince Foster...
He ate the last Oreo. What choice did they have?
So unless Cummings is lying (show me some proof please), Pompeo's challenge was a cheap stunt -- when reminded that the name isnt classified, he tried to dupe viewers into believing that it was classified with that challenge. Schiff didnt give in based on the PRIVACY request.
I wasnt being obtuse. A denial is a denial. Pompeo did not deny Schiff's statement that the name Gowdy got his panties we over was NOT classified, contrary to Gowdy's claim.
I didnt misrepresent what transpired. You keep saying that without backing that up in any way.
depends on what the definition of is, is
The Dems win the White House
Quote:
misrepresentation of what transpired.
I didnt misrepresent what transpired. You keep saying that without backing that up in any way.
You're obtuse or just plain full of shit. Take your pick.
Imagine that, a shit stirrer on this board. What a novel concept. Never seen THAT before.
I've already pointed it out to you. You choose to ignore it.
Fuck you, asshole. I thought you left.
Link - ( New Window )
Your point was as clear as day, just ignore him. He's one of the dregs of BBI.
Your point was as clear as day, just ignore him. He's one of the dregs of BBI.
Obviously, that football injury was to your head.
I wonder if Deej is going to point out that you didn't deny it.
"It may LOOK like a low energy Super PAC, but it's really a world class Super PAC. I'd go into details but I can't go into details, but I want you to know that it's great."
I think we're going to have to bring the nickname Teflon Don out of retirement.
Programming for pussies.
Just sayin...
Quote:
Just sayin...
Programming for pussies.
Just sayin...
You called me a pussy on the internet and that hurts my feelings.
It must be awfully uncomfortable to go through life that pissed off. I guess doing so on BBI reduces the likelihood of getting physical, so Eric is performing a community service for the entire city of Atlanta.
@HowardKurtz
MSNBC: Sources: Biden decision could come within 48 hours. After so many false alarms for weeks on end, can we stop predicting the timing?
____
The only piece of this that is really interesting, because I don't think Biden would be strong enough to win - especially without the ground game - would be the possibility that Obama's allies push back against Hillary. This is probably the greater danger to her than defeat, the notion that she could alienate some corners of the Obama coalition in beating back a challenge from the Veep.
Maybe Im crazy, but I think Joe is stroking his ego with this Mario Cuomo dance. I think he lost the primary 10 months ago. The time to get in was January. That is when supporters (money and machine) started picking sides. That is when ground games started. Hillary has hired Obama's whole campaign infrastructure, save a few people who absolutely hate her guts from the 2008 primary. I think he made his calls then and people signed up for Hillary. Too late now.
And I dont say this over some abiding love of Hillary, the candidate. I recognize her flaws as a candidate and in many ways wish that we had a more generic candidate.
HRC had to assume Biden might declare even before the email controversy. Biden now entering late will be handicapped to win the nomination. Why would HRC have to push back so severely that Obama supporters would be alienated? Whether you like her or not, she is an able politician. Your also assuming the majority of Obama supporters would be more inclined to support Biden, which I don't think is true.
Imo, this could create more enthusiasm for the party as a whole. If HRC is further damaged, Democrats have a fall back. Seems more problematic for Republicans.
@HawkinsUSA
UNF Poll - Florida Primary
Trump 21.7%
Carson 19%
Rubio 15%
Jeb 9%
1st/2nd Choice
Rubio 35%
Trump 28%
Faves
Rubio +68
Jeb +36
Trump +13
HRC had to assume Biden might declare even before the email controversy. Biden now entering late will be handicapped to win the nomination. Why would HRC have to push back so severely that Obama supporters would be alienated? Whether you like her or not, she is an able politician. Your also assuming the majority of Obama supporters would be more inclined to support Biden, which I don't think is true.
Imo, this could create more enthusiasm for the party as a whole. If HRC is further damaged, Democrats have a fall back. Seems more problematic for Republicans.
I think Chaffee is irrelevant, no matter what Biden does. My point is that if Biden is running on Obama's legacy and he presents a credible challenge, HRC has to run against it and against him (to an extent) which risks alienating some of his supporters. Whether that bleeds out of donors and endorsements into significant votes remains to be seen, but there is SOME peril there.
She would be favored over Marco, but he probably has the best chance to beat her out of any of the republicans. He has a lot of weaknesses, immigration being one, however this should be the time to start cleaning up some of his ideas and pushing him to the public. He's a good speaker and intelligent.
Only bad thing to come of all these GOP'ers is that they are going to tear each other down, basically handing the election to HRC.
Just goes to show how few people actually know Carson's views. Moderates and independents will run for the hills once they know more about him. Right now, I think many just view him as a soft-spoken smart doctor. As the field whittles down, his weirdness will become more apparent.
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton CNN/ORC Clinton 50, Trump 45 Clinton +5
General Election: Carson vs. Clinton CNN/ORC Carson 48, Clinton 47 Carson +1
General Election: Trump vs. Biden CNN/ORC Biden 53, Trump 43 Biden +10
General Election: Carson vs. Biden CNN/ORC Biden 52, Carson 44 Biden +8
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders CNN/ORC Sanders 53, Trump 44 Sanders +9
General Election: Carson vs. Sanders CNN/ORC Carson 48, Sanders 46 Carson +2
1) Debates will be more interesting since they'll include someone well respected that HRC isn't expected to walk all over (no disrespect to O'Malley, Chaffee, Warner, and even Sanders)
2) Biden is far more of a centrist than Sanders (obviously) so his presence might help HRC from getting sucked too far left
3) Free air time for HRC if the primary battles drag on, rather than it all but being over after the first couple weeks (granted she doesn't really lack name recognition).
And he's dreadfully boring. And he's got no political experience.
He won't be in the mix much longer, when polling turns into voting.
Just goes to show how few people actually know Carson's views. Moderates and independents will run for the hills once they know more about him. Right now, I think many just view him as a soft-spoken smart doctor. As the field whittles down, his weirdness will become more apparent.
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton CNN/ORC Clinton 50, Trump 45 Clinton +5
General Election: Carson vs. Clinton CNN/ORC Carson 48, Clinton 47 Carson +1
General Election: Trump vs. Biden CNN/ORC Biden 53, Trump 43 Biden +10
General Election: Carson vs. Biden CNN/ORC Biden 52, Carson 44 Biden +8
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders CNN/ORC Sanders 53, Trump 44 Sanders +9
General Election: Carson vs. Sanders CNN/ORC Carson 48, Sanders 46 Carson +2
What that tells you is that generic Republican is beating both. That of course doesn't mean shit 12+ months before the election, but as you observe it's not an endorsement of Carson as a choice so much as a knock on HRC and the temporary state of the Democrats' brand name. Temporary should be emphasized, of course.
You also need to look at crosstabs. For example, Quinnipiac is using party splits that dont make any sense for a presidential election year.
Everyone else is busy with their lives. So preference is mostly based on impressions. Before I retired, this was me. Didn't pay alot of attention until later in the cycle. When you are busy and alot can happen in a year, why waste your time.
Link - ( New Window )
Well, he is losing to the guy whose main campaign promise is to have Mexico build a massive wall for us. But he is beating a bunch of people who believe that tax cuts raise government revenues. And they all probably believe that climate change is just god farting.
Rubio's plan a bit different than the rest. However, some middle class voters may not think such a good deal. To help pay, reduces income amount subject to highest rate. If you don't have a bunch of kids, middle earners could be subject to a tax increase.
Link - ( New Window )
Josh Barro, a conservative is pretty critical of the right, panned it hard, calling it the puppies and rainbows plan. He quotes conservative think-tank AEI scholar James Pethokoukis as calling it sort of the Oprah Winfrey theory of tax cuts... She was like You get a car, you get a car. Well this is You get a tax cut, you get a tax cut. Barro explains:
So at least $4.4 trillion in increase deficits. Rubio would eliminate all cap gains and dividend taxes, while at the same time slashing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. He would abolish the tax on foreign income (something I agree with, but it does reduce corporate taxes with no offset in his plan). S-Corps would be subject to lower taxes -- meaning business owners would probably pay less in taxes than their employees.
Yeah, Rubio is throwing some cash at the middle class with an increased tax credit. Because under the Rubio plan, everybody gets a car. I dont understand why he doesnt just zero out taxes if he doesnt give a shit about deficits. And I REALLY dont understand why the Dems get harangued with "how are we going to pay for that" all the time (fairly) when the GOP's core policy solution is ALWAYS deficit-financed tax cuts that would primarily help the wealthy. It's like the fact that they're not paid for is so obvious that you dont even ask the question anymore. It's utterly unserious. And yet much more serious than Dr. Carson's 10% flat tax.
Link - ( New Window )
Small business owners (S Corp) would do real well. Where were you Rubio when it would be rainbows every day for me!
Link - ( New Window )
2) Obama wants to expand background checks and limt a small handful of types of weapons, going as far as he can without Congress' help.
3) "Taking your guns" is unconstitutional.
4) Obama is going to enact an executive order taking your guns unless we stop him. Who will implement it? Will the Supreme Court stand silently by? Let me get back to you on that.
Of course none of that comes close to Ben Carson on getting Bin Ladin just by asking the Saudis, or Jews primarily dying during the Holocaust because of Nazi gun control.
(1 + 1 - 1 + 1) x 2 = 49%, of course.
Btw, Trump is about to pick up more votes as Carson begins to implode, I suspect. So will some others, such as Ted Cruz and Rubio.
I think he will implode before Trump.
Trump 27 (+3), Carson 22 (+8), Bush 8 (-1), Rubio 8 (-3), Huck 5 (-1), Paul 5 (+1), Christie 4 (+1), Cruz 4 (-2), Fiorina 4 (-11), Kasich 3 (+1), Santorum 2 (+1), Graham 1 (+1), Jindal & Gilmore 0, Other/no one/no opinion aggregate 7 (+3).
Selected second choice and 1st + 2nd choice added up: Trump 17 (aggregate 1&2: 44), Carson 18 (40), Bush 10 (18), Rubio 10 (18), Huck 4 (5), Paul 4 (9), Christie 5 (9), Cruz 8 (12), Fiorina 6 (10), Kasich 3 (6).
Trump and Carson are pulling away, albeit with the lingering suspicion that they will eventually collapse. A lot of reason to believe that Trump, Carson, and Fiorina are all courting the same voter. Trump's persistence is amazing; while I can tell myself that people just dont know how radical Carson is, Im pretty sure that Trump's supporters know EXACTLY who he is at this point. Color me very surprised that Rubio has done absolutely nothing to break out after a strong debate performance, and given his lack of warts when compared to Bush, Christie, and Kasich. Really starting to wonder whether Walker bailed too early.
Link - ( New Window )
But more and more these polls reflect air time, with Carson being a slight exception. Trumps knows how to get air time, realizes he can say just about anything without consequences and takes advantage of it. Fiorina needs another debate to get off the side of the milk carton. Has she gotten more than 30 seconds of air time since the reviews of the 2nd debate? I'm wondering whether her campaign is inept or whether the media has decided "screw any sort of balanced coverage, we're going for eyeballs". Virtually the same holds true for Kasich although I'm more convinced in his case that it's an inept campaign. Rubio does a little better but still pales in comparison to Trump with respect to coverage.
Carson appears to have a strong underrated and underreported ground game and has captured the evangelicals.
Paaartay.
Deej, NBC/WSJ, also today, has Trump at his highest % ever at 25%, uptick for Carson, looks way better for Rubio and Cruz, and has Fiorina and Kasich dropping hard after brief upticks. In fact, this is a very, very good poll for Rubio.
Link - ( New Window )
I like Jim Webb, and if the choices are odious enough I might vote for him. But I don't see Webb picking off Democratic voters so much as disaffected Republicans. Likewise Bloomberg probably doesn't upset the Republican apple cart so much as the moderate Democratic one.
Meh, generic Democrat with a nice resume is still more appealing than the rest of the Democratic field and a couple in the Republican field (who happen to be leading in the polls).
As for Bloomberg, Im not thinking about him because he isnt even making noise.
I can hold my nose and vote for most of them, but Fuck Trump and whether Ben Carson is a decent enough person or not I think his nomination would be a death knell for the GOP.
Barro self-identifies as a conservative Republican, albeit one who grossly disrespects the right at the moment. I guess we could argue about how big a tent the term "conservative" applies to, but I just really see no reason to when the point is that Rubio's tax plan would blow a $4.5+ trillion hole in the budget (3x the combined Bush tax cuts) and is justified on the super ridiculous notion that it will start paying for itself after 10 years because it will grow the economy by 15%. There are justifications for tax cuts for sure -- e.g. people who just think the government should take less from its citizens and provide fewer services/transfers. That's a totally legit position. Hyper-voodoo economics is not a legit position. It is rainbows and puppies promises.
Any Dem, or just for Congress/president?
100% agree. Short of some new bombshell I think its gonna be Madame President.
Well she can lose the primary if the FBI kills her on the emails. And she can lose the general if the people just dont trust her (and she's struggling in the polls on that issue; we'll see if the recent turn against the Benghazi committee helps her). Peel off enough people who would vote generic Dem, and then nominate an empty vessel type like Rubio (who in so many ways can be the Republican Obama), and it's a real race. I mean, she's losing to some of these people in a recent PA poll. I can point out a ton of problems -- voters not engaged yet, polling is getting less accurate etc. -- but it has still got to be jarring that the faux-purple PA is in play.
Any Dem. Anyone I'd consider voting for wouldn't ever be nominated by the Democratic Party in the first place, because the expansion of state power is always the core of the Dem platform. Which, again, is mostly the case with the GOP as well now, which is why I've been resigning myself more and more to rarely voting in the future for anything more than protest reasons.
Quote:
how HRC is going to lose the primary or general election? The bridge closed for a little, but it seems like Sanders is fading and the GOP is still a hot mess with two leading candidates who are better off somewhere in another country.
Well she can lose the primary if the FBI kills her on the emails. And she can lose the general if the people just dont trust her (and she's struggling in the polls on that issue; we'll see if the recent turn against the Benghazi committee helps her). Peel off enough people who would vote generic Dem, and then nominate an empty vessel type like Rubio (who in so many ways can be the Republican Obama), and it's a real race. I mean, she's losing to some of these people in a recent PA poll. I can point out a ton of problems -- voters not engaged yet, polling is getting less accurate etc. -- but it has still got to be jarring that the faux-purple PA is in play.
Yeah I think that's fair. There is a lot of game to be played. And don't rule out outside factors, like an economic downturn or something big in the foreign policy realm, like a significant terrorist attack or something in the Middle East that looks like it could degenerate from a proxy war into a real one.
Simple question: Who do you trust less to govern, Hillary or a Republican party where 40 or so of the hardest hard right Republicans in the House can control the functioning of government? Where Paul Ryan is considered insufficiently conservative to run the leadership?
The advertising scripts write themselves.
And then add in macro issues. Obama is actually sneaky popular on a personal level (given the circumstances: compare him to Congress and right track-wrong track). But even with an economy that is reviving on paper (GDP, stocks, UI%), people still feel a malaise (consumer confidence is at Obama high but not close to Bush & Clinton highs, underemployment and low quality employment persist). What if things take a down swing? What if the government shuts down and the Dems are blamed? Given her gender-based answer to Cooper's "Are you 4 more years of Obama" question (which I thought was silly at first, but on reflection was her basically just tying herself to a better pol), if Obama becomes less popular, HRC gets dragged down with him. I doubt foreign policy will drive the election cycle (who the fuck is a Syria voter?), but FP events can put a thumb on the scale. And Republican dominance at the state legislative and governor level could boost the party's GOTV efforts.
This election isnt won. Dems have a demographic/electoral college/non-Trump advantage, but it's a merely that -- an advantage.
Quote:
I'd consider him. He's not. He's a phony. For all his rootin' tootin' born fightin' Scots-Irish blather, his record in the Senate was one of a mainstream lefty Democrat.
Barro self-identifies as a conservative Republican, albeit one who grossly disrespects the right at the moment. I guess we could argue about how big a tent the term "conservative" applies to, but I just really see no reason to when the point is that Rubio's tax plan would blow a $4.5+ trillion hole in the budget (3x the combined Bush tax cuts) and is justified on the super ridiculous notion that it will start paying for itself after 10 years because it will grow the economy by 15%. There are justifications for tax cuts for sure -- e.g. people who just think the government should take less from its citizens and provide fewer services/transfers. That's a totally legit position. Hyper-voodoo economics is not a legit position. It is rainbows and puppies promises.
Of course the same holds true for those who believe that all the revenue needed for the spending Sanders proposes is going to come from the 1%. More like the 40%.
No, NYC.
We'll get an idea of what the possibilities for that are if Obama vetoes the defense authorization act. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I think my chances of winning the MegaMillions first prize are better than the Dems being blamed by the media for any kind of shutdown.
Of course the same holds true for those who believe that all the revenue needed for the spending Sanders proposes is going to come from the 1%. More like the 40%.
Well Im not a BernieBaby. My preference is for no major new spending program should the Democrats win the White House. Continue reforming how we pay for medical including Medicare, get the cost of college down which I think can be done with mostly structural reform rather than spending, and if the economy starts humming, pay down some debt (including increase revenues, even if brackets are left untouched). I dont have a lot of hope for a grand bargain on social security, so we need to set up the economy for the probability of just continued increases in SS spend.
Understood. I've been an advocate for Simpson-Bowles since their report came out, but everybody in Washington ran and hid at the thought of lower rates, expanded base, fewer provisions that produce selective winners and losers.
Also, pre-emails you had to consider the revenge of the Clintons if you got in the way of the coronation parade.
Quote:
to go up against an "annointed" candidate, with an in-place organization which Hillary was, pre-emails. Many expect that if you run a losing campaign, for Pres. or Veep, it's difficult to get another shot. (See: Paul Ryan.)
Also, pre-emails you had to consider the revenge of the Clintons if you got in the way of the coronation parade.
That's why Biden makes sense. The only other Democrat with enough standing that the Clintons can't simply run him over is Obama, who may not have quite the same network of supporters but who can give her a lot of problems if he is ill-treated.
Quote:
to go up against an "annointed" candidate, with an in-place organization which Hillary was, pre-emails. Many expect that if you run a losing campaign, for Pres. or Veep, it's difficult to get another shot. (See: Paul Ryan.)
Also, pre-emails you had to consider the revenge of the Clintons if you got in the way of the coronation parade.
Overstated. Obama wasnt afraid of them. Circa 2013-14, what were the Clinton's power within the party? There are not a ton of New Dems in positions of party power anymore.
The real issue is that Obama supported her, and very early she got the whole party on board with her campaign. Everybody wanted to back the winner. Endorsements and support begat endorsements and support. Im sure some feared being on the wrong side of President Hillary, but implicit in that is the belief that she would win. Another problem is that with control of the White House, others in the party dont have much room to become a known voice of the party. If Romney had won, Im sure a few of the Dem governors would have spent the last 3 years becoming better known on the national stage. But between Obama and the inevitability of Clinton, they didnt bother trying.
That's another issue as to why people didnt come out of the woodwork to run -- the brilliants who ran Obama's operation were locked up early. Hillary really cornered the market on the apparatus of running a national Dem election. Sure there was some talent left over and a brilliant campaign director could cope, but it was nevertheless a formidable coup for her.
Now he ought to just start campaigning for Hillary and call it a career.
Im sounding like a broken record, but I believe this conversation was appropriate for a year ago. I think it happened. Biden didnt get Obama's full support (and maybe/probably Hillary got the support).
The media loves this Biden story because they want a horse race. And it's probably better for the party if he does get in (even better would be some fresh blood). But the late Biden noise makes little sense unless the hammer will fall on the emails. If Obama's support was available, the time to get it would have been when the campaign was starting. Why on earth would Biden have let Hillary run up such a massive money/org advantage?
If her flip flop on TPP didn't provide an indication that would happen I can't see what would. Keystone was forgivable because he didn't want it either.
The one way I could see it happening is if the FBI came up with something on the emails, HRC refused to drop out and Obama put his full support behind Biden to push her out for the good of the party.
Biden said that only two advisers then-CIA Director Leon Panetta and Defense Secretary Robert Gates gave definitive answers on whether Obama should carry out the raid, contradicting Clintons claim she fully backed the mission.........
The vice president disputed claims he opposed the mission. He said he privately supported the raid, but while in a room with other advisers, recommended that Obama wait to verify whether bin Laden was actually in the Abottabad, Pakistan, compound before launching the strike.
Biden said he only advised Obama to go when the two were alone to avoid boxing the president in on a decision......
Bidens account, however, differs from the one he gave in 2012. At that time, he told House Democrats he warned against the operation, one of the most consequential decisions of Obamas presidency.
Mr. President, my suggestion is, dont go, Biden told lawmakers, according to The New York Times. We have to do two more things to see if hes there.
Link - ( New Window )
I've been meaning to learn more about the nuts and bolts of TPP. Im generally pro trade agreements. I saw a description of one term that looks horrible (re compensating corps for changes in generally applicable law), but Im betting that the description I saw was overwrought and the provision isnt all that different from some standard stuff in Bilateral Investment Treaty contracts that I've actually handled professionally.
"The FBI is investigating claims by an anonymous computer hacker that he stole potentially sensitive files from the private e-mail account of CIA Director John Brennan and posted them online, U.S. officials said.
The exposed documents appear to include a roster of senior U.S. national security officials with their phone and Social Security numbers, a log of calls made by former CIA deputy director Avril Haines and a list of e-mail addresses that the hacker claimed were taken from Brennans AOL account."
Link - ( New Window )
"The FBI is investigating claims by an anonymous computer hacker that he stole potentially sensitive files from the private e-mail account of CIA Director John Brennan and posted them online, U.S. officials said.
The exposed documents appear to include a roster of senior U.S. national security officials with their phone and Social Security numbers, a log of calls made by former CIA deputy director Avril Haines and a list of e-mail addresses that the hacker claimed were taken from Brennans AOL account." Link - ( New Window )
Why do these idiots have confidential work related (roster + SSNs) info in their private accounts?
Webb said many of the issues that he cares about are not in line with the hierarchy of the Democratic party, saying he did not have a "clear, exact fit" in either party. Asked if he still considers himself a Democrat, Webb said, "We'll think about that."
Link - ( New Window )
The sad thing is, this will likely get swept under the rug while if any manager/HR person at any Fortune 500 company had this type of data (particularly SSNs) on their private accounts, they'd be fired immediately.
Graying it up a little bit.
You could just delete "for business" and your comment would be at least as true.
Well, he's got so many of the free preview CDs that it would be a crime to waste them.
"I like Paul Ryan. Hes a friend of mine. This is obviously a question that is wrapped up in the Speaker of the House deliberations," Cruz told NBC News' Meet the Press host Chuck Todd. Cruz refused to give an opinion that could influence the speaker race. When pressed, he doubled down and added that he thinks syndicated conservative Radio Host Mark Levin is a "true conservative." Levin has recently said he does not think Ryan is in that category.
Link - ( New Window )
Brooks told radio host Matt Murphy that the day Clinton is "sworn in is the day that shes subject to impeachment because she has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
Tough to get attention when at the moment you're basically a pilot fish.
Cruz fancies himself Barry Goldwater, and if that means the GOP loses in '16 but he comes back at the helm of a more conservative party he is fine with that.
Get Lincoln chaffe off that stage too. I wish they had mixed debates because I'm convinced donald trump could make lincoln chaffe cry right there on stage, and it will be great tv
Speaking more generally about the campaign, I'm no Hillary fan (though I will vote for her) but I really think she has hit her stride here in this campaign after that McCarthy mess and her debate performance on top of it. The bottom line is in addition to her personal challenges (baggage, not a great political athlete) her candidacy faced obstacles not often seen for people trying to get a campaign off the ground due to this air of inevitability. It has allowed the other side to incessantly beat the shit out of her for years on a daily basis. Once Obama got re elected, FOX news shifted their focus to crushing Hillary over the head daily with an eye on 2016. The right has been campaigning against Hillary 3 years ago with an eye on this cycle. In some ways you could probably say the campaign against Hillary for 2016 started in 2008, but they were more worried about stopping an Obama 2nd term to just go all out on her. The opposition research on her also has to be as exhaustive as anything ever.
From a political theater perspective I am thrilled that trump continues to hold this lead as time advances and we enter the holiday season where things usually stay stagnant for a couple months barring a major event. He figures to hold his lead into 2016
Get Lincoln chaffe off that stage too. I wish they had mixed debates because I'm convinced donald trump could make lincoln chaffe cry right there on stage, and it will be great tv
Speaking more generally about the campaign, I'm no Hillary fan (though I will vote for her) but I really think she has hit her stride here in this campaign after that McCarthy mess and her debate performance on top of it. The bottom line is in addition to her personal challenges (baggage, not a great political athlete) her candidacy faced obstacles not often seen for people trying to get a campaign off the ground due to this air of inevitability. It has allowed the other side to incessantly beat the shit out of her for years on a daily basis. Once Obama got re elected, FOX news shifted their focus to crushing Hillary over the head daily with an eye on 2016. The right has been campaigning against Hillary 3 years ago with an eye on this cycle. In some ways you could probably say the campaign against Hillary for 2016 started in 2008, but they were more worried about stopping an Obama 2nd term to just go all out on her. The opposition research on her also has to be as exhaustive as anything ever.
From a political theater perspective I am thrilled that trump continues to hold this lead as time advances and we enter the holiday season where things usually stay stagnant for a couple months barring a major event. He figures to hold his lead into 2016
Jim Webb had a place on that stage a couple decades ago, fighting for the nomination of a party that insists that only the GOP has moved markedly toward its pole.
Boehner wasn't especially effective but nothing he could have done would have been enough for his right flank. Certainly nothing he should have done.
Ted Cruz is hated by fellow Republicans in the Senate - He is doomed to be a one term Senator.
He is running merely to burnish his credentials for his post political career of being a professional conservative activist i e a GRIFTER.
And gf2000: Ted Cruz is the most popular Republican in Texas. The seat is his if he still wants it. I believe his play is to pull the Senate GOP to the right, get something like a Freedom Caucus going in the Senate, and be a conservative icon, policy maker, and even king maker ala a late stage Teddy Kennedy (and I dont want to start a fucking debate about Teddy Kennedy's personal life). However I think it is backfiring, as even his one true ally in the Senate, Mike Lee, is moving away from Cruz's game.
There are other folks who may have equities in her e-mails and there may be other entities who are evaluating her e-mails. But my interest in them is solely making sure that I get everything Im entitled to, so I can do my job. The rest of it, classification, Clinton Foundation, you name it, I have zero interest in, which is why you havent seen me send a subpoena related to it or interview a single person, other than Bryan Pagliano, because I need to know that the record is complete.
Your statement is inaccurate. You issued a subpoena on May 19, 2015, to require Sidney Blumenthal to appear before the Select Committee for a deposition on June 16, 2015. You issued this subpoena unilaterallywithout any debate or vote by Select Committee Membersand you sent two armed Marshals to serve this subpoena on his wife without ever sending him a request to participate in a voluntary interview, which he would have accepted.
You personally attended Mr. Blumenthals deposition, you personally asked Mr. Blumenthal about the Clinton Foundation, and you personally directed your staffon the recordto ask more than 50 questions specifically about the Clinton Foundation. Republicans also asked more than 45 questions about David Brock, Media Matters, and affiliated entities, and they asked more than 160 questions about Mr. Blumenthals relationship and communications with the Clintons.
Thursday's hearing is going to be a farce.
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
Ok, true...
But two developments have been killers for the optics of the big Hillary Goes To Washington Day at the Committee, which has been circled on their calendar forever. First, the McCarthy (and subsequent) comments flipped the script a bit, putting the alleged partisanship of the committee front and center. Second, Trump is fucking killing the Benghazi narrative right now by getting the GOP and Fox to say lay off GWB for 9/11 just as Hillary is supposed to be skewered for Benghazi. And then you dont have to agree with it, but Gowdy is tripping over his own feet right now, and Cummings is just killing him (Cummings has a huge advantage because partisan bickering doesnt hurt his cause).
[Citation needed]
Well for one, they just got 1600 pages of Steven's emails. Printed out, literally just a few hours ago. Don't you think that would have been important for previous committees?
Should of?
You can't question why there is another investigation and then ignore that there was evidence that was not presented at the previous investigations. The Administration, the State Department and Clinton have stonewalled all of this from the beginning. And if Hillary is going to talk about her tenure as SoS and say what a fabulous thing they did in Libya, I think we need to know exactly what happened there.
Why, didn't they cover that story in Daily Kos?
Hundreds dead, sentries with unloaded weapons, etc. And then withdrawal. And then arming Iran. What a spectacle it'd be nowadays.
Quote:
Regarding the emails.
Why, didn't they cover that story in Daily Kos?
Waiting for a link.
Or maybe the story just isnt that difficult to understand, and the 7 previous GOP led committees were not incompetent boobs. Maybe they just didnt treat this like a prosecution, which is why after 7 tries the GOP needed a special do-over that the #2 leader in the house admits is a political attempt to hurt Clinton. Dont give me Gowdy's bullshit numbers (he's been caught lying about the 50 new witnesses issue). Tell me content, because if his extra efforts are just to harass people who had nothing to do with the events at Benghazi, he's wasting time.
And these arent the first Stevens emails given prior comments by Gowdy about Stevens' emails, so dont give me raw #s. What are these emails about? When were they requested (they could very well be follow up requests)? And why is a non-partisan committee re-tweet blasting shit like this on twitter:
The Kansas City Star @KCStar Oct 18
U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas: Benghazi worse than Watergate: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article39860598.html#storylink=twt_staff
Why is Gowdy lying on TV about issuing subpoenas? Why is he lying about not caring about non-Benghazi stuff, given the questioning of Blumenthal?
I guess Speaker Boehner made that up?
Quote:
Regarding the emails.
I guess Speaker Boehner made that up?
Boehner is commenting on this. Didnt Gowdy tell everyone in the House to shut up unless you're on the committee? Boehner is on committees now?
Because the representation that none of the other committees looked at Stevens' emails is a bald-face lie.
Productions to the Benghazi committee included docs produced to the other committees, including:
- an August 19, 2011, email exchange between Special Envoy Stevens and the Deputy Director of the Office of Maghreb Affairs about the logistics of providing security for a temporary duty officer to be assigned to eastern Libya (C05392462);
- a September 6, 2011, email from Special Envoy Stevens explaining why he felt it was important to maintain a U.S. presence in Benghazi (C05389447);
- a June 12, 2012, email exchange between Ambassador Stevens and the Director of the Office of Maghreb Affairs about the security situation in Benghazi (C05409960);
- a June 13, 2012, email exchange between Ambassador Stevens and State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland about the Departments public statements in light of recent violence in Libya (C05391866);
- an August 30, 2012, email exchange between Ambassador Stevens and the Principal Officer in Benghazi discussing a press report about the security situation in Benghazi (C05397290); and
- a September 8, 2012, email exchange between Ambassador Stevens and the Political Officer in Tripoli discussing a schedule for Ambassador Stevens upcoming travel to Benghazi (C05395356).
Why is Gowdy such a fucking liar?
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12565350 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
Regarding the emails.
I guess Speaker Boehner made that up?
Boehner is commenting on this. Didnt Gowdy tell everyone in the House to shut up unless you're on the committee? Boehner is on committees now?
Oh, so a Committee Chair tells the Speaker what to do?
Why is there a Benghazi committee given the 7 prior Republican led committees? What was the deficiency with them, beyond the fact that they didnt destroy Hillary? How were 7 committees, some run by serious people, so incompetent, in the GOP-universe, that they missed a Watergate level scandal? What is it about Benghazi other than Hillary that is causing it to be investigated like it was 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.
And why was this super duper important committee put in the hands of a 3rd year Congressman, who is an ex-state prosecutor? Did Gowdy have any previous security/intel type experience, or was he just valued for being a prosecutor? Why did the GOP staff this committee with 3 second-termers and 1 first-termer (out of seven overall)?
Why is there a Benghazi committee given the 7 prior Republican led committees? What was the deficiency with them, beyond the fact that they didnt destroy Hillary? How were 7 committees, some run by serious people, so incompetent, in the GOP-universe, that they missed a Watergate level scandal? What is it about Benghazi other than Hillary that is causing it to be investigated like it was 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.
And why was this super duper important committee put in the hands of a 3rd year Congressman, who is an ex-state prosecutor? Did Gowdy have any previous security/intel type experience, or was he just valued for being a prosecutor? Why did the GOP staff this committee with 3 second-termers and 1 first-termer (out of seven overall)?
Why did the administration say that an obscure anti-muslim film caused the "riot?" Why and what were they hiding? You don't think lying to the world was nothing but CYA 2 months before the election? Purposely sending Susan Rice out, for what 4 weeks, pushing this lie when they knew this was a planned attack isn't a problem?
Why did Hillary apparently ask for an open committee when offered a behind the door hearing? (could be a smart move by her if the committee looks to be bullying her).
I think you are correct about him being a prosecutor as the reason he's on that committee as chair. Have no idea why the newbies.
Also somebody here told me said Stevens asked for only 5 extra security and it was 12. VP Biden said the House only approved $2.37 bill as opposed to $2.6 bill requested for State's budget and that was why they didn't get the extra people.
Deej, I'm not denying it is a political move to weaken Hillary, as well as finding just exactly who knew what, where and when. But she's running on how well she did as Sec State. When you lie about Benghazi and hide the use of a personal server, you don't think that is a character flaw for potentially most powerful person on earth?
CNN fact check - ( New Window )
Why did Hillary ask for an open hearing? Because the Benghazi committee leaks like a sieve, and only Gowdy has the power to release depo transcripts. He's sitting on the Blumenthal transcript even though the Dems are asking for its release.
The security allotment and requests were the subject of the other committee investigations. I dont agree that she lied about Benghazi or hid the existence of her personal server (how does that work? Did they ask and she said "no, my emails are at @state.gov?").
Look, I have no problem with investigating Benghazi. But it was the subject of 7 investigations. There is no justification for the 8th. And when it is being run in such a comically partisan manner that even the GOPers are admitting to its goals, it is time to shut it down. Trying to blame Hillary for the death of these 4 people when the first 7 committees refute such misconduct is tilting at windmills and abusing the machinery of government. It's yet another distraction from a ridiculous party that has a carnival barker leading its presidential polls and is so ungovernable that they're begging a guy to be Speaker. The #2 most powerful position in government, and they have to beg a man to do it.
There is also a ridiculous echo chamber on the right. Quite simply the rank and file is being suckered by a false narrative by the GOP and the right wing media. So many persistently false allegations. I can list dozens of false charges. Hillary called off an military rescue. US arms shipments from Libya to Turkey. Issa saying HRC personally signed cables about security when as a matter of form every one of the 1000s of cables from State-DC is signed by her. No ownership of Congress giving State $270 less million for security than State asked for, as if that is irrelevant. Just a fucking GOP clown show.
On Benghazi, Congress Could Take a Lesson From Beirut - ( New Window )
Why 8 hearings? Maybe because something hidden comes to light every time after each hearing. Sorry I admit that I thought it was less than 7 previous. Seems a bit unorganized for something like this, but doesn't mean it is not warranted if previous testimony was distorted.
She was instructed not to have a private server. Hell, they took the President's Blackberry away from him and did something so he only had 5 contacts in it. I think it was a directive from the President that no private servers or electronic comms were to be used. So if she ignored the directive, she was in effect lying about it.
Sorry about the late response, the wifey came home from work.
I don't take your despair/disgust about this lightly as you truly believe it as frivolous witch hunt, but I also think the attitude of the administration was disdainful of the public with the sole purpose of hiding a perceived ineptness of the administration 2 months before the election.
General Ham - ( New Window )
This is what the Intel Committee found: "Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assess,ents and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support the CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on Sepember 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012."
There you go. No conspiracy. Just contradictory intelligence. The collective explosion on the right is not justified. It is a disgusting political temper tantrum by a broken, unserious Congressional caucus.
Also, it's not 7 hearings. It's 7 investigations. There have already been 7 different committees that have issued a report on Benghazi. As former Rep. Dingell explained today:
So I ask again. Why 8 Benghazi investigation? Other than the fact that the GOP is a joke of a party that is not serious about governing?
http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi%20Report.pdf - ( New Window )
Democrats legislate...and Republicans investigate
its the only use they have at all for government
But par for the course from a right wing that literally rejects reality because it doesnt jive with their dogma, be it scientific consensus over climate change, the lack of in-person voter fraud, the fact that tax cuts do not increase revenue, or that fact that Benghazi is neither a huge scandal nor a conspiracy. The right needs to take 10 steps back from Hannity, Rush, and Beck, and tell its Congressmen to grow the fuck up.