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.
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 Â
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 Â
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 Â
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 Â
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 Â
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 Â
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... Â
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... Â
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 Â
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 Â
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 Clinton’s 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......
Biden’s 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 Obama’s presidency.
“Mr. President, my suggestion is, don’t go,” Biden told lawmakers, according to The New York Times. “We have to do two more things to see if he’s 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.
CIA Director Brenner private email account hacked Â
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 Brennan’s 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 Brennan’s 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. He’s 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. Â
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 she’s subject to impeachment because she has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.”
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 Clinton’s 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......
Biden’s 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 Obama’s presidency.
“Mr. President, my suggestion is, don’t go,” Biden told lawmakers, according to The New York Times. “We have to do two more things to see if he’s 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 Brennan’s 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 Brennan’s 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. He’s 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 she’s subject to impeachment because she has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.”