Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Prestor Jon wrote: There seems to be a sizable portion of Sanders supporters that believe Sanders is significantly different than Clinton in terms of politics and policy. Comparing evidence like their respective voting records would lead one to believe they're actually prettysimilar. The Sanders supporters that are convinced that he's a very different kind of Democrat than Clinton is are the ones that will be difficult for Clinton to win over. Sanders supporters that see him as just a "better" Democrat than Clinton are probably going to have an easy time settling for Clinton come November.
Sanders does have a history of sticking to his principles while Hillary moves whichever way the political wind blows at the moment. It's easy to surmise that Sanders' supporters have picked up on this.
kronk wrote: Yeah, I don't see Sanders leaving the Senate to be HRC's VP.
Or HRC being foolish enough to select him.
Picking Bernie would almost certainly be seen as a disingenuous act by those who Felt the Bern, and it would probably serve to galvanize Republican opposition to her election.
Well, depends on how she goes about it, doesn't it? If she actually adopted some social-democratic policies and genuinely worked with the left I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have as much trouble nabbing their votes. Y'know, maybe if she listened to concerns about debt and healthcare instead of just posting memes on twitter...
That said, I don't think she ever will because leftism is the opposite of what she wants. She will not offer anything of substance and doesn't even seem to care or understand that substance is why Sanders had such overwhelming support among young voters.
Despite Clinton claims, 2012 email had classified marking Hillary Clinton, from the moment her exclusive use of personal email for government business was exposed, has claimed nothing she sent or received was marked classified at the time.
But a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking” - and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.
The “C” - which means it was marked classified at the confidential level - is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi's first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.
"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in."
Everything after that was fully redacted before it was publicly released by the State Department -- a sign that the information was classified at the time and dealt with sensitive government deliberations.
A US government source said there are other Clinton emails with classified markings, or marked classified, beyond the April 2012 document.
A January 2014 federal government training manual, called "Marking Classified National Security Information," provides a step-by-step guide for reviewing classified information, and allocating classified codes or "portion markings."
"This system requires that standard markings be applied to classified information...Markings shall be uniformly and conspicuously applied to leave no doubt about the classified status of the information, the level of protection required, and the duration of classification."
It adds, "A portion is ordinarily defined as a paragraph, but also includes subjects, titles, graphics, tables, charts, bullet statements, sub-paragraphs, classified signature blocks, bullets and other portions within slide presentations, and the like."
"Portion markings consist of the letters “(U)” for Unclassified, “(C)” for Confidential, “(S)” for Secret, and “(TS)” for Top Secret."
Congressman Mike Pompeo, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, has read the 22 Top Secret emails too damaging to national security to release, and routinely reviews classified documents.
While he could not speak directly to the April 2012 email, he said, "I've seen information like that often. Often certain parts of a particular message will be unclassified and other parts will be classified and they are almost always marked paragraph by paragraph."
Pompeo added, “If, in fact, it is truly marked confidential that would.. and she read it, that made it to her, that would conflict with what she had previously said."
On Wednesday, Clinton told Bret Baier on Special Report, “the fact is, nothing that I sent or received was marked classified, and nothing has been demonstrated to contradict that. “
Meantime, Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal, who spoke to Fox News as part of a book tour to promote his new biolgraphy, "A Self-Made Man: The Political Life of Abraham Lincoln, 1809-1849,"said that the Romanian hacker known as Guccifer -- who claimed to breach Clinton's personal server - may have worked for foreign intelligence.
"Marcel Lazar is a Romanian. He worked from a Russian server. He may well be part of a Russian information operation," Blumenthal explained.
While he said there's no way Lazar compromised Clinton's emails, the hacker told Fox News in a telephone interview before reaching a plea deal with the Justice Department that it was "easy for me, for everybody” to access the Clinton server.
Given more than 2,100 classified emails were on the server, Fox asked Blumenthal if he had a security clearance to handle such material. "I was her friend, and I had no security clearance, nor did I seek it, nor did anyone ever send me anything that was classified. So I had no access to, nor did I send or receive any classified material."
Blumenthal said he expects FBI Director James Comey to publicly confirm that Clinton and her aides did not deliberately compromise the nation's secrets.
"This is the question that is at the center of the Department of Justice FBI investigation: Whether anybody had intent, criminal intent to put classified information outside of the system. I believe that was not the case, and I think then, that we will see a statement coming from the FBI stating that, saying that... I assume that the FBI has an interest in - James Comey, the FBI Director has an interest in acting promptly to resolve this remaining question. But I feel confident about the resolution, " Blumenthal said.
Asked about the April 2012 email, and how the campaign could reconcile the classified marking with Clinton’s public statements, spokesman Brian Fallon did not directly address the issue. "This email was just a request for Secretary Clinton to make a phone call to express condolences over the passing of the President of Malawi. The fact that this email was classified after the fact suggests again that agencies in the government tend to err on the side of classifying even routine matters of diplomacy."
Intent doesn't matter Blumenthal.
Seems to me that the FBI investigation is leaking already...
Ya know... I just saw a video on FB about VP Biden's response to the Stanford rape case, and the victim's letter that has gone all over the place...
Can I just say that we need to dump Hillary, and get this guy to run for POTUS? I don't think he's as far left, or as radical as Sanders is, but he could pull those supporters with these kinds of social justice and social issues statements. He's not as tied to money as Clinton is (I think? I don't know), but he could definitely pull a lot of the more mainline Dems along, and probably get some of the undecided and unaffiliated voters out there.
If she actually adopted some social-democratic policies and genuinely worked with the left I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have as much trouble nabbing their votes. Y'know, maybe if she listened to concerns about debt and healthcare instead of just posting memes on twitter...
Hillarycare was a thing. A thing which basically became Obamacare. Her position on healthcare reform hasn't really changed.
Debt is a separate issue, specifically student debt, which no one has a good solution for; not even uncle Bernie.
That said, I don't think she ever will because leftism is the opposite of what she wants. She will not offer anything of substance and doesn't even seem to care or understand that substance is why Sanders had such overwhelming support among young voters.
Sanders has overwhelming support from young voters (read: people that will whine on social media, but not actually vote) for the same reason that people like the Paulians do: stupidity and hormones. It is incredibly easy to get young people to support you if you use soaring rhetoric.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/06/11 22:51:22
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
dogma wrote: Sanders has overwhelming support from young voters (read: people that will whine on social media, but not actually vote) for the same reason that people like the Paulians do: stupidity and hormones. It is incredibly easy to get young people to support you if you use soaring rhetoric.
This kind of utter contempt for the future of the party is why the Democrats are going to have a rough time ahead of them.
dogma wrote: Sanders has overwhelming support from young voters (read: people that will whine on social media, but not actually vote) for the same reason that people like the Paulians do: stupidity and hormones. It is incredibly easy to get young people to support you if you use soaring rhetoric.
This kind of utter contempt for the future of the party is why the Democrats are going to have a rough time ahead of them.
At least, it would be if they were an essential voting bloc, which they aren't, because they consistently have the lowest turnout percentage.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/12 02:15:40
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Rosebuddy wrote: This kind of utter contempt for the future of the party is why the Democrats are going to have a rough time ahead of them.
Not likely. You see, as people get older their political beliefs tend to change. The empty rhetoric and "BURN DOWN THE SYSTEM" that was appealing at 18 starts looking kind of silly when you're looking back on it a few years later, and the whole "politics is the art of the possible" thing starts to sound a lot more reasonable. The future of the party is that the current social media whiners will grow up and understand that even if they don't get their perfect candidate they still need to vote for the one who is the closest match. And the simple fact is that if you supported the substance of what Sanders was advocating (instead of vague hopes for "change") you're going to vote for Clinton, and you're going to continue to vote democrat even if you favor the farthest-left candidate during the primaries.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I'm 35 and I voted for Sanders in the primary, as have quite a few of my "old" friends and coworkers. If Oklahoma wasn't 100% sure to go for Trump I would vote for Hillary. Since I'm throwing my vote away either way I'm sending it to Johnson to try and help the Libertarian Party qualify to remain on the ballot for 2018.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/12 04:14:25
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Ya know... I just saw a video on FB about VP Biden's response to the Stanford rape case, and the victim's letter that has gone all over the place...
Can I just say that we need to dump Hillary, and get this guy to run for POTUS?
Man, I wish. I'll vote for Hillary, but I sure won't feel good about it. I'd have been excited about Joe Biden though, if for nothing else, thanfor4moreyearsofOnionstoriesabouthim.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Ya know... I just saw a video on FB about VP Biden's response to the Stanford rape case, and the victim's letter that has gone all over the place...
Can I just say that we need to dump Hillary, and get this guy to run for POTUS?
Man, I wish. I'll vote for Hillary, but I sure won't feel good about it. I'd have been excited about Joe Biden though, if for nothing else, thanfor4moreyearsofOnionstoriesabouthim.
Sanders has overwhelming support from young voters (read: people that will whine on social media, but not actually vote) for the same reason that people like the Paulians do: stupidity and hormones. It is incredibly easy to get young people to support you if you use soaring rhetoric..
You have taken your first step into a much larger universe. Welcome to your first day of being old.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
dogma wrote: Sanders has overwhelming support from young voters (read: people that will whine on social media, but not actually vote) for the same reason that people like the Paulians do: stupidity and hormones. It is incredibly easy to get young people to support you if you use soaring rhetoric.
This kind of utter contempt for the future of the party is why the Democrats are going to have a rough time ahead of them.
At least, it would be if they were an essential voting bloc, which they aren't, because they consistently have the lowest turnout percentage.
While the turnout seems relatively stable as a percentage, it would be interesting to see how the trends look in absolute terms. As the demographics of the nation shift, even if the block percentage is stable, the number of votes will change.
d-usa wrote: I'm 35 and I voted for Sanders in the primary, as have quite a few of my "old" friends and coworkers. If Oklahoma wasn't 100% sure to go for Trump I would vote for Hillary. Since I'm throwing my vote away either way I'm sending it to Johnson to try and help the Libertarian Party qualify to remain on the ballot for 2018.
People who vote for revolutionary socialists on the one hand and capitalist libertarians on the other confuse the everloving feth out of me.
I would gladly vote for Biden over any of the folks on the ballot at the moment. He is a good man if nothing else. These other three are pure garbage. I am usually a Republican.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/13 02:57:46
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, considering his explanation for voting for a "capitalist libertarian" is literally in the text you quoted previously, I dare say you are wrong.
Or maybe he is using some sort of liberal voodoo on us to obfuscate what he is trying to say. #STOPTHEVOODOO
He wants the LP to hit the ballot threshold. That's fine.
What I'm asking is why someone who voted for Sanders in the Democratic primary would care about the fortunes of the Libertarian Party, given they stand in direct opposition to almost everything Sanders espouses. Acting like it's self-evident simply suggests a grave misunderstanding of what revolutionary socialism and libertarianism actually advocate.
d-usa wrote: I'm 35 and I voted for Sanders in the primary, as have quite a few of my "old" friends and coworkers. If Oklahoma wasn't 100% sure to go for Trump I would vote for Hillary. Since I'm throwing my vote away either way I'm sending it to Johnson to try and help the Libertarian Party qualify to remain on the ballot for 2018.
People who vote for revolutionary socialists on the one hand and capitalist libertarians on the other confuse the everloving feth out of me.
That's fine. People who think that revolutionary socialists try to get elected through democratic means confuse me. To each his own, eh?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
I've worked with the Greens, Libertarians, Socialists, and Constitution Party for many years to expand ballot access in Oklahoma. I think that more choices are better, even if I wouldn't want them to be president.
Trump is going to win Oklahoma, no matter what. It doesn't matter if I vote for Hillary or Johnson (my only other options in Oklahoma, due to the restrictive ballot access laws), my vote will be meaningless in the presidential race. So I'm casting my vote to help the cause of "people should have more choices" while trying to help the LP remain on the ballot as one of the options for the next election.
Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 16k+ 
4k 
2k Points
Competition Index
