Since my last political thread was successfully derailed (which was my fault ) I figured I create a new generic one.
Let's try to keep it primarily related to the 2016 Presidential Elections, but I'm game for anything related to politics in general.
While it's almost a forgone conclusion that Hillary will run and is expected to announce in a few months... most of the action is on the GOP nomination process.
Here's an interesting read on every Political Junkie's wet dream... a Brokered Convention:
What If No One Wins the GOP Presidential Nomination? Normally, I dread commenting on presidential nomination contests. But as much as I might like to return to the days of short presidential nomination processes (Franklin Roosevelt didn’t declare his intention to seek a third term until the summer of 1940), the reality is that the year-long nomination process is here to stay, and it is time to start writing on it.
But in truth, I’m actually hopeful about this year’s campaign, because I think it could be unlike anything we’ve seen in a very long time. I think the Republican Party really could wind up with a brokered convention – that is, a race where no candidate receives a majority of the delegates by the end of voting. In fact, it might well be the most likely outcome, if only because no particular outcome is particularly probable.
This race is intriguing not just because of one possible outcome. It is interesting because it is difficult even to formulate a workable theory of the race. Charlie Cook uses a brackets metaphor, while Jim Geraghty and Larry Sabato think of the race in terms of tiers, but all of these have problems. Instead, I see a race that is largely chaotic. It is one where an unusually large number of candidates have perfectly plausible paths, if not to the nomination, then at least to lengthy runs deep into the balloting process.
This is because 2016 really is the deepest GOP field in a very, very long time. In fact, it isn’t even close. To be clear, that doesn’t mean that eventual candidate is (or will be) the strongest Republican nominee ever. I think that’s unlikely, and in fact, that is crucial to my analysis. It just means that number eight is unusually strong. In 1996, eighth place in Iowa was businessman Morry Taylor. In 2008, it was Alan Keyes (who placed fourth in 2000). This year, eighth place will probably be a candidate we now see as a legitimate contender for the nomination.
Let’s look at Jonathan Bernstein’s list of potential candidates here, and assume the following candidates get in: Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, John Bolton and Peter King. Some on that list won’t run, but some others probably will (Mike Pence or Rick Snyder being the most obvious contenders).
Let’s rate this field using a points system as follows: 5 points for a sitting veep, 4 for a sitting senator or governor, 3 for a representative, 2 for Cabinet officials, and 1 for “other.” We’ll (somewhat arbitrarily) add a point for “star power,” and deduct one for candidates who haven’t won a race in the past six years. We’ll do this for all the initial fields going back to 1980 (minor note: Harold Stassen receives a 1 even though he was a former governor. An election in 1938 doesn’t have much bearing in 1988).
Now to be clear, it is likely that some of these candidates will drop out as we approach actual voting for the usual reasons: they fail to gain traction in the polls, fail to raise money, or are excluded from debates. At the same time, I think that this “early winnowing” effect will be more muted than is usually the case. Most of the candidates on my list tend to draw support from different wings of the party, have different bases of fundraising, and will register at least some support in Iowa. Someone might catch fire, but I think the lack of an overwhelmingly strong candidate means that it is just as likely that the polling remains very tight, with candidates struggling to make it out of the low teens. This keeps even marginal candidates in striking distance and will decrease the incentive to drop out. Our hypothetical field of 16 might be 10 by caucus day, but it will be a very serious group of 10.
The total for the prospective 2016 field is 56 points, by far the highest of any field. The next-closest field, from 2008, totals just 39 points. Moreover, the average candidate quality in 2016 is the highest of the bunch: 3.5 points, compared with 3.1 points for 2012 or 3.3 for 2008. Even this doesn’t tell the whole story though, as the 2008 slate is filled with candidates who were much weaker than their ratings suggested (Jim Gilmore, Sam Brownback, Tommy Thompson). Almost all of the candidates on the 2016 list would have been top-flight contenders against the 2012 field, yet many of them will struggle to finish in the top five in a single primary or caucus.
The traditional way to analyze the Republican primary is to walk through the early states, gaming out various paths to the nomination. So, we would start with Iowa, which traditionally likes religious conservatives and fellow Midwesterners. This might argue for Scott Walker, who performed well in the state over the weekend, Ted Cruz, who could combine religious conservatives with Tea Partiers, or perhaps for a repeat victory for Huckabee or Santorum.
Next is New Hampshire, where we could see a Chris Christie, Mitt Romney, or Jeb Bush do well. South Carolina traditionally follows (although for now, New York and Utah precede it) and it has long been the establishment firewall. But lately it has been more populist: Huckabee very nearly defeated McCain (in a race whose map eerily paralleled a 1940 anti-prohibition referendum) on the basis of a strong showing in the upcountry, while in 2012 Newt Gingrich beat Mitt Romney in the state by a 12-point margin. So we might label this fertile territory for an insurgent populist, perhaps Ted Cruz or Rick Perry.
That leaves a flurry of caucus states – Nevada, Colorado and Minnesota – to consider before we get into the run up to Super Tuesday. Santorum made a splash by winning some of these in 2012 (though Romney did manage to win Nevada). But look at the second-place finisher in Minnesota and Maine (which held early caucuses in 2012): Ron Paul. Caucuses tend to reward candidates with devoted followings. If Rand Paul inherits his father’s following and builds upon it somewhat as a more reasonable, electable option, one can see him performing well here.
So here you have a perfectly plausible scenario where we exit the early primary phase of the contest with four winners, each of whom is a legitimate presidential contender. What’s more, it’s not entirely clear how they knock each other out. Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul all represent different wings of the party, would draw from different fundraising bases, and would have different demographic appeals. Just as important: None is an obvious choice, but at the same time, unlike 2012, all will have a group of supporters that really likes them; it won’t just be an “anti-Bush” vote trying to coalesce. You can mix up the various winners (Rubio, Christie, Perry, Paul), but the same analysis holds.
Plus, we have states like New York, Utah and North Carolina that have moved up their primaries. We don’t have a good feel for these states, but you could take any one of the above scenarios, add Chris Christie in New York, Mitt Romney in Utah and any number of candidates in North Carolina. Moreover, a strong second-place finisher could decide that he is the next Bill Clinton (who famously won only one of the first 11 primaries in 1992), and try to keep going.
At that point, it really is anybody’s game. No one really has an incentive to drop out, as the RNC’s compressed schedule means the finish line is in sight by the time Super Tuesday rolls around, and all of these candidates can probably win a race here and there to keep the old ball rolling. Money might get tight, but the threshold for winning these contests remains low. It also becomes very difficult for any one candidate to amass a majority of the delegates very, very quickly.
Complicating matters even further, our analyses haven’t fully accounted for the rise of SuperPACs. I suspect 2012 was but a preview of their potential impact. Rick Santorum nearly threw the entire race into chaos in 2012 with a camper and the backing of Foster Friess. Sheldon Adelson helped Newt Gingrich stay in the race through May. Without SuperPACs, they likely would have been out in March, at the latest. What happens if Friess, Adelson, Karl Rove and the Kochs all back different candidates, while a candidate like Paul survives off of grassroots support? That race could go on for a very long time.
But, in fact, the race is even less predictable than the above analysis suggests. To see what I mean, let’s revisit our list of candidates above, putting in a sort of bare minimum for each candidate in Iowa, without any regard for the total vote share. I did this, and I was not generous. Top-flight candidates rarely drop much below 10 percent here, and candidates we today regard as also-also-rans routinely put up strong showings. So when I give two-term governors who have routinely been mentioned as nominee material like Bobby Jindal or Chris Christie 5 percent, or give 11 percent to a candidate like Mike Huckabee, who won 40 percent of the vote the last go-round, I’m being pretty stingy.
The total I came up with was 125 percent. There are two implications to this. First, a lot of objectively strong candidates are going to have to do quite a bit worse than we currently think is possible next January, but we have no real way of knowing just who those candidates are. To be sure, the field will narrow some by Election Day, but I’m already giving the most likely dropouts very small vote shares.
Second, and most importantly, with a deep field such as this that splits the Republican coalition in so many different ways, you really might be able to win Iowa with 12 percent of the vote or so. Alan Keyes surpassed that vote share in 2000, Gary Bauer came within striking distance of it that same year, and Pat Robertson doubled it in 1988.
Given this, almost anyone really can win Iowa this time. Moreover, if we really do have a low-teen threshold for victory in these early races, the types of unpredictable “quantum effects” that political scientists routinely dismiss as irrelevant, like newspaper and gubernatorial endorsements, suddenly become important. Could Chris Christie have a solid debate and shoot from 5 percent to 15 percent in the polls right before the election? I’m basically asking if he can win over two-thirds of Romney voters, so the answer to me is obviously “yes.” Might Terry Brandstad decide it is Kasich's time, and rocket the governor into a surprise third-place finish? If it only takes 10 percent of the vote to do so, why not?
So what happens if, instead of Walker, Bush, Cruz, and Paul, our early winners are, say, Ben Carson, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Paul, with Walker, Bush and Cruz coming in a close second in these states? The result would be seven solid candidates receiving substantial numbers of delegates early on, without an obvious pick for the party. It would quickly become self-perpetuating: The longer candidates continue to rack up delegates, and the longer that the size of the field prevents someone from racking up a huge numbers of delegates, and the longer the field will stay large.
The most credible response to all of this is, in my view, “Haven’t we predicted this before?” This was basically Steve Kornacki’s rejoinder to me in 2012, when I was discussing such a scenario for that year. Our back-and-forth is worth revisiting if you agree with me so far, as Kornacki’s recitation of history is impeccable (as is his wont).
But my rejoinder is basically the same as last time: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. This is especially true since some things really have changed: SuperPAC funding, Internet fundraising (weakening parties), and the size and strength of this field.
Most importantly, we should bear in mind just how close Republicans actually came to a brokered convention in 2012. Had 5,300 Ohio voters changed their mind, and/or 16,200 Michigan voters cast their ballots differently, Romney would have been severely damaged, and that race probably would have gone to the convention. Party elites might even have demanded it.
For that matter, consider 2008 on the Democratic side. John Edwards was a very serious candidate, coming off of a credible run as vice president in 2004. What if he had decided to gut it out for one more week, through Super Tuesday? Let’s say he won only 90 delegates – just 5 percent of the 1,700 delegates awarded that day. If he pulled evenly from Obama and Clinton, this would have been enough eventually to deny Obama an outright majority of the pledged delegates.
Of course, the super delegates would probably have still saved Obama (Edwards would have had to have won about 250 delegates on Super Tuesday to prevent that), but super delegates don’t fit into the Republican calculus to any great degree. More to the point, it only took two equally matched candidates and a tepid effort from a third candidate for the 2008 Democratic race to come dangerously close to a convention. If just four or five evenly matched Republicans making it to Super Tuesday, it’s hard to see how a similar result would be avoided.
This isn’t to say that things necessarily play out this way. A candidate could catch fire and suddenly bring stability to the races, as happened with the Democrats in 2004. A large number of candidates could decide not to run.
Rather, the point is that it really is unknowable at this point what will happen. For now, the race is chaotic and utterly unpredictable. Which makes it fun.
I'm not really a rabid republican or democrat, but I'd be shocked if Hillary didn't run and win.
I mean, one reason Obama was able to win both times was that he had a substantial portion of the black vote, because he is black. So, he had a substantial pull with 13% of the population.
How much more extreme is that effect going to be when Hillary has the same effect with about 50% of the population?
Like Obama, TONS people are going to vote for Hillary for no other reason than because either A) She's something new in American politics, and they want to help make history, or B) Women are going to vote for her because she's a woman.
I'm not saying anything bad about blacks or women - this is simply human nature. If the reverse was true, and women had been in charge of the U.S. since its inception, and the first male candidate was likely coming up, I'm sure society would do the same thing.
At this point, Hillary would have to on record that she's eaten live babies before, or have her running mate be satan himself before she'd have a chance at losing. That, or republicans would have to resurrect and combine into one body both Reagan and Jesus.
Also food for thought: The last president to not be re-elected was Bush Senior, back in 93'. So, for 22 years we've re-elected Clinton, Lil' Bush, and now Obama, and it's certainly fair to say that each of those presidents have had significant controversies that should have challenged their re-election, but they all made it.
So, in addition to the near-certainty of Hillary running and winning, also consider the likelihood of her re-election.
Kap'n Krump wrote: I'm not really a rabid republican or democrat, but I'd be shocked if Hillary didn't run and win.
I mean, one reason Obama was able to win both times was that he had a substantial portion of the black vote, because he is black. So, he had a substantial pull with 13% of the population.
How much more extreme is that effect going to be when Hillary has the same effect with about 50% of the population?
Like Obama, TONS people are going to vote for Hillary for no other reason than because either A) She's something new in American politics, and they want to help make history, or B) Women are going to vote for her because she's a woman.
I very seriously doubt Hilary pulls in even close to a similar percentage of women voters as Pres Obama pulled of black voters. Black voters tend to vote Democratic Party, and yes, Pres Obama was a motivating factor in their turn out numbers. Women do not tend to vote as a single party block.
Frazzled wrote: Hillary Clinton won't get 50% of the population. She couldn't win a primary in her own party.
Mark it here first. If Clinton runs as the Democratic candidate, unless the Republicans run a baffoon she will lose.
I agree that she won't get 50% of the population, but she will likely have an "in" with 50% of the population. If even a quarter of women vote for her based on gender, that's about the same 13% of the black vote Obama got, which was enough to for him to get ahead.
And it's true she didn't win the democratic ticket v. Obama, but as I recall, she was a very close second.
Time will certainly tell, though, one way or the other.
Frazzled wrote: Hillary Clinton won't get 50% of the population. She couldn't win a primary in her own party.
Mark it here first. If Clinton runs as the Democratic candidate, unless the Republicans run a baffoon she will lose.
Yeah, after all, in 2008, we all knew years in advance it would be Giuliani vs Hillary, so... I wouldn't give her a lock.
The chances of the GOP nominating a buffoon are pretty good though. I would say there's at least a 60 percent chance of that, even after we winnow out the non-candidate candidates that are just in it to fleece the rubes (Palin, Trump, Gingrich) or sell a book (Huckabee, probably Gingrich too). Ultimately in 2015 the GOP remains party that embraces embarrassing levels of buffoonery.
I hope Rick Perry runs again, personally, that is my favorite circus.
I can't imagine Mitt is legitimately going to run again, despite the noises he is making, which is a shame for him because I think he could actually win this time: one of his big issues was voter relatability and empathy, and now that's he's sort of dramatically failed there is an element of his personality that the average voter can now sort of connect with (being defeated in an endeavor).
In my opinion, though, things will remain the same: the Dems will not be able to get Congress again anytime soon, and the Reps will not be able to retake the presidency anytime soon.
Frazzled wrote: Hillary Clinton won't get 50% of the population. She couldn't win a primary in her own party.
Mark it here first. If Clinton runs as the Democratic candidate, unless the Republicans run a baffoon she will lose.
Yeah, after all, in 2008, we all knew years in advance it would be Giuliani vs Hillary, so... I wouldn't give her a lock.
The chances of the GOP nominating a buffoon are pretty good though. I would say there's at least a 60 percent chance of that, even after we winnow out the non-candidate candidates that are just in it to fleece the rubes (Palin, Trump, Gingrich) or sell a book (Huckabee, probably Gingrich too). Ultimately in 2015 the GOP remains party that embraces embarrassing levels of buffoonery.
I hope Rick Perry runs again, personally, that is my favorite circus.
I can't imagine Mitt is legitimately going to run again, despite the noises he is making, which is a shame for him because I think he could actually win this time: one of his big issues was voter relatability and empathy, and now that's sort of dramatically failed there is an element of his personality that the average voter can now sort of connect with (being defeated in an endeavor).
Perry is a buffoon? How so? He's not my favorite, but he's certainly better than most of the other potentials.
Agreed on the Palin, Gingrich, & Trump buffoonery.
Mitt would be a decent Presidential caretaker imo... not necessarily great, but at least has a chance to build a competent administration. However, I can't see him running again for real.
I suspect that Rick Perry is going to have a difficult time fundraising when he's currently diverting his campaign funds to legal fees to (so far, unsuccessfully) fight off his felony indictment for abuse of power.
There are 3 reasons that I think he'd be a bad candidate - that was one, the other is his efforts to show how he's done well with the Texas economy are going to be a little underwhelming with dropping gas prices and a general economic recovery, and uh... I forgot the other reason.
Frazzled wrote: Hillary Clinton won't get 50% of the population. She couldn't win a primary in her own party.
Mark it here first. If Clinton runs as the Democratic candidate, unless the Republicans run a baffoon she will lose.
I agree that she won't get 50% of the population, but she will likely have an "in" with 50% of the population. If even a quarter of women vote for her based on gender, that's about the same 13% of the black vote Obama got, which was enough to for him to get ahead.
And it's true she didn't win the democratic ticket v. Obama, but as I recall, she was a very close second.
Time will certainly tell, though, one way or the other.
Considering he was a nobody and she had the "lock" then, thats telling. note her negatives are really high constantly in polling.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
In my opinion, though, things will remain the same: the Dems will not be able to get Congress again anytime soon, and the Reps will not be able to retake the presidency anytime soon.
I'd be happy with that. The US has typically operated under just such a system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I suspect that Rick Perry is going to have a difficult time fundraising when he's currently diverting his campaign funds to legal fees to (so far, unsuccessfully) fight off his felony indictment for abuse of power.
There are 3 reasons that I think he'd be a bad candidate - that was one, the other is his efforts to show how he's done well with the Texas economy are going to be a little underwhelming with dropping gas prices and a general economic recovery, and uh... I forgot the other reason.
The "look I'm smart too" glasses. You have to give him credit. His hair is almost as bulletproof as mine. Almost. My coif has successfully withstood hurricanes.
Ouze wrote: I suspect that Rick Perry is going to have a difficult time fundraising when he's currently diverting his campaign funds to legal fees to (so far, unsuccessfully) fight off his felony indictment for abuse of power.
Actually, I think he's going to spin that as a positive as the case is purely laughable.
There are 3 reasons that I think he'd be a bad candidate - that was one, the other is his efforts to show how he's done well with the Texas economy are going to be a little underwhelming with dropping gas prices and a general economic recovery,
That's a good point... he seems to take too much credit for it. I understand WHY he's claiming it, but it's awfully conceited of him to claim credit.
and uh... I forgot the other reason.
Try his debate when he was stoned on painkiller after back surgery. Man that was pretty bad.
Actually, I think he's going to spin that as a positive as the case is purely laughable.
I thought so as well, but it's survived two attempts to quash so far... the special prosecutor has stated there is more to it than has been reported.
In any event, as donor or bundler, do you give your money to a guy who is going to put it into get-out-the-vote-teams, ad buys, and flyers, or the guy who is giving it to lawyers to fight off a felony criminal case?
Actually, I think he's going to spin that as a positive as the case is purely laughable.
I thought so as well, but it's survived two attempts to quash so far... the special prosecutor has stated there is more to it than has been reported.
In any event, as donor or bundler, do you give your money to a guy who is going to put it into get-out-the-vote-teams, ad buys, and flyers, or the guy who is giving it to lawyers to fight off a felony criminal case?
It survived those quash attempts because of the technical nature... the indictment doesn’t specifically say they are bringing the charge based on the veto. Which everyone knows that is the case... so until the court actually proceeds and that this *is* the prosecution's theory, Perry's laywers can legally demand that the prosecutors specify *how* he misused property, and make them allege that he did so by way of a veto. THEN, the judge can rule on the question of whether a veto can violate that law.
At least, that's what I think... Texas court proceedings seem wonkey to me, so I may be missing the point.
Anyhoo... I think that's my point as he'll use this as a badge of honor in his fundraising attempts.
Its survived two attempts so far because the US legal system is generally laughable.
As to a donor, you have a better point, which was the whole point of why the Texas Democrats pushed this. Fortunately for me he's not the best candidate (as in I would vote for Hillary over him) so it doesn't bother me.
In Perry's defense I will say he's one of the Republicans who stood up against the very hard right on a social issue (vaccination for the plavona virus or whatever its called), took a massive amount of heat and backed up not a whit. I give him major kudos for that. No politician goes against his base, well, ever.
Ouze wrote: I suspect that Rick Perry is going to have a difficult time fundraising when he's currently diverting his campaign funds to legal fees to (so far, unsuccessfully) fight off his felony indictment for abuse of power.
There are 3 reasons that I think he'd be a bad candidate - that was one, the other is his efforts to show how he's done well with the Texas economy are going to be a little underwhelming with dropping gas prices and a general economic recovery, and uh... I forgot the other reason.
In Perry's defense I will say he's one of the Republicans who stood up against the very hard right on a social issue (vaccination for the plavona virus or whatever its called), took a massive amount of heat and backed up not a whit. I give him major kudos for that. No politician goes against his base, well, ever.
Huh? Was that executive order mandating that 11- and 12-year-old girls in Texas be given the vaccine Gardasil?
In Perry's defense I will say he's one of the Republicans who stood up against the very hard right on a social issue (vaccination for the plavona virus or whatever its called), took a massive amount of heat and backed up not a whit. I give him major kudos for that. No politician goes against his base, well, ever.
Huh? Was that executive order mandating that 11- and 12-year-old girls in Texas be given the vaccine Gardasil?
Yes. The right wingers went ape gak talking about impeaching him and such.
In Perry's defense I will say he's one of the Republicans who stood up against the very hard right on a social issue (vaccination for the plavona virus or whatever its called), took a massive amount of heat and backed up not a whit. I give him major kudos for that. No politician goes against his base, well, ever.
Huh? Was that executive order mandating that 11- and 12-year-old girls in Texas be given the vaccine Gardasil?
Yes. The right wingers went ape gak talking about impeaching him and such.
I see... I wasn't a big fan on *how* he went about it.
Should've been more of a "opt-in" program... rather than defaulting to "mandating with opt-out".
The biggest problem the GOP is going to continue to have is that many conservative males between the ages 25-40 (like myself) are too much RINOs to the hardliners, to whom, for whatever reason, the GOP likes to cater.
Honestly, I'll never understand it because those far right hardliners simply aren't going to vote Democrat. They're not. So why not appeal to those of us that fall in the Libertarian camp? Those of us that, for lack of better phrasing, don't give a gak what people do in the privacy of their own home.
I've always though the best move for the GOP is to push for marriage equality harder than the left. Because there are plenty of homosexuals that vote left on this sole issue, despite being fiscally conservative.
In Perry's defense I will say he's one of the Republicans who stood up against the very hard right on a social issue (vaccination for the plavona virus or whatever its called), took a massive amount of heat and backed up not a whit. I give him major kudos for that. No politician goes against his base, well, ever.
Huh? Was that executive order mandating that 11- and 12-year-old girls in Texas be given the vaccine Gardasil?
Yes. The right wingers went ape gak talking about impeaching him and such.
I see... I wasn't a big fan on *how* he went about it.
Should've been more of a "opt-in" program... rather than defaulting to "mandating with opt-out".
God on earth why? Vaccinations aren't Opt-in. Look at Disneyland to see what happens when the nattering nabobs are allowed to not vaccinate. They infest us all.
In Perry's defense I will say he's one of the Republicans who stood up against the very hard right on a social issue (vaccination for the plavona virus or whatever its called), took a massive amount of heat and backed up not a whit. I give him major kudos for that. No politician goes against his base, well, ever.
Huh? Was that executive order mandating that 11- and 12-year-old girls in Texas be given the vaccine Gardasil?
Yes. The right wingers went ape gak talking about impeaching him and such.
I see... I wasn't a big fan on *how* he went about it.
Should've been more of a "opt-in" program... rather than defaulting to "mandating with opt-out".
God on earth why? Vaccinations aren't Opt-in. Look at Disneyland to see what happens when the nattering nabobs are allowed to not vaccinate. They infest us all.
It's not that the Vaccinations per se is my objection.
My objection is gubmint folks saying you must take it in the ass and do what I say.
If my physician recommends it... GREAT! Sign me up.
I've always though the best move for the GOP is to push for marriage equality harder than the left. Because there are plenty of homosexuals that vote left on this sole issue, despite being fiscally conservative.
That gets me too...
Funny story... it's actually conservative in principleto favor SSM. But, the religious (and typical black families) just won't reconcile with that.
Hillary Clinton is unelectable as president. I say that as a card-carrying liberal Democrat.
Hillary's problem is that every single man, woman, child, and house pet in the country knows *exactly* what they think of her. She has a 0% chance to win over any of her detractors, and she can't win over an undecided, because there aren't any when it comes to her. Everybody (or as near to "everybody" as makes no odds) has already formed their opinion of Hillary Clinton. The Dems need to run somebody that 100% of the country hasn't heard of and decided whether they like or dislike already. They need a candidate that is known in one part of the country (so he or she has a support base), who they can "introduce" to the rest of the U.S. during the campaign.
The Dems have the problem of not having anyone seriously considering a run, because it is assumed Hillary is the lock. The Republicans have the problem of everyone considering a run because nobody is the lock. If Hillary runs, I will be very surprised if the Republicans don't win the 2016 election.
In Perry's defense I will say he's one of the Republicans who stood up against the very hard right on a social issue (vaccination for the plavona virus or whatever its called), took a massive amount of heat and backed up not a whit. I give him major kudos for that. No politician goes against his base, well, ever.
Huh? Was that executive order mandating that 11- and 12-year-old girls in Texas be given the vaccine Gardasil?
Yes. The right wingers went ape gak talking about impeaching him and such.
I see... I wasn't a big fan on *how* he went about it.
Should've been more of a "opt-in" program... rather than defaulting to "mandating with opt-out".
God on earth why? Vaccinations aren't Opt-in. Look at Disneyland to see what happens when the nattering nabobs are allowed to not vaccinate. They infest us all.
It's not that the Vaccinations per se is my objection.
My objection is gubmint folks saying you must take it in the ass and do what I say.
If my physician recommends it... GREAT! Sign me up.
I've always though the best move for the GOP is to push for marriage equality harder than the left. Because there are plenty of homosexuals that vote left on this sole issue, despite being fiscally conservative.
That gets me too...
Funny story... it's actually conservative in principleto favor SSM. But, the religious (and typical black families) just won't reconcile with that.
It's stupid not to get your kids vaccinated so that they don't contract serious potentially fatal illnesses. That said, it's not illegal not to get your kids vaccinated so the govt has no right to try to punish people for not doing it by withholding services like public education, etc. Having a govt that actively tries to oppress you because they disagree with your personal choices is not a good way to run a free country.
The real conservative position is to not have the govt be involved in licensing marriages at all. Unfortunately we're several decades too late to have a realistic chance of extracting the social engineering out of the tax code.
The problem is that an unvaccinated subset of the population allows the germ in question (whatever it is) to mutate beyond the vaccination's immunity and re-infest the general public - and you're back to square one.
Although I am against a lot of government interference (and for a lot of other things for the government to interfere in), public health is one where I really think it does belong.
squidhills wrote: Hillary Clinton is unelectable as president. I say that as a card-carrying liberal Democrat.
Hillary's problem is that every single man, woman, child, and house pet in the country knows *exactly* what they think of her. She has a 0% chance to win over any of her detractors, and she can't win over an undecided, because there aren't any when it comes to her. Everybody (or as near to "everybody" as makes no odds) has already formed their opinion of Hillary Clinton. The Dems need to run somebody that 100% of the country hasn't heard of and decided whether they like or dislike already. They need a candidate that is known in one part of the country (so he or she has a support base), who they can "introduce" to the rest of the U.S. during the campaign.
The Dems have the problem of not having anyone seriously considering a run, because it is assumed Hillary is the lock. The Republicans have the problem of everyone considering a run because nobody is the lock. If Hillary runs, I will be very surprised if the Republicans don't win the 2016 election.
Interesting... the thing that you're discounting is how favorable the media is around Hillary, especially when she's the nominee...
Interesting... the thing that you're discounting is how favorable the media is around Hillary, especially when she's the nominee...
I'm not discounting it. It just won't be that big of a factor. The media can be as favorable as it wants, but it won't change anyone's mind on her. The people who dislike her tend to not watch the kind of media that would be nice to her, and the people that like her already like her, so the media's efforts to make them like her are pointless.
My objection is gubmint folks saying you must take it in the ass and do what I say.
If my physician recommends it... GREAT! Sign me up.
Cool but in that case your mouthbreathers don't get to be around everyone else in school.
This.
People against being vaccinated for anything other than medical reasons should be excluded. No ifs or buts.
Further, there are several vaccinations that require booster shots. As you near the booster period, your immunity weakens. One of these mouthbreathers got in GC's school and infected a bunch of them with whooping cough Thanks donkey-cave.
The real conservative position is to not have the govt be involved in licensing marriages at all. Unfortunately we're several decades too late to have a realistic chance of extracting the social engineering out of the tax code.
Prestor Jon wrote: That said, it's not illegal not to get your kids vaccinated so the govt has no right to try to punish people for not doing it by withholding services like public education, etc. Having a govt that actively tries to oppress you because they disagree with your personal choices is not a good way to run a free country.
The refusal to vaccinate children is a public health issue, and therefore a matter which the state needs to address.
Prestor Jon wrote: That said, it's not illegal not to get your kids vaccinated so the govt has no right to try to punish people for not doing it by withholding services like public education, etc. Having a govt that actively tries to oppress you because they disagree with your personal choices is not a good way to run a free country.
The refusal to vaccinate children is a public health issue, and therefore a matter which the state needs to address.
Like I said... I really didn't have an issue about it per se.
Perry did have a mea culpa and the opponents were mostly mollified.
I'm curious if he recieved any substantial political contributions from the drug manufacturer Merck.
cincydooley wrote: The biggest problem the GOP is going to continue to have is that many conservative males between the ages 25-40 (like myself) are too much RINOs to the hardliners, to whom, for whatever reason, the GOP likes to cater.
Honestly, I'll never understand it because those far right hardliners simply aren't going to vote Democrat. They're not. So why not appeal to those of us that fall in the Libertarian camp? Those of us that, for lack of better phrasing, don't give a gak what people do in the privacy of their own home.
I've always though the best move for the GOP is to push for marriage equality harder than the left. Because there are plenty of homosexuals that vote left on this sole issue, despite being fiscally conservative.
The whole "we gotta rally the base" thing will bite the GOP in the ass until they realize that the base will always vote for you simply because you are running against a democrat.
Frazzled wrote: Hillary Clinton won't get 50% of the population. She couldn't win a primary in her own party.
Mark it here first. If Clinton runs as the Democratic candidate, unless the Republicans run a baffoon she will lose.
I agree that she won't get 50% of the population, but she will likely have an "in" with 50% of the population. If even a quarter of women vote for her based on gender, that's about the same 13% of the black vote Obama got, which was enough to for him to get ahead.
And it's true she didn't win the democratic ticket v. Obama, but as I recall, she was a very close second.
Time will certainly tell, though, one way or the other.
If you spend 5 minutes looking at the voting patterns of he African-American voting bloc you quickly realize that this argument is a myth.
The hey voted for Obama because he was a democrat, same reason they voted in every other election.
The whole "we gotta rally the base" thing will bite the GOP in the ass until they realize that the base will always vote for you simply because you are running against a democrat.
It isn't really about who your base votes for, regardless of party, it is about whether or not its members vote.
Two years is plenty of time for someone to become the village idiot. Two years is plenty of time to find those focus points that is the current concern Americans have in mind. Two years ISIS role might swing voters, border security issue might swing it, benefits might swing it, etc etc etc
Two years of gotcha politics.
Side Note
I see the keystone Pipeline Bill was passed in the Senate.
squidhills wrote: Hillary Clinton is unelectable as president. I say that as a card-carrying liberal Democrat.
Hillary's problem is that every single man, woman, child, and house pet in the country knows *exactly* what they think of her. She has a 0% chance to win over any of her detractors, and she can't win over an undecided, because there aren't any when it comes to her. Everybody (or as near to "everybody" as makes no odds) has already formed their opinion of Hillary Clinton. The Dems need to run somebody that 100% of the country hasn't heard of and decided whether they like or dislike already. They need a candidate that is known in one part of the country (so he or she has a support base), who they can "introduce" to the rest of the U.S. during the campaign.
The Dems have the problem of not having anyone seriously considering a run, because it is assumed Hillary is the lock. The Republicans have the problem of everyone considering a run because nobody is the lock. If Hillary runs, I will be very surprised if the Republicans don't win the 2016 election.
This....
It's because, as much as having a female as president is "new", Hillary isn't new in National politics. She has the Clinton name, she has time in various offices (aka, a record that people can pull the negative out of), and she has Benghazi on her name... Now, obviously we had a whole thread on Benghazi, so we don't need to discuss it, but I'd be very surprised if Republicans DIDN't use that against her (for right or wrong)
Personally, I'd like to see the Republicans put forward a "JFK" type... young, "brash" and not so completely indoctrinated/neck deep in Washington BS. I'm talking a guy/gal who is right near the Constitutional limit for Presidency as far as age is concerned.
If ISIS manages to pull an attack off on mainland US of A in the next two years or North Korea (whoever does the hack) shuts down a power grids going to influence individuals choice on who to vote for.
squidhills wrote: Hillary Clinton is unelectable as president. I say that as a card-carrying liberal Democrat.
Hillary's problem is that every single man, woman, child, and house pet in the country knows *exactly* what they think of her. She has a 0% chance to win over any of her detractors, and she can't win over an undecided, because there aren't any when it comes to her. Everybody (or as near to "everybody" as makes no odds) has already formed their opinion of Hillary Clinton. The Dems need to run somebody that 100% of the country hasn't heard of and decided whether they like or dislike already. They need a candidate that is known in one part of the country (so he or she has a support base), who they can "introduce" to the rest of the U.S. during the campaign.
The Dems have the problem of not having anyone seriously considering a run, because it is assumed Hillary is the lock. The Republicans have the problem of everyone considering a run because nobody is the lock. If Hillary runs, I will be very surprised if the Republicans don't win the 2016 election.
This....
It's because, as much as having a female as president is "new", Hillary isn't new in National politics. She has the Clinton name, she has time in various offices (aka, a record that people can pull the negative out of), and she has Benghazi on her name... Now, obviously we had a whole thread on Benghazi, so we don't need to discuss it, but I'd be very surprised if Republicans DIDN't use that against her (for right or wrong)
Eh... the Republicans will keep the 'ghazi fire going, but it won't shift anything unless there's a bombshell.
*shrug*
I think that since there's not another *strong* candidate, the Democratic voters would rally around Hillary.
Personally, I'd like to see the Republicans put forward a "JFK" type... young, "brash" and not so completely indoctrinated/neck deep in Washington BS. I'm talking a guy/gal who is right near the Constitutional limit for Presidency as far as age is concerned.
Walker?
Rand Paul?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: If ISIS manages to pull an attack off on mainland US of A in the next two years or North Korea (whoever does the hack) shuts down a power grids going to influence individuals choice on who to vote for.
Rand Paul is extremely well entrenched in Washington politics*, which makes his attempt to mock Clinton and Bush for being members of dynasties pretty amusing.
I would also argue that Walker's own political experience prevents him from characterizing himself as an outsider, but then I think anyone who tries to characterize himself as an outsider while running for any office is an idiot.
*He's not only a Senator, but the son of a former Congressman and Presidential candidate.
It's stupid not to get your kids vaccinated so that they don't contract serious potentially fatal illnesses. That said, it's not illegal not to get your kids vaccinated so the govt has no right to try to punish people for not doing it by withholding services like public education, etc. Having a govt that actively tries to oppress you because they disagree with your personal choices is not a good way to run a free country.
The real conservative position is to not have the govt be involved in licensing marriages at all. Unfortunately we're several decades too late to have a realistic chance of extracting the social engineering out of the tax code.
The government can and should force people to get them. We punish those who try to faith heal their kids instead of taking them to a doctor. If a parent doesn't get their kids vaccinated they should be charged with neglect as well. It's this notion that vaccines should be a choice which has lead to diseases that were claimed eradicated making a come back.
fun fact about marriage licenses, they were pushed onto the government by the conservatives of the day, as a way to discriminate against interracial couples.
I'd like to see - Elizabeth Warren run. The republicans nomination process should be pure comedic gold especially with mama bear wanting to run
Frazzled wrote: Isn't Elizabeth Warren the one who claimed she was native american to get tenure but turns out she's whiter than whiteout?
Not the way you describe, no.
She claims that she was Native American, but only was able to offer a poorly documented 1/32 bloodline , and that's not enough to legally be classified as a Cherokee, which is the tribe she claims to be of. Even if her 1/32 claim is rock solid - and it totally isn't - you must be 1/16th.
There's no evidence that this factored into her gaining tenure, or that she attempted to leverage it in attempt to do so. It's just the standard way of casting shade on someone's accomplishments, as it was claimed that Barack Obama was a product of affirmative action (pro-tip: being black and bright might get you into Harvard, but it won't graduate you magna cum laude)
There's an article here if you wish to read it that lays it out pretty well.
i'm sure this meme will keep recurring anyway, though.
My wife is whiter than whiteout, and her grandma still has the X>% to claim native american, but after 2 more generations my wife fell below that percentage. So my wife does have native american ancestry, just not enough to receive the benefits associated with it.
The same may or may not be true for Warren.
I always found the term native american odd. I was born in america, so I am a native american right? well no. It's really odd when you think of all the people who claim to be americans, yet only a small portion are actually native americans.
I'm a native Texan. Everyone else in the Northern Hemisphere should refer to themselves as native Greater Texans.
I mean we were gracious enough to let the other states join with us in 1845. Canada well, just wait a bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Warren bugs me as she's very lefty in the speaching. It bugs me that often I agree, I just can't see how a committed leftist can run a nation (well, not run it into the ground). More importantly, she hasn't actually run anything so we'd be gett another amateur learning on the job. Enough with those.
Frazzled wrote: Isn't Elizabeth Warren the one who claimed she was native american to get tenure but turns out she's whiter than whiteout?
That's the one...
She's also even more liberal and populist than Obama.
She is whatever a leftist version of a Tea Party politician would be (Chai Latte Party?) and she will do just as much damage as the conservatives are doing.
Warren bugs me as she's very lefty in the speaching. It bugs me that often I agree, I just can't see how a committed leftist can run a nation (well, not run it into the ground). More importantly, she hasn't actually run anything so we'd be gett another amateur learning on the job. Enough with those.
Time for seasoned management.
Bring back Zombie Nixon!
I suspect you agree with the fact some of the problems she identifies do indeed exist. I suspect her solution set consists of More Federal Government with More Power funded by taxing an increasingly broad definition of The Rich. I bet your solution set is different.
Frazzled wrote: Isn't Elizabeth Warren the one who claimed she was native american to get tenure but turns out she's whiter than whiteout?
That's the one...
She's also even more liberal and populist than Obama.
She is whatever a leftist version of a Tea Party politician would be (Chai Latte Party?) and she will do just as much damage as the conservatives are doing.
A contest between Warren and Paul would be very humorous, until we got stuck with the winner.
But the NRA and FOX told me he was a terrible liberal of the worst sort so it must be true!
He doesn't even think guns are people.
The old thread was derailed with random "hahaha I don't like Obama" posts, we don't need to derail this one with random "hahaha people don't like Obama" posts. Some people might think he is histories greatest monster and some people might think that those people are the world's greatest idiots, but can we try to keep this thread at least somewhat factual and free of random swipes at people?
Frazzled wrote: More importantly, she hasn't actually run anything so we'd be gett another amateur learning on the job. Enough with those.
Every first-term President is an amateur, not even governor is a comparable position.
Somewhat.... I think that being a Governor can give a potential president a greater insight into herding cats. Sure, there's a learning curve... the Pres. has to be read on to all the secrets in Area-51 and all that, but that is, in part why the President has a cabinet of advisers (in theory)
Somewhat.... I think that being a Governor can give a potential president a greater insight into herding cats. Sure, there's a learning curve... the Pres. has to be read on to all the secrets in Area-51 and all that, but that is, in part why the President has a cabinet of advisers (in theory)
The President doesn't really herd cats, that's a task primarily left to Congressional leaders. Governor's don't really herd cats either, but they also don't undergo anywhere near as much scrutiny as the President does, or have to think about defense and foreign policy. That's a large part of why they usually only make national news when they deliberately try to, often when making a bid for President, or when they pull a Blago.
Frazzled wrote: More importantly, she hasn't actually run anything so we'd be gett another amateur learning on the job. Enough with those.
Every first-term President is an amateur, not even governor is a comparable position.
Somewhat.... I think that being a Governor can give a potential president a greater insight into herding cats. Sure, there's a learning curve... the Pres. has to be read on to all the secrets in Area-51 and all that, but that is, in part why the President has a cabinet of advisers (in theory)
There are a lot of things Presidents do and are responsible for that Governors don't even come close to. Simply put, there is a reason why nearly every President looks about 15 years older after only 8 years in office. I've often found this particular scene to sum up just that sort of thing:
Voting in a partisan manner does not necessarily indicate that the two Parties are far apart on an ideological level, which is a significant problem with DW-NOMINATE based analysis despite its efforts to control for that sort of variation.
Speaking of Mrs. Warren's family history, isn't Rubio the guy who claimed his parents had to flee after Castro rose to power, and then it turned out that they had actually left Cuba 3 years before and he made the whole thing up for votes?
I'm sorry, your saying that Obama is really liberal, but less liberal than Clinton?
I think that problem here is scale. The Rs have gotten progressively more and more reactionary, tilting the scale. He, and the rest of the Ds, seems really liberal, but Reagan is liberal compared the current crop of Rs. You see more actual liberals and radicals in state and local politics, not many of them get into national politics, because you need money to do that.
Anyone know if Bernie Sanders is still planning to run ?
Part of me would like to see Biden run, but i'm not sure he can win in this climate. Being the leftie I am, i highly enjoyed his debate with Ryan before the last election. Unfortunately i think he's a little too frank for some people, despite how refreshing i find it.
That scale that shows relative liberalism vs conservatism in presidents - I think that scale was pretty damn fascinating, actually, if accurate. It shows that President Obama is actually the least liberal president in 70 years, and that democratic presidents are in general increasingly less liberal, but that Republican presidents have gotten more and more conservative.
Of course, I think the scale is probably nonsense, because as Cotor already pointed out, it shows Reagan towards the upper end of conservatism: a president who expanded the scope of government, signed legislation dramatically increasing the EITC, gave amnesty to illegal immigrants, increased taxes 11 times in 8 years, more than doubled the deficit, virtually eliminated the sale of select-fire weapons, and so on - so, I would question any methodology that shows Reagan as conservative as this.
Any good opinion I had of that man has now disappeared in a puff off bad science and idiocy. What a dropkick, him and that whole movement.
The posted some more, ahem, clarifications: Update, 11:20 am. Christie has issued a statement clarifying his comments -- and the full context of his statement. "To be clear: The Governor believes vaccines are an important public health protection and with a disease like measles there is no question kids should be vaccinated," said Christie spokeswoman Lauren Fritts. "At the same time different states require different degrees of vaccination, which is why he was calling for balance in which ones government should mandate."
Automatically Appended Next Post: Anyone feel likes vacaccines are the media's new "Birth Control Pills" question for the GOP? It's being injected as an out-of-nowhere wedge issue question into the debate just because it hurts the GOP.
Almost all GOP politicians are pro-vaccination, of course -- but a distressing number of GOP voters are against it, making this a politically difficult question.
MrDwhitey wrote: So a distressing number of GOP voters are stupid idiots?*
Strong words whembly.
*much better to just stick with "a distressing number of voters"
I don't think I've seen anti-vaxx folks voting democrats... unless they're limosine Democrats.
I think the "damn government can't tell me what to do" anti-vaxxers are a minority and that most anti-vaxxers are of the "don't put this poison in my child, big phara is evil" liberal kind that would vote Dem or Green.
It does seem that Republican politicians seem to cater to them for some reason though.
MrDwhitey wrote: So a distressing number of GOP voters are stupid idiots?*
Strong words whembly.
*much better to just stick with "a distressing number of voters"
I don't think I've seen anti-vaxx folks voting democrats... unless they're limosine Democrats.
I think the "damn government can't tell me what to do" anti-vaxxers are a minority and that most anti-vaxxers are of the "don't put this poison in my child, big phara is evil" liberal kind that would vote Dem or Green.
It does seem that Republican politicians seem to cater to them for some reason though.
Ron/Rand Paul seems to attract those types of folks...
Philosophically, the only freedom that matters is the Freedom-to-Be-Wrong™... right??
I quite like the freedom to face the consequences. If you are opposed to vaccination, then you get to pay the medical bills of anyone your child gets sick.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I quite like the freedom to face the consequences. If you are opposed to vaccination, then you get to pay the medical bills of anyone your child gets sick.
If only it worked that way. I'm seeing some recent FB posts from my Canadian friends about some pediatricians who are literally turning away patients and "cancelling" them as a provider, if they refuse vaccination.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I quite like the freedom to face the consequences. If you are opposed to vaccination, then you get to pay the medical bills of anyone your child gets sick.
If only it worked that way. I'm seeing some recent FB posts from my Canadian friends about some pediatricians who are literally turning away patients and "cancelling" them as a provider, if they refuse vaccination.
That sounds pretty dodgy by those doctors. Yeah the people are idiots for refusing (if they are refusing for the regular anti-vax movement reasons and not a legitimate reason), but you should still give them medical care. Is there any reliable stories about this though? Or is it just FB posts. Because facebook is hardly the best place to pick up news...
Co'tor Shas wrote: I quite like the freedom to face the consequences. If you are opposed to vaccination, then you get to pay the medical bills of anyone your child gets sick.
If only it worked that way. I'm seeing some recent FB posts from my Canadian friends about some pediatricians who are literally turning away patients and "cancelling" them as a provider, if they refuse vaccination.
That sounds pretty dodgy by those doctors. Yeah the people are idiots for refusing (if they are refusing for the regular anti-vax movement reasons and not a legitimate reason), but you should still give them medical care. Is there any reliable stories about this though? Or is it just FB posts. Because facebook is hardly the best place to pick up news...
Co'tor Shas wrote: I quite like the freedom to face the consequences. If you are opposed to vaccination, then you get to pay the medical bills of anyone your child gets sick.
Wouldn't that end up being other unvaccinated folks? Surely the vaccinated folks are safe, right?
I'm pro vaccination (all my kids were vaccinated and I can't tell you how many different shots I got in the Army) but just don't see it as a Federal issue at all. This measles thing is silly. If I read correctly there were like 500 cases last year, so right now this massive outbreak of less than 100 (with zero deaths) started allegedly by a foreign tourist to Disney Land is not that big a deal.
Let insurance companies deny coverage for certain sicknesses and their treatments unless the insured shows vaccination records. If your kid is one of the handful in his school not vaccinated, well he/she and the rest of the handful are at risk, along with any unvaccinated adults. Let the parents of the vaccinated kids sit back and say 'Told you so!'
MrDwhitey wrote: So a distressing number of GOP voters are stupid idiots?*
Strong words whembly.
*much better to just stick with "a distressing number of voters"
There is a weird group from both sides that are anti vaxxers.
Frankly I fear there is a vast portion of the population that is becoming increasingly LaRouchite from all spectrums.
The Left is going what could beest be described as populist (again) and still holds the likes of Maxine Waters. They seem to have no problem with abrogating the constitution if their party is in charge.
The Right is starting to go off the deep end. I had a "shouting match" with a fellow on a more conservative website concerning the Abbott/Bennett disussion on Common Core (Bennett won easily). Bennett was being accused of not being a Republican or conseravtive. Excuse me? This was one of Reagan's key players, an Old Guard cultural conservative who was fighting Da Commies before Abbott could pee standing up. Lots of weird pseudo 911 truthers posting that don't have a clue about Common Core, but its attracted every evil government conspiracy known. As Bennett said, read the CC standards, they're actually posted, and not what some nut is saying it says. Its a minimum standards thing that you can disagree with (how some of the math is taught is low hanging fruit and a real issue) but come on, its not an Obama plot to install ISIL in the Whitehouse.
The scary thing, these people vote (when they accidently stumble into a voting booth). I guess the optimist would say this has always been the case. You used to buy votes with a beer legally. Man I miss those days.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I quite like the freedom to face the consequences. If you are opposed to vaccination, then you get to pay the medical bills of anyone your child gets sick.
If only it worked that way. I'm seeing some recent FB posts from my Canadian friends about some pediatricians who are literally turning away patients and "cancelling" them as a provider, if they refuse vaccination.
That sounds pretty dodgy by those doctors. Yeah the people are idiots for refusing (if they are refusing for the regular anti-vax movement reasons and not a legitimate reason), but you should still give them medical care. Is there any reliable stories about this though? Or is it just FB posts. Because facebook is hardly the best place to pick up news...
Articles about doctors in L.A. doing the same. Works for me.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I quite like the freedom to face the consequences. If you are opposed to vaccination, then you get to pay the medical bills of anyone your child gets sick.
Or, if the measles, the lost earning power of the children who go blind? or cover the funerals for the children who die?
The way I see it, there are 2 groups of people:
1.) People who have kids that are too young for vaccinations, or immunocompromised, or have a medical issue, and
2.) People who think vaccinations cause autism or some other illness, or think there are too many too soon, or whatever
And you know what? That's great. This is America, you're free to choose, you know? And if you're in group 2, then you should have your kids taken from you, and you should get charged with child neglect. Because your choice isn't any different than the parent who chose not to feed their kids, or who tried to pray away their kids cancer instead of taking them to the hospital, or any other complete nonsense that unfit parents do. Your "choice" isn't any different than me getting drunk and driving down a sidewalk. Your choice has endangered the lives of the people around you.
As a society we've long established that there are limitations to your freedom to choose for your minor children, especially when you are making choices that are manifestly bad for them (malnutrition, refusing to school them, abusing them, whatever). I'm totally OK with the state impinging your freedom to be a public health menace and seriously injure or kill those around you because of your stupid fething ideas about how science works.
Politicians who advocate on behalf of the latter group are a disgrace to a first world country.
Here in Australia some schools will refuse your kid if they're not vaccinated. And a number of government parental payments are denied if you don't get your kid vaccinated.
Frazzled wrote: The Left is going what could beest be described as populist (again) and still holds the likes of Maxine Waters. They seem to have no problem with abrogating the constitution if their party is in charge.
The Right is starting to go off the deep end.
I agree with you entirely Fraz. The only thing I'd change is to say that the populism on the left is nothing new, but it seems to doubling down more and more on some very destructive stances (race relations especially, but their stance on economic issues is increasingly problematic).
Frazzled wrote: (how some of the math is taught is low hanging fruit and a real issue)
I've heard/seen a lot of complaints about the common core math...Most of it boils down to 'It's different, thus it's wrong'. However, looking at some of it, it's actually teaching kids how math works rather than just memorization. The process actually reflects how my brain processes math problems.
I'm pretty good at math, but that is partially because I realized HOW numbers interact. Looking at the sample problems that were part of the outrage, yes, they were confusing or complicated at first. However, once I looked at what the problem was trying to do, it made perfect sense to me. Yes, an ordinary person would do it easier another way, but making the children do it a different way teaches them a new way of thinking about how things work. Similar to how, in the karate kid, the hero was made to do chores in a certain way. Plus, with theory, you start with a simple example but once things get more complex, the theory still holds.
Here in the US, every state and many counties have immunization requirements for schools, though some offer waivers. Even the private school my daughter goes to strictly enforces the county immunization requirements.
Again, it isn't a Federal issue, and those making it one are being silly in my opinion. If the states and counties can't enforce it, how do you expect some bureaucrat in DC to do so?
Actually, taking into account the Patient Zero for this outbreak seems to have been a tourist from outside the US, perhaps there is a Federal component. Don't issue visas to enter the US unless vaccinations are current, and work to stop the flow of illegals.
When trying to bring our kids into the US (they are adopted from overseas) we sure as hell had to do the immunization dance to get visas.
I think the kids should wear something that says they where not vaccine ated, and the parents too. Some thing like " my principles are more important then my child's health"
I also agree that schools should not enroll children who have not been vaccinated for nonmedical reasons. The idea of a personal exemption is ridiculous and never should have been allowed.
CptJake wrote: Here in the US, every state and many counties have immunization requirements for schools, though some offer waivers. Even the private school my daughter goes to strictly enforces the county immunization requirements.
Again, it isn't a Federal issue, and those making it one are being silly in my opinion. If the states and counties can't enforce it, how do you expect some bureaucrat in DC to do so?
Actually, taking into account the Patient Zero for this outbreak seems to have been a tourist from outside the US, perhaps there is a Federal component. Don't issue visas to enter the US unless vaccinations are current, and work to stop the flow of illegals.
When trying to bring our kids into the US (they are adopted from overseas) we sure as hell had to do the immunization dance to get visas.
It could be argued as a federal issue because these children are not confined to their own state, and diseases don't really recognize state borders.
I'm firmly in the "if you don't vaccinate, you should lose your children" camp. Having seen what polio is doing to my uncle, I really don't understand how anyone could advocate for allowing diseases that were on the brink of eradication to suddenly resurface. It's completely ridiculous, and selfish on a psychopathic level; it basically requires you to completely ignore the people around you. Not just on a "I don't care what you want" level, but on a "I am willing to frelling KILL YOU" level.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I also agree that schools should not enroll children who have not been vaccinated for nonmedical reasons. The idea of a personal exemption is ridiculous and never should have been allowed.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I quite like the freedom to face the consequences. If you are opposed to vaccination, then you get to pay the medical bills of anyone your child gets sick.
If only it worked that way. I'm seeing some recent FB posts from my Canadian friends about some pediatricians who are literally turning away patients and "cancelling" them as a provider, if they refuse vaccination.
That sounds pretty dodgy by those doctors. Yeah the people are idiots for refusing (if they are refusing for the regular anti-vax movement reasons and not a legitimate reason), but you should still give them medical care. Is there any reliable stories about this though? Or is it just FB posts. Because facebook is hardly the best place to pick up news...
As to the source, I dont know how reliable or not CTV news is.
CTV is probably the most reliable news agency up here. While they are most definitely Conservative in their political leanings, they go after every party equally hard when they do stupid things.
CBC is the closest thing we have to Fox News... they're nothing but a taxpayer funded Liberal mouthpiece who take every chance they can get to portray all Conservatives as power mad, moustache twirling villains.
As for doctors being allowed to drop patients who refuse vaccines, it's mainly a personal choice by the doctor/s in question as keeping these kinds of dangerous clients can open that individual up to all kinds of legal troubles.
Anyone who refuses to vaccinate their kids because they buy into the junk science reasons should have their kids taken from them.
sebster wrote: I agree with you entirely Fraz. The only thing I'd change is to say that the populism on the left is nothing new, but it seems to doubling down more and more on some very destructive stances (race relations especially, but their stance on economic issues is increasingly problematic).
It's like frelling clockwork. Republican barely in the door, already cutting education. Primarily to Baltimore City and Prince George's County. Guess what the majority population is for those two counties.
Oh but wait! We're making all these cuts to balance the budget right!
So of course once that's balanced we need to cut taxes on the wealthy!
It still boggles me that this man got elected in Maryland. But hey, at least it's only for 4 years!
Frazzled wrote: (how some of the math is taught is low hanging fruit and a real issue)
I've heard/seen a lot of complaints about the common core math...Most of it boils down to 'It's different, thus it's wrong'. However, looking at some of it, it's actually teaching kids how math works rather than just memorization. The process actually reflects how my brain processes math problems.
I'm pretty good at math, but that is partially because I realized HOW numbers interact. Looking at the sample problems that were part of the outrage, yes, they were confusing or complicated at first. However, once I looked at what the problem was trying to do, it made perfect sense to me. Yes, an ordinary person would do it easier another way, but making the children do it a different way teaches them a new way of thinking about how things work. Similar to how, in the karate kid, the hero was made to do chores in a certain way. Plus, with theory, you start with a simple example but once things get more complex, the theory still holds.
It depends. The way some of it sounds yea thats how I do it in my head without a calculator kind of thing.
But its taken to a weird degree. When the kids went through it they couldn't figure it either (note the Boy is a 3rd Dean's List in...Math AND DEAR GOD HE"S TWENTY TODAY!) and had to learn the "old" method first.
Teach it the quick way, then teach the cool concepts. Frankly many of us aren't built to handle a high level of math.
CptJake wrote: Here in the US, every state and many counties have immunization requirements for schools, though some offer waivers. Even the private school my daughter goes to strictly enforces the county immunization requirements.
Again, it isn't a Federal issue, and those making it one are being silly in my opinion. If the states and counties can't enforce it, how do you expect some bureaucrat in DC to do so?
Actually, taking into account the Patient Zero for this outbreak seems to have been a tourist from outside the US, perhaps there is a Federal component. Don't issue visas to enter the US unless vaccinations are current, and work to stop the flow of illegals.
When trying to bring our kids into the US (they are adopted from overseas) we sure as hell had to do the immunization dance to get visas.
It could be argued as a federal issue because these children are not confined to their own state, and diseases don't really recognize state borders.
I'm firmly in the "if you don't vaccinate, you should lose your children" camp. Having seen what polio is doing to my uncle, I really don't understand how anyone could advocate for allowing diseases that were on the brink of eradication to suddenly resurface. It's completely ridiculous, and selfish on a psychopathic level; it basically requires you to completely ignore the people around you. Not just on a "I don't care what you want" level, but on a "I am willing to frelling KILL YOU" level.
And when you move to the new state and try to enroll your kids in schools, there will be an immunization check. As for that 'I'm willing to frelling KILL YOU' hyperbole, you're perfectly welcome to get immunized and to immunize your kids. I did.
I'm really not sure how expanding Federal Gov't control when every state already has laws/regs covering it is going to make any difference and amount to anything more than a waste of taxpayer dollars. The feds already publish guidelines that the states take into account when they pass their laws and regulations and when they enforce them. To seriously advocate a federal mandate to take kids from families is a very scary idea to me. There are so many more examples of poor/bad parenting that result in the injury or death of many many more children than lack immunization. Should the Feds get involved in all of them?
The reality is, most measles cases affecting the US population originate overseas. In the cases where they don't, they have been limited to communities (like the Amish) where the outbreaks remain pretty localized. The Feds can and should enforce immunization standards when processing visas, and reevaluate how they allow folks without visas coming from countries with outbreaks to enter the US.
But when you look at the magnitude of the problem, it just isn't one that requires federal resources when the states and counties are already handling it.
It's like frelling clockwork. Republican barely in the door, already cutting education. Primarily to Baltimore City and Prince George's County. Guess what the majority population is for those two counties.
Oh but wait! We're making all these cuts to balance the budget right!
So of course once that's balanced we need to cut taxes on the wealthy!
It still boggles me that this man got elected in Maryland. But hey, at least it's only for 4 years!
I'm fine with cutting education budgets on a targeted basis of eliminating admin positions. As for teachers I'm different. Put in a simple model that weeds out the bad and promotes the good teachers. Give the good teachers a substantial bonus. Give them the tools to do what they need to do.
Inversely if you don't pass your classes you should be ineligible for government aid for 20 years.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I quite like the freedom to face the consequences. If you are opposed to vaccination, then you get to pay the medical bills of anyone your child gets sick.
Or, if the measles, the lost earning power of the children who go blind? or cover the funerals for the children who die?
The way I see it, there are 2 groups of people:
1.) People who have kids that are too young for vaccinations, or immunocompromised, or have a medical issue, and
2.) People who think vaccinations cause autism or some other illness, or think there are too many too soon, or whatever
And you know what? That's great. This is America, you're free to choose, you know? And if you're in group 2, then you should have your kids taken from you, and you should get charged with child neglect. Because your choice isn't any different than the parent who chose not to feed their kids, or who tried to pray away their kids cancer instead of taking them to the hospital, or any other complete nonsense that unfit parents do. Your "choice" isn't any different than me getting drunk and driving down a sidewalk. Your choice has endangered the lives of the people around you.
As a society we've long established that there are limitations to your freedom to choose for your minor children, especially when you are making choices that are manifestly bad for them (malnutrition, refusing to school them, abusing them, whatever). I'm totally OK with the state impinging your freedom to be a public health menace and seriously injure or kill those around you because of your stupid fething ideas about how science works.
Politicians who advocate on behalf of the latter group are a disgrace to a first world country.
I'm pro-vaccination. But you are missing the point imo.
Tthe last half of your post... feth no man... I mean... really? Think about what you're really saying.
I mean, if you wanna go that far, how long do you think home schooling would be taboo? Don't you think the public school system would love it if society can "force" families to send their kids to accredited schools? (public or private) Thus ensuring their revenue streams.
The point is this:
People should be free, to the maximum extent bearable, to be as foolish, shortsighted, gullible and dumb as people naturally are.
And corollarly...
The fact that a choice is good is not evidence that it should also be mandatory. ...
...
I'm going to dial back the rhetoric a bit...
This is the classic exampleof an issue where both sides believe they have a rational argument. The state has the duty to adjudicate between the two conflicting points of view. Right?
It is a conflict between public health and the duty of the state, and individual freedom and the responsibilities that result from risk taking.
That's all this is really about.
Now, yeah... I think the anti-vaxxers are paranoid and doing wrong by their children, and in fact doing wrong by other people's children, by giving these diseases a habitat to thrive in. It's really a stupid stance (hello! Jenny McCarthy!).
But we all live to some extent in pools of risk created by our neighbors and other citizens. Right? We have to accept the risk that an 80 year old driver may have a stroke and plow into us or our kids. We do not subjugate him to the DMV every month for a check-up or demand that they relinguish their drivers license and mandate that they use taxis (gak, the taxis organizations would LOVE this! )
Having said that, if you choose to not immunize your children, the state has an obligation to protect the other citizens who might suffer as a result of your choice. The problem isn't that your child might contract the measles, rather the problem is some disinterested third party, a pregnant woman, might be exposed by your child's measles and her baby might then be born with a serious birth defect. Or it might be a lethal exposure to senior citizen or immuno-compromised individuals.
If you want the freedom to take risk, then you bear the liability for that decision. This liability question has already been addressed by the courts when people with aids were prosecuted for unprotected sex with unsuspecting partners. So, we're really not talking about freedom from consequence here. It's simply a debate of risk managment with individual freedoms.
Now don't get me wrong... I firmly believe that if you don't immunize your kids, then the state can prohibit your children from attending public schools, public venues, etc... and it is the parent's responsibility to find some other means. Don't throw hissy fit if Disneyland sues you for bringing the disease into their park when you knowinging don't immunize your kids! (since it's probably a fine print on their ticket, contractually when you purchase said tickets to affirm that the kids are immunized).
One thing to keep in mind is that polio and measles are human-only viruses i.e. there are no animal reservoirs for them to hide out in. So once the last case of these diseases has been treated/prevented, the viruses are gone forever. So there is a benefit to universal forced vaccination because it gets us closer and closer to ending these diseases once and for all. So, I understand that argument and whole heartedly support it.
But I also understand the people are not unwitting herds and there will be some segments of the population who won't participate in this because of their anti-vaxxing positions, religious reasons, or simply because you'd want to "Stick It To The Man".
In short, this encapsulates one of my favorite fiction writer Robert Jordan's "Wizard's Rules":
Wizard's First Rule: People are dumb.
Now... to circle back to this being a "political thread"... screw the attack on Christie imo. They laugh because Christie is uncomfortable with government forcing people to vaccinate??? I can't say I know what's in Cristie's head, but I would certainly hope that those in power judiciously and deliberately review each case accordingly.
CptJake wrote:And when you move to the new state and try to enroll your kids in schools, there will be an immunization check. As for that 'I'm willing to frelling KILL YOU' hyperbole, you're perfectly welcome to get immunized and to immunize your kids. I did.
Which completely ignores how vaccines work through herd immunity. I'll let wiki explain it, because it will do a better job than I can.
And I'm not being hyperbolic with "I'm willing to kill you". Some of the diseases that we immunize for can be fatal. Polio, which as I said my uncle still suffers from, being a shining example. That anyone would advocate behavior that could lead to a return of such an awful disease showcases a mentality that the lives surrounding them do not matter one iota. It's psychopathy at its most base.
Frazzled wrote:I'm fine with cutting education budgets on a targeted basis of eliminating admin positions. As for teachers I'm different. Put in a simple model that weeds out the bad and promotes the good teachers. Give the good teachers a substantial bonus. Give them the tools to do what they need to do.
Inversely if you don't pass your classes you should be ineligible for government aid for 20 years.
And if I thought for one second that was what was happening, I would be okay with it. But it's not, and I think you are smart enough to realize it's not. He's literally saying "those areas that need more money shouldn't be getting more money". He's cutting teacher pay after years without raises, and rolling back the only cost of living increase they've seen in years. He's actually cutting the Merit raises program. Cutting it. Great incentive there Hogan.
If you want the freedom to take risk, then you bear the liability for that decision.
And that is where the entire argument falls apart.
Because the result of this whole anti-vaxxers idiocy is that "your freedom to take risk" places not only the child at direct risk of harm, but also everybody around that child that cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. The parent who is to stupid to vaccinate their child does not bear the liability for their decision, that liability is born by their child.
Frazzled wrote:I'm fine with cutting education budgets on a targeted basis of eliminating admin positions. As for teachers I'm different. Put in a simple model that weeds out the bad and promotes the good teachers. Give the good teachers a substantial bonus. Give them the tools to do what they need to do.
Inversely if you don't pass your classes you should be ineligible for government aid for 20 years.
And if I thought for one second that was what was happening, I would be okay with it. But it's not, and I think you are smart enough to realize it's not. He's literally saying "those areas that need more money shouldn't be getting more money". He's cutting teacher pay after years without raises, and rolling back the only cost of living increase they've seen in years. He's actually cutting the Merit raises program. Cutting it. Great incentive there Hogan.
If you want the freedom to take risk, then you bear the liability for that decision.
And that is where the entire argument falls apart.
Because the result of this whole anti-vaxxers idiocy is that "your freedom to take risk" places not only the child at direct risk of harm, but also everybody around that child that cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. The parent who is to stupid to vaccinate their child does not bear the liability for their decision, that liability is born by their child.
That's whole part of risk management in our society.
*shrug* I'm not so sure it totally falls apart, because you can argue that in just about every scenario.
I guess I just had a visceral reaction to the idea that some folks are advocating the government to TAKE YOUR child away from you if you refused to vaccinate your child.
The visceral scenario should be the spike in tiny coffin sales due to idiotic parents.
If I am provided with two possible scenarios where parents shed tears because their child is gone, I will choose the one where a healthy child is alive over the one where a child is dead.
If you want the freedom to take risk, then you bear the liability for that decision.
And that is where the entire argument falls apart.
Because the result of this whole anti-vaxxers idiocy is that "your freedom to take risk" places not only the child at direct risk of harm, but also everybody around that child that cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. The parent who is to stupid to vaccinate their child does not bear the liability for their decision, that liability is born by their child.
and increases the liability of those around them. I know this from experience with GC.
d-usa wrote: The visceral scenario should be the spike in tiny coffin sales due to idiotic parents.
If I am provided with two possible scenarios where parents shed tears because their child is gone, I will choose the one where a healthy child is alive over the one where a child is dead.
The United States experienced a record number of measles cases during 2014, with 644 cases from 27 states reported to CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD). This is the greatest number of cases since measles elimination was documented in the U.S. in 2000.
Is it truly a public heath crisis? Is it so grave that it demands we begin stripping away people's freedoms? Or worse yet, TAKE YOUR CHILDREN away from you?
I mean, if ebola truly became a wide spread epicdemic, you'd bet your ass that I'll be first in line for that vaccine shot.
Again... I go back to the idea that the only freedom that matters is the Freedom-To-Be-Wrong.
No other freedom matters one bit... because if you're "right" in the eyes of those in power, your freedom will never be challenged, and hence you have no need of any right to belief or right to speech.
If you decide to say "I believe the man in the moon is real", you are wrong, but ultimately it can have no real effect on me.
If you decide to believe in Russel's Teapot and worship it, you are wrong, but ultimately it can have no real effect on me.
If you decide you want to waive your right to a trial, or a lawyer, or just want to incriminate yourself willy nilly, you are dumb, but ultimately it can have no real effect on me.
If you decide that you'd rather allow infectious and potentially fatal diseases to resurge in the US despite decades of efforts in eradicating said diseases, you are wrong and your decision can have a very real effect on me.
Do you see how one of these things is not like the other?
It was my choice to make a bad decision, and if some toddler catches a hot one, then, well, "that's fething life".
This seems to be your fundamental argument. I feel like your rights end at the tip of my nose, and once your unvaccinated snowflake gives my immunocompromised child measles and he goes blind, perhaps civil litigation or what have you is wholly inadequate to address this manifestly predictable sequence of events.
I know it's time to just ban myself from the OT section when someone is advocating that neglect of a child should be legal and that it's fething life when a child suffers from a preventable disease because they have stupid parents and that it's tragic when the state steps in to protect that child.
streamdragon wrote: If you decide to say "I believe the man in the moon is real", you are wrong, but ultimately it can have no real effect on me.
If you decide to believe in Russel's Teapot and worship it, you are wrong, but ultimately it can have no real effect on me.
If you decide you want to waive your right to a trial, or a lawyer, or just want to incriminate yourself willy nilly, you are dumb, but ultimately it can have no real effect on me.
If you decide that you'd rather allow infectious and potentially fatal diseases to resurge in the US despite decades of efforts in eradicating said diseases, you are wrong and your decision can have a very real effect on me.
Do you see how one of these things is not like the other?
Of course.
So, are you advocating that vaccinations should be a mandatory action (within reasons of course). Meaning, to be an active participant of the United States of American, we ALL should have vaccinations against all possible infections?
So, are you advocating that vaccinations should be a mandatory action (within reasons of course). Meaning, to be an active participant of the United States of American, we ALL should have vaccinations against all possible infections?
I have never said all vaccinations because all vaccinations are not created equal. The flu shot is technically a vaccination, but to put it on par with the chickenpox vaccination, MMR or polio vaccinations would be intellectually dishonest. So no, that's not what I am saying and never what I have said. Same with "all people", because there are obviously people who are not medically able to get vaccinations, e.g. the immunocompromised. But the latest surge in unvaccinated people isn't because more people are immunocompromised.
For vaccinations against nearly eradicated diseases? Abso-frelling-lutely. MMR? Check. Chickenpox? Yup. Polio? Bet your butt. Smallpox? Oh wait, we don't get that one anymore because the disease was eradicated.
The list of completely eradicated diseases in that link is small. Two diseases, only one of which is a human disease. The list of "Almost Eradicated", however, is promising. Guess what's on that list? Measles.
whembly wrote: So that I'm clear... the belief that "neglecting your child" here is enough to warrant the state to step in and take the child away?
I think that a parent who does not vaccinate their children for other than medical reasons has neglected their child, and it should be appropriately remediated with by the local authorities, just like they would deal with a parent who decided not to feed their child or put them in adequate housing or clothe them appropriate for the current weather.
I am not an expert in child neglect cases but from my tangential dealings with Child Protective Services, "taking a child away" is generally not the first step, nor a permanent status. Whether or not you lose custody, as with all abuse cases, depends on the specific situation and details; it's not like they have a toolbox that only has that one single hammer in it: just as you don't sledgehammer every laptop that gets a virus.
So, are you advocating that vaccinations should be a mandatory action (within reasons of course). Meaning, to be an active participant of the United States of American, we ALL should have vaccinations against all possible infections?
I have never said all vaccinations because all vaccinations are not created equal. The flu shot is technically a vaccination, but to put it on par with the chickenpox vaccination, MMR or polio vaccinations would be intellectually dishonest. So no, that's not what I am saying and never what I have said. Same with "all people", because there are obviously people who are not medically able to get vaccinations, e.g. the immunocompromised. But the latest surge in unvaccinated people isn't because more people are immunocompromised.
For vaccinations against nearly eradicated diseases? Abso-frelling-lutely. MMR? Check. Chickenpox? Yup. Polio? Bet your butt. Smallpox? Oh wait, we don't get that one anymore because the disease was eradicated.
The list of completely eradicated diseases in that link is small. Two diseases, only one of which is a human disease. The list of "Almost Eradicated", however, is promising. Guess what's on that list? Measles.
whembly wrote: So that I'm clear... the belief that "neglecting your child" here is enough to warrant the state to step in and take the child away?
I think that a parent who does not vaccinate their children for other than medical reasons has neglected their child, and it should be appropriately remediated with by the local authorities, just like they would deal with a parent who decided not to feed their child or put them in adequate housing or clothe them appropriate for the current weather.
I am not an expert in child neglect cases but from my tangential dealings with Child Protective Services, "taking a child away" is generally not the first step, nor a permanent status. Whether or not you lose custody, as with all abuse cases, depends on the specific situation and details; it's not like they have a toolbox that only has that one single hammer in it: just as you don't sledgehammer every laptop that gets a virus.
I'll admit that I've been engaging in Devil's Advocacy here in these last few posts...
But, now that I thought about it some more, CPS is more of a local agency, rather than some Federal entity mandating all sorts of mandates. I think I'd be okay with this sort of thing honestly.
I'd still enforce this policy at the public venues (ie, schools, physician offices, etc..) than simply having CPS knocking on random doors. (which they really don't do anyways).
As this is a political thread taking about potential candidates, I think the Christie criticism is a little unfair.
Rand Paul? My problem with him on this subject, like his father if I may add, is absolutely determined to flatter these anti-vaxxers and the weird fringe.
.. odd how .... similar one might even say word for word identical .. some of the comments and "thoughts" on there are to those certain posters on here appear to be posting as their own.
On the plus side think of all the time and effort you'll save eliminating every health code in existence.
After all if it's it what they believe or want then that's fine.
.. odd how .... similar one might even say word for word identical .. some of the comments and "thoughts" on there are to those certain posters on here appear to be posting as their own.
It's a massive, and worthwhile debate to have. RIght?
On the plus side think of all the time and effort you'll save eliminating every health code in existence. After all if it's it what they believe or want then that's fine.
Now I wonder how many of his other threads/posts are the result of copy pasting from blogs...
I try not to as I'm neurotic in posting the whole thing and even then, posters complain when I post the whole opinion pieces, or forget that some of them are behind paywalls.
It's a massive, and worthwhile debate to have. RIght?
No, not really.
Least not for rational people or those who understand that there's a significant difference between a thought experiment and the actualities of real life.
That's not what's being advocated here...
That is most definitely the inference.
Don't believe in the effectiveness of vaccines -- don't have to have'em.
.. because FREEDOM hurrr .
or something.
Therefore if someone, for example, doesn't believe in the need to wash their hands after using the toilet when preparing food... so be it !
Don't believe in ciggies causing cancer ? Me and my child will smoke 30 a day. Filterless.
Actually, lawyers thrives in regulations.
And govt., indeed society is impossible without rules.
There comes a point when stupidity should be considered criminal. Ran Paul would qualify with this statement: "I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines."
Any medically trained professional who has managed to get through medical school without learning about postnatal neurodevelopmental disorders, and would go so far as to present them as, at the very least, a tacit justification against vaccination, is so unbelievably stupid that they have no right to breath, let alone represent large portions of the population.
As far as the right to be wrong is concerned, you do have that; however, the supreme court has ruled on at least two separate occasions that, while you have the right to believe in silly things, you do not have the right to martyr, or indeed endanger, your children for those silly beliefs. That being the case, I fail to see how vaccines against fairly common, and deadly, pathogens can be anything but absolutely mandatory. An adult may have the right to be a moron of the first order, but they do not have the right to endanger their children with their stupidity. Unless a medically valid justification is present, and provable, vaccines should be mandatory in all cases across the board.
It's a massive, and worthwhile debate to have. RIght?
No, not really.
Least not for rational people or those who understand that there's a significant difference between a thought experiment and the actualities of real life.
The debate is constrained to whether or not the government should mandate vaccines. And furthermore, how is it enforced.
I remember reading somewhere that the UK or Aussie government uses incentives to encourage vaccinations. IE, child tax credits or rebates for maintaining vaccinations schedules.
That's an interesting use of "social engineering" in the tax codes.
That's not what's being advocated here...
That is most definitely the inference.
Don't believe in the effectiveness of vaccines -- don't have to have'em.
.. because FREEDOM hurrr .
or something.
Therefore if someone, for example, doesn't believe in the need to wash their hands after using the toilet when preparing food... so be it !
Don't believe in ciggies causing cancer ? Me and my child will smoke 30 a day. Filterless.
Heh... they go into circles
Again, I'm usually the loudest critic whenever someone wants the government to "do something". However, in this case, it is absolutely the government's interest to formulate policies with respects to vaccines. And arguably, government exists in the first place to have something in place to protect against life-threatening diseases.
Just look at the paperwork needed to move livestock across state borders.
The question really should be how such policy is implemented and weighed appropriately across the individual rights.
Actually, lawyers thrives in regulations.
And govt., indeed society is impossible without rules.
Once we’re done debating whether children should be vaccinated, we can move on to other pressing public health questions, such as whether eateries can force their employees to wash their hands after they use the bathroom.
At least one freshman U.S. senator thinks, “nah.” Because freedom.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), at the end of an appearance Monday at the Bipartisan Policy Center, volunteered a story about “his bias when it comes to regulatory reform.”
Tillis said he was at a Starbucks in 2010 talking to a woman about regulations and where businesses should be allowed to opt out. His coffee companion challenged him, asking whether employees there should be required to wash their hands.
“As a matter of fact I think this is one where I think I can illustrate the point,” he recalled telling her. “I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as they post a sign that says we don’t require our employees to wash our hands after leaving the restroom. The market will take care of that. It’s one example.” (Is requiring a sign not a regulation?)
Tillis, who told the story with his right hand raised for emphasis, concluded that in his example most businesses who posted signs telling customers their food workers didn’t have to wash their hands would likely go out of business. Ah, the free market!
Closing the event, Bipartisan Policy Center President Jason Grumet said, “I’m not sure if I’m going to shake your hand…” (But then he did.)
Just so you know, in describing why handwashing is required, the FDA says, “Proper handwashing reduces the spread of fecal-oral pathogens from the hands of a food employee to foods.”
If Tillis’s career in politics doesn’t work out, may we politely suggest he pursue anything but food service.
And the fact remains, where the Feds currently have authority and power over the immunization issue, they are failing. Almost every outbreak in the US is attributable to folks coming in from outside the US, and generally non-US citizens. And the Feds control immigration and visas for non-immigrant visitors.
So sure, more Federal power and regulation is clearly the answer.
Again, EVERY state already has laws and regulations based on current Federal guidelines. The enforcement is NOT a federal issue, except for the part where the feds are failing to enforce their own guidelines and allowing infected people into the US, and some of you are using that as a reason for further expansion of their power, with some of you actually advocating they be able to take children away from families over this.
Honestly, a few hundred cases a year is not an emergency and does not warrant emergency type power be given. If states want to rethink how/why they give waivers, let them. If counties want to deny kids admission to schools over it, let them.
If infected people can enter the US, all the old folks and kids to young to be vaccinated and folks who can't be vaccinated for other reasons are still at risk. The fact the CDC seems to trace the majority of outbreaks to folks entering the US bringing the disease seems to indicate THAT is your real issue, not whether or not someone thinks Jesus told them shots are the work of the Devil.
whembly wrote: Is it truly a public heath crisis? Is it so grave that it demands we begin stripping away people's freedoms? Or worse yet, TAKE YOUR CHILDREN away from you?
Yes.
Whooping cough kills
Polio kills and paralyzes
measles can kill or blind or neuter
If infected people can enter the US, all the old folks and kids to young to be vaccinated and folks who can't be vaccinated for other reasons are still at risk. The fact the CDC seems to trace the majority of outbreaks to folks entering the US bringing the disease seems to indicate THAT is your real issue, not whether or not someone thinks Jesus told them shots are the work of the Devil.
The idiot refusing not to vaccinate his kids is just as much at fault as the person entering the country without being vaccinated. I know people have explained herd immunity many times, even in this thread, so it must be willful ignorance at this point. But I'm gonna draw you a fancy picture:
Having 50 children without vaccinations is just as bad as having 50 immigrants who were never vaccinated entering the United States.
The argument is as stupid as pushing your kids into the middle of traffic and then complaining that other drivers are the reason they got run over.
But hey, at least we had the same argument many decades ago:
Nicely done d... pull that out of your work's infection control website?
I thought that the herd defense was largely debunked ages ago... back when that Lancelot Study was bandied about?
Sooo... is this a call for us to start demanding immunizations for all illegal immigrants, and a check on vaccination status for welfare recipients. Even liabilities for trendy private schools that don’t require vaccination???
hotsauceman1 wrote: I think the kids should wear something that says they where not vaccine ated, and the parents too. Some thing like " my principles are more important then my child's health"
Maybe like a golden star on an armband??
I am kidding, seriously.
But yeah, I agree with Ouze, but also with CptJake.... I don't necessarily see it being a Federal issue in most instances, so it really should be down to the States to enforce any mandatory immunization laws. It's the same thing with guns... FFLs have to follow Federal rules, and each state, in theory isn't supposed to undermine or circumvent the Fed standards. In that situation, we have Fed organizations that are prepared to step in, in the instance of a State's enforcement being wrong or if an offense goes above the State's offenses. So, for most instances, where we already have CDC oversight, I don't really see how much else could/should be done.
Obviously, if the State can take kids away if parents dont feed them; the State, not the Feds should be able to remove them for immunizations. Or, if we want to be really Orwellian, we change the delivery method of vaccines and give it to the kids unknowingly... like Vaccine laced Oreos, or some other gluten-free hypoallergenic, peanut free bubble wrapped treat that Michelle Obama wants to remove from schools
whembly wrote: Nicely done d... pull that out of your work's infection control website?
I thought that the herd defense was largely debunked ages ago... back when that Lancelot Study was bandied about?
Sooo... is this a call for us to start demanding immunizations for all illegal immigrants, and a check on vaccination status for welfare recipients. Even liabilities for trendy private schools that don’t require vaccination???
If infected people can enter the US, all the old folks and kids to young to be vaccinated and folks who can't be vaccinated for other reasons are still at risk. The fact the CDC seems to trace the majority of outbreaks to folks entering the US bringing the disease seems to indicate THAT is your real issue, not whether or not someone thinks Jesus told them shots are the work of the Devil.
The idiot refusing not to vaccinate his kids is just as much at fault as the person entering the country without being vaccinated. I know people have explained herd immunity many times, even in this thread, so it must be willful ignorance at this point. But I'm gonna draw you a fancy picture:
Having 50 children without vaccinations is just as bad as having 50 immigrants who were never vaccinated entering the United States.
Not the point. The 50 kids here without vaccinations don't spontaneously contract a disease. An INFECTED person coming into the US is the typical start of the outbreak. That guy/gal ain't allowed onto US soil and the problem goes away.
But even that isn't the point. The point is: Forcing vaccination of citizens is not a Federal issue. Again, the very few cases just do not justify more Federal programs/power/spending. The very few cases (even fewer if the feds did their job and controlled immigration/non-immigrant visitors) is a pretty good indicator the states are doing okay.
Again, if the states want to change how/why they grant waivers, go for it. If the states or counties want to change the requirements for school attendance, great.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I think the kids should wear something that says they where not vaccine ated, and the parents too. Some thing like " my principles are more important then my child's health"
Maybe like a golden star on an armband??
I am kidding, seriously.
But yeah, I agree with Ouze, but also with CptJake.... I don't necessarily see it being a Federal issue in most instances, so it really should be down to the States to enforce any mandatory immunization laws. It's the same thing with guns... FFLs have to follow Federal rules, and each state, in theory isn't supposed to undermine or circumvent the Fed standards. In that situation, we have Fed organizations that are prepared to step in, in the instance of a State's enforcement being wrong or if an offense goes above the State's offenses. So, for most instances, where we already have CDC oversight, I don't really see how much else could/should be done.
Obviously, if the State can take kids away if parents dont feed them; the State, not the Feds should be able to remove them for immunizations. Or, if we want to be really Orwellian, we change the delivery method of vaccines and give it to the kids unknowingly... like Vaccine laced Oreos, or some other gluten-free hypoallergenic, peanut free bubble wrapped treat that Michelle Obama wants to remove from schools
I think a more effective way would be, if you want your income tax credit, submit proof of vaccinations signed by your doctor saying your kids are up to date on their vaccinations. Otherwise those who submit to the IRS a request for tax credit, with no proof, gets a visit from their friendly neighborhood CPS workers.
Not the point. The 50 kids here without vaccinations don't spontaneously contract a disease. An INFECTED person coming into the US is the typical start of the outbreak. That guy/gal ain't allowed onto US soil and the problem goes away.
But even that isn't the point. The point is: Forcing vaccination of citizens is not a Federal issue. Again, the very few cases just do not justify more Federal programs/power/spending. The very few cases (even fewer if the feds did their job and controlled immigration/non-immigrant visitors) is a pretty good indicator the states are doing okay.
Again, if the states want to change how/why they grant waivers, go for it. If the states or counties want to change the requirements for school attendance, great.
Check your stats again.
In 2014 many unvaccinated US citizens visiting the Philippines, and other countries, contracted measles, resulting in 288 cases being recorded in the United States in the first five months of 2014, a twenty-year high.
Most cases are people who are US citizens going abroad, contracting it where the Herd Immunity is low, and then coming back and spreading it. If they had been immunized, they would have been considerably less likely to contract the disease when they visited those places. In turn, they would have been far, far less likely to spread it among people back in the US.
I will reiterate. I did not say 100% that it should be a Federal issue, only that it could be argued to be one. In the end, I frankly don't care who enforces it. The simple fact is: unvaccinated children (and people, really) are a risk to everyone around them, including vaccinated people. It is not, and should not, be acceptable to be unvaccinated barring medical exemptions.
I think are are also noting another problem, certain vaccinated people can still carry the diseases. Some can as and incubators w/o the body attacking it and spreading
whembly wrote: and a check on vaccination status for welfare recipients
Somehow I cropped this. I absolutely think that the children of welfare recipients should be checked to see if they have been vaccinated, because I think every child should be vaccinated. I'd wholeheartedly agree with asking welfare recipients if their children are vaccinated because as people with limited means, if they have avoided getting the vaccination because they can't afford it, the state should cover the cost of the vaccination. MMR is like $2 per dose but the doctor visit might be problematic for poor people with a child who isn't actually "sick".
whembly wrote: and a check on vaccination status for welfare recipients
Somehow I cropped this. I absolutely think that the children of welfare recipients should be checked to see if they have been vaccinated, because I think every child should be vaccinated. I'd wholeheartedly agree with asking welfare recipients if their children are vaccinated because as people with limited means, if they have avoided getting the vaccination because they can't afford it, the state should cover the cost of the vaccination. MMR is like $2 per dose but the doctor visit might be problematic for poor people with a child who isn't actually "sick".
Damn you Ouze for being so reasonable!!! This is Dakka, you're supposed to be frothing at the mouth or something!!
Personally, I would think the easiest and "safest" place for many kids to get vaccinated would be at their schools. Especially if they are public school kids, it's far too easy for them to line everyone up, basic training style and stick everyone who doesn't have a medical exemption. As it is a public health concern, I completely agree that people, especially kids who are immune-compromised should be vaccinated, and there should be no choice in the matter. In order to protect the ones who physically cannot protect themselves (the immune compromised), everyone should be vaccinated for most things.
Not the point. The 50 kids here without vaccinations don't spontaneously contract a disease. An INFECTED person coming into the US is the typical start of the outbreak. That guy/gal ain't allowed onto US soil and the problem goes away.
But even that isn't the point. The point is: Forcing vaccination of citizens is not a Federal issue. Again, the very few cases just do not justify more Federal programs/power/spending. The very few cases (even fewer if the feds did their job and controlled immigration/non-immigrant visitors) is a pretty good indicator the states are doing okay.
Again, if the states want to change how/why they grant waivers, go for it. If the states or counties want to change the requirements for school attendance, great.
Check your stats again.
In 2014 many unvaccinated US citizens visiting the Philippines, and other countries, contracted measles, resulting in 288 cases being recorded in the United States in the first five months of 2014, a twenty-year high.
Most cases are people who are US citizens going abroad, contracting it where the Herd Immunity is low, and then coming back and spreading it. If they had been immunized, they would have been considerably less likely to contract the disease when they visited those places. In turn, they would have been far, far less likely to spread it among people back in the US.
I will reiterate. I did not say 100% that it should be a Federal issue, only that it could be argued to be one. In the end, I frankly don't care who enforces it. The simple fact is: unvaccinated children (and people, really) are a risk to everyone around them, including vaccinated people. It is not, and should not, be acceptable to be unvaccinated barring medical exemptions.
Not sure how what you posted negated what I did (now in orange).
But here is a non-wiki source:
According to the World Health Organization , 57,564 suspected cases of measles, including 21,403 confirmed cases and 110 measles deaths, were reported in the Philippines from January 1 through December 20, 2014. Additionally, during 2014, 25 US travelers who returned from the Philippines have become sick with measles. Most of these cases were among unvaccinated people.
Before the measles vaccination program started in 1963, we estimate that about 3 to 4 million people got measles each year in the United States. Of those people, 400 to 500 died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 4,000 developed encephalitis (brain swelling) from measles.
Every year, measles is brought into the United States by unvaccinated travelers (Americans or foreign visitors) who get measles while they are in other countries. They can spread measles to other people who are not protected against measles, which sometimes leads to outbreaks. This can occur in communities with unvaccinated people.
Most people in the United States are protected against measles through vaccination, so measles cases in the U.S. are uncommon compared to the number of cases before a vaccine was available. Since 2000, when measles was declared eliminated from the U.S., the annual number of people reported to have measles ranged from a low of 37 people in 2004 to a high of 644 people in 2014.
State and local health departments have the lead in investigating measles cases and outbreaks when they occur. CDC helps and supports health departments in these investigations by—
providing technical support for measles prevention and control
testing specimens from patients with suspected measles infection
providing rapid assistance on the ground during outbreak investigations, often through a formal request from the state health department.
I'll note, it does not show data like the CDC does (on the CDC site you can go to each year's report) and it uses 'resident' vice 'citizen' used in your quote (the CDC reports also use resident).
Personally, I would think the easiest and "safest" place for many kids to get vaccinated would be at their schools. Especially if they are public school kids, it's far too easy for them to line everyone up, basic training style and stick everyone who doesn't have a medical exemption. As it is a public health concern, I completely agree that people, especially kids who are immune-compromised should be vaccinated, and there should be no choice in the matter. In order to protect the ones who physically cannot protect themselves (the immune compromised), everyone should be vaccinated for most things.
Waiting until they are school aged seems pretty damned silly.
CptJake wrote: Almost every outbreak in the US is attributable to folks coming in from outside the US, and generally non-US citizens.
You keep saying this, but haven't offered any proof confirming that it is true.
None of your CDC stuff didn't prove that disease ridden-immigrants are coming to the US to infect all the granola-crunchers' children. Measles is highly contagious and worst of all, you are infectious before you show symptoms which makes it even easier to spread. Twenty five people returning home carrying measles can infect a large number of people in areas where herd immunity is low, which have so far been what we are seeing. Also, you can still becoming infected with measles even if you have been vaccinated.
hotsauceman1 wrote: They decideded the corporations deserve more rights then people.
Well if you want to get all technical about the legal definition, a corporation is treated as a person for a surprisingly large number of legal issues. Just an interesting legal tidbit that has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
Personally, I would think the easiest and "safest" place for many kids to get vaccinated would be at their schools. Especially if they are public school kids, it's far too easy for them to line everyone up, basic training style and stick everyone who doesn't have a medical exemption. As it is a public health concern, I completely agree that people, especially kids who are immune-compromised should be vaccinated, and there should be no choice in the matter. In order to protect the ones who physically cannot protect themselves (the immune compromised), everyone should be vaccinated for most things.
Waiting until they are school aged seems pretty damned silly.
Ohh, I wouldn't wait until school age, but that's where I'd play "catch up" with the kids who haven't been vaccinated yet.
CptJake wrote: Almost every outbreak in the US is attributable to folks coming in from outside the US, and generally non-US citizens.
You keep saying this, but haven't offered any proof confirming that it is true.
None of your CDC stuff didn't prove that disease ridden-immigrants are coming to the US to infect all the granola-crunchers' children. Measles is highly contagious and worst of all, you are infectious before you show symptoms which makes it even easier to spread. Twenty five people returning home carrying measles can infect a large number of people in areas where herd immunity is low, which have so far been what we are seeing. Also, you can still becoming infected with measles even if you have been vaccinated.
Xenophobia won't fix this problem.
When this 'large number of people' amounts to more than a couple hundred cases a year perhaps you can begin to make an argument it is worth expending a ton more tax payer dollars and making it a federal issue.
At this point, it isn't. Not at all.
All the CDC stuff did show the majority of the few cases in the US (down from millions of cases a year (pre-1963 when vaccinations became available) to between 1-5 hundred or so a year with 2014 being the only year since 2000 to hit well above 200 with most years under 100) do originate outside the US.
Explain how and why you view this as a Federal issue that deserves giving the Federal gov't the responsibility to remove children from families as has been advocated here.
The CDC states (I think accurately) that for the United States to ever get rid of measles completely: "The first step is to eliminate measles from each country and region of the world. Once this happens, there will be no place from which measles can spread." Since almost every outbreak in the last decade originated overseas, they have a point. Asking for the federal government to step in and take people's kids does not address the issue of how measles and similar outbreaks start in the US. Over 90% (the Healthy People 2020 goal) of our folks are vaccinated. In some states the number is over 95% (though several states, notably Colorado, Ohio, and West Virginia at 86%, fall under the 90% as of 2013.) There just isn't a need for more federal programs to address this.
I just do not see every problem as a federal problem. Very clearly, that is laugh worthy to many of you. But Big Solutions tend to be expensive, and are very often not worth the cost. Perhaps more importantly, there are supposed to be limits on federal power/authority. Again, many of you have made it quite clear you find that concept humorous. I get that.
No, no. Don't drop a BSABSVR and change the topic. If you're going to say that the Democratic party is equally, if not more, culpable, I feel you you need to show some prominent Democrats who have flirted with the anti-vaxxer movement, or at least that have decreed that wiping your ass and then making a pizza without washing your hands first should be a protected right.
At some point there has been a growing contingent of GOP lawmakers who have essentially declared war on the role of government as it applies to public health, and hell, just common sense. When they say they want to get rid of the EPA, at least I can sort of see the motive here in terms of campaign donations for the big companies that would like to pump secret earthquake fluid into our wellwater. Unless there is some big E Coli lobby I don't know about, though, I just don't even get where this is going. It's some real what are you rebelling against, "what have you got" type shenanigans.
No, no. Don't drop a BSABSVR and change the topic. If you're going to say that the Democratic party is equally, if not more, culpable, I feel you you need to show some prominent Democrats who have flirted with the anti-vaxxer movement, or at least that have decreed that wiping your ass and then making a pizza without washing your hands first should be a protected right.
By the way, the third link you posted was updated to add that when Obama said "this person", he was pointing at the person who asked the question. You saw your update to Vox clarified this, right?
I will grant you Hillary, however, that was pretty bad.
So cases of them saying "maybe there is a link" dating back to before the study was pulled and discredited and not a single case of "parents shouldn't have to vaccinate"?
And no Democrats calling for ass hand pizza tossing.
By the way, the third link you posted was updated to add that when Obama said "this person", he was pointing at the person who asked the question. You saw your update to Vox clarified this, right?
.
Maybe I'm not hearing it right, or I'm totally missing the boat. Here's the vid:
Seems like its a description of a “skyrocketing autism rate” is a reference to suspicions “that it’s connected to vaccines and triggers”... which
he also says that "the science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it.”
Clearly "flirting" with the anti-vaxxer crowd to me.
Looks like we have some damage control here between Voxers and LittleGreenFootball.
S.M.: I think it taps into the organic natural movement in a lot of ways.
I talked to a public health official and asked him what’s the best way to anticipate where there might be higher than normal rates of vaccine noncompliance, and he said take a map and put a pin wherever there’s a Whole Foods. I sort of laughed, and he said, “No, really, I’m not joking.” It’s those communities with the Prius driving, composting, organic food-eating people.
CptJake wrote: When this 'large number of people' amounts to more than a couple hundred cases a year perhaps you can begin to make an argument it is worth expending a ton more tax payer dollars and making it a federal issue.
At this point, it isn't. Not at all.
First of all, your projecting your distaste for all things Federal on me, even though I haven't said a single word about having the Feds do anything. The only thing I've taken exception to is the "disease-ridden immigrants" bull gak you've been going on about.
All the CDC stuff did show the majority of the few cases in the US (down from millions of cases a year (pre-1963 when vaccinations became available) to between 1-5 hundred or so a year with 2014 being the only year since 2000 to hit well above 200 with most years under 100) do originate outside the US.
Yes, all cases of measles originate from outside the country because endemic measles in the US has been eliminated. However, as other people have brought during the course of this discussion, measles is not the only preventable disease that is out there and your xenophobic "solution" won't do anything to help fix this problem.
Explain how and why you view this as a Federal issue that deserves giving the Federal gov't the responsibility to remove children from families as has been advocated here.
I never said it was a federal issue. However, the Federal Government isn't going to take kids away and I don't think anyone is actually claiming that is what they want to happen. This needs to be a state-level response and the easiest way to go about it is to drop immunization waivers for state-funded schools. Currently, the only states that don't allow opt-outs (for any reason) are West Virginia and Mississippi. In both of those states, nearly every kindergarten-aged child is immunized. The best thing the Federal Government can do is threaten to withhold funding if states don't make immunizations required for attending public schools and the best thing anyone who cares about this can do is immunize their children and pressure their state leaders to make the change (and vote in someone who will).
The CDC states (I think accurately) that for the United States to ever get rid of measles completely: "The first step is to eliminate measles from each country and region of the world. Once this happens, there will be no place from which measles can spread." Since almost every outbreak in the last decade originated overseas, they have a point. Asking for the federal government to step in and take people's kids does not address the issue of how measles and similar outbreaks start in the US. Over 90% (the Healthy People 2020 goal) of our folks are vaccinated. In some states the number is over 95% (though several states, notably Colorado, Ohio, and West Virginia at 86%, fall under the 90% as of 2013.) There just isn't a need for more federal programs to address this.
Okay, you don't want the Feds to "set up programs" to make immunization a requirement but you want the Feds to implement a plan to keep all people that have not been immunized from entering the country?
I just do not see every problem as a federal problem. Very clearly, that is laugh worthy to many of you. But Big Solutions tend to be expensive, and are very often not worth the cost. Perhaps more importantly, there are supposed to be limits on federal power/authority. Again, many of you have made it quite clear you find that concept humorous. I get that.
Again, you worry about the cost of a national immunization drive and giving the Federal Government too much power... but you don't worry about giving the Federal Government the power to create a massively expensive (and unsustainable) screen to catch any and all people that might be carrying diseases (even though most of those people are US citizens) that people in this country shouldn't have to worry about if they just vaccinated their kids (a luxury that millions upon millions of people around the world wish they had), but yet this "isn't a Federal issue" and we don't need "Big Solutions."
This thread has been interesting. I particularly enjoyed d-usas' mspaint diagram. I also quite enjoyed that rather than citizens returning from travel apparently it's the dirty foreigners who spread disease. FMD I do wonder however why people in the US get their knickers in a twist over the feds. Every part of our live is regulated by a governing body, be that local , state or federal, is the difference between the 3 types even noticeable? Personally I don't see the difference and judging by some of the wacky laws states try to bring in it might be better of there was more federal control.
But back to immunisation , It has to be a given that people immunise, if you don't immunise then you are aiming to injure yourself and others, it's like choosing to not wear shoes and complaining when you tread on broken glass. Those "shoes" are there for your protection and will not give your kid god damn fething autism . FMD! I do like the vaccine defence for autism, "no it wasn't my genes that gave my kid autism, it was a vaccine " that is purely tinfoil hat deduction. People will take meds to cure an illness but not to prevent one, kinda makes no sense really, although this is all coming from a smoker
Plus, new measles outbreaks may start with a traveller or immigrant coming back infected, but they're allowed to spread at least in part because there are too many people who aren't vaccinated.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that the only people not culpable for the outbreak are a) the unvaccinated kids, especially the one with a medical condition, and b) the immigrant who never had a chance to get vaccinated.
Also, even in the astrononomically unlikely case that there is a chance that a vaccination causes autism, I for one would much rather deal with a live autisitic son o' mine than one who died to a perfectly preventable disease.
On a tangent, I personally blame the rise in " autism" to more and more kids who are ever more slightly quieter, or busier, than the norm to have the label " newly invented autistic disorder X" put on them, then forced to take medicine Y rather than blame it on the more likely cause of parents not controlling their spawn, or you know, not every kid being exactly baseline when it comes to energy levels (or really much of anything else).
We have a culture of medication. Don't feel good, take medicine. Have a headache, take medicine. Can't sleep, take medicine. Think you have a disease because an ad told you, take medicine.
I blame the pharmaceutical companies or, more specifically, their marketing. Too many ads for medicine. Some people go to the doctor just to ask for a prescription to a medicine they saw on TV. Sleep aids are especially prevalent. It gets to the point where some people make it so their body can't sleep without them.
whembly wrote: Sooo... is this a call for us to start demanding immunizations for all illegal immigrants
No, the third world countries they are fleeing generally have universal healthcare and mandated vaccinations with no opt-outs, so they're covered.
Thats horse poop. Mexico, Guatamala, and Honduras health systems are terrible.
You are moving the goalposts, or if you prefer, giving the answer to a question that was not asked. No one postulated on the general quality of the healthcare systems of Latin America.
That being said, I dug into this some more, and universal healthcare is not as widespread there as I thought. My apologies for repeating something I read without researching it a little, I should know better.
Senator Rand Paul, facing a backlash over his comments that cast doubt on whether he believes vaccines can pose a health risk to children, asserted on Tuesday that he believes vaccinations are indeed safe and that all parents should have their children inoculated.
To prove his point, Mr. Paul invited a reporter with him to watch him get his booster vaccination for Hepatitis A.
“It just annoys me that I’m being characterized as someone who’s against vaccines,” Mr. Paul said as he settled into a chair in an examination room in the Capitol physician’s office.
“There’s 400 headlines now that say ‘Paul says vaccines cause mental disorders,'” he added. “That’s not what I said. I said I’ve heard of people who’ve had vaccines and they see a temporal association and they believe that.”
Speaking on CNBC yesterday, Mr. Paul said he was aware of “many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.”
Mr. Paul clarified on Tuesday that he believed the science was definitive on the matter and that vaccines are not harmful. As a physician himself (he is an ophthalmologist), he said he was irked to see his views characterized otherwise. “I think the science is clear that if you compare the risks of taking a vaccine to the ill effects of taking a vaccine, it’s overwhelming.”
Mr. Paul got the booster on Tuesday because he was vaccinated last year before traveling to Guatemala.
The doctor’s visit was not without its own minor complications. Mr. Paul, who invited a reporter from The New York Times and had a member of his staff with a camera in tow, ran into resistance from the doctor’s staff, who were concerned that their presence in the office to document the vaccination was a privacy violation.
“It’s my privacy,” Mr. Paul assured the staff members.
Interestingly enough, the White House Press Secretary refused multiple times to express support for vaccine mandates, but encourages strongly for everyone to get vaccinations.
Interestingly enough, the White House Press Secretary refused multiple times to express support for vaccine mandates, but encourages strongly for everyone to get vaccinations.
o.O
Politicians... eh?
Politicians: Why take pick one side in a debate when you can pick both sides?
Why is it, in a country obsessed with freedom, that you guys are stuck between choosing two sides of the same coin? Where's the variety? (Your two party system seems so ingrained compared to here)
I am watching Black Sunday-1977 movie about terrorists attacking super bowl-38 years ago- and still our elites refuse to face reality
... Does make one wonder quite what he thought Reagan's Star wars defence programme was actually about.
Seems an odd fellow. Think he's escaped the home.
I will say that Black September is probably one of the best terrorist organisation names in history. Just say it in a slightly gruff METAL GEAR voice and it's perfect.
Medium of Death wrote: Why is it, in a country obsessed with freedom, that you guys are stuck between choosing two sides of the same coin? Where's the variety? (Your two party system seems so ingrained compared to here)
We *could* have more than 2 prominent parties... but, it's extremely hard to "bring them mainstream".
I've wanted to start a GW-fanboi party, where I'll mandate holidays for tournaments and tax write-off galore for the hobby.
I'd even throw in a steak in every wienie bowl to appease the All-Powerful-Wienie.
I am watching Black Sunday-1977 movie about terrorists attacking super bowl-38 years ago- and still our elites refuse to face reality
... Does make one wonder quite what he thought Reagan's Star wars defence programme was actually about.
Seems an odd fellow. Think he's escaped the home.
I will say that Black September is probably one of the best terrorist organisation names in history. Just say it in a slightly gruff METAL GEAR voice and it's perfect.
Newt?
He ran for Presidential Primary and one of his planks was to colonize the moon.
Not that I think anything is wrong with that idea per se... but, he always seems to "shoot for the moon".
I take it the problem is that the amounts of money required to enter the political spectrum at this point are so ridiculous as to be an effective barrier to anything fresh?
Medium of Death wrote: I take it the problem is that the amounts of money required to enter the political spectrum at this point are so ridiculous as to be an effective barrier to anything fresh?
Pretty much... and some states makes it impossible I think. d-usa, if I remember right, tried to participate in a new party in Oklahoma...
At some point we need to stop laughing about this and ask what the feth happened to the Republican party in this country in the last couple of years.
Well, I read an interesting article that the Radical Christian Right had a big part to do with this. The general idea is this....
1. The FEDS (Hiss and Snarl) say it is okay to kill unborn children via abortion.
2. Unborn children should be treated as citizens of the country and should have rights.
3. Only an barbaric and unjust regime would kill its own citizens
4. Therefore the FEDS (Hiss and Snarl) are an illegitmate regime
This slowly morphed overtime to everythign the FEDS do is evil and must be opposed. This radical view then slowly leaked into regular Conservative thoguht and that leads you to today where everythign the FEDS (Hiss and Snarl) do must be evil and illegitimate.
That was this one guys theory anyway. I'll see if I can find a link.
whembly wrote: Anyone getting the sense that Rand Paul is trolling is critics here...
No, he's just backing away from some really stupid comments, and pretending he never said them. "Many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines" is pretty clear. Rand Paul is a dishonest gak, but we aren't so there's no point in entertaining the notion on dakka that he said anything other than what he did.
Ultimately, this is kind of a good news story, as the backlash made Paul back pedal to reasonable position - hopefully this sets a precedent and other politicians will be wary before taking an anti-science stand on vaccination.
Interestingly enough, the White House Press Secretary refused multiple times to express support for vaccine mandates, but encourages strongly for everyone to get vaccinations.
How is that interesting? "Everyone should do it but we're not making it mandatory" is a standard and perfectly reasonable position. It's also the position Rand Paul had back-pedalled to.
whembly wrote: Anyone getting the sense that Rand Paul is trolling is critics here...
No, he's just backing away from some really stupid comments, and pretending he never said them. "Many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines" is pretty clear. Rand Paul is a dishonest gak, but we aren't so there's no point in entertaining the notion on dakka that he said anything other than what he did.
Ultimately, this is kind of a good news story, as the backlash made Paul back pedal to reasonable position - hopefully this sets a precedent and other politicians will be wary before taking an anti-science stand on vaccination.
Yeup... nice backpeddle though eh?
Interestingly enough, the White House Press Secretary refused multiple times to express support for vaccine mandates, but encourages strongly for everyone to get vaccinations.
How is that interesting? "Everyone should do it but we're not making it mandatory" is a standard and perfectly reasonable position. It's also the position Rand Paul had back-pedalled to.
It's interesting because many, include those in this thread, advocated vehemently that it must be mandatory.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I almost need a thread just for stupid legislation from Oklahoma:
The difference is that many of us are arguing that they should be mandatory, and others are pretending that we are saying this is a federal issue.
I'm not saying it should be federally mandated. I think it should be state mandated, but I also think that federal organizations (such as the CDC) are probably the best resource for establishing guidelines regarding the "what vaccines when" questions.
I also think that politicians at any level pandering to anti-vaxxers for personal gain during a significant public health event is very irresponsible.
d-usa wrote: The difference is that many of us are arguing that they should be mandatory, and others are pretending that we are saying this is a federal issue.
I'm not saying it should be federally mandated. I think it should be state mandated, but I also think that federal organizations (such as the CDC) are probably the best resource for establishing guidelines regarding the "what vaccines when" questions.
I also think that politicians at any level pandering to anti-vaxxers for personal gain during a significant public health event is very irresponsible.
d-usa wrote: The difference is that many of us are arguing that they should be mandatory, and others are pretending that we are saying this is a federal issue.
I'm not saying it should be federally mandated. I think it should be state mandated, but I also think that federal organizations (such as the CDC) are probably the best resource for establishing guidelines regarding the "what vaccines when" questions. .
So the current CDC guidelines are not good enough?
And you seem to be implicitly saying it should be a Federal issue when you state all states need to make it mandatory, because if you believed it was a state issue (as it currently is) you would be happy to allow the states to choose how they implement the CDC guidelines (as they currently do).
But if I am misunderstanding your's and other's position, and in fact you are happy with CDC guidelines and allowing the states the freedom to implement them as they see fit, then I apologize. But I suspect you are not happy, and in fact you do think the Federal Gov't should mandate (because that is the only way to ensure all states are on the same sheet of music). And there have been calls for Federal punishments like taking away tax credits and other measures voiced in this thread. That again indicates at least some of you DO consider it a Federal issue.
d-usa wrote: The difference is that many of us are arguing that they should be mandatory, and others are pretending that we are saying this is a federal issue.
I'm not saying it should be federally mandated. I think it should be state mandated, but I also think that federal organizations (such as the CDC) are probably the best resource for establishing guidelines regarding the "what vaccines when" questions. .
So the current CDC guidelines are not good enough?
And you seem to be implicitly saying it should be a Federal issue when you state all states need to make it mandatory, because if you believed it was a state issue (as it currently is) you would be happy to allow the states to choose how they implement the CDC guidelines (as they currently do).
But if I am misunderstanding your's and other's position, and in fact you are happy with CDC guidelines and allowing the states the freedom to implement them as they see fit, then I apologize. But I suspect you are not happy, and in fact you do think the Federal Gov't should mandate (because that is the only way to ensure all states are on the same sheet of music). And there have been calls for Federal punishments like taking away tax credits and other measures voiced in this thread. That again indicates at least some of you DO consider it a Federal issue.
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Not sure what part of wanting to use refusal of federal tax credits to punish folks would indicate folks consider this to be a state issue. I'm also not sure how demanding all states have the same solution (immunization mandatory for all because the CDC says so) rather than the current system where they have decided their own how to impliment CDC standards is different that wanting a federal solution for all the states. I guess I am too stoopid to understand how advocating those things indicates you think it is a state issue.
For gaks and giggles, how would you want it handled if one state decides to keep allowing waivers you don't approve of? I'm guessing your proposed solution involves the federal government in some way.
Medium of Death wrote: I take it the problem is that the amounts of money required to enter the political spectrum at this point are so ridiculous as to be an effective barrier to anything fresh?
Pretty much... and some states makes it impossible I think. d-usa, if I remember right, tried to participate in a new party in Oklahoma...
And, let's face it, the two-party system basically relies on the stupidity of the American voter (perhaps "laziness" may be a more apt word in this example). By keeping it a binary choice of R vs D on the ballots, voters don't have to actually do any research or critical thinking in deciding who to vote for. You just make your way down the ballot checking everything in the column of your choice. And how does the average voter decide between the red column or the blue column (there is a Matrix joke to be made here)? Well, that's what all the lovely scaremongering attack ads are for.
CptJake wrote: That again indicates at least some of you DO consider it a Federal issue.
When responding to someone you should focus on talking to a single person, rather than a nondescript group of people. Using the phrase "some of you" does not help your case here.
That said: it probably should be subject to a Federal requirement. And I think you agree, given your up-thread comments; though the hurdles and consequences of getting there make that rather undesirable and nearly impossible.
The public tends to accept the opinions of academics with more credence than editorial boards, Carmichael said.
Funny that, it's almost as if people acknowledge that it might be possible to actually be knowledgeable about something and therefore have a good or better understanding of a subject.
The bill prohibits the use of university titles in newspaper opinion articles only when the subject matter concerns a current elected official, a candidate for office or a matter pending before the Legislature or another public body in the state.
Employees could still use their titles when opining on other topics.
It's good that he's backpeddling. But credit for that goes to the speed and clarity of response from the medical community. I wouldn't for one second give credit to a politician who said something dangerously stupid, got slapped on it, and then tried to pretend he never said it.
It's interesting because many, include those in this thread, advocated vehemently that it must be mandatory.
Ah fair enough. Personally, I don't think mandatory is necessary, if the message is kept clear, nor do I think mandatory would be politically viable anyway. So when I saw the comments that it shouldn't be mandatory I just shrugged, I didn't think about lack of outrage from people who actually think it should be mandatory.
So Rand Paul is demanding that the Federal Reserve be audited. Presently the Federal Reserve is audited by the GAO, the Office of the Inspector General, independent private auditors, and it publishes a summary of its balance sheet every single week. And its role in the GFC already underwent a special audit as part of Dodd-Frank. So Rand Paul is either an idiot who knows nothing about how his own government works, or he’s a liar playing up to the idiots who have no idea how their own government works.
It doesn’t stop there, because Rand Paul also claimed that the Fed’s liabilities are 4.5 trillion while its assets are only $57 billion, which makes it leveraged more than Lehman Brothers. First up, the guy doesn’t even understand basic accounting, if assets were only $57 billion then it would have net equity of negative 4.45 trillion – that wouldn’t be highly leveraged, it would be extremely insolvent. In fact the assets of the Fed are 4.487 trillion, which means with liabilities of 4.430 trillion means its equity (assets minus liabilities) is 57 billion.
But more importantly, the Fed is part of government and therefore looking at its balance sheet in isolation of the rest of government is complete nonsense - the reason it is so tightly leveraged is because it recently transferred $500 billion to treasury, and a transfer back to the Fed of an equal or greater amount could happen at any time. And the biggest point is that trying to assess the Fed for solvency is gibberish – exactly what happens that would cause a run on the Fed? Its liabilities are the cash that’s printed and put out in to the economy. If tomorrow the Fed transferred another 500 billion to the Treasury and people panicked exactly what would they do? Bang on the doors of the Fed and demand what in exchange for their dollars?
The kind of whackjob idiocy like the above is always around, in every country. Mostly we just get to laugh at them. But this guy isn’t just an elected representative, he’s got a major following, and he isn’t alone. Paul Ryan says insane nonsense like this all the time, and people keep pretending he’s mainstream.
I think the actual, sensible Republicans are showing way too much patience by this point, you guys need to start working hard to get control of your party back. This is serious, you can’t let people who refuse to understand how government works continue to drive the political debate, and even set policy.
The public tends to accept the opinions of academics with more credence than editorial boards, Carmichael said.
Funny that, it's almost as if people acknowledge that it might be possible to actually be knowledgeable about something and therefore have a good or better understanding of a subject.
Wait, so you mean to tell me that Bill O'Reilly is an "academic" now? Or Bill Maher? Or whoever else does ridiculous talking shows?
I mean, among the Television that I personally watch, I would most definitely say that James, Jeremy and Richard are most definitely academics.
the Fed is part of government and therefore looking at its balance sheet in isolation of the rest of government is complete nonsense
Interesting statement. The Federal Reserve Banks are quasi government. The Board Of Governors for the Banks is a federal agency, though the banks themselves are not.
As Wiki puts it:
The Federal Reserve Banks have an intermediate legal status, with some features of private corporations and some features of public federal agencies. The United States has an interest in the Federal Reserve Banks as tax-exempt federally created instrumentalities whose profits belong to the federal government, but this interest is not proprietary. In Lewis v. United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that: "The Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA [the Federal Tort Claims Act], but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." The opinion went on to say, however, that: "The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes." Another relevant decision is Scott v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, in which the distinction is made between Federal Reserve Banks, which are federally created instrumentalities, and the Board of Governors, which is a federal agency."
And as for being subject to audits by the GAO? Yep, but:
The banks are also subject to two types of external auditing. Since 1978 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has conducted regular audits of the banks' operations. The GAO audits are reported to the public, but they may not review a bank's monetary policy decisions or disclose them to the public. Since 1999 each bank has also been required to submit to an annual audit by an external accounting firm, which produces a confidential report to the bank and a summary statement for the bank's annual report. Some members of Congress continue to advocate a more public and intrusive GAO audit of the Federal Reserve System, but Federal Reserve representatives support the existing restrictions to prevent political influence over long-range economic decisions.
So SEN Paul wanting more transparency may not be that unreasonable in the view of quite a few folks.
sebster wrote: So Rand Paul is demanding that the Federal Reserve be audited. Presently the Federal Reserve is audited by the GAO, the Office of the Inspector General, independent private auditors, and it publishes a summary of its balance sheet every single week. And its role in the GFC already underwent a special audit as part of Dodd-Frank. So Rand Paul is either an idiot who knows nothing about how his own government works, or he’s a liar playing up to the idiots who have no idea how their own government works.
It doesn’t stop there, because Rand Paul also claimed that the Fed’s liabilities are 4.5 trillion while its assets are only $57 billion, which makes it leveraged more than Lehman Brothers. First up, the guy doesn’t even understand basic accounting, if assets were only $57 billion then it would have net equity of negative 4.45 trillion – that wouldn’t be highly leveraged, it would be extremely insolvent. In fact the assets of the Fed are 4.487 trillion, which means with liabilities of 4.430 trillion means its equity (assets minus liabilities) is 57 billion.
But more importantly, the Fed is part of government and therefore looking at its balance sheet in isolation of the rest of government is complete nonsense - the reason it is so tightly leveraged is because it recently transferred $500 billion to treasury, and a transfer back to the Fed of an equal or greater amount could happen at any time. And the biggest point is that trying to assess the Fed for solvency is gibberish – exactly what happens that would cause a run on the Fed? Its liabilities are the cash that’s printed and put out in to the economy. If tomorrow the Fed transferred another 500 billion to the Treasury and people panicked exactly what would they do? Bang on the doors of the Fed and demand what in exchange for their dollars?
The kind of whackjob idiocy like the above is always around, in every country. Mostly we just get to laugh at them. But this guy isn’t just an elected representative, he’s got a major following, and he isn’t alone. Paul Ryan says insane nonsense like this all the time, and people keep pretending he’s mainstream.
I think the actual, sensible Republicans are showing way too much patience by this point, you guys need to start working hard to get control of your party back. This is serious, you can’t let people who refuse to understand how government works continue to drive the political debate, and even set policy.
CptJake wrote: Interesting statement. The Federal Reserve Banks are quasi government. The Board Of Governors for the Banks is a federal agency, though the banks themselves are not.
Yeah, this is where relying on something like wiki can set you astray – the facts are there but you lack the context to see how it all fits together. The independence of the Fed is about its political independence – that it can set its policy to control interest rates, inflation and employment without interference from Congress. But as an accounting entity it’s part of government – did you read the bit about the transfer of funds between Treasury and the Fed? That’s what the Fed does each year – revenue above expenditure is transferred to Treasury. How anyone can understand that basic part of the Fed and think it isn’t part and parcel of government is beyond me.
And as for being subject to audits by the GAO? Yep, but:
An audit is exactly what the GAO undertakes. Anything more than that, such as a review of policy, that’s not an audit.
When a listed company gets its financial report audited each year, the audit is exactly what the GAO does, review the financial controls, confirm assets and liabilities, all that audit stuff. The idea that the audit of Apple would involve auditors examining Apple’s business decisions and reporting on whether they were right or not is comical.
And this is where we get to the heart and soul of Rand Paul’s bs. When he says he wants an audit, he is using that word as code for what he really wants, or possibly he just doesn’t understand what ‘audit’ actually means. What he actually wants is Congressional power to review, question and challenge the decisions of the Fed. He wants to remove their independence, take power away from non-political experts, and place it in the hands of people like him. He wants to take power away from the people who correctly predicted what Fed actions would do in the wake of the GFC, and place it in the hands of people who were completely wrong in predicting hyperinflation, and who continue to be wrong to this day.
So SEN Paul wanting more transparency may not be that unreasonable in the view of quite a few folks.
It isn’t unreasonable in the view of quite a few folks. Those people have no idea what they’re talking about. That’s the problem.
whembly wrote: Okay... I've read this like 4 times and I'm still lost.
Are you talking about criticism to the fiat monetary system?
Not really. I mean, the Fed’s role can more or less be described as managing the (fiat) monetary system, and there’s definitely an overlap between people supporting Rand Paul’s latest silliness and people who get freaked out about fiat money, I guess fiat money is a strongly connected issue.
But basically what we have is Rand Paul saying he wants an audit of the Fed. But the Fed is already audited by the actual meaning of that word, what he actually wants is the ability to review, question and challenge Fed policy as it is being formed. He wants to take power away from the technocrats and put it in the hands of politicians.
The problem with this was highlighted rather strongly by Rand Paul’s own speaches. He wants more control over the organisation, but doesn’t even have the knowledge of exactly how the Fed interacts with government. And he didn’t even have the knowledge to understand what assets, liabilities and equity are, and how you measure leverage.
People who know absolutely nothing outside of their ideology but are certain they have simple, common sense solutions to complex systems are real problem.
CptJake wrote: Interesting statement. The Federal Reserve Banks are quasi government. The Board Of Governors for the Banks is a federal agency, though the banks themselves are not.
Yeah, this is where relying on something like wiki can set you astray – the facts are there but you lack the context to see how it all fits together. The independence of the Fed is about its political independence – that it can set its policy to control interest rates, inflation and employment without interference from Congress. But as an accounting entity it’s part of government – did you read the bit about the transfer of funds between Treasury and the Fed? That’s what the Fed does each year – revenue above expenditure is transferred to Treasury. How anyone can understand that basic part of the Fed and think it isn’t part and parcel of government is beyond me.
And as for being subject to audits by the GAO? Yep, but:
An audit is exactly what the GAO undertakes. Anything more than that, such as a review of policy, that’s not an audit.
When a listed company gets its financial report audited each year, the audit is exactly what the GAO does, review the financial controls, confirm assets and liabilities, all that audit stuff. The idea that the audit of Apple would involve auditors examining Apple’s business decisions and reporting on whether they were right or not is comical.
And this is where we get to the heart and soul of Rand Paul’s bs. When he says he wants an audit, he is using that word as code for what he really wants, or possibly he just doesn’t understand what ‘audit’ actually means. What he actually wants is Congressional power to review, question and challenge the decisions of the Fed. He wants to remove their independence, take power away from non-political experts, and place it in the hands of people like him. He wants to take power away from the people who correctly predicted what Fed actions would do in the wake of the GFC, and place it in the hands of people who were completely wrong in predicting hyperinflation, and who continue to be wrong to this day.
So SEN Paul wanting more transparency may not be that unreasonable in the view of quite a few folks.
It isn’t unreasonable in the view of quite a few folks. Those people have no idea what they’re talking about. That’s the problem.
whembly wrote: Okay... I've read this like 4 times and I'm still lost.
Are you talking about criticism to the fiat monetary system?
Not really. I mean, the Fed’s role can more or less be described as managing the (fiat) monetary system, and there’s definitely an overlap between people supporting Rand Paul’s latest silliness and people who get freaked out about fiat money, I guess fiat money is a strongly connected issue.
But basically what we have is Rand Paul saying he wants an audit of the Fed. But the Fed is already audited by the actual meaning of that word, what he actually wants is the ability to review, question and challenge Fed policy as it is being formed. He wants to take power away from the technocrats and put it in the hands of politicians.
The problem with this was highlighted rather strongly by Rand Paul’s own speaches. He wants more control over the organisation, but doesn’t even have the knowledge of exactly how the Fed interacts with government. And he didn’t even have the knowledge to understand what assets, liabilities and equity are, and how you measure leverage.
People who know absolutely nothing outside of their ideology but are certain they have simple, common sense solutions to complex systems are real problem.
After doing some research... I'm inclined to agree with you Seb.
I think Rand is playing fiddle with his dad's supporters here.
What he wants would put undue political pressure on Fed Reserve.
Myabe I just don't understand how foundations "work" and how the Clinton are "paid" by said foundation...
I mean, I get the arguments that foreign governments donating to a foundation led by a potential U.S. president can create (or at least the perception) of unacceptable conflicts of interests.
Myabe I just don't understand how foundations "work" and how the Clinton are "paid" by said foundation...
I mean, I get the arguments that foreign governments donating to a foundation led by a potential U.S. president can create (or at least the perception) of unacceptable conflicts of interests.
I just don't see it here...
It looks like there are some concerns over the running of the foundation; it receives millions of dollars in donations but it is running a deficit
It also appears that there are some concerns that the charitable causes supported by the foundation are being used as a way to open the door for private, for profit, ventures from those who run the foundation.
BOISE, Idaho — An Idaho lawmaker received a brief lesson on female anatomy after asking if a woman can swallow a small camera for doctors to conduct a remote gynecological exam.
The question Monday from Republican Rep. Vito Barbieri came as the House State Affairs Committee heard nearly three hours of testimony on a bill that would ban doctors from prescribing abortion-inducing medication through telemedicine.
Dr. Julie Madsen was testifying in opposition to the bill when Barbieri asked the question. Madsen replied that would be impossible because swallowed pills do not end up in the vagina.
The committee approved the bill 13-4 on a party-line vote. Barbieri, who sits on the board of a crisis pregnancy center in northern Idaho, voted in favor of the legislation.
BOISE, Idaho — An Idaho lawmaker received a brief lesson on female anatomy after asking if a woman can swallow a small camera for doctors to conduct a remote gynecological exam.
The question Monday from Republican Rep. Vito Barbieri came as the House State Affairs Committee heard nearly three hours of testimony on a bill that would ban doctors from prescribing abortion-inducing medication through telemedicine.
Dr. Julie Madsen was testifying in opposition to the bill when Barbieri asked the question. Madsen replied that would be impossible because swallowed pills do not end up in the vagina.
The committee approved the bill 13-4 on a party-line vote. Barbieri, who sits on the board of a crisis pregnancy center in northern Idaho, voted in favor of the legislation.
Please tell me there is a video of Dr. Madsen's reaction to the question
Myabe I just don't understand how foundations "work" and how the Clinton are "paid" by said foundation...
I mean, I get the arguments that foreign governments donating to a foundation led by a potential U.S. president can create (or at least the perception) of unacceptable conflicts of interests.
I just don't see it here...
I don't think there's really much concern over the foreign agent angle. It's more that the Clinton brand is used to drawn in giant pots of money, and that money is then being spread around through the weird kind of professional not for profits that the Clintons have championed for years.
There's no clear smoke there that the money is being mishandled or squirreled away, but given the scale of the organisation, the nature of these kinds of operations, and the really narrow group of people controlling each portion, I can pretty much guarantee that at least one person in there is misappropriating the money somewhere.
This isn't good obviously. The core of the issue, to me, is that nature of these kinds of brand charities, where money is drawn in just based on a celebrity name. It is certainly a highly effective way of drawing in money, but there's an issue that there isn't an immediate pressing cause for the funds to go to. It seems that as the charity becomes institutionalised, and often lacking a clear, motivating single cause, then misappropriation seems inevitable.
That's not quite what I said. There's nothing political here, unless something gets found. But in terms of quality charity organisations, I've got doubts about what the Clintons have set up.
*shrugs*
I'm telling ya... the Clintons are teflons.
Yeah, you keep saying that. The alternative is that if there was actually a scandal deep in the heart of the Clintons, the Republicans would have found it by now. They've been trying for 20 years. It may be that nothing has ever stuck because there isn't actually anything to stick to them. When all you find is, oh my god, a politician is an adulterer, then maybe there isn't anything real to find?
So, I heard some noises about Bernie Sanders in Iowa rallying up his base. Is he actually contemplating a run?
If so, I can not see him actually expecting to win. Maybe his plan is to simply try to pull the Democratic Primary process to the left just like the Tea Party types did to the R's primary process?
Easy E wrote: So, I heard some noises about Bernie Sanders in Iowa rallying up his base. Is he actually contemplating a run?
If so, I can not see him actually expecting to win. Maybe his plan is to simply try to pull the Democratic Primary process to the left just like the Tea Party types did to the R's primary process?
But man... that ought to be a gloriously entertaining primary... eh?
A "it's my turn" Hillary coronation is boring.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sorry seb, missed this:
Yeah, you keep saying that. The alternative is that if there was actually a scandal deep in the heart of the Clintons, the Republicans would have found it by now. They've been trying for 20 years. It may be that nothing has ever stuck because there isn't actually anything to stick to them. When all you find is, oh my god, a politician is an adulterer, then maybe there isn't anything real to find?
Teflon dude.
It's reported that Bill Clinton flew with Phil Epstein, a convicted pedophile, to Epstein's private island where he reportedly kept sex slaves.
This isn't good obviously. The core of the issue, to me, is that nature of these kinds of brand charities, where money is drawn in just based on a celebrity name. It is certainly a highly effective way of drawing in money, but there's an issue that there isn't an immediate pressing cause for the funds to go to. It seems that as the charity becomes institutionalised, and often lacking a clear, motivating single cause, then misappropriation seems inevitable.
And if not misappropriation, then simple mismanagement. When it seems you can raise money at will there is less incentive to be discerning in how its spent, particularly if your endowment is very large.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'd love to see Bernie Sanders as pres, personally. He's a really interesting guy.
Yeah, I agree... While I don't necessarily agree with all of his policies (I do tend to lean a little more Libertarian, but realistically I'm all over the map), The few times I've heard quotes from him I haven't been left thinking "what a gakker"... Such as that quote floating around of him reportedly saying, "If you cannot afford to care for your Veterans after a war, then you cannot afford to go to war"
whembly wrote: But man... that ought to be a gloriously entertaining primary... eh?
A "it's my turn" Hillary coronation is boring.
Hillary's coronation turned out to be pretty interesting in 2008
Teflon dude.
It's reported that Bill Clinton flew with Phil Epstein, a convicted pedophile, to Epstein's private island where he reportedly kept sex slaves.
I read the gawker article when this broke, and as I remember Clinton flew on the guy's plane and the scandal is that one girl who was on the plane with them was pretty obviously being paid by Epstein for sex. She was of age, and there's no evidence she did anything with Clinton.
At best that proves Clinton hangs around with sleazy people, and given we already know Clinton is sleazy, I don't see the story.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: And if not misappropriation, then simple mismanagement. When it seems you can raise money at will there is less incentive to be discerning in how its spent, particularly if your endowment is very large.
Especially if the money is raised independent of any specific cause.
Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules
WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.
Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.
It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.
Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach.
“It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,” said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.
A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Nick Merrill, defended her use of the personal email account and said she has been complying with the “letter and spirit of the rules.”
Under federal law, however, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them. There are exceptions to the law for certain classified and sensitive materials.
Mrs. Clinton is not the first government official — or first secretary of state — to use a personal email account on which to conduct official business. But her exclusive use of her private email, for all of her work, appears unusual, Mr. Baron said. The use of private email accounts is supposed to be limited to emergencies, experts said, such as when an agency’s computer server is not working.
“I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business,” said Mr. Baron, who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013.
Regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records.
But Mrs. Clinton and her aides failed to do so.
How many emails were in Mrs. Clinton’s account is not clear, and neither is the process her advisers used to determine which ones related to her work at the State Department before turning them over.
“It’s a shame it didn’t take place automatically when she was secretary of state as it should have,” said Thomas S. Blanton, the director of the National Security Archive, a group based at George Washington University that advocates government transparency. “Someone in the State Department deserves credit for taking the initiative to ask for the records back. Most of the time it takes the threat of litigation and embarrassment.”
Mr. Blanton said high-level officials should operate as President Obama does, emailing from a secure government account, with every record preserved for historical purposes.
“Personal emails are not secure,” he said. “Senior officials should not be using them.”
Penalties for not complying with federal record-keeping requirements are rare, because the National Archives has few enforcement abilities.
Mr. Merrill, the spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, declined to detail why she had chosen to conduct State Department business from her personal account.
Mr. Merrill said that because Mrs. Clinton had been sending emails to other State Department officials at their government accounts, she had “every expectation they would be retained.” Mr. Merrill declined to answer questions about any emails that Mrs. Clinton may have sent to foreign leaders, people in the private sector or government officials outside the State Department.
The revelation about the private email account echoes longstanding criticisms directed at both the former secretary and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, for a lack of transparency and inclination toward secrecy.
And others who, like Mrs. Clinton, are eyeing a candidacy for the White House are stressing a very different approach. Jeb Bush, who is seeking the Republican nomination for president, released a trove of emails in December from his eight years as governor of Florida.
It is not clear whether Mrs. Clinton’s private email account included encryption or other security measures, given the sensitivity of her diplomatic activity.
Mrs. Clinton’s successor, Secretary of State John Kerry, has used a government email account since taking over the role, and his correspondence is being preserved contemporaneously as part of State Department records, according to his aides.
Before the current regulations went into effect, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who served from 2001 to 2005, used personal email to communicate with American officials and ambassadors and foreign leaders.
Last October, the State Department, as part of the effort to improve its record keeping, asked all previous secretaries of state dating back to Madeleine K. Albright to provide it with any records, like emails, from their time in office for preservation.
“These steps include regularly archiving all of Secretary Kerry’s emails to ensure that we are capturing all federal records,” said a department spokeswoman, Jen Psaki.
The existence of Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account was discovered as a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides about the attack.
Two weeks ago, Mrs. Clinton provided the committee with about 300 emails — amounting to roughly 900 pages — about the Benghazi attacks that Mrs. Clinton’s aides had found among her personal emails.
Mrs. Clinton and the committee declined to comment on the contents of the emails or whether they will be made public.
The State Department, Ms. Psaki said, “has been proactively and consistently engaged in responding to the committee’s many requests in a timely manner, providing more than 40,000 pages of documents, scheduling more than 20 transcribed interviews and participating in several briefings and each of the committee’s hearings.”
Public officials do not own the messages they send nor the infrastructure upon which they are housed. They belong to the people of the United States. The US has laws in place in the interests of public transparency, such as the Freedom of Information Act, to guarantee the ability to see what exactly these figures do on the taxpayer dime.
The New York Times reported Monday night that, during her tenure at the State Department, Hillary Clinton never used her official email account to conduct communications, relying instead on a private email account. As the Times notes, only official accounts are automatically retained under the Federal Records Act, meaning that none of Clinton's email communication was preserved.
In March 2013, an adviser to Clinton, Sidney Blumenthal, had his email hacked by "Guccifer" -- the Romanian hacker perhaps best known for revealing George W. Bush's paintings to the world. At the time, Gawker reported that Blumenthal was communicating with an account that appeared to belong to Clinton at the "clintonemail.com" domain. The content of some of those emails was published by RT.com.
Examining the registry information for "clintonemail.com" reveals that the domain was first created on January 13, 2009 -- one week before President Obama was sworn into office, and the same day that Clinton's confirmation hearings began before the Senate.
As the Times notes, others have used private email accounts for official business, including former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson. The extent of Clinton's hidden communication, part of her work in a much more significant capacity, is unknown.
O.o
Wut?
It appears that this is a purposeful tactic to avoid oversight and transparency... created 1 week BEFORE her confirmation.
She is required to preserve them, but she is not required to use a government-based email service to do so. Each agency is responsible for the mechanics of their own record classification and archival.
It probably shouldn't be that way, but that is a different argument.
Nothing significant will come of it because "unreliable email" is in the best interests of both parties.
It probably shouldn't be that way, but that is a different argument.
Well this is funny, the doom & gloom republicans who think terrorists have already infiltrated the american government, found a solution, defund homeland security.
And of course the majority republicans blame the democrats for their mess. Because clearly the democrats are playing politics.
Republicans in the House longing to defund the agency in order to prevent President Obama from enforcing his executive order freeing millions of undocumented aliens from the threat of deportation.
It's going to be a fun 2 years til the next elections.
Fair enough, it was just too good of a chance to pass up.
Although it seems to be them wanting to go after Obama's executive actions.
1. What does that have to do with the DHS? I hate it when people put irrelevant gak like that in bills.
2. The R's control both houses of congress. Just pass the DHS funding and hake the anti-executive action stuff in a different bill. Then you don't get stupid gak like this.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Fair enough, it was just too good of a chance to pass up.
Although it seems to be them wanting to go after Obama's executive actions.
1. What does that have to do with the DHS? I hate it when people put irrelevant gak like that in bills.
DHS is the department that would be tasked to "execute" Obama's EO for illegal immigrants. Congress is exercising their rights, via "The Purse", to challenge Obama on what they perceive as executive overreach.
2. The R's control both houses of congress. Just pass the DHS funding and hake the anti-executive action stuff in a different bill. Then you don't get stupid gak like this.
See response above... if Congress is going to take on Obama on his EO, this is the place to do it.
So going back to 2013: Senate passes bills to keep government funded, House refuses to pass those bills. House Republicans say "it's the Senate's fault, get rid of the Democrats and the government would run just fine and we wouldn't have situations like this".
Now it's 2015. The Senate passes bills to keep government funded, House refuses to pass those bills. House Republicans still say "it's the Senate's fault".
The GOP controls both houses. They ran on a platform of "crap like this won't happen if we control both houses". But the more things change the more they stay the same.
The GOP will once again manage to piss away whatever advantage they have by 2016.
d-usa wrote: So going back to 2013: Senate passes bills to keep government funded, House refuses to pass those bills. House Republicans say "it's the Senate's fault, get rid of the Democrats and the government would run just fine and we wouldn't have situations like this".
Now it's 2015. The Senate passes bills to keep government funded, House refuses to pass those bills. House Republicans still say "it's the Senate's fault".
The GOP controls both houses. They ran on a platform of "crap like this won't happen if we control both houses". But the more things change the more they stay the same.
The GOP will once again manage to piss away whatever advantage they have by 2016.
The problem... is that GOP didn't get the 60th Senate seat.
Ouze wrote: She is required to preserve them, but she is not required to use a government-based email service to do so. Each agency is responsible for the mechanics of their own record classification and archival.
It probably shouldn't be that way, but that is a different argument.
Nothing significant will come of it because "unreliable email" is in the best interests of both parties.
It probably shouldn't be that way, but that is a different argument.
I don't know how DoS works, but if she used other than gov't email for any sensitive info (PII, SBU) she could be in trouble. I cannot imagine the SEC State NOT dealing with classified electronic correspondence (which would be even worse that just sensitive info being sent on a non-official email).
I know in DoD you cannot use a non-gov't email address for official business (now of course some folks may do so, but they are risking their careers and I've seen folks get punished for it), and even with gov't email have to digitally sign certain things and sign and encrypt others (the PII and SBU stuff) and have to use classified networks for actual classified communications.
They did when they're couldn't get a quorum to actually vote for a bill+prohibition on O's EO.
The GOP won't honestly debate any Democrat Amendments to the DHS bill, despite what McConnell says, because the GOP is more interested in the riders going against Obama's EO than funding DHS.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) released a statement Tuesday morning urging Boehner to hold a vote on the clean bill as soon as possible, and reiterating that Democrats will support it.
whembly wrote: I guess my issue is that... it'd makes sense that she's not the only one doing that.
Knowwhatimean?
I mean, someone would notice within the States Dept recieving an email from "clintonemail.com"... right? Someone may pipe up and ask wassup....
This seems like an orchastrated policy to subvert transparency.
But, eh... not sure if anything will come out of this.
*shrugs*
Unless... Clinton can't produce emails from a certain time period for the Select Committee... that ends in "azi".
Then... things might get interesting.
I agree that using a private email account to circumvent transparency in governance is wrong, but I think it only really achieves the goal of avoiding transparency if Hillary used her private email account to discuss official govt buisness with another person via that other person's private email account. If say, Hillary wrote an email on her private account to the Secretary of Defense's official govt email account then that email would be saved on the govt server and be available for public record from the Secretary of Defense's govt account.
Govt officials doing the people's business off the record is bad for a whole host of reasons but it's also niave to believe that it hasn't always happened since the dawn of time. Backroom deals happened all the time long before there was email or phones or any media reports beyond a few newpapers and pamphlets.
Personally, the only aspect of this that bothers me is the blatant arrogance of it. If a politician wants to have a private email address to use however they see fit, even to do backroom govt deals then that politician should at least have the decency to keep that email address private. In this instance Hillary used her private email for both official and unofficial emails which basically lets her decide which emails she gets from foreign leaders, other US politicians, donors, special interest groups, whomever, on that account are official and need to be saved and disclosed to the public record and which are personal and can be kept private. She's basically putting herself above the law which casts her in a haughty and unpleasant light.
whembly wrote: I guess my issue is that... it'd makes sense that she's not the only one doing that.
Knowwhatimean?
I mean, someone would notice within the States Dept recieving an email from "clintonemail.com"... right? Someone may pipe up and ask wassup....
This seems like an orchastrated policy to subvert transparency.
But, eh... not sure if anything will come out of this.
*shrugs*
Unless... Clinton can't produce emails from a certain time period for the Select Committee... that ends in "azi".
Then... things might get interesting.
I agree that using a private email account to circumvent transparency in governance is wrong, but I think it only really achieves the goal of avoiding transparency if Hillary used her private email account to discuss official govt buisness with another person via that other person's private email account. If say, Hillary wrote an email on her private account to the Secretary of Defense's official govt email account then that email would be saved on the govt server and be available for public record from the Secretary of Defense's govt account.
Govt officials doing the people's business off the record is bad for a whole host of reasons but it's also niave to believe that it hasn't always happened since the dawn of time. Backroom deals happened all the time long before there was email or phones or any media reports beyond a few newpapers and pamphlets.
Personally, the only aspect of this that bothers me is the blatant arrogance of it. If a politician wants to have a private email address to use however they see fit, even to do backroom govt deals then that politician should at least have the decency to keep that email address private. In this instance Hillary used her private email for both official and unofficial emails which basically lets her decide which emails she gets from foreign leaders, other US politicians, donors, special interest groups, whomever, on that account are official and need to be saved and disclosed to the public record and which are personal and can be kept private. She's basically putting herself above the law which casts her in a haughty and unpleasant light.
There's also an aspect many folks are missing.
If I were a foreign operative, I'd be very interested in *if* HRC@yahoo.com is hackable.
It's a huge security risk.
Frankly, the laws need to be updated that ALL high-level government personnel are forbidden to use private emails while in office/employed. Not just to forcibly make the users comply with Archive laws, but to ensure security as well.
They did when they're couldn't get a quorum to actually vote for a bill+prohibition on O's EO.
The GOP won't honestly debate any Democrat Amendments to the DHS bill, despite what McConnell says, because the GOP is more interested in the riders going against Obama's EO than funding DHS.
Nothing wrong with imo... that's the battleground Congress can choose to combat against executive over-reach.
whembly wrote: I guess my issue is that... it'd makes sense that she's not the only one doing that.
Knowwhatimean?
I mean, someone would notice within the States Dept recieving an email from "clintonemail.com"... right? Someone may pipe up and ask wassup....
This seems like an orchastrated policy to subvert transparency.
But, eh... not sure if anything will come out of this.
*shrugs*
Unless... Clinton can't produce emails from a certain time period for the Select Committee... that ends in "azi".
Then... things might get interesting.
I agree that using a private email account to circumvent transparency in governance is wrong, but I think it only really achieves the goal of avoiding transparency if Hillary used her private email account to discuss official govt buisness with another person via that other person's private email account. If say, Hillary wrote an email on her private account to the Secretary of Defense's official govt email account then that email would be saved on the govt server and be available for public record from the Secretary of Defense's govt account.
Govt officials doing the people's business off the record is bad for a whole host of reasons but it's also niave to believe that it hasn't always happened since the dawn of time. Backroom deals happened all the time long before there was email or phones or any media reports beyond a few newpapers and pamphlets.
Personally, the only aspect of this that bothers me is the blatant arrogance of it. If a politician wants to have a private email address to use however they see fit, even to do backroom govt deals then that politician should at least have the decency to keep that email address private. In this instance Hillary used her private email for both official and unofficial emails which basically lets her decide which emails she gets from foreign leaders, other US politicians, donors, special interest groups, whomever, on that account are official and need to be saved and disclosed to the public record and which are personal and can be kept private. She's basically putting herself above the law which casts her in a haughty and unpleasant light.
There's also an aspect many folks are missing.
If I were a foreign operative, I'd be very interested in *if* HRC@yahoo.com is hackable.
It's a huge security risk.
Frankly, the laws need to be updated that ALL high-level government personnel are forbidden to use private emails while in office/employed. Not just to forcibly make the users comply with Archive laws, but to ensure security as well.
They did when they're couldn't get a quorum to actually vote for a bill+prohibition on O's EO.
The GOP won't honestly debate any Democrat Amendments to the DHS bill, despite what McConnell says, because the GOP is more interested in the riders going against Obama's EO than funding DHS.
Nothing wrong with imo... that's the battleground Congress can choose to combat against executive over-reach.
As they should have, the argument many of its members promulgated was crap.
Nah... it simply says:
GOP to conservative: Feth You!
Conservative: That's okay, we'll keep on voting for you.
Hacking is a security risk but that risk exists regardless of whether you use a govt email/communication or private. Look at how wikileaks released all the diplomatic cables to the public. Those were offical govt communications and they weren't secure either.
whembly wrote: I guess my issue is that... it'd makes sense that she's not the only one doing that.
Knowwhatimean?
I mean, someone would notice within the States Dept recieving an email from "clintonemail.com"... right? Someone may pipe up and ask wassup....
This seems like an orchastrated policy to subvert transparency.
But, eh... not sure if anything will come out of this.
*shrugs*
Unless... Clinton can't produce emails from a certain time period for the Select Committee... that ends in "azi".
Then... things might get interesting.
I agree that using a private email account to circumvent transparency in governance is wrong, but I think it only really achieves the goal of avoiding transparency if Hillary used her private email account to discuss official govt buisness with another person via that other person's private email account. If say, Hillary wrote an email on her private account to the Secretary of Defense's official govt email account then that email would be saved on the govt server and be available for public record from the Secretary of Defense's govt account.
Govt officials doing the people's business off the record is bad for a whole host of reasons but it's also niave to believe that it hasn't always happened since the dawn of time. Backroom deals happened all the time long before there was email or phones or any media reports beyond a few newpapers and pamphlets.
Personally, the only aspect of this that bothers me is the blatant arrogance of it. If a politician wants to have a private email address to use however they see fit, even to do backroom govt deals then that politician should at least have the decency to keep that email address private. In this instance Hillary used her private email for both official and unofficial emails which basically lets her decide which emails she gets from foreign leaders, other US politicians, donors, special interest groups, whomever, on that account are official and need to be saved and disclosed to the public record and which are personal and can be kept private. She's basically putting herself above the law which casts her in a haughty and unpleasant light.
There's also an aspect many folks are missing.
If I were a foreign operative, I'd be very interested in *if* HRC@yahoo.com is hackable.
It's a huge security risk.
Frankly, the laws need to be updated that ALL high-level government personnel are forbidden to use private emails while in office/employed. Not just to forcibly make the users comply with Archive laws, but to ensure security as well.
They did when they're couldn't get a quorum to actually vote for a bill+prohibition on O's EO.
The GOP won't honestly debate any Democrat Amendments to the DHS bill, despite what McConnell says, because the GOP is more interested in the riders going against Obama's EO than funding DHS.
Nothing wrong with imo... that's the battleground Congress can choose to combat against executive over-reach.
As they should have, the argument many of its members promulgated was crap.
Nah... it simply says:
GOP to conservative: Feth You!
Conservative: That's okay, we'll keep on voting for you.
Hacking is a security risk but that risk exists regardless of whether you use a govt email/communication or private. Look at how wikileaks released all the diplomatic cables to the public. Those were offical govt communications and they weren't secure either.
It's about control.
There are different kinds of "security risks" with different ways to combat against.
Wikileak was a direct espionage data retrival (Manning downloaded it and passed it on to wikileak). That's a different kind of breach, than someone from North Korea remotely hacking government email accounts.
So, in a perfect work, imo... you'd have all high-government officials to only use government sponsored email accounts and devices. That way, US IT professionals can set/configure security profiles as needed.
If these officials uses private email accounts... *the government* has no way of ensuring if it's secured.
Another question would be how the accounts were hosted. One could easily register whatever address you want and host it on any server, including government systems if you wanted. So it would be good to know how the email system was setup for security.
Nothing wrong with imo... that's the battleground Congress can choose to combat against executive over-reach.
Are you only against members of Congress exercising their authority when they are Democrats? I mean, you led with an argument amounting to "Democrats won't fund DHS!"
Nothing wrong with imo... that's the battleground Congress can choose to combat against executive over-reach.
Are you only against members of Congress exercising their authority when they are Democrats? I mean, you led with an argument amounting to "Democrats won't fund DHS!"
So, to be clear, it is because the relevant members of Congress are Democrats and not because of the issues at hand or how Congressional procedure was followed?
So, to be clear, it is because the relevant members of Congress are Democrats and not because of the issues at hand or how Congressional procedure was followed?
No... it's about Congress use the "Power of the Purse" to combat against EO over-reach.
Being a "democrat" isn't important, as Congress is a co-equal branch to both the Executive and Judiciary.
It's part of Congress' fault too, in allowing this and prior President to get this far.
Being a "democrat" isn't important, as Congress is a co-equal branch to both the Executive and Judiciary.
It is important to you, and other people that have picked a side in the partisan battle between the Republicans and Democrats; making it important to members of Congress.
dogma wrote: Dennis Haster regularly violated the Hastert Rule, and has said it never existed.
True... it was largely a creation by the press/pundit. But, it was expected that the Speaker wouldn't bring a bill on the floor unless he/she had at least 218 vote.
We're witnessing a modern Political Kubuki Theater here...
Shouldn't we address Boehner as the Democratic Speaker.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Getting rid of a rule that promotes party over country in a legislative setting designed to exist without parties in mind can only be a good thing.
I can only hope both parties reciprocate that.
Right now, I don't believe Democrats would give R's anything when they return to power.
True... it was largely a creation by the press/pundit. But, it was expected that the Speaker wouldn't bring a bill on the floor unless he/she had at least 218 vote.
Well, no, it was expected that the Speaker wouldn't bring a bill to the floor unless it was in the interests of the Speaker, the Speaker's Party, the nation, or some combination of the three. Several Speakers, including Hastert, have articulated this fact.
whembly wrote:I guess my issue is that... it'd makes sense that she's not the only one doing that.
Knowwhatimean?
I mean, someone would notice within the States Dept recieving an email from "clintonemail.com"... right? Someone may pipe up and ask wassup....
This seems like an orchastrated policy to subvert transparency.
Let me be clear before I begin: I 100% think she should have been using federally provided equipment and email during her entire tenure as SoS.
However, from discussion with people who have worked oversees, apparently federal systems are notoriously unreliable while abroad. Hillary Clinton is not the only person to be using private email in her dealings oversees, just the most prominent. IF, as she has said (and that's a big IF), she has in fact preserved all her emails and provided them to whoever they're supposed to be provided to, I don't see this is a transparency issue.
She still SHOULD have been using government equipment and all that.
whembly wrote:I blame the Democrats and Obama.
The House passed a fully funded DHS budget and it's the Democrats who's filibustering it in the Senate.
I'd make a change to the Filibuster rule... and that is, you'd have to do it in person 24/7 in order to keep it going.
WASHINGTON — In 2012, congressional investigators asked the State Department for a wide range of documents related to the attack on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. The department eventually responded, furnishing House committees with thousands of documents.
But it turns out that that was not everything.
The State Department had not searched the email account of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton because she had maintained a private account, which shielded it from such searches, department officials acknowledged on Tuesday.
It was only last month that the House committee appointed to investigate Benghazi was provided with about 300 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails related to the attacks. That was shortly after Mrs. Clinton turned over, at the State Department’s request, some 50,000 pages of government-related emails that she had kept on her private account.
It was one of several instances in which records requests sent to the State Department, which had no access to Mrs. Clinton’s emails, came up empty.
In 2013, Nitasha Tiku, then a reporter for Gawker, filed a Freedom of Information Act request, seeking all correspondence on Mrs. Clinton’s private email account between her and Sidney Blumenthal, a close adviser and onetime staff member in the Clinton White House. Some of those emails had already spilled into public view and been reported in the news media. But the State Department told Gawker that it could find no records responsive to the request, Gawker reported.
Mrs. Clinton’s aides on Tuesday sought to play down the significance of her exclusive use of a personal email account for State Department business. But an examination of records requests sent to the department reveals how the practice protected a significant amount of her correspondence from the eyes of investigators and the public.
Mrs. Clinton’s exclusive use of personal email for her government business is unusual for a high-level official, archive experts have said. Federal regulations, since 2009, have required that all emails be preserved as part of an agency’s record-keeping system. In Mrs. Clinton’s case, her emails were kept on her personal account and her staff took no steps to have them preserved as part of State Department record.
In response to a State Department request, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers, late last year, reviewed her account and decided which emails to turn over to the State Department.
The State Department says it will now search the 50,000 emails Mrs. Clinton provided in response to Freedom of Information and congressional requests.
The White House, in its first response to the news, said it frowned on the practice of officials using their personal email accounts.
“What I can tell you is that very specific guidance has been given to agencies all across the government, which is specifically that employees of the Obama administration should use their official email accounts when they’re conducting official government business,” the White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, said. “However, when there are situations where personal email accounts are used, it is important for those records to be preserved consistent with the Federal Records Act.”
But political groups and news organizations said requests for records related to Mrs. Clinton had repeatedly gone unanswered.
In December, The Associated Press said its FOIA requests for records related to Mrs. Clinton’s tenure at the State Department, the oldest of which was submitted in March 2010, were not answered. In addition to requesting Mrs. Clinton’s schedules, The A.P. asked for correspondence related to Huma Abedin’s special arrangement to serve as a top adviser to Mrs. Clinton and consult for private clients. “We have not received any documents yet, despite the promised deadlines, and we are evaluating the situation,” said Erin Madigan White, spokeswoman for The A.P.
Conservative groups have filed numerous requests for information about Mrs. Clinton as she prepares for a possible presidential run. Citizens United is expecting a court ruling on Friday about a lawsuit the group filed last year after the State Department would not disclose flight records that would have shown who accompanied Mrs. Clinton on overseas trips. The group had intended to cross reference the agency’s flight manifests with the donors who contributed to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
The FOIA request was just one of 16 appeals the group has made to the State Department since May that have gone unfulfilled. Those requests also included specific correspondence from Mrs. Clinton and her closest aides, including Cheryl D. Mills and Ms. Abedin.
America Rising, an anti-Clinton “super PAC,” has submitted a dozen FOIA requests for State Department records beginning last June.
Requests included correspondence between Ms. Mills and Clinton Foundation leadership and Ms. Abedin’s communication with members of Teneo, a private consultancy partly run by Doug Band, a longtime aide to former President Bill Clinton. Ms. Abedin had a special arrangement that allowed her to work at the State Department and be paid by Teneo, which offers strategic advice to major global corporations. America Rising also requested Mrs. Clinton’s schedule during the annual Clinton Global Initiative gatherings in New York.
In all cases, the State Department acknowledged receipt of the FOIA requests and assigned case numbers but did not produce any of the requested documents. “Unfortunately, Clinton’s own political calculation and desire for secrecy, as evidenced by her exclusive use of personal email accounts while at State, is preventing an open process and full, fair review of her time there,” said Jeff Bechdel, a spokesman for America Rising.
State Department officials have previously said they handle thousands of records requests and try to respond as quickly as possible. On Tuesday, Alec Gerlach, a spokesman for the department, defended the agency, and stressed that it was working diligently to comply with the voluminous requests for information from the Republican-controlled House.
Adrienne Elrod, a spokeswoman for Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton group, called the issue of Mrs. Clinton’s using personal email “manufactured controversy.”
In a written statement, the National Archives said it had “reached out to the State Department to ensure that all federal records are properly identified and managed in accordance with the Federal Records Act and that controls and procedures are in place to manage records effectively in the future.”
Mrs. Clinton’s aides have said her use of private email was not out of the ordinary, pointing to the fact that former Secretary of State Colin Powell also used a personal email account, before the current regulations went into effect. But since 2009, said Laura Diachenko, a National Archives and Records spokeswoman, federal regulations have stated that “agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.”
The rules are designed to ensure a contemporaneous record of government activity is being kept so it will be available to members of Congress, the news media, historians and ordinary citizens.
Secretary of State John Kerry uses a government email account, and his correspondence is preserved as part of the department’s record-keeping system.
I still think she skates... because, you know everyone does it.
I just don't think Department Heads should be using private emails... purely because of security concerns and FOIA issues.
Washington (CNN)Ben Carson says homosexuality is a choice because many people "go into prison straight -- and when they come out, they're gay."
The neurosurgeon and potential Republican candidate for president in 2016 made the comment in an interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo that aired Wednesday on "New Day."
whembly wrote:I guess my issue is that... it'd makes sense that she's not the only one doing that.
Knowwhatimean?
I mean, someone would notice within the States Dept recieving an email from "clintonemail.com"... right? Someone may pipe up and ask wassup....
This seems like an orchastrated policy to subvert transparency.
Let me be clear before I begin: I 100% think she should have been using federally provided equipment and email during her entire tenure as SoS.
However, from discussion with people who have worked oversees, apparently federal systems are notoriously unreliable while abroad. Hillary Clinton is not the only person to be using private email in her dealings oversees, just the most prominent. IF, as she has said (and that's a big IF), she has in fact preserved all her emails and provided them to whoever they're supposed to be provided to, I don't see this is a transparency issue.
She still SHOULD have been using government equipment and all that.
Man... if the federal systems abroad are notoriously that bad, makes me wanna peak under the hood even more. Email systems are the easiest to setup and maintain. What's hard, is to making them 100% secure.
The problem about going the private route is that when the FOIA / subpena lands on her desk. It's not the independent agent that's 'acquiring' these emails... it's Clinton's own peeps who's vetting and releasing these emails. If there's an issue about this whole thing, besides the security concerns, it's this right here.
I remember: You work for the FTC? Aren't you obligated to use government only emails when you conduct your business? And so, it's only the elected/appointed positions are the exception to this rule?
whembly wrote:I blame the Democrats and Obama.
The House passed a fully funded DHS budget and it's the Democrats who's filibustering it in the Senate.
I'd make a change to the Filibuster rule... and that is, you'd have to do it in person 24/7 in order to keep it going.
Of course you do...
edited to be less mean sounding.
Actually... I really blame them all. Republicans, Democrats, voters, pundits, journalists, establishments, Justin Beiber, me, you, the whole ball of wax. If we're honest. *shrugs*
My acrimony is largely because I'm ideologically opposite to the Democrats... and more so to Obama.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Meanwhile on the "stupid comments by potential presidential candidates front":
Washington (CNN)Ben Carson says homosexuality is a choice because many people "go into prison straight -- and when they come out, they're gay."
The neurosurgeon and potential Republican candidate for president in 2016 made the comment in an interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo that aired Wednesday on "New Day."
As clearly obsessed as you are about this whole email thing you should have realized by know that there is absolutely zero legal requirement to use government email. The only requirement is that records are kept, now on how and where they are created.
We can talk all we want about the optics of it all, the motivations, the ability to ensure that records are actually maintained. And they are all very good questions to be asked.
But there is no actual legal issue with her using the email account.
d-usa wrote: As clearly obsessed as you are about this whole email thing you should have realized by know that there is absolutely zero legal requirement to use government email. The only requirement is that records are kept, now on how and where they are created.
We can talk all we want about the optics of it all, the motivations, the ability to ensure that records are actually maintained. And they are all very good questions to be asked.
But there is no actual legal issue with her using the email account.
On it's face, you are absolutely right.
I just think it's an asinine policy to allow government officials to use private email systems.
It's also... weird. Her email SYSTEM is/was operated in her own house.
Clinton ran own computer system for her official emails
WASHINGTON (AP) — The computer server that transmitted and received Hillary Rodham Clinton's emails — on a private account she used exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state — traced back to an Internet service registered to her family's home in Chappaqua, New York, according to Internet records reviewed by The Associated Press.
The highly unusual practice of a Cabinet-level official physically running her own email would have given Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, impressive control over limiting access to her message archives. It also would distinguish Clinton's secretive email practices as far more sophisticated than some politicians, including Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, who were caught conducting official business using free email services operated by Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc.
Most Internet users rely on professional outside companies, such as Google Inc. or their own employers, for the behind-the-scenes complexities of managing their email communications. Government employees generally use servers run by federal agencies where they work.
In most cases, individuals who operate their own email servers are technical experts or users so concerned about issues of privacy and surveillance they take matters into their own hands. It was not immediately clear exactly where Clinton ran that computer system.
Clinton has not described her motivation for using a private email account — hdr22@clintonemail.com, which traced back to her own private email server registered under an apparent pseudonym — for official State Department business.
Operating her own server would have afforded Clinton additional legal opportunities to block government or private subpoenas in criminal, administrative or civil cases because her lawyers could object in court before being forced to turn over any emails. And since the Secret Service was guarding Clinton's home, an email server there would have been well protected from theft or a physical hacking.
But homemade email servers are generally not as reliable, secure from hackers or protected from fires or floods as those in commercial data centers. Those professional facilities provide monitoring for viruses or hacking attempts, regulated temperatures, off-site backups, generators in case of power outages, fire-suppression systems and redundant communications lines.
A spokesman for Clinton did not respond to requests seeking comment from the AP on Tuesday. Clinton ignored the issue during a speech Tuesday night at the 30th anniversary gala of EMILY's List, which works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights.
It was unclear whom Clinton hired to set up or maintain her private email server, which the AP traced to a mysterious identity, Eric Hoteham. That name does not appear in public records databases, campaign contribution records or Internet background searches. Hoteham was listed as the customer at Clinton's $1.7 million home on Old House Lane in Chappaqua in records registering the Internet address for her email server since August 2010.
The Hoteham personality also is associated with a separate email server, presidentclinton.com, and a non-functioning website, wjcoffice.com, all linked to the same residential Internet account as Mrs. Clinton's email server. The former president's full name is William Jefferson Clinton.
In November 2012, without explanation, Clinton's private email account was reconfigured to use Google's servers as a backup in case her own personal email server failed, according to Internet records. That is significant because Clinton publicly supported Google's accusations in June 2011 that China's government had tried to break into the Google mail accounts of senior U.S. government officials. It was one of the first instances of a major American corporation openly accusing a foreign government of hacking.
Then, in July 2013, five months after she resigned as secretary of state, Clinton's private email server was reconfigured again to use a Denver-based commercial email provider, MX Logic, which is now owned by McAfee Inc., a top Internet security company.
The New York Times reported Monday that Clinton exclusively used a personal email account it did not specify to conduct State Department business. The disclosure raised questions about whether she took actions to preserve copies of her old work-related emails, as required by the Federal Records Act. A Clinton spokesman, Nick Merrill, told the newspaper that Clinton complied with the letter and spirit of the law because her advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails to decide which ones to turn over to the State Department after the agency asked for them.
In theory but not in practice, Clinton's official emails would be accessible to anyone who requested copies under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. Under the law, citizens and foreigners can compel the government to turn over copies of federal records for zero or little cost. Since Clinton effectively retained control over emails in her private account even after she resigned in 2013, the government would have to negotiate with Clinton to turn over messages it can't already retrieve from the inboxes of federal employees she emailed.
The AP has waited more than a year under the open records law for the State Department to turn over some emails covering Clinton's tenure as the nation's top diplomat, although the agency has never suggested that it didn't possess all her emails.
Clinton's private email account surfaced publicly in March 2013 after a convicted Romanian hacker known as Guccifer published emails stolen from former White House adviser Sidney Blumenthal. The Internet domain was registered around the time of her secretary of state nomination.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the special House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks, said the committee learned last summer — when agency documents were turned over to the committee — that Clinton had used a private email account while secretary of state. More recently the committee learned that she used private email accounts exclusively and had more than one, Gowdy said.
President Barack Obama signed a bill last year that bans the use of private email accounts by government officials unless they retain copies of messages in their official account or forward copies to their government accounts within 20 days. The bill did not become law until more than one year after Clinton left the State Department.
1) Having it based in a private residence is pretty smart. It means that you know where the physical record is located and have complete control over the security of it. You know nobody can physically access it and compromise confidential records. You also greatly limit electronic access by hackers. You have full control over the security, physical and electronic, and you have an excellent ability to protect it from compromise and hacking. If you are going to use a non-government run system, this is probably the best way to go about it.
2) She is doing all of this to keep everyone away from her emails and to be able to delete emails she doesn't like! By having complete physical control of the system she can be as shady as she wants to be.
Your ideological mindset will usually plant you firmly in one camp or the other. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.
d-usa wrote: The interpretation depends on your viewpoints.
1) Having it based in a private residence is pretty smart. It means that you know where the physical record is located and have complete control over the security of it. You know nobody can physically access it and compromise confidential records. You also greatly limit electronic access by hackers. You have full control over the security, physical and electronic, and you have an excellent ability to protect it from compromise and hacking. If you are going to use a non-government run system, this is probably the best way to go about it.
2) She is doing all of this to keep everyone away from her emails and to be able to delete emails she doesn't like! By having complete physical control of the system she can be as shady as she wants to be.
Your ideological mindset will usually plant you firmly in one camp or the other. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.
Yea... I think I'm in agreement.
It's still.. odd. And you know she's not the only one who would do this.
I simply don't think the voters would care about this... thus, it'd be "old news" during the heat of the elections.
*shrugs*
I'll still stand by my prediction that Hillary "Teflon" Clinton as the 46th President.
Washington (CNN)Ben Carson says homosexuality is a choice because many people "go into prison straight -- and when they come out, they're gay."
The neurosurgeon and potential Republican candidate for president in 2016 made the comment in an interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo that aired Wednesday on "New Day."
Amazingly stupid.
How future President Bob "Il Duce" Frazzled handles that.
"Do you think homosexuality is a choice?"
"I thought this was an interview for a candidate for the President of the United States, not the local jamboree. Please put down the pipe and ask appropriate questions."
When Hillary Clinton ditched government email in favor of a secret, personal address, it wasn't just an affront to Obama's vaunted transparency agenda—security experts consulted by Gawker have laid out a litany of potential threats that may have exposed her email conversations to potential interception by hackers and foreign intelligence agencies.
"It is almost certain that at least some of the emails hosted at clintonemails.com were intercepted," independent security expert and developer Nic Cubrilovic told Gawker.
Within the instant classic "ClintonEmail.com" domain, it appears there are three separate servers. The domain's blank landing page is hosted by Confluence Networks, a web firm in the British Virgin Islands, known for monetizing expired domain names and spam.
But the real worry comes from two other public-facing ClintonEmail.com subdomains, which can allow anyone with the right URL to try to sign in.
One is sslvpn.clintonemail.com, which provides a login page that apparently uses an SSL VPN—a protocol that allows your web browser to create an encrypted connection to a local network from any internet connection—to users to access their email. That sounds secure, and under the right circumstances, for regular users, it can be. But there are two huge problems with using it for the Secretary of State's communications with her staff and others.
First: Anyone in the world with that URL can attempt to log in. It's unclear what exactly lies on the other side of this login page, but the fact that you could log into anything tied to the Secretary of State's email is, simply, bad. If the page above is directly connected to Clinton's email server, a login there could be disastrous, according to Robert Hansen, VP of security firm WhiteHat Labs:
It might be the administrative console interface to the Windows machine or a backup. In that case, all mail could have been copied.
What's more troubling is the fact that, at least as of yesterday, the server at sslvpn has an invalid SSL certificate. Digital certificates are used to "sign" the encryption keys that servers and browsers use to establish encrypted communications. (The reason that hackers can't just vacuum the internet traffic between your browser and Google's Gmail servers and read your email is that your browser is encrypting the data to a public encryption key. The reason that you know that you are encrypting to Google's key and not to, say, the People's Liberation Army's, is that the Gmail servers have a digital certificate from a trusted third-party confirming that the key is theirs.)
When you attempt to access sslvpn.clintonemail.com using Google's Chrome browser, this is what you see:
The apparent reason for that message is that the certificate used by Clinton's server is self-signed—verified by the authority that issued it, but not by a trusted third party—and therefore regarded by Google's Chrome browser as prima facie invalid. The government typically uses military-grade certificates and encryption schemes for its internal communications that designed with spying from foreign intelligence agencies in mind. But the ClintonEmail.com setup? "If you're buying jam online," says Hansen, "you're fine." But for anything beyond consumer-grade browsing, it's a shoddy arrangement.
Security researcher Dave Kennedy of TrustedSec agrees: "It was done hastily and not locked down." Mediocre encryption from Clinton's outbox to a recipient (or vice versa) would leave all of her messages open to bulk collection by a foreign government or military. Or, if someone were able to copy the security certificate Clinton used, they could execute what's called a "man in the middle" attack, invisible eavesdropping on data. "It's highly likely that another person could simply extract the certificate and man in the middle any user of the system without any warnings whatsoever," Hansen said.
The invalid certificate would have also likely left Clinton vulnerable to widespread internet bugs like "Heartbleed," which was only discovered last spring, and may have let hackers copy the entire contents of the Clinton servers' memory. Inside that memory? Who knows: "It could very well have been a bunch of garbage," said Hansen, or "it could have been her full emails, passwords, and cookies." Heartbleed existed unnoticed for years. A little social engineering, Hansen said, could give attackers access to Clinton's DNS information, letting them route and reroute data to their own computers without anyone realizing. "It's a fairly small group of people who know how to do that," Hansen noted, but "it's not hard—it's just a lot of steps."
We don't know, of course, if the current state of Clinton's servers is representative of the security precautions that were in place while she was using it as Secretary of State. The system could have previously been hardened against attack, and left to get weedy and vulnerable after she left government. We don't know. But that's part of the problem—at the Department of State, there is accountability for the security of email systems. If we learned that State's email servers had been hacked or left needlessly vulnerable, there would be investigations and consequences. With Clinton's off-the-books scheme, there are only questions.
The final address behind ClintonEmail is a mail host, mail.clintonemail.com, which will kick back an error message when visited directly:
But if you plug in a different URL with the same mail server, you're presented with a user-friendly, familiar Outlook webmail login:
This is basically no more secure than the way you'd log into AOL, Facebook, or any other website. There's no evidence that Clinton (or her staffers) used this web interface to check their emails, as opposed to logging in through a smartphone or other email software. But its mere existence is troubling enough: there have been five separate security vulnerabilities identified with Outlook Web Access since ClintonEmail.com was registered in 2009. These security bugs include doozies like "a flaw that may lead to an unauthorized information disclosure" (2010) and "a remote attacker can gain access to arbitrary files" (2014).
But even without exploiting software bugs, Hansen says leaving a public login page for something that's meant to be private is "pretty much the worst thing you can do." Clinton's Outlook form could've been susceptible to a brute force attack—where random combinations of words and characters are tried until one of them works—or an old fashioned denial of service assault. "Even if she had a particularly strong password," Hansen said, a brute force attack will "either work eventually—foreign militaries are very good at trying a lot—or it'll fail and block her from accessing her own email."
If Clinton had been using a government account, Hansen explained, her messages with colleagues would all be held within one relatively tidy system, monitored by the federal government. It's the difference between doing your laundry at home and dropping it off. But with a private account, you're introducing many separate points of failure; every single company in this custom system is a place to pry and attack. "Any joe hacker" could get inside with enough knowledge and time, according to Hansen.
"Pretty much the worst thing you can do."
Cubrilovic echoed Hansen's concern: "When you are a staffer in a government department, internal email never leaves the network that the department has physical control over," he told me. But "with externally hosted email every one of those messages would go out onto the internet," where they're subject to snooping.
Security researcher Kenn White agrees that private internet access stirs up too many dangerous variables while emails bounced from person to person:
I think the bigger security concern here is the complete lack of visibility into who has been administering, backing up, maintaining, and accessing the Secretary's email. If classified documents were exchanged, who viewed them? Were they forwarded? Where multiple devices (ie, mobile phones and tablets) configured to access the account? Was encryption required or optional for remote access?
Cubrilovic agreed that opting out of the government's system is an awful idea for someone with a hacker bullseye on her back: "having a high profile target host their own email is a nightmare for information security staff working for the government," he told me, "since it can undo all of the other work they've done to secure their network." The kind of off-the-shelf email service it appears Clinton used comes with a lot of inherent risk, especially since a pillar of her job is overseas travel:
With your own email hosting you're almost certainly going to be vulnerable to Chinese government style spearphishing attacks—which government departments have enough trouble stopping—but the task would be near impossible for an IT naive self-hosted setup.
While some of these hacking scenarios may sound outlandish or far-fetched, keep in mind that Clinton's emails would have been a prime target for some of the globe's most sophisticated state-sponsored cyberwarriors—the Chinese, the Israelis, the Iranians. The very existence of Clinton's private account was revealed by the hacker Guccifer, an unemployed Romanian taxi driver who managed to gain access to former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal's AOL account with relative ease. The Hillary account was reported by Gawker in 2013, and White House spokesman Eric Schultz used that story to argue that the Clinton email story was old news: "This was public years ago," he told Business Insider, linking to the 2013 Gawker story.
Which is another way of saying that foreign intelligence agencies have had two years to work on the target.
Bad, bad idea...
This is shouting: "Clinton was more worried about the American public knowing what she was doing than, anything what hackers can find."
Got to respect the pizza industrial complex. Because the drive for more nutritional information and healthier food in schools is primarily a Democratic thing, pizza companies are piling money in to Republican candidates. It isn't big money, but the money is going 90%+ to Republicans, and has had an interesting impact - "pizza is a vegetable" but there's a bunch of others.
Actually, probably the most interesting thing was 'the summer of cheese', which I had no idea started with agriculture money looking to sell more cheese.
sebster wrote: Got to respect the pizza industrial complex. Because the drive for more nutritional information and healthier food in schools is primarily a Democratic thing, pizza companies are piling money in to Republican candidates. It isn't big money, but the money is going 90%+ to Republicans, and has had an interesting impact - "pizza is a vegetable" but there's a bunch of others.
Actually, probably the most interesting thing was 'the summer of cheese', which I had no idea started with agriculture money looking to sell more cheese.
I checked back two pages but couldn't see anything above nyetenyahoo (?) Speech and Obama not turning up to it. I thought it was a good and ballsy move on his behalf to show israel they don't get blanket no queztions asked support now
Sent to diplomatic and consular staff in June 2011, the unclassified cable, bearing Clinton's electronic signature, made clear to employees they were expected to "avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail accounts." The message also said employees should not "auto-forward Department email to personal email accounts which is prohibited by Department policy.”
The 2011 cable, bearing the subject line “Securing Personal E-mail Accounts,” told employees to secure personal/home email addresses, given increased targeting of government employees by “online adversaries.” It also emphasized that these personal accounts should never be used for government business and cited department procedures which prohibit the practices.
The cited section from the Foreign Affairs Manual states: “It is the Department’s general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized AIS [the authorized department information system] which has the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information. … Employees should be aware that transmissions from the Department’s OpenNet to and from non-U.S. Government Internet addresses, and other .gov or .mil addresses, unless specifically directed through an approved secure means, traverse the Internet unencrypted.”
I just find it interesting that the traditional media is actually reporting this Clinton ordeal.
It's almost as if, they don't want Clinton to be the nominee and is trying to recruit Warren, or even, gasp... Al Gore!
I mean, the Clinton's are arguably the most corrupt, craven politicians we've ever seen...and traditionally, the media/low-information voters don't give a feth.
I don't know. Knowing the voting public, this news will be forgotten LONG before the actual election, or even the primary. If Clinton feels she can still run the news will come back during the election and be assessed as 'We already knew that!' and 'What difference does it make?' and won't really sway anyone. Those that dislike Clinton will continue to do so, and those that like her won't see this as an issue.
Breaking it now helps it not be the headline getting Surprise! during the election and will allow her to frame the Real Issues as she sees fit.
whembly wrote: I mean, the Clinton's are arguably the most corrupt, craven politicians we've ever seen
I would love to hear this explanation in a world where the Kennedy family exists.
See what I mean?
Dude... there are numerous information you can research yourself... the clintons we're rocked with numerous scandals... everyone appears to only remember the "Lewinski" ordeal and that was the most benign.
Just google "Clinton Scandal". o.O
This is all from memory.
Besides the ongoing issues with the Clinton Foundation, accused of influence peddling to foreign interests for cashola...
TravelGate: Whereas clintons were accused of "siccing" the FBI on folks.
Whitewater. Which was a real estate scam designed to cause investors to fail to meet difficult standards, thus default on any payments made on land.
Fundraising Shenanigans via the Lincoln Room in the White House.
Pay for Play Pardons. Four of the WhiteWater "crooks" got pardoned and convicted terrorist as well.
The Gorlick "wall": It was discovered that President Clinton accepted money from Chinese officials to influence American policy towards China. Determined to avoid accountability for what they'd done, the Clinton administration tried to hamper any investigations. It was decided that to ensure these agencies couldn't share info between each other that might connect the dots and lead to the Clintons. Thus, this policy was known as the "Gorlick Wall" between the agencies. However, this decision made it harder for these agencies to share information with their investigations had other consequences. Namely, the lead up to 9/11. The lack of sharing information between agencies, enforced to cover the Clinton's asses, prevented these agencies to effectively thwart 9/11. Adding insult to injury, the Clintons pulled strings to ensure that Gorlick was ON 9/11 commission!
Lewinski tried to blackmail Clinton. Vernon Jorden, a "fixer", tried to get her a cushy job at Revlon, which didn't happen because Tripp released the tapes later.
And many, many more...
Now... I said "arguably the most corrupt", and the Kennedys are just as bad.
However... ALL OF THIS... is baked in.
So, it doesn't matter.
This current hot issue, with respect to Hillary's email ordeal, will be older than dirt when the next election season is upon us.
) I figured I create a new generic one.
The alternative is that if there was actually a scandal deep in the heart of the Clintons, the Republicans would have found it by now. They've been trying for 20 years. It may be that nothing has ever stuck because there isn't actually anything to stick to them. When all you find is, oh my god, a politician is an adulterer, then maybe there isn't anything real to find?
