I may have derived my number from murders, rather than violent crime with some bad math/rounding... I found this chart on my computer.
That still indicates that white people committed more murders than black people during the relevant period: 2755 for white people and 2698 for black people. Nowhere near the suspiciously round 65% number you initially produced.
I may have derived my number from murders, rather than violent crime with some bad math/rounding... I found this chart on my computer.
That still indicates that white people committed more murders than black people during the relevant period: 2755 for white people and 2698 for black people. Nowhere near the suspiciously round 65% number you initially produced.
Well, that's to be expected from... what are whites now, 63% to the black 13%? Of course they committed more.
Here, scroll down to 1932 and then continue up until 1982. So well beyond WW2, but you know that, right?
You should do some research before attempting to talk about something with some sort of authority.
His tax plan, on average, has every single American paying more. I think mine was calculated to be around 10% more.
On the top, he's got 55%.
I mean, I did the research. I double, triple-checked. I like being proven wrong.
But no, our 1% now? Yeah, you're a fool if you think so. Back in 2013, I believe, there was some major stink about the wealthiest people placing their funds in tax shelters and relocating. I wouldn't blame them if they did. If I were that rich, just as soon as that insane tax law hit- I'd up and move it.
I think I could probably do some digging on what tax laws have changed but... that be a monster.
And besides, in my experience most Bernie supporters are worse at math than I am.
And the old coot has been talking about a 90% tax plan in the past- like, way back (the 80's, maybe after? I don't know). When he had more hair that he didn't comb.
Even still, my point stands...
The President cannot change the taxes. He can make all these promises all day long, you're not gonna 'feel the Bern' on this. Empty promises, all of them.
I may have derived my number from murders, rather than violent crime with some bad math/rounding... I found this chart on my computer.
That still indicates that white people committed more murders than black people during the relevant period: 2755 for white people and 2698 for black people. Nowhere near the suspiciously round 65% number you initially produced.
Well, that's to be expected from... what are whites now, 63% to the black 13%? Of course they committed more.
Here, scroll down to 1932 and then continue up until 1982. So well beyond WW2, but you know that, right?
You should do some research before attempting to talk about something with some sort of authority.
His tax plan, on average, has every single American paying more. I think mine was calculated to be around 10% more.
On the top, he's got 55%.
I mean, I did the research. I double, triple-checked. I like being proven wrong.
But no, our 1% now? Yeah, you're a fool if you think so. Back in 2013, I believe, there was some major stink about the wealthiest people placing their funds in tax shelters and relocating. I wouldn't blame them if they did. If I were that rich, just as soon as that insane tax law hit- I'd up and move it.
I think I could probably do some digging on what tax laws have changed but... that be a monster.
And besides, in my experience most Bernie supporters are worse at math than I am.
And the old coot has been talking about a 90% tax plan in the past- like, way back (the 80's, maybe after? I don't know). When he had more hair that he didn't comb.
I have just proven you wrong. It was fun and everything, but you have not proven anything to me yet. All you have said is "Oh, I have done the math. Trust me, the math has been done." Okay, can I see it?
So, anecdote anecdote "bernie cultists!" anecdote anecdote. Come on, give me something.
So, anecdote anecdote "bernie cultists!" anecdote anecdote. Come on, give me something.
The President doesn't determine the taxes.
There' that's something. I spent 20 minutes of my time, trying to find a solid plan and then realized the old coot couldn't do a damned thing.
You have fun believing he can...
Bernie Cultist.
I gotta give it to you kids, though. I admire your spirit. You're not as insane as other Candidate Cultists.
Also, you didn't prove me wrong.
Our taxes were highest in WW2.
I stated something that hasn't happened yet, unless you can see the future- you can't say I'm 'wrong', you can only say it hasn't happened. If you can see the future, we need to start placing some bets on races and ball games.
So, anecdote anecdote "bernie cultists!" anecdote anecdote. Come on, give me something.
The President doesn't determine the taxes.
There' that's something. I spent 20 minutes of my time, trying to find a solid plan and then realized the old coot couldn't do a damned thing.
You have fun believing he can...
Bernie Cultist.
I gotta give it to you kids, though. I admire your spirit. You're not as insane as other Candidate Cultists.
Also, you didn't prove me wrong.
Our taxes were highest in WW2.
I stated something that hasn't happened yet, unless you can see the future- you can't say I'm 'wrong', you can only say it hasn't happened. If you can see the future, we need to start placing some bets on races and ball games.
You haven't proven anything wrong.
EDIT: EDIT:
Hold on, working with Excel.
You do know that it is a progressive tax rate and you are only paying the higher rate on money you make after 250k, right?
Brother Armiger wrote: Mr. Sanders has made multiple statements that borderline foolish. I must be honest, at some point I'm waiting for him to come out and state that he was pulling our legs and just wanted to show us how gullible the low-information voters truly are. If you genuinely believe you can tax 'the one percent' and other high-income families an astronomical amount of money... and they'll just sit here and take it? You're delusional. These individuals will relocate themselves or their money to tax shelters, and we will be sitting on programs that have to be funded -somehow-.... so guess who's footing that bill? Also I would respect the man a little more if he could comb his hair.
Why are you avoiding someone pointing out that or top-end tax bracket was 70% in 1982? In fact, they were 91% up until 1963. You expressed the idea that if you raise taxes on the top end by a significant percentage, they would all flee the country, but in fact there was a period of 20 years where taxes were nearly triple what they are now, and that didn't happen, followed by a period of 20 years were they were almost double where they are now, and that didn't happen.
Also, I could be mistaken since you keep pointing out how stupid Bernie Sanders supporters are, but I believe World War 2 was over slightly previous to 1963.
Also, I could be mistaken since you keep pointing out how stupid Bernie Sanders supporters are, but I believe World War 2 was over slightly previous to 1963.
I didn't even get that far. But, I'm trying to find comparisons with more adjustment for inflations. Also- what was our economy like then, compared to now? That's what I'm trying to find.
And I don't keep pointing it out, that happens on its own.
Don't feel bad, though. The Trumpet Blowers are worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: Half their lively hood? The $250k to $411,500 is only going up 4 percent from 33% to 37%. What are you on about?
I'm reading them at 62%, I was being generous. Where's yours coming from?
Also, I could be mistaken since you keep pointing out how stupid Bernie Sanders supporters are, but I believe World War 2 was over slightly previous to 1963.
I didn't even get that far. But, I'm trying to find comparisons with more adjustment for inflations.
And I don't keep pointing it out, that happens on its own.
Don't feel bad, though. The Trumpet Blowers are worse.
So wait, you didn't even look at the resources I gave you after asking for a citation? You are the one asking!
I just..... hrrghhhghgrhgh..... my head...... aghgrhrghgrrrghghghghrrghgh someone help me!
Also, here is this. If you want to look up his tax rate plan instead of, from what I can assume, making up numbers out of thin air?
At this point I'm still waiting on you to tell me how a President is going to alter our tax plan. Just saying. But I'll give it a look.
OK, looked it over. Is this his most recent? Because I'm looking at 3 of them now, and the one you showed has no change for my bracket, another (from a Progressive outlet) has me going up 2.2%
Also, here is this. If you want to look up his tax rate plan instead of, from what I can assume, making up numbers out of thin air?
At this point I'm still waiting on you to tell me how a President is going to alter our tax plan. Just saying. But I'll give it a look.
You do know that the President is able to propose bills and legislation correct? How do you think Obamacare happened? You also know that Presidents have executive orders, right?
Listen, I get that you like moving the goal posts and everything. But really, this is getting absurd.
29, January, 2016. It is the most recent one I am aware of.
Dreadwinter wrote: Listen, I get that you like moving the goal posts and everything. But really, this is getting absurd.
29, January, 2016. It is the most recent one I am aware of.
It's fine. It's a very cute little plan that he can't make happen. Wow, taxes, cool. I'll concede completely that this is an 'interesting' plan, and it doesn't look bad on paper (provided it's current, doesn't change, etc.) Will that please you?
Now please explain how he's going to make something happen.
Because he can 'propose', and it'll get shot down. He can do an executive order, and it can also get shot down.
He has very little power.
You call it 'moving the goalposts'. I call it 'how are you going to do this'. Are you more concerned about winning this argument?
Dreadwinter wrote: Listen, I get that you like moving the goal posts and everything. But really, this is getting absurd.
29, January, 2016. It is the most recent one I am aware of.
It's fine. It's a very cute little plan that he can't make happen. Wow, taxes, cool. I'll concede completely that this is an 'interesting' plan, and it doesn't look bad on paper (provided it's current, doesn't change, etc.) Will that please you?
Now please explain how he's going to make something happen.
Because he can 'propose', and it'll get shot down. He can do an executive order, and it can also get shot down.
He has very little power.
You call it 'moving the goalposts'. I call it 'how are you going to do this'. Are you more concerned about winning this argument?
Not really. I realized a few posts back when you were clearly ignoring information I was giving you that I would never win this argument. However you continued to ask for things so I obliged you with answers. There is no winning this argument with you, but I will provide you with information with hopes that you will use it to stop spreading misinformation.
Brother Armiger wrote: It's fine. It's a very cute little plan that he can't make happen. Wow, taxes, cool. I'll concede completely that this is an 'interesting' plan, and it doesn't look bad on paper (provided it's current, doesn't change, etc.) Will that please you?
Now please explain how he's going to make something happen.
Because he can 'propose', and it'll get shot down.
If the Democrats also take the Senate in November, which isn't exactly a longshot, then it would be quite likely he could get tax policy successfully implemented.
He can do an executive order, and it can also get shot down.
It's possible to override an executive order via congressional mandate, then presumably the president will veto it, and it requires a 2/3rd super-majority to override the veto. Bad as math as I am, the numbers are not there to override that veto; an executive order would stand unless ruled unconstitutional.
Not really. I realized a few posts back when you were clearly ignoring information I was giving you that I would never win this argument. However you continued to ask for things so I obliged you with answers. There is no winning this argument with you, but I will provide you with information with hopes that you will use it to stop spreading misinformation.
That is all I want really.
'Misinformation' - by suggesting that something could happen? Yes, it didn't happen before. At least not that I can find. Could it? Entirely possible. I don't know what tax shelters are available.
I get it. You're dedicated to your candidate, one of whom I think is bad option #3 out of 4 bad options.
A lot of this guy's ideas I liked at one point- he was not a gun-grabber. He was non-interventionist.
I'm still never going to think that a universal $15.00 minimum wage is going to do anything more than drive up prices and just create inflation- worse, before the other jobs have time to catch up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: It's possible to override an executive order via congressional mandate, then presumably the president will veto it, and it requires a 2/3rd super-majority to override the veto. Bad as math as I am, the numbers are not there to override that veto; an executive order would stand unless ruled unconstitutional.
I'm not worried about it. The last one I saw go through, that I was tracking was the Private Sale Order... and I'm not certain where it is now. I don't think it was opposed.
Yeah, by legal challenge or legislative action. Both of those things take time, and the latter may never come to pass given the current political climate.
Wow, wait. So because I understand history and I support a candidate that is wanting to do something that has been shown to work historically, I am wanting free stuff now?
Could you sound more like a low information voter right now? "He is a Bernie supporter, all he wants is free things!"
Well, that's to be expected from... what are whites now, 63% to the black 13%? Of course they committed more.
It didn't seem so obvious to you when you claimed that 15% of the population (read: black people) committed 65% of all violent crime.
Hey, when you're presented with information you take things into consideration. I was mistaken. Would you prefer I delete it and put my hand down your trousers?
No, I'd prefer politeness in your posts though. This is now, instead of a general thread warning, a very user-specific warning. Cool it mate.
Clinton email probe enters new phase as FBI interviews loom
Fderal prosecutors investigating the possible mishandling of classified materials on Hillary Clinton’s private email server have begun the process of setting up formal interviews with some of her longtime and closest aides, according to two people familiar with the probe, an indication that the inquiry is moving into its final phases.
Those interviews and the final review of the case, however, could still take many weeks, all but guaranteeing that the investigation will continue to dog Clinton’s presidential campaign through most, if not all, of the remaining presidential primaries.
No dates have been set for questioning the advisors, but a federal prosecutor in recent weeks has called their lawyers to alert them that he would soon be doing so, the sources said. Prosecutors also are expected to seek an interview with Clinton herself, though the timing remains unclear.
Join the conversation on Facebook >>
The interviews by FBI agents and prosecutors will play a significant role in helping them better understand whether Clinton or her aides knowingly or negligently discussed classified government secrets over a non-secure email system when she served as secretary of State.
The meetings also are an indication that much of the investigators' background work – recovering deleted emails, understanding how the server operated and determining whether it was breached – is nearing completion.
“The interviews are critical to understand the volume of information they have accumulated,” said James McJunkin, former head of the FBI's Washington field office. “They are likely nearing the end of the investigation and the agents need to interview these people to put the information in context. They will then spend time aligning these statements with other information, emails, classified documents, etc., to determine whether there is a prosecutable case."
Many legal experts believe that Clinton faces little risk of being prosecuted for using the private email system to conduct official business when she served as secretary of State, though that decision has raised questions among some about her judgment. They noted that using a private email system was not banned at the time, and others in government had used personal email to transact official business.
The bigger question is whether she or her aides distributed classified material in email systems that fell outside of the department’s secure classified system. But even if prosecutors determine that she did, chances she will be found criminally liable are low. U.S. law makes it a crime for someone to knowingly or willfully retain classified information, handle it in a grossly negligent manner or to pass it to someone not entitled to see it.
Clinton has denied using the email account to send or receive materials marked classified. Though some emails have since been deemed to be too sensitive to release publicly, Clinton's campaign has attributed that to overzealous intelligence officials and "over-classification run amok."
Legally it doesn’t matter if the emails were marked as classified or not, since government officials are obligated to recognize sensitive material and guard against its release. But legal experts noted that such labels would be helpful to prosecutors seeking to prove she knew the information was classified, a key element of the law.
“The facts of the case do not fit the law,” said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at American University. “Reasonable folks may think that federal law ought to prohibit what Hillary did, but it’s just not clear to me that it currently does.”
Even so, her use of the private server, which was based at her home in New York, has become fodder for Clinton’s political foes as she campaigns to secure the Democratic nomination for president.
Though Sen. Bernie Sanders has largely declined to use the email scandal against her in the Democratic primary, Republicans have repeatedly said she should be indicted or disqualified from running for the nation's top office.
At a recent Democratic debate, Clinton grew exasperated when asked what she would do if indicted. “That’s not going to happen,” she said.
Her attorney, David Kendall, declined to comment. Her campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, said in an email that Clinton is ready to work with investigators to conclude the investigation.
“She first offered last August to meet and answer any questions they might have,” Fallon wrote. “She would welcome the opportunity to help them complete their work.”
Lawyers for her closest aides – Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan, Cheryl Mills and Philippe Reines – either did not respond to messages or declined to comment.
The Justice Department and FBI began their investigation after receiving what is known as a security referral in July from the inspector general for U.S. intelligence agencies, which at the time were in the midst of reviewing paper copies of nearly 30,500 emails Clinton turned over in 2014 that she said were work-related.
The State Department has since released all 3,871 pages of Clinton’s emails in its possession and has determined that 22 of her emails contained "top secret" information, though they were not marked as such as the time. Hundreds of others contained material that was either secret or confidential, two lower levels of classification.
After stepping down as secretary of State, Clinton, who has said she used her personal email to conduct personal and official business as a matter of convenience, told her staff to delete 31,830 emails on the server that she felt were non-work-related.
In August, the FBI obtained the server and has since recovered most, if not all, of the deleted correspondence, said a person familiar with the investigation.
FBI agents have finished their review of the server and the correspondence turned over by Clinton to the State Department. They have interviewed a number of former aides so they could better understand how the system was used and why Clinton chose to use it, the person said.
Federal prosecutors granted immunity to one of those aides, Bryan Pagliano, who helped set up the server in Clinton’s home. He has cooperated with the federal investigation and provided security logs that revealed no evidence of foreign hacking, according to a law enforcement official.
His lawyer, Mark MacDougall, did not respond to messages seeking comment.
The probe is being closely watched and supervised by the Justice Department’s top officials and prosecutors. FBI Director James B. Comey has said he has been regularly briefed on the investigation, which is being overseen by prosecutors in the Justice Department’s national security division.
The decision on whether to prosecute could be difficult. Vladeck, the law professor noted the differences between Clinton’s email issue and two previous cases involving the mishandling of classified material that resulted in prosecutions and guilty pleas.
In 2005, Sandy Berger, a former national security advisor, pleaded guilty to the unlawful removal and retention of national security information after being caught trying to smuggle classified documents out of the National Archives.
In another case, Gen. David Petraeus, a former CIA director, was investigated for knowingly allowing a mistress to read classified material as she researched a book about him. Petraeus eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified material and was spared prison time.
Legal experts said Petraeus’ actions were far more serious than anything Clinton is accused of doing. Clinton’s emails, even those later deemed classified, were sent to aides cleared to read them, for example, and not private citizens, they said.
Several of the lawyers involved in Clinton’s case are familiar with the differences. Petraeus’ defense lawyer was Kendall, who also represents Clinton. And a prosecutor helping oversee the Clinton email investigation was part of the team that obtained Petraeus’ guilty plea.
Election 2016 | Live coverage on Trail Guide | Track the delegate race | Sign up for the newsletter
“Those cases are just so different from what Clinton is accused of doing,” Vladeck said. “And the Justice Department lawyers know it.”
While she is not likely to face legal jeopardy, the emails could cause some political heartburn when the aides are questioned. However, short of an indictment or an explosive revelation, the controversy is not likely to alter the overall dynamics of the primary race or general election, political observers said.
"This is clearly disruptive to the campaign,” said Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster. “It will take her off message and coverage about important aides being questioned is not coverage you'd like to have. However, this issue is largely dismissed by Democratic primary voters and baked into the cake for the general electorate.”
TL;DR: here's the key bit:
No dates have been set for questioning the advisors, but a federal prosecutor in recent weeks has called their lawyers to alert them that he would soon be doing so, the sources said. Prosecutors also are expected to seek an interview with Clinton herself, though the timing remains unclear.
The interviews by FBI agents and prosecutors will play a significant role in helping them better understand whether Clinton or her aides knowingly or negligently discussed classified government secrets over a non-secure email system when she served as secretary of State.
Seems to entail that this FBI investigation is about to wrap up soonish...
Ustrello wrote: And nothing will happen and all of this whembly posturing will have been for naught
We shall see...
It can be an issue during the general election campaign...
Will the American voters be willing to vote for a candidate who was under a threat of an FBI indictment because she’s “the devil they know” vs the devil they don’t know?
If the FBI *does* recommend indictment, and the DOJ refuses to actually indict. The general election commercials against Hillary will write themselves.
Brother Armiger wrote: It's fine. It's a very cute little plan that he can't make happen. Wow, taxes, cool. I'll concede completely that this is an 'interesting' plan, and it doesn't look bad on paper (provided it's current, doesn't change, etc.) Will that please you?
Now please explain how he's going to make something happen.
Because he can 'propose', and it'll get shot down.
If the Democrats also take the Senate in November, which isn't exactly a longshot, then it would be quite likely he could get tax policy successfully implemented.
He can do an executive order, and it can also get shot down.
It's possible to override an executive order via congressional mandate, then presumably the president will veto it, and it requires a 2/3rd super-majority to override the veto. Bad as math as I am, the numbers are not there to override that veto; an executive order would stand unless ruled unconstitutional.
Even if the Democrats get a majority in the Senate it will likely be less than 60 seats and the Republicans will probably still control the House. A Republican House and Democratic Senate is going to make it difficult for any president to get his/her legislative proposal through the system intact. Even with a supermajority Congress has a way of twisting things around and doing what they want. The ACA is a prime example of that.
Executive orders are just directives issued to Federal Departments regarding how interpret and follow existing federal laws. It is illegal for presidents to use executive orders to make new laws. SCotUS rulings have enforced that limitation consistently and recently.
Every 4 years presidential candidates make promises about their policies that are no more than just pandering for votes. People get caught up with the cult of personality and hearing what they want to hear. People who think presidents change things need to remember that the real legislative power resides with Congress, the political body with horrendous approval ratings but where incumbents still win reelection more often than not. Our system is designed to be slow and to require broad consensus to enact changes and to be protected against sudden drastic change directed by individual politicians.
Ustrello wrote: And nothing will happen and all of this whembly posturing will have been for naught
We shall see...
If can be an issue during the general election campaign...
Will the American voters be willing to vote for a candidate who was under a threat of an FBI indictment because she’s “the devil they know” vs the devil they don’t know?
If the FBI *does* recommend indictment, and the DOJ refuses to actually indict. The general election commercials against Hillary will write themselves.
Whatever the outcome is going to be they are going to move at a glacial pace and continue to drag their feet and not take any action until after the election. A Democratic administration isn't going to deliberately torpedo Hillary Clinton's campaign. She may eventually get indicted but they'll wait until after she wins (or loses though that's unlikely) and then make it go away. The Clintons have spent the last quarter century building their power base in the Democratic Party, they created super delegates to make sure Hillary won when she ran again this year, they're not going to squash her campaign with a federal indictment.
Prestor Jon wrote: Whatever the outcome is going to be they are going to move at a glacial pace and continue to drag their feet and not take any action until after the election. A Democratic administration isn't going to deliberately torpedo Hillary Clinton's campaign. She may eventually get indicted but they'll wait until after she wins (or loses though that's unlikely) and then make it go away. The Clintons have spent the last quarter century building their power base in the Democratic Party, they created super delegates to make sure Hillary won when she ran again this year, they're not going to squash her campaign with a federal indictment.
Amazing! Still, you'd think they'd kill Hitler or something, instead of using their apparent powers of time travel to go back to 1982.
Prestor Jon wrote: Whatever the outcome is going to be they are going to move at a glacial pace and continue to drag their feet and not take any action until after the election. A Democratic administration isn't going to deliberately torpedo Hillary Clinton's campaign. She may eventually get indicted but they'll wait until after she wins (or loses though that's unlikely) and then make it go away. The Clintons have spent the last quarter century building their power base in the Democratic Party, they created super delegates to make sure Hillary won when she ran again this year, they're not going to squash her campaign with a federal indictment.
Amazing! Still, you'd think they'd kill Hitler or something, instead of using their apparent powers of time travel to go back to 1982.
The Democratic Party created superdelegates to make sure the Party's favored candidate won. They exist to give the Party more control over the process and to offset grass roots challengers from outside the Party's influence. The superdelegates exist to help candidates like Hillary Clinton against grass roots candidates like Obama and Sanders. The existence of superdelegates puts more pressure on outsider candidates to win a larger majority of primary delegates to keep superdelegates from being a deciding factor in the favor of the Party's preferred candidate. They were used to make sure Mondale won the nomination in 1984 and since then the number of Democratic Party leaders to be granted superdelegate status has only increased. They are a tool of the Party and the Clintons have spent decades cementing their status as Party leaders and favorites.
Prestor Jon wrote: Whatever the outcome is going to be they are going to move at a glacial pace and continue to drag their feet and not take any action until after the election. A Democratic administration isn't going to deliberately torpedo Hillary Clinton's campaign. She may eventually get indicted but they'll wait until after she wins (or loses though that's unlikely) and then make it go away. The Clintons have spent the last quarter century building their power base in the Democratic Party, they created super delegates to make sure Hillary won when she ran again this year, they're not going to squash her campaign with a federal indictment.
Amazing! Still, you'd think they'd kill Hitler or something, instead of using their apparent powers of time travel to go back to 1982.
I doubt she'll be indicted. I fully expect the FBI to issue a report that mistakes were made but none intentionally and that classified information was not compromised so no charges will be filed. Never forget that Hillary is still the wife of a living ex-President and has a powerful political machine backing her up. The FBI won't go against that unless multiple felonies are involved.
Ouze wrote: If the Democrats also take the Senate in November, which isn't exactly a longshot, then it would be quite likely he could get tax policy successfully implemented.
Even if the Democrats get a majority in the Senate it will likely be less than 60 seats and the Republicans will probably still control the House. A Republican House and Democratic Senate is going to make it difficult for any president to get his/her legislative proposal through the system intact. Even with a supermajority Congress has a way of twisting things around and doing what they want. The ACA is a prime example of that.
Prestor Jon wrote: Every 4 years presidential candidates make promises about their policies that are no more than just pandering for votes. People get caught up with the cult of personality and hearing what they want to hear. People who think presidents change things need to remember that the real legislative power resides with Congress, the political body with horrendous approval ratings but where incumbents still win reelection more often than not. Our system is designed to be slow and to require broad consensus to enact changes and to be protected against sudden drastic change directed by individual politicians.
Sure; but what I said was in response to someone saying that essentially the POTUS had no control over tax policy whatsoever. You know, and I know, and probably everyone else knows, that while of course laws are passed by Congress, the POTUS does set an agenda for some pieces and helps to get them passed. Otherwise, we'd be calling them the 107th Congress's Tax Cuts, for example.
Of course, I'd also have to point out the example you used of how little power the POTUS has to get an agenda passed with congressional gridlock - the ACA, did, in fact, pass and is, in fact, the law.
Ustrello wrote: Implying that the Republican party doesn't have their own versions of superdelegates
Who implied that?
The Parties have always controlled the primary process. They set the rules on candidacy eligibility, when states can hold primaries, when debates happen, who's invited to debates, what the rules are at the convention, who gets to vote in primaries and at the convention, etc. It's always been that way and it always will as long as the Parties exist. The Parties will act in their own perceived self interest, even if that goes against the expressed desires of a good chunk of the electorate.
Look, we must be honest. 15% of our population is responsible for over 65% of the violent crime. This is just a cold, hard, sad fact. That's the thing about facts- they don't care about how you feel.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics claimed that, in 2012-13, non-Hispanic white people accounted for 42.9% of violent crimes while non-Hispanic black people accounted for only 22.4%.
The thing about facts indeed.
The problem with the BJS reports is that they are based on the NCVS. Most law enforcement agencies and criminologists use the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, which are based on actual, verified reported crimes and arrests, from law enforcement agencies across the United States. Neither is 100% reliable in judging statistics. But the FBI system is based on hard data, so it's considered the most reliable of the two. When broken down into percentages with some individual types of offenses, blacks tend to run neck and neck with whites, and surpass them in other offenses, despite being only a little over 13% of the total U.S. population.
In 2014 (for example), according to the UCR, blacks were responsible for 50.9% of reported cases of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, versus 46.7 percent for whites, in arrests of those 18 and over. For arrests of offenders under 18 years of age, blacks came in at 57.0% versus 41.2 for whites. Totals for that offense listing across all age groups are Whites: 46.3%, Blacks: 51.3%
Even if the total percentages for crime across the board are taken into account (Whites: 69.4% and Blacks:27.8%), and not taking other races/ethnicities into account, that's still pretty damned high for blacks relative to their percentage in the population.
I'd be pretty surprised if the GOP doesn't have a more DNC style system going forward.
Shame on me for not being clear... I knew that.
GOP SuperDelegates <> Democrat SuperDelegates.
I'm not convinced the GOP would go the Democrat route after this season. All they really need to do, is to mandate "closed" primary/caucus. That'll put a damper on a hypothetical Trump-clone.
If, however, they want to stop someone like Cruz... then, yeah, SuperDelegates are going to be a thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: lemme backup here.
This could change. The GOP "SuperDelegates"... those same folks get at least three cracks at the Convention Rules prior to the Convention.
Ouze wrote: If the Democrats also take the Senate in November, which isn't exactly a longshot, then it would be quite likely he could get tax policy successfully implemented.
Even if the Democrats get a majority in the Senate it will likely be less than 60 seats and the Republicans will probably still control the House. A Republican House and Democratic Senate is going to make it difficult for any president to get his/her legislative proposal through the system intact. Even with a supermajority Congress has a way of twisting things around and doing what they want. The ACA is a prime example of that.
Prestor Jon wrote: Every 4 years presidential candidates make promises about their policies that are no more than just pandering for votes. People get caught up with the cult of personality and hearing what they want to hear. People who think presidents change things need to remember that the real legislative power resides with Congress, the political body with horrendous approval ratings but where incumbents still win reelection more often than not. Our system is designed to be slow and to require broad consensus to enact changes and to be protected against sudden drastic change directed by individual politicians.
Sure; but what I said was in response to someone saying that essentially the POTUS had no control over tax policy whatsoever. You know, and I know, and probably everyone else knows, that while of course laws are passed by Congress, the POTUS does set an agenda for some pieces and helps to get them passed. Otherwise, we'd be calling them the 107th Congress's Tax Cuts, for example.
Of course, I'd also have to point out the example you used of how little power the POTUS has to get an agenda passed with congressional gridlock - the ACA, did, in fact, pass and is, in fact, the law.
Yes, but I chose the ACA as an example because while the president went on an extensive speaking tour touting it as a plan that will let you keep your current health insurance plan, keep your doctor and lower your premiums, the bill that got passed by Congress didn't guarantee that at all. That's what happens when a bill works its way through multiple commitees and votes in Congress, things get changed, added, removed, etc. Ultimately the president gets somebody in congress to submit their legislative proposal and then if it makes it all the way through the process the president decides if the final bill resembles the original well enough to be worthy of signing into law or if Congress changed it so much that it should be vetoed.
Sanders could become president and get a representative in congress to submit his proposed tax reforms/changes. That proposal could go all the way through Congress, get back to Sanders desk and he could decide that it's so warped and changed that it's not worth him signing it into law.
The Earned Income Tax Credit was supposed to replace certain tax deduction and welfare programs but instead we just added and kept the rest too. The original intent of the EITC and the actual implementation of the EITC by Congress were different because Congress tends to do stuff like that.
I'd be pretty surprised if the GOP doesn't have a more DNC style system going forward.
Shame on me for not being clear... I knew that.
GOP SuperDelegates <> Democrat SuperDelegates.
I'm not convinced the GOP would go the Democrat route after this season. All they really need to do, is to mandate "closed" primary/caucus. That'll put a damper on a hypothetical Trump-clone.
If, however, they want to stop someone like Cruz... then, yeah, SuperDelegates are going to be a thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: lemme backup here.
This could change. The GOP "SuperDelegates"... those same folks get at least three cracks at the Convention Rules prior to the Convention.
If the GOP made all primaries closed primaries that would indeed likely prevent candidates with very limited Republican credentials like Trump from winning the nomination. The draw back would be that you'd shrink the size of the primary electorate and run the risk of selecting a nominee who didn't appeal to a large enough segment of the national electorate to win the presidency. A more inclusive primary should be more indicative of national electability than exclusive closed primaries.
The number of people choosing to register as Independent is growing at a faster rate than membership in either Party and you don't want to alienate a pivotal consituency for a national election.
As government employee, I want to point out that I really hope they don't start prosecuting people for accidental spills of classified material. They'd fill more prisons than the war on drugs!
Polonius wrote: As government employee, I want to point out that I really hope they don't start prosecuting people for accidental spills of classified material. They'd fill more prisons than the war on drugs!
THat's the crux of emailgate... no?
Was it accidental? Or was it sheer negligence?
You're a lawyer... right? There's a distinction between the two.
She was specifically informed on how to 'handle' these classified communications...
Ustrello wrote: And nothing will happen and all of this whembly posturing will have been for naught
We shall see...
It can be an issue during the general election campaign...
Will the American voters be willing to vote for a candidate who was under a threat of an FBI indictment because she’s “the devil they know” vs the devil they don’t know?
If the FBI *does* recommend indictment, and the DOJ refuses to actually indict. The general election commercials against Hillary will write themselves.
Honestly, Whembly, you really are grasping at straws here.
"Hillary was investigated for X and not indicted," won't convince anyone except people like you, who never would have voted for her anyway.
Kilkrazy wrote: "Hillary was investigated for X and not indicted," won't convince anyone except people like you, who never would have voted for her anyway.
Actually, it could be a rallying point around which right-wing anti-Trump people would come out and vote instead of staying home as many suggest they will.
whembly wrote: If it were anyone else... that person would be in serious legal gak.
While your naiveté is charming, I highly doubt this.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of people that have some sort of security clearance. How many prosecutions under this statute actually occur? How many military officers accidently send classified material to their fantasy football buddies? How many political appointees divulge things after a change in administration?
As a rule, laws regarding disclosure aren't enforced unless there is a known disclosure. that hasn't happened here, instead, there's a long and thorough look for possibly disclosures.
I don't know much about the specifics, but I really, really doubt all high ranking people with security clearances could survive an audit.
Kilkrazy wrote: "Hillary was investigated for X and not indicted," won't convince anyone except people like you, who never would have voted for her anyway.
Actually, it could be a rallying point around which right-wing anti-Trump people would come out and vote instead of staying home as many suggest they will.
That's the hope, but it's just not an interesting scandal. It's red meat to people that hated Hillary, but it's been my experience that people don't need a reason to hate her.
It doesn't help her reputation as "vaguely shady" of course.
Kilkrazy wrote: "Hillary was investigated for X and not indicted," won't convince anyone except people like you, who never would have voted for her anyway.
Actually, it could be a rallying point around which right-wing anti-Trump people would come out and vote instead of staying home as many suggest they will.
Well, good luck!
"After weeks of exhaustive investigation Hilary wasn't guilty" isn't a rallying point except for the very, very sad.
Will the American voters be willing to vote for a candidate who was under a threat of an FBI indictment because she’s “the devil they know” vs the devil they don’t know?
Yes, because the only people who care about this investigation are the people who wouldn't vote for her under any circumstance anyway.
whembly wrote: If it were anyone else... that person would be in serious legal gak.
While your naiveté is charming, I highly doubt this.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of people that have some sort of security clearance. How many prosecutions under this statute actually occur? How many military officers accidently send classified material to their fantasy football buddies? How many political appointees divulge things after a change in administration?
As a rule, laws regarding disclosure aren't enforced unless there is a known disclosure. that hasn't happened here, instead, there's a long and thorough look for possibly disclosures.
I don't know much about the specifics, but I really, really doubt all high ranking people with security clearances could survive an audit.
Kilkrazy wrote: "Hillary was investigated for X and not indicted," won't convince anyone except people like you, who never would have voted for her anyway.
Actually, it could be a rallying point around which right-wing anti-Trump people would come out and vote instead of staying home as many suggest they will.
That's the hope, but it's just not an interesting scandal. It's red meat to people that hated Hillary, but it's been my experience that people don't need a reason to hate her.
It doesn't help her reputation as "vaguely shady" of course.
If Clinton, or her staff doesn't get indicted... then, General Patreous (andothers) needs a mulligan.
She and her staff are, at the very least, just as guilty as he was.
Do me a favor and read these posts by John R. Schindler. He's not a GOP honk (and really, an equal opportunity GOP/Democrat hater).... but, he's certainly the guy who knows a ton about classified procedures, John R. Schindler:
Previously a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College, where he taught courses on security, strategy, intelligence, terrorism, and military history, before joining the NWC faculty, he spent nearly a decade with the super-secret National Security Agency as an intelligence analyst and counterintelligence officer. There’s not much he can say about that, except that he worked problems in Eastern Europe and the Middle East with a counterespionage flavor, and he collaborated closely with other government agencies who would probably prefer he didn’t mention them. He’s also served as an officer specializing in cryptology (now called information warfare for no particular reason) in the U.S. Navy Reserve.
After reading his posts and the plethoraof links this author provides to educate his readers... these are the criminal U.S. codes to think about:
18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information 18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally 18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records 18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees 18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations 18 U.S. Code § 1031 — Fraud against the United States 18 U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television 18 U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud” 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the United States 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense
Then, play the what ifs...
Just look at all the evidence together, and replace the name from Sec of State Hillary Clinton to a Generic Sec of State under a GOP Administration...
And that same Generic Sec of State under the previous GOP Administration, is NOW THE GOP FRONTRUNNER.
whembly wrote: Just look at all the evidence together, and replace the name from Sec of State Hillary Clinton to a Generic Sec of State under a GOP Administration...
And that same Generic Sec of State under the previous GOP Administration, is NOW THE GOP FRONTRUNNER.
What do you think the response should be?
I'm not going to read a pile of stuff. It's possible she broke the law. It's possible that she didn't. I don't know the law or the facts well enough to make a judgment. I'm not going to pretend like I understand this enough to be outraged. I'm sure you can explain to me why I should be, but that's not going to change that I don't care.
I don't think I'd care much if it was the GOP front runner either. I think if you look at my posting history, you probably haven't seen my get overly bent about scandals, regardless of side.
Do I think the coverage of this would be much different if it was the GOP frontrunner? Maybe? I think we'd all be excited at a GOP frontrunner that had actually actively participated in the Federal Government, instead of trying to burn it down (that's my partisan humor). Seriously, you have to remember all the stuff about W that boiled up in 2000? The DUI? The sketchy ANG service? This stuff comes up, man. It's background noise.
It's a fun football to kick around, but nobody cares, or at least nobody cares enough to change their vote over it.
whembly wrote: Just look at all the evidence together, and replace the name from Sec of State Hillary Clinton to a Generic Sec of State under a GOP Administration...
And that same Generic Sec of State under the previous GOP Administration, is NOW THE GOP FRONTRUNNER.
What do you think the response should be?
I'm not going to read a pile of stuff. It's possible she broke the law. It's possible that she didn't. I don't know the law or the facts well enough to make a judgment. I'm not going to pretend like I understand this enough to be outraged. I'm sure you can explain to me why I should be, but that's not going to change that I don't care.
I don't think I'd care much if it was the GOP front runner either. I think if you look at my posting history, you probably haven't seen my get overly bent about scandals, regardless of side.
Do I think the coverage of this would be much different if it was the GOP frontrunner? Maybe? I think we'd all be excited at a GOP frontrunner that had actually actively participated in the Federal Government, instead of trying to burn it down (that's my partisan humor). Seriously, you have to remember all the stuff about W that boiled up in 2000? The DUI? The sketchy ANG service? This stuff comes up, man. It's background noise.
It's a fun football to kick around, but nobody cares, or at least nobody cares enough to change their vote over it.
All I can say is that, if you spent the time to read those links with a non-partisan eye and do some research (the author provides numerous links for you to springboard further digging). I'd argue that you may change your mind in this...
I believe it's much more serious than a "fun football",
We're talking about the idea that our nation's classified information (so far, over 2000 born-on-date emails been discovered) may have been egregiously compromised by a Clinton States Department, all in the name of subverting public FOIA requests. We're talking about intentional acts... not, an accidental spillage.
We *know* that the DOJ isn't going to want to indict Clinton and her staff... because that's actually a POLITICAL question.
But, we will want to know if the FBI would recommend indictment.
There's merits for some serious vetting by the FBI... no? This is something we would WANT to know about prior to the November elections... right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: You say that like the Clinton's are not above the law....
I know I'm preaching to the choir here... but, no political figure should be *accepted* as above the law...
We're talking about the idea that our nation's classified information (so far, over 2000 born-on-date emails been discovered) may have been egregiously compromised by a Clinton States Department, all in the name of subverting public FOIA requests. We're talking about intentional acts... not, an accidental spillage.
That's one interpretation, sure. But please don't pretend it is the only possible one. Do not attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
We're talking about the idea that our nation's classified information (so far, over 2000 born-on-date emails been discovered) may have been egregiously compromised by a Clinton States Department, all in the name of subverting public FOIA requests. We're talking about intentional acts... not, an accidental spillage.
That's one interpretation, sure. But please don't pretend it is the only possible one. Do not attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
So... it's either incompetence?
Or... it's a malfeasance act?
One or the other. You choose...
Not exactly something you'd want on a potential Presidential candidate...
No one cares if the President is incompetent with IT. That's why IT nerds have jobs.
Wake me up if the FBI charges her with anything.
Someone said it before, and it's worth saying again. The only people who care about Clinton's unwise server arrangement are ones who hate her to begin with. I'd like to see her go to jail just so I don't have to read about this most boring of scandals over and over again. And if she was in prison, I'd still vote for her over Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. Those dudes pretty much just suck.
I choose politically savvy enough to know how far she can go before getting indicted and throwing away the election while at the same time making the opposite side chase their tails to find anything that sticks while looking foolish in the process.
How's that going to turn out for her? Stay tuned, but I have my bets...
With Bernie Sanders now slightly ahead of Clinton nationally in the latest Bloomberg poll, it’s time to reevaluate the meaning of pragmatism. Hillary Clinton might be ahead of Bernie Sanders in delegates, but Vermont’s Senator has a monopoly on political momentum. Sadly, his opponent has a monopoly on controversy, and will face FBI interviews in the near future. A Los Angeles Times article titled Clinton email probe enters new phase as FBI interviews loom highlights why Clinton’s campaign is stuck in political quicksand:
Federal prosecutors investigating the possible mishandling of classified materials on Hillary Clinton’s private email server have begun the process of setting up formal interviews with some of her longtime and closest aides, according to two people familiar with the probe, an indication that the inquiry is moving into its final phases.
Prosecutors also are expected to seek an interview with Clinton herself, though the timing remains unclear.
Yes, federal prosecutors will interview Hillary Clinton, in addition to her close associates.
At what point will establishment Democrats admit this fiasco is horrible for a general election?
When federal prosecutors are interviewing your candidate for president, even Donald Trump has a good chance at the White House.
Furthermore, former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey believes A Criminal Charge is Justified. Former Obama intelligence official Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn says that “If it were me, I would have been out the door and probably in jail.” Former NSA director Michael Hayden called Clinton’s email setup “stupid and dangerous.” Even Edward Snowden, the antithesis of America’s intelligence community in many ways, says it’s “ridiculous” to think Clinton’s emails were secure.
It’s time for Democrats to deal with reality, not just allegiance to a political icon, and rally around the only candidate not linked to an FBI investigation, and other controversies. With recent victories and future wins ahead, Bernie Sanders has all the political momentum heading towards Election Day. Most importantly, Bernie Sanders is the only leading candidate with positive favorability ratings in 2016.
Hillary Clinton has negative favorability ratings in ten national polls. When people forget about Trump’s rallies, and the billionaire pivots to his former identity as a Democrat (“I probably identify more as a Democrat”), then the Clinton campaign is in big trouble.
In terms of these favorability polls, Hillary Clinton holds negative ratings by an over 10-point margin in 9 of these polls.
The fact that in 9 out of 10 national polls, Clinton is viewed in a negative manner by an over 10-point margin should worry anyone fearing Trump, or a Republican White House.
Clinton is even viewed unfavorably by a 21-point margin in a March CBS/Times poll. Democrats can’t run a winning presidential campaign with the slogan, “We’ll save you from Trump with a person who’s less despised.”
Furthermore, the Clinton campaign won’t tell you that nationally, 64% of women find Hillary Clinton “not honest and trustworthy.” Young feminists are choosing Bernie Sanders over potentially the first female president and 61.4% of women ages 18-29 prefer Bernie Sanders over Clinton.
In terms of the future of the Democratic Party, NPR writes “A recent Quinnipiac poll found that Sanders bests Clinton among 18- to 44-year-olds, 78 percent to 21 percent.” Because of this energy and enthusiasm, Bernie Sanders has raised more money than Clinton in February.
When Jann S. Wenner of Rolling Stone endorsed Hillary Clinton, Mr. Wenner wrote “Clinton is far more likely to win the general election than Sanders.” First, this statement is undermined by the fact Real Clear Politics shows Bernie Sanders defeating Donald Trump by 17.5 points in an average of national polls. In contrast, the “far more likely to win” Hillary Clinton beats Trump by 11.2 points, and this margin was less than 4 points several months ago, before Trump’s violent rallies.
Bernie Sanders hasn’t only “destroyed“ Donald Trump by a wider margin since last December, he’s performed better against Trump in national polls since last October. I wrote a piece on October 21, 2015 titled Bernie Sanders Defeats Trump By a Wider Margin Than Clinton in a General Election. From last October until today, Bernie Sanders has consistently outperformed Clinton in matchups against Donald Trump.
Also, nothing in the Rolling Stone piece endorsing Clinton mentions the ongoing FBI investigation. The Christian Science Monitor clearly states the nature of the FBI’s investigation, stating “The FBI is indeed conducting a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information on the private email server Clinton used for State Department communications.”
Yes, Hillary supporters, “The FBI is indeed conducting a criminal investigation.”
Like The Christian Science Monitor, The Washington Post has clearly stated the nature of the FBI’s investigation and in early March wrote that “The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked on Hillary Clinton’s private email server, as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.”
You’ve read the words correctly, and the FBI investigation is a “criminal investigation.”
Say it again, “criminal investigation.”
Even the best defense of Clinton’s email fiasco, a piece by Ruth Marcus titled Why Hillary Clinton is unlikely to be indicted over her private email server, states “Lucky for her, political idiocy is not criminal.”
This too, makes for an interesting campaign slogan.
However, “political idiocy” is indeed criminal, when there’s intent and motive involved in the idiotic behavior. The example given my Duke Law Journal regarding intent and motive states “As far as the criminal law is concerned, Donny intended and attempted to kill a human being; his motive for doing so is simply not relevant.”
Hillary Clinton might have been motivated by convenience, but she intended to circumvent government networks, and this intentional act resulted in 22 “Top Secret” emails on a private server.
Furthermore, everyone knows that convenience wasn’t the only reason Clinton had the private server. In addition, the FBI isn’t spending over one year investigating with 100 agents to give Hillary Clinton a parking ticket.
I explain in this YouTube segment why Hillary Clinton will likely face FBI indictments. I also state in a recent CNN International appearance with John Vause that Clinton indeed faces the possibility of indictment from the FBI investigation.
In addition to the political momentum favoring Bernie Sanders, Vermont’s Senator doesn’t have to worry about a cover-up. Like Watergate, Hillary Clinton’s political future rests upon the actions of others. A recent Reuters article describes the precarious state of Clinton’s campaign in a piece titled Role of tech who set up Clinton’s server unknown to bosses at State:
Wisecarver and Swart, who had worked in the department for decades, were soon swapping emails expressing confusion and surprise that a political appointee, a so-called Schedule C employee who is more commonly hired to work in the secretary of state’s offices, should be joining the IT department’s ranks...
The department told Reuters that Pagliano and Kennedy had little contact, and that Kennedy was unaware of the server or his subordinate’s role in running it. Nor did Wisecarver, Pagliano’s day-to-day boss, or Swart know, according to the former colleague, who said the IT office should have been informed.
Like Watergate, it’s the cover-up that dooms politicians, not necessarily the original act linked to unethical behavior.
Bryan Pagliano is just one of many people involved with the FBI’s investigation. Future indictments are likely, considering the scope of the FBI’s investigation and the bewilderment of top intelligence officials. With recent wins, and future wins on the horizon, political momentum is clearly on the side of Vermont’s Senator. It’s not pragmatic or realistic to champion Clinton, knowing that Bernie Sanders defeats Trump by a wider margin, without an FBI investigation, and with the highest favorability ratings of any candidate in 2016. I explain in another interview on CNN International with John Vause that voters should choose Bernie Sanders, if indeed they fear Donald Trump.
Remember, Trump can’t ask Bernie Sanders for his Goldman Sachs speech transcripts during a televised debate. Clinton’s campaign can’t even stand being pointed at, so just imagine Trump explaining why he donated to Clinton’s Senate campaigns during a debate. Bernie is by far the superior candidate, and already matches up better against GOP rivals; without the myriad of issues faced by Clinton. For the country, and especially the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton should concede the nomination to Bernie Sanders.
I don't buy the line that Sanders would be a whole lot better than Clinton. In truth, the GOP field has widdled down to the saddest potential nominees I may have ever seen come out (I can think of weaker Democrat fields). Trump has imploded any support he may have garnered from minorities and self-respecting women, and Cruz never had a chance to begin with due to his outmoded religio-political worldview. I just don't see it in the cards barring a highly improbable Independent Sanders run.
CptJake wrote: I'm not forgetting anything. You're taking my comment out of context, my post had nothing to do with Trump, supporting him or against him.
jasper76 said the GOP was responsible for Trump, whembly commented on that, I commented on whembly's post, you replied to that and then I responded to your comment.
And then you complained that my response was out of context because you weren't talking about Trump, when the context for the conversation was Trump. You actually took your own comment out of context. Which is amazing.
It was answering a comment stating the Tea Party was basically in control of the Republican Party. And it is not. The fact that even now Party Big Wigs are not behind Cruz solidifies my point.
There's a difference between absolute control, and influence way in excess of actual numbers. The Tea Party most definitely have the latter, but are complaining they don't have the former. Boo hoo for them.
Meanwhile there's a whole block of Republican voters, typically of little or no coherent ideology, who are flocking to Trump because the previous ideologies of movement conservatism and the Tea Party (which is basically movement conservatism turned to 11), were so deeply lacking for them. That's why the GOP, through its various ideological movements, are responsible for what's happened.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DutchWinsAll wrote: But yet, as a raw number, there are more economically depressed Whites that aren't putting up these same numbers. And knowing the murder victim doesn't change the fact it could be gang or drug related.
You shouldn't look just at present economic circumstances, but long term circumstances. Unemployment is a strong predictor of criminal behaviour, but inter-generational unemployment is a much stronger predictor.
And while it isn't going to be fun, just look at what's happening now as economic decline is starting to show as an inter-generational factor in rural towns. It's been interesting to note that all the nonsense rhetoric that followed the collapse of jobs in urban areas ('culture problem') are now being repeated about rural areas of the US. Crime rates will follow.
I was asking why the homicide rates for Black males are so much higher? A couple of people have said "economics" and thats part of it, but hardly the whole answer. Nor is my answer of strictly drugs and gangs. Gun ownership rates aren't terribly far off between the races. So what is it if not a combination of the first three?
There is certainly a combination of factors. I don't think anyone is dismissing drugs, but pointing out it isn't a major driver like the other two, and is itself largely a product of economic circumstances.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
shasolenzabi wrote: He needed around 58%-60% he has crushed that estimate so far. Hawaii looks to be another such win.
Sanders had a good week, but he's been strong in caucuses throughout the campaign. His problem is there's only 2 caucuses left now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: So while I personally would center my argument on living space, education and economics... I suppose you could also extend this argument a little bit to popular culture. By this I mean that there is a very large portion of the "Hip Hop World" (I use this term specifically to encompass music, rappers themselves, video channels like World Star, etc.) glorifies a particular type of person and a particular lifestyle. For many black youth, this is basically the only musical influence they have from birth till well after they reach 18. However, I cannot, and will not blame exclusively the musical apparatus, because that would be as stupid as blaming GTA games or "Metal" for why school shooters do their acts: there isn't a single bogeyman present to blame, it's a host of ingredients mixing in the right way.
I think it's probably also a case of art imitating life. "Hip Hop Culture" is likely reflecting culture as it responds to economic circumstances, more than shaping it. This isn't to say that culture doesn't have an impact, but I'd say it more reinforces economic realities, than creates issues by itself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brother Armiger wrote: These particular individuals, the 'good whites' always remove the agency of black and hispanic people. Instead of holding them to the same standards that they'd hold themselves or any other human being with the same situation- they've treated them like helpless, untrained, wild animals. This is beyond insulting.
Holy crap that was a lot of text just to say 'socialism and do-gooders are responsible'. I think your political views will give you a shot at a long and lucrative career on talkback radio, if you work on your brevity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: The Democratic Party created superdelegates to make sure the Party's favored candidate won. They exist to give the Party more control over the process and to offset grass roots challengers from outside the Party's influence. The superdelegates exist to help candidates like Hillary Clinton against grass roots candidates like Obama and Sanders.
Obama won the superdelegate count in 2008. The system isn't meant to shut out the smaller candidates, it isn't really 'meant' to do anything. It's people with powerful inside positions in politics making sure they continue to have power to wield for favours.
They were used to make sure Mondale won the nomination in 1984 and since then the number of Democratic Party leaders to be granted superdelegate status has only increased.
Being used to make sure the guy who won the most votes secures the nomination is uh... not exactly the complaint I'd lead with when complaining about super-delegates. I mean, I don't like super-delegates but a bad argument is a bad argument.
You should probably stick with George McGovern, who lost the popular vote but romped in the delegates, because he was the first to figure out how the revised primary system worked. And he got pantsed in the general, which shows why going against the popular vote is a really bad idea.
jasper76 wrote: No one cares if the President is incompetent with IT. That's why IT nerds have jobs.
Wake me up if the FBI charges her with anything.
Someone said it before, and it's worth saying again. The only people who care about Clinton's unwise server arrangement are ones who hate her to begin with. I'd like to see her go to jail just so I don't have to read about this most boring of scandals over and over again. And if she was in prison, I'd still vote for her over Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. Those dudes pretty much just suck.
I agree, however this has substantially eroded her "trustworthiness" and "likeability" to the level of...Trump. What if the FBI/DOJ indicts her? What is they don't and the FBI agents in charge of the investigation resign in protest?
The Democrats are treading dangerous ground here, putting all their eggs into the Clinton basket.
The only reason I wouldn't presume intentional organized election fraud from what was described in the latter article is that if I were to pick the state that is least likely to do anything to benefit Hillary Clinton, Arizona would be a strong, strong contender for #1.
My gut feeling is incompetence. When you're over 700 delegates ahead of the other guy, it seems unlikely to organized a giant super visible conspiracy in s atate where the population is extremely hostile to you for the benefit of an extra 15 delegates. It's like racing out of your spacesuit on Venus because you saw a quarter; pretty bad ROI.
jasper76 wrote: No one cares if the President is incompetent with IT. That's why IT nerds have jobs.
Wake me up if the FBI charges her with anything.
Someone said it before, and it's worth saying again. The only people who care about Clinton's unwise server arrangement are ones who hate her to begin with. I'd like to see her go to jail just so I don't have to read about this most boring of scandals over and over again. And if she was in prison, I'd still vote for her over Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. Those dudes pretty much just suck.
I agree, however this has substantially eroded her "trustworthiness" and "likeability" to the level of...Trump.
What if the FBI/DOJ indicts her?
What is they don't and the FBI agents in charge of the investigation resign in protest?
The Democrats are treading dangerous ground here, putting all their eggs into the Clinton basket.
Then instead of President Clinton, we get President Sanders, which is just fine by me.
jasper76 wrote: No one cares if the President is incompetent with IT. That's why IT nerds have jobs.
Wake me up if the FBI charges her with anything.
Someone said it before, and it's worth saying again. The only people who care about Clinton's unwise server arrangement are ones who hate her to begin with. I'd like to see her go to jail just so I don't have to read about this most boring of scandals over and over again. And if she was in prison, I'd still vote for her over Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. Those dudes pretty much just suck.
I agree, however this has substantially eroded her "trustworthiness" and "likeability" to the level of...Trump.
What if the FBI/DOJ indicts her?
What is they don't and the FBI agents in charge of the investigation resign in protest?
The Democrats are treading dangerous ground here, putting all their eggs into the Clinton basket.
Then instead of President Clinton, we get President Sanders, which is just fine by me.
Scenario 1 is Trump, who has been begging minorities to vote against him in droves. He has also alienated self-respecting women. His domestic policies are a joke, and now we discover his foreign policy is a joke as well, as he intends to proliferate nuclear weapons and abandon our allies.
Scenario 2 is Cruz, and let's just stop there. He's Ted Cruz.
Scenario 3 is the GOP overriding the will of their voters through a contested convention, and whatever candidate might emerge from that process would be viewed as an illegitimate nominee by millions of voters across the political spectrum.
I don't see the GOP winning control of the White House in any scenario above. Who the Democratic nominee ends up being seems pretty immaterial.
Scenario 1 is Trump, who has been begging minorities to vote against him in droves. He has also alienated self-respecting women. His domestic policies are a joke, and now we discover his foreign policy is a joke as well, as he intends to proliferate nuclear weapons and abandon our allies.
Scenario 2 is Cruz, and let's just stop there. He's Ted Cruz.
Scenario 3 is the GOP overriding the will of their voters through a contested convention, and whatever candidate might emerge from that process would be viewed as an illegitimate nominee by millions of voters across the political spectrum.
I don't see the GOP winning control of the White House in any scenario above. Who the Democratic nominee ends up being seems pretty immaterial.
Indeed. From when that clown car first pulled up, it felt like they were rolling dice that had a 1 on each side. Even the eminently defeatable Hillary Clinton suddenly became nearly a shoo-in.
I would not be smug if I were a Hillary supporter. She's a lethally weak candidate, against an opponent who threw out the playbook. I'd also note the rise of "rightist" movements has occurred all across Europe, driven by many of the same considerations.
Trump/Hillary are the fault of the existing parties, for not addressing the real concerns of millions of Americans, first in the inner cities, and now in flyover country. The fact these two...unique individuals are potentially the representatives of either party shows in brilliant 70mm Technicolor that the system is broken.
Clinton is par for the course as far as Democrat nominees and politicians go. Slightly left of center domestically, and right of center on foreign policy. I don't know why you'd think Clinton was some kind of drastic departure from the norm of Democratic politics. We've been eating this meal for decades. Care to expand on what you mean?
TheMeanDM wrote: I support Sanders' ideas and would vote for him in the general...but would not vote for Clinton if she were in the feneral.
I am an independent voter...left leaning on some stuff..right leaning on other stuff.
Just curious (don't feel compelled to provide an answer if you don't want to), if you didn't vote for Clinton in the general, does that mean you would vote for Trump?
jasper76 wrote: Clinton is par for the course as far as Democrat nominees and politicians go. Slightly left of center domestically, and right of center on foreign policy. I don't know why you'd think Clinton was some kind of drastic departure from the norm of Democratic politics. We've been eating this meal for decades.
Exactly. The same positions. This is a change election. They voted for Obama for that. They want it now.
She can't campaign for squat. If she could she would have run through Sanders like the Missouri through a tugboat.
She can't keep it together on what her plans are, but the ones we know about: Libya, Syria were horrifically bad.
No one trusts her and thats a serious weakness.
jasper76 wrote: Clinton is par for the course as far as Democrat nominees and politicians go. Slightly left of center domestically, and right of center on foreign policy. I don't know why you'd think Clinton was some kind of drastic departure from the norm of Democratic politics. We've been eating this meal for decades.
Exactly. The same positions. This is a change election. They voted for Obama for that. They want it now.
She can't campaign for squat. If she could she would have run through Sanders like the Missouri through a tugboat.
She can't keep it together on what her plans are, but the ones we know about: Libya, Syria were horrifically bad.
No one trusts her and thats a serious weakness.
No one trusts Trump or Cruz either so I see that as a wash.
Prestor Jon wrote: The Democratic Party created superdelegates to make sure the Party's favored candidate won. They exist to give the Party more control over the process and to offset grass roots challengers from outside the Party's influence. The superdelegates exist to help candidates like Hillary Clinton against grass roots candidates like Obama and Sanders.
Obama won the superdelegate count in 2008. The system isn't meant to shut out the smaller candidates, it isn't really 'meant' to do anything. It's people with powerful inside positions in politics making sure they continue to have power to wield for favours.
They were used to make sure Mondale won the nomination in 1984 and since then the number of Democratic Party leaders to be granted superdelegate status has only increased.
Being used to make sure the guy who won the most votes secures the nomination is uh... not exactly the complaint I'd lead with when complaining about super-delegates. I mean, I don't like super-delegates but a bad argument is a bad argument.
You should probably stick with George McGovern, who lost the popular vote but romped in the delegates, because he was the first to figure out how the revised primary system worked. And he got pantsed in the general, which shows why going against the popular vote is a really bad idea.
Here's some good information on the 2008 Democratic Primary from ABC news:
Looking at the delegate charts we see that the popular vote was close throughout, that Hillary Clinton had a large lead in super delegates for the majority of the primary process but that changed at the very end after Obama won a commanding lead in the pledged delegate count. The superdelegates were choosing Hillary right up until the point when Obama won enough pledged delegates to ensure his victory. If Hillary had done better in the later primary contests she likely would have kept the superdelegates and won the nomination. The superdelegates clearly favored Hillary and kept supporting her right up until Obama's win became inevitable and then switched over.
If the Democratic Party wanted to ensure that the candidate that won the popular vote won the nomination they could have easily amended the rules to say just that. Instead of setting up the rule to say that whichever candidate won a majority or the largest plurality of votes wins the nomination the Democratic Party created superdelegates who aren't tethered to the popular vote at all and are made up exclusively of Party members and officials.
Geraldine Ferraro's Op Ed piece in the NYT from 2008 also makes it pretty clear that superdelegates are the mechanism through which the Party exerts control over the will of the voters.
Today, with the possibility that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will end up with about the same number of delegates after all 50 states have held their primaries and caucuses, the pundits and many others are saying that superdelegates should not decide who the nominee will be. That decision, they say, should rest with the rank-and-file Democrats who went to the polls and voted.
But the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country. I would hope that is why many superdelegates have already chosen a candidate to support.
Besides, the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats. Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year’s primaries — clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party’s membership — but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated.
If that is the case, we could end up with a nominee who has been actively supported by, at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats. That’s hardly a grassroots mandate.
More important, although many states like New York have closed primaries in which only enrolled Democrats are allowed to vote, in many other states Republicans and independents can make the difference by voting in Democratic primaries or caucuses.
In the Democratic primary in South Carolina, tens of thousands of Republicans and independents no doubt voted, many of them for Mr. Obama. The same rules prevail at the Iowa caucuses, in which Mr. Obama also triumphed.
He won his delegates fair and square, but those delegates represent the wishes not only of grassroots Democrats, but also Republicans and independents. If rank-and-file Democrats should decide who the party’s nominee is, each state should pass a rule allowing only people who have been registered in the Democratic Party for a given time — not nonmembers or day-of registrants — to vote for the party’s nominee.
I am ambivalent towards superdelegates. The political parties control the nominations and the methods by which nominees are chosen. I've been a registered Independent since I've been old enough to vote so I've never been a member of either party.
I think the superdelegates will play a deciding role in the Democratic primary this year because Hillary Clinton has spend decades establishing a base of power and influence within the party whereas Bernie Sanders has spent his time in Congress as an Independent (even though he caucuses with the Democrats on most issues). Superdelegates are party insiders, Clinton is a party insider, Sanders isn't so the advantage goes towards Clinton.
TheMeanDM wrote: I support Sanders' ideas and would vote for him in the general...but would not vote for Clinton if she were in the feneral.
I am an independent voter...left leaning on some stuff..right leaning on other stuff.
Just curious (don't feel compelled to provide an answer if you don't want to), if you didn't vote for Clinton in the general, does that mean you would vote for Trump?
Heavens no!
Undecided if I will write in Sanders or go with Jill Stein as I did in 2012
Frazzled wrote: Agreed, however that takes away a potential strength of hers.
Really, all she might have to do to mitigate the untrustworthiness/unlikeability issue is to run with Cory Booker. People love Cory Booker, and I think ots for good reason. I started looking up speeches and interviews with this guy after people started mentioning him as a potential VP. He's a better speaker than even Obama was IMO, and I'd think he would greatly increase the "likability" deficit Clinton suffers from. Just a thought anyways.
TheMeanDM wrote: I support Sanders' ideas and would vote for him in the general...but would not vote for Clinton if she were in the feneral.
I am an independent voter...left leaning on some stuff..right leaning on other stuff.
Just curious (don't feel compelled to provide an answer if you don't want to), if you didn't vote for Clinton in the general, does that mean you would vote for Trump?
Heavens no!
Undecided if I will write in Sanders or go with Jill Stein as I did in 2012
Gotcha. I had to look up Jill Stein. I never looked to hard into the Green Party. Now you've peaked my curiosity.
jasper76 wrote: No one cares if the President is incompetent with IT. That's why IT nerds have jobs.
Wake me up if the FBI charges her with anything.
Someone said it before, and it's worth saying again. The only people who care about Clinton's unwise server arrangement are ones who hate her to begin with. I'd like to see her go to jail just so I don't have to read about this most boring of scandals over and over again. And if she was in prison, I'd still vote for her over Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. Those dudes pretty much just suck.
Uh huh...
If you buy that Clinton email server arrangement was "unwise" in the sense that her communication may have been exposed, but you don't care because... I don't know... #YOLO?
If you at least acknowledge that... then, it's reasonable to expect that other foreign government has access to not only classified information during here SoS tenure, but any other less flattering information such as her dealings with her Clinton Foundation, and apparent "pay-to-play" schemes.
As President, she'd be exposed to god knows what BLACKMAIL materials our adversaries may have on her...
But, go ahead and advocate this woman to manage the nuclear football...
Hillary Clinton’s email problems began in her first days as secretary of state. She insisted on using her personal BlackBerry for all her email communications, but she wasn’t allowed to take the device into her seventh-floor suite of offices, a secure space known as Mahogany Row.
For Clinton, this was frustrating. As a political heavyweight and chief of the nation’s diplomatic corps, she needed to manage a torrent of email to stay connected to colleagues, friends and supporters. She hated having to put her BlackBerry into a lockbox before going into her own office.
Her aides and senior officials pushed to find a way to enable her to use the device in the secure area. But their efforts unsettled the diplomatic security bureau, which was worried that foreign intelligence services could hack her BlackBerry and transform it into a listening device.
On Feb. 17, 2009, less than a month into Clinton’s tenure, the issue came to a head. Department security, intelligence and technology specialists, along with five officials from the National Security Agency, gathered in a Mahogany Row conference room. They explained the risks to Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff, while also seeking “mitigation options” that would accommodate Clinton’s wishes.
“The issue here is one of personal comfort,” one of the participants in that meeting, Donald Reid, the department’s senior coordinator for security infrastructure, wrote afterward in an email that described Clinton’s inner circle of advisers as “dedicated [BlackBerry] addicts.”
Clinton used her BlackBerry as the group continued looking for a solution. But unknown to diplomatic security and technology officials at the department, there was another looming communications vulnerability: Clinton’s BlackBerry was digitally tethered to a private email server in the basement of her family home, some 260 miles to the north in Chappaqua, N.Y., documents and interviews show.
Those officials took no steps to protect the server against intruders and spies, because they apparently were not told about it.
The vulnerability of Clinton’s basement server is one of the key unanswered questions at the heart of a scandal that has dogged her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Since Clinton’s private email account was brought to light a year ago in a New York Times report — followed by an Associated Press report revealing the existence of the server — the matter has been a source of nonstop national news. Private groups have filed lawsuits under the Freedom of Information Act. Investigations were begun by congressional committees and inspector general’s offices in the State Department and the U.S. Intelligence Community, which referred the case to the FBI in July for “counterintelligence purposes” after determining that the server carried classified material.
The FBI is now trying to determine whether a crime was committed in the handling of that classified material. It is also examining whether the server was hacked.
One hundred forty-seven FBI agents have been deployed to run down leads, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey. The FBI has accelerated the investigation because officials want to avoid the possibility of announcing any action too close to the election.
The Washington Post reviewed hundreds of documents and interviewed more than a dozen knowledgeable government officials to understand the decisions and the implications of Clinton’s actions. The resulting scandal revolves around questions about classified information, the preservation of government records and the security of her email communication.
From the earliest days, Clinton aides and senior officials focused intently on accommodating the secretary’s desire to use her private email account, documents and interviews show.
Throughout, they paid insufficient attention to laws and regulations governing the handling of classified material and the preservation of government records, interviews and documents show. They also neglected repeated warnings about the security of the BlackBerry while Clinton and her closest aides took obvious security risks in using the basement server.
Senior officials who helped Clinton with her BlackBerry claim they did not know details of the basement server, the State Department said, even though they received emails from her private account. One email written by a senior official mentioned the server.
The scandal has pitted those who say Clinton was innocently trying to find the easiest way to communicate against those who say she placed herself above the law in a quest for control of her records. She and her campaign have been accused of confusing matters with contradictory and evolving statements that minimized the consequences of her actions.
Clinton, 68, declined to be interviewed. She has said repeatedly that her use of the private server was benign and that there is no evidence of any intrusion.
In a news conference last March, she said: “I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.”
During a Democratic debate on March 9, she acknowledged using poor judgment but maintained she was permitted to use her own server: “It wasn’t the best choice. I made a mistake. It was not prohibited. It was not in any way disallowed.”
The unfolding story of Clinton’s basement server has outraged advocates of government transparency and mystified political supporters and adversaries alike. Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., who is presiding over one of the FOIA lawsuits, has expressed puzzlement over the affair. He noted that Clinton put the State Department in the position of having to ask her to return thousands of government records — her work email.
“Am I missing something?” Sullivan asked during a Feb. 23 hearing. “How in the world could this happen?”
Hillary Clinton began preparing to use the private basement server after President Obama picked her to be his secretary of state in November 2008. The system was already in place. It had been set up for former president Bill Clinton, who used it for personal and Clinton Foundation business.
On Jan. 13, 2009, a longtime aide to Bill Clinton registered a private email domain for Hillary Clinton, clintonemail.com, that would allow her to send and receive email through the server.
Eight days later, she was sworn in as secretary of state. Among the multitude of challenges she faced was how to integrate email into her State Department routines. Because Clinton did not use desktop computers, she relied on her personal BlackBerry, which she had started using three years earlier.
For years, employees across the government had used official and private email accounts.
The new president was making broad promises about government transparency that had a bearing on Clinton’s communication choices. In memos to his agency chiefs, Obama said his administration would promote accountability through the disclosure of a wide array of information, one part of a “profound national commitment to ensuring an open government.” That included work emails.
One year earlier, during her own presidential campaign, Clinton had said that if elected, “we will adopt a presumption of openness and Freedom of Information Act requests and urge agencies to release information quickly.”
But in those first few days, Clinton’s senior advisers were already taking steps that would help her circumvent those high-flown words, according to a chain of internal State Department emails released to Judicial Watch, a conservative nonprofit organization suing the government over Clinton’s emails.
Leading that effort was Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff. She was joined by Clinton adviser Huma Abedin, Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy and Lewis Lukens, a senior career official who served as Clinton’s logistics chief. Their focus was on accommodating Clinton.
Mills wondered whether the department could get her an encrypted device like the one from the NSA that Obama used.
“If so, how can we get her one?” Mills wrote the group on Saturday evening, Jan. 24.
Lukens responded that same evening, saying he could help set up “a stand alone PC in the Secretary’s office, connected to the internet (but not through our system) to enable her to check her emails from her desk.”
Kennedy wrote that a “stand-alone separate network PC” was a “great idea.”
Abedin and Mills declined to comment for this article, according to Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon. Lukens also declined to comment, according to the State Department.
As undersecretary for management, Kennedy occupies a central role in Clinton’s email saga. The department acknowledged that Kennedy, as part of his normal duties, helped Clinton with her BlackBerry. But in a statement, the department said: “Under Secretary Kennedy maintains that he was unaware of the email server. Completely separate from that issue, Under Secretary Kennedy was aware that at the beginning of her tenure, Secretary Clinton’s staff was interested in setting up a computer at the Department so she could email her family during the work day.
“As we have previously made clear — no such computer was ever set up. Furthermore, Under Secretary Kennedy had very little insight into Secretary Clinton’s email practices including how frequently or infrequently then-Secretary Clinton used email.”
As it happened, Clinton would never have a government BlackBerry, personal computer or email account. A request for a secure device from the NSA was rebuffed at the outset: “The current state of the art is not too user friendly, has no infrastructure at State, and is very expensive,” Reid, the security official, wrote in an email on Feb. 13, adding that “each time we asked the question ‘What was the solution for POTUS?’ we were politely told to shut up and color.”
Clinton would continue to use her BlackBerry for virtually all of her government communication, but not on Mahogany Row.
Her first known BlackBerry communication through the basement server came on Jan. 28, 2009, when Clinton exchanged notes with Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, then chief of the U.S. Central Command, according to a State Department spokeswoman. It has not been released.
Few knew the details behind the new clintonemail.com address. But news about her choice to use her own BlackBerry spread quickly among the department’s diplomatic security and “intelligence countermeasures” specialists.
Their fears focused on the seventh floor, which a decade earlier had been the target of Russian spies who managed to plant a listening device inside a decorative chair-rail molding not far from Mahogany Row. In more recent years, in a series of widely publicized cyberattacks, hackers breached computers at the department along with those at other federal agencies and several major corporations.
The State Department security officials were distressed about the possibility that Clinton’s BlackBerry could be compromised and used for eavesdropping, documents and interviews show.
After the meeting on Feb. 17 with Mills, security officials in the department crafted a memo about the risks. And among themselves, they expressed concern that other department employees would follow the “bad example” and seek to use insecure BlackBerrys themselves, emails show.
As they worked on the memo, they were aware of a speech delivered by Joel F. Brenner, then chief of counterintelligence at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, on Feb. 24 at a hotel in Vienna, Va., a State Department document shows. Brenner urged his audience to consider what could have happened to them during a visit to the recent Beijing Olympics.
“Your phone or BlackBerry could have been tagged, tracked, monitored and exploited between your disembarking the airplane and reaching the taxi stand at the airport,” Brenner said. “And when you emailed back home, some or all of the malware may have migrated to your home server. This is not hypothetical.”
At the time, Clinton had just returned from an official trip that took her to China and elsewhere in Asia. She was embarking on another foray to the Middle East and Europe. She took her BlackBerry with her.
In early March, Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Eric Boswell delivered a memo with the subject line “Use of Blackberries in Mahogany Row.”
“Our review reaffirms our belief that the vulnerabilities and risks associated with the use of Blackberries in the Mahogany Row [redacted] considerably outweigh the convenience their use can add,” the memo said.
He emphasized: “Any unclassified Blackberry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving e-mails, and exploiting calendars.”
Nine days later, Clinton told Boswell that she had read his memo and “gets it,” according to an email sent by a senior diplomatic security official. “Her attention was drawn to the sentence that indicates (Diplomatic Security) have intelligence concerning this vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia,” the email said.
But Clinton kept using her private BlackBerry — and the basement server.
The server was nothing remarkable, the kind of system often used by small businesses, according to people familiar with its configuration at the end of her tenure. It consisted of two off-the-shelf server computers. Both were equipped with antivirus software. They were linked by cable to a local Internet service provider. A firewall was used as protection against hackers.
Few could have known it, but the email system operated in those first two months without the standard encryption generally used on the Internet to protect communication, according to an independent analysis that Venafi Inc., a cybersecurity firm that specializes in the encryption process, took upon itself to publish on its website after the scandal broke.
Not until March 29, 2009 — two months after Clinton began using it — did the server receive a “digital certificate” that protected communication over the Internet through encryption, according to Venafi’s analysis.
It is unknown whether the system had some other way to encrypt the email traffic at the time. Without encryption — a process that scrambles communication for anyone without the correct key — email, attachments and passwords are transmitted in plain text.
“That means that anyone could have accessed it. Anyone,” Kevin Bocek, vice president of threat intelligence at Venafi, told The Post.
The system had other features that made it vulnerable to talented hackers, including a software program that enabled users to log on directly from the World Wide Web.
Four computer-security specialists interviewed by The Post said that such a system could be made reasonably secure but that it would need constant monitoring by people trained to look for irregularities in the server’s logs.
“For data of this sensitivity . . . we would need at a minimum a small team to do monitoring and hardening,” said Jason Fossen, a computer-security specialist at the SANS Institute, which provides cybersecurity training around the world.
The man Clinton has said maintained and monitored her server was Bryan Pagliano, who had worked as the technology chief for her political action committee and her presidential campaign. It is not clear whether he had any help. Pagliano had also provided computer services to the Clinton family. In 2008, he received more than $5,000 for that work, according to financial disclosure statements he filed with the government.
In May 2009, with Kennedy’s help, Pagliano landed a job as a political employee in the State Department’s IT division, documents and interviews show. It was an unusual arrangement.
At the same time, Pagliano apparently agreed to maintain the basement server. Officials in the IT division have told investigators they could not recall previously hiring a political appointee. Three of Pagliano’s supervisors also told investigators they had no idea that Clinton used the basement server or that Pagliano was moonlighting on it.
Through an attorney, Pagliano declined a request from The Post for an interview. He also refused a request from the Senate Judiciary and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committees to discuss his role. On Sept. 1, 2015, his attorney told the committees that he would invoke his Fifth Amendment rights if any attempt was made to compel his testimony. He was later given immunity by the Justice Department in exchange for his cooperation, according to articles in the New York Times and The Post.
In a statement, Clinton’s campaign said the server was protected but declined to provide technical details. Clinton officials have said that server logs given to authorities show no signs of hacking.
“The security and integrity of her family’s electronic communications was taken seriously from the onset when it was first set up for President Clinton’s team,” the statement said. “Suffice it to say, robust protections were put in place and additional upgrades and techniques employed over time as they became available, including consulting and employing third party experts.”
The statement added that “there is no evidence there was ever a breach.”
The number of emails moving through the basement system increased quickly as Hillary Clinton dove into the endless details of her globetrotting job. There were 62,320 in all, an average of 296 a week, nearly 1,300 a month, according to numbers Clinton later reported to the State Department. About half of them were work-related.
Her most frequent correspondent was Mills, her chief of staff, who sent thousands of notes. Next came Abedin, the deputy chief of staff, and Jacob Sullivan, also a deputy chief of staff, according to a tally by The Post.
Clinton used hdr22@clintonemail.com as her address, making it immediately apparent that the emails were not coming from or going to a government address.
Most of her emails were routine, including those sent to friends. Some involved the coordination of efforts to bring aid to Haiti by the State Department and her husband’s New York-based Clinton Foundation — notes that mixed government and family business, the emails show.
Others involved classified matters. State Department and Intelligence Community officials have determined that 2,093 email chains contained classified information. Most of the classified emails have been labeled as “confidential,” the lowest level of classification. Clinton herself authored 104 emails that contained classified material, a Post analysis later found.
Before the server received a digital certificate marking the use of standard encryption, Clinton and her aides exchanged notes touching on North Korea, Mexico, Afghanistan, military advisers, CIA operations and a briefing for Obama.
Clinton adviser Philippe Reines wrote a note to her about Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai. Reines started his note by reminding Clinton that Reines’s “close friend Jeremy Bash is now [CIA Director Leon E.] Panetta’s Chief of Staff.” The rest of the note was redacted before release, under grounds that it was national-security-sensitive.
On Sunday, March 29, 2009, just hours before standard encryption on the server began, Sullivan emailed Clinton a draft of a confidential report she was to make to Obama. “Attached is a draft of your Mexico trip report to POTUS,” Sullivan wrote.
In the high-pressure world of diplomacy, the sharing of such material had been a discreet but common practice for many years. Officials who manage problems around the clock require a never-ending flow of incisive information to make timely decisions.
Not all classified material is equally sensitive. Much of it involves discussions about foreign countries or leaders, not intelligence sources and methods. Working with classified materials can be cumbersome and, in the case of low-level classification, annoying.
On Feb. 10, 2010, in an exchange with Sullivan, Clinton vented her frustration one day when she wanted to read a statement regarding José Miguel Insulza, then secretary general of the Organization of American States. Sullivan wrote that he could not send it to her immediately because the department had put it on the classified network.
“It’s a public statement! Just email it,” Clinton shot back, just moments later.
“Trust me, I share your exasperation,” Sullivan wrote. “But until ops converts it to the unclassified email system, there is no physical way for me to email it. I can’t even access it.”
Early on June 17, 2011, Clinton grew impatient as she waited for “talking points” about a sensitive matter that had to be delivered via a secure line.
“They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax. They’re working on it,” Sullivan wrote his boss.
Clinton told him to take a shortcut.
“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” she said.
Clinton spokesman Fallon said she was not trying to circumvent the classification system.
“What she was asking was that any information that could be transmitted on the unclassified system be transmitted,” he said. “It is wrong to suggest that she was requesting otherwise. The State Department looked into this and confirmed that no classified material was sent through a non-secure fax or email.”
Security remained a constant concern. On June 28, 2011, in response to reports that Gmail accounts of government workers had been targeted by “online adversaries,” a note went out over Clinton’s name urging department employees to “avoid conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.”
But she herself ignored the warning and continued using her BlackBerry and the basement server.
In December 2012, near the end of Clinton’s tenure, a nonprofit group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, filed a FOIA request seeking records about her email. CREW received a response in May 2013: “no records responsive to your request were located.”
Other requests for Clinton records met the same fate — until the State Department received a demand from the newly formed House Select Committee on Benghazi in July 2014. The committee wanted Clinton’s email, among other things, to see what she and others knew about the deadly attack in Libya and the response by the U.S. government.
Officials in the department’s congressional affairs office found some Clinton email and saw that she had relied on the private domain, not the department’s system.
Secretary of State John F. Kerry resolved to round up the Clinton emails and deliver them to Congress as quickly as possible. Department officials reached out to Clinton informally in the summer of 2014. On Oct. 28, 2014, the department contacted Clinton and the offices of three other former secretaries — Madeleine K. Albright, Condoleezza Rice and Colin L. Powell — asking if they had any email or other federal records in their possession.
Albright and Rice said they did not use email while at State. Powell, secretary of state from 2001 to 2005, had a private email account through America Online but did not retain copies of his emails. The inspector general for the State Department found that Powell’s personal email account had received two emails from staff that contained “national security information classified at the Secret or Confidential levels.”
Clinton lawyer David Kendall later told the State Department that her “use of personal email was consistent with the practices of other Secretaries of State,” citing Powell in particular, according to a letter he wrote in August.
But Powell’s circumstances also differed from Clinton’s in notable ways. Powell had a phone line installed in his office solely to link to his private account, which he generally used for personal or non-classified communication. At the time, he was pushing the department to embrace the Internet era and wanted to set an example.
“I performed a little test whenever I visited an embassy: I’d dive into the first open office I could find (sometimes it was the ambassador’s office). If the computer was on, I’d try to get into my private email account,” Powell wrote in “It Worked for Me: In Life and Leadership.” “If I could, they passed.”
Powell conducted virtually all of his classified communications on paper or over a State Department computer installed on his desk that was reserved for classified information, according to interviews. Clinton never had such a desktop or a classified email account, according to the State Department.
On Dec. 5, 2014, Clinton lawyers delivered 12 file boxes filled with printed paper containing more than 30,000 emails. Clinton withheld almost 32,000 emails deemed to be of a personal nature.
The department began releasing the emails last May, starting with some 296 emails requested by the Benghazi committee. In reviewing those emails, intelligence officials realized that some contained classified material.
Clinton and her campaign have offered various responses to questions about the classifications. At first, she flat-out denied that her server ever held any. “There is no classified material,” she said at a March 10, 2015, news conference.
Her campaign later released a statement saying she could not have known whether material was classified, because it was not labeled as such. “No information in Clinton’s emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them,” the statement said.
Clinton has also suggested that many of the emails were classified as a formality only because they were being prepared for release under a FOIA request. Her campaign has said that much of the classified material — in emails sent by more than 300 individuals — came from newspaper accounts and other public sources.
“What you are talking about is retroactive classification,” she said during a recent debate. “And I think what we have got here is a case of overclassification.” Her statement appears to conflict with a report to Congress last year by inspectors general from the State Department and the group of spy agencies known as the Intelligence Community. They made their report after the discovery that four emails, from a sample of 40 that went through her server, contained classified information.
“These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department,” the report said. “Rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.”
One of those four emails has since been declassified and released publicly by the State Department. The department has questioned the classification of another of those emails.
Twenty-two emails discovered later were deemed so highly classified that they were withheld in their entirety from public release. “They are on their face sensitive and obviously classified,” Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah), a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told The Post. “This information should have been maintained in the most secure, classified, top-secret servers.”
Fallon pointed out that none of those emails originated with Clinton, something that he said Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the Senate Select Intelligence Committee vice chairman, has noted. “We strongly disagree with the decision to withhold these emails in full,” he said.
Under Title 18, Section 1924, of federal law, it is a misdemeanor punishable by fines and imprisonment for a federal employee to knowingly remove classified information “without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.”
Previous cases brought under the law have required proof of an intent to mishandle classified information, a high hurdle in the Clinton case. The basement server also put Clinton at risk of violating laws and regulations aimed at protecting and preserving government records.
In a statement, Clinton’s campaign said she had received “guidance regarding the need to preserve federal records” and followed those rules. “It was her practice to email government employees on their ‘.gov’ email address. That way, work emails would be immediately captured and preserved in government record-keeping systems,” the statement said.
Fallon said that “over 90 percent” of the more than 30,000 work-related emails “were to or from government email accounts.”
Specialists interviewed by The Post said her practices fell short of what laws and regulations mandated. Some of those obligations were spelled out a few months before Clinton took office in National Archives and Records Administration Bulletin 2008-05, which said every email system was supposed to “permit easy and timely retrieval” of the records.
The secretary of state’s work emails are supposed to be preserved permanently. In addition, rules also mandated that permanent records are to be sent to the department’s Records Service Center “at the end of the Secretary’s tenure or sooner if necessary” for safekeeping.
Under Title 18, Section 2071, it is a misdemeanor to take federal records without authorization, something that is sometimes referred to as the “alienation” of records. The law is rarely enforced, but a conviction can carry a fine or imprisonment.
Jason R. Baron, a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration, told the Senate Judiciary Committee last year he believed that Clinton’s server ran afoul of the rules. In a memo to the committee, Baron wrote that “the setting up of and maintaining a private email network as the sole means to conduct official business by email, coupled with the failure to timely return email records into government custody, amounts to actions plainly inconsistent with the federal recordkeeping laws.”
On May 19, 2015, in response to a FOIA lawsuit from the media organization Vice News, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras ordered all the email to be released in stages, with redactions.
One notable email was sent in August 2011. Stephen Mull, then serving as the department’s executive secretary, emailed Abedin, Mills and Kennedy about getting a government-issued BlackBerry linked to a government server for Clinton.
“We are working to provide the Secretary per her request a Department issued Blackberry to replace personal unit, which is malfunctioning (possibly because of her personal email server is down.) We will prepare two version for her to use — one with an operating State Department email account (which would mask her identity, but which would also be subject to FOIA requests).”
Abedin responded decisively.
“Steve — let’s discuss the state blackberry. doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.”
Fallon said the email showed that the secretary’s staff “opposed the idea of her identity being masked.”
Last month, in a hearing about a Judicial Watch lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Sullivan cited that email as part of the reason he ordered the State Department produce records related to its initial failures in the FOIA searches for Clinton’s records.
Speaking in open court, Sullivan said legitimate questions have been raised about whether Clinton’s staff was trying to help her to sidestep FOIA.
“We’re talking about a Cabinet-level official who was accommodated by the government for reasons unknown to the public. And I think that’s a fair statement: For reasons heretofore unknown to the public. And all the public can do is speculate,” he said, adding: “This is all about the public’s right to know.”
@whembley: I am not an advocate for Clinton, but rather intend to vote for Sanders.
I'm not a big Hilary Clinton fan. If she gets nominated, which is what's going to happen I will be voting against Trump rather than for Clinton. I perceive him as a huge threat to liberty and peace domestically, and now with the release of his foreign policy, a titanic threat to our allies, and also to a human-habitable Earth since he advocates nuclear proliferation.
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: I am not an advocate for Clinton, but rather intend to vote for Sanders.
I'm not a big Hilary Clinton fan. If she gets nominated, which is what's going to happen I will be voting against Trump rather than for Clinton. I perceive him as a huge threat to liberty and peace domestically, and now with the release of his foreign policy, a titanic threat to our allies, and also to a human-habitable Earth since he advocates nuclear proliferation.
I agree with you on Trump... but I wouldn't be voting for Clinton.
The modern left still too often sees the world through a Marxist lens of capitalist owners trying to exploit people who sell their labor for a living. But that doesn’t help explain rising top incomes. On the other hand, many on the modern right wrongly infer that great earnings must only be generated by great people.
Progressive thinkers tend to revert to an anti-market stance, which means they reach for the wrong solutions in terms of policy. Conservatives, meanwhile, are often keen to remove regulatory barriers to competition, but still defend the financial sector and other elite earners.
Before Marx, Adam Smith provided a framework for political economy that is especially useful today. Smith warned against local trade associations which were inevitably conspiring “against the public…to raise prices,” and “restraining the competition in some employments to a smaller number than would otherwise…occasion a very important inequality” between occupations.
For earnings to be distributed more fairly, our goal is not to stand in the way of markets, but to make them work better.
I doubt Bernie runs Third Party (even though he actually is third party), because I'm pretty sure he knows how dangerous Trump would be.
Trump, on the other hand, might not be able to contain himself if somehow the stars align and he's denied the nomination at the convention. I don't think I've ever seen a human being, let alone a politician, so thin-skinned. Dude doesn't let real or perceived slights against him go. He seems constitutionally incapable of doing so.
jasper76 wrote: I doubt Bernie runs Third Party (even though he actually is third party), because I'm pretty sure he knows how dangerous Trump would be.
Trump, on the other hand, might not be able to contain himself if somehow the stars align and he's denied the nomination at the convention. I don't think I've ever seen a human being, let alone a politician, so thin-skinned. Dude doesn't let real or perceived slights against him go. He seems constitutionally incapable of doing so.
It may not necessarily just be Trump that could go third party. Lately, Cruz has been refusing to say if he'll support Trump if Trump is the nominee. I guess the Trump/Cruz bromance is over.
Yeah, they did. Doesn't speak well for their collective integrity, at least in my opinion (they all knew what Trump was at the time). I don't now what they could have said that would have been popular, but the pursuit of popularity is not a fundamental aspect of integrity.
On a loosely related subject, is anyone watching he town hall tonight? I'm going to tune in on the off chance of some post-Wifegate WWF antics.
How quickly people seem to have forgotten the bromance between Cruz and Trump. At the time it seemed like Cruz was just doing so out of a caution of offending Trump voters so that when he got out (as pretty much everybody expected) Cruz would swoop in and be their default second choice.
Thing is, that pledge was intended to rein in Trump. To keep Trump from running on his own. But would it stop Cruz? Is Cruz willing to break the Republican Party in two and run on his own, as The One True Republican, should Trump get the official nomination?
I doubt Cruz would run as an independent candidate. He smart enough to know that he'd only be electing Clinton/Sanders or whoever and that would end his career forever.
While he might very well be willing to spite Trump by throwing the election, he isn't ready to commit career suicide.
Considering the stuff that Cruz has done and gotten away with already...I wouldn't put it past him to believe he has a shot as a third party and not thinking it would be career suicide.
I'm not sure that the video shows battery. I'm happy to leave that determination to the criminal justice system, but judge for yourself below. It doesn't help that Trump's campaign manager is saying he never touched her. Umm...dude, there's a video.
jasper76 wrote: I'm not sure that the video shows battery. I'm happy to leave that determination to the criminal justice system, but judge for yourself below. It doesn't help that Trump's campaign manager is saying he never touched her. Umm...dude, there's a video.
Spoiler:
If he grabbed her, which is what the video seems to show, it's considered at least simple battery.
Pretty much if you lay your hands on someone in an offensive manner, it's battery.
Gotcha. I guess I never really knew where 'battery' began and ended as a legal term. All I really know know is that battery is here to stay, it cannot be killed, and its found in James Hetfield somewhere (thanks, I'll be here all week).
jasper76 wrote: Gotcha. I guess I never really knew where 'battery' began and ended as a legal term. All I really know know is that battery is here to stay, it cannot be killed, and its found in James Hetfield somewhere (thanks, I'll be here all week).
Breotan wrote: I doubt Cruz would run as an independent candidate. He smart enough to know that he'd only be electing Clinton/Sanders or whoever and that would end his career forever.
While he might very well be willing to spite Trump by throwing the election, he isn't ready to commit career suicide.
He's doing that by not running Independent, as well, and also facing the complete transformation of the Republican Party should Trump win the election. As a "True Conservative" and "Social Conservative", he actually has an enormous amount to lose if Trump wins. I actually think an Independent run could help his career even if his numbers are dismal, so long as he abandons his Presidential ambitions. He'll be able to tout for the rest of his life to his fellow Texans that he was the only one with the balls to stand up to Trump.
That said, I think its unlikely. But we're talking about Ted "Burn the Government to the Ground Over Planned Parenthood" Cruz, so who knows what he's capable of doing on principle.
jasper76 wrote: Gotcha. I guess I never really knew where 'battery' began and ended as a legal term. All I really know know is that battery is here to stay, it cannot be killed, and its found in James Hetfield somewhere (thanks, I'll be here all week).
And yet I can never find one when I need it...
I can always find one, but its never never ever the size I need
Automatically Appended Next Post: Trump just said the top three functions of the federal government are:
Security
Healthcare
Education
Think about that. This is the front-runner of the Republican Party.
Did you watch the Town Hall? Dude is either a moron on foreign affairs, or the people who are advising him are. I thought Kasich was unusually strong. These town halls are alot better than debates IMO. It's hard for someone to fudge knowledge on issues through an entire hour of grilling.
Everyone backed off their pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee.....everyone of them.
jasper76 wrote: Did you watch the Town Hall? Dude is either a moron on foreign affairs, or the people who are advising him are. I thought Kasich was unusually strong. These town halls are alot better than debates IMO. It's hard for someone to fudge knowledge on issues through an entire hour of grilling.
Everyone backed off their pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee.....everyone of them.
Cruz and Kasich were decent.
Trump was a disaster.
I now really hope Cruz trounces him from here on out.
Prestor Jon wrote: Looking at the delegate charts we see that the popular vote was close throughout, that Hillary Clinton had a large lead in super delegates for the majority of the primary process but that changed at the very end after Obama won a commanding lead in the pledged delegate count. The superdelegates were choosing Hillary right up until the point when Obama won enough pledged delegates to ensure his victory. If Hillary had done better in the later primary contests she likely would have kept the superdelegates and won the nomination. The superdelegates clearly favored Hillary and kept supporting her right up until Obama's win became inevitable and then switched over.
And when superdelegates will switch to back the more popular candidate, that kind of gaks all over the idea that they’re there to stop a more popular candidate beating an insider.
Once again, superdelegates exist because party insiders crave power that they can broker for more power.
Oh, and Ferraro wasn’t making a case for what superdelegates should do out of same kind of superdelegate principles. She was making a case for superdelegates to elect the person she wanted to win.
I think the superdelegates will play a deciding role in the Democratic primary this year because Hillary Clinton has spend decades establishing a base of power and influence within the party whereas Bernie Sanders has spent his time in Congress as an Independent (even though he caucuses with the Democrats on most issues). Superdelegates are party insiders, Clinton is a party insider, Sanders isn't so the advantage goes towards Clinton.
No, superdelegates play a role when no candidate claims an outright majority of pledged delegates. In theory superdelegates could then pick their own insider… but when that happened in 2008 they still went with the outsider who won more votes.
But they probably won’t play a role this year simply because Clinton has a big enough lead. If things change massively then maybe they’ll come in to it, maybe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Um... I think Cruz ALWAYS had some backbone, as he's been that proverbial "stick in the mud" in the Senate, regardless of party affiliation.
Cruz has backbone, no doubt about that. It’s his motivation that’s the issue. In the senate he sure was a ‘stick in the mud’, but if you can find a purpose for any of that obstructionism beyond a personal political strategy of securing the rightwing base for himself, I’ll send you a dollar.
When he forced the government shutdown there was no purpose beyond gaining media attention and raising his own national profile. When running for the nomination, he initially went buddy buddy with Trump, hoping to shake out the other candidates and leave him with the only one v one he could win – Cruz v Trump. When Trump grew too strong before the field had fully narrowed, he jumped on the stop Trump thing, hoping to have the rest of the party form around him as the Trump alternative. But that didn’t work out, while Trump has been pegged back enough that he probably won’t get the nomination, Kasich is still in the field and just as likely to take a contested convention nomination as he is, so now he’s turned to attack Kasich.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: Yeah, they did. Doesn't speak well for their collective integrity, at least in my opinion (they all knew what Trump was at the time). I don't now what they could have said that would have been popular, but the pursuit of popularity is not a fundamental aspect of integrity.
They were also worried about giving Trump an excuse to run as a third party. Back then people still thought Trump as the candidate was outlandish, the biggest concern was him running as a third party candidate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: I doubt Cruz would run as an independent candidate. He smart enough to know that he'd only be electing Clinton/Sanders or whoever and that would end his career forever.
Yep. Has anyone sitting in congress as part of a major party ever run as a third party? It'd mean throwing away anything you could achieve as a senator/representative, in order to have a glory run in a race that you'll never win. No-one is going to make the choice to sink their career and their party allegiances for that.
On the flip side, there's never been a candidate elected when about half his own party hates him, so I guess we shouldn't throw out the option. But if a third party was to run just as a spoiler, wouldn't it make more sense to be Jeb!, or someone else who won't be throwing away an elected office?
whembly wrote: Um... I think Cruz ALWAYS had some backbone, as he's been that proverbial "stick in the mud" in the Senate, regardless of party affiliation.
Cruz has backbone, no doubt about that. It’s his motivation that’s the issue. In the senate he sure was a ‘stick in the mud’, but if you can find a purpose for any of that obstructionism beyond a personal political strategy of securing the rightwing base for himself, I’ll send you a dollar.
When he forced the government shutdown there was no purpose beyond gaining media attention and raising his own national profile.
You may think he's a jackass for the things he pulled during his Senate tenure. But, at least he had the integrity to run by promising to play hardball and actually do it. The government shutdown was an attempt to gain attention to what he wanted to showcase, but alas, he couldn't overcome the media/Democrat broadside.
He is a stickler for "the rule of law", given his background. So, at least he's got that going for him as a potential President.
When running for the nomination, he initially went buddy buddy with Trump, hoping to shake out the other candidates and leave him with the only one v one he could win – Cruz v Trump.
Everyone did. So, this is a weird criticism as I'm sure they thought in the back of their mind that Trump wouldn't last this long. It was a calculated gamble, not an implicit endorsement.
When Trump grew too strong before the field had fully narrowed, he jumped on the stop Trump thing, hoping to have the rest of the party form around him as the Trump alternative.
Remains to be seen if Cruz's strategy pans out... many political insiders has noted that Cruz has a well-run campaign... as evidenced by understanding the party rules to gain additional delegates in Lousianna and Colorado.
But that didn’t work out, while Trump has been pegged back enough that he probably won’t get the nomination, Kasich is still in the field and just as likely to take a contested convention nomination as he is, so now he’s turned to attack Kasich.
We'll see.
The key thing to watch out for is if the GOP Convention Rules Committee adjusts the rules on gaining the nomination on 1st ballot.
Nominations
(a) In making the nominations for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States and voting thereon, the roll of the states shall be called separately in each case; provided, however, that if there is only one candidate for nomination for Vice President of the United States who has demonstrated the support required by paragraph (b) of this rule, a motion to nominate for such office by acclamation shall be in order and no calling of the roll with respect to such office shall be required.
(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a
40 of 42
majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these rules or any rule of the House of Representatives, to demonstrate the support required of this paragraph a certificate evidencing the affirmative written support of the required number of permanently seated delegates from each of the eight (8) or more states shall have been submitted to the secretary of the convention not later than one (1) hour prior to the placing of the names of candidates for nomination pursuant to this rule and the established order of business.
(c) The total time of the nominating speech and seconding speeches for any candidate for nomination for President of the United States or Vice President of the United States shall not exceed fifteen (15) minutes.
(d) When at the close of a roll call any candidate for nomination for President of the United States or Vice President of the United States has received a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the convention, the chairman of the convention shall announce the votes for each candidate whose name was presented in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this rule. Before the convention adjourns sine die, the chairman of the convention shall declare the candidate nominated by the Republican Party for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States.
(e) If no candidate shall have received such majority, the chairman of the convention shall direct the roll of the states be called again and shall repeat the calling of the roll until a candidate shall have received a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the convention.
Only Cruz and Trump satisfies rule 40.
Now, this committee will have at least three cracks at possible changing this.
So, as it stands, if no one gets 1237 delegates on the 1st ballot in July... then, it's a 'Contested Convention' and the delegates are free-agents to vote between Cruz and Trump.
Since the beginning, the Cruz campaign actually stacked the state delegates whom are favorable to Cruz. So if we have a "Contested Convention", we're going to see Cruz nominated.
However, if the committee changes the rule (toss out #40)... then, any of the candidates who were on the ballot, but dropped out... could be selected. Hello Walker/Perry!
Or, if the committee just calvin-balled it, they could just throw out all of the rules and open it up to any GOP party member. Like... Mitt Romney.
Mitt could then 'rescue' the party and run a "See... I told ya so" campaign. (okay, okay... I'll lay off the booze).
whembly wrote: You may think he's a jackass for the things he pulled during his Senate tenure. But, at least he had the integrity to run by promising to play hardball and actually do it. The government shutdown was an attempt to gain attention to what he wanted to showcase, but alas, he couldn't overcome the media/Democrat broadside.
If you believe there was a political objective to Cruz’s government shutdown, then you’re more of a die hard true believer than actual working members of the Republican party.
This is from an unnamed senator in a Politico piece on that entirely directionless government shutdown;
““It was very evident to everyone in the room that Cruz doesn’t have a strategy – he never had a strategy, and could never answer a question about what the end-game was, I just wish the 35 House members that have bought the snake oil that was sold could witness what was witnessed today at lunch.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/ted-cruz-blasted-by-angry-gop-colleagues-government-shutdown-097753
And here’s Josh Holmes, former Chief of Staff to Mitch McConnell;
“It’s not what he’s trying to accomplish or what he says he’s trying to accomplish that bothers people, it’s that he’s consistently sacrificed the mutual goals of many for his personal enhancement.”
Everyone did. So, this is a weird criticism as I'm sure they thought in the back of their mind that Trump wouldn't last this long. It was a calculated gamble, not an implicit endorsement.
We can criticise every single Republican in the field for failing to take on Trump, but maybe it’s best to keep to Cruz at this point.
Anyhow, the point is not that Cruz made a calculated gamble, we all know that. The point is that everything Cruz has done has been a gamble, with the end objective of enhancing his own position.
The talk now where he’s hinting at not supporting Trump if he wins the nomination, that’s not a sudden decision to be principled. It’s just the next calculation, this time to threaten the party with a certain loss in the general unless they form under him in the convention.
We'll see.
The key thing to watch out for is if the GOP Convention Rules Committee adjusts the rules on gaining the nomination on 1st ballot.
Maybe, remember most Cruz’s best states have come and gone, the remainder favour Kasich. Not saying Kasich will catch him in delegates, but there’s a good chance he’ll narrow the lead and reach the convention with lots of talk about ‘momentum’. And remember Kasich is the one guy in the Republican field with a positive popularity, and the one guy who regularly beats Clinton in polls.
Now, this committee will have at least three cracks at possible changing this.
There’s a lot of things they could do, but they’ll be loathe to do anything that could potentially split the party, or make it seem like the party is making up new rules to avoid nominating the candidate chosen by the voters. That doesn’t mean they won’t stop Trump, but it does mean they’ll make sure everything looks above board and procedural as they go along. I can see Trump missing 1,237, and then the party selling the next step as ‘every delegate has a right to choose who they see as the best fit per party rules’… while they apply enormous pressure on each delegate to move to their preferred candidate.
That strategy means they won’t be able to start changing convention rules, because that’d make it look really bad.
jasper76 wrote: I'm not sure that the video shows battery. I'm happy to leave that determination to the criminal justice system, but judge for yourself below. It doesn't help that Trump's campaign manager is saying he never touched her. Umm...dude, there's a video.
It's probably battery. That said, I think poorly of the woman for actually pressing charges.
He grabbed her and moved her out of the way.
Yes, she had marks on her arm afterwards.
Big deal.
He obviously wasn't trying to harm her. He just wanted her out of Trump's face.
Should he have done it? Probably not.
Is it really big enough of a deal to file charges over?
Traditio wrote: It's probably battery. That said, I think poorly of the woman for actually pressing charges.
I agree that it's a very minor incident. When the video first came out I had to watch it a few times to figure out exactly where it was supposed to have taken place.
You're wrong that she's somehow responsible for 'pressing charges'. She made a complaint, that's all. The state chooses whether to pursue criminal charges or not, and they've decided this warrants a charge.
sebster wrote:I agree that it's a very minor incident. When the video first came out I had to watch it a few times to figure out exactly where it was supposed to have taken place.
You're wrong that she's somehow responsible for 'pressing charges'. She made a complaint, that's all. The state chooses whether to pursue criminal charges or not, and they've decided this warrants a charge.
Then she's responsible for filing the complaint.
And I'm not sure that you're right about the pressing charges thing. Yes, the State can decide to press/pursue criminal charges. That said, at least in some places, in cases like this, the police will ask: "Do you want to press charges?"
If she either called the cops and filed a complaint, or if she said "yes, I want to file charges," then I think less of her.
He grabbed her arm and moved her out of the way. He didn't punch her in the ovaries.
Traditio wrote: Then she's responsible for filing the complaint.
Yes, but you're missing the point. If you want to say 'bad lady reporter' and that's it, then you do that. It's really boring and irrelevant to everything, though.
Thing is, people file complaints all the time. Call the police, go to a station or have an officer come to your house, cop writes a police report and so on. Lots of these are total nonsense, way more nonsense than what this woman claimed. Hell, some of the complaints are outright lies. The system is geared to handle that. It's why police review claims before actually going ahead with charges, and it's why prosecutors review before actually dragging the case through the courts.
So the question is why this case went further than that. Is it true that police will go this far any case in which grabbing an arm leaves a bruise? Or did her profile and media connections put pressure to make it go further? Or is there a political interest here, trying to hurt the Trump campaign?
I don't know the answer to those questions, but they are interesting questions, because we went further than 'bad lady reporter' and looked at what actually happened.
sebster wrote:I agree that it's a very minor incident. When the video first came out I had to watch it a few times to figure out exactly where it was supposed to have taken place.
You're wrong that she's somehow responsible for 'pressing charges'. She made a complaint, that's all. The state chooses whether to pursue criminal charges or not, and they've decided this warrants a charge.
Then she's responsible for filing the complaint.
And I'm not sure that you're right about the pressing charges thing. Yes, the State can decide to press/pursue criminal charges. That said, at least in some places, in cases like this, the police will ask: "Do you want to press charges?"
If she either called the cops and filed a complaint, or if she said "yes, I want to file charges," then I think less of her.
He grabbed her arm and moved her out of the way. He didn't punch her in the ovaries.
It was still battery and it was still illegal, regardless of how you feel about it. You cannot just grab somebody aggressively and move them however you want whenever you want. That is not how it works here.
Blame the victim if you want, but he honestly should have known better and he is the one at fault here, not her.
Dreadwinter wrote:It was still battery and it was still illegal, regardless of how you feel about it. You cannot just grab somebody aggressively and move them however you want whenever you want. That is not how it works here.
Blame the victim if you want, but he honestly should have known better and he is the one at fault here, not her.
I fully admit all of these points.
That said, it's still obviously a very minor offense for which the reporter should not have felt a need to press charges.
I grant that it's a perfectly "legitimate" case.
I simply assert that it's a trivial case which should not have merited police intervention.
There was no substantial injury. There was no intent to commit injury. All that she lost was "face."
Again, it's not like he punched her in the ovaries (though, given the charges, he might as well have)! [At least that would make a good news story: female reporter goes up to Donald Trump; campaign manager punches her in the ovaries!]
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:Thing is, people file complaints all the time. Call the police, go to a station or have an officer come to your house, cop writes a police report and so on. Lots of these are total nonsense, way more nonsense than what this woman claimed. Hell, some of the complaints are outright lies. The system is geared to handle that. It's why police review claims before actually going ahead with charges, and it's why prosecutors review before actually dragging the case through the courts.
So the question is why this case went further than that. Is it true that police will go this far any case in which grabbing an arm leaves a bruise? Or did her profile and media connections put pressure to make it go further? Or is there a political interest here, trying to hurt the Trump campaign?
I don't know the answer to those questions, but they are interesting questions, because we went further than 'bad lady reporter' and looked at what actually happened.
What seems to me the most probable answer, sebster, is that the police "went this far" because what the man did is technically illegal. It is against the law to grab somebody's arm like that and force them to move in those circumstances. That's illegal. That's battery. There's no question about it.
The woman can't say "I want to press charges" and the cops just laugh her off. The law technically says she's right.
Doesn't change the fact that she shouldn't have felt the need to press charges in the first place.
All your protestations to the contrary, I really do suspect that it really does come down to "bad lady reporter."
I doubt that there's anything more to it. She's just butt hurt, and the law is technically on her side.
Goliath wrote: Well, he grabbed her hard enough to leave bruising on her arm. So it's less a case of "butt hurt" and more a case of "actually hurt"
Did you watch the video?
Again, I grant that she was bruised where he grabbed her. But so what?
Maybe she just bruises easily.
Again, watch the video. It's obvious that he was not intending to cause the female reporter harm. His intent was to move the reporter. That's apparently it.
At any rate, I don't consider minor bruising "actually hurt." What kind of doctor bills have you ever accrued for minor bruises?
Traditio wrote: His intent was to move the reporter. That's apparently it.
It's actually illegal to move someone that doesn't want to be moved in a situation like this. His intent was a crime to begin with, and he should have known that.
The legal, and smart, way to handle that would have been to ask her to move, and when she refuses then you have the police remove her for you. There is a reason you see police escorting protesters and the like from political events, and not campaign managers.
Goliath wrote: Well, he grabbed her hard enough to leave bruising on her arm. So it's less a case of "butt hurt" and more a case of "actually hurt"
Did you watch the video?
Again, I grant that she was bruised where he grabbed her. But so what?
Maybe she just bruises easily.
Again, watch the video. It's obvious that he was not intending to cause the female reporter harm. His intent was to move the reporter. That's apparently it.
At any rate, I don't consider minor bruising "actually hurt." What kind of doctor bills have you ever accrued for minor bruises?
As I said: she's just butt hurt.
So if you get injured more easily you aren't allowed to complain when someone injures you? Someone better tell the haemophiliacs and people with brittle bone disease!
Traditio wrote: His intent was to move the reporter. That's apparently it.
It's actually illegal to move someone that doesn't want to be moved in a situation like this. His intent was a crime to begin with, and he should have known that.
The legal, and smart, way to handle that would have been to ask her to move, and when she refuses then you have the police remove her for you. There is a reason you see police escorting protesters and the like from political events, and not campaign managers.
Again, I agree with everything you are saying. It doesn't contradict what I've said.
I haven't claimed that the charge is illegitimate. I've claimed that the charge is trivial.
Goliath wrote: Well, he grabbed her hard enough to leave bruising on her arm. So it's less a case of "butt hurt" and more a case of "actually hurt"
Did you watch the video?
Again, I grant that she was bruised where he grabbed her. But so what?
Maybe she just bruises easily.
Again, watch the video. It's obvious that he was not intending to cause the female reporter harm. His intent was to move the reporter. That's apparently it.
At any rate, I don't consider minor bruising "actually hurt." What kind of doctor bills have you ever accrued for minor bruises?
Bruised the bottom of my foot once, thought I had broken it. Went to the doctor, doctor told me I had a bruise on the bottom of my foot and to stay off my foot so it could heal. It was just a minor bruise and he just looked at it for a minute or two. But you know what, he turned around and charged me for it! I mean, it was just a little bruise.
Anyways, you really cannot say "he was in the wrong" and then turn around and say "but he shouldn't be punished for it." That is not how Law works. I am coming to realize that you may not have the strongest grasp on how our system works or how any system works.
A Town Called Malus wrote:So if you get injured more easily you aren't allowed to complain when someone injures you? Someone better tell the haemophiliacs and people with brittle bone disease!
1. I can only assume that the lady had neither.
2. Even in those cases, it seems to me that a civil suit is more suitable than a criminal charge.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote:Bruised the bottom of my foot once, thought I had broken it. Went to the doctor, doctor told me I had a bruise on the bottom of my foot and to stay off my foot so it could heal. It was just a minor bruise and he just looked at it for a minute or two. But you know what, he turned around and charged me for it! I mean, it was just a little bruise.
That's a rare occurrence.
Anyways, you really cannot say "he was in the wrong" and then turn around and say "but he shouldn't be punished for it." That is not how Law works. I am coming to realize that you may not have the strongest grasp on how our system works or how any system works.
Yes, I can. Unless you are of the opinion that every commission of a crime MUST be charged and punished, whether or not the victim decides to press charges (i.e., unless you are asserting that the State should always press charges when the victim declines to do so), then you can't claim that these two claims ("he was in the wrong" and "it's a trivial case which should not have merited police intervention") are contradictory.
A Town Called Malus wrote:So if you get injured more easily you aren't allowed to complain when someone injures you? Someone better tell the haemophiliacs and people with brittle bone disease!
1. I can only assume that the lady had neither.
2. Even in those cases, it seems to me that a civil suit is more suitable than a criminal charge.
Violations of criminal laws result in criminal charges that get handled via the criminal justice system. That's kind of the point of these laws.
Trivial criminal charges usually result in trivial punishments.
A Town Called Malus wrote:So if you get injured more easily you aren't allowed to complain when someone injures you? Someone better tell the haemophiliacs and people with brittle bone disease!
1. I can only assume that the lady had neither.
2. Even in those cases, it seems to me that a civil suit is more suitable than a criminal charge.
Why would a civil suit be more suitable? That makes absolutely no sense. Somebody has just attacked you, you need the police involved.
Dreadwinter wrote:Bruised the bottom of my foot once, thought I had broken it. Went to the doctor, doctor told me I had a bruise on the bottom of my foot and to stay off my foot so it could heal. It was just a minor bruise and he just looked at it for a minute or two. But you know what, he turned around and charged me for it! I mean, it was just a little bruise.
That's a rare occurrence.
Actually, it is not. Bruising the bottom of your foot happens quite a bit. Most people never notice it because they just think their feet are sore.
A Town Called Malus wrote:So if you get injured more easily you aren't allowed to complain when someone injures you? Someone better tell the haemophiliacs and people with brittle bone disease!
1. I can only assume that the lady had neither.
2. Even in those cases, it seems to me that a civil suit is more suitable than a criminal charge.
1) Probably not but still highlights the idiocy of such a viewpoint.
2) If someone grabs you and breaks your arm or causes internal bleeding which could require hospital treatment, you really don't think they should be criminally charged?
Edit: also, the idea that a victim has to press charges is an old myth. Their opinions can be taken into account if a DA so inclines, but there is a reason why it's "state vs accused" and not "victim vs accused".
Perhaps he should just have asked her politely to move out of the way, then there would be no question of "pressing charges" or complaints that she wasn't bruised enough to satisfy your personal criteria of what crimes ought to be prosecuted.
d-usa wrote: Edit: also, the idea that a victim has to press charges is an old myth. Their opinions can be taken into account if a DA so inclines, but there is a reason why it's "state vs accused" and not "victim vs accused".
Can confirm, at my last job I had a troubled person who was involved in a domestic disturbance. Said person took it to the cops who then took it to the DA. The DA questioned said person and afterwards said person decided they did not want to press charges and wanted to back out of all of it. DA responded with "lolnope" and continued doing his job.
A Town Called Malus wrote:1) Probably not but still highlights the idiocy of such a viewpoint.
2) If someone grabs you and breaks your arm or causes internal bleeding which could require hospital treatment, you really don't think they should be criminally charged?
It really depends on the concrete case. Let us assume that the woman actually had one of those conditions and that such a consequence actually resulted.
1. Our man has absolutely no way of knowing that. 2. He had no possible way of foreseeing that result. 3. He in no way intended that result.
The fact that the breaking of an arm or internal bleeding would have resulted would have been an accident.
Thus, more properly a civil, not a criminal matter.
Again, yes, technically, it's battery. But there was no intent to cause injury, even if injury resulted.
Here, as always, we should apply the "reasonable person" test. Would a reasonable person have considered the possibility of breaking someone's arm or causing internal bleeding simply by grabbing that person's arm? In this case, the answer is "no."
If we were talking about a really old lady, a very small child or an obviously very sick person, then I'd tell you a different story. But we're not.
Dreadwinter wrote:Can confirm, at my last job I had a troubled person who was involved in a domestic disturbance. Said person took it to the cops who then took it to the DA. The DA questioned said person and afterwards said person decided they did not want to press charges and wanted to back out of all of it. DA responded with "lolnope" and continued doing his job.
I'm not entirely sure, but I think it differs depending on:
1. The nature of the crime
2. The location in which the crime took place.
I think that domestic abuse cases actually are those in which the State has to press charges independently of the consent of the victim.
Simple battery, at least in some locations, is different. The police do in fact ask whether or not you wish to press charges. In fact, I know this latter from personal experience.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Touching the arm was the crime, not the amount of damage caused.
If you're not going to bother reading and understanding my postings, do feel free to overlook them and spend your time on something else.
A Town Called Malus wrote:1) Probably not but still highlights the idiocy of such a viewpoint.
2) If someone grabs you and breaks your arm or causes internal bleeding which could require hospital treatment, you really don't think they should be criminally charged?
It really depends on the concrete case. Let us assume that the woman actually had one of those conditions and that such a consequence actually resulted.
1. Our man has absolutely no way of knowing that.
2. He had no possible way of foreseeing that result.
3. He in no way intended that result.
The fact that the breaking of an arm or internal bleeding would have resulted would have been an accident.
Thus, more properly a civil, not a criminal matter.
Again, yes, technically, it's battery. But there was no intent to cause injury, even if injury resulted.
Here, as always, we should apply the "reasonable person" test. Would a reasonable person have considered the possibility of breaking someone's arm or causing internal bleeding simply by grabbing that person's arm? In this case, the answer is "no."
If we were talking about a really old lady, a very small child or an obviously very sick person, then I'd tell you a different story. But we're not.
It would not have been an accident. It would have been something caused intentionally. An accident is when something outside of your control happens. Like say I am driving down the road and I start to have a heart attack and I lose control of my vehicle. That is an accident. Somebody intentionally laying their hands on another person is never an accident.
Regardless, the hypothetical medical conditions are irrelevant. He still intentionally laid hands on her and forcibly moved her. That is pretty much all you need for a criminal case.
A Town Called Malus wrote:1) Probably not but still highlights the idiocy of such a viewpoint.
2) If someone grabs you and breaks your arm or causes internal bleeding which could require hospital treatment, you really don't think they should be criminally charged?
It really depends on the concrete case. Let us assume that the woman actually had one of those conditions and that such a consequence actually resulted.
1. Our man has absolutely no way of knowing that.
2. He had no possible way of foreseeing that result.
3. He in no way intended that result.
The fact that the breaking of an arm or internal bleeding would have resulted would have been an accident.
Thus, more properly a civil, not a criminal matter.
Again, yes, technically, it's battery. But there was no intent to cause injury, even if injury resulted.
Here, as always, we should apply the "reasonable person" test. Would a reasonable person have considered the possibility of breaking someone's arm or causing internal bleeding simply by grabbing that person's arm? In this case, the answer is "no."
If we were talking about a really old lady, a very small child or an obviously very sick person, then I'd tell you a different story. But we're not.
Intending to cause injury isn't required to charge someone with causing injury. If it was then we wouldn't have laws covering accidental death.
Dreadwinter wrote:It would not have been an accident. It would have been something caused intentionally. An accident is when something outside of your control happens. Like say I am driving down the road and I start to have a heart attack and I lose control of my vehicle. That is an accident. Somebody intentionally laying their hands on another person is never an accident.
Regardless, the hypothetical medical conditions are irrelevant. He still intentionally laid hands on her and forcibly moved her. That is pretty much all you need for a criminal case.
You're conflating different things. At no point in time have I claimed that it would be an accident that the reporter grabbed the woman. I claimed that it would have been an accident that the reporter injured the woman.
As for the rest, I am going to give you the same reply I gave to d-usa:
If you don't want to read and understand my postings and reply accordingly, feel free to pass my postings over. I refuse to have a merely verbal disagreement with an opponent who insists solely on beating a rhetorical drum.
d-usa wrote: Touching the arm was the crime, not the amount of damage caused.
If you're not going to bother reading and understanding my postings, do feel free to overlook them and spend your time on something else.
I am reading your postings.
You keep on talking about how he had no way of knowing what kind of damage he could have caused, and that this should be taken into consideration because a reasonable person wouldn't think that they would be causing damage.
But the point is that touching someone was the crime, and it has nothing to do with what a reasonable person believes the potential damage to be.
Dreadwinter wrote:It would not have been an accident. It would have been something caused intentionally. An accident is when something outside of your control happens. Like say I am driving down the road and I start to have a heart attack and I lose control of my vehicle. That is an accident. Somebody intentionally laying their hands on another person is never an accident.
Regardless, the hypothetical medical conditions are irrelevant. He still intentionally laid hands on her and forcibly moved her. That is pretty much all you need for a criminal case.
You're conflating different things. At no point in time have I claimed that it would be an accident that the reporter grabbed the woman. I claimed that it would have been an accident that the reporter injured the woman.
As for the rest, I am going to give you the same reply I gave to d-usa:
If you don't want to read and understand my postings and reply accordingly, feel free to pass my postings over. I refuse to have a merely verbal disagreement with an opponent who insists solely on beating a rhetorical drum.
He grabbed the woman which a reasonable person would know may cause injury. He chose to grab her, he gets charged.
His own stupidity in choosing to grab her without considering the potential for injury is not a defence.
A Town Called Malus wrote:Intending to cause injury isn't required to charge someone with causing injury. If it was then we wouldn't have laws covering accidental death.
I'm not a lawyer. I don't know that much black letter law. I do think, however, that the following are probably true:
1. Yes, accidental death can bring about criminal charges. However, it's not qua accidental. If I get drunk and accidentally run somebody over with my car, it's not simply the accident that gets me charged. It's the gross negligence that I displayed. The idea is that before I drank and got into my car, I should have thought to myself: "You know, if I drink and drive, I could have an accident. Maybe I shouldn't drink and drive."
I imagine that all of the cases that you're probably thinking of are just like that.
Again, think of manslaughter. What makes accidental death an aggravating circumstance in a crime is gross negligence.
In our case, there is no sense in which our man displayed gross negligence. Again, apply the "reasonable person" standard.
2. When gross negligence is not a thing, as far as I'm aware, it's, at best, a civil matter, no?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote:He grabbed the woman which a reasonable person would know may cause injury.
"Injury" is such a vague, loaded term. What kind of injury would a reasonable person expect to cause simply by grabbing and moving someone in those circumstances?
He chose to grab her, he gets charged.
His own stupidity in choosing to grab her without considering the potential for injury is not a defence.
Again, this part of your posting simply doesn't merit a reply on my part; I've already addressed it ad nauseam. Anyone posting in this thread should see my previous replies. I'm not going to repeat myself further.
After two pages you just need to know better and move on.
For the 100th time, and this is the dead LAST time I am going to say this:
My claim is not that the charge is illegitimate. I fully grant that, according to the letter of the law, a crime was committed and that the lady reporter in question was a victim of a battery.
So, all of you may cease and desist from mindless repeating: "BUT HE COMMITTED A CRIME!"
Yes. I am aware of this. I have said this. This point is not at issue. It is not in dispute. By repeating it over and over again, you are simply missing and ignoring my actual point, which is this:
Regardless of the criminality of the act, there was no need to file a report, press charges, etc. It's a trivial matter.
If you want to argue AGAINST me, you may NOT insist that a crime occurred. You must show me that it's not a trivial matter.
Furthermore, simply insisting that a crime has occurred is NOT evidence that the charge is non-trivial.
Jaywalking, anyone?
Possession of marijuana, anyone?
That's probably for the best because no matter how many times you try to say what you're saying, you're still not going to be right.
Unless you have some kind of (non question-begging, non red-herring) argument against me, you must pardon me if I contemn your assertion with the same facility wherewith it was made.
No, no he doesn't need to and no I don't need to. Stop dismissing absolutely everyone who comments in opposition to you, it's hardly polite to say again and again 'you aren't worth my time', and don't use 'FTFY (Fixed That For You)' and alter other user's comments when you post, that is far from smiled upon
A Town Called Malus wrote:1) Probably not but still highlights the idiocy of such a viewpoint.
2) If someone grabs you and breaks your arm or causes internal bleeding which could require hospital treatment, you really don't think they should be criminally charged?
It really depends on the concrete case. Let us assume that the woman actually had one of those conditions and that such a consequence actually resulted.
1. Our man has absolutely no way of knowing that.
2. He had no possible way of foreseeing that result.
3. He in no way intended that result.
The fact that the breaking of an arm or internal bleeding would have resulted would have been an accident.
Thus, more properly a civil, not a criminal matter.
Again, yes, technically, it's battery. But there was no intent to cause injury, even if injury resulted.
Here, as always, we should apply the "reasonable person" test. Would a reasonable person have considered the possibility of breaking someone's arm or causing internal bleeding simply by grabbing that person's arm? In this case, the answer is "no."
If we were talking about a really old lady, a very small child or an obviously very sick person, then I'd tell you a different story. But we're not.
Is your idea now that this woman is a haemophiliac and people don't have to consider the possibility that people they decide to grab hold of might be haeomphiliacs?
motyak wrote: No, no he doesn't need to and no I don't need to. Stop dismissing absolutely everyone who comments in opposition to you, it's hardly polite to say again and again 'you aren't worth my time', and don't use 'FTFY (Fixed That For You)' and alter other user's comments when you post, that is far from smiled upon
I'm not dismissing everyone who comments in opposition to me. What I am dismissing is the insistence on arguing against things that I haven't said.
And frankly, moderator, I find it strange that you criticize me for "dismissing" people when the post to which I replied itself was dismissive and impolite in an even worse way.
Fair point about the FTFY thing, but really, what difference does it make? I just as easily could have written out: "In point of fact, the commission of a crime doesn't necessarily entail the filing of charges. That may or may not result depending on a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, the consent of the victim to file charges."
If the person to which I responded with a FTFY took offense, I do apologize. None was intended.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:Is your idea now that this woman is a haemophiliac
I have no reason to think that the woman in question is a haemophiliac.
and people don't have to consider the possibility that people they decide to grab hold of might be haeomphiliacs?
Ordinarily? No. Why should they? How many haemophiliacs are there?
What's reasonable is to plan according to what's ordinarily or usually the case, or else, what is probable in any given set of circumstances.
I don't take an umbrella with me when the sun is shining and the weather report says that there's not a chance of rain.
Again, to be perfectly clear, the "reasonable person" test, to my mind, has different applications in different circumstances. The standards of reasonableness are simply different in different cases:
You should have a greater reasonable expectation of harm if you grab a very young or very old person.
You should have a greater reasonable expectation of harm if you grab a patient in the hospital.
You should have a greater reasonable expectation of harm if you grab someone with a known medical condition.
And you should above all else have a reasonable expectation that the use of force for your own ends is absolutely unacceptable outside of self-defence, full stop.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: A reasonable man wouldn't go for the use of force straight away at all.
I completely agree.
That still doesn't make the charge non-trivial.
Say what you want, but there are different degrees of force.
If I push x, that's force.
If I grab x, that's force.
If I slap x, that's force.
If I punch x, that's force.
If I kick x, that's force.
If I poke x, that's force
And then I could even go into all of the possible body parts that I could push, grab, slap, punch and kick and all of the different ways that I could do these things.
If I kick x in the gonads, that's force.
If I slap x in the face, that's force.
If I grab x by the throat, that's force.
If I grab x by the shoulder, that's force.
If I punch x in the throat, that's force.
If I poke x in the shoulder, that's force.
If I poke x in the eyes, that's force.
And then I could even start talking about degrees of force.
How hard did I kick x in the gonads? How hard did I slap x in the face while screaming that I'm Rick James?
Yes, a reasonable person would not have resorted to the use of force as a first measure. I agree. That said, some uses of force are more serious than others, and others are more trivial than others.
Our man used a trivial amount of force. That makes the charge trivial. That's why I hold the woman reporter in contempt.
d-usa wrote: Blaming the victim is the OT thing to do, so there is that.
Empty liberal rhetoric. Nothing more, nothing less. "Victim blaming" is just another liberal buzz word of the day.
At any rate, I'm not blaming the victim for being victimized. I'm not denying that she was a victim.
Literally all that I'm asserting is that the degree to which she was victimized is trivial, and that, given the trivial nature of the offense, her insistence on pressing charges is unreasonable on her part. That's all I'm saying, and nobody in this thread has in any way, shape or form even made a modest attempt to provide arguments against it.
It is not the level of force that is important, it's the principle. Society does not tolerate selfish use of violence because the monopoly of violence is one of the linchpins of modern society.
And before the inevitable comparison to marijuana laws, ignoring them does not cause society to crumble.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It is not the level of force that is important, it's the principle. Society does not tolerate selfish use of violence because the monopoly of violence is one of the linchpins of modern society.
I wish to note the following:
1. As stated, this would make all instantiations of criminal violence equal before the eyes of the law in terms of criminality. There would be no difference between pimp slapping someone in the side of the head, on the one hand, and shooting someone in the face, on the other hand.
In point of fact, this is not true.
In fact:
1.1: Why should assault (i.e., the threat of violence) be considered any different from battery (actual violence) before the eyes of the law, if it is the principle alone that counts?
2. As stated, this would require that the State press charges in all cases of battery, whether or not the victim wishes to do so. At least in certain jurisdictions in the US, this simply is not the case.
And before the inevitable comparison to marijuana laws, ignoring them does not cause society to crumble.
Failing to press charges on trivial unjust uses of force (e.g., poking somebody in the shoulder who didn't want to be poked or grabbing somebody's arm who didn't wish to be grabbed) doesn't cause society to crumble either.
The reporter wasn't in fear for her life after the incident. She was butt hurt. There's a world of difference.
Traditio wrote: Empty liberal rhetoric. Nothing more, nothing less. "Victim blaming" is just another liberal buzz word of the day.
Yeah it could be that, or it could, you know... Be an actual thing.
At any rate, I'm not blaming the victim for being victimized. I'm not denying that she was a victim.
No, you're just saying she shouldn't have any legal recourse for being a victim because you don't think what happened is that big of a deal. I would say that probably worse.
That's all I'm saying, and nobody in this thread has in any way, shape or form even made a modest attempt to provide arguments against it.
Yeah they have, you just seem incredibly resilient to facts or common sense and not because anything you've said is as logically sound as you seem to think it is.
Literally all that I'm asserting is that the degree to which she was victimized is trivial, and that, given the trivial nature of the offense, her insistence on pressing charges is unreasonable on her part. That's all I'm saying, and nobody in this thread has in any way, shape or form even made a modest attempt to provide arguments against it.
In the words of the great man himself, Homer Simpson, that's for the courts to decide!
As you say, he is accused of committing a crime. Wether you consider it to be trivial or not is irrelevant. It is now down to the police and courts to decide if his actions were reasonable or criminal. The reporter has every right to press charges. She obviously feels she was assaulted. It is not up to you to say that she is being reasonable or not, only she can make that choice.
Failing to press charges on trivial unjust uses of force (e.g., poking somebody in the shoulder who didn't want to be poked or grabbing somebody's arm who didn't wish to be grabbed) doesn't cause society to crumble either.
The reporter wasn't in fear for her life after the incident. She was butt hurt. There's a world of difference.
She was, apparently, left with bruising. This is much higher than being poked in the arm. She may not have feared for her life, but that does not make it not assault. It may not cause society to crumble, but there is an issue that someone used their size and strength to force their will on someone who was doing something quite legal. There is not just an issue of the suffering or fear, but also the fact that she was a reporter doing her job and was prevented from doing that just because she was smaller and weaker (or just less willing to use force).
jasper76 wrote: Did you watch the Town Hall? Dude is either a moron on foreign affairs, or the people who are advising him are. I thought Kasich was unusually strong. These town halls are alot better than debates IMO. It's hard for someone to fudge knowledge on issues through an entire hour of grilling.
Everyone backed off their pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee.....everyone of them.
Cruz and Kasich were decent.
Trump was a disaster.
I now really hope Cruz trounces him from here on out.
I actually thought Anderson Cooper had the best line of the night. "That's the answer of a 5 year old child."
Literally all that I'm asserting is that the degree to which she was victimized is trivial, and that, given the trivial nature of the offense, her insistence on pressing charges is unreasonable on her part. That's all I'm saying, and nobody in this thread has in any way, shape or form even made a modest attempt to provide arguments against it.
Okay, well then that is just your opinion man. But everybody here thinks you are wrong, the police think you are wrong, and the DA thinks you are wrong. So you can continue to have your opinion that it is a trivial matter. But we all disagree with you. Take from that what you will.
Enjoy your opinion and have a nice day, we are no longer interested in your argument, you will not persuade us.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Can we move on, please? My finger is sore from scrolling through over two pages of posts discussing something that has nothing to do with politics.
Anyway, is anybody really surprised that all three have backed off from that pledge to blindly support the nominee?
I'm not surprised after things went down to the gutter. I don't believe it was particularly fair for Fox News to put them on the spot like that. IIRC, it was the very first question of the very first debate. I mean, they're the media bureau of the Republican Party, so it doesn't surprise me that they did it, but the silly pledges should just be dropped once and for all. They just make everyone look bad (a) for making the pledge in the first place, and (b) when things turn to gak and they back off their pledge.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Can we move on, please? My finger is sore from scrolling through over two pages of posts discussing something that has nothing to do with politics.
Anyway, is anybody really surprised that all three have backed off from that pledge to blindly support the nominee?
I think the original intent was to nab Trump in a pledge to support the "eventual" establishment candidate and thus bring over his small army of worshipers. It wasn't as obvious then that what Trump says is what Trump supporters believe but the GOP was gravy if they got Trump to say he supports his opponent.
Problem is that Trump came out on top so now the GOP establishment has to back pedal to get out of their agreement. Which will inevitably work against them because yet again they have gone against their word. Trump will be able to play that up as someone who doesn't go against his word (lol).
d-usa wrote: Blaming the victim is the OT thing to do, so there is that.
Empty liberal rhetoric. Nothing more, nothing less. "Victim blaming" is just another liberal buzz word of the day.
At any rate, I'm not blaming the victim for being victimized. I'm not denying that she was a victim.
Literally all that I'm asserting is that the degree to which she was victimized is trivial, and that, given the trivial nature of the offense, her insistence on pressing charges is unreasonable on her part. That's all I'm saying, and nobody in this thread has in any way, shape or form even made a modest attempt to provide arguments against it.
Hey man... see my avatar. Chillax.
I regularly butt heads with d-usa and scooty.... but, they're both right.
In the context of the law, the "unreasonable" aspect of this doesn't factor in on whether Cory *may* have broken the law. It's really up to the DA to determine if they move forward.
I get the sense that all of this could be resolve had Cory privately apologized to her and bought her a drink. But, no... he chose to go a different route. So, it's NOT just about the incident... but, also how they handled it afterwards.
Legal issue aside... when a frontrunner staff is apparently physically aggressive to a female reporter who's doing her job AND the staff is defended by said frontrunner, just imagine what it'd be like with these people in power.
I'm hoping that Trumps popularity in the US, however marginal it might be, serves as kind of a wake up call to our European allies. There's a growing sentiment that the US should no longer act as a shield against Eastern aggression, and quite frankly, I don't think Europe is institutionally capable of defending itself militarily. With Brussels, there's now a concern that Europe is institutionally incapable of even policing themselves, which is one of the most basic functions of government.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Can we move on, please? My finger is sore from scrolling through over two pages of posts discussing something that has nothing to do with politics.
Anyway, is anybody really surprised that all three have backed off from that pledge to blindly support the nominee?
Not really because I don't believe the non-Trumpers ever believed that Trump would still be making some noise at this stage.
And frankly, Trump has been a complete disaster and even *I* would walkback that October pledge. 'Cuz, feth him.
Traditio wrote: What seems to me the most probable answer, sebster, is that the police "went this far" because what the man did is technically illegal. It is against the law to grab somebody's arm like that and force them to move in those circumstances. That's illegal. That's battery. There's no question about it.
No, you don't understand the discretion available to police and prosecutors, and you're ignoring as I explain that discretion to you.
The police don't press charges everytime someone walks in with a case that's technically legitimate. They are not slaves to any random off the street. They get to apply judgement.
They have applied judgement in this case and decided to press charges. Why is a good question, and the only answer we can safely rule out is 'they have no choice because it technically meets the law'.
The arrest of the campaign manager is a farce. She had her hand on Trump, and the campaign manager was basically saying back up. The video doesn't back up her first statement on what happened. Even still, she's acting like a diva.
I am not totally on board with Trump but I have to admit that out of the five remaining candidates, he is the only one who continuously says some of the things I feel, even tho his delivery is poor. I dont think he has any long term policy ideas worked out, and just sort of has a general sense of what he would like to do, even if he doesn't understand what power the presidency actually has. He'll get a reality check.
But I am over the Clintons and Hillary in particular. Sanders is out of his mind. Kasich is going nowhere, and Cruz is crazy. I have been wondering how a President with a background in business would do since Ross Perot. I think Trump is actually more moderate than he has been saying, and I am on board with that.
Traditio wrote: Empty liberal rhetoric. Nothing more, nothing less. "Victim blaming" is just another liberal buzz word of the day.
No, 'victim blaming' is a running joke on dakka, after some crazy a while back tepeated ot over and over again.
I knoe it can be hard to pick up on the culture of a board when you first join, but maybe less shouty reactionary posting, and more reading could help you.
jasper76 wrote: I'm hoping that Trumps popularity in the US, however marginal it might be, serves as kind of a wake up call to our European allies. There's a growing sentiment that the US should no longer act as a shield against Eastern aggression, and quite frankly, I don't think Europe is institutionally capable of defending itself militarily. With Brussels, there's now a concern that Europe is institutionally incapable of even policing themselves, which is one of the most basic functions of government.
This is serious stuff people.
I agree with this, especially when they don't spend the required 2% of GDP on defense. Every time Putin says 'Boo!', we have to rush over 4 or so fighters to show solidarity with our European allies. Rather than the US sending fighters to Poland, why doesn't France and Germany?
Besides, we're going to have our hands full in the South China Sea soon. The Europeans are going to have to learn to fend for themselves.
Traditio wrote: Empty liberal rhetoric. Nothing more, nothing less. "Victim blaming" is just another liberal buzz word of the day.
No, 'victim blaming' is a running joke on dakka, after some crazy a while back tepeated ot over and over again.
I knoe it can be hard to pick up on the culture of a board when you first join, but maybe less shouty reactionary posting, and more reading could help you.
I believe the exact quote was "BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM!" repeated for a few pages.
Either way, victim blaming is an actual concept, not just "empty liberal rhetoric". It was, for a long time, one of the main means of defence against a rape accusation. Luckily that time has mostly passed.
Kilkrazy wrote:You think it's acceptable to assault people because the chance of hitting someone who is particularly vulnerable is fairly low?
The law disagrees with you.
1. I scarcely would call the odds "fairly low." Once again, I want you to call to mind the tabletop gaming equivalent:
You have to roll ALL ONES on 1d20 and 3d10.
What kind of bets would you be willing to take on the assumption that you WON'T roll all 1s on those dice?
2. As I've repeatedly insisted, at no point did I claim that it's OK to assault anyone for those, or any other, reasons. I've repeatedly insisted that the actions of the campaign manager, in the absence of any other considerations, constitute a criminal act and was unreasonable/unacceptable [thus my great annoyance at repeatedly having the argument brought against me by the liberals on this forum that battery is illegal and that his act constituted battery].
The only claim that I've made is that, in the extremely unlikely event that she would have been a hemophiliac or had some other serious, rare medical condition, about which he could not have possibly have known, that her subsequent injury wouldn't make his act more unreasonable, wouldn't aggravate his crime, in my view. It certainly should have increased his civil liability, and rightly so, but I think it would be unreasonable to claim that he would have done something seriously criminal.
The grabbing would have been intentional. The breaking of her arm or the causing of internal bleeding would have been completely unforeseeable and unintended.
Ultimately, I am arguing on the basis of St. Thomas Aquinas' philosophy of law. All good law [as also its application] should accord with and be founded upon right reason. [I understand that liberals, of course, will disagree with this; liberals are generally voluntarists; thus the reason that there generally just ain't no talking sense into one; it's interesting, furthermore, to note that they share this feature, i.e., of being voluntarists, with Muslims (perhaps partly explaining their apparent affinity for Muslims). The only difference, of course, is that whereas Muslims say that their deity can do and command whatever he wants, the liberals assert that they can do whatever they want.]
There is no sense in which his act would have been more contrary to right reason because of the subsequent injury. It would have been unforeseeable and unintended.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Goliath wrote:Either way, victim blaming is an actual concept, not just "empty liberal rhetoric". It was, for a long time, one of the main means of defence against a rape accusation. Luckily that time has mostly passed.
In this context, and in most contexts, I wager, in which liberals throw out the term, it's empty liberal rhetoric.
Liberal: "So and so was raped. How horrible! Poor girl!"
Me: "I fully agree that's very bad; however, I do have this question: why was she, a scantily clad stripper, consuming excessive alcohol at a fraternity house party? Why was she there alone/unattended? Did she really not think that was a bad idea?"
Liberal: "Oh, sure, just blame the victim!"
As with many things the liberals say, it's nice sounding set of words designed to obfuscate things and shut down the arguments without actually having to talk about the matter at hand. It's ultimately just one more means of liberals saying "BOO!" and sticking their fingers in their ears.
Thus, if the "blame the victim" bit earlier in the thread was merely a continuance of the joke previously alluded to, then mea culpa, of course.
But I can realistically see liberals throwing this term out in this context.
Me: "Yes, she was battered, I guess, technically. In a trivial way. Is this really big enough of a deal for her to call the cops? Seems pretty lame, bro."
Liberal: "VICTIM BLAMING!!!! I NEED MAH SAFE SPACES AND TRIGGER WARNINGS!!!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:In the context of the law, the "unreasonable" aspect of this doesn't factor in on whether Cory *may* have broken the law.
This point simply isn't in dispute.
It's really up to the DA to determine if they move forward.
That depends on the laws of the given jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, the victim retains the right to press (and drop) charges in a battery incident.
I get the sense that all of this could be resolve had Cory privately apologized to her and bought her a drink. But, no... he chose to go a different route. So, it's NOT just about the incident... but, also how they handled it afterwards.
As I said. She's butt hurt. That's what it all comes down to.
That is exactly what blaming the victim IS. The point is nothing about what a woman dresses like or drinks had any blame for her getting raped. The only one who is to blame is the rapist. Full stop.
skyth wrote: That is exactly what blaming the victim IS. The point is nothing about what a woman dresses like or drinks had any blame for her getting raped. The only one who is to blame is the rapist. Full stop.
See, this is what makes it empty liberal rhetoric. It's not a well-reasoned reply to the concern at hand. It's a sheer rhetorical flourish designed to shut people down; it's a mere propaganda tool.
The moment that you say "victim blaming," you have stopped talking to me. You've started talking past me in order to beat a rhetorical propaganda drum.
Yes, nobody should commit rape. Yes, the blame for rape lies squarely on the rapist (as efficient cause).
Doesn't change the fact that our half naked stripper made an incredibly stupid (as well as immoral) choice and should not have put herself in that situation in the first place. She should have known better.
But of course, the liberals won't hear anything about this last part. The idea of a woman actually having a responsibility to conduct herself in a respectable and reasonable way? Anathema
In what way is "a scantily clad stripper, consuming excessive alcohol at a fraternity house party" immoral?
Are people not allowed to drink? Is it the fact she's not wearing much? The interacting with people of the opposite sex outside of marriage? What is it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Traditio wrote: The idea of a woman actually having a responsibility to conduct herself in a respectable and reasonable way? Anathema
I know, it's almost as weird as the expectation of a presidential campaign manager actually having a responsibility to conduct himself in a respectable and reasonable way, without breaking the law. Inconceivable!
Goliath wrote: In what way is "a scantily clad stripper, consuming excessive alcohol at a fraternity house party" immoral?
Are people not allowed to drink? Is it the fact she's not wearing much? The interacting with people of the opposite sex outside of marriage? What is it?
Contrary to the general mindset of the modern liberal, I agree with Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. in thinking that temperance (i.e., that virtue whereby the desires for food, drink and sex are moderated by right reason) is a virtue, whereas the opposite is a vice. I further agree with these venerable men in asserting that any act which is opposed to a virtue is itself an act of vice (though not necessarily an act which proceeds from vice) and constitutes a moral offense.
Not to mention, of course, even leaving aside the moral question, how utterly stupid and imprudent such a course of action is on the part of any woman.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Goliath wrote:I know, it's almost as weird as the expectation of a presidential campaign manager actually having a responsibility to conduct himself in a respectable and reasonable way, without breaking the law. Inconceivable!
Oh, please, do quote the particular posting in which I disagreed with this.
I'll be waiting...
...
...
...though I won't hold my breath. I don't want to die from asphyxiation.
Goliath wrote: Do, please, quote the particular posting in which I accused you of agreeing with it.
Here is what you wrote:
"I know, it's almost as weird as the expectation of a presidential campaign manager actually having a responsibility to conduct himself in a respectable and reasonable way, without breaking the law. Inconceivable!"
Are you implying that I disagreed with the assertion that a presidential campaign manager should so conduct himself?
Are you implying that I've said otherwise?
If you are, then I repeat my challenge: quote me.
If you aren't, then it doesn't really seem to add much to the conversation.
That said, I am deeply amused by the "inconceivable" bit.
Actually, you know what? Yeah, I am going to call you on it.
It was meant as a means of allowing you to read and maybe compare your views on the two things, and see if there was maybe a teeny tiny bit of glaring inconsistency.
You state that a woman should have to act in a certain way so as to not be raped, and talk about it as if her fault for attending a party is non-trivial, but for some reason a presidential campaign manager grabbing someone's arm and pulling them with such force that their arm is bruised is somehow so trivial that they should not be charged for a clearly criminal act?
Traditio wrote: His intent was to move the reporter. That's apparently it.
It's actually illegal to move someone that doesn't want to be moved in a situation like this. His intent was a crime to begin with, and he should have known that.
The legal, and smart, way to handle that would have been to ask her to move, and when she refuses then you have the police remove her for you. There is a reason you see police escorting protesters and the like from political events, and not campaign managers.
Again, I agree with everything you are saying. It doesn't contradict what I've said.
I haven't claimed that the charge is illegitimate. I've claimed that the charge is trivial.
It's not a trivial charge. If you agree that the actions committed by the campaign manager meet the criteria for a criminal charge of battery then it'snot trivial. Battery isn't a trivial offense. A person committing the crime of Battery deliberately in full view of thousands of people at a high profile event, especially given the physical disparity of force between the two parties involved, isn't trivial. If the DA fails to prosecute a clear open and shut case of battery committed in front of multiple eyewitnesses and caught on videotape then the DA subverts the rule of law. Subverting the rule of law by an elected official responsible for enforcing the rule of law is not trivial.
The victimized woman is not at fault for charges being filed. The campaign manager is at fault for committing a crime in such a blatant and forthright manner that the DA can't afford not to prosecute him for it.
In short, if you play stupid games you win stupid prizes. Laying your hands on another person to physically force them to comply with your wishes just because you deem that person to be in your path of travel is illegal and immoral behavior that deserves appropriate punishment.
jasper76 wrote: I'm hoping that Trumps popularity in the US, however marginal it might be, serves as kind of a wake up call to our European allies. There's a growing sentiment that the US should no longer act as a shield against Eastern aggression, and quite frankly, I don't think Europe is institutionally capable of defending itself militarily. With Brussels, there's now a concern that Europe is institutionally incapable of even policing themselves, which is one of the most basic functions of government.
This is serious stuff people.
I agree with this, especially when they don't spend the required 2% of GDP on defense. Every time Putin says 'Boo!', we have to rush over 4 or so fighters to show solidarity with our European allies. Rather than the US sending fighters to Poland, why doesn't France and Germany?
Besides, we're going to have our hands full in the South China Sea soon. The Europeans are going to have to learn to fend for themselves.
Probably because France and Germany cannot muster an effective deterrent force. Those are the facts, whether we like them or not. I'd suggest to you for many reasons, a secure Europe is vital to US interests. Even if we want to modify the NATO arrangement , it is highly unwise to so openly telegraph this to Russia and the Middle East. It make the US look weak, and Europe look like more of a soft target than it already is.
Also, regarding the South China Sea, the US military is more than capable of conducting operations on multiple fronts.
I can't believe the thinly veiled misogny in your rhetoric.
He grabbed her He injured her
If you want to call minor bruising an injury.
Is she *not* supposed to be angry, upset, or otherwise concerned that some stranger intentionally laid hands on her and injured her?
Should she be angry, upset and otherwise concerned that some stranger grabbed her arm, tried to move her out of the way, and in the process of so doing, caused her minor bruising?
Sure.
I've never denied this.
I only wish to note that the most substantial "injury" she sustained in this case, however, is butt hurt. A very severe case of butt hurt.
I guess though, you'd be cool with someone coming over and grabbing you in the nose and unintentionally breaking it.
After all...they didn't *mean* to break it.
Completely different animal. It's one thing to grab somebody's face, another thing to grab somebody's arm.
Prestor Jon wrote:It's not a trivial charge. If you agree that the actions committed by the campaign manager meet the criteria for a criminal charge of battery then it's not trivial.
I see no reason to accept the truth of the hypothetical proposition that you've just proposed.
Battery isn't a trivial offense.
It's a misdemeanor offense. Even the worst case of simple battery is still a misdemeanor offense. He could have beaten her up, and it would probably still just be a misdemeanor offense.
He didn't. He grabbed her arm and made her move.
A person committing the crime of Battery deliberately in full view of thousands of people at a high profile event, especially given the physical disparity of force between the two parties involved, isn't trivial.
Let's rephrase what you said so that we're not using loaded terminology:
"A person grabbing somebody's arm and forcing them to move out of the way in full view of thousands of people, especially when the person grabbing is a man and the person being grabbed is a woman, isn't trivial."
Really, the only thing that you're adding is "in full view of thousands of people" and "but she's a woman!" I fail to see how this aggravates the battery charge.
At worst, it gives the female reporter more cause to be butt hurt.
If the DA fails to prosecute a clear open and shut case of battery committed in front of multiple eyewitnesses and caught on videotape then the DA subverts the rule of law. Subverting the rule of law by an elected official responsible for enforcing the rule of law is not trivial.
That really depends on the laws of the jurisdiction in question.
The victimized woman is not at fault for charges being filed.
"At fault?" Let's start with "responsible for."
If she either called the cops, or else, said "Yes, I want to file charges," she is responsible for charges being filed.
Is she at fault for so doing? I'm not sure that I want to make such a strong claim.
The campaign manager is at fault for committing a crime in such a blatant and forthright manner that the DA can't afford not to prosecute him for it.
1. I haven't denied that he's at fault.
2. I'm not convinced that the DA "can't afford not to prosecute."
Again, who called the cops? Who pressed charges?
Laying your hands on another person to physically force them to comply with your wishes just because you deem that person to be in your path of travel is illegal and immoral behavior that deserves appropriate punishment.
He grabbed her by the arm and moved her out of the way. He didn't even knock her off of her feet.
The result was minor bruising and a severe case of butt hurt.
What's the appropriate punishment for that?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Goliath wrote: Actually, you know what? Yeah, I am going to call you on it.
It was meant as a means of allowing you to read and maybe compare your views on the two things, and see if there was maybe a teeny tiny bit of glaring inconsistency.
You state that a woman should have to act in a certain way so as to not be raped
I didn't say that. I didn't even mildly imply it.
and talk about it as if her fault for attending a party is non-trivial
Oversimplification of the scenario that I've presented.
And I didn't say anything about "non-trivial."
If you want a rephrase of what I've essentially said, I'd rephrase as follows:
"If you want to avoid getting raped, stripping at a fraternity house party and getting drunk at the same while being wholly unattended is a very ineffective means of so doing! If you don't want to get stuff in your car stolen, you keep your valuables out of sight and your doors locked. You don't want to get raped? Then don't strip and get drunk at frat parties while being unattended."
but for some reason a presidential campaign manager grabbing someone's arm and pulling them with such force that their arm is bruised is somehow so trivial that they should not be charged for a clearly criminal act?
It was bruised. How much force does it take for an average woman to bruise?
Never let me down Political Junkie thread. Don't you ever let me down!
They have really been coming out in force the last 10 pages. It isn't often that you get to see somebody complain excessively about liberals and then say a woman is at blame for being raped because she was exercising her right to be free and do what she wants.
Can we get this sideshow non-political stuff into its own thread. I'm hear to talk about debate performance, poll numbers, the electoral college, and ongoing political races.
With that in mind, let's talk abotu VP candidates to the Dems. Here are some names I have heard floating about.....
Dreadwinter wrote: and then say a woman is at blame for being raped because she was exercising her right to be free and do what she wants.
I didn't say that. Such a woman is as much to blame for being raped as a person who left his valuables on his front seat and his car doors unlocked is to blame for having his car burglarized.
I don't think Warren is interested in much beyond her current role.
Not sure why, exactly...but I just don't see her doing much beyond her station...ever.
*If* ot were Clinton as the nomination, she would be smart to offer the VP to Sanders but I don't think he would take it on account of principle/conscience. It could look bad....though...it could also be argued that being the VP is a great place to keep an eye on the P for untoward behavior (ha ha ha).
Has anyone done numbers on a Hillary/Sanders ticket? Not so much that I want to see that (nor think it would happen), but I am curious how that one polls.
Plus there are some great team names we can slap on it! Sandhill? Hillbern? Clintbern - no that ones terrible.
Easy E wrote: Can we get this sideshow non-political stuff into its own thread. I'm hear to talk about debate performance, poll numbers, the electoral college, and ongoing political races.
With that in mind, let's talk abotu VP candidates to the Dems. Here are some names I have heard floating about.....
Has anyone else heard other names to add to the list, and what are the chances of any of these people getting the nod?
Edit: I would also like to hear a bit about VPs for Rs, but I haven't heard much on that front.
I think that this just "jumps the gun." Bernie Sanders isn't out of the race yet. Yes, Hilary has a massive lead over Sanders, but this is primarily in terms of superdelegates. Her lead, discounting super-delegates, is actually relatively small, and Sanders appears to have been picking up steam recently. There's still another 2000+ delegates up for grabs, no?
Dreadwinter wrote: and then say a woman is at blame for being raped because she was exercising her right to be free and do what she wants.
I didn't say that. Such a woman is as much to blame for being raped as a person who left his valuables on his front seat and his car doors unlocked is to blame for having his car burglarized.
Ok. That's clear.
They are asking to be burglarized.
Gotcha.
Never ever never expect to not be burglarized people.
Because if you do get burglarized by flaunting your goods on your front seat....you asked for it.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Here's a thought, is there any particular reason why Bill couldn't be Hillary's VP? Or does the limit on presidential terms prevent it?
I don't... think so? My guess is that no one would ever put a former two term president in the VP position, because if the president dies you have a succession crisis. The VP is supposed to be next in line, but someone can only be President twice. If you've already served two terms you can't be president again Constitutionally.
You could just say "we'll skip him" but the law as far as I know does not offer provisions for skipping someone in the line of succession.
Maybe if you say the word enough times, it'll magically amount to whatever fairy fantasy you think it means?
There's no lifetime limit on presidential terms. There's only a two term limit on consecutive presidential terms, so far as I'm aware.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice
First sentence of Amendment 22.
It is a hard limit. Consecutive, non-consecutive, concurrent (?) doesn't matter. You only get the Oval office twice. EDIT: Then again, it does specify elected.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Here's a thought, is there any particular reason why Bill couldn't be Hillary's VP? Or does the limit on presidential terms prevent it?
If you can't EVER be President (and Bill is now term-limited), you can't be VP.
In the same vein, Ahunold Swartzie can't be VP as he isn't a natural born citizen.
Easy E wrote: Can we get this sideshow non-political stuff into its own thread. I'm hear to talk about debate performance, poll numbers, the electoral college, and ongoing political races.
With that in mind, let's talk abotu VP candidates to the Dems. Here are some names I have heard floating about.....
LordofHats wrote:Maybe if you say the word enough times, it'll magically amount to whatever fairy fantasy you think it means?
If your mantra is "progress for the progress god and modernism for the modernism throne"...
If you are a moral relativist, a utilitarian or a moral subjectivist...
If you are so historically myopic that you can't see past the late 1800s...
If you are constantly blathering on about "science" and "evolution" in completely unrelated conversations...
If you are constantly spouting nonsense ("TRIGGER WARNINGS FOR COLLEGE STUDENTS!") so ridiculous that practically nobody outside of your own circles can keep a straight face when you talk (and if neither can you, when nobody is looking)...
Also, regarding the South China Sea, the US military is more than capable of conducting operations on multiple fronts.
Oh it most certainly is not. We will soon approach pre-WWII troop levels.
We (the US military) barely survived Iraq and Afghanistan. And we should have had a lot more troops in both places.
The US military barely survived Iraq and Afghanistan??? That would come as news to the US military, I'm sure they'd beg to differ. Also a WWII military and the modern US military is an apples and oranges comparison. Our modern military force would utterly crush our historical WWII military force.
This would be a great line for a parody series of US politics using 40k references.
If you are a moral relativist, a utilitarian or a moral subjectivist...
Depends on the kind of moral relativism we're talking about. Utilitarianism is okay, but too often I see it exaggerated into defending brain dead/cold blooded nonsense. I'm pretty sure moral subjectivist is just another way of saying moral relativist. Unless you mean Ethical Subjectivism, which is something completely different.
If you are so historically myopic that you can't see past the late 1800s...
I went to school in Pennsylvania. I wish I could escape the Civil War and the Gilded Age. I've read the Johnstown Flood twice, and I think I almost have the names of the victims of the Lattimer Massacre memorized. I have to take yet another class on the Civil War it in the fall. I am not excited.
Personally, I like the Crusades, Reconquista, a little Norman Sicilty. Bohemond I was like a real life Stannis Baratheon, except he didn't set people on fire... As far as I know. Actually I wouldn't be surprised to find out he did. That first round of Crusaders had a lot of daddy issues, but hey. They got farther than any of those other guys who tried. No idea how Richard the Lionheart ended up more famous. I think he was just riding Saladin's coattails.
If you are constantly blathering on about "science" and "evolution" in completely unrelated conversations...
You seem like you have some serious issues. Want to talk about it? I'm a great listener. If you see me laughing at your misplaced sense of victimization, don't worry. It's just because I find it hilarious.
If you are constantly spouting nonsense so ridiculous that practically nobody outside of your own circles can keep a straight face when you talk (and if neither can you, when nobody is looking)...
Eh. I only do that when someone is being a self righteous nozzle. They had it coming.
Also, regarding the South China Sea, the US military is more than capable of conducting operations on multiple fronts.
Oh it most certainly is not. We will soon approach pre-WWII troop levels.
We (the US military) barely survived Iraq and Afghanistan. And we should have had a lot more troops in both places.
The US military barely survived Iraq and Afghanistan??? That would come as news to the US military, I'm sure they'd beg to differ. Also a WWII military and the modern US military is an apples and oranges comparison. Our modern military force would utterly crush our historical WWII military force.
The US army could barely handle the number of troops required of it at on point. Soldiers were spending more time at war than they were at home for about a 5 year stretch. The National Guard had to transformed into a ready combat reserve, something it was never really supposed to be.
The toll on the people in the military has been great. The constant deployments mixed with the social engineering and political correctness crap being hammered into our military has done real damage.
You realize in the US Army there is 20 months worth of required administrative task/training required of each soldier each year? Where is the time for actual training?
You know, since this is a politics thread and all, I have a topic of political discussion, something that perplexes me:
Why is it that every time there is a school shooting, Obama gets on tv and whines and complains about guns...
...
...
But no matter how many people get murdered and raped by Muslims, he nonetheless sees no problem with letting in Muslim refugees?
See, if people were getting shot overseas and someone said: "Hey, we should import more guns," Obama would be all over that: "Hey, buddy, that's not a good idea. Don't you see all of them murders overseas and at home wherein guns were used?"
But he doesn't seem to notice the common denominator to the Cologne attacks, Brussels, Paris, etc.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Here's a thought, is there any particular reason why Bill couldn't be Hillary's VP? Or does the limit on presidential terms prevent it?
If you can't EVER be President (and Bill is now term-limited), you can't be VP.
Also, regarding the South China Sea, the US military is more than capable of conducting operations on multiple fronts.
Oh it most certainly is not. We will soon approach pre-WWII troop levels.
We (the US military) barely survived Iraq and Afghanistan. And we should have had a lot more troops in both places.
The US military barely survived Iraq and Afghanistan??? That would come as news to the US military, I'm sure they'd beg to differ. Also a WWII military and the modern US military is an apples and oranges comparison. Our modern military force would utterly crush our historical WWII military force.
The US army could barely handle the number of troops required of it at on point. Soldiers were spending more time at war than they were at home for about a 5 year stretch. The National Guard had to transformed into a ready combat reserve, something it was never really supposed to be.
The toll on the people in the military has been great. The constant deployments mixed with the social engineering and political correctness crap being hammered into our military has done real damage.
You realize in the US Army there is 20 months worth of required administrative task/training required of each soldier each year? Where is the time for actual training?
Oh no! Soldiers, marines, and sailors had to do soldier, marine, and sailor stuff?
Why is it that every time there is a school shooting, Obama gets on tv and whines and complains about guns...
But no matter how many people get murdered and raped by Muslims, he nonetheless sees no problem with letting in Muslim refugees?
Ref. First question: Because Obama is a gun control advocate.
Ref. second question: Because Obama is an advocate for assisting refugees, and he does not believe that because some Muslims commit murder and rape, that this means that all Muslims commit murder and rape.
I read a pretty good recommendation the other day that Clinton could do worse than nominating Al Franken as VP. He would effectively neuter Trump's non sequitur attacks, and do so in a way that wouldn't come off as crass (like Rubio attempted to do for a short while). He could be a great attack dog and do so in a humorous way allowing Clinton to appear to stay above the fray. Plus a lot of the other names are senators whose position would be filled with GOP governors, which is not a good thing if you want the Senate to flip.
skyth wrote: Time to put another troll on the ignore list I believe.
Yeah, I did as well.
He's a rare bird around here and I don't think I've seen anyone else in a long time be so forthcoming with with their, um... Interesting views. Luckily, people like this tend not to stick around very long.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I read a pretty good recommendation the other day that Clinton could do worse than nominating Al Franken as VP. He would effectively neuter Trump's non sequitur attacks, and do so in a way that wouldn't come off as crass (like Rubio attempted to do for a short while). He could be a great attack dog and do so in a humorous way allowing Clinton to appear to stay above the fray. Plus a lot of the other names are senators whose position would be filled with GOP governors, which is not a good thing if you want the Senate to flip.
Al Franken...that video from SNL dancing around in his skivvies would be on a 24X7 loop on TV.
I think Clinton's best bet is for herself to play the attack dog, and get a VP running mate who is above the fray.
jasper76 wrote: Al Franken...that video from SNL dancing around in his skivvies would be on a 24X7 loop on TV.
I think Clinton's best bet is for herself to play the attack dog, and get a VP running mate who is above the fray.
Al Franken is also a second term senator from Minnesota that take his job pretty seriously (other than that time he was rolling his eyes and flapping his hands when Mitch McConnell was talking, which he apologized for).
jasper76 wrote:Ref. First question: Because Obama is a gun control advocate.
Yeah, that's basically it. Obama doesn't like guns, but he does like Muslims.
So to heck with consistency and logic.
Typical liberal.
Ref. second question: Because Obama is an advocate for assisting refugees, and he does not believe that because some Muslims commit murder and rape, that this means that all Muslims commit murder and rape.
I could say the same thing about guns.
I've heard the argument made by liberals that simply having more guns around leads to more gun violence. Why? Because even if x doesn't use his gun to kill y, someone else might steal x's gun in order to kill y. Not to mention accidental gun deaths and all of that good stuff.
Well, by the same argument, Muslims...
...
...
Again, are liberals just completely blind to the obvious trends in Europe?
I heard the other day that most of the terrorists in Brussels came from one little community with an inordinate concentration of Muslims.
Because that's what they're doing over there. They're invading, colonizing, forming their own little Muslim ghettos...
I say that by the same logic whereby Obama wants to control the guns, a forteriori, he should be forced to admit that we should just send all them Muslims right back to where they came from.
I say that by the same logic whereby Obama wants to control the guns, a forteriori, he should be forced to admit that we should just send all them Muslims right back to where they came from.
You've got me all wrong. I do not believe that Obama or any President of the United States should be forced to say anything.
Regarding Trump, I perceive him as a huge threat to liberty, peace, and prosperity domestically, a gigantic threat to our allies and international stability, and indeed a threat to a human-habitable Earth because he advocates nuclear proliferation. I will most certainly be voting for his opponent in the general election.
If Trump lines up with your political priorities, by all means, give him your vote.
jasper76 wrote: You've got me all wrong. I do not believe that Obama or any President of the United States should be forced to say anything.
Oh, I understand.
No, I don't mean that Obama should actually be forced to do anything. All that I mean is this:
If you take the common liberal arguments and, probably, Obama's same rhetoric about gun control, and if you were consistently to apply the premises/principles that he uses for that, the rules of sound reasoning themselves would "force" him to admit, with respect to Muslims, in the words of Johnny Rebel:
"We ought to send 'em all back to Africa."
Regarding Trump, I perceive him as a huge threat to liberty, peace, and prosperity domestically, a gigantic threat to our allies and international stability, and indeed a threat to a human-habitable Earth because he advocates nuclear proliferation. I will most certainly be voting for his opponent in the general election.
Fair enough, but I'm talking solely about kicking out the Muslims.
Trump would be a good first step in getting rid of Muslims, no?
If Trump lines up with your political priorities, by all means, give him your vote.
To be honest, I'm split.
I'm with Trump on the Mexicans and the Muslims.
I'm with Sanders on climate change and economic policies.
And I don't really have a viable candidate when it comes to social issues like abortion and the homosexual agenda, my views being those of traditional Christendom.
Basically, I don't like Sanders completely because he's not enough a nationalist (and he's a social liberal).
And I don't like Trump because he's not enough of a "socialist."
Tannhauser42 wrote: Here's a thought, is there any particular reason why Bill couldn't be Hillary's VP? Or does the limit on presidential terms prevent it?
If you can't EVER be President (and Bill is now term-limited), you can't be VP.
@Tradition: I grew up in a diverse area that had many Muslim families, and I went to school from grade school through college and had many Muslim friends and acquaintances along the way. While I do feel we need to be careful about who we let into our country and perform proper vetting, I do not want any American Muslim's kicked out of our country, and I do not believe in a religious test to enter the country. Such a test would be ridiculous on its face because anyone can answer the question "Are you a Muslim?" with the word "No."
I also do not support the mass deportation of a legal immigrants (I assume that's what you mean by "Mexicans") that Trump is running on.
jasper76 wrote: I grew up in a diverse area that had many Muslim families, and I went to school from grade school through college and had many Muslim friends and acquaintances along the way. While I do feel we need to be careful about who we let into our country and perform proper vetting, I do not want any American Muslim's kicked out of our country, and I do not believe in a religious test to enter the country. Such a test would be ridiculous on its face because anyone can answer the question "Are you a Muslim?" with the word "No."
I fully understand that you feel this way. I'm simply asking that you humor me in terms of my "what if":
Not really. Trump advocates a religious test to enter the country, and advocates the mass deportation of millions of illegal immigrants. But he does not advocate the removal of US citizens who are Muslims, nor does any candidate from either of the major parties (or any candidate at all as far as I'm aware).
jasper76 wrote: I grew up in a diverse area that had many Muslim families, and I went to school from grade school through college and had many Muslim friends and acquaintances along the way. While I do feel we need to be careful about who we let into our country and perform proper vetting, I do not want any American Muslim's kicked out of our country, and I do not believe in a religious test to enter the country. Such a test would be ridiculous on its face because anyone can answer the question "Are you a Muslim?" with the word "No."
I fully understand that you feel this way. I'm simply asking that you humor me in terms of my "what if":
jasper76 wrote: Not really. Trump advocates a religious test to enter the country, and advocates the mass deportation of millions of illegal immigrants. But he does not advocate the removal of US citizens who are Muslims, nor does any candidate from either of the major parties (or any candidate at all as far as I'm aware).
Well, we can't make America great again all at once, suppose. That does strike me as a pretty decent first step, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote:No, because that's an unattainable goal.
Unattainable in what sense? Politically? Physically? Logically?
jasper76 wrote: Not really. Trump advocates a religious test to enter the country, and advocates the mass deportation of millions of illegal immigrants. But he does not advocate the removal of US citizens who are Muslims, nor does any candidate from either of the major parties (or any candidate at all as far as I'm aware).
Well, we can't make America great again all at once, suppose. That does strike me as a pretty decent first step, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote:No, because that's an unattainable goal.
Unattainable in what sense? Politically? Physically? Logically?
Besides it being un american? Sure I could think of lots of reasons
I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps if you interacted with some Muslims (peacefully), you might change your mind. They're really not so different than white Christians in my experience, except they have a different religious and in some cases cultural background.
Merrick Garland was meeting with some R legislators the other day, Is this the beginning of a Mitch McConnell walk back?
Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland met with his first Republican senator Tuesday as his nomination gained at least the appearance of momentum, aided by high-profile conservative voices, public pressure and a high court ruling affected by the lack of a ninth justice.
Judge Garland met with Sen. Mark Kirk, a Republican up for re-election in blue-state Illinois. Mr. Kirk is among 16 Republican senators who now say they will hold courtesy meetings with the nominee, despite a vow by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, not to hold hearings or a confirmation vote on President Obama’s choice to replace the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
Mr. Kirk, one of the most endangered incumbent Republicans this year, told reporters before the meeting that he wants to be open-minded about the nomination.
“I think when you just say, ‘I’m not going to meet with him at all,’ that’s too closed-minded,” he said.
The senator and the nominee met after a respected conservative lawyer and former George W. Bush nominee, Miguel Estrada, shot holes in assertions that Judge Garland is hostile to the Second Amendment. Mr. Estrada told NPR that evidence used to portray him as anti-gun is “thin to nonexistent.”
Mr. Estrada said the rules allow judges to rehear cases “of exceptional importance.” Because no federal appeals court had ever ruled that there was an individual right to own a gun, he said, the case was clearly of exceptional importance.
The Supreme Court later upheld the lower court’s decision in a landmark ruling.
Progressive activists also pointed to a high court ruling Tuesday, a 4-4 split, which upheld a lower-court ruling favorable to teachers unions, as another indication of the need to fill the court vacancy. Although Judge Garland could not have been confirmed and seated in time to make a difference in the case, liberals said it was an unsatisfactory example of how the Supreme Court would be forced to operate for a year or more without Mr. Obama’s appointee.
Judge Garland’s nomination also got a boost this week from a nationwide poll showing that a plurality of Americans — 46 percent — say the Senate should confirm him, compared with 30 percent who think he should be rejected and 24 percent who don’t know.
While these developments may be good news on the surface for the Garland nomination, there is no indication that any of it is having an impact on Mr. McConnell or Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican.
Another Republican lawmaker who has agreed to meet with Judge Garland, Sen. Susan M. Collins of Maine, said Tuesday that Mr. McConnell is “not real happy” with her. The moderate lawmaker said she is “a bit perplexed” by Mr. McConnell’s position.
“I know Sen. McConnell cares deeply about the balance of the court,” she told WGAN radio in Maine. “If the next president is a Democrat, then the balance could be tipped way further than Judge Garland, based on what I know about him so far. Let’s say that Hillary Clinton is the next president of the United States. I personally believe that she would be likely to choose a nominee who is to the left of Judge Garland.”
Activists point to Judge Garland’s vote in 2007 for a rehearing of a case involving the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, in which a three-judge panel ruled for the first time that there is a constitutional right to own firearms for self-defense. The conservative Judicial Crisis Network has said Judge Garland’s vote suggests that he doesn’t believe the Second Amendment provides for gun ownership for personal protection.
She said Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump is “rather unpredictable.”
“Who knows who his nominee would be?” Ms. Collins said.
New Marquette Law School Poll finds Ted Cruz ahead in Wis GOP primary race, with 40% support to 30% for Trump, 21% for Kasich. #mulawpoll
— MULawPoll (@MULawPoll) March 30, 2016
and...
Via @Schneider_CM, @MULawPoll poll
GOP vs. Hillary head-to-heads:
Kasich +9
Cruz tie
Trump down 10 & in the 30's.
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) March 30, 2016
Interesting time...
I think it's quite possible that with the release of the details of Trump's foreign policies, people might be starting to see the picture that his inexperience and lack of coherency are serious liabilities. He really hurt himself with those interviews with the Times and Post, and his performance at the Town Hall last night was pretty embarassing, as has been noted.
skyth wrote: Time to put another troll on the ignore list I believe.
Yeah, I did as well.
He's a rare bird around here and I don't think I've seen anyone else in a long time be so forthcoming with with their, um... Interesting views. Luckily, people like this tend not to stick around very long.
He kinda reminds me of the guy in one of the Bundy threads who was supporting whipping kids with a belt.
Trump's now saying if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, women who have abortions should be punished. The punishment is not specified. I don't know whether he envisages fines, jail time, death, or whatever, but has any pro-life Presidential candidate ever advocated punishing women for abortions? I thought it the hypothetical scenario was always that the doctor would be punished, but not the women.
Anywho, this dude is one smooth ladies man
EDIT: Nevermind, now he has flip-flopped on that position...might be a new record. A couple hours?
Trump now calls for "some kind of punishment" for women that have an abortion.
1) legally recognized medical procedure
2) some already face mental anguish (self punishment) over the decision
3) some already face societal punishment in certain communities/areas of the country
4) some already face "punishment" by religious organizations
TheMeanDM wrote: Trump now calls for "some kind of punishment" for women that have an abortion.
1) legally recognized medical procedure
2) some already face mental anguish (self punishment) over the decision
3) some already face societal punishment in certain communities/areas of the country
4) some already face "punishment" by religious organizations
Listening to the radio on my way to work, and this Lewandowski character really sounds like a handful.
His history include:
- Forgot he had an unloaded gun in his bag and carried it into an office building at the capitol. When the police confiscated it he sued to get it back, which was dismissed.
- He has a history of physical altercations with protesters at Trump rallies
- Apparently he served as a police officer for 6 months or so. So he should have known what charges he could expect for grabbing people. Almost makes me wonder if he still thinks he can act like a cop and get involved in physical fights instead of standing back.
d-usa wrote: Listening to the radio on my way to work, and this Lewandowski character really sounds like a handful.
His history include:
- Forgot he had an unloaded gun in his bag and carried it into an office building at the capitol. When the police confiscated it he sued to get it back, which was dismissed.
- He has a history of physical altercations with protesters at Trump rallies
- Apparently he served as a police officer for 6 months or so. So he should have known what charges he could expect for grabbing people. Almost makes me wonder if he still thinks he can act like a cop and get involved in physical fights instead of standing back.
Nah man, that is just what the liberal media wants you to think. It is all her fault. She shouldn't have pressed charges like a citizen of this country has the right to do.
jasper76 wrote: Trump's now saying if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, women who have abortions should be punished. The punishment is not specified. I don't know whether he envisages fines, jail time, death, or whatever, but has any pro-life Presidential candidate ever advocated punishing women for abortions? I thought it the hypothetical scenario was always that the doctor would be punished, but not the women.
Anywho, this dude is one smooth ladies man
EDIT: Nevermind, now he has flip-flopped on that position...might be a new record. A couple hours?
Just watching Trump talk for 5 minutes and he takes both sides of a position one sentence after another. He just spews meaningless nonsense. Literally do not understand how people can vote for him. I try to avoid watching him but on that Town hall he said Healthcare was the second most important responsibility of the federal government. Of course 5 seconds later he said the opposite but how can Republicans vote for someone who says that? Isn't the evil of Obamacare a big time Republican position? Somehow nothing he says actually matters. People just seem to be voting for the way he says it.
Anecdotal, but I know of at least one person voted Trump because, "He pisses off all the people I don't like". So there may be some truth to that.
Exactly, it some sort of rebellious thing. Voting for Trump is "sticking it to The Man". Not sure how voting for a billionaire who has a track record of bullying regular people is that but it is.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Just watching Trump talk for 5 minutes and he takes both sides of a position one sentence after another. He just spews meaningless nonsense. Literally do not understand how people can vote for him. I try to avoid watching him but on that Town hall he said Healthcare was the second most important responsibility of the federal government. Of course 5 seconds later he said the opposite but how can Republicans vote for someone who says that? Isn't the evil of Obamacare a big time Republican position? Somehow nothing he says actually matters. People just seem to be voting for the way he says it.
Don't forget education. He said that was the third most important function of the federal government. Anderson Cooper had to remind Trump that Republicans don't like the feds getting their grubby little fingers into education. Yeah, I agree, he just spews whatever pops in his mind at the moment, probably doesn't believeor understand half of what he's saying, and is fooling people with word repition, like:
"I think that's very unprofessional...very unprofessional". He's like Jimmy Two-Times from Goodfellas or something.
Nuclear warming is the worst global warming. I hate nuclear. We don't need more countries getting nuclear weapons. We can't afford to protect these countries. They need to get nuclear weapons. Japan and South Korea need nuclear weapons. They need nuclear weapons. If more countries had nuclear weapons to protect themselves we would be better. More countries having nuclear weapons are a bad thing. Nuclear weapons are the biggest threat. It's time to let more countries have nuclear weapons.
d-usa wrote: Nuclear warming is the worst global warming. I hate nuclear. We don't need more countries getting nuclear weapons. We can't afford to protect these countries. They need to get nuclear weapons. Japan and South Korea need nuclear weapons. They need nuclear weapons. If more countries had nuclear weapons to protect themselves we would be better. More countries having nuclear weapons are a bad thing. Nuclear weapons are the biggest threat. It's time to let more countries have nuclear weapons.
Channeling Trump there d... careful, you might break out in hives in wallowing yourself in that stupidity.
skyth wrote: Time to put another troll on the ignore list I believe.
Yeah, I did as well.
He's a rare bird around here and I don't think I've seen anyone else in a long time be so forthcoming with with their, um... Interesting views. Luckily, people like this tend not to stick around very long.
I'm hardly a reasoned debater to my discredit, but I did try in another thread though to show his unabashed racist views. If I had to hazard a guess, he doesn't believe any of it and is just trolling hard.
And trolling well I might add. Honestly very solid trolling, and I feel like I'm a bit of an aficionado as yahoo and its comments section were one of the few websites my old job's work computers didn't block; that and wikipedia. Amazing history resource from what I've seen as long as it's not contentious and modern.
Someone was talking earlier about VP choices and I really hope it's not Elizabeth Warren. I can see it working against her in a future run, and I kinda like her style. Like if she was running instead of Clinton I would absolutely vote Democrat for the first time in my life. Plus, I hate to say it but America isn't ready for a double whammy of females in the head office.
I know its a pipe dream but is there actual law preventing foreigners from running as VP? I think so. But what about being appointed as Secretary of State? Interior? Defense? etc. Could a foreigner conceivably become President from being appointed to a cabinet position, but still be barred via the Constitution?
d-usa wrote: Nuclear warming is the worst global warming. I hate nuclear. We don't need more countries getting nuclear weapons. We can't afford to protect these countries. They need to get nuclear weapons. Japan and South Korea need nuclear weapons. They need nuclear weapons. If more countries had nuclear weapons to protect themselves we would be better. More countries having nuclear weapons are a bad thing. Nuclear weapons are the biggest threat. It's time to let more countries have nuclear weapons.
Our Republican Primary frontrunner...
I probably would have thought this was a Sarah Palin quote if I hadn't seen the Town Hall.
d-usa wrote: Nuclear warming is the worst global warming. I hate nuclear. We don't need more countries getting nuclear weapons. We can't afford to protect these countries. They need to get nuclear weapons. Japan and South Korea need nuclear weapons. They need nuclear weapons. If more countries had nuclear weapons to protect themselves we would be better. More countries having nuclear weapons are a bad thing. Nuclear weapons are the biggest threat. It's time to let more countries have nuclear weapons.
Our Republican Primary frontrunner...
I probably would have thought this was a Sarah Palin quote if I hadn't seen the Town Hall.
Wait, is that what Drumpf actually said? Not satire, but verbatim???
d-usa wrote: Nuclear warming is the worst global warming. I hate nuclear. We don't need more countries getting nuclear weapons. We can't afford to protect these countries. They need to get nuclear weapons. Japan and South Korea need nuclear weapons. They need nuclear weapons. If more countries had nuclear weapons to protect themselves we would be better. More countries having nuclear weapons are a bad thing. Nuclear weapons are the biggest threat. It's time to let more countries have nuclear weapons.
Our Republican Primary frontrunner...
I probably would have thought this was a Sarah Palin quote if I hadn't seen the Town Hall.
Wait, is that what Drumpf actually said? Not satire, but verbatim???
I won't commit to it being a 100% correct quote, because I would have to watch it a second time to be sure .
But yeah, pretty much. He kept on arguing that nuclear proliferation is the greatest threat to the world while at the same time arguing that more countries need to get nuclear weapons.
jasper76 wrote: Trump's now saying if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, women who have abortions should be punished. The punishment is not specified. I don't know whether he envisages fines, jail time, death, or whatever, but has any pro-life Presidential candidate ever advocated punishing women for abortions? I thought it the hypothetical scenario was always that the doctor would be punished, but not the women.
Anywho, this dude is one smooth ladies man
EDIT: Nevermind, now he has flip-flopped on that position...might be a new record. A couple hours?
If Roe v Wade was overturned tomorrow all it would do is remove the federal protection from abortion so it would devolve back to a state issue. States would be the final authority but I don't foresee much changing I'd that happened. There's already some variance between states and I don't think many of any states would outlaw it completely. Regardless the president wouldn't have any say in the matter. Trump is willfully ignorant about a whole host of issues.
It's like he thinks he can shape reality simply by speaking.
If you ask me, he's on the spot, he doesn't understand what he's talking about enough to speak about it intelligently, which should be a disqualifier given the deadly seriousness of the issue, and "proliferation" is not one of his "best words".
Great Odin's Raven!!!! I'm confident I know have brain cancer from that. I am actually thankful I didn't watch the townhall.
An you know what, his people ate it up. None of this is bad for him. He even has plenty of people that do understand this stuff but they are just choosing to ignore it.
BrotherGecko wrote: Great Odin's Raven!!!! I'm confident I know have brain cancer from that. I am actually thankful I didn't watch the townhall.
An you know what, his people ate it up. None of this is bad for him. He even has plenty of people that do understand this stuff but they are just choosing to ignore it.
If it's any consolation, Ted Cruz and John Kasich performed quite strongly at times, and the crowd was noticeably most receptive to Kasich IME.
It's actually Cruz that up by 10 in WInsconsin in today's aggregates.
Sinful Hero wrote: Anecdotal, but I know of at least one person voted Trump because, "He pisses off all the people I don't like". So there may be some truth to that.
The most important part of governing is stigginit, obviously.
Prestor Jon wrote: There's already some variance between states and I don't think many of any states would outlaw it completely. .
I have trouble believing that, just based on the very vigorous Republican attempts in several states. They know they can't outlaw it right now, but they are for sure trying. Given carte blanche to make it a crime, I can absolutely see some states like MO or MS or TX or several others trying to.
The whole "admitting privileges" caveat speaks very different to what you are saying about not trying to outlaw abortion.
The whole "admitting privileges" caveat speaks very different to what you are saying about not trying to outlaw abortion.
Um... in TX's case, having admitting privileges can speed up the process in getting the patient into a Hospital to be treated.
It's just not in the case of a botched abortion... but, any outpatient services, having a MD with admitting privileges to nearby Hospital is seen as a good thing.
The whole "admitting privileges" caveat speaks very different to what you are saying about not trying to outlaw abortion.
Um... in TX's case, having admitting privileges can speed up the process in getting the patient into a Hospital to be treated.
It's just not in the case of a botched abortion... but, any outpatient services, having a MD with admitting privileges to nearby Hospital is seen as a good thing.
Yeah, no. A lot of these "admitting privileges" are based on arbitrary architectural designs, like having a hallway that can accommodate two gurneys going side by side. Things not asked of other medical practitioners.
I had to be put under anesthetic to get my wisdom teeth out. Unconscious, dead to the world. That type or surgery is OK, but a completely ambulatory surgery needs admitting privileges?
Until any outpatient services need an MD with admitting privileges, then the anti-abortion folks can talk. Before that, its so blatant that if you deny it I lose respect for you.
I totally understand being against abortion, but to pretend these measures are for women's health is just disingenuous and sad.
The whole "admitting privileges" caveat speaks very different to what you are saying about not trying to outlaw abortion.
Um... in TX's case, having admitting privileges can speed up the process in getting the patient into a Hospital to be treated.
It's just not in the case of a botched abortion... but, any outpatient services, having a MD with admitting privileges to nearby Hospital is seen as a good thing.
Yeah, no. A lot of these "admitting privileges" are based on arbitrary architectural designs, like having a hallway that can accommodate two gurneys going side by side. Things not asked of other medical practitioners.
I had to be put under anesthetic to get my wisdom teeth out. Unconscious, dead to the world. That type or surgery is OK, but a completely ambulatory surgery needs admitting privileges?
Until any outpatient services need an MD with admitting privileges, then the anti-abortion folks can talk. Before that, its so blatant that if you deny it I lose respect for you.
I totally understand being against abortion, but to pretend these measures are for women's health is just disingenuous and sad.
I'm not arguing that the TX case was designed to make it harder for abortionist to qualify on that regulation.
I'm arguing that your MD performing ambulatory (outpatient) procedures while having admitting privileges to a nearby hospital is "a good thing". If your MD needs to admit you because of botched procedures, or something out of their control, actually speeds the process along enough that depending on the reason, mere minutes could make the difference.
Admitting privileges have *nothing* to do with your comment about hallways, et al.
Please don't disseminate false and purposefully inflammatory information.
It means a doc can just say "admit this patient to ABC floor for XYZ reason and give them 1,2,3 medications."
Otherwise, they have to go through other channels to:
1) find a doc at the hospital that will admit
2) explain the situation to that doc
3) possibly give up care of that patient
Just to name a few things.
We have to transfer peeps weekly and our docs need to go through all that (and more) which can delay care of the patient...get confusing...etc.
Admitting privileges is a *good* thing to have. Period.
Admitting privilege is the right of a doctor, by virtue of membership as a hospital's medical staff, to admit patients to a particular hospital or medical center for providing specific diagnostic or therapeutic services to such patient in that hospital. Each hospital maintains a list of health care providers who have admitting privileges in that hospital. Admitting privileges granted to a non physician is limited to treatment of patient independently, and admission of such a patient to hospital requires a physician’s order. Admitting privileges of some physicians are limited to consultative services only.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just today, for example, we had to delay transferring a GI bleed patient to a hospital for 8+ hours because the only hospital where our general surgeon had admitting privileges didn't have a bed available.
So we (and the doc) had to call all around to other hospitals to find some place/doc that would accept her. Which meant that he would have zero responsibility or ability to care for the patient anymore.
TheMeanDM wrote: Admitting privileges have *nothing* to do with your comment about hallways, et al.
Please don't disseminate false and purposefully inflammatory information.
It means a doc can just say "admit this patient to ABC floor for XYZ reason".
Otherwise, they have to go through other channels to:
1) find a doc at the hospital that will admit
2) explain the situation to that doc
3) possibly give up care of that patient
Just to name a few things.
We have to transfer peeps weekly and our docs need to go through all that (and more) which can delay care of the patient...get confusing...etc.
Admitting privileges is a *good* thing to have. Period.
Admitting privilege is the right of a doctor, by virtue of membership as a hospital's medical staff, to admit patients to a particular hospital or medical center for providing specific diagnostic or therapeutic services to such patient in that hospital. Each hospital maintains a list of health care providers who have admitting privileges in that hospital. Admitting privileges granted to a non physician is limited to treatment of patient independently, and admission of such a patient to hospital requires a physician’s order. Admitting privileges of some physicians are limited to consultative services only.
But when its a contentious issue, especially one that many hospitals may not want to get involved with, it is an unnecessary barrier. Especially when other more dangerous procedures don't require them.
A bill to force all outpatient surgery centers to have admitting privileges is one thing and commendable; when it targets one specific practice, ehh not so much.
Admitting privileges are a big deal especially for smaller rural hospitals that don't have the capabilities to treat every patient that walks into the ER or comes out from surgery or goes to the clinic.
So we (and the doc) had to call all around to other hospitals to find some place/doc that would accept her. Which meant that he would have zero responsibility or ability to care for the patient anymore.
Also gonna need some clarification on that. A doctor is free of responsibility if they don't have admitting privileges?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: Admitting privileges are a big deal especially for smaller rural hospitals that don't have the capabilities to treat every patient that walks into the ER or comes out from surgery or goes to the clinic.
I'm aware.So how does legislative requirements for very specific procedures help that?
If a patient in the clinic is having such serious complications you need to get them out to a hospital, you *want* to have a doc that has admitting privileges.
The hospital isn't performing the abortion, or colon resection, or whatever....they are there to fix the complications of whatever had already been done.
TheMeanDM wrote: Admitting privileges have *nothing* to do with your comment about hallways, et al.
Please don't disseminate false and purposefully inflammatory information.
It means a doc can just say "admit this patient to ABC floor for XYZ reason".
Otherwise, they have to go through other channels to: 1) find a doc at the hospital that will admit 2) explain the situation to that doc 3) possibly give up care of that patient
Just to name a few things.
We have to transfer peeps weekly and our docs need to go through all that (and more) which can delay care of the patient...get confusing...etc.
Admitting privileges is a *good* thing to have. Period.
Admitting privilege is the right of a doctor, by virtue of membership as a hospital's medical staff, to admit patients to a particular hospital or medical center for providing specific diagnostic or therapeutic services to such patient in that hospital. Each hospital maintains a list of health care providers who have admitting privileges in that hospital. Admitting privileges granted to a non physician is limited to treatment of patient independently, and admission of such a patient to hospital requires a physician’s order. Admitting privileges of some physicians are limited to consultative services only.
But when its a contentious issue, especially one that many hospitals may not want to get involved with, it is an unnecessary barrier. Especially when other more dangerous procedures don't require them.
A bill to force all outpatient surgery centers to have admitting privileges is one thing and commendable; when it targets one specific practice, ehh not so much.
But not all outpatient surgery are *the same*.
Seeing your podiatrist to fix an ingrown toenail is a weee bit different than an D&E/D&C/Hystorectory abortive procedures.
IE, most Orthopedics MDs *have* admitting privileges and most of their procedures are largely done in ambulatory setting. In fact, *having* admitting privileges in whichever discipline is common.
If a patient in the clinic is having such serious complications you need to get them out to a hospital, you *want* to have a doc that has admitting privileges.
The hospital isn't performing the abortion, or colon resection, or whatever....they are there to fix the complications of whatever had already been done.
That still doesn't touch the reason why specifically abortion doctors should be required to have said admitting privileges.
I'm not arguing against admitting privileges, just asking why abortions need them. It's a medical procedure done generally without anesthesia, and generally (without other underlying health concerns) in the clinic that day.
Plastic surgeons aren't tasked to have the same requirements, and the patient is put under to get bigger breasts. Anesthesia is one of the biggest problems with surgery, hands down. Other ambulatory surgery centers like Lasik aren't legally required to have admittance. So why is abortion is the only one? Unless its completely political.
Again, I don't think its a bad idea, but the the way legislators went about it is just soooo obviously anti-abortion. A Constitutionally protected right.And yet, bigger breasts aren't.
Prestor Jon wrote: There's already some variance between states and I don't think many of any states would outlaw it completely.
There are six states with laws already on the books that go into effect if Roe v Wade is overturned. Virginia, Utah, Ohio, Missouri, Louisiana, and Illinois have laws that would outright ban all abortion should that occur. 28 states total have trigger laws in effect that would ban most abortion procedures/make them even more impossible to obtain. This is ignoring that many states, particularly in the South and Midwest, have effectively regulated abortion service providers to near non-existence anyway.
IE, most Orthopedics MDs *have* admitting privileges and most of their procedures are largely done in ambulatory setting. In fact, *having* admitting privileges in whichever discipline is common.
"Most" and "have". Those words should stick way out instead "shall". Which what the contentious legislation is proposing, and legally is a big fething deal.
Medical Malpractice Insurance I believe is why it takes three to four months. Final authority rest with the "CEO" of the hospital to admit the surgeon name for coverage. I do belive....and I'm not throwing him under the bus that D-USA might have better overview on this. I left the medical field a long time ago
