Frazzled wrote: Hillary Clinton won't get 50% of the population. She couldn't win a primary in her own party.
Mark it here first. If Clinton runs as the Democratic candidate, unless the Republicans run a baffoon she will lose.
on a more important note, I'd like to throw my hat into the ring.
Wiener Party 2016 candidates:
Frazzled/TBone
"A bone in every bowl!"
If the Republicans run a buffoon, they might have a chance to win! Instead we bow to down to the Democrats whims of letting them liberals moderate Presidential Debates, and when being interviewed by the Lame Stream Media, they allow themselves to be talked down to.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Hey maybe the R's will use this as an opportunity to highlight the problems with money in politics! I mean, it's not going to happen, but I can dream.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Hey maybe the R's will use this as an opportunity to highlight the problems with money in politics! I mean, it's not going to happen, but I can dream.
The problem isn't the money itself... it's the lack of transparency.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Hey maybe the R's will use this as an opportunity to highlight the problems with money in politics! I mean, it's not going to happen, but I can dream.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Hey maybe the R's will use this as an opportunity to highlight the problems with money in politics! I mean, it's not going to happen, but I can dream.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Hey maybe the R's will use this as an opportunity to highlight the problems with money in politics! I mean, it's not going to happen, but I can dream.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Hey maybe the R's will use this as an opportunity to highlight the problems with money in politics! I mean, it's not going to happen, but I can dream.
Why can't both parties take this opportunity?
Thus far, only one candidate from one side has done so
You know, we should be careful about what we wish for. What if we eventually find out that the missing HRC emails are really a whole bunch of sexting messages between her and Bill? What has been seen cannot be unseen.
Jeebus... Sid Blumenthal acted like an advisor to HRC during her tenure at Sec of State...
Does he have security clearance?
More importantly, even if you have security clearance, is it legal for him to be "in the communication chain" when he's not serving any official government capacity (and still on Clinton Foundation's payroll).
remember that document dump from the Clinton team? Ya know, the one her team decided as relevant? The state's dept is targetting the release in January '16. O.o
Keep in mind, they have to actually print every one of those emails to review them individually and make the necessary redactions. That takes time and money, especially since the reviewers themselves also have to have appropriate security clearances.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Keep in mind, they have to actually print every one of those emails to review them individually and make the necessary redactions. That takes time and money, especially since the reviewers themselves also have to have appropriate security clearances.
So lemme get this straight.
It only took a few weeks for Clinton's staff to screen/handpick email correspondences and PRINT THEM OUT on reams of paper before sending to State Officials...
And, the entire States Dept, with it's budgets... need 8 fething months?
Judge orders 'rolling' release of Clinton's State Department emails
By JOSH GERSTEIN 5/19/15 10:06 AM EDT
A federal judge has rejected the State Department’s plan to release most of Hillary Clinton’s emails as secretary of state in one large batch, insisting that the agency parcel out releases of the records over time.
U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras announced Tuesday his plans to order a “rolling production” of the emails just hours after the State Department proposed that it not be required to make the records public until January 2016, a lawyer involved said.
At a brief hearing on a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by Vice News, Contreras did not set a specific date by which State must begin releasing the emails.
However, the judge gave the government one week to provide a schedule for the periodic release of records, Vice News lawyer Jeffrey Light said after the session.
Contreras also gave State one week to say exactly when it plans to release a portion of the records relating to the deadly attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, as well as other Libya related issues. State officials have previously pledged to release those emails “soon,” but have never offered a specific date.
The Libya-related records were turned over to a House committee in February.
In a court filing Monday night, the State Department said it needed until next January to conduct a thorough review of the Clinton emails for sensitive information typically removed from records before they are released under FOIA. State official John Hackett said the agency wanted to post the bulk of the records online at once in order to make sure the FOIA rules and policies are consistently applied.
“The Department intends to post the releasable portions of the collection at the conclusion of its review process, which will facilitate consistency in the application of FOIA exemptions and the public’s access to and understanding of the documents,” Hackett wrote.
Clinton, who announced her candidacy for president last month, confirmed in March that she only used a private email account during her four years as secretary. She said she turned over 55,000 pages of emails from that account to the State Department in December in response to an October request from State officials.
Clinton said she turned over all messages that were arguably work-related, but decided to delete a roughly equal number of messages that her lawyers determined were personal or private in nature.
The State Department could also face deadlines to disclose portions of the records in other FOIA suits. Last week, a judge ordered State to release records from Clinton’s top aides on specific topics by September. It’s unclear whether the requests in that case, brought by conservative group Citizens United, would encompass some of the Clinton emails.
Forgive my ire, I'm not lashing out at you Tanner...
It's just that if any private individual/company acted in this manner... assess would be fined and jailed.
In spirit of this thread... politically speaking... this isn’t a fire yet. But it’s getting hard to see and breath that through all the smoke. Have the masks ready:
One day after the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded the assault had been planned 10 days earlier by an al-Qaeda affiliate, according to documents released Monday by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.
Yeah, we all know there is no scandal and folks still digging for (and finding) stuff on Benghazi are wasting time.
Whembly, I certainly agree it shouldn't take 8 months. 8 weeks, I can see. As a government employees myself, I know how slow things move. The sad part is, the people doing the review and redaction are probably the same couple of people that have to process all FOIA and interagency requests at the same time they're doing this, too. Because while their job is important, it's just not considered "important enough" to get the staff and money they need to do it effectively.
Is it a liability in the general election? Is it as bad as the whole Clinton Foundation ordeal?
I think this assumes that it isn't a liability in the Primaries, even though we know most Rs follow this doctrine, few have it associated with them the way Perry does.
Also, I think that Sanders is a legitimate threat to Clinton, and if it is a Sanders/Perry general election, that there is a large voting block who will go to Sanders because of the economic policies.
Is it a liability in the general election? Is it as bad as the whole Clinton Foundation ordeal?
I think this assumes that it isn't a liability in the Primaries, even though we know most Rs follow this doctrine, few have it associated with them the way Perry does.
I need to do more research as I don't know the full extent of this "corportist slush fund" that Frazzled is alluding to...
I just know that, for most governors, giving their buddies favorable contracts has always been the name of the game.
Case in point: The DMVs.
Also, I think that Sanders is a legitimate threat to Clinton, and if it is a Sanders/Perry general election, that there is a large voting block who will go to Sanders because of the economic policies.
Sanders / Warren would be a disaster in the general election for the Democrats. I think O'Malley or Jim Webb (outside of Clinton of course) are the D's best candidates.
whembly wrote: [
Sanders / Warren would be a disaster in the general election for the Democrats. I think O'Malley or Jim Webb (outside of Clinton of course) are the D's best candidates.
I agree with you, only if we're talking about the "usual" voters, ie. the old people. I've been seeing more and more articles that are pointing out that Millenials are actually beginning to stir and care about this election, and they are for the most part, gravitating toward Sanders.
And I think (could be wrong) that the numbers show that there are more people who are under 35, who are Sanders' prime targets for votes than there are "old people" who usually vote in these elections.
I would vote for Sanders. Course I am free to vote whoever I want safe in the knowledge that the Texas electors will vote republican. Its like freaking being in California again.
Frazzled wrote: I would vote for Sanders. Course I am free to vote whoever I want safe in the knowledge that the Texas electors will vote republican. Its like freaking being in California again.
Kind of silly to whine about that but want to vote for a socialist. You really could just go back to CA if you like socialist policies so much.
Frazzled wrote: I would vote for Sanders. Course I am free to vote whoever I want safe in the knowledge that the Texas electors will vote republican. Its like freaking being in California again.
Kind of silly to whine about that but want to vote for a socialist. You really could just go back to CA if you like socialist policies so much.
Its silly to whine about living in a one party state?
Frazzled wrote: I would vote for Sanders. Course I am free to vote whoever I want safe in the knowledge that the Texas electors will vote republican. Its like freaking being in California again.
Kind of silly to whine about that but want to vote for a socialist. You really could just go back to CA if you like socialist policies so much.
Its silly to whine about living in a one party state?
If it is not the party you want? Heck yeah, especially when you denigrate the state that does seem to have the one you want.
Bluntly, I'm surprised you want a socialist for POTUS but dislike a state with socialist policies (CA). You brag about being a Texan, but want a socialist for Pres.
Next one shows trends, not vote count, blue means more voted for Obama 2012 than 2008. TX is no where near 1 party.
And as for a 1 party state, TX population centers seem to not follow along with what you seem to think.
Doesn't matter. the electors are all or nothing, by state. My vote literally amounts to nothing at the Federal level, and almost nothing at the state level.
Nope don't want a socialist. I do like Sanders. Although I disagree on his prescription for the cure, his diagnosis of problems in this country are spot on. In many ways he's very close to Cruz, just not how to fix it.
Frazzled wrote: Doesn't matter. the electors are all or nothing, by state. My vote literally amounts to nothing at the Federal level, and almost nothing at the state level.
Nope don't want a socialist. I do like Sanders. Although I disagree on his prescription for the cure, his diagnosis of problems in this country are spot on. In many ways he's very close to Cruz, just not how to fix it.
The how means everything. If you don't want a socialist, you don't want the socialist candidate. That should not be a hard concept Frazz.
And at state and county/municipality level, TX is nowhere near 1 party. You're kidding yourself if you think it is.
Frazzled wrote: Doesn't matter. the electors are all or nothing, by state. My vote literally amounts to nothing at the Federal level, and almost nothing at the state level.
Nope don't want a socialist. I do like Sanders. Although I disagree on his prescription for the cure, his diagnosis of problems in this country are spot on. In many ways he's very close to Cruz, just not how to fix it.
The how means everything. If you don't want a socialist, you don't want the socialist candidate. That should not be a hard concept Frazz.
I vote candidate, not party. Plus I have a firm policy of voting for the guy with the least hair, or most facial hair. As the immortal bard once said: Kinky for Governor? Why the Hell Not?
But don't worry, odds are your vote doesn't matter either
I agree with Frazz. If more Texans were like us, voting for who we actually want rather than blindly pressing the R button, then eventually the loss of votes for the Rs will build up to the point where Texas Rs will realize they actually need to get to work and start earning our votes.
Frazzled wrote: True, and quit stupid ass votes to protect our poor innocent menz from Dem Gheys.
Uh...
Wat?
I thought them Dems were quarantined in Austin and San Antonio?
They are, and rightly so. The chamber of commerce had to kick ass though to stop our brilliant leaders for going down the same hole as Indiana even though it was pointed out THERE ARE ALREADY RELIGIOUS PROTECTIONS UNDER TEXAS LAW.
Is it just me or do those posters look like an ad for a new zombie movie? Where the innocent buystander guy is just standing there innocently while the zombie behind him opens her mouth and gets ready to bite? Or maybe a vampire movie. Either way, is that really the best picture they could get of hillary? She looks kind of..... disturbing.
Torga_DW wrote: Is it just me or do those posters look like an ad for a new zombie movie? Where the innocent buystander guy is just standing there innocently while the zombie behind him opens her mouth and gets ready to bite? Or maybe a vampire movie. Either way, is that really the best picture they could get of hillary? She looks kind of..... disturbing.
Taking a page from the well-worn Clinton playbook, a digest compiled almost entirely before the dawn of the digital age, Hillary Clinton has responded to the deluge of scandalous revelations regarding her conduct at the State Department by clamming up. But the proliferation of citizen journalists, commendably dogged reporters, and a seemingly endless digital trail to follow has undermined this tactic. New details about Clinton’s improprieties continue to mount. As the fabrications pile up and Clinton’s character is called into question, it seems clear that the former secretary of state did casually imperil American national security in the effort to preserve the “convenience” to which she had become accustomed as a U.S. Senator. But can she make the case that she will serve as a competent commander-in-chief after such a revelation? It is a question the press has been hounding Republicans with for the better part of two weeks.
Clinton’s transparent aim is to allow the sting of these myriad controversies to be acutely felt early, and only to address them when she can legitimately dub them “old news” and thereby scold those reporters who myopically dwell on ancient history. That strategy is only effective, however, when the revelations dry up. But the scandalous details of her behavior exposed in the press continue to emerge, one by one, drip by drip, gradually eroding away Clinton’s presidential prospects.
The latest report to expose Clinton’s mendacity comes from the New York Times, which revealed that the former secretary did send sensitive government information over her private email account:
Clinton’s Personal Email Account Contained Sensitive Information
Mrs. Clinton’s emails show that she had a special type of government information known as “sensitive but unclassified,” or “SBU,” in her account. That information included the whereabouts and travel plans of American officials in Libya as security there deteriorated during the uprising against the leadership of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in 2011. Nearly a year and a half before the attacks in Benghazi, Mr. Stevens, then an American envoy to the rebels, considered leaving Benghazi citing deteriorating security, according to an email to Mrs. Clinton marked “SBU.”
That report also detailed the communications sent to Clinton via her longtime ally and political hit man Sidney Blumenthal in the wake of the Benghazi attack. It noted that Blumenthal informed Clinton on September 13, 2001 that the deadly event was not the result of a spontaneous demonstration but rather a coordinated terrorist act conducted by Ansar al-Shariah. This disclosure casts into doubt the administration’s claim that it was unaware of the precise nature of that attack until September 16, 2012.
Clinton defenders will note that “sensitive” information is not “classified” information, and the former secretary’s contention that she never sent or received classified documents via her email account remains, for now, intact. But any information security expert will attest that just because “sensitive” documents are not classified does not render them useless to America’s adversaries, as the details in this Times report attest.
This is just the latest misstatement from Clinton’s disastrous March press conference to be called into question. Standing before a lectern at the United Nations, Clinton claimed that she only used one mobile device in service to her sense of entitlement while at State. We now know there were at least two devices she used to conduct State business. Clinton insisted that her system was never “breached,” but information security experts now believe that her “homebrew” server was vulnerable to infiltration and was possibly compromised by foreign intelligence services. Clinton insisted that she only deleted those emails that were personal in nature; a trove of communications that amounted to the majority of the emails she sent as Secretary of State. One of the recipients of private email communications, she averred, was her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Wrong, the 42nd President’s office contended. He only sent two emails in his life, according to Bill Clinton spokesperson Matt McKenna, and both of those were composed and transmitted while he served as president.
This all paints a picture not only of a political figure utterly unconcerned with accountability, the public trust, and national security, but of a person with a pathological aversion to truth.
This also should lead observers to an inescapable conclusion: Clinton carelessly jeopardized national security while she served as America’s chief diplomat. Does this erode Clinton’s claim to be able to serve as America’s next commander-in-chief? It should, and the press seems to be aware of that. Why else have they been hounding 2016 Republican presidential aspirants to account for the last GOP chief executive’s decision to invade Iraq?
Old habits die hard, it seems, as the left and their allies in the press have been busily engaged in a process of forced collectivization over the last week. But instead of plots of arable land, we are collectivizing guilt – namely, Republican guilt for the decision to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein. The underlying assumption in the media’s dogged pursuit of Republican admissions that the war was a mistake is that George W. Bush carelessly and callously endangered American national security in pursuit of the parochial goal of ridding the world of a particularly unpleasant regime. In this way, not only does the press absolve Barack Obama for sloppily surrendering the West’s hard-won gains in that turbulent country, but it also liberates all Democratic figures – Clinton included – from having to account for the present state of affairs.
If we are to believe that Bush was thoughtless in his approach to safeguarding American national security, Clinton deserves a similar reproach. If Republicans are collectively to blame for the disaster in Iraq, even those who held only minor office in 2003, why then are Democrats not collectively responsible for Clinton’s serial lies and her hard-hearted indifference to the behavior associated with a Cabinet official entrusted with protecting America’s information security? Is there a logically satisfactory explanation for this double standard?
Logic? Wazzat?
Also... Amb. Chris Stevens could not be reached for comment.
As people may or may not know, I love American history and politics, so I've started doing some in-depth reading on the likely contenders (from both sides) to win the Presidential election.
For me, the biggest issue is foreign policy. The next decade will see America face huge challenges in Asia, you have Putin to worry about, and of course, the Americans, like the British Empire before them, will wish they could send the Middle East into outer space
My verdict: none of these contenders has a God damn clue or any coherent foreign policy!
Jeb Bush would have done a George W Bush, Rubio makes Obama look like Harry Truman, and Hilary... let's not go there
Seriously, America, you deserve better than that lot. Boycott the election. It could not make things any worse.
And yes, the British Prime minister is as equally as bad. But I didn't vote for him
My verdict: none of these contenders has a God damn clue or any coherent foreign policy!
Seriously, America, you deserve better than that lot. Boycott the election. It could not make things any worse.
Actually, not voting could make things worse. And as for foreign policy, if any of them run on the "let's get back to our historic roots" and wants to go back to isolationism, or even take steps to get closer to that, I think many people would be more than happy.
Heck, Bush Jr. ran on basically that very platform, only 9/11 fethed that one up.
My verdict: none of these contenders has a God damn clue or any coherent foreign policy!
Seriously, America, you deserve better than that lot. Boycott the election. It could not make things any worse.
Actually, not voting could make things worse. And as for foreign policy, if any of them run on the "let's get back to our historic roots" and wants to go back to isolationism, or even take steps to get closer to that, I think many people would be more than happy.
Heck, Bush Jr. ran on basically that very platform, only 9/11 fethed that one up.
Isolationism worked 150n years ago when you had the Royal Navy at its height, patrolling the seas and allowing, inadvertently, America to get on with its own affairs.
But we live in an age of ICBMs, internet, satellites etc etc
whembly wrote: So... The Clinton Foundation is supposedly a charity... right?
Then why did Big Labor label their contributions as "political" on their financial disclosure report?
One can make politically motivated donations to a charity, which the Clinton Foundation is not, and never has been. The fact that it is a 501(c)(3) NPO does not automatically make it a charity, at least not in the colloquial sense.
Isolationism worked 150n years ago when you had the Royal Navy at its height, patrolling the seas and allowing, inadvertently, America to get on with its own affairs.
But we live in an age of ICBMs, internet, satellites etc etc
It's just not possible anymore.
I think that it is, after a fashion. I don't mean to say that we should all completely cut all international ties.
What I think is that the American Public has generally speaking, grown tired of our military being sent to seemingly every petty dispute. Many are taking the view of "What happens in X should be dealt with by X, it isn't our issue to solve". As such, I think that if a Presidential candidate ran on a platform of relative isolationism, they could do quite well.
Noah Rothman wrote:
If we are to believe that Bush was thoughtless in his approach to safeguarding American national security, Clinton deserves a similar reproach. If Republicans are collectively to blame for the disaster in Iraq, even those who held only minor office in 2003, why then are Democrats not collectively responsible for Clinton’s serial lies and her hard-hearted indifference to the behavior associated with a Cabinet official entrusted with protecting America’s information security? Is there a logically satisfactory explanation for this double standard?
Its always fun when a given author tries to paint people sitting on the opposite side of the fence with a broad brush.
At any rate, the reasonable explanation is simple partisanship. Democrat supporters will defend Clinton, in much the same way Republican supporters defended Bush. Rothman's line of argument simply ends in a protracted game of "I know you are, but what am I!" Good job Noah, way to elevate the conversation, at least your namesake had the good sense to build an ark.
Noah Rothman wrote:
If we are to believe that Bush was thoughtless in his approach to safeguarding American national security, Clinton deserves a similar reproach. If Republicans are collectively to blame for the disaster in Iraq, even those who held only minor office in 2003, why then are Democrats not collectively responsible for Clinton’s serial lies and her hard-hearted indifference to the behavior associated with a Cabinet official entrusted with protecting America’s information security? Is there a logically satisfactory explanation for this double standard?
Its always fun when a given author tries to paint people sitting on the opposite side of the fence with a broad brush.
At any rate, the reasonable explanation is simple partisanship. Democrat supporters will defend Clinton, in much the same way Republican supporters defended Bush. Rothman's line of argument simply ends in a protracted game of "I know you are, but what am I!" Good job Noah, way to elevate the conversation, at least your namesake had the good sense to build an ark.
So, wait... I thought the argument ought to be that we need to be above partisanship?
Oh... and those Clinton emails. The gak has hit the fan. The only saving graces is that its released on a 3 day weekend.
Oh... and those Clinton emails. The gak has hit the fan.
Not really. While you and a few others do their best to emulate Rorschach, most people really don't care.
Those emails won't be a significant issue in the primary, and I can guarantee that neither side wants information security to be a significant issue in the general.
Oh... and those Clinton emails. The gak has hit the fan.
Not really. While you and a few others do their best to emulate Rorschach, most people really don't care.
Sadly... I think you're right.
At this point, no one is going to change their minds about Clinton. Hence, why I believe she'll win handily.
Those emails won't be a significant issue in the primary, and I can guarantee that neither side wants information security to be a significant issue in the general.
IN the primary... nope.
In the General? Who knows... it might have legs dude.
At this point Whembly, it looks like you have a playground crush on Mrs, Clinton. You can't stop talking about her and everything you say just makes you and her look mor cute.
Gordon Shumway wrote: At this point Whembly, it looks like you have a playground crush on Mrs, Clinton. You can't stop talking about her and everything you say just makes you and her look mor cute.
The problem with the patriot act is the good stuff is so intermixed with the absolutely horrendous stuff. But when you are talking about such a large bill, how is one to know any better, other than the interns. Sometimes I think they would be better off voting on the bills.
But seriously about you and Clinton, when post two or three stories on her before anyone bothers to respond, it starts to appear a bit like grasping at straws. I realize that you think those straws are so important and damning, but you seem to be doing your position (that Clinton is corrupt) a bit of a disservice at this point. It seems like a chicken little sort of thing. I get your point, and I honestly agree with it, but you are doing her opposition no favors.
Edit: then again, maybe that is her master plan. Allow so many "scandals" to float that all of them get overshadowed. She is such a devious mastermind.
The patriot act causes an interesting separation. The D's seem to be generally against it, but the R's seem pretty spit, with the more conservative being generally for it, and the more libertarian being general against.
I think you will find that libertarians and extreme liberals pretty much have the exact same positions on most issues, whether either group would like to admit it or not.
At this point, no one is going to change their minds about Clinton. Hence, why I believe she'll win handily.
Those emails won't be a significant issue in the primary, and I can guarantee that neither side wants information security to be a significant issue in the general.
IN the primary... nope.
In the General? Who knows... it might have legs dude.
The problem here is that the whole concern that she sent stuff using her private server and this it might have been hacked is that, in this day and age of cyberspy movies, bank breaches, and the hacking of Target, Home Depot, etc., people have grown accustomed to anything getting hacked. It's just no longer the big deal it used to be. For this to truly hurt HRC, it would have to be proven that something really important and vital got stolen, and that it was used against the USA (probably would have to be someone's death, anything less than that and many people will still say "meh").
There are only two things that will bring down HRC: something really stupid/offensive/negligent on her part that just completely stands out, AND an appealing Republican candidate. Like Romney's 47% comment, he still could have done well if he hadn't been running against Obama, who was someone that people generally liked. HRC could still have her "47% moment," but if the only Republican alternative is, say, Ted Cruz, then too many people would stay with HRC. The Rs absolutely need a candidate that can appeal to a wide audience.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: The patriot act causes an interesting separation. The D's seem to be generally against it, but the R's seem pretty spit, with the more conservative being generally for it, and the more libertarian being general against.
There is still that post 9/11 mentality that we need this sort of thing to better fight terrorism. Or else the terrorists win. There was a lot of that going around after 9/11, and a lot of bad laws and policies got rammed down people's throats in the name of the War on Terror, because nobody wanted the political death sentence of being accused of letting the terrorists win. Shades of McCarthyism.
In the General? Who knows... it might have legs dude.
It won't, because nobody gives a gak about this except for the people who weren't going to vote for her anyway and are actively looking for whatever dirt they can find to fuel their confirmation bias.
In the General? Who knows... it might have legs dude.
It won't, because nobody gives a gak about this except for the people who weren't going to vote for her anyway and are actively looking for whatever dirt they can find to fuel their confirmation bias.
Eh... I think it's simplier than that.
No one would give a gak because most of the voting population doesn't pay attention.
At this point, no one is going to change their minds about Clinton. Hence, why I believe she'll win handily.
Those emails won't be a significant issue in the primary, and I can guarantee that neither side wants information security to be a significant issue in the general.
IN the primary... nope.
In the General? Who knows... it might have legs dude.
The problem here is that the whole concern that she sent stuff using her private server and this it might have been hacked is that, in this day and age of cyberspy movies, bank breaches, and the hacking of Target, Home Depot, etc., people have grown accustomed to anything getting hacked. It's just no longer the big deal it used to be. For this to truly hurt HRC, it would have to be proven that something really important and vital got stolen, and that it was used against the USA (probably would have to be someone's death, anything less than that and many people will still say "meh").
Imma going to disagree with you there...
Information Technology Security is becoming "a thing" more and more these days. And I'm not talking about basic security, like what happened over the Target/Home Depot Hacking. I'm talking about people losing their gak when their FaceBook/Twitter accounts are hacked.
*Note kids, if you're looking for a career that's going to take off in the next 20 yrs, consider IT Security/Programming.
There are only two things that will bring down HRC: something really stupid/offensive/negligent on her part that just completely stands out, AND an appealing Republican candidate. Like Romney's 47% comment, he still could have done well if he hadn't been running against Obama, who was someone that people generally liked. HRC could still have her "47% moment," but if the only Republican alternative is, say, Ted Cruz, then too many people would stay with HRC. The Rs absolutely need a candidate that can appeal to a wide audience.
Eh... if it's going to be anyting imo, it'd be Clinton Fatigue (which is an extension to Democrat Fatigue).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: The patriot act causes an interesting separation. The D's seem to be generally against it, but the R's seem pretty spit, with the more conservative being generally for it, and the more libertarian being general against.
There is still that post 9/11 mentality that we need this sort of thing to better fight terrorism. Or else the terrorists win. There was a lot of that going around after 9/11, and a lot of bad laws and policies got rammed down people's throats in the name of the War on Terror, because nobody wanted the political death sentence of being accused of letting the terrorists win. Shades of McCarthyism.
In an incredible Orwellian attempt to justify his (Senator Orrin Hatch) opposition to government transparency he said "...if senators are concerned about the level of transparency on trade agreements, they should support the current legislation.", referring to TPP itself. Sen. Hatch admitted that he doesn't know exactly what's in the TPP bill, but still decided to kill any effort to bring transparency to the process.
Lemme get this straight... he's voting in favor of a bill that he haven't read?
President Obama won a big victory for his trade agenda Friday with the Senate’s approval of fast-track legislation that could make it easier for him to complete a wide-ranging trade deal that would include 11 Pacific Rim nations.
A coalition of 48 Senate Republicans and 14 Democrats voted for Trade Promotion Authority late Friday, sending the legislation to a difficult fight in the House, where it faces more entrenched opposition from Democrats.
The Senate coalition fought off several attempts by opponents to undermine the legislation, defeating amendments that were politically popular but potentially poisonous to Obama’s bid to secure the trade deal.
“This is an important bill, likely the most important bill we will pass this year. It’s important to President Obama,” Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and primary author of the bill, said at the close of debate.
TPA’s fast-track provisions would allow Congress, under strict timelines, to consider trade deals with a simple up-or-down vote without any amendments or requirements of a Senate super-majority to end debate. That would help Obama complete the final details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), with the other 11 nations, a bloc that represents about 40 percent of the global economy.
If TPA clears Congress, Obama’s negotiators will push to conclude the Pacific trade pact and then send it to Congress for final approval, possibly later this year or early next year. The legislative package also includes new funding for labor training for workers that are certified for having lost their jobs because of foreign competition.
Obama’s aggressive push for the trade agenda has upended his relationship with his long-standing allies in the labor movement, as well as anti-corporate liberal activists who strongly supported his 2008 and 2012 elections. It sparked sharp exchanges, played out in the national media, with a liberal icon, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), leading to one of Obama’s normally closest allies, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), to question whether he was being sexist for singling her out for criticism.
Unions and progressive activists have mobilized their forces against TPA for more than a year now, believing that defeating the fast-track authority would probably also kill negotiations on the Pacific trade deal.
On Friday, union leaders narrowly lost their bid for passage of an amendment designed to create strict regulation of global currency markets, offered by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), whose states have been ravaged by losses of manufacturing jobs to foreign competition.
“This amendment is simply a modest enforcement measure that would direct the administration to conduct negotiations in a manner that will push them closer to getting trade done right. We urge you to support it and oppose any language to weaken it,” William Samuel, a top lobbyist for the AFL-CIO, wrote to senators in a “legislative alert” Friday.
Portman, a former trade representative facing a difficult 2016 reelection campaign, locked arms with Democrats in a bid that was designed as a get-tough gesture toward China, which some have long accused of manipulating its currency to make its exports cheaper. “I want you to be able to tell your workers you not only disagree with currency manipulation, you want to be able to do something about it,” he said during debate.
However, Treasury Department officials warned that the Portman proposal would prompt a presidential veto, because the other nations would potentially abandon the TPP talks. In the hours leading up to Portman’s vote, Obama worked the phones with wavering senators to defeat the measure, relying heavily on his usual foes — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his top lieutenants — to round up 51 votes to narrowly defeat the measure.
“President Obama will veto any TPA bill that contains this amendment. A vote for Portman-Stabenow is also a vote to kill TPP,” Hatch said just before the vote on the amendment.
In the end, 41 Republicans and 10 Democrats defeated the amendment, which was considered the last major hurdle to securing Senate passage of the legislation.
On the final roll call, five Republicans joined 32 Democrats in opposing TPA — an odd collection that ranged from Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and his top two lieutenants to staunch conservatives such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). “Congress is forgetting its duty: to improve jobs and wages for Americans,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), one of the most conservative senators, said in a statement.
House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has said that the TPA bill will come up at some point in June, after his chamber returns from a 10-day break that began Thursday.
In perhaps the most unusual alliance in the debate, Obama’s trade agenda will soon rest largely in the hands of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who was the Republicans’ 2012 vice presidential nominee.
Now chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Ryan is leading the push to secure as many votes as possible from the Republican side of the aisle for Obama’s fast-track authorities on trade deals. He has been working with Boehner’s leadership team convening meetings with Republicans to educate the dozens of junior lawmakers who have never considered a trade deal like the potential Pacific Rim pact.
Just 55 members of the House were in office during the 1993 debate for the North American Free Trade Agreement, and nearly 140 lawmakers — a third of the entire House — have never voted on any trade deal before. The last trade deals, with Panama, Colombia and South Korea, were approved in October 2011.
To be honest, I don't think anyone in the House or Senate actually read the bills. They just pay someone to do that for them and give them the executive summary.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: According to the guardian newspaper, June 1st onwards is the day the NSA can't legally collect data, because an extension deadline was not filed.
WASHINGTON — Ignoring the polls and pundits, former New York Gov. George Pataki plans to announce Thursday that he’s joining the crowded Republican field for president.
The three-term governor will unveil his candidacy in Exeter, N.H. — which claims the birthplace of the Republican Party — and join a group of contenders who are inching toward the 20 mark.
Skeptics abound about Pataki’s chances.
He doesn’t register on national polls and has been out of elected office for nearly a decade.
“I just don’t see where he could win,” GOP consultant Ed Rollins told The Post. “I’m not sure he could win in New York anymore.”
But Pataki says he’s undeterred by the odds.
“It will be a very stiff climb up a very steep mountain, but that hasn’t stopped me in the past,” Pataki said in an interview.
Pataki is putting most of his chips on a strong showing in New Hampshire — a state he’s visited more than any other presidential contender.
The first-in-the-nation primary is a key test for the conservative Republican field and is open to the large contingent of independent voters who could favor a moderate like Pataki, who is pro-choice and has a record of tightening gun laws and environmental protections.
“I’m a Republican following in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt who understands that conservatism isn’t just economic policy but it’s also preserving and enhancing the outdoors,” Pataki said, arguing that decisions like marriage, gun rights and education should be left up to the states.
Pataki’s super PAC has run ads in New Hampshire. He’s met with longtime donors in New York and Florida about his presidential hopes. And he got a nudge to run from the Republican county chairs in New York City last week.
Pataki believes he can succeed with retail politics and so does one supporter, Alissa Tweedie, a 35-year-old Navy veteran from New Hampshire.
“The more time the governor spends here, the better he is doing,” said Tweedie, who likes Pataki’s record on charter schools, national security and leadership.
“He meets with groups of any size without any pretenses — no scripting here. I think many have underestimated him and I think that’s just where he wants to be.”
Pataki will have an uphill climb to make the national stage. For the first GOP debate Aug. 6, Fox News will only accept the top 10 candidates based on polling — and Pataki isn’t even registering on national polls. One New Hampshire poll this month didn’t even include him as an option.
“Right now, Governor Pataki is on everyone’s list of also-rans. That’s remarkable to say about a three-term governor of New York who was a prominent part of 9/11, but it’s true,” said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.
Easy E wrote: The Republican primary is attracting wanna-be's like crazy.
Having all these potential Republican candidates can only be a good thing.
You'd WANT to have a healthy debate of ideas.
Meanwhile, on the Dems side we have Clinton and Sanders? Well, at least we might get Sanders to appear in a primary debate then!
Sanders... possibly the only candidate that's to the left of Clinton... so much so, that she'd appear very centrist compared to Sanders.
Speaking of Clinton, let's rehash: 1) Foundation's failure to report donations on taxes? Check. 2) Shady use of private email server? Check. 3) Clinton shell company to hide income? CHECKED:
Bill Clinton company shows complexity of family finances
WASHINGTON (AP) — The newly released financial files on Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton's growing fortune omit a company with no apparent employees or assets that the former president has legally used to provide consulting and other services, but which demonstrates the complexity of the family's finances.
Because the company, WJC, LLC, has no financial assets, Hillary Clinton's campaign was not obligated to report its existence in her recent financial disclosure report, officials with Bill Clinton's private office and the Clinton campaign said. They were responding to questions by The Associated Press, which reviewed corporate documents.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to provide private details of the former president's finances on the record, said the entity was a "pass-through" company designed to channel payments to the former president.
Under federal ethics disclosure rules, declared candidates do not have to report assets worth less than $1,000. But the company's existence demonstrates the complexity of tracking the Clintons' finances as Hillary Clinton ramps up her presidential bid.
While Bill Clinton's lucrative speeches have provided the bulk of the couple's income, earning as much as $50 million during his wife's four-year term as secretary of state in the Obama administration, the former president has also sought to branch out into other business activities in recent years. Little is known about the exact nature and financial worth of Bill Clinton's non-speech business interests.
The identities of several U.S and foreign-based companies and foundations that Bill Clinton worked for have been disclosed in Hillary Clinton's recent financial report as well as in earlier reports during her stint as secretary of state.
Under federal disclosure rules for spouses' earned income, Hillary Clinton was only obligated to identify the source of her spouse's income and confirm that he received more than $1,000. As a result, the precise amounts of Bill Clinton's earned income from consulting have not been disclosed, and it's not known how much was routed through WJC, LLC.
WJC, LLC was set up in Delaware in 2008 and again in 2013 and in New York in 2009, according to documents obtained by The AP. The company did not appear among holdings in the Clintons' financial disclosure released last week or in previous Hillary Clinton disclosure reports between 2008 and 2013, when she resigned as secretary of state. Bill Clinton signed a document as its "authorizing person" in a corporate filing in Delaware in 2013.
A limited liability company is a commonly used business structure that provides tax advantages and limited legal protection for the assets of company owners and partners.
The purpose of Bill Clinton's U.S.-based company was not disclosed in any of the corporate filings in Delaware and New York, but State Department files recently reviewed by the AP show that WJC, LLC surfaced in emails from Bill Clinton's aides to the department's ethics officials.
In February 2009, Clinton's counselor, Douglas Band, asked State Department ethics officials to clear Bill Clinton's consulting work for three companies owned by influential Democratic party donors. Memos sent by Band proposed that Bill Clinton would provide "consulting services regarding geopolitical, economic and social trends affecting the entity and philanthropic opportunities" through the WJC, LLC entity.
State Department officials approved Bill Clinton's consulting work for longtime friend Steve Bing's Shangri-La Industries and another with Wasserman Investments, GP, a firm run by entertainment executive and Democratic party donor Casey Wasserman. The ethics officials turned down Bill Clinton's proposed work with a firm run by entertainment magnate and Democratic donor Haim Saban because of Saban's active role in Mideast political affairs.
WJC, LLC was also cited by Band in a June 2011 memo sent to State Department ethics officials asking for clearance to allow Bill Clinton to advise Band's international consulting company, Teneo Strategy LLC. Band's request said Teneo would use "consulting services provided by President Clinton through WJC, LLC." State Department officials approved the three-year contract between the two companies.
None of the proposals detailed how much Bill Clinton would be paid.
While Hillary Clinton's 2011 federal disclosure report did not mention WJC, LLC, it reported that Bill Clinton received "non-employee compensation over $1,000 from Teneo," but did not disclose a more precise amount. Federal disclosure rules require the spouses of filers to disclose the identity of any income sources over $1,000, but they do not have to provide exact figures.
Pass-through, or shell, companies became an issue in the 2012 presidential campaign when Republican candidate Mitt Romney disclosed a private equity entity worth $1.9 million despite failing to report the company on his previous federal disclosure. Romney aides said the company previously held no assets but then received the $1.9 million "true up" payment — a catch-up payment to make up for private equity fees from defunct investment advisory businesses that had not been previously paid.
Speaking of Sanders..... here's some of his key points and why he will never be taken seriously!
With news that Senator Bernie Sanders will have a more formal unveiling of his presidential campaign this afternoon, it seems like a good time to get to know the self-proclaimed socialist from Vermont.
1. He is not running against Hillary Clinton
“I’m not running against Hillary Clinton,” he said. “She’s a candidate, I’m a candidate, and I suspect that there will be other candidates. The people in this country will make their choice.” His socialist platform is “one that resonates” with the American people, and he believes he can effectively appeal to them no matter who his opponent is, or how large her war chest is. But, as he’s said, he’s engaged in “a real struggle against the billionaire class.”
2. Yes, we did say “socialist”
Twice now, actually, because not only is Senator Sanders not afraid of the word, he openly embraces it. Earlier this month, he freely admitted that he wanted to make America “more Scandinavian” — by which he meant, a democratic country with a socialist backbone when it comes to healthcare, education, and retirement. “If you see the transfer of 99 percent of the wealth to the top one-tenth of the one percent,” he’s said, “you’ve got to transfer that back.”
3. President Sanders would overturn Citizens United
“The major issue of our time is whether the United States of America retains its democratic foundation or whether we devolve into an oligarchic form of society where a handful of billionaires are able to control our political process by spending hundreds of millions of dollars to elect candidates who represent their interests,” he said last September. The best way to do that, he said, is to overturn Citizens United, because “freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to buy the United States government.”
4. Senator Sanders is about as anti-corporate a candidate you can imagine this side of Noam Chomsky
He has proposed what would, in essence, be a “Wall Street sales tax,” and his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership is based on the fact that only “[m]ultinational corporations that have outsourced millions of good-paying American jobs to China, Mexico, Vietnam, India and other low-wage countries think this is a great deal.” Whereas “every union in this country…opposes this agreement that will wipe out jobs and depress wages.”
5. And about those unions…
Senator Sanders’ top five campaign contributors since 2009 are all unions, and 69 percent of the money he receives from political action committees comes from union PACs. “I’m not going to use a super PAC,” he’s said, and the facts bear him out. He has one, but it hasn’t raised any money for his presidential bid to date.
6. He believes public education — all of it — should be free
From elementary to middle, through high school and into community college or a university, Sanders believes that education should cost the student nothing. It’s not merely a personal investment, he believes, it’s a public good — and as such should be funded by the public. “These are not utopian ideas,” he’s said. “They are not radical ideas. They are fairly commonsensical ideas that can happen when you have a government that is directed by the people themselves and not by wealthy powerful corporate interests.”
Easy E wrote: The Republican primary is attracting wanna-be's like crazy.
Having all these potential Republican candidates can only be a good thing.
You'd WANT to have a healthy debate of ideas.
Want healthy debate, sure. But will it be? They're all ultimately trying to get the nomination of the same party, so I fear it may very much be an echo chamber (just using different words) and a contest of who has the best hair and whose book is being published that month.
Although, Sander's anti deorderant is... weird.
Heh, I can't help but think that misspelling of deodorant was intentional.
Easy E wrote: The Republican primary is attracting wanna-be's like crazy.
Having all these potential Republican candidates can only be a good thing.
You'd WANT to have a healthy debate of ideas.
Want healthy debate, sure. But will it be? They're all ultimately trying to get the nomination of the same party, so I fear it may very much be an echo chamber (just using different words) and a contest of who has the best hair and whose book is being published that month.
If it isn't an echo chamber, it will more closely resemble a septic tank than a political convention, because each candidate will be trying to make the other one look bad, while making themselves look good.
Having all these potential Republican candidates can only be a good thing.
You'd WANT to have a healthy debate of ideas.
Which you will never get in a Presidential primary. The only way numerous candidates can benefit a Party is if the minor, throwaway candidates mobilize select groups of people and push them to a candidate that actually has a chance of winning the Primary and the General. This can be a very effective strategy, but it is also one which is very difficult to pull off.
Sanders... possibly the only candidate that's to the left of Clinton... so much so, that she'd appear very centrist compared to Sanders.
I suppose if you compare Hillary to the majority of the current crop of Republicans she is quite far to the left, but that has more to do with the GOP swinging to the right than Hillary being particularly leftist.
The FBI have arrested a dozen FIFA officials on corruption and bribery charges (FIFA is the group responsible for overseeing international soccer)
I watched a press conference with the head of the FBI, the head of the Justice department, the head of the IRS, the attorney general of the USA, and I swear I saw a 4 star Marine general in there as well The USA declared war on FIFA
I was genuinely frightened of American awesomeness
I also learned that an incriminating email passing through a server in the USA is enough to have the justice department come after you, even if you've never been to the USA.
So yeah, don't mess with America. God bless Obama, Reagan, guns. Please don't come after me
Having all these potential Republican candidates can only be a good thing.
You'd WANT to have a healthy debate of ideas.
Which you will never get in a Presidential primary. The only way numerous candidates can benefit a Party is if the minor, throwaway candidates mobilize select groups of people and push them to a candidate that actually has a chance of winning the Primary and the General. This can be a very effective strategy, but it is also one which is very difficult to pull off.
True... and to satisfy my political craving... the more candidates... the more chance for a Brokered Convention.
Sanders... possibly the only candidate that's to the left of Clinton... so much so, that she'd appear very centrist compared to Sanders.
I suppose if you compare Hillary to the majority of the current crop of Republicans she is quite far to the left, but that has more to do with the GOP swinging to the right than Hillary being particularly leftist.
The FBI have arrested a dozen FIFA officials on corruption and bribery charges (FIFA is the group responsible for overseeing international soccer)
I watched a press conference with the head of the FBI, the head of the Justice department, the head of the IRS, the attorney general of the USA, and I swear I saw a 4 star Marine general in there as well The USA declared war on FIFA
I was genuinely frightened of American awesomeness
I also learned that an incriminating email passing through a server in the USA is enough to have the justice department come after you, even if you've never been to the USA.
So yeah, don't mess with America. God bless Obama, Reagan, guns. Please don't come after me
'Murrica.
But, the whistleblower is American... and the bribes occured in the States.
The FBI have arrested a dozen FIFA officials on corruption and bribery charges (FIFA is the group responsible for overseeing international soccer)
Heard about this on the radio myself.... Also heard that when the police showed up, 7 of the arrested individuals promptly hit the deck, writhing in apparent agony, even though no physical contact had been made
They voted the same way 93 percent of the time in the two years they shared in the Senate.
If Sanders a hard-core socialist lefty, then Clinton ain't too far behind.
Percent agreement is a terrible metric as it ignores the actual content of the bills being voted on. Indeed, if you read past the first two sentence, Mr. Willis makes this point:
Derek Willis wrote:
The 31 times that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders disagreed happened to be on some the biggest issues of the day, including measures on continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an immigration reform bill and bank bailouts during the depths of the Great Recession.
Sanders liberal/lefty tendencies gravitate/support certain bills. As does Clinton's... as does all Congressional-critters.
A left-leaning bill is not necessarily a socialist one. The confluence of the current American Left and socialism has mostly been manufactured by pundits on the American Right and their devotees. I mean, just look at Obamacare: it started off as a socialist proposal but the bill that was eventually signed into law is anything but.
He got 20% of the votes in the primary last time... I can't seem him competitive this time around.
Unfortunately for the Republicans he is a true believer. If he were more savvy he could rally social conservatives and push their votes to someone with a chance at the big chair.
With History repeating itself ( the great Depression era for the 21st century) I say Sanders, as well, he sounds like a 21st century FDR. Right now things are way too far over for letting the Rich suck the economy dry while having paid for politicians help them rob the poor and safety nets as we always yet seem to have enough to spend on the military industrial complex.
Meanwhile, Income inequality
Infrastructure rotting away
Tax subsidies to the Rich corporations making billions already(Corporate welfare)
Attempts to cut ALL safety programs so the money that they cut is siphoned off to pay those same BIG Corporates
We have less democracy and more oligarchy
The wealthy are also taxed so low that the paltry percentage they pay is amazing small in comparison to normally paid people. (As explained here https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/15/1357922/-How-I-Converted-My-Republican-Co-Worker-on-Tax-Policy?detail=emailclassic)
I prefer Bernie as he is also the one looking out for the people and as Warren is not running, we need him. HRC is tied to some major issues and is connected to Money.
Maybe this belongs on the FIFA thread, but I'm glad the USA is taking a stand on the FIFA corruption allegations.
I love football, and it's been frustrating to see the game I love dragged into the gutter for years on end. And nobody seemed willing, or bothered to do anything about it.
Yes, I'm critical of the USA on many issues, but well done America for shining the light of the law on this nest of vipers.
I would like to say to American dakka members, thank you. Your hard earned tax money is getting spent on a noble cause
Seriously, thank you.
Still can't believe the Clintons may be caught up in this, though.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Maybe this belongs on the FIFA thread, but I'm glad the USA is taking a stand on the FIFA corruption allegations.
I love football, and it's been frustrating to see the game I love dragged into the gutter for years on end. And nobody seemed willing, or bothered to do anything about it.
Yes, I'm critical of the USA on many issues, but well done America for shining the light of the law on this nest of vipers.
I would like to say to American dakka members, thank you. Your hard earned tax money is getting spent on a noble cause
We LOVE our football too!
Oh!... I meant that "hand egg" game.
Seriously, you may not know this... but soccer (that's your futbol you heathen!) is extremely popular in the amateur scene. (all the from pee wee leagues to college).
Seriously, thank you.
You're welcome.... Although, Pootie Putin isn't happy about it.
Still can't believe the Clintons may be caught up in this, though.
I know... right?!?!
But the Clinton/Democrat supporters don't give a gak anymore.
I'm glad Santorum has put his hat in the ring. IMO it's good to have numerous constituencies represented in the primaries. In the same vein, I'm glad a true socialist in Sanders is running, even if there is some shady conspiracy going on to make Clinton look like a conservative.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker believes forced ultrasounds are "just a cool thing for women," a handful of online news sites reported Wednesday.
Problem is: That's not exactly what the Republican governor and likely 2016 presidential candidate said.
In an interview Friday with conservative radio host Dana Loesch, Walker defended a bill that he signed into law in 2013 mandating that women seeking abortions must also be provided with ultrasounds.
The measure, Senate Bill 206, or Sonya's Law, reads, "This bill requires … that before a person may perform or induce an abortion the physician … [must] perform, or arrange for a qualified person to perform, an ultrasound on the pregnant woman using whichever transducer the woman chooses."
Walker bragged in his interview with Loesch that he and his team, "defunded Planned Parenthood."
"We also signed a law that requires an ultrasound. Which, the thing about that, the media tried to make that sound like that was a crazy idea," he said.
The Wisconsin governor, who is also the father to two sons, then marveled at the technology behind ultrasounds.
"Most people I talk to, whether they're pro-life or not, I find people all the time who'll get out their iPhone and show me a picture of their grandkids' ultrasound and how excited they are, so that's a lovely thing. I think about my sons are 19 and 20, you know we still have their first ultrasound picture. It's just a cool thing out there," he said.
"We just knew if we signed that law, if we provided the information, that more people if they saw that unborn child would, would make a decision to protect and keep the life of that unborn child," he added.
Newsrooms took it from there, editing together Walker's comments so that they could claim in headlines that the Republican lawmaker said "forced ultrasounds" are "cool."
Right Wing Watch, a left-wing watchdog group, was one of the first to take on Walker's comments, publishing a story Tuesday titled "Scott Walker: Ultrasounds Should Be Mandatory Since They're 'A Cool Thing.'"
On Wednesday, multiple newsrooms appeared to follow Right Wing Watch's lead.
Talking Points Memo published a headline that read, "Scott Walker: Mandatory Ultrasounds Are 'Just A Cool Thing' For Women."
"Potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) said in an interview on Friday that mandatory ultrasounds for women hoping to get an abortion was 'just a cool thing,'" read the opening paragraph to TPM's write up of the Walker interview.
Politico published a story with the headline, "Scott Walker on mandatory ultrasounds: 'It's just a cool thing out there.'" That headline has since been amended so that it now reads, "Scott Walker defends mandatory ultrasounds."
The Week chimed in, "Scott Walker defends mandatory ultrasounds: They're 'just a cool thing.'"
Not to be outdone, Salon claimed in its write-up of Walker's remarks that he said, "Women should be forced to have transvaginal ultrasounds because they are 'a cool thing.'"
Raw Story also jumped in with a story titled, "Scott Walker: Women should be forced to have ultrasounds because they're 'a cool thing.'"
Then there was Mother Jones, which published a report titled, "Scott Walker Says Mandatory Ultrasounds Are 'Just a Cool Thing' for Women."
Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards cashed in on the media brouhaha Wednesday afternoon by saying in a statement to NPR that, "Women are very clear that forced government ultrasounds are not 'cool.'"
NOT "forced ultrasounds are just a cool thing for women".
Funny...I don't remembet you lambadting Fox and conservative networks taking 'You didn't build that' out of context.
Because it wasn't taken out of context. The full fething statement is even worse:
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.
So, that... along with his "spread the wealth around" and is big-gubmit proclivities, it's not hard to hear that in context.
whembly wrote: Because it wasn't taken out of context. The full fething statement is even worse:
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.
So, that... along with his "spread the wealth around" and is big-gubmit proclivities, it's not hard to hear that in context.
Et tu, Brute? If anyone objective listened to that soundbyte, it was clear that the "not you" in "you didn't build that" was a reference to "somebody along the line that gave you some help, "a great teacher somwehwere", "somebody who helped create this unbeleivable American system", and "somebody who invested in roads and bridges". And most likely only a direct reference to the "roads and bridges".
whembly wrote: Because it wasn't taken out of context. The full fething statement is even worse:
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.
So, that... along with his "spread the wealth around" and is big-gubmit proclivities, it's not hard to hear that in context.
Et tu, Brute? If anyone objective listened to that soundbyte, it was clear that "that" in "you didn't build that" was a referenced to "somebody alond the line that gave you some help, "a great teacher somwehwere", "somebody who helped create this unbeleivable American system", and "somebody who invested in roads and bridges".
Disagree there buddy.
I think the crux of it is that Obama really WANTS to be more like Bernie Sanders and do more 'socialist' things... but, he knows he can't, so he (and his peeps) tries to artfully wrap those sentiments to something more palatable. But, it sneaks through.
What that statement said to me, loud and clearly, was that I shouldn't feel good on the successes I've built... and I ought to give more back to society. It totally discounts the amount of bootstrap'n I had to do.
NOT "forced ultrasounds are just a cool thing for women".
The article which used that byline did not imply that Walker said such a thing. I know punctuation is hard for most internet denizens, but it pays to understand it.
I think the crux of it is that Obama really WANTS to be more like Bernie Sanders and do more 'socialist' things... but, he knows he can't, so he (and his peeps) tries to artfully wrap those sentiments to something more palatable. But, it sneaks through.
What that statement said to me, loud and clearly, was that I shouldn't feel good on the successes I've built... and I ought to give more back to society. It totally discounts the amount of bootstrap'n I had to do.
1/2 right from my take. The sentiment is that no successful business became successful solely due to their own efforts. There are, indeed, many infrastructure components businesses rely on (roads and bridges, in the example, but so many more you could barely count them), for which the business itself is relying on the hard work (tax money) of the general populous. If you run a restaraunt in Little Town, USA, you owe your success in part to the taxpayers from Little Town USA who spent all their money on the roads and bridges that allow customers to access your bysiness. You should feel good about your successes, but you should not delude yourself into thinking they would have been possible without social infrastructure.
NOT "forced ultrasounds are just a cool thing for women".
The article which used that byline did not imply that Walker said such a thing. I know punctuation is hard for most internet denizens, but it pays to understand it.
Can you see the pictures of the website headliners? I'll type it out for you:
Scott Walker: Women should be forced to have transvaginal ultrasounds because they are "a cool thing".
Scott Walker Says Mandatory Ultrasounds are "Just a Cool Thing" for Women
Scott Walker defends mandatory untrasounds: They're 'just a cool thing'
Scott Walker: Mandatory Ultrasounds are "Just A Cool Thing" For Women
Scott Walker: Women should be forced to have ultrasounds because they're 'a cool thing'
Newsflash.
He didn't say anything REMOTE like that. This isn't something where in context you can read it multiple ways. This is straight up journalistic malfeasance on behalf of the Democratic Party.
So, that... along with his "spread the wealth around" and is big-gubmit proclivities, it's not hard to hear that in context.
So you're happy to consider context in some cases, but not in others?
Que?
Obama said "you didn't build that". Here's the FULL transcript:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
Here's the thing... he meant it. He. Said. Those. Words.
I mean, I guess you could interpreted it as: If you have any success at all... thus having $$$, “you didn’t get there on your own.” You owe it somebody else??
Whembley. There is nothing really incorrect with anything Obama said there, except there is somehtng that doesn't get literally translated in writing (remember, this was a speech), and that is...
"If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. "
The "that" in this quote is not a reference to the businss owner's business, its a reference to infrastructure like roads and bridges.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I mean, I guess you could interpreted it as: If you have any success at all... thus having $$$, “you didn’t get there on your own.
This is basically a truism, and its exactly what Obama meant.
I think the crux of it is that Obama really WANTS to be more like Bernie Sanders and do more 'socialist' things... but, he knows he can't, so he (and his peeps) tries to artfully wrap those sentiments to something more palatable. But, it sneaks through.
What that statement said to me, loud and clearly, was that I shouldn't feel good on the successes I've built... and I ought to give more back to society. It totally discounts the amount of bootstrap'n I had to do.
1/2 right from my take. The sentiment is that no successful business became successful solely due to their own efforts. There are, indeed, many infrastructure components businesses rely on (roads and bridges, in the example, but so many more you could barely count them), for which the business itself is relying on the hard work (tax money) of the general populous. If you run a restaraunt in Little Town, USA, you owe your success in part to the taxpayers from Little Town USA who spent all their money on the roads and bridges that allow customers to access your bysiness. You should feel good about your successes, but you should not delude yourself into thinking they would have been possible without social infrastructure.
I get what you're saying... but, that statement was incredibly inartful.
I mean, when watching that video & reading the full transcript, it's even worse.
He iscompletely discounting of risk and hard work people put into their business.
Lemme put it in a different way.
Do you agree with the premise that going into a business is a risky endeavor?
Do you agree that you can lose your ass in a failed business?
So... who shares the downside with you, when you lose your ass?
See where I'm getting at?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: Whembley. There is nothing really incorrect with anything Obama said there, except there is somehtng that doesn't get literally translated in writing (remember, this was a speech), and that is...
"If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. "
The "that" in this quote is not a reference to the businss owner's business, its a reference to infrastructure like roads and bridges.
Stop... what's the next sentence? (In my mind made the whole thing much worse)
Whembly is a hypocritical partisan hack...Never would have thought...
And Walker linked being made to have an ultrasound with people being happy to have one...In effect, he was saying they should be grateful not complaining that they have to get one.
@Whembley: Yes, starting a business is certainly a risky endeavor, and one in whoch you can lose alot. You and your investors are the ones who would lose.
Do you acknowledge that if you start a business, you are relying on a whole lot of infrastructure services (roads, bridges, post offices, the internet, phone lines, cell phone satellites, etc) for which you had little to no part in creating?
The "somebody" in "somebody else did that" is a reference to the taxpayers who funded "that" (roads and bridges, internet, etc.), and those who did the actual work.
He didn't say anything REMOTE like that. This isn't something where in context you can read it multiple ways. This is straight up journalistic malfeasance on behalf of the Democratic Party.
Again, punctuation is your friend.
Is it "journalistic malfeasance"? Maybe, but I don't really think journalists have any sort of special responsibility.
jasper76 wrote: Yes, starting a business is certainly a risky endeavor, and one in whoch you can lose alot. You and your investors are the ones who lose.
And that's why that statement was problematic.
What we have is that a successful business contributes to society via taxes, hiring folks and offering product/services. If the business falls flat, the investors loses money and bears the risks.
Do you acknowledge that if you start a business, you are relying on a whole lot of infrastructure services (roads, bridges, post offices, the internet, phone lines, cell phone satellites, etc) for which you had little to no part in creating?
Sure. That's what makes this a great country. We have an environment where the opportunity exists for people to be successful. All of that is partially created by current/previous tax payers + good ol' fashion boot straps.
I'm fully aware that MY tax dollars (income/local/property) are put in good use for society, such that the next generation will have the same opportunity I had. But, that doesn't mean that if I was even more successful at what I do (after taking risks), that I should will to pay a higher tax rate.
What some folks want, (looking at Obama/Warren/Sanders of the world) is that they want to win both ways.
-If you're successful, gimmie dat tax revenue
-You fall flat on your business? Sucks to be you man.
He didn't say anything REMOTE like that. This isn't something where in context you can read it multiple ways. This is straight up journalistic malfeasance on behalf of the Democratic Party.
Again, punctuation is your friend.
Reading comprehension is yours.
Is it "journalistic malfeasance"? Maybe, but I don't really think journalists have any sort of special responsibility.
Then you don't believe in journalistic integrity? They're just an extension their favored group/class?
@whembley: So I don't think Obama's clip here would be a very successful or meaningful argument for a progressive tax system.
The most successful argument for a progressive tax system is pretty simple: 10% of $15,000/year is a whole hell of alot more precious than 10% of $150,000/year. People on the lower end of the income scale simply can't afford to pay as much tax as people on the higher end.
A progressive tax system shouldn't be meant to punish the wealthy, but rather to shield the poor from excessive taxation.
skyth wrote: Whembly is a hypocritical partisan hack...Never would have thought...
Nice.
Care to point out exactly how I'm hypocritical? dogma has failed so far...
Dogma and Jasper did a pretty good job of explaining it. Not that you listen, but they did.
Now now... don't be shy.
I've rebutted their statements.
If you truly believe they're right, point it out to me. Youcalled me out... I want you to justify it.
We can keep it civil.
You doing the internet equivalent of plugging your ears and going 'lalalala can't hear you' doesn't mean that you actually rebutted their statements.
:waves:
Come... and step into the Thunderdome of Ideas™. You're talking at me, not with me.
I won't bite. Not too hard!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: So I don't think Obama's clip here would be a very successful or meaningful argument for a progressive tax system.
The most successful argument for a progressive tax system is pretty simple: 10% of $15,000/year is a whole hell of alot more precious than 10% of $150,000/year. People on the lower end of the income scale simply can't afford to pay as much tax as people on the higher end.
A progressive tax system shouldn't be meant to punish the wealthy, but rather to shield the poor from excessive taxation.
You see... that's a solid argument.
I disagree with it, but I understand the perspective.
If it were me, if I had that powah, I'd still have a progress teir'ed system, but no F'n deductions or loopholes.
Then you don't believe in journalistic integrity? They're just an extension their favored group/class?
To me "journalistic integrity" amounts to not lying. How you arrived at the second question would be a mystery to me were you not ensconced within the "HURRR Liberal Media!" wagon.
Then you don't believe in journalistic integrity? They're just an extension their favored group/class?
To me "journalistic integrity" amounts to not lying. How you arrived at the second question would be a mystery to me were you not ensconced within the "HURRR Liberal Media!" wagon.
No, it isn't. It is a characterized quote, hence the punctuation.
O.o
No. dogma... these sites are falsely claiming that Walker was applying it to legislated ultrasounds prior to obtaining an abortion. He was talking about his own kid's pictures.
My sons are 19 and 20, we still have their ultrasound picture, it's a cool thing out there.
That's the quote. Plain as day.
Funny how many are talking this up as that you don't build that quote...
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: So I don't think Obama's clip here would be a very successful or meaningful argument for a progressive tax system.
The most successful argument for a progressive tax system is pretty simple: 10% of $15,000/year is a whole hell of alot more precious than 10% of $150,000/year. People on the lower end of the income scale simply can't afford to pay as much tax as people on the higher end.
A progressive tax system shouldn't be meant to punish the wealthy, but rather to shield the poor from excessive taxation.
You see... that's a solid argument.
I disagree with it, but I understand the perspective.
If it were me, if I had that powah, I'd still have a progress teir'ed system, but no F'n deductions or loopholes.
If you're interested in my thinking on the matter:
1. Define a reasonable maximum tax rate, and tax people at this rate with zero deductions and zero loopholes.
2. Define a income threshold under which the tax rate from Step 1 would begin to impede on a citizen's ability to have a decent standard of living, including the ability to save money for retirement (remember if a citizen can't provide for their own retirement, one way or another, you and I will).
3. Start from there and create a progressive system scaling down the tax rate based on income until it hits some income level where only a 0% tax rate would provide for a citizen's ability to have a decent standard of living, including the ability to save money for retirement.
4. Dont tax anyone below that income level at all.
All sympathies to the victims of this accident in Texas. Politics-wise,this kind of thing comes back to haunt Presidential candidates, and in my mind typifies why Cruz doesn't really belong in a national-scale election.
A pair of Republican lawmakers who voted against federal aid in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy are now looking for federal aid in the wake of the deadly explosion in West, Texas.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz lambasted the Sandy Aid package, voting against the measure in January. Cruz issued a statement explaining that he voted against the aid because it included a number of spending measures that were not related to disaster relief, including "Smithsonian repairs, upgrades to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration airplanes, and more funding for Head Start."
However, in Washington Thursday, Cruz said that he was "working to ensure that all available resources are marshaled to deal with the horrific loss of life and suffering that we've seen" after an explosion at a fertilizer plant in Texas leveled the plant and nearby houses and business, claiming the lives of at least a dozen people and injuring hundreds more.
FEMA has reportedly been in close contact with officials in Texas to organize aid, relief and support to the West area.
Rep. Bill Flores, who represents West, also voted against the Sandy relief package but is now requesting federal aid for the disaster in his home district. Flores said Thursday that members of Congress with whom he has been in touch have pledged assistance.
After Flores voted against the Sandy aid package, he justified his vote by saying the package was "too large" and did "more than meet the immediate needs of Sandy victims."
That's a bit of an old story, there.
A bit more current, though, is that Ted Cruz is doing his best to sidestep any questions about climate change in recent interviews regarding all the rain and flooding we're getting all over Texas.
Funny, but I wish people would understand that whether=/=climate. Now if these sorts of storms were happening regularly, at a higher frequency than ever before, then it would be a better question to ask. But that's probably just me nit-picking again.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Funny, but I wish people would understand that whether=/=climate. Now if these sorts of storms were happening regularly, at a higher frequency than ever before, then it would be a better question to ask. But that's probably just me nit-picking again.
Except this weather is part of a trend of heavy rain events in the South-Central US. There is also a rather nasty El Niño brewing and record-breaking highs of ocean surface temperatures, both things that heavily contribute to increase moisture. Droughts and floods occur naturally in Texas, but precipitation is becoming more variable; in the state, the heaviest rainfalls have increased more than 16 percent over the long-term average. That isn't say that climate change is causing these storms, but more that it's making the storms much worse than they otherwise would be, which is a predicted outcome.
Sen. Bernie Sanders' Essay: Women 'Fantasize About Being Raped'
In a 1972 essay, presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) opined that men fantasized about women being abused. He also claimed that women fantasized about being gang raped.
In an article entitled "Men-And-Women," published in an alternative newspaper called the "Vermont Freeman" Sanders shared his thoughts on male and female sexuality in ways that would cause a media firestorm if it had been penned by any current GOP candidate. Even one with as little chance at grabbing his party's nomination as Sanders currently has.
"A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy," wrote Sanders. "A woman on her knees. A woman tied up. A woman abused."
Sanders didn't specify as to how he had gained such a deep understanding of the male psyche.
In terms of his understanding of female sexual fantasies, Sanders provided similar insight.
"A woman enjoys intercourse with her man--as she fantasizes about being raped by 3 men simultaneously."
Click to Tweet
It is unclear where Sanders acquired his early expertise on male and female sexual desires. But what is clear is that had Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum wrote something along these lines--even 40 years ago--the media wouldn't stop talking about it for weeks.
Perhaps Sanders gets a pass due to his early work at a psychiatric hospital (No, he wasn't a patient.) or his associations with radical hippies in the early 60's. But what is even more astounding is that the opinion piece was written after sanders had stepped into the political fray.
In 1971 Sanders launched his first bid for Senate in the first of four losing campaigns for US Senate and governor. And it appears his platform hasn't changed much since then.
Sanders advocated ending the war in Vietnam, a guaranteed minimum wage, tougher corporate regulations, and legalizing all drugs. Some other radical proposals endorsed by Sanders included an end to compulsory education and the widening of interstate highways to allow cars to more easily pull over to pick up hitchhikers.
Today, Sander's views may not mirror the ideas that he floated in his early foray into politics. But even so, shouldn't someone in the media ask him about his early views on sexuality?
After all, his path to victory may be non-existent, but the guy is a U.S.senator.
Perhaps he can get some advice from Todd Akin on how to answer these questions if he's ever called on to explain these past statements.
I'm wondering if the media will treat the Democrat the say way as they did over Todd Atkin's comment?
But what is clear is that had Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum wrote something along these lines--even 40 years ago--the media wouldn't stop talking about it for weeks.
I'm pretty sure "the media" wouldn't have to dig up opinions about sexuality that were expressed 40 years ago regarding Cruz or Santorum.
But what is clear is that had Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum wrote something along these lines--even 40 years ago--the media wouldn't stop talking about it for weeks.
I'm pretty sure "the media" wouldn't have to dig up opinions about sexuality that were expressed 40 years ago regarding Cruz or Santorum.
What is the point? Right now your position seems to be a mixture of "Democrats are bad!" and "Conservatives are persecuted!". The first is opinion, but the second is just wrong.
That the only way to stop this nonsense of raking politicians over hot coals for some stupid gak said in their formative years is to teach your political adversaries the error of their ways... by giving them a dose of their own medicine, repeatedly, until they tire of it.
Ie, "If you get hit... punch back twice as hard"
It's gutter politics... and we really should ABSTAIN from this as a regular practice. But there is simply nothing wrong with turning their tactics back on them when the purpose is not merely to smear the way they do, but to rub their noses in their own gak so they may learn to appreciate how badly it stinks.
So... do I wish we can get down to brass tacks and have meaningful debates? Absolutely.
Frankly, opponents to Sanders don't need to do this since he's an admitted, raging Socialist with favorable views on the Soviets in his adult years. He's a side-show meant to give HRC a little breathing room.
That the only way to stop this nonsense of raking politicians over hot coals for some stupid gak said in their formative years is to teach your political adversaries the error of their ways...
How often have politicians, of any brand, been raked over the coals due to things they said in their "formative years"?
That the only way to stop this nonsense of raking politicians over hot coals for some stupid gak said in their formative years is to teach your political adversaries the error of their ways...
How often have politicians, of any brand, been raked over the coals due to things they said in their "formative years"?
Romeny, most recently. (teenage hazing)
Perry. (then painted N word on his family's property)
Hmmm yet recently all the major GOP candidates had pics they took with child molester Duggar surface and they are recent pics. Duggar also backs these candidates so I will leave that here to discuss
I noted the tax rates discussion was ignored
Seems a shame that the shape of political discourse is shaped around such little digs and NOT on actual issues. I guess dealing with
Unequal ad unbalanced taxation rates
infrastructure
Military over spending
wars waged that are not needed.
Income inequality
Corporate domination of our government
Wallstreet power
Super sized banks that claim they are "too big to fail"
trade bills that send jobs away
tuition insanity
wages
jobs period
social safety net cuts
corporate welfare
and other major issues are too dry for most, so instead we nit pick at the things the media wants like any insulting ideas Bernie has about Hilary, or other silliness that is more along the lines of simple character assassination
(However as a man who voted against helping after Hurricane Sandy now wanting to get massive fed help for texas makes Cruz look like a hypocrite in the here and now)
I will also drop this bombshell, for all the folks worried about "socialists" Based on the bible, Jesus was a "Socialist"
Socialism was actually started in America, based on Christ, by a priest ad his writer brother. Marx just simply went with removing the christian aspect out of socialism/communism.
You act like Conservatives don't do the same thing Whembly...However the dirt dug up about conservatives tends to be more relevant than that of liberals.
Case in pont...both ones you were arguing about. Walker did link the abortion ultrasound with his childrens' pictutes as a 'why are they even complaing about it' bit. Obama 'you didn't build that' had to be taken increadibly out of context to get the outrage. The GOP candidate stuck his foot in his mouth whem talking about potential legislation. Sanders remarks ate 40 years old and we know wouldn't reflect legislation he would want to pass.
Sen. Bernie Sanders' Essay: Women 'Fantasize About Being Raped'
In a 1972 essay, presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) opined that men fantasized about women being abused. He also claimed that women fantasized about being gang raped.
In an article entitled "Men-And-Women," published in an alternative newspaper called the "Vermont Freeman" Sanders shared his thoughts on male and female sexuality in ways that would cause a media firestorm if it had been penned by any current GOP candidate. Even one with as little chance at grabbing his party's nomination as Sanders currently has.
"A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy," wrote Sanders. "A woman on her knees. A woman tied up. A woman abused."
Sanders didn't specify as to how he had gained such a deep understanding of the male psyche.
In terms of his understanding of female sexual fantasies, Sanders provided similar insight.
"A woman enjoys intercourse with her man--as she fantasizes about being raped by 3 men simultaneously."
Click to Tweet
It is unclear where Sanders acquired his early expertise on male and female sexual desires. But what is clear is that had Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum wrote something along these lines--even 40 years ago--the media wouldn't stop talking about it for weeks.
Perhaps Sanders gets a pass due to his early work at a psychiatric hospital (No, he wasn't a patient.) or his associations with radical hippies in the early 60's. But what is even more astounding is that the opinion piece was written after sanders had stepped into the political fray.
In 1971 Sanders launched his first bid for Senate in the first of four losing campaigns for US Senate and governor. And it appears his platform hasn't changed much since then.
Sanders advocated ending the war in Vietnam, a guaranteed minimum wage, tougher corporate regulations, and legalizing all drugs. Some other radical proposals endorsed by Sanders included an end to compulsory education and the widening of interstate highways to allow cars to more easily pull over to pick up hitchhikers.
Today, Sander's views may not mirror the ideas that he floated in his early foray into politics. But even so, shouldn't someone in the media ask him about his early views on sexuality?
After all, his path to victory may be non-existent, but the guy is a U.S.senator.
Perhaps he can get some advice from Todd Akin on how to answer these questions if he's ever called on to explain these past statements.
I'm wondering if the media will treat the Democrat the say way as they did over Todd Atkin's comment?
Not holding my breath...
I'm not exactly sure I would say Sanders is completely wrong. The existence of BDSM and the porn that goes with it would seem to lend support to his statement. That doesn't necessarily make it "right," but everybody's got their kinks?
Sen. Bernie Sanders' Essay: Women 'Fantasize About Being Raped'
In a 1972 essay, presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) opined that men fantasized about women being abused. He also claimed that women fantasized about being gang raped.
In an article entitled "Men-And-Women," published in an alternative newspaper called the "Vermont Freeman" Sanders shared his thoughts on male and female sexuality in ways that would cause a media firestorm if it had been penned by any current GOP candidate. Even one with as little chance at grabbing his party's nomination as Sanders currently has.
"A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy," wrote Sanders. "A woman on her knees. A woman tied up. A woman abused."
Sanders didn't specify as to how he had gained such a deep understanding of the male psyche.
In terms of his understanding of female sexual fantasies, Sanders provided similar insight.
"A woman enjoys intercourse with her man--as she fantasizes about being raped by 3 men simultaneously."
Click to Tweet
It is unclear where Sanders acquired his early expertise on male and female sexual desires. But what is clear is that had Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum wrote something along these lines--even 40 years ago--the media wouldn't stop talking about it for weeks.
Perhaps Sanders gets a pass due to his early work at a psychiatric hospital (No, he wasn't a patient.) or his associations with radical hippies in the early 60's. But what is even more astounding is that the opinion piece was written after sanders had stepped into the political fray.
In 1971 Sanders launched his first bid for Senate in the first of four losing campaigns for US Senate and governor. And it appears his platform hasn't changed much since then.
Sanders advocated ending the war in Vietnam, a guaranteed minimum wage, tougher corporate regulations, and legalizing all drugs. Some other radical proposals endorsed by Sanders included an end to compulsory education and the widening of interstate highways to allow cars to more easily pull over to pick up hitchhikers.
Today, Sander's views may not mirror the ideas that he floated in his early foray into politics. But even so, shouldn't someone in the media ask him about his early views on sexuality?
After all, his path to victory may be non-existent, but the guy is a U.S.senator.
Perhaps he can get some advice from Todd Akin on how to answer these questions if he's ever called on to explain these past statements.
I'm wondering if the media will treat the Democrat the say way as they did over Todd Atkin's comment?
Not holding my breath...
I'm not exactly sure I would say Sanders is completely wrong. The existence of BDSM and the porn that goes with it would seem to lend support to his statement. That doesn't necessarily make it "right," but everybody's got their kinks?
That essay really ain't that horrible for a college piece...
It's very much a classical femanist, "break the stereotype" paper.
whembly wrote: And deflecting a question isn't a great sign that you're on sound grounds either.
Are you really trying to use that as criticism?
Pot. Meet kettle.
EDIT: Let's try it again, with more recent events...
Mitt Romney was too old, now the Republican candidates are too young.
Mitt Romney was too rich, now the Republican candidates are too middle-class.
Todd Akin said a stupid thing for which all Republicans everywhere must answer. Denny Hastert did an embarrassing thing (possibly illegal) for which all Republicans everywhere must answer.
But apparently it is ridiculous to expect any Democrat to justify their vote for war in Iraq, or where their foundations get money, or even say what they think about Hillary Clinton’s record and finances, and of course it would be absolutely absurd to bother them about something Bernie Sanders wrote 40 years ago, especially since they’re so busy asking Republicans to defend how Mitt Romney packed his dog and gave hazings in high school and if whether or not they approve of his car elevator?
Do I have that about right?
I'm mean, Demcrats are all angels here right? Looking out for the masses?
I own up to everything I am accused of when the accusation is fair, but in this case it is not. As I have pointed out several times you deliberately avoid questions when they are posed to you. I will not speculate as to why that is, but it does happen. Indeed, you're doing it now.
Todd Akin said a stupid thing for which all Republicans everywhere must answer. Denny Hastert did an embarrassing thing (possibly illegal) for which all Republicans everywhere must answer.
Neither of those things are true. Akin openly expressed an opinion which is reflected in the behavior of US conservatives, and Hastert likely broke the law but no one really cares about that; certainly not Republicans.
.. so is it fair to assume then that Huckabee's ...... interesting ............ comments and support for the Duggar family is indicative of him not really being a serious candidate anyway and, perhaps, being just in for to raise some extra money ?
Or is it that he's so tied into that segment of the community as his base that he's got no choice but to back them ?
Ugh, already heard one senator on the radio this morning spewing that "the terrorists will win" crap because that phone collection bit of the PATRIOT Act expired. Forget NASCAR sponsor suits for politicians, I want them permanently hooked up to portable polygraph machines so we can see if they actually believe the crap they say.I
reds8n wrote: .. so is it fair to assume then that Huckabee's ...... interesting ............ comments and support for the Duggar family is indicative of him not really being a serious candidate anyway and, perhaps, being just in for to raise some extra money ?
Or is it that he's so tied into that segment of the community as his base that he's got no choice but to back them ?
The former I'm sure.
And no, he won't make it past the Primary.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Ugh, already heard one senator on the radio this morning spewing that "the terrorists will win" crap because that phone collection bit of the PATRIOT Act expired. Forget NASCAR sponsor suits for politicians, I want them permanently hooked up to portable polygraph machines so we can see if they actually believe the crap they say.I
Rand Paul is pissing off all the right people in imo.
He misses on alot of issues, but in this case, I firmly believe he's right on the money.
I also saw Rand Paul on the news today, attacking this bill in the Senate. He spoke a lot of sense and seemed quite fired up about the whole thing.
As I've asked before, why is there always a furore about gun control, and yet, when it comes to privacy violations, nobody seems to bat an eyelid?
That free speech was the first amendment the founding fathers choose, is no accident. People will argue that without the 2nd, you can't have any, but there are many democracies that don't have an armed citizenry like the USA.
As I've asked before, why is there always a furore about gun control, and yet, when it comes to privacy violations, nobody seems to bat an eyelid?
There are plenty of people upset about privacy violations. The ones that mostly do the violating are the NSA and corporations, though, so the US government isn't going to care about those complaints.
As I've asked before, why is there always a furore about gun control, and yet, when it comes to privacy violations, nobody seems to bat an eyelid?
There are plenty of people upset about privacy violations. The ones that mostly do the violating are the NSA and corporations, though, so the US government isn't going to care about those complaints.
I read that in the 1970s, congress reigned in the NSA, so they do have a historical precedent for acting.
For me, that's no bad thing for the R's to have a debate on where they see the USA going in the next decade. Compare that to Hilary Clinton's unopposed coronation.
As I've asked before, why is there always a furore about gun control, and yet, when it comes to privacy violations, nobody seems to bat an eyelid?
There are plenty of people upset about privacy violations. The ones that mostly do the violating are the NSA and corporations, though, so the US government isn't going to care about those complaints.
I read that in the 1970s, congress reigned in the NSA, so they do have a historical precedent for acting.
I think I said it earlier in the thread: it's because 9/11 has become the excuse to allow all sorts of things we would never have accepted before, "or else the terrorists win." So politicians use that particular shade of McCarthyism to get what they want, as nobody wants the political death sentence of being accused of letting the terrorists win.
As I've asked before, why is there always a furore about gun control, and yet, when it comes to privacy violations, nobody seems to bat an eyelid?
There are plenty of people upset about privacy violations. The ones that mostly do the violating are the NSA and corporations, though, so the US government isn't going to care about those complaints.
I read that in the 1970s, congress reigned in the NSA, so they do have a historical precedent for acting.
I think I said it earlier in the thread: it's because 9/11 has become the excuse to allow all sorts of things we would never have accepted before, "or else the terrorists win." So politicians use that particular shade of McCarthyism to get what they want, as nobody wants the political death sentence of being accused of letting the terrorists win.
Agreed. You've got more chance of being struck by lighting than being victim of a terrorist attack.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Ugh, already heard one senator on the radio this morning spewing that "the terrorists will win" crap because that phone collection bit of the PATRIOT Act expired. Forget NASCAR sponsor suits for politicians, I want them permanently hooked up to portable polygraph machines so we can see if they actually believe the crap they say.I
If the NSA had helped foil a terror plot with their mass violation of civil rights we would have heard all about it by now. The fact that they haven't speaks volumes.
"The terrorists" already have won, anyway. The US is now engaged in eternal war and going ever more bonkers over Security. That was the whole point from the start.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Ugh, already heard one senator on the radio this morning spewing that "the terrorists will win" crap because that phone collection bit of the PATRIOT Act expired. Forget NASCAR sponsor suits for politicians, I want them permanently hooked up to portable polygraph machines so we can see if they actually believe the crap they say.I
If the NSA had helped foil a terror plot with their mass violation of civil rights we would have heard all about it by now. The fact that they haven't speaks volumes.
I thought this was a joke... but, apparently, it seems like a real tweet:
“One of my core principles is that I will never engage in a politics in which I’m trying to divide people” —@POTUS
“That’s a core principle. That’s not something I would violate.”
He's an ardent student of Saul Alinky's Rules for Radicals, which tactically divides and agitates.
The more divisive elements of Rules for Radicals have never been employed by Obama, in fact he was frequently criticized by other Democrats for trying to be too inclusive regarding conservatives and the GOP. Most of the divisive elements of Obama's Presidential campaigns and terms have been manufactured by the right, which stumbled into the "We're persecuted!" narrative.
He's an ardent student of Saul Alinky's Rules for Radicals, which tactically divides and agitates.
The more divisive elements of Rules for Radicals have never been employed by Obama, in fact he was frequently criticized by other Democrats for trying to be too inclusive regarding conservatives and the GOP.
Say wut?
O.o
Do you have a source in this? Anything?
Most of the divisive elements of Obama's Presidential campaigns and terms have been manufactured by the right, which stumbled into the "We're persecuted!" narrative.
Dude... just look at every statement he expouses.
It's always pitting different groups against each other that is exploited for political gains.
Where is this guy now?
OBAMA: Thank you so much. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you so much.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you, Dick Durbin. You make us all proud.
On behalf of the great state of Illinois...
(APPLAUSE)
... crossroads of a nation, land of Lincoln, let me express my deep gratitude for the privilege of addressing this convention. Tonight is a particular honor for me because, let's face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely.
My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya. He grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin- roof shack. His father, my grandfather, was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.
OBAMA: But my grandfather had larger dreams for his son. Through hard work and perseverance my father got a scholarship to study in a magical place, America, that's shown as a beacon of freedom and opportunity to so many who had come before him.
(APPLAUSE)
While studying here my father met my mother. She was born in a town on the other side of the world, in Kansas.
(APPLAUSE)
Her father worked on oil rigs and farms through most of the Depression. The day after Pearl Harbor, my grandfather signed up for duty, joined Patton's army, marched across Europe. Back home my grandmother raised a baby and went to work on a bomber assembly line. After the war, they studied on the GI Bill, bought a house through FHA and later moved west, all the way to Hawaii, in search of opportunity.
(APPLAUSE)
And they too had big dreams for their daughter, a common dream born of two continents.
OBAMA: My parents shared not only an improbable love; they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or "blessed," believing that in a tolerant America, your name is no barrier to success.
(APPLAUSE)
They imagined me going to the best schools in the land, even though they weren't rich, because in a generous America you don't have to be rich to achieve your potential.
(APPLAUSE)
They're both passed away now. And yet I know that, on this night, they look down on me with great pride.
And I stand here today grateful for the diversity of my heritage, aware that my parents' dreams live on in my two precious daughters.
I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy; our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...
(APPLAUSE)
... that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
That is the true genius of America, a faith...
(APPLAUSE)
... a faith in simple dreams, an insistence on small miracles; that we can tuck in our children at night and know that they are fed and clothed and safe from harm; that we can say what we think, write what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door; that we can have an idea and start our own business without paying a bribe; that we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution; and that our votes will be counted -- or at least, most of the time.
(APPLAUSE)
This year, in this election, we are called to reaffirm our values and our commitments, to hold them against a hard reality and see how we are measuring up, to the legacy of our forbearers and the promise of future generations.
OBAMA: And fellow Americans, Democrats, Republicans, independents, I say to you, tonight, we have more work to do...
(APPLAUSE)
... more work to do, for the workers I met in Galesburg, Illinois, who are losing their union jobs at the Maytag plant that's moving to Mexico, and now they're having to compete with their own children for jobs that pay 7 bucks an hour; more to do for the father I met who was losing his job and chocking back the tears wondering how he would pay $4,500 a months for the drugs his son needs without the health benefits that he counted on; more to do for the young woman in East St. Louis, and thousands more like her who have the grades, have the drive, have the will, but doesn't have the money to go to college.
Now, don't get me wrong, the people I meet in small towns and big cities and diners and office parks, they don't expect government to solves all of their problems. They know they have to work hard to get a head. And they want to.
Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you: They don't want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or by the Pentagon.
(APPLAUSE)
Go into any inner-city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn.
OBAMA: They know that parents have to teach, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. They know those things.
(APPLAUSE)
People don't expect -- people don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice.
In this election, we offer that choice. Our party has chosen a man to lead us who embodies the best this country has to offer. And that man is John Kerry.
(APPLAUSE)
John Kerry understands the ideals of community, faith and service because they've defined his life. From his heroic service to Vietnam to his years as prosecutor and lieutenant governor, through two decades in the United States Senate, he has devoted himself to this country. Again and again, we've seen him make tough choices when easier ones were available. His values and his record affirm what is best in us.
John Kerry believes in an America where hard work is rewarded. So instead of offering tax breaks to companies shipping jobs overseas, he offers them to companies creating jobs here at home.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: John Kerry believes in an America where all Americans can afford the same health coverage our politicians in Washington have for themselves.
(APPLAUSE)
John Kerry believes in energy independence, so we aren't held hostage to the profits of oil companies or the sabotage of foreign oil fields.
(APPLAUSE)
John Kerry believes in the constitutional freedoms that have made our country the envy of the world, and he will never sacrifice our basic liberties nor use faith as a wedge to divide us.
(APPLAUSE)
And John Kerry believes that in a dangerous world, war must be an option sometimes, but it should never be the first option.
(APPLAUSE)
You know, a while back, I met a young man named Seamus (ph) in a VFW hall in East Moline, Illinois. He was a good-looking kid, 6'2", 6'3", clear eyed, with an easy smile. He told me he'd joined the Marines and was heading to Iraq the following week.
OBAMA: And as I listened to him explain why he had enlisted -- the absolute faith he had in our country and its leaders, his devotion to duty and service -- I thought, this young man was all that any of us might ever hope for in a child. But then I asked myself: Are we serving Seamus (ph) as well as he's serving us?
I thought of the 900 men and women, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends and neighbors who won't be returning to their own hometowns. I thought of the families I had met who were struggling to get by without a loved one's full income or whose loved ones had returned with a limb missing or nerves shattered, but still lacked long-term health benefits because they were Reservists.
(APPLAUSE)
When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they are going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return and to never, ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace and earn the respect of the world.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: Now, let me be clear. Let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued. And they must be defeated.
John Kerry knows this. And just as Lieutenant Kerry did not hesitate to risk his life to protect the men who served with him in Vietnam, President Kerry will not hesitate one moment to use our military might to keep America safe and secure.
(APPLAUSE)
John Kerry believes in America. And he knows that it's not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga, a belief that we are all connected as one people.
If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child.
(APPLAUSE)
If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for their prescription and having to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandparent.
(APPLAUSE)
If there's an Arab-American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.
(APPLAUSE)
It is that fundamental belief -- it is that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper -- that makes this country work.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family: "E pluribus unum," out of many, one.
Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes.
Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America.
(APPLAUSE)
There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America.
(APPLAUSE)
The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states.
We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states.
(APPLAUSE)
There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.
We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism, or do we participate in a politics of hope?
John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope. I'm not talking about blind optimism here, the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don't think about it, or health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it.
That's not what I'm talking. I'm talking about something more substantial. It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a millworker's son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: Hope in the face of difficulty, hope in the face of uncertainty, the audacity of hope: In the end, that is God's greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation, a belief in things not seen, a belief that there are better days ahead.
I believe that we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to opportunity.
I believe we can provide jobs for the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair.
I believe that we have a righteous wind at our backs, and that as we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices and meet the challenges that face us.
America, tonight, if you feel the same energy that I do, if you feel the same urgency that I do, if you feel the same passion that I do, if you feel the same hopefulness that I do, if we do what we must do, then I have no doubt that all across the country, from Florida to Oregon, from Washington to Maine, the people will rise up in November, and John Kerry will be sworn in as president. And John Edwards will be sworn in as vice president. And this country will reclaim it's promise. And out of this long political darkness a brighter day will come.
Yep, turns out Obama did actually win, so did a lot of other Democrats. Somehow the American Right still hasn't managed to find its big-boy pants in the aftermath, despite a long cultivated image of being tough and pragmatic.
"But I think it's fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry; No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, No. 3 ... that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately."
...is the full quote. It is right there in the article you linked.
It's always pitting different groups against each other that is exploited for political gains.
I have, and he doesn't. The exploitation for political gain has primarily come from the American Right due to the "We're persecuted!" narrative. The Obama Administration is a convenient target because, you know, he won and Democrats aren't usually Conservative.
He got elected, and then the other party decided they would do everything they could to stop his party from accomplishing anything. Politics as usual, really. Idealism does not survive for long in D.C.
He got elected, and then the other party decided they would do everything they could to stop his party from accomplishing anything. Politics as usual, really. Idealism does not survive for long in D.C.
Wait..............didn't the Democrats have control of both the House and the Senate on his first rodeo?
Rosebuddy wrote: "The terrorists" already have won, anyway. The US is now engaged in eternal war and going ever more bonkers over Security. That was the whole point from the start.
I got really tired of hearing this ten years ago. The goal of 'the terrorists' was not to erode our freedoms a bit, or make us engage in some wars, or to make people wait 15 minutes longer to get on a plane or whatever relatively slight inconvenience people want to wax hyperbolic about now.
We haven't retreated from the world stage, America and/or the West hasn't fallen apart and collapsed into chaos. That is what they want.
I got really tired of hearing this ten years ago. The goal of 'the terrorists' was not to erode our freedoms a bit, or make us engage in some wars, or to make people wait 15 minutes longer to get on a plane or whatever relatively slight inconvenience people want to wax hyperbolic about now.
Osama bin Laden said Al-Qaeda's terrorism was intended to threaten the US financially by forcing wars, the drop in US air travel was just a bonus for them. The whole "eroding freedoms" thing was mostly a product of US politics.
"They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Those are things that people in small, manufacturing towns in the rust belt often do; the area Obama was speaking of. Pointing out the existence of a the thing does not create that thing.
Exhibit A as to why you should never speak to any federal investigators w/o an attorney.
I like this part:
If the state can decide that specific, legal behavior will trigger scrutiny by federal law enforcement and that any attempt to avoid that scrutiny is illegal, even if no other crime is proved, everyone’s privacy and freedom from unjust arrest is undermined.
We haven't retreated from the world stage, America and/or the West hasn't fallen apart and collapsed into chaos. That is what they want.
The irony here is that Bush actually campaigned the first time around with that retreat from the world stage and got elected president on it.... If they hadn't bothered hijacking anything, they would have gotten at least that part of their desire down.
The irony here is that Bush actually campaigned the first time around with that retreat from the world stage and got elected president on it.... If they hadn't bothered hijacking anything, they would have gotten at least that part of their desire down.
One of his major campaign points was boosting the Defense budget, and he was surrounded by Hawks. Had 9/11 not happened there probably wouldn't have been any full-scale invasions (though Iraq may still have happened), but the US wouldn't have become isolationist either.
Doesnt Rick Perry hold the record for executions? As we saw in the previous GOP primary debates in terms of audience reactions, this might play well for him with the conservative base, but it's a deal-breaker in the General election in my judgement.
jasper76 wrote: Doesnt Rick Perry holds the record for executions? As we saw in the previous GOP primary debates in terms of audience reactions, this might play well for him with the conservative base, but it's a deal-breaker in the General election in my judgement.
Nah... that won't do him... I don't believe the Death Penalty in iteself is much of a game changer.
It'll be things like:
-amnesty (I think he's flip-flopped on it now)
-perception of TX Gov. = another Bush (even though Bushes and Perrys don't like each other)
-disasterous '12 debate (unable to name a fed dept to cut)
-ongoing indictment
jasper76 wrote: Doesnt Rick Perry holds the record for executions? As we saw in the previous GOP primary debates in terms of audience reactions, this might play well for him with the conservative base, but it's a deal-breaker in the General election in my judgement.
Nah... that won't do him... I don't believe the Death Penalty in iteself is much of a game changer.
It'll be things like:
-amnesty (I think he's flip-flopped on it now)
-perception of TX Gov. = another Bush (even though Bushes and Perrys don't like each other)
-disasterous '12 debate (unable to name a fed dept to cut)
-ongoing indictment
However, he's really good at retail politics.
Yeah, I don't think GWB did much to help the hopes of presidential aspirants from Texas....which is weird really, because his family is about as Northeast, Ivy League, elitist as they come.
No reason to believe he will be better in future debates. He hasn't debated anyone in years-both before and after that fiasco.
However, like many he's probably running for the consolation prize: cabinet position or VP.
Walker-Pres/Rubio-VP (or flip that) with Perry, Kasich, and maybe Jindal in cabinet type positions. Fiorina gets curb stomped but gets paid off to act as chief Female Attacking Clinton. Cruz goes off to start a book tour or something. Man I hate that guy.
Gotcha question for Rick Perry: name the top 3 accomplishments of Hillary Clinton.
Named Secretary of State, long time Senator, first First Lady to be elected to office, and nearly became the first female POTUS. That's more than 3, but it wouldn't be hard to create a significantly longer list. Any person asking the question you just posed would be argumentatively pimp-slapped.
Gotcha question for Rick Perry: name the top 3 accomplishments of Hillary Clinton.
Named Secretary of State, long time Senator, first First Lady to be elected to office, and nearly became the first female POTUS. That's more than 3, but it wouldn't be hard to create a significantly longer list. Any person asking the question you just posed would be argumentatively pimp-slapped.
:ducks:
Serious question: If you were a consultant to Clinton's campaign, what would be your top 3 HRC accomplishments? Not job titles... what did she *do*?
Serious question: If you were a consultant to Clinton's campaign, what would be your top 3 HRC accomplishments? Not job titles... what did she *do*?
Are you implying that earning a prestigious job title is not an accomplishment, or something which that person did? If so, that seems awfully close to riffing off the argument conservatives claim Obama made in the "You din't build that" speech.
Serious question: If you were a consultant to Clinton's campaign, what would be your top 3 HRC accomplishments? Not job titles... what did she *do*?
Are you implying that earning a prestigious job title is not an accomplishment, or something which that person did? If so, that seems awfully close to riffing off the argument conservatives claim Obama made in the "You din't build that" speech.
Not. Even. Close.
What are her qualities that makes you want to vote for her? Did she do anything during her tenure as SoS or Senate years that makes you want to say "hey... she'd be a good President!"
What are her qualities that makes you want to vote for her? Did she do anything during her tenure as SoS or Senate years that makes you want to say "hey... she'd be a good President!"?
I don't vote, I can't be bothered.
But as to the end of your second sentence: She has supported women's rights throughout the world, doing so in a hawkish fashion outside the US. Tried to work across Party lines during her first term, managing to secure support for healthcare reform from Newt Gingrich. And pushed to expand broadband coverage in the US. I can go on, but she has clearly done, or tried to do, a lot of things many people would consider "good".
I think he's taking waaaay too much credit though.
Texas has slightly more people than Australia, too. In a lot of ways we really are a hell of a lot like Texas. Barren deathworld. Resource rich. A lot of people in wide brimmed hats. Ute/truck culture.
On Perry’s thing about taking credit, it’s really a load of crap. For starters, you can’t pick single states out of the national figures and pretend they’re their own thing. There’s still a Federal govt above you, that collects more taxes from your state and more on your people than you do. To compare to Australia, sure the economy is overall the same, but is Perry handling the foreign relations of Texas with the rest of the world? Is he running a military?
Then there’s the issue with Perry taking all the credit. Now I don’t fall for the easy line put across the leftwing that Texas performance is just due to resource extraction – back of the envelope calculations puts resource extraction as about a third of Texas growth in the last decade. Take out that third and Texas still comfortably outperforms the national average.
So we have to acknowledge other strengths have driven Texas performance. But a lot of those strengths are outside of any government control, like the general migration south in our new air-conditioned world. And then if we look just at the parts of growth that might be related to government policy, like simpler building codes, more land open for development leading to cheaper housing and so on… all of that was pretty much in place before Perry came along.
So really, the best we can say for Perry is that he didn’t do anything to feth up a good thing. Which actually isn’t the worst pitch, and certainly a good one to appeal to the right side of politics, but when it’s you’re one big card and you’re leading with it, it probably won’t put you in the Whitehouse. Giuliani had way more actual substance to his reforms in NY, and we all know how that turned out.
1. She married Bill Clinton.
2. She stayed married to Bill Clinton.
3. She is still married to Bill Clinton.
Bill Hilary Clinton, 2016!
Yep, only the man matters. Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton never did anything before she acquired the surname "Clinton".
v
I can see how what I said might be construed as sexist, but I really don't think it is.
Whemby is correct. Hilary Clinton does not really have too many astounding credentials. To wit, I challenge you to name 3 major accomplishments she has made that lend toward her credibility as a Presidential hopeful, beyond just being elected or appointed. And don't look anything up either, just tell us what you know of off-hand.
However, Bill Clinton is just loaded with accomplishments, as well as mistakes, many of which he has admitted to (most recently that his "tough on crime" policies led to way, way too many people in prison, which is no small thing for someone to fess up to). Anyone above 35 knows that the country has not seen such prosperous times as it did during the Clinton administration. Even Republican partisans are largely agreed on this. I am very comfortable with Hilary Clinton as President, because Bill Clinton as First Lady would be far more effective than GW Bush or Obama have been as POTUS.
And to flex some "I am not sexist" muscles, I would vote for Elizabeth Warren without question if she were running against Hilary Roddam Clinton in 2016, or if you could transport her back in time and run her against Bill Clinton.
Whemby is correct. Hilary Clinton does not really have too many astounding credentials. To wit, I challenge you to name 3 major accomplishments she has made that lend toward her credibility as a Presidential hopeful, beyond just being elected or appointed. And don't look anything up either, just tell us what you know of off-hand.
I already answered that question, and you're digging your sexist hole even deeper.
Are you implying that earning a prestigious job title is not an accomplishment, or something which that person did? If so, that seems awfully close to riffing off the argument conservatives claim Obama made in the "You din't build that" speech.
If you think that gaining a prestigious job title qualifies you to be President of the United States, you're welcome to that opinion. I'd prefer actual accomplishments, not just successful job applications.
And if I'm sexist for anything I have said, so be it.
On Perry’s thing about taking credit, it’s really a load of crap. For starters, you can’t pick single states out of the national figures and pretend they’re their own thing. There’s still a Federal govt above you, that collects more taxes from your state and more on your people than you do.
Isn't Texas one of those states that gets more in Federal aid than they give in taxes?
On Perry’s thing about taking credit, it’s really a load of crap. For starters, you can’t pick single states out of the national figures and pretend they’re their own thing. There’s still a Federal govt above you, that collects more taxes from your state and more on your people than you do.
Isn't Texas one of those states that gets more in Federal aid than they give in taxes?
Wallethub has them rated as #24. Texas is more dependent on the federal government than most states in the union, but only by 2 states.
I'd prefer actual accomplishments, not just successful job applications.
What did Warren accomplish, per your definition?
Meaningful Credit Card reform. That;s more than Hilary has done, anyway.
TBH, I am not so much impressed by Elizabeth Warren's accomplishments as I am with her sheer intelligence coupled with the vision she creates of how the US should be. She paints a picture of a future I want to live in. Hilary Clinton, by contrast, presents a vision of herself as President, and little else, at this stage in that game at least.
Meaningful Credit Card reform. That;s more than Hilary has done, anyway.
Warren advocated the CARD act, sure, but she had a lot of help.
I was watching her do interviews about the very reforms that were enacted by CARD at least 2 years before the legislation was even proposed. Sure she had help. Who doesn't? But she was the champion of those reforms well before the name "Elizabeth Warren" was nationally recognized.
Why are we arguing over Elizabeth Warren again? She's not even running for President.
Why are we arguing over Elizabeth Warren again? She's not even running for President.
You seem to believe she accomplished more than Hillary Clinton.
Yes, I do. Safeguarding the titles of "First Lady of Arkansas", "First Lady of the United States", "Senator of New York" and "Secretary of State" don't really qualify as accomplishments in my opinion. I've known plenty of useless people with fancy positions and fancy titles in my life. Show me more. Please list the concrete things she has done to improve the lives of Americans. Believe me, I'm all ears. I thought about Whembley's question (with whom I disagree with almost everything politically), and I even took the time to look it up online to try to find a decent rebuttal, and even with a bit of research, I could find nothing remarkable at all.
Please list the concrete things she has done to improve the lives of Americans.
She was a major figure in the passage of SCHIP, she pushed for women's issues to be recognized, pushed for recovery funding in the wake of 9/11, and she supported health benefits for veterans. All of these are things she has done, or tried to do, in large part because the lives of Americans would be improved as a result.
Please list the concrete things she has done to improve the lives of Americans.
She was a major figure in the passage of SCHIP, she pushed for women's issues to be recognized, pushed for recovery funding in the wake of 9/11, and she supported health benefits for veterans. All of these are things she has done, or tried to do, in large part because the lives of Americans would be improved as a result.
I'll have to look up SCHIP. But come on dude...who doesn't push for women's issues to be recognized? Who didn't push for 9/11 recovery funding? Who doesn't support health benefits for veterans? What has she actually achieved?
It's easy to run Hilary against the religious sociopaths on the right-right-wing, but the things you've listed are things any John or Jane Doe in Congress might have done.
I will look up SCHIP, but for the other things, talk is cheap. Show me accomplishments, not just support of mainstream causes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: OK, I've read enough already to know that SCHIP is something legit she can run on. Especially since it was a bipartisan effort with an entrenched Republican.
It's easy to run Hilary against the religious sociopaths on the right-right-wing, but the things you've listed are things any John or Jane Doe in Congress might have done.
OK, I've read enough already to know that SCHIP is something legit she can run on. Especially since it was a bipartisan effort with an entrenched Republican.
So it is evidence of bipartisanship, something which she can run on.
@dogma: The old religious guard is dead, its last major gasp was spent on Santorum's failed run at the GOP nomination in 2012.
The general populous just isn't bothered with "Pro-Life" issues anymore, nor are they bothered with "Sanctity of Marriage" or whatever phrase is put on these private matters these days.
The segment of the population that is bothered with these issued is either dying or in a marginalized, bleating, beaten pack of those desperates still clinging on to whatever morale legitimacy they might have claimed before the Christian pedophilia scandals.
Social Conservatives have consigned themselves to general irrelavancy amongst the population,
Hopefully one day we will get a no-nuts, no-magic, no-cards-attached fiscal conservative winning the GOP primary so we can regain a 2 party system debating actual issues, not manufactured ones.
Like:
How the frack do we remove our interests from the perperual warzone that is the religious epicenter of the western world?
How the frack do we transform our entire energy system off of oil?
How the frack do we help to curb our planet from becoming Venus?
How the frack do we become a society where millions of people don't end up in prison, living off the public teat?
These are the types of questions our Senate, House, and Presidential hopefuls should be debating. Not whether we offer the poorest of our citizens basic healthcare, or whether a fetus is a human, or a human, is a fetus, or Charles Darwin was the Devil incarnate from the Pits of Hell.
That they don't debate those issues isn't because anyone is or isn't religious. The US political establishment doesn't want to debate how to move away from fossil fuels, how to end global warming or anything else you care to mention because they already agree with the current state of affairs. They have nothing to debate. The fundamental economic policy is unchallenged.
Keeping global warming to manageable levels would require a massive overhaul not just of how the global economic and industrial system works but why it works. We have ended up where we are now as a logical conclusion to private, for-profit industry and we aren't going anywhere else unless we change that. Neither conservatives nor liberals are interested in doing anything of the sort.
Social Conservatives have consigned themselves to general irrelavancy amongst the population,
Hopefully one day we will get a no-nuts, no-magic, no-cards-attached fiscal conservative winning the GOP primary so we can regain a 2 party system debating actual issues, not manufactured ones.
Like:
How the frack do we remove our interests from the perperual warzone that is the religious epicenter of the western world?
How the frack do we transform our entire energy system off of oil?
How the frack do we help to curb our planet from becoming Venus?
How the frack do we become a society where millions of people don't end up in prison, living off the public teat?
These are the types of questions our Senate, House, and Presidential hopefuls should be debating. Not whether we offer the poorest of our citizens basic healthcare, or whether a fetus is a human, or a human, is a fetus, or Charles Darwin was the Devil incarnate from the Pits of Hell.
Actually, I wouldnt say that Social Conservatives have consigned themselves to irrelevancy. I personally know a couple who describe themselves as conservative, but are pro-gay marriage and generally are more accepting of certain planks.... Because their argument isn't one of biblical conservatism or religiously based conservatism. That example of SSM, their argument for it, is that children who are raised in 2 parent households do better than single parent households. To them, the "Traditional American family" is 2 parents, 2.5 kids, white picket fence and a dog. It isn't a 1 man +1 woman marriage, 2.5 kids, etc. view.
And I would posit that you wouldn't have to look very hard to find that sort of conservatism around the country.
How do we reduce oil consumption? Nuclear power... to paraphrase Palin: React baby react!!
How do we not become Venus? Shoot a ton of sulfur into the air! woo!!! (OK, maybe not seriously) This one is a bit more of a pickle, because I think it is tied in part to consumption of oil as well as the still rampant deforestation of some areas of the globe.
How do we keep people out of prison, or living on public assistance? Ask Bernie Sanders, he seems to have a few ideas in that regard. I think that, instead of arguing whether teaching a certain subject in school is moral based on christianity, I think we should be arguing whether it's moral for people like the Koch brothers, or the Walton family to be thriving and swimming in money due to business practices that cost the government more money than they actually put in, while the very people they employ are the ones on the public assistance.
Rosebuddy wrote: That they don't debate those issues isn't because anyone is or isn't religious. The US political establishment doesn't want to debate how to move away from fossil fuels, how to end global warming or anything else you care to mention because they already agree with the current state of affairs. They have nothing to debate. The fundamental economic policy is unchallenged.
Keeping global warming to manageable levels would require a massive overhaul not just of how the global economic and industrial system works but why it works. We have ended up where we are now as a logical conclusion to private, for-profit industry and we aren't going anywhere else unless we change that. Neither conservatives nor liberals are interested in doing anything of the sort.
It's not that dude... it's the fact that our elected officials are nothing more than Nascar Drivers beholden to their sponsors.
Social Conservatives have consigned themselves to general irrelavancy amongst the population,
Hopefully one day we will get a no-nuts, no-magic, no-cards-attached fiscal conservative winning the GOP primary so we can regain a 2 party system debating actual issues, not manufactured ones.
Like:
How the frack do we remove our interests from the perperual warzone that is the religious epicenter of the western world?
How the frack do we transform our entire energy system off of oil?
How the frack do we help to curb our planet from becoming Venus?
How the frack do we become a society where millions of people don't end up in prison, living off the public teat?
These are the types of questions our Senate, House, and Presidential hopefuls should be debating. Not whether we offer the poorest of our citizens basic healthcare, or whether a fetus is a human, or a human, is a fetus, or Charles Darwin was the Devil incarnate from the Pits of Hell.
Actually, I wouldnt say that Social Conservatives have consigned themselves to irrelevancy. I personally know a couple who describe themselves as conservative, but are pro-gay marriage and generally are more accepting of certain planks.... Because their argument isn't one of biblical conservatism or religiously based conservatism. That example of SSM, their argument for it, is that children who are raised in 2 parent households do better than single parent households. To them, the "Traditional American family" is 2 parents, 2.5 kids, white picket fence and a dog. It isn't a 1 man +1 woman marriage, 2.5 kids, etc. view.
If there are now social conservatives that are pro-gay marriage, that fact would clearly demonstrate that the old religious guard has ceded the issue to its progressive opponents, which in turn would suggest that its lost its hold on the general American imagination as a source of moral authority, and good riddance if you ask me...they never did anything much to deserve that status except to fleece the credulous, and have certainly done their utmost to prove that they are unfit for such a role in society.
jasper76 wrote: @dogma: The old religious guard is dead, its last major gasp was spent on Santorum's failed run at the GOP nomination in 2012.
The general populous just isn't bothered with "Pro-Life" issues anymore, nor are they bothered with "Sanctity of Marriage" or whatever phrase is put on these private matters these days.
The segment of the population that is bothered with these issued is either dying or in a marginalized, bleating, beaten pack of those desperates still clinging on to whatever morale legitimacy they might have claimed before the Christian pedophilia scandals.
Social Conservatives have consigned themselves to general irrelavancy amongst the population,
Hopefully one day we will get a no-nuts, no-magic, no-cards-attached fiscal conservative winning the GOP primary so we can regain a 2 party system debating actual issues, not manufactured ones.
I agree and disagree to a certain extent...
“Conservative” in the American political sense tends to mean a vision for government that is more modest in terms of size and scope than the current establishment Republicans and their close relatives, Democrats and lefties. It’s much more in line with the constitutional limits placed on the federal government at the founding.
In other words, the anti-Statist group compared to the opposition.
Like anything else, there's different strains of conservatives, such as the religious right and the Tea Party. I think collectively, over time, the Conservative brands is moving away from single voter issues, towards a more unified smaller government/Individual freedom group.
'Tis why I think there's a movement on SSM.
It's still a bloody mess though, as with any large groups, it'll be like herding cats across the river.
Like:
How the frack do we remove our interests from the perperual warzone that is the religious epicenter of the western world?
If you want to go full isolationist mode, you can. However, in the global economy, you really can't.
How the frack do we transform our entire energy system off of oil?
The kitchen sink method. Oil, drilling technique, fracking, coal, wind, solar, NUKES. All of it. Oh, allow extractions on federal lands and ocean sites.
How the frack do we help to curb our planet from becoming Venus?
O.o no where near Venus dude.
How the frack do we become a society where millions of people don't end up in prison, living off the public teat?
Majoring loaded question.
-Reform criminal justice code
-Reform incarceration institution (no know profit outfits!)
-Social pressure on cavalier welfare distribution
These are the types of questions our Senate, House, and Presidential hopefuls should be debating.
Sure.
Not whether we offer the poorest of our citizens basic healthcare,
Why not? Healthcare is important. The PPACA has jacked up the entire industry.
or whether a fetus is a human, or a human, is a fetus,
O.o Why not? So far, the science is at the point where a 20-week can survive outside of the womb. Conversely, cutting a baby out of a womb in Colorado isn't murder...evidently. These are questions that politicians ought engage the public.
or Charles Darwin was the Devil incarnate from the Pits of Hell.
If there are now social conservatives that are pro-gay marriage, that fact would clearly demonstrate that the old religious guard has ceded the issue to its progressive opponents, which in turn would suggest that its lost its hold on the general American imagination as a source of moral authority, and good riddance if you ask me...they never did anything much to deserve that status except to fleece the credulous, and have certainly done their utmost to prove that they are unfit for such a role in society.
I personally think like you, that the religious "old guard" has lost power in general. They do remain however, as the most vocal of conservative groups, and probably more vocal than some progressive groups as well.
O.o Why not? So far, the science is at the point where a 20-week can survive outside of the womb. Conversely, cutting a baby out of a womb in Colorado isn't murder...evidently.
I'll examine and respond to all of your responses if I feel a need, but this one got me.
I am an atheist, and I do not have a doubt in my mind that when a male human zygote fertilizes a female human zygote, a new human being is formed.
So there you go.
But to enforce that pregnancy to term on women by fiat, with no respect whatsoever for their wish to carry the child to term, is a gross form of immorality that borders on slavery. The religious right would be best served by focusing their efforts on infliuencing their own members to carry pregnancies to term, or to take adoptions, if that is a value they hold, but to attempt to be the controller of that decision for the rest of the populous is at best disgusting.
No worries, I don't want get bogged down into that incident as my overall point was that THESE topics are important for political-critters to engage with their voters.
Rosebuddy wrote: That they don't debate those issues isn't because anyone is or isn't religious. The US political establishment doesn't want to debate how to move away from fossil fuels, how to end global warming or anything else you care to mention because they already agree with the current state of affairs. They have nothing to debate. The fundamental economic policy is unchallenged.
Keeping global warming to manageable levels would require a massive overhaul not just of how the global economic and industrial system works but why it works. We have ended up where we are now as a logical conclusion to private, for-profit industry and we aren't going anywhere else unless we change that. Neither conservatives nor liberals are interested in doing anything of the sort.
It's not that dude... it's the fact that our elected officials are nothing more than Nascar Drivers beholden to their sponsors.
Which happens because the few have the resources to purchase and manipulate politics and law, which happens because they have the ability to concentrate vast amounts of wealth from the work of the many, which happens because they have ownership of resource extraction and the means of production, which happens because they have enforcers to maintain this right, which... etc etc.
Thinking you just have to replace the politicians themselves is like trying to cut off the tip of the iceberg.
Rosebuddy wrote: That they don't debate those issues isn't because anyone is or isn't religious. The US political establishment doesn't want to debate how to move away from fossil fuels, how to end global warming or anything else you care to mention because they already agree with the current state of affairs. They have nothing to debate. The fundamental economic policy is unchallenged.
Keeping global warming to manageable levels would require a massive overhaul not just of how the global economic and industrial system works but why it works. We have ended up where we are now as a logical conclusion to private, for-profit industry and we aren't going anywhere else unless we change that. Neither conservatives nor liberals are interested in doing anything of the sort.
It's not that dude... it's the fact that our elected officials are nothing more than Nascar Drivers beholden to their sponsors.
Which happens because the few have the resources to purchase and manipulate politics and law, which happens because they have the ability to concentrate vast amounts of wealth from the work of the many, which happens because they have ownership of resource extraction and the means of production, which happens because they have enforcers to maintain this right, which... etc etc.
Thinking you just have to replace the politicians themselves is like trying to cut off the tip of the iceberg.
jasper76 wrote: @dogma: The old religious guard is dead, its last major gasp was spent on Santorum's failed run at the GOP nomination in 2012.
Oh, it is most assuredly alive and kicking. It has lost some power at the Presidential level, but it is still quite strong below that. Strong enough that the GOP has to at least pay it lip service, but religiosity isn't really the only issue here.
The general populous just isn't bothered with "Pro-Life" issues anymore...
Actually the pro-life position has quite a bit of traction, as it is one the easier socially conservative issues to argue for without ever mentioning religion. And an issue I know that otherwise strident Liberals often feel conflicted about, which is to say nothing of the small, but important, group of voting undecideds.
Radical restructuring of society to instead use an economic system that is egalitarian. That is, to put it mildly, easier said than done. The current situation is going to break sooner or later, though, and can't provide a solution to the problems it creates. We have precious few other options.
If full communism happened overnight because someone finally found the lamp with the Lenidjinn in it we'd still be quite busy managing the ecological fall-out our industry has so far created.
I personally think like you, that the religious "old guard" has lost power in general. They do remain however, as the most vocal of conservative groups, and probably more vocal than some progressive groups as well.
Regardless of characterization, religious groups tend to be very easy to mobilize due to a common narrative and existential network.
jasper76 wrote: @dogma: The old religious guard is dead, its last major gasp was spent on Santorum's failed run at the GOP nomination in 2012.
Oh, it is most assuredly alive and kicking. It has lost some power at the Presidential level, but it is still quite strong below that.
Sure. The proverbial rats are always in the sewer, waiting for a foothold to come above ground, and they always will be. But as a national movement that desires to control the UNited States of America. Dead as a doornail. I imagine Huckabee and Cruz will be the proud Captains who go down with the ship, but they are done. The entire population has changed within the last 10 years.
They had their time. Their widely known policy ideas were bad then. They are still bad now. They are done. I'm calling it, like seeing a boxer take too many punches
Radical restructuring of society to instead use an economic system that is egalitarian. That is, to put it mildly, easier said than done. The current situation is going to break sooner or later, though, and can't provide a solution to the problems it creates. We have precious few other options.
If full communism happened overnight because someone finally found the lamp with the Lenidjinn in it we'd still be quite busy managing the ecological fall-out our industry has so far created.
I good start would be to overturn Citizens United.
I don't know what other countries do, but I think a good step would be the removal of money from political campaigning.
As long as politicians, through their offices, have services to sell there will be money involved. Take away more of their power instead of allowing it to continue to grow and you begin to lessen the their influence and hence their value. When Big Money can take advantage of the Big Political Class, and that Political Class LOVES that money, you end up with what we see now.
Stop the growth and even better, shrink the gov't and their power, and they will attract less money.
I good start would be to overturn Citizens United.
I don't know what other countries do, but I think a good step would be the removal of money from political campaigning.
As long as politicians, through their offices, have services to sell there will be money involved. Take away more of their power instead of allowing it to continue to grow and you begin to lessen the their influence and hence their value. When Big Money can take advantage of the Big Political Class, and that Political Class LOVES that money, you end up with what we see now.
Stop the growth and even better, shrink the gov't and their power, and they will attract less money.
Not sure how you would do that though. If we take the power from the feds and give it to the states we will still have the same problems, it just means there would be a lot more polititions you have to influence
I good start would be to overturn Citizens United.
I don't know what other countries do, but I think a good step would be the removal of money from political campaigning.
As long as politicians, through their offices, have services to sell there will be money involved. Take away more of their power instead of allowing it to continue to grow and you begin to lessen the their influence and hence their value. When Big Money can take advantage of the Big Political Class, and that Political Class LOVES that money, you end up with what we see now.
Stop the growth and even better, shrink the gov't and their power, and they will attract less money.
Not sure how you would do that though. If we take the power from the feds and give it to the states we will still have the same problems, it just means there would be a lot more polititions you have to influence
Try repealing the 17th admendment... which puts the power of the US Senate back into the State's legislatures.
No... that isn't practical. You'd have to amend the Constitution...
Not necessarily. You would just need to pass legislation which differentiated natural persons from artificial ones. Doing so wouldn't change much, because artificial persons could easily pass money on to natural persons.
The democratic primaries are looking really boring. I really wish some more people would run. Even if they loose, at least they are getting their name out there, and Hillary could still feth this up.
The damage that has already been done. Seeing what exactly the current degree of warming will change for global farming and habitable zones will likely not be entirely pleasant to deal with, even if we're 100% sure we've stopped things from getting increasingly worse.
No... that isn't practical. You'd have to amend the Constitution...
We need more transparency laws.
What you need is an end to legalised corruption, which from this outsider's view is exactly what your lobbying system is. The question is, can a system that is so rotten that corruption is legalised be fixed from within that same system?
No... that isn't practical. You'd have to amend the Constitution...
We need more transparency laws.
What you need is an end to legalised corruption, which from this outsider's view is exactly what your lobbying system is. The question is, can a system that is so rotten that corruption is legalised be fixed from within that same system?
It can, but it requires the one thing that probably can't be fixed: intelligent and informed voters, and lots of them. More and more people are starting to wake up and realize this, but they don't even come close to matching the masses of people who still blindly just check all the R or D boxes on the ballots.
I know what would be cool: fully electronic and interactive voting systems, where you go to the voting place, and take a quick survey of your views on the various issues, and it tells you which candidates match those views so you can vote for the one that is the best match. Not only do you get a better informed vote, but now you also get all sorts of polling data about what people think about the issues, so the candidates will really know what the people want.
I was just thinking, if Pataki made it through the primaries, he could do quite well in the general. He has had lots of experience (12 years as governor), and is moderate enough to not alienate the undecided voters (he was governor of NY after all). Although (because they republican party is apparently composed of people who want nothing to do with the white house) him being relatively moderate will hurt him in the primaries. But I'd consider voting for him. He's not a slime-ball, and has a pretty good environmental record (something that is very important to me personally).
Tannhauser42 wrote: I know what would be cool: fully electronic and interactive voting systems, where you go to the voting place, and take a quick survey of your views on the various issues, and it tells you which candidates match those views so you can vote for the one that is the best match. Not only do you get a better informed vote, but now you also get all sorts of polling data about what people think about the issues, so the candidates will really know what the people want.
First you'd need to guarantee that the machines wouldn't 'accidentally' register wrong input or give misleading results for the questionnaire. Then you'd have to come up with an actually useful questionnaire that doesn't just have a bunch of crappy predetermined answers or asks the wrong questions altogether. There's also the fundamental issue of there even being a match. I mean, there's no way that the presidential candidate that is the closest match for my ideology is an actual match, they're just Uranus instead of Neptune.
Then you'd still have the huge problem of voting for some reason always being on a work day so a lot of people can't make it. And so on.
skyth wrote: Voting on a Tuesday isn't a big thing. Employers are required to allow you time off and you already have to leave the house. Body in motion and all...
When do the polling stations open and close in American elections?
I ask, because in the UK, it's 7am til 10pm, which is enough time to vote, even if you have a job.
skyth wrote: Voting on a Tuesday isn't a big thing. Employers are required to allow you time off and you already have to leave the house. Body in motion and all...
When do the polling stations open and close in American elections?
I ask, because in the UK, it's 7am til 10pm, which is enough time to vote, even if you have a job.
Typically, it's been my experience that US polling stations maintain banking hours (so closed by 5pm) however, we do have mail in ballots. Here in Washington where I live, you can fill out your ballot that comes in the mail, then drop it in a drop box in lieu of a polling station.
But I have honestly not heard Employers are required to give people time off... I would assume that like so much here, if that is true, it's considered unpaid time off, and so many people, especially the minimum wage/multiple job types simply cannot "afford" that time off. Hence why certain politicians, particularly on the left want to make voting a national holiday.
skyth wrote: Voting on a Tuesday isn't a big thing. Employers are required to allow you time off and you already have to leave the house. Body in motion and all...
When do the polling stations open and close in American elections?
I ask, because in the UK, it's 7am til 10pm, which is enough time to vote, even if you have a job.
Typically, it's been my experience that US polling stations maintain banking hours (so closed by 5pm) however, we do have mail in ballots. Here in Washington where I live, you can fill out your ballot that comes in the mail, then drop it in a drop box in lieu of a polling station.
But I have honestly not heard Employers are required to give people time off... I would assume that like so much here, if that is true, it's considered unpaid time off, and so many people, especially the minimum wage/multiple job types simply cannot "afford" that time off. Hence why certain politicians, particularly on the left want to make voting a national holiday.
5pm? That's nuts!
You guys are supposed to be the greatest democracy in the world.
There would be riots in the UK if voting times were so restrictive. Hell, you can bring farm animals into a UK polling station, as long as they don't interfere with the democratic process.
skyth wrote: Voting on a Tuesday isn't a big thing. Employers are required to allow you time off and you already have to leave the house. Body in motion and all...
When do the polling stations open and close in American elections?
I ask, because in the UK, it's 7am til 10pm, which is enough time to vote, even if you have a job.
Typically, it's been my experience that US polling stations maintain banking hours (so closed by 5pm) however, we do have mail in ballots. Here in Washington where I live, you can fill out your ballot that comes in the mail, then drop it in a drop box in lieu of a polling station.
But I have honestly not heard Employers are required to give people time off... I would assume that like so much here, if that is true, it's considered unpaid time off, and so many people, especially the minimum wage/multiple job types simply cannot "afford" that time off. Hence why certain politicians, particularly on the left want to make voting a national holiday.
5pm? That's nuts!
You guys are supposed to be the greatest democracy in the world.
There would be riots in the UK if voting times were so restrictive. Hell, you can bring farm animals into a UK polling station, as long as they don't interfere with the democratic process.
It actually differs by state.
Each state sets up it's own polling hours, when/if there's early voting, when/if absentee, what kind of ID (if any) when casting votes...etc.
It's later here. I'm guessing the more conservative the place, the shorter rhe hours.
National holiday wouldn't help as there is no mandatory pay for holidays. What I would like to see is polling places open for a week before the election day.
skyth wrote: It's later here. I'm guessing the more conservative the place, the shorter rhe hours.
National holiday wouldn't help as there is no mandatory pay for holidays. What I would like to see is polling places open for a week before the election day.
Why isn't this a Federal issue? Surely, for Presidential/Senate/Congress elections, there should be one uniform voting time across the entire nation? That would be the fairest way IMO
As for state elections, that should be up to the individual state, but national elections are different.
I don't know how counting and manning the stations works in the USA, but in the UK, we have an army of volunteers, and the results are often declared only a few hours after the polls close.
skyth wrote: It's later here. I'm guessing the more conservative the place, the shorter rhe hours.
National holiday wouldn't help as there is no mandatory pay for holidays. What I would like to see is polling places open for a week before the election day.
You would be guessing wrong. I live in a very conservative county in GA and the polls are open to 1900/7PM.
Frankly, folks want to vote, they ned to get their asses to the polling place. Extended hours don't fix apathy.
skyth wrote: It's later here. I'm guessing the more conservative the place, the shorter rhe hours.
National holiday wouldn't help as there is no mandatory pay for holidays. What I would like to see is polling places open for a week before the election day.
You would be guessing wrong. I live in a very conservative county in GA and the polls are open to 1900/7PM.
Frankly, folks want to vote, they ned to get their asses to the polling place. Extended hours don't fix apathy.
Texas has regular voting but also has a full week (or maybe two) of early voting, PLUS absentee voting.
skyth wrote: It's later here. I'm guessing the more conservative the place, the shorter rhe hours.
That's not really true. There's no pattern like that.
New York votes only on one day AND you must show valid IDs.
National holiday wouldn't help as there is no mandatory pay for holidays. What I would like to see is polling places open for a week before the election day.
I haven't delved in deeper, but I suspect some states have laws similar to Jury Duty. IN that, your employer must accomodate you while on Jury Duty. That could be extended to voting.
Why isn't this a Federal issue? Surely, for Presidential/Senate/Congress elections, there should be one uniform voting time across the entire nation? That would be the fairest way IMO
THere's your disconnect.
Our Federal government isn't supposed to be that powerful... it just appears that way because of how affluent this country is...
Think of each state in the US as separate countries. 'Tis why we have so much variability in state laws.
And technically, we don't directly vote our President. Our delegates does.
skyth wrote: It's later here. I'm guessing the more conservative the place, the shorter rhe hours.
That's not really true. There's no pattern like that.
New York votes only on one day AND you must show valid IDs.
National holiday wouldn't help as there is no mandatory pay for holidays. What I would like to see is polling places open for a week before the election day.
I haven't delved in deeper, but I suspect some states have laws similar to Jury Duty. IN that, your employer must accomodate you while on Jury Duty. That could be extended to voting.
Why isn't this a Federal issue? Surely, for Presidential/Senate/Congress elections, there should be one uniform voting time across the entire nation? That would be the fairest way IMO
THere's your disconnect.
Our Federal government isn't supposed to be that powerful... it just appears that way because of how affluent this country is...
Think of each state in the US as separate countries. 'Tis why we have so much variability in state laws.
And technically, we don't directly vote our President. Our delegates does.
Whembley, I was under the impression that the Federal government (or should I say General Grant) resolved the whole states rights issue in 1865
Here's a question for America dakka members: do you think Britain is a smart country?
I ask this, because something remarkable happened today in the UK parliament.
As you know, Scotland voted NO to breaking away from the UK last September.
Afterwards, London promised new powers for Scotland for staying in the Union (a comparison for those in the USA would be states rights against Federal rights)
Well, today, London told Scotland that it's getting less than was promised AND London could veto these powers, if Scotland used them to do something that London didn't like...
Now, given that the UK made similar mistakes in pre-revolutionary America, and pre-Irish independence, you would think that London would know better than making these mistakes AGAIN
Is it just me, or does nobody read a history book anymore?
I'm pro-Scottish independence, but I cannot believe that London would blunder like this
Now, given that the UK made similar mistakes in pre-revolutionary America, and pre-Irish independence, you would think that London would know better than making these mistakes AGAIN
Do the Scots drink tea, or do they only drink Scotch?
If they do drink tea, I'd definitely start to worry.
Obama needs to seriously come up with a plan to deal with ISIS and hopefully get Hillary in on the plan. This is getting damn dumb Two years now we're goat roping with ISIS
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm not sure what else we can do short of sending troops TBH.
We could stop sending sorties to crater dirt roads in the desert. (yes, we sent multiple sorties to crater a DaIsh LOC. They then drove around the craters.)
We could come up with ROE that let more than 20-30% of sorties actually drop ordnance.
We could come up with a comprehensive strategy at the national level using ALL the elements of DIME in a coherent and coordinated fashion AFTER having stated what our goal/objective is and WHY it is of US National interest to pursue that goal with the resources necessary to ensure achieving it.
I could go on. There are plenty of things short of conventional 'boots on the ground' we could do which we are not doing, or are currently doing as a 'check the block' exercise.
Its not. Its a website keeping anyone who is interested into whatever operations is going on around the world. Pretty good site though to keep current around the world
Just a heads up for the thread. Much as I had to say in the UK politics thread, this is a US politics thread. US. If you want to discuss UK politics, create your own thread. Cheers
Jihadin wrote: Obama needs to seriously come up with a plan to deal with ISIS and hopefully get Hillary in on the plan. This is getting damn dumb Two years now we're goat roping with ISIS
Derp he has a plan. Prevent defense until the clock runs out. Its working so far.
Frankly I'm getting sick of the usual chickenhawks shouting "Send in troops! Send in troops!"
No.
Jihadin wrote: Obama needs to seriously come up with a plan to deal with ISIS and hopefully get Hillary in on the plan. This is getting damn dumb Two years now we're goat roping with ISIS
Derp he has a plan. Prevent defense until the clock runs out. Its working so far.
Frankly I'm getting sick of the usual chickenhawks shouting "Send in troops! Send in troops!"
No.
The problem with his 'plan', as you define it, is that it vastly increases the likelihood he or his successor will send in boots on the ground, because his 'prevent defense' isn't working well.
Jihadin wrote: Obama needs to seriously come up with a plan to deal with ISIS and hopefully get Hillary in on the plan. This is getting damn dumb Two years now we're goat roping with ISIS
Derp he has a plan. Prevent defense until the clock runs out. Its working so far.
Frankly I'm getting sick of the usual chickenhawks shouting "Send in troops! Send in troops!"
No.
The problem with his 'plan', as you define it, is that it vastly increases the likelihood he or his successor will send in boots on the ground, because his 'prevent defense' isn't working well.
Sure it will. Lets assume ISIL gains control of all off Iraq and Syria and turns it into a religious dictatorship. That would make it different than Saudia Arabia...how? How owuld it be different than Pakistan? SA is just an older version. ISIL wants us there, it gains followers.
Besides Erdogan lost his election. If he loses power Turkey moves back towards secularism and ISIL's channels of support will start to dry up.
ISIL is in Libya as well. Are you going to invade Libya too?
You'll have a very difficult time finding where I advocate a 'boots on the ground' strategy against DaIsh.
I don't see the Saudis burning captured pilots alive, nor governing their country quite the way DaIsh governs their territories. You may not see a difference, but that would be because you choose not to.
My bottom line is the Obama administrations version of strategy is pathetic. There is no coordinated strategy at the national level and the resources being expended are a massive waste since they are not being expended towards any goal. And we are putting pilots and flight crews into danger flying sorties where they may or may not even be allowed to engage, and when they do they are generally not engaging targets worth the cost and risks. Eventually a plane or chopper goes down due to enemy fire, a maintenance issue, or crew error, and a US trooper gets the flaming cage treatment. When the public asks 'Why? Was it worth it? What was achieved?" the answer is not going to be a good one.
Add in the growing likelihood of Iraqi troops turning on US trainers in a green on blue incident (could end up being a DaIsh loyalist/infiltrator, DaIsh in captured uniforms, a shia troop still loyal to the Mahdi Army, or just some poor fether more scared of fighting DaIsh than pulling a trigger on an American).
And then there will be folks who push to 'boots on the ground' and they won't have much opposition.
SA doesn't govern territories like ISIL-now. However they have no problem with public executions, flogging (witness the 1,000 whip sentence just given toa blogger), amputation, etc. ISIL is just SA 60 years ago.
Not referring to you. I am seeing all the Republican chickenhawks out there, again. I won't vote for them, won't vote to send American sons and and daughters anywhere. Frankly there's nothing there thats worth it and the multiple times we have been there have led to worse and worse outcomes.
tard bigot mouthbreathers.
