Ahtman wrote: That would make sense if this weren't a party primary but it is so it does matter somewhat. I understand the basic concept but the idea that having the party backing someone in a party-centric election having no effect seems a bit off. Now it isn't everything, because if it was then she would have been the nominee in 2008.
But how does it impact someone's vote? Seriously, if someone is on the border between Sanders and Clinton, and the party is behind Clinton... is that person going to switch to support Clinton? How does that process work?
This is a party vote with superdelegates so it is fairly easy to impact a members vote when you tell them that person A is the anointed one for the party. For the general public I imagine it doesn't have hardly any impact but these aren't general elections these are party primaries where party affiliation makes a difference. Each election is different from state to state with varying degrees of importance placed on the democratic vote with some having pretty much no impact from them and all of it coming from party members before hand as to where delegates go. I even sent a video that outlined a few states like that.
TL;DR: It won't matter much the general but it matters at this point when parties are deciding on a party candidate.
Hey, maybe we'll get lucky and *both* candidates will get slammed with felony charges. That would be a truly sobering statement at the condition of American national politics!
if you thought the ACA was bad, wait till you see what's in that. The idea behind ACA (get everyone health insurance) was probably noble..... there's nothing noble about this one. Basically, this thing is the most ridiculously pro-business, anti-government treaty I've ever heard of.
I don't think the actual treaty is available... Based on the articles that I have read, and having a buddy who works in the shipping industry at Port of Tacoma, what has been leaked or released or whatever, is pretty damaging overall.
Basically, international corporations would hold and be able to exercise more power than sovereign governments.
Now that Hillary has clinched the nomination, perhaps we can stop with this tiresome thing where it's reported that Bernie are Hillary and neck and neck! every time he wins a state and loses 4 others.
I've made my views on the candidates crystal clear on numerous occasions: Trump and Clinton are just as bad as each other, but as an outsider, if I had to make a choice, it would be Trump.
Why? Because the prospect of Trump and Putin in the same room would be comedy gold, especially if Trump throws his toupee across the room
There's also a weird thing going on, where people talk about Sanders as being a very good candidate, the guy who is gonna beat Trump. But then when people talk about Clinton having beaten Sanders... they say that doesn't show anything about Clinton because she only beat this nobody socialist.. Well people have to pick one.
Thats because damn near every poll or article that I've seen on the subject, has Sanders beating Trump, in some cases, handily..... But I think there's also something to be said for the story of the "rigged" election going for the reason why Sanders is apparently not beating Clinton. The combination of the two create a situation where people who support Sanders aren't entirely comfortable with how we got to the results.
I'm not a Clinton supporter by any means, and might have actually voted for Sanders over Trump. However, she beat him fair and square in the delegate count. She hit the magic number unofficially on Monday, officially on Tuesday.
She is the Democratic nominee, and the Sanders backers need to accept that.
However, they don't have to vote for her. Or Trump.
Frazzled wrote: If you are elected President, could you pardon yourself?
Yes. But a pardon specifically does not apply to impeachment so there is still that.
It would also be a breach of executive privilege. SCOTUS ruled on this during the Watergate Scandal i.e the limits of executive privilege were clearly laid out in the judges' ruling.
Really Obama should just pardon Hillary since the constant fishing expeditions for the last 20+ years have been a huge drain on national resources from the party of 'small government'.
Why would Obama want to do that? If the FBI drops a real charge on her, then thats around his neck. If I were him I'd steer clear of that wider than a hornets nest.
I don't think the actual treaty is available... Based on the articles that I have read, and having a buddy who works in the shipping industry at Port of Tacoma, what has been leaked or released or whatever, is pretty damaging overall.
Basically, international corporations would hold and be able to exercise more power than sovereign governments.
I've read about %50, but there are numerous articles are online to go into many of the details as well
Three major parts to the "trade" agreement Frazzled:
1. International corporations can sue national governments over laws passed within said government's countries that would impact said corporation's profits
2. It give international food companies the ability to sue over food regulation
This is in line with the point above, but it's something that is pretty important to point out. The TPP (and TTIP by extension) make the food safety regulations more beholden to trade than to the health of the consumer. It gives international food companies the ability to sue over decisions, such as the use of Ractopamine in pork. That drug started out as an asthma medicine, and is now used as a beta-agonist drug to promote muscle growth in pigs and cattle. It, and the animals that are given it as a feed additive, are banned in over 160 countries, including China of all places.
3. Internet privacy and user protection take a significant hit in favor of much harsher IP laws and punishments
The TPP pushes for policies that are beyond what even SOPA and ACTA tried to do, and cranks the DMCA up further.
So essentially: a foreign company could sue our government if our government passes laws that hurt their profits...even if said legislation was passed 1) legally and 2) for the benefit/protection.
That is...just....wow....I mean our lawmakers agreed to that?!? Wtf?!
I don't think the actual treaty is available... Based on the articles that I have read, and having a buddy who works in the shipping industry at Port of Tacoma, what has been leaked or released or whatever, is pretty damaging overall.
Basically, international corporations would hold and be able to exercise more power than sovereign governments.
I've read about %50, but there are numerous articles are online to go into many of the details as well
Three major parts to the "trade" agreement Frazzled:
1. International corporations can sue national governments over laws passed within said government's countries that would impact said corporation's profits
2. It give international food companies the ability to sue over food regulation
This is in line with the point above, but it's something that is pretty important to point out. The TPP (and TTIP by extension) make the food safety regulations more beholden to trade than to the health of the consumer. It gives international food companies the ability to sue over decisions, such as the use of Ractopamine in pork. That drug started out as an asthma medicine, and is now used as a beta-agonist drug to promote muscle growth in pigs and cattle. It, and the animals that are given it as a feed additive, are banned in over 160 countries, including China of all places.
3. Internet privacy and user protection take a significant hit in favor of much harsher IP laws and punishments
The TPP pushes for policies that are beyond what even SOPA and ACTA tried to do, and cranks the DMCA up further.
So yeah, with those being only some of what is contained in the agreement, I will never support someone who has backed it.
Intersting (and not in a good way). Well both have said they are against it, which means I believe them not at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: So essentially: a foreign company could sue our government if our government passes laws that hurt their profits...even if said legislation was passed 1) legally and 2) for the benefit/protection.
That is...just....wow....I mean our lawmakers agreed to that?!? Wtf?!
I don't think the Senate passed it. EDIT: I see it has not been ratified yet.
TheMeanDM wrote: So essentially: a foreign company could sue our government if our government passes laws that hurt their profits...even if said legislation was passed 1) legally and 2) for the benefit/protection.
That is...just....wow....I mean our lawmakers agreed to that?!? Wtf?!
Well, NAFTA does the same thing. But that doesn't mean I want to see that ability expanded.
John Oliver did a piece about this, specifically with how the tobacco industry is able to force their will on countries despite what the local government/populace want.
I don't think the actual treaty is available... Based on the articles that I have read, and having a buddy who works in the shipping industry at Port of Tacoma, what has been leaked or released or whatever, is pretty damaging overall.
Basically, international corporations would hold and be able to exercise more power than sovereign governments.
I've read about %50, but there are numerous articles are online to go into many of the details as well
Three major parts to the "trade" agreement Frazzled:
1. International corporations can sue national governments over laws passed within said government's countries that would impact said corporation's profits
2. It give international food companies the ability to sue over food regulation
This is in line with the point above, but it's something that is pretty important to point out. The TPP (and TTIP by extension) make the food safety regulations more beholden to trade than to the health of the consumer. It gives international food companies the ability to sue over decisions, such as the use of Ractopamine in pork. That drug started out as an asthma medicine, and is now used as a beta-agonist drug to promote muscle growth in pigs and cattle. It, and the animals that are given it as a feed additive, are banned in over 160 countries, including China of all places.
3. Internet privacy and user protection take a significant hit in favor of much harsher IP laws and punishments
The TPP pushes for policies that are beyond what even SOPA and ACTA tried to do, and cranks the DMCA up further.
So yeah, with those being only some of what is contained in the agreement, I will never support someone who has backed it.
Intersting (and not in a good way). Well both have said they are against it, which means I believe them not at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: So essentially: a foreign company could sue our government if our government passes laws that hurt their profits...even if said legislation was passed 1) legally and 2) for the benefit/protection.
That is...just....wow....I mean our lawmakers agreed to that?!? Wtf?!
Congress and the President haven't ratified it, but the fact that there is White House support and still support in Congress doesn't make me feel too warm and fuzzy
Breotan wrote: John Oliver did a piece about this, specifically with how the tobacco industry is able to force their will on countries despite what the local government/populace want.
It's cool, guys, these companies are the wealth and job creators and governments are always ineffective anyway. There is no possible way that making sovereign governments entrusted with the protection of their people subject to profit driven fictions created to dodge individual liability could ever go wrong. I, for one, welcome our new corporate overlords.
jmurph wrote: It's cool, guys, these companies are the wealth and job creators and governments are always ineffective anyway. There is no possible way that making sovereign governments entrusted with the protection of their people subject to profit driven fictions created to dodge individual liability could ever go wrong. I, for one, welcome our new corporate overlords.
This is why Shadowrun/Cyber-Punk isn't fun anymore.
If you're holding out on some chance that Sanders might sneak away with the nomination, yesterday's results put the kibosh on that. It's Clinton v. Trump now, for better or worse.
These results do not please me, for the first time in my life I'm going into a general election with no clear candidate to vote for, loathing both main party options to such a degree that I cannot bring myself to vote for either, even the lesser of two evils, and will be voting for a third party or write-in, if for no other reason than simple protest.
Now it's been confirmed, it's unsettling to hear. I was hoping for Bernie to be the Democrats candidate.
Dark times ahead of us I think, even for non-Americans.
thatll probably be my course of action but we'll see if an amusing 3rd party candidate pops up.
What drives me bonkers is that, amongst people my age and in my social circles, I know almost nobody who voted for either presumptive nominee. One of my crazy cousins voted for Trump (after everyone else dropped out) and I know a single Hillary voter, but everyone else either didnt vote or was going to vote for Bernie. Where on earth are all these Hillary voters? The over 50's mainly I suspect. I certainly dont know anyone particularly passionate about either candidate.
Clinton cleans up with minority voters Sanders never really got it going in that department.
I imagine alot of older Democrats went for Hilary because her agenda is thought to be more realistic and achievable given Republican obstructionism, while Sanders was running on some pretty fundamental overhauls that in all reality would not be achievable unless there was a significant change in the balance of power in Congress.
That's my guess anyways, it seems to be the sentiment of alot of people I know.
I imagine alot of older Democrats went for Hilary because her agenda is thought to be more realistic and achievable given Republican obstructionism, while Sanders was running on some pretty fundamental overhauls that in all reality would not be achievable unless there was a significant change in the balance of power in Congress.
Hillary is like the Honda Civic of presidential candidates: likely the most realistic option, pragmatic, has actually been in a lot of the situations that she will be in as president, will get the job done well enough, but there is just nothing fancy or flashy about her as a candidate at all.
This is where you lost me, I think. She is so disliked by the other side, and many on her side, that I imagine the obstructionism will be at least as bad as the lunacy Pres. Obama has had to deal with. Only four to eight more years of idiocy with either candidate.
I imagine alot of older Democrats went for Hilary because her agenda is thought to be more realistic and achievable given Republican obstructionism, while Sanders was running on some pretty fundamental overhauls that in all reality would not be achievable unless there was a significant change in the balance of power in Congress.
That's my guess anyways, it seems to be the sentiment of alot of people I know.
I live in an area with a lot of older people. Most of the Democrats voted Hillary because either a) See quoted comment or b) "Socialism is always bad and just another word for communism" I always ask them to give up their Social Security and Medicaid money when they say something like that.
The Republican voters were pretty much left with either Trump, Cruz, or Kasich, and most of them hated Cruz more than Trump.
Though there's one numbskull who's all excited for Trump, sporting a "Ted Nugent for President" Bumper sticker.
This is where you lost me, I think. She is so disliked by the other side, and many on her side, that I imagine the obstructionism will be at least as bad as the lunacy Pres. Obama has had to deal with. Only four to eight more years of idiocy with either candidate.
Just to keep this Honda metaphor going, if her presidency is a Civic, she'd be saying, "we need to go in an change the oil" and republicans would be like, "well, we have this awesome spoiler and coffee can muffler that are being installed as part of your oil change"
It was made mention that someone didn't know any Hillary voters? I voted for Hillary. I'm 30, registered Democrat, and had no faith in Sanders' "promises". I'm comfortable with Clinton or Trump, because a president doesn't wield unconditional power (which Bernie should have understood before making his "promises"). I'm not saying Trump or Clinton are better people; I'm saying that Bernie could only flourish in a perfect world. And I'm pretty sure we don't have that. So he'd flounder.
jasper76 wrote: Even McCain and Rubio, who Trump degraded and humiliated, have bent the knee. .
Some say the war will never be over while Lord Sanders and his bannermen are alive. However, the Iron Bank of Goldman has already backed Lady Clinton, and she has years worth of provisions to survive a siege.
timetowaste85 wrote: It was made mention that someone didn't know any Hillary voters? I voted for Hillary.
I also will vote for Hillary. I went to the caucuses for Bernie, and he was badly outnumbered, and he lost. I shrugged and moved on. I really don't like her at all, but she is substantially closer to what I'd like to see policy wise than Donald Trump, whose policies are at best unclear and often untenable.
I also will vote for Hillary. I went to the caucuses for Bernie, and he was badly outnumbered, and he lost. I shrugged and moved on. I really don't like her at all, but she is substantially closer to what I'd like to see policy wise than Donald Trump, whose policies are at best unclear and often untenable.
^ This is how I feel. As long as she opposes the TPP, which is just an awful piece of gak, I will be fine with most of her stuff. I expect to be let down, but I was expecting to be let down with Bernie as well.
The only downside is we have to listen to Whembly and his witch hunt for at least another 4 years. Somebody needs to take away that mans supply of torches and pitchforks.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Just to keep this Honda metaphor going, if her presidency is a Civic, she'd be saying, "we need to go in an change the oil" and republicans would be like, "well, we have this awesome spoiler and coffee can muffler that are being installed as part of your oil change"
It seems more like it would be a Civic that isn't allowed to leave the driveway because it is blocked in all the time.
TheMeanDM wrote: She isnt disliked bad enough on her side that the super delegates and senators/reps (arent many senators/reps?) win't see her elected.
General voters, party or otherwise, are rarely made up of the Party elite. I have no doubt that they like her in some capacity or she wouldn't be their de facto nominee, as you say. The problems she has to face aren't coming from the Superdelegates*.
*generally ex Senators, Congress members, and high office holders (President, Governor) as well as party bigwigs. I just wanted to say bigwigs, mostly.
I also will vote for Hillary. I went to the caucuses for Bernie, and he was badly outnumbered, and he lost. I shrugged and moved on. I really don't like her at all, but she is substantially closer to what I'd like to see policy wise than Donald Trump, whose policies are at best unclear and often untenable.
^ This is how I feel. As long as she opposes the TPP, which is just an awful piece of gak, I will be fine with most of her stuff.
Rosebuddy wrote: Having the backing of the party leadership seems pretty handy for things like access to mass media and favour with superdelegates.
Except as I've already shown Clinton actually got a higher ratio of negative press than any other candidate. Turns out that having Joe Biden wandering around the back offices of CNN telling everyone how lovely Hillary Clinton is doesn't really do very much to help at all.
Like, superdelegates are capable of swaying the nomination to the person with fewer popular votes. It's what they're there for.
Except, as I've already explained about a dozen times between this thread and the last - the party falls in line with the popular vote. In 2008 everyone fussed over Clinton's lead in super-delegates and how that was unfair, but then as soon as Obama achieved a winning lead in pledged delegates the pledged delegates flipped.
To claim that the open support of the party leadership has no bearing on an inter-party election when there are mechanics in place to specifically give the party leadership influence over the outcome is silly.
You're trying to argue that because there is a mechanism that can be used to favour the insider, then the insider must be advantaged. That's pretty loose logic at the best of times, and it gets really stupid when you look at the actual history of the super-delegates. You have to go back to 1972 to find an instance of the highest vote winner missing out on the Democratic nomination, and that wasn't because super-delegates gave it to McGovern, but because a crowded field gives out strange results, and McGovern played the new format primary system smarter than his opponents (the establishment's preferred candidate was Muskie, and he finished miles back).
Your argument basically amounts 'here's a thing that has never done anything, and didn't do anything this time either, but because it exists it is unfair that the candidate that won more popular support is the candidate'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: TL;DR: It won't matter much the general but it matters at this point when parties are deciding on a party candidate.
I read your whole post but the argument still makes no sense. Clinton won more pledged delegates, through the simple process of more people turning up and voting for her. Super-delegates are irrelevant to that reality.
The only way 'party support' can matter is if someone can make a case that party support somehow got more people voting for Clinton over Sanders. Influence on the media doesn't work, because Clinton got more negative coverage than any other candidate. "Party influence" only matters if people can somehow make a case that having the support of Biden or Reid or someone else somehow got people to swing towards Clinton, and I just cannot see how that mental process might happen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: What drives me bonkers is that, amongst people my age and in my social circles, I know almost nobody who voted for either presumptive nominee. One of my crazy cousins voted for Trump (after everyone else dropped out) and I know a single Hillary voter, but everyone else either didnt vote or was going to vote for Bernie. Where on earth are all these Hillary voters? The over 50's mainly I suspect. I certainly dont know anyone particularly passionate about either candidate.
I have never in my life met a Nickelback supporter, any yet...
Seriously, stuff like this just shows how narrow our our circle of friends and family can be, that's all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: This is where you lost me, I think. She is so disliked by the other side, and many on her side, that I imagine the obstructionism will be at least as bad as the lunacy Pres. Obama has had to deal with. Only four to eight more years of idiocy with either candidate.
Any Democratic president will be hated, obstructed and attacked in any way Republicans can think of. Sanders would be no different. The only reason Republicans hate Clinton more than other Democrats is because they've been expecting her to be President for about a decade now (she was the favourite for 2008 since about 2006, and has spent all of the Obama administration as the nominee in waiting).
What Clinton has going for her is that she's been up against Republicans since 1992. She knows the game and she knows how to play it as best you can. Obama took a while to get anything done, in large part because he wandered in thinking that by being a nice guy he could make bi-partisanship happen. Clinton knows that isn't how it works anymore.
And I didn't say otherwise so I'm not sure why you would make that argument. If any candidate is going to be ineffectual it would be nice to at least like the candidate. As it is I have to choose one I neither like nor believe will get anything done. I don't mean "like" as in I would have a beer with her, but in being ok with voting for them.
sebster wrote: What Clinton has going for her is that she's been up against Republicans since 1992.
Having a long history of being hated doesn't make one good, it just makes them hated for a long time. In the end it is a terrible choice of candidates on both sides. Her being the Democratic nominee doesn't make her suddenly a good person or a good person for the job, just the one up for it. I will choose her over Trump but that really isn't saying much; sure she is a better choice than Trump, but that isn't a high bar to leap.
It doesn't really matter much overall as I am not electing a friend but man is she a dull choice and I'm sad to have it be another Clinton. I want to say we can do better than that but we also have Trump as a nominee so apparently we can't.
Vaktathi wrote: Where on earth are all these Hillary voters? The over 50's mainly I suspect. I certainly dont know anyone particularly passionate about either candidate.
Probably, from what I have seen in the statistics, the biggest divide in demographics between Bernie and Hillary is in age. Bernie has mostly people under 30 and Hillary has people over 40.
This is why if Obama and Sanders can rally the youth vote to Clinton, and Trump can deliver the minority and womens' votes, she could end up with broad-based support.
Except, as I've already explained about a dozen times between this thread and the last - the party falls in line with the popular vote. In 2008 everyone fussed over Clinton's lead in super-delegates and how that was unfair, but then as soon as Obama achieved a winning lead in pledged delegates the pledged delegates flipped.
Sanders isn't Obama, tho. Obama was vastly more palatable to the Democratic leadership so it wasn't much trouble to back him over Clinton. It was just a matter of considering which of them was more popular, not which of them best represented the leadership's wishes. Using the superdelegates to sway the nomination wasn't necessary.
If superdelegates weren't meant to potentially counteract a candidate that the party leadership didn't like there wouldn't be a point to them. Why have a system that just gives the winner even more support?
Hi Rosebuddy, you only have to see the Republican members of DakkaDakka who are swinging in line behind Trumpo despite previously disliking him to understand that party loyalties are important in influencing voting patterns.
It would be a piss-poor party that wouldn't rally all possible support behind its chosen candidate.
Sanders himself will rally to Clinton because a Democrat president and success down the ballot is the best chance he's got to get any of his ideas into consideration in the next four years.
Trump is like an Orange Hum-V running donuts in a cemetary.
Quit it. You're making me want to vote for Trump.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Hi Rosebuddy, you only have to see the Republican members of DakkaDakka who are swinging in line behind Trumpo despite previously disliking him to understand that party loyalties are important in influencing voting patterns.
It would be a piss-poor party that wouldn't rally all possible support behind its chosen candidate.
Sanders himself will rally to Clinton because a Democrat president and success down the ballot is the best chance he's got to get any of his ideas into consideration in the next four years.
Sanders himself will rally to Clinton because a Democrat president and success down the ballot is the best chance he's got to get any of his ideas into consideration in the next four years.
The Democratic Party has rejected Sanders, what he stands for and his voter base. The best chance that the left has to get anything done in the next four years is not to submit to the DNC, it's to continue the struggle at every available level. They didn't get this far by prostrating themselves and swearing undying loyalty to the party. A political nobody managed to snag like 44% of the vote in a party that doesn't want him through mobilising a demographic that historically doesn't vote much because they have the most practical barriers to overcome. If Sanders doesn't work out then this group is going to turn elsewhere. It is indeed a piss-poor party that can't rally all possible support behind their candidate but the Clinton campaign is more interested in courting what they've termed Republicans Against Trump than adopting social-democratic policies and extending an olive branch to the youth. They want RATs more than they do the ostensible future of the party.
So there's a much bigger break there between Sanders and Clinton voters than there is between Trump and other GOP voters. Trump ultimately is just the culmination of GOP policies and tactics. His main difference is in his tone. His base isn't the alt-right weirdos, neo-nazis and other loudmouths, tho he doesn't particularly mind them, it's white middle class that either recently became former middle-class due to the economy or fear becoming former middle-class.
Ahtman wrote: That is ok as I have done the same and feel similarly about your posts on the subject, but I think we are talking past each other to be honest.
That's probably true, yeah.
And I didn't say otherwise so I'm not sure why you would make that argument. If any candidate is going to be ineffectual it would be nice to at least like the candidate. As it is I have to choose one I neither like nor believe will get anything done. I don't mean "like" as in I would have a beer with her, but in being ok with voting for them.
I think her policy positions are pretty good, to be honest. They're basically the same as Sanders, and any difference would get lost in the mix of getting stuff implemented.
Having a long history of being hated doesn't make one good, it just makes them hated for a long time.
You've snipped my post to remove the part where I explain why that history does matter. Clinton hits the ground running. She knows that given congress as it is most things get achieved through executive (something Obama didn't really understand until his second term).
If you care about things like climate change, then the choice is between someone who will expand the role of the EPA in encouraging renewables, and a guy who wants to roll back CFC bans because he likes the old kind of hairspray.
It doesn't really matter much overall as I am not electing a friend but man is she a dull choice and I'm sad to have it be another Clinton.
Honestly I think the first Clinton did a good job, and this newer, womanier Clinton is more or less the same thing, just a little more left wing on economic issues. Doesn't have the charisma, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote: Sanders isn't Obama, tho. Obama was vastly more palatable to the Democratic leadership so it wasn't much trouble to back him over Clinton. It was just a matter of considering which of them was more popular, not which of them best represented the leadership's wishes. Using the superdelegates to sway the nomination wasn't necessary.
Sanders sold the line that he was out there selling something that was just miles away from what that darn dirty Democratic establishment wanted, and people bought it like they bought Obama's 'change'. But it was a sales pitch. All the stuff about campaign finance reform is already in the party platform. Minimum wage is already in there. Free college is about the only difference to the Democrats plan of increased scholarships and reduced interest rates... but honestly Sanders position there is fairly crazy given the current US system.
There's this idea that if Sanders won there'd be all these 'establishment' types in their cigar rooms looking so shocked their monocles popped off. But Sanders is well within the ordinary range of ordinary Democratic policies.
If superdelegates weren't meant to potentially counteract a candidate that the party leadership didn't like there wouldn't be a point to them. Why have a system that just gives the winner even more support?
The reason for power is power. Ask why a middle manager insists on a sign off for IT spending he doesn't understand. Ask why local governments insist on giving approval to every housing development, when they don't understand them and just accept the planner's word when he says it's all okay. Because people want to have a final say.
Ask why the royal family of England was so keen to stay in nominal power that they were willing to give away actual power. Because people just love having 'power', even if it means they can never use it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote: The Democratic Party has rejected Sanders, what he stands for and his voter base. The best chance that the left has to get anything done in the next four years is not to submit to the DNC, it's to continue the struggle at every available level.
As a young voter (26), I have to say, they don't make it easy. I tried to vote in my Democratic Primary, and A) the only time was almost at 9 P.M. at night, which sucks because I have a 2 year old and a job at 7 A.M. and B) was almost impossible to get to.
A little more redesign on efficient/alternate voting options would go a long way to encouraging young people to vote.
As a young voter (26), I have to say, they don't make it easy. I tried to vote in my Democratic Primary, and A) the only time was almost at 9 P.M. at night, which sucks because I have a 2 year old and a job at 7 A.M. and B) was almost impossible to get to.
A little more redesign on efficient/alternate voting options would go a long way to encouraging young people to vote.
But of course, "they" don't want you to vote. I've definitely seen and heard from slightly older generations a sort of fear about the younger one, no matter how unfounded or not it is. For those who lean democrat, these people who have that "fear" worry that the younger generation will take us farther left than they want, or that the younger generation will upset the status quo that keeps them rich or whatnot. I've seen rhetoric from those who lean right about their fear of how far left "today's youth" lean, even if they are talking about a Tea Party, republican voting youngster!
Of course, we've gone round and round in other threads regarding the doom and gloom view of how soft/weak/inept/pathetic, etc. today's youth are, but it's never really founded in reality.
While I don't really ascribe to any conspiracy theories, this one, of making it more difficult than necessary to vote plays right into those older adults mindset, and helps them hold onto whatever power they have/think they have.
I have never in my life met a Nickelback supporter, any yet...
And now you have! Nickelback is a solid post-grunge rock act that doesn't take itself too seriously (look at the lyrics to songs like Rockstar) and is no more samey and sellout than Foo Fighters. The fact that they are comfortable with their commercial success is just the recycled "sell out: criticism that has nothing to do with, well anything. Best critique I have seen is that they were overplayed (Photograph, anyone?). But that applies to most big sellers....
Back on topic, looks like Sanders is meeting with Obama. That should be interesting.
As a young voter (26), I have to say, they don't make it easy. I tried to vote in my Democratic Primary, and A) the only time was almost at 9 P.M. at night, which sucks because I have a 2 year old and a job at 7 A.M. and B) was almost impossible to get to.
A little more redesign on efficient/alternate voting options would go a long way to encouraging young people to vote.
But of course, "they" don't want you to vote. I've definitely seen and heard from slightly older generations a sort of fear about the younger one, no matter how unfounded or not it is. For those who lean democrat, these people who have that "fear" worry that the younger generation will take us farther left than they want, or that the younger generation will upset the status quo that keeps them rich or whatnot. I've seen rhetoric from those who lean right about their fear of how far left "today's youth" lean, even if they are talking about a Tea Party, republican voting youngster!
Of course, we've gone round and round in other threads regarding the doom and gloom view of how soft/weak/inept/pathetic, etc. today's youth are, but it's never really founded in reality.
While I don't really ascribe to any conspiracy theories, this one, of making it more difficult than necessary to vote plays right into those older adults mindset, and helps them hold onto whatever power they have/think they have.
Agreed. My favorite past time is seeing which is the bigger argument: Left vs. Right Voters, or the young vs. the old
I have never in my life met a Nickelback supporter, any yet...
And now you have! Nickelback is a solid post-grunge rock act that doesn't take itself too seriously (look at the lyrics to songs like Rockstar) and is no more samey and sellout than Foo Fighters. The fact that they are comfortable with their commercial success is just the recycled "sell out: criticism that has nothing to do with, well anything. Best critique I have seen is that they were overplayed (Photograph, anyone?). But that applies to most big sellers....
Back on topic, looks like Sanders is meeting with Obama. That should be interesting.
Eh, gonna have to disagree. Silver Side Up was an absolutely fantastic album, but everything after that went down hill. My problem isn't that their comfortable with their success, it's that all their songs sound the same and have no real depth to them. It's fun, pop, Pringles rock. And Foo Fighters are hardly sellouts I challenge you to find a more distinguished living musician than Dave Grohl. Did I like everyone of his songs? No, but they each felt different and had interesting lyrics. That and the guy is just absolutely down to earth, no feths given. Probably one of the most likeable human beings.
As a young voter (26), I have to say, they don't make it easy. I tried to vote in my Democratic Primary, and A) the only time was almost at 9 P.M. at night, which sucks because I have a 2 year old and a job at 7 A.M. and B) was almost impossible to get to.
A little more redesign on efficient/alternate voting options would go a long way to encouraging young people to vote.
I don't know where you are located, but many areas have early voting, even for primaries. I was able to vote on the Saturday before the IL primary, for example. Some places have mail-in or other options.
As a young voter (26), I have to say, they don't make it easy. I tried to vote in my Democratic Primary, and A) the only time was almost at 9 P.M. at night, which sucks because I have a 2 year old and a job at 7 A.M. and B) was almost impossible to get to.
A little more redesign on efficient/alternate voting options would go a long way to encouraging young people to vote.
But of course, "they" don't want you to vote. I've definitely seen and heard from slightly older generations a sort of fear about the younger one, no matter how unfounded or not it is. For those who lean democrat, these people who have that "fear" worry that the younger generation will take us farther left than they want, or that the younger generation will upset the status quo that keeps them rich or whatnot. I've seen rhetoric from those who lean right about their fear of how far left "today's youth" lean, even if they are talking about a Tea Party, republican voting youngster!
Of course, we've gone round and round in other threads regarding the doom and gloom view of how soft/weak/inept/pathetic, etc. today's youth are, but it's never really founded in reality.
While I don't really ascribe to any conspiracy theories, this one, of making it more difficult than necessary to vote plays right into those older adults mindset, and helps them hold onto whatever power they have/think they have.
Agreed. My favorite past time is seeing which is the bigger argument: Left vs. Right Voters, or the young vs. the old
I have never in my life met a Nickelback supporter, any yet...
And now you have! Nickelback is a solid post-grunge rock act that doesn't take itself too seriously (look at the lyrics to songs like Rockstar) and is no more samey and sellout than Foo Fighters. The fact that they are comfortable with their commercial success is just the recycled "sell out: criticism that has nothing to do with, well anything. Best critique I have seen is that they were overplayed (Photograph, anyone?). But that applies to most big sellers....
Back on topic, looks like Sanders is meeting with Obama. That should be interesting.
Eh, gonna have to disagree. Silver Side Up was an absolutely fantastic album, but everything after that went down hill. My problem isn't that their comfortable with their success, it's that all their songs sound the same and have no real depth to them. It's fun, pop, Pringles rock. And Foo Fighters are hardly sellouts I challenge you to find a more distinguished living musician than Dave Grohl. Did I like everyone of his songs? No, but they each felt different and had interesting lyrics. That and the guy is just absolutely down to earth, no feths given. Probably one of the most likeable human beings.
Silver Side Up was awesome. Everything after was fine...not great, not bad. But I also enjoy Creed. So...w/e.
Back on topic, I actually feel a great swell of pity for the Sanders supporters. They are NOT gonna get what he's promised. And it would be even worse if he got elected, because they STILL wouldn't have gotten what he promised. Whole group of people who just don't understand how our system works... (Or doesn't, depending on your point of view.)
jreilly89 wrote: A little more redesign on efficient/alternate voting options would go a long way to encouraging young people to vote.
We've actually been going the other way with that, in terms of ease of voting. Getting people to vote for you is hard, but trying to disenfranchise the people who might vote for your opponent is, as it turns out, pretty doable.
While largely ignored by the media, the Clintons have their own university scandal. Donald Trump has been rightfully criticized and sued over his defunct Trump University. There is ample support for claiming that the Trump University was fraudulent in its advertisements and operations. However, the national media has been accused of again sidestepping a scandal involving the Clintons that involves the same type of fraud allegations. The scandal involves the dubious Laureate Education for-profit college and entails many of the common elements with other Clinton scandals: huge sums given to the Clintons and questions of conflicts with Hillary Clinton during her time as Secretary of State. There are distinctions to draw between the two stories, but the virtual radio silence on the Clinton/Laureate story is surprising.
I have long been a critic of most online courses, though I am increasingly in the minority even on my faculty. However, the rise of online courses has allowed for an increase in dubious pitches and practices that prey upon people who cannot afford or attend a traditional academic institution.
Laureate Education has been sued over such programs as its Walden University Online offering, which many have alleged is a scam designed to bilk students of tens of thousands of dollars for degrees. Students says that they were repeatedly delayed and given added costs as they tried to secure degrees, leaving them deeply in debt.
The respected Inside Higher Education reported that Laureate Education paid Bill Clinton an obscene $16.5 million between 2010 and 2014 to serve as an honorary chancellor for Laureate International Universities. While Bill Clinton worked as the group’s pitchman, the State Department funneled $55 million to Laureate when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. That would seem a pretty major story but virtually no mainstream media outlet has reported it while running hundreds of stories on the Trump University scandal.
There was even a class action — like the Trump University scandal.Travis et al v. Walden University LLC, was filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Maryland but dismissed in 2015. It is not clear why it was dismissed. However, the size of the contract to Clinton, the payment from State and the widespread complaints over alleged fraud should warrant a modicum of attention to the controversy. The controversy has many of the familiar complaints over fraudulent online programs that take advantage of hard working people.
As an academic, I find both Trump University and Laureate to be deeply troubling stories. Yet, only one has been pursued by the media to any significant degree. I am not suggesting that Laureate as a whole is fraudulent. Moreover, there are distinctions that can be drawn with a university like Trump that is based entirely on the presumptive nominee and his promises in advertising. However, the money given to the Clintons, the involvement of the State Department, and the claims of fraud make this an obviously significant story in my view.
Thus your article's writer seems like he doesn't know what he is talking about, or else he has deliberately obfuscated the issue for a reason that might be guessed at.
Trump is accused of illegal fraudulent behavior and has made racist disparaging comments regarding the judge. HRC took a boatload of money from a university with a crapsack online program to be a figurehead. Big difference. While most online universities are pretty much garbage, they are legal and I can't see many politicians turning down that kind of money when they basically have to do nothing in return. I contrast, TU is one of Trump's businesses that is accused of illegally ripping people off.
jmurph wrote: Trump is accused of illegal fraudulent behavior and has made racist disparaging comments regarding the judge. HRC took a boatload of money from a university with a crapsack online program to be a figurehead. Big difference. While most online universities are pretty much garbage, they are legal and I can't see many politicians turning down that kind of money when they basically have to do nothing in return. I contrast, TU is one of Trump's businesses that is accused of illegally ripping people off.
And what were the States Department funneling $55 million to Laureate for?
Obama just endorsed Clinton after meeting with Sanders. Oh to be a fly on the wall in that meeting. I thought he would have waited until after the DC primary. Either Sanders said he was ok with the endorsement or said something Obama didn't like.
As a young voter (26), I have to say, they don't make it easy. I tried to vote in my Democratic Primary, and A) the only time was almost at 9 P.M. at night, which sucks because I have a 2 year old and a job at 7 A.M. and B) was almost impossible to get to.
A little more redesign on efficient/alternate voting options would go a long way to encouraging young people to vote.
But of course, "they" don't want you to vote. I've definitely seen and heard from slightly older generations a sort of fear about the younger one, no matter how unfounded or not it is. For those who lean democrat, these people who have that "fear" worry that the younger generation will take us farther left than they want, or that the younger generation will upset the status quo that keeps them rich or whatnot. I've seen rhetoric from those who lean right about their fear of how far left "today's youth" lean, even if they are talking about a Tea Party, republican voting youngster!
Of course, we've gone round and round in other threads regarding the doom and gloom view of how soft/weak/inept/pathetic, etc. today's youth are, but it's never really founded in reality.
While I don't really ascribe to any conspiracy theories, this one, of making it more difficult than necessary to vote plays right into those older adults mindset, and helps them hold onto whatever power they have/think they have.
I've never been to a polling location that had any volunteers staffing it that were younger than me (I'm in my mid 30s) and only rarely ever saw anyone my age. Every time I vote the place is entirely run by senior citizens. I feel like in another couple election cycles polling places are either going to be run completely by robots or be utter DMV style cluster feths.
As a young voter (26), I have to say, they don't make it easy. I tried to vote in my Democratic Primary, and A) the only time was almost at 9 P.M. at night, which sucks because I have a 2 year old and a job at 7 A.M. and B) was almost impossible to get to.
A little more redesign on efficient/alternate voting options would go a long way to encouraging young people to vote.
But of course, "they" don't want you to vote. I've definitely seen and heard from slightly older generations a sort of fear about the younger one, no matter how unfounded or not it is. For those who lean democrat, these people who have that "fear" worry that the younger generation will take us farther left than they want, or that the younger generation will upset the status quo that keeps them rich or whatnot. I've seen rhetoric from those who lean right about their fear of how far left "today's youth" lean, even if they are talking about a Tea Party, republican voting youngster!
Of course, we've gone round and round in other threads regarding the doom and gloom view of how soft/weak/inept/pathetic, etc. today's youth are, but it's never really founded in reality.
While I don't really ascribe to any conspiracy theories, this one, of making it more difficult than necessary to vote plays right into those older adults mindset, and helps them hold onto whatever power they have/think they have.
I've never been to a polling location that had any volunteers staffing it that were younger than me (I'm in my mid 30s) and only rarely ever saw anyone my age. Every time I vote the place is entirely run by senior citizens. I feel like in another couple election cycles polling places are either going to be run completely by robots or be utter DMV style cluster feths.
You know new senior citizens are being made every day. I don't think we will run out soon unless we implement the Logan's Run initiative.
And what were the States Department funneling $55 million to Laureate for?
Citation needed.
I've found three articles talking about this money from the State Department, and even though they link to every source about anything, none of them are linking to any kind of source on that specific issue.
If I had to guess, I would guess that they are claiming that scholarships and tuition reinbursements and loan repayments and stuff for State Department employees were used by employees who attended that school and that is what they are considering "funneling money".
If you google this story the first 15 links are all right-wing blog-style pieces generated in the past couple of days, probably referencing each other.
The only substantiated fact is the court records I linked above. These show that basic elements of the story are false.
I think we can put this one down as another lot of Republican poo-slinging, just a bit more sophisticated then ripping a pic of some woman with facial injuries and claiming she was beaten up by Bernie Sanders's supporters.
As a young voter (26), I have to say, they don't make it easy. I tried to vote in my Democratic Primary, and A) the only time was almost at 9 P.M. at night, which sucks because I have a 2 year old and a job at 7 A.M. and B) was almost impossible to get to.
A little more redesign on efficient/alternate voting options would go a long way to encouraging young people to vote.
But of course, "they" don't want you to vote. I've definitely seen and heard from slightly older generations a sort of fear about the younger one, no matter how unfounded or not it is. For those who lean democrat, these people who have that "fear" worry that the younger generation will take us farther left than they want, or that the younger generation will upset the status quo that keeps them rich or whatnot. I've seen rhetoric from those who lean right about their fear of how far left "today's youth" lean, even if they are talking about a Tea Party, republican voting youngster!
Of course, we've gone round and round in other threads regarding the doom and gloom view of how soft/weak/inept/pathetic, etc. today's youth are, but it's never really founded in reality.
While I don't really ascribe to any conspiracy theories, this one, of making it more difficult than necessary to vote plays right into those older adults mindset, and helps them hold onto whatever power they have/think they have.
Do people just suddenly get overcome with a sense of civic duty or soul crushing boredom when they become elderly and decide to volunteer to run polling places? Not every old person decides to volunteer and I'm assuming that some portion of the ones that choose to volunteer started doing it before they got old. It would be nice to see more people want to get involved.
I've never been to a polling location that had any volunteers staffing it that were younger than me (I'm in my mid 30s) and only rarely ever saw anyone my age. Every time I vote the place is entirely run by senior citizens. I feel like in another couple election cycles polling places are either going to be run completely by robots or be utter DMV style cluster feths.
You know new senior citizens are being made every day. I don't think we will run out soon unless we implement the Logan's Run initiative.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you google this story the first 15 links are all right-wing blog-style pieces generated in the past couple of days, probably referencing each other.
The only substantiated fact is the court records I linked above. These show that basic elements of the story are false.
I think we can put this one down as another lot of Republican poo-slinging, just a bit more sophisticated then ripping a pic of some woman with facial injuries and claiming she was beaten up by Bernie Sanders's supporters.
Does Bloomberg qulify as right wing? Michael Bloomberg was a Republican for a few years but I've never seen him referred to as right wing.
Laureate, which runs for-profit colleges, hired Clinton just as the Obama administration began drafting tougher regulations for federal financial aid that goes to students who attend for-profit colleges. Around the same time, the Senate committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions launched an investigation into the industry. In his book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, Schweizer writes that after Bill Clinton accepted the position at Laureate in 2010 in exchange for unspecified payment, his wife “made Laureate part of her State Department Global Partnership.” The State Department subsequently provided tens of millions of dollars to a nonprofit chaired by Becker, the International Youth Foundation.
Citing the foundation’s tax filings, Schweizer writes that while IYF had received government grants (mainly from the U.S. Agency for International Development) as far back as 2001, they “exploded since Bill became chancellor of Laureate,” accounting for the vast majority of the nonprofit’s revenue. In 2010, “government grants accounted for $23 million of its revenue, compared to $5.4 million from other sources. It received $21 million in 2011 and $23 million in 2012.” The link between International Youth Foundation and Laureate has not been previously reported, he said.
The Clinton campaign disputed Schweizer’s characterization. "This is yet another false allegation in a book that is fast being debunked," said Brian Fallon, a campaign spokesman. "The International Youth Foundation was funded by the Bush administration, well before Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State. In fact, the group's USAID funding actually went down in the year that she arrived at the State Department, not up."
A Bloomberg examination of IYF’s public filings show that in 2009, the year before Bill Clinton joined Laureate, the nonprofit received 11 grants worth $9 million from the State Department or the affiliated USAID. In 2010, the group received 14 grants worth $15.1 million. In 2011, 13 grants added up to $14.6 million. The following year, those numbers jumped: IYF received 21 grants worth $25.5 million, including a direct grant from the State Department.
Laureate has declined to say how much it has paid the former president. Hillary Clinton’s financial disclosure forms in 2012 revealed only that her husband received nonemployee compensation of more than $1,000 from the company that year. The Clinton Foundation’s donor disclosures showed that Laureate cumulatively gave between $1 million and $5 million through 2014. In his book, Schweizer noted that Bill Clinton, during the period when his wife was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, spoke at Laureate campuses in Honduras, Mexico City, Germany, Spain, Turkey, Malaysia, Brazil, Peru, and the United States. Schweizer wrote that “based on his typical fee scale,” the half dozen speaking events Clinton has done annually for Laureate “means perhaps $1 million per year.” He dubbed this blend of government service and private remuneration the “Clinton blur.”
Since 2010, Bill Clinton brought in just short of $16.5 million for his role as honorary chancellor of Laureate Education, a for-profit college company. He left the position earlier this year weeks after his wife launched her campaign.
In 2014, Bill Clinton made $9 million off of paid speeches and $6.4 million in consulting fees. Of that, $4.3 million came from Laureate and another $2.1 million from GEMS Education, a Dubai-based company that runs preschool and K-12 programs. He made less from those two gigs in previous years – $5.6 million in 2013 and $4.7 million in 2012. In 2011, the former president was paid $2.5 million by Laureate, $500,000 by GEMS and $100,000 by Teneo Holdings, a firm co-founded by former Clinton aide Doug Band.
I don't think this is the type of scandal that will move the needle in any meaningful way. I does add further support/evidence to the politics as usual pay to play characterization of the Clintons and politics in general that can get a lot of people upset but that's nothing new.
As a young voter (26), I have to say, they don't make it easy. I tried to vote in my Democratic Primary, and A) the only time was almost at 9 P.M. at night, which sucks because I have a 2 year old and a job at 7 A.M. and B) was almost impossible to get to.
A little more redesign on efficient/alternate voting options would go a long way to encouraging young people to vote.
But of course, "they" don't want you to vote. I've definitely seen and heard from slightly older generations a sort of fear about the younger one, no matter how unfounded or not it is. For those who lean democrat, these people who have that "fear" worry that the younger generation will take us farther left than they want, or that the younger generation will upset the status quo that keeps them rich or whatnot. I've seen rhetoric from those who lean right about their fear of how far left "today's youth" lean, even if they are talking about a Tea Party, republican voting youngster!
Of course, we've gone round and round in other threads regarding the doom and gloom view of how soft/weak/inept/pathetic, etc. today's youth are, but it's never really founded in reality.
While I don't really ascribe to any conspiracy theories, this one, of making it more difficult than necessary to vote plays right into those older adults mindset, and helps them hold onto whatever power they have/think they have.
Do people just suddenly get overcome with a sense of civic duty or soul crushing boredom when they become elderly and decide to volunteer to run polling places? Not every old person decides to volunteer and I'm assuming that some portion of the ones that choose to volunteer started doing it before they got old. It would be nice to see more people want to get involved.
I've never been to a polling location that had any volunteers staffing it that were younger than me (I'm in my mid 30s) and only rarely ever saw anyone my age. Every time I vote the place is entirely run by senior citizens. I feel like in another couple election cycles polling places are either going to be run completely by robots or be utter DMV style cluster feths.
You know new senior citizens are being made every day. I don't think we will run out soon unless we implement the Logan's Run initiative.
I think it has more to do with having available time. They don't have to go to work or school, and bingo nights are on Wednesdays, not Tuesday's. My guess is if Election Day were declared a national holiday (and really, it's stupid that it isn't-I feel more patriotic on that day than on July 4th), more young and youngish people would volunteer.
Gordon Shumway wrote:Obama just endorsed Clinton after meeting with Sanders. Oh to be a fly on the wall in that meeting. I thought he would have waited until after the DC primary. Either Sanders said he was ok with the endorsement or said something Obama didn't like.
Ya know, honestly it could have just been an informative session combined with a pep talk.... Like, Obama was giving Sanders the heads-up that he was gonna endorse Clinton... but then followed it up with a rah rah speech about how he needs, and America needs Sanders in the Senate now more than ever, and that Sanders can probably get more of his lofty ideals done, by sticking around and fighting the good fight in his various postings in the senate.
Well that is not the outcome I expected from this thread
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Ya know, honestly it could have just been an informative session combined with a pep talk.... Like, Obama was giving Sanders the heads-up that he was gonna endorse Clinton... but then followed it up with a rah rah speech about how he needs, and America needs Sanders in the Senate now more than ever, and that Sanders can probably get more of his lofty ideals done, by sticking around and fighting the good fight in his various postings in the senate.
I think it was about Sanders sitting down with the leader of the Democratic party and negotiating what he was gonna get in order to endorse Clinton. Because Democrats want his millions of voters, and they want his register of small donators. In turn, Sanders wants more influence in the party, and to leave his mark on the 2016 party platform. There should be plenty of scope for common ground on this, because both sides want Democrats to win over Republicans, and no-one wants Trump.
But the devil is in the details. It's interesting to note that Elizabeth Warren will be endorsing Clinton today, and that leaves Sanders pretty much by himself. But it's also interesting to note that many Democrats, including Warren but also Biden and Reid, have made statements giving Sanders as much time as he needs to come in to line. They're walking very slowly on this, but whether it's for show or because there really is a tight negotiation going on I don't know.
Within an hour of Barack Obama's endorsement of Hillary Clinton, his spokesman acknowledged that she faces a 'criminal investigation'
and...
White House press secretary Josh Earnest insisted that the endorsement wouldn't be interpreted inside the FBI as a signal to let her off the hook
Why can insensitive remarks still destroy a candidacy when the phrase "criminal investigation" cannot? So many candidates, Democrat and Republican, have been consigned to the ash heap of history for so much less than this.
Because when make an insensitive remark, you actually made an insensitive remark.
A criminal investigation is just that, an investigation to see if a criminal act occurred, which is then followed by a criminal charge if there is enough evidence to warrant it, which is then followed by a criminal conviction if the evidence holds up. An investigation by itself isn't actually proof of anything.
You question basically boils down to "why is actually doing something different than having someone look to see if you did something", which then really answers itself.
Personally I think him winning will shake up the status quo there, for good or bad.
Maybe kill the SJW too, because they'll start to see that whatever they're doing on Twitter for Bernie Sanders didn't work.
I voted Hillary because she was the most reasonable.
Sanders had alot of plans, but not how he will get the senate to enact those plans. 7 years and we are still fighting the healthcare reform. I feel Sanders would have spent too mcu time trying to reform and not enough leading.
I kinda like trump because of his focus on america first and nation building in other places second.
Rainbow Dash wrote: Personally I think him winning will shake up the status quo there, for good or bad.
Maybe kill the SJW too, because they'll start to see that whatever they're doing on Twitter for Bernie Sanders didn't work.
Yeah, stupid SJWs! Look how hard they failed, only getting 1,828 pledged delegates for loser Sanders, instead of getting 1,542 like awesome Trump.
Rainbow Dash wrote: Personally I think him winning will shake up the status quo there, for good or bad.
Maybe kill the SJW too, because they'll start to see that whatever they're doing on Twitter for Bernie Sanders didn't work.
What amazes me is there's absolutely no mention of anything a president actually does. No mention of a legislative agenda a president might pursue. No mention of any direction a president might take any government department, or how he'll direct foreign policy.
Instead its all about scoring a point against people you don't like on the internet, in this case SJWs. It reduces the presidency to a symbolic win in an internet debate.
sebster wrote: It reduces the presidency to a symbolic win in an internet debate.
No one actually ever wins an internet debate, despite how many examples and reasons I've shown Linsey Dawn McKenzie that she should be our live-in girlfriend...
In an interview with NPR, Clinton drops hints that she and Sanders are about to come together to defeat Trump. With Warren going Clinton it is only a matter of time. Sebs has the right of it,.
Cenk Uygur, host of 'The Young Turks,' discusses the results of an unscientific (but large) poll of his audience showing that about 80% of his mostly-Sanders-supporting audience would NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton.
"I don't want to speak for you guys," Uygur said of his audience -- the largest single online news show on YouTube -- "It was not a small amount of people voting. We put the poll up in two places on our app..."
"So we asked: Which way would you vote in the general election: For Hillary -- 694 votes. Never Hillary -- 4,414 votes. So, over 5,000 votes on our app. And it is 86-14 against [Hillary]."
"I have to be honest with you, I was borderline shocked by that result. Now, I know our viewers are big Sanders supporters, I know that you're more likely to vote in that poll if youre angry at Hillary Clinton, so of course there are many factors as to why it is not scientific, we're not pretending that it is. Even so, that was a big number."
"We also had the poll posted on YouTube... We had nearly 15,000 votes there, and let's see if the numbers are different? Vote for Hillary in the general election -- 19%. Never vote for Hillary -- 81%. Wow! We combined the two -- so nearly 20,000 votes in 24 hours. 17% overall saying they'd vote for Hillary."
"Look, I knew that significant portions of our audience was angry at Hillary Clinton and considering not voting for her, I didn't know it was this high."
"That number, I am positive it will move, but for the moment being. Where it stands --83-17 -- Stunning numbers so far, it looks like Hillary Clinton has a lot of persuading to do to win over Sanders supporters."
NBC's Lester Holt asks Hillary Clinton to name one policy area where she has been influenced by Bernie Sanders. She is unable to do so, but thanks Sanders for his "passion." Transcript, via NBC:
LESTER HOLT: You gave him kudos in your speech last night for igniting a part of the party, a part of the electorate out there. What ideas--can you name one idea that he's put forward that you want to embrace? That he has really changed your position on?
SEC. HILLARY CLINTON: Well, it's not that so much as the passion that he brought to the goals that--his campaign set. I share the goals. We have different approaches about how to get there, but we are going to get to universal healthcare coverage we are going to raise the national minimum wage, we are going to make college affordable and we are going to crack down on abuses in the financial markets that might harm Main Street again.
Rainbow Dash wrote: Personally I think him winning will shake up the status quo there, for good or bad.
Maybe kill the SJW too, because they'll start to see that whatever they're doing on Twitter for Bernie Sanders didn't work.
What amazes me is there's absolutely no mention of anything a president actually does. No mention of a legislative agenda a president might pursue. No mention of any direction a president might take any government department, or how he'll direct foreign policy.
Instead its all about scoring a point against people you don't like on the internet, in this case SJWs. It reduces the presidency to a symbolic win in an internet debate.
Rainbow Dash wrote: Personally I think him winning will shake up the status quo there, for good or bad.
Maybe kill the SJW too, because they'll start to see that whatever they're doing on Twitter for Bernie Sanders didn't work.
Yeah, stupid SJWs! Look how hard they failed, only getting 1,828 pledged delegates for loser Sanders, instead of getting 1,542 like awesome Trump.
I mean, it's just noisy nonsense.
Now you get it
#wall
(I do personally wonder if the number involved in the Republican nomination is the result of that, didn't they start with like 20?)
kronk wrote: No one actually ever wins an internet debate, despite how many examples and reasons I've shown Linsey Dawn McKenzie that she should be our live-in girlfriend...
I had no idea who Linsey Dawn McKenzie was so I just looked it up. I don't know if anyone ever wins in debates on the internet, but I know I just lost.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: That same was said in 2008 for Obama. They came around by September.
Yeah, a few months of Trump should bring most of them on board. And I think there will probably be a decent chunk who won't, but they probably weren't part of the Democratic base in the first place - they were kids and idealists who got caught up in the Sanders story, who were never going to vote for a generic Democrat.
Easy E wrote: That same was said in 2008 for Obama. They came around by September.
Yeah, a few months of Trump should bring most of them on board. And I think there will probably be a decent chunk who won't, but they probably weren't part of the Democratic base in the first place - they were kids and idealists who got caught up in the Sanders story, who were never going to vote for a generic Democrat.
Why is anyone who liked Sanders a kid or idealist? That's like saying all of Trump's fans are avid racists or KKK members. Sure, that's true of some of the supporters on both sides, but there are also decent people that support both candidates.
Easy E wrote: That same was said in 2008 for Obama. They came around by September.
Yeah, a few months of Trump should bring most of them on board. And I think there will probably be a decent chunk who won't, but they probably weren't part of the Democratic base in the first place - they were kids and idealists who got caught up in the Sanders story, who were never going to vote for a generic Democrat.
Why is anyone who liked Sanders a kid or idealist? That's like saying all of Trump's fans are avid racists or KKK members. Sure, that's true of some of the supporters on both sides, but there are also decent people that support both candidates.
I think you are misreading the main point-most Sanders supporters don't fit that description, but those that do might not fall in line with the Democratic ticket.
Easy E wrote: That same was said in 2008 for Obama. They came around by September.
Yeah, a few months of Trump should bring most of them on board. And I think there will probably be a decent chunk who won't, but they probably weren't part of the Democratic base in the first place - they were kids and idealists who got caught up in the Sanders story, who were never going to vote for a generic Democrat.
Why is anyone who liked Sanders a kid or idealist? That's like saying all of Trump's fans are avid racists or KKK members. Sure, that's true of some of the supporters on both sides, but there are also decent people that support both candidates.
I think you are misreading the main point-most Sanders supporters don't fit that description, but those that do might not fall in line with the Democratic ticket.
There seems to be a sizable portion of Sanders supporters that believe Sanders is significantly different than Clinton in terms of politics and policy. Comparing evidence like their respective voting records would lead one to believe they're actually prettysimilar. The Sanders supporters that are convinced that he's a very different kind of Democrat than Clinton is are the ones that will be difficult for Clinton to win over. Sanders supporters that see him as just a "better" Democrat than Clinton are probably going to have an easy time settling for Clinton come November.
Wow. That's a lot of litigation. My favorite bit of trivia was this :"an earlier lawsuit against the town over an 80-foot flag pole. Trump's team argued in court that a smaller flag would understate his patriotism, but he eventually settled with town officials, agreeing among other concessions to lower the pole by 10 feet."
So Trump's patriotism is now ten feet shorter than it was.
kronk wrote: Yeah, I don't see Sanders leaving the Senate to be HRC's VP.
Or HRC being foolish enough to select him.
Picking Bernie would almost certainly be seen as a disingenuous act by those who Felt the Bern, and it would probably serve to galvanize Republican opposition to her election.
Prestor Jon wrote: There seems to be a sizable portion of Sanders supporters that believe Sanders is significantly different than Clinton in terms of politics and policy. Comparing evidence like their respective voting records would lead one to believe they're actually prettysimilar. The Sanders supporters that are convinced that he's a very different kind of Democrat than Clinton is are the ones that will be difficult for Clinton to win over. Sanders supporters that see him as just a "better" Democrat than Clinton are probably going to have an easy time settling for Clinton come November.
Sanders does have a history of sticking to his principles while Hillary moves whichever way the political wind blows at the moment. It's easy to surmise that Sanders' supporters have picked up on this.
kronk wrote: Yeah, I don't see Sanders leaving the Senate to be HRC's VP.
Or HRC being foolish enough to select him.
Picking Bernie would almost certainly be seen as a disingenuous act by those who Felt the Bern, and it would probably serve to galvanize Republican opposition to her election.
Well, depends on how she goes about it, doesn't it? If she actually adopted some social-democratic policies and genuinely worked with the left I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have as much trouble nabbing their votes. Y'know, maybe if she listened to concerns about debt and healthcare instead of just posting memes on twitter...
That said, I don't think she ever will because leftism is the opposite of what she wants. She will not offer anything of substance and doesn't even seem to care or understand that substance is why Sanders had such overwhelming support among young voters.
Despite Clinton claims, 2012 email had classified marking Hillary Clinton, from the moment her exclusive use of personal email for government business was exposed, has claimed nothing she sent or received was marked classified at the time.
But a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking” - and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.
The “C” - which means it was marked classified at the confidential level - is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi's first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.
"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in."
Everything after that was fully redacted before it was publicly released by the State Department -- a sign that the information was classified at the time and dealt with sensitive government deliberations.
A US government source said there are other Clinton emails with classified markings, or marked classified, beyond the April 2012 document.
A January 2014 federal government training manual, called "Marking Classified National Security Information," provides a step-by-step guide for reviewing classified information, and allocating classified codes or "portion markings."
"This system requires that standard markings be applied to classified information...Markings shall be uniformly and conspicuously applied to leave no doubt about the classified status of the information, the level of protection required, and the duration of classification."
It adds, "A portion is ordinarily defined as a paragraph, but also includes subjects, titles, graphics, tables, charts, bullet statements, sub-paragraphs, classified signature blocks, bullets and other portions within slide presentations, and the like."
"Portion markings consist of the letters “(U)” for Unclassified, “(C)” for Confidential, “(S)” for Secret, and “(TS)” for Top Secret."
Congressman Mike Pompeo, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, has read the 22 Top Secret emails too damaging to national security to release, and routinely reviews classified documents.
While he could not speak directly to the April 2012 email, he said, "I've seen information like that often. Often certain parts of a particular message will be unclassified and other parts will be classified and they are almost always marked paragraph by paragraph."
Pompeo added, “If, in fact, it is truly marked confidential that would.. and she read it, that made it to her, that would conflict with what she had previously said."
On Wednesday, Clinton told Bret Baier on Special Report, “the fact is, nothing that I sent or received was marked classified, and nothing has been demonstrated to contradict that. “
Meantime, Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal, who spoke to Fox News as part of a book tour to promote his new biolgraphy, "A Self-Made Man: The Political Life of Abraham Lincoln, 1809-1849,"said that the Romanian hacker known as Guccifer -- who claimed to breach Clinton's personal server - may have worked for foreign intelligence.
"Marcel Lazar is a Romanian. He worked from a Russian server. He may well be part of a Russian information operation," Blumenthal explained.
While he said there's no way Lazar compromised Clinton's emails, the hacker told Fox News in a telephone interview before reaching a plea deal with the Justice Department that it was "easy for me, for everybody” to access the Clinton server.
Given more than 2,100 classified emails were on the server, Fox asked Blumenthal if he had a security clearance to handle such material. "I was her friend, and I had no security clearance, nor did I seek it, nor did anyone ever send me anything that was classified. So I had no access to, nor did I send or receive any classified material."
Blumenthal said he expects FBI Director James Comey to publicly confirm that Clinton and her aides did not deliberately compromise the nation's secrets.
"This is the question that is at the center of the Department of Justice FBI investigation: Whether anybody had intent, criminal intent to put classified information outside of the system. I believe that was not the case, and I think then, that we will see a statement coming from the FBI stating that, saying that... I assume that the FBI has an interest in - James Comey, the FBI Director has an interest in acting promptly to resolve this remaining question. But I feel confident about the resolution, " Blumenthal said.
Asked about the April 2012 email, and how the campaign could reconcile the classified marking with Clinton’s public statements, spokesman Brian Fallon did not directly address the issue. "This email was just a request for Secretary Clinton to make a phone call to express condolences over the passing of the President of Malawi. The fact that this email was classified after the fact suggests again that agencies in the government tend to err on the side of classifying even routine matters of diplomacy."
Intent doesn't matter Blumenthal.
Seems to me that the FBI investigation is leaking already...
Ya know... I just saw a video on FB about VP Biden's response to the Stanford rape case, and the victim's letter that has gone all over the place...
Can I just say that we need to dump Hillary, and get this guy to run for POTUS? I don't think he's as far left, or as radical as Sanders is, but he could pull those supporters with these kinds of social justice and social issues statements. He's not as tied to money as Clinton is (I think? I don't know), but he could definitely pull a lot of the more mainline Dems along, and probably get some of the undecided and unaffiliated voters out there.
If she actually adopted some social-democratic policies and genuinely worked with the left I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have as much trouble nabbing their votes. Y'know, maybe if she listened to concerns about debt and healthcare instead of just posting memes on twitter...
Hillarycare was a thing. A thing which basically became Obamacare. Her position on healthcare reform hasn't really changed.
Debt is a separate issue, specifically student debt, which no one has a good solution for; not even uncle Bernie.
That said, I don't think she ever will because leftism is the opposite of what she wants. She will not offer anything of substance and doesn't even seem to care or understand that substance is why Sanders had such overwhelming support among young voters.
Sanders has overwhelming support from young voters (read: people that will whine on social media, but not actually vote) for the same reason that people like the Paulians do: stupidity and hormones. It is incredibly easy to get young people to support you if you use soaring rhetoric.
dogma wrote: Sanders has overwhelming support from young voters (read: people that will whine on social media, but not actually vote) for the same reason that people like the Paulians do: stupidity and hormones. It is incredibly easy to get young people to support you if you use soaring rhetoric.
This kind of utter contempt for the future of the party is why the Democrats are going to have a rough time ahead of them.
dogma wrote: Sanders has overwhelming support from young voters (read: people that will whine on social media, but not actually vote) for the same reason that people like the Paulians do: stupidity and hormones. It is incredibly easy to get young people to support you if you use soaring rhetoric.
This kind of utter contempt for the future of the party is why the Democrats are going to have a rough time ahead of them.
At least, it would be if they were an essential voting bloc, which they aren't, because they consistently have the lowest turnout percentage.
Rosebuddy wrote: This kind of utter contempt for the future of the party is why the Democrats are going to have a rough time ahead of them.
Not likely. You see, as people get older their political beliefs tend to change. The empty rhetoric and "BURN DOWN THE SYSTEM" that was appealing at 18 starts looking kind of silly when you're looking back on it a few years later, and the whole "politics is the art of the possible" thing starts to sound a lot more reasonable. The future of the party is that the current social media whiners will grow up and understand that even if they don't get their perfect candidate they still need to vote for the one who is the closest match. And the simple fact is that if you supported the substance of what Sanders was advocating (instead of vague hopes for "change") you're going to vote for Clinton, and you're going to continue to vote democrat even if you favor the farthest-left candidate during the primaries.
I'm 35 and I voted for Sanders in the primary, as have quite a few of my "old" friends and coworkers. If Oklahoma wasn't 100% sure to go for Trump I would vote for Hillary. Since I'm throwing my vote away either way I'm sending it to Johnson to try and help the Libertarian Party qualify to remain on the ballot for 2018.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Ya know... I just saw a video on FB about VP Biden's response to the Stanford rape case, and the victim's letter that has gone all over the place...
Can I just say that we need to dump Hillary, and get this guy to run for POTUS?
Man, I wish. I'll vote for Hillary, but I sure won't feel good about it. I'd have been excited about Joe Biden though, if for nothing else, thanfor4moreyearsofOnionstoriesabouthim.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Ya know... I just saw a video on FB about VP Biden's response to the Stanford rape case, and the victim's letter that has gone all over the place...
Can I just say that we need to dump Hillary, and get this guy to run for POTUS?
Man, I wish. I'll vote for Hillary, but I sure won't feel good about it. I'd have been excited about Joe Biden though, if for nothing else, thanfor4moreyearsofOnionstoriesabouthim.
Sanders has overwhelming support from young voters (read: people that will whine on social media, but not actually vote) for the same reason that people like the Paulians do: stupidity and hormones. It is incredibly easy to get young people to support you if you use soaring rhetoric..
You have taken your first step into a much larger universe. Welcome to your first day of being old.
dogma wrote: Sanders has overwhelming support from young voters (read: people that will whine on social media, but not actually vote) for the same reason that people like the Paulians do: stupidity and hormones. It is incredibly easy to get young people to support you if you use soaring rhetoric.
This kind of utter contempt for the future of the party is why the Democrats are going to have a rough time ahead of them.
At least, it would be if they were an essential voting bloc, which they aren't, because they consistently have the lowest turnout percentage.
While the turnout seems relatively stable as a percentage, it would be interesting to see how the trends look in absolute terms. As the demographics of the nation shift, even if the block percentage is stable, the number of votes will change.
d-usa wrote: I'm 35 and I voted for Sanders in the primary, as have quite a few of my "old" friends and coworkers. If Oklahoma wasn't 100% sure to go for Trump I would vote for Hillary. Since I'm throwing my vote away either way I'm sending it to Johnson to try and help the Libertarian Party qualify to remain on the ballot for 2018.
People who vote for revolutionary socialists on the one hand and capitalist libertarians on the other confuse the everloving feth out of me.
I would gladly vote for Biden over any of the folks on the ballot at the moment. He is a good man if nothing else. These other three are pure garbage. I am usually a Republican.
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, considering his explanation for voting for a "capitalist libertarian" is literally in the text you quoted previously, I dare say you are wrong.
Or maybe he is using some sort of liberal voodoo on us to obfuscate what he is trying to say. #STOPTHEVOODOO
He wants the LP to hit the ballot threshold. That's fine.
What I'm asking is why someone who voted for Sanders in the Democratic primary would care about the fortunes of the Libertarian Party, given they stand in direct opposition to almost everything Sanders espouses. Acting like it's self-evident simply suggests a grave misunderstanding of what revolutionary socialism and libertarianism actually advocate.
d-usa wrote: I'm 35 and I voted for Sanders in the primary, as have quite a few of my "old" friends and coworkers. If Oklahoma wasn't 100% sure to go for Trump I would vote for Hillary. Since I'm throwing my vote away either way I'm sending it to Johnson to try and help the Libertarian Party qualify to remain on the ballot for 2018.
People who vote for revolutionary socialists on the one hand and capitalist libertarians on the other confuse the everloving feth out of me.
That's fine. People who think that revolutionary socialists try to get elected through democratic means confuse me. To each his own, eh?
I've worked with the Greens, Libertarians, Socialists, and Constitution Party for many years to expand ballot access in Oklahoma. I think that more choices are better, even if I wouldn't want them to be president.
Trump is going to win Oklahoma, no matter what. It doesn't matter if I vote for Hillary or Johnson (my only other options in Oklahoma, due to the restrictive ballot access laws), my vote will be meaningless in the presidential race. So I'm casting my vote to help the cause of "people should have more choices" while trying to help the LP remain on the ballot as one of the options for the next election.
not when you consider the Washington Posts owner and thereby their paper is very anti-trump and allegedly in a super-pac with Clinton, nah I mean them, problem is you used to find neutrality in journalism but its getting harder and harder to find today.
then there is the article they have that say Assault weapons should be banned, thought they would actually look into facts since Assault weapons and Automatic weapons have been banned for awhile now.
Asterios wrote: not when you consider the Washington Posts owner
Jeff Bezos? What about him?
their paper is very anti-trump and
No, they just hold Trump accountable for the fething ignorant verbal diarrhea that spews from his wordhole on a near constant basis. I know he thinks that's "unfair" so I'm sure you do too.
allegedly in a super-pac with Clinton,
Source on that? He's personally supported both Republicans and Democrats (mainly Democrats) and he regularly contributes the the Amazon Super-PAC, but that gives equally to Democrats and Republicans.
nah I mean them, problem is you used to find neutrality in journalism but its getting harder and harder to find today.
Again, you say that right after you start a thread with links to two extremely well known right-leaning news sources. As an avid reader of The Washington Post my entire life, the editorial board has a pretty balanced political stance.
Asterios wrote: not when you consider the Washington Posts owner
Jeff Bezos? What about him?
their paper is very anti-trump and
No, they just hold Trump accountable for the fething ignorant verbal diarrhea that spews from his wordhole on a near constant basis. I know he thinks that's "unfair" so I'm sure you do too.
allegedly in a super-pac with Clinton,
Source on that? He's personally supported both Republicans and Democrats (mainly Democrats) and he regularly contributes the the Amazon Super-PAC, but that gives equally to Democrats and Republicans.
nah I mean them, problem is you used to find neutrality in journalism but its getting harder and harder to find today.
Again, you say that right after you start a thread with links to two extremely well known right-leaning news sources. As an avid reader of The Washington Post my entire life, the editorial board has a pretty balanced political stance.
here a story that is pretty neutral and yet still mentions the ACLU accusing Christians (feel better?):
There’s a limit to how far PAC money can keep a candidate afloat (e.g. Jeb! Bush and Li’l Marco Rubio). For lack of a less conspiratorial word, every special interest needs a mouthpiece.
Not a known political financier, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos took a less direct route to political influence in purchasing the Washington Post in 2013. And though WaPo is a humongous organization, editorial leanings in the media tend to have a top-down effect.
Despite his nearly $55 billion net worth, Bezos has donated relatively small amounts to Democrats ($28,000) and Republicans ($4,000). Some, however, claim he’s similar to other tech entrepreneurs who support a libertarian, small-government platform.
The Post hasn’t formally endorsed Clinton, but its Editorial Board unmistakably condemned her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, in a January article titled “Bernie Sanders’s fiction-filled campaign.”
In the months since the Editorial Board’s unendorsement, the Post has been accused of repeatedly parroting Clinton’s agenda.
as it goes get ready Trump will win the election, for good or bad.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: As an avid reader of The Washington Post my entire life, the editorial board has a pretty balanced political stance.
No, it doesn't.
Also... some serious self awareness failure by HRC:
Hillary ClintonVerified account
@HillaryClinton
If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked.
...
...
... Yeah... 'cuz, anyone under an FBI investigation is super sketchy maaaaan.
No, because I still don't give a feth what some dumbass on Twitter had to say and even less so what some editorial from some gak town in Alabama I don't care about nor live anywhere near to. Feel better?
as to Bezos like I said Allegedly:
Right, you're just asking questions.
as to this pretty neutral article, they kind of disagree with you.
Nothing on Salon is neutral in any sense of the word, especially when it comes to their hardcore love affair with Bernie Sanders.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/28/drudge_koch_soros_bezos_these_4_non_politicians_will_determine_the_next_president/
Jeff Bezos:
There’s a limit to how far PAC money can keep a candidate afloat (e.g. Jeb! Bush and Li’l Marco Rubio). For lack of a less conspiratorial word, every special interest needs a mouthpiece.
Not a known political financier, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos took a less direct route to political influence in purchasing the Washington Post in 2013. And though WaPo is a humongous organization, editorial leanings in the media tend to have a top-down effect.
Despite his nearly $55 billion net worth, Bezos has donated relatively small amounts to Democrats ($28,000) and Republicans ($4,000). Some, however, claim he’s similar to other tech entrepreneurs who support a libertarian, small-government platform.
The Post hasn’t formally endorsed Clinton, but its Editorial Board unmistakably condemned her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, in a January article titled “Bernie Sanders’s fiction-filled campaign.”
In the months since the Editorial Board’s unendorsement, the Post has been accused of repeatedly parroting Clinton’s agenda.
Okay, so the editorial board was rightly critical of Bernie Sanders' "They're all out to get me!" campaign. This proves what exactly? (I mean, other than your own "neutral" article that readily admits that Bezos doesn't really contribute much political money, despite how rich he is.
as it goes get ready Trump will win the election, for good or bad.
whembly wrote: Also... some serious self awareness failure by HRC:
Hillary ClintonVerified account
@HillaryClinton
If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked.
...
...
... Yeah... 'cuz, anyone under an FBI investigation is super sketchy maaaaan.
Well, to be fair those two things aren't really the same. Also, preventing citizens on the terrorist "watch list" from buying guns is fething stupid, especially given how inaccurate it has been found to be.
As an aside, I worked in a TSC facility years ago and it was interesting to say the lease.
No, because I still don't give a feth what some dumbass on Twitter had to say and even less so what some editorial from some gak town in Alabama I don't care about nor live anywhere near to. Feel better?
as to Bezos like I said Allegedly:
Right, you're just asking questions.
as to this pretty neutral article, they kind of disagree with you.
Nothing on Salon is neutral in any sense of the word, especially when it comes to their hardcore love affair with Bernie Sanders.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/28/drudge_koch_soros_bezos_these_4_non_politicians_will_determine_the_next_president/
Jeff Bezos:
There’s a limit to how far PAC money can keep a candidate afloat (e.g. Jeb! Bush and Li’l Marco Rubio). For lack of a less conspiratorial word, every special interest needs a mouthpiece.
Not a known political financier, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos took a less direct route to political influence in purchasing the Washington Post in 2013. And though WaPo is a humongous organization, editorial leanings in the media tend to have a top-down effect.
Despite his nearly $55 billion net worth, Bezos has donated relatively small amounts to Democrats ($28,000) and Republicans ($4,000). Some, however, claim he’s similar to other tech entrepreneurs who support a libertarian, small-government platform.
The Post hasn’t formally endorsed Clinton, but its Editorial Board unmistakably condemned her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, in a January article titled “Bernie Sanders’s fiction-filled campaign.”
In the months since the Editorial Board’s unendorsement, the Post has been accused of repeatedly parroting Clinton’s agenda.
Okay, so the editorial board was rightly critical of Bernie Sanders' "They're all out to get me!" campaign. This proves what exactly? (I mean, other than your own "neutral" article that readily admits that Bezos doesn't really contribute much political money, despite how rich he is.
as it goes get ready Trump will win the election, for good or bad.
whatever its obvious your love affair for Clinton is strong and she can do no wrong, yet glossed over the article i showed where wiki leaks plans on releasing more of her emails. sorry but your love interest is not gonna win, me personally wish there was a better candidate running against her but we have what we have so Go Trump 2016 ! ! !
TheMeanDM wrote: That is fethed up....we should have the freedom to vote for whomever we desire to vote for.
It actually makes some sense. If you can't meet the signature requirements to get on the ballot then you have zero chance of winning the election and counting write-in votes is just a waste of everyone's time. So instead of screwing around trying to count thousands of different write-in candidates (most of them obvious jokes), each with single-digit votes, you just toss those votes in the trash and only count the ones that matter.
There is a cost implication of counting write-in votes.
Someone with a genuine chance of winning as an independent thanks to their high profile and successful campaigning would register and be on the ballot as a formal candidate.
Asterios wrote: whatever its obvious your love affair for Clinton is strong and she can do no wrong, yet glossed over the article i showed where wiki leaks plans on releasing more of her emails. sorry but your love interest is not gonna win, me personally wish there was a better candidate running against her but we have what we have so Go Trump 2016 ! ! !
The simple truth here is that the only people who care about Clinton's emails are conservatives who aren't going to vote for her anyway. People care about issues like the economy, foreign policy, etc. They don't care about a candidate's IT qualifications (or obvious lack thereof) because that's not something that has any meaningful effect on their lives. Most of them probably can't even explain in their own words what was going on with the email server or why it is a bad thing. And when it comes time to weigh "didn't configure an email server properly" vs. "wants to build a giant border wall to keep the icky brown people out" or "laughable fraud and failure at business" it's going to be pretty obvious which of these things are more important.
Now, this could change if there's any evidence that she set up the email server maliciously or for personal gain, but so far it seems to be nothing more than a case of "why you let the IT department do their job and handle your email security" that is only in the news as an opportunity for Our Guy to attack Their Guy.
There is a cost implication of counting write-in votes.
Someone with a genuine chance of winning as an independent thanks to their high profile and successful campaigning would register and be on the ballot as a formal candidate.
Also, spelling. I suck at spelling and would probably screw it up. You then have to pay people to decipher/interpret what they meant, or is that the slippery slope to "Clanton is clearly a vote for Trump. He owns a Car Dealership in Clanton, AL."
Further, do you have to use all of a candidate's name? First, Middle, Last, Maiden? Most people don't know my middle name is legally "Runs-With-Scissors", after the Grammy winning album of the same name.
Peregrine wrote: The simple truth here is that the only people who care about Clinton's emails are conservatives who aren't going to vote for her anyway. People care about issues like the economy, foreign policy, etc. They don't care about a candidate's IT qualifications (or obvious lack thereof) because that's not something that has any meaningful effect on their lives. Most of them probably can't even explain in their own words what was going on with the email server or why it is a bad thing.
Sadly, I think you're probably right. I suppose it takes getting your TS/SCI to understand just how significant a breach of policy, ethics, and the law this was.
Then again? Joe Liberal still thinks Bradley Manning did nothing wrong, so I dunno. Maybe we should add "classified information" to "college and weed" when it comes to what progressives think ought to be free.
Further, do you have to use all of a candidate's name? First, Middle, Last, Maiden? Most people don't know my middle name is legally "Runs-With-Scissors", after the Grammy winning album of the same name.
I dunno about that... I do know that in Oregon a fair number of years back, there was a gubernatorial race in which Donald Duck was the 3rd place vote getter, and tops among write-in candidates
I would have to wonder about using a candidate's full name as well... because if you're writing in a candidate whose name is longer and has odd (for Americans) letter combos, like, say Eisenhower..... would you count a ballot that was simply written in as "Ike" ?
Asterios wrote: whatever its obvious your love affair for Clinton is strong and she can do no wrong, yet glossed over the article i showed where wiki leaks plans on releasing more of her emails. sorry but your love interest is not gonna win, me personally wish there was a better candidate running against her but we have what we have so Go Trump 2016 ! ! !
The simple truth here is that the only people who care about Clinton's emails are conservatives who aren't going to vote for her anyway. People care about issues like the economy, foreign policy, etc. They don't care about a candidate's IT qualifications (or obvious lack thereof) because that's not something that has any meaningful effect on their lives. Most of them probably can't even explain in their own words what was going on with the email server or why it is a bad thing. And when it comes time to weigh "didn't configure an email server properly" vs. "wants to build a giant border wall to keep the icky brown people out" or "laughable fraud and failure at business" it's going to be pretty obvious which of these things are more important.
Now, this could change if there's any evidence that she set up the email server maliciously or for personal gain, but so far it seems to be nothing more than a case of "why you let the IT department do their job and handle your email security" that is only in the news as an opportunity for Our Guy to attack Their Guy.
actually would have to disagree with you, since even her own party has turned against her, and we are talking liberals not conservatives, see too many people who would rather vote for Trump (or Jill stein) then Hillary, and they are Democrats. their moto anyone but Hillary. and their reason, those accursed e-mails.
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems rather strange to turn against Clinton by selecting her as candidate for president.
But obviously for some reason you do not think so.
no it means the majority of her party picked her, but even now there are Democrats who will not vote for her and will even vote for Trump instead of her.
Ouze wrote: What's with Wikileaks teasing what they have? Is this a TV drama during sweeps weeks? Don't tell us, show us.
I agree, but me thinks hes looking for a drum roll and to expand the tense excitement, but i'm curious why he didn't do this earlier when it might have made a difference between her and Sanders?
Asterios wrote: since even her own party has turned against her
Asterios wrote: it means the majority of her party picked her, but even now there are Democrats who will not vote for her and will even vote for Trump instead of her.
Today I learned that having your party against you means the majority of the party votes for you, but not 100% of them.
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems rather strange to turn against Clinton by selecting her as candidate for president.
But obviously for some reason you do not think so.
no it means the majority of her party picked her, but even now there are Democrats who will not vote for her and will even vote for Trump instead of her.
So to be clear, when you said "her own party has turned against her" you did not mean her own party has turned against her, you meant something else.
Please do not spam the forum with this kind of nonsense again. It is against the forum rules.
Asterios wrote: since even her own party has turned against her
Asterios wrote: it means the majority of her party picked her, but even now there are Democrats who will not vote for her and will even vote for Trump instead of her.
Today I learned that having your party against you means the majority of the party votes for you, but not 100% of them.
Trump received 13.6 million votes. Cruz got 7.7 million, Rubio got 3.5 million, and Kasich got 4.2 million.
The majority of Republicans didn't vote for Trump! Republicans have turned on Trump! #DumpTrump!
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems rather strange to turn against Clinton by selecting her as candidate for president.
But obviously for some reason you do not think so.
no it means the majority of her party picked her, but even now there are Democrats who will not vote for her and will even vote for Trump instead of her.
So to be clear, when you said "her own party has turned against her" you did not mean her own party has turned against her, you meant something else.
Please do not spam the forum with this kind of nonsense again. It is against the forum rules.
what I meant usually when a candidate wins the primary for their party their party usually gets in line behind them, and people will vote their own party, but that is not the case with her this time. and while she won the primary she may lose the election.
what I meant usually when a candidate wins the primary for their party their party usually gets in line behind them, and people will vote their own party, but that is not the case with her this time. and while she won the primary she may lose the election.
The EXACT same thing can be said about Trump.
<----- Has voted Republican for President since 1994, but will NOT vote for Trump.
--RNC: The delegates realizes that Trumps would lose in Epic fashion, they vote for any 'not-Trump' to kick off a contested convention.
--DNC: The delegates realizes that the FBI will recommend an indictment (whether DoJ picks it up or not) and pulls the lever for either Sanders or Biden.
what I meant usually when a candidate wins the primary for their party their party usually gets in line behind them, and people will vote their own party, but that is not the case with her this time. and while she won the primary she may lose the election.
The EXACT same thing can be said about Trump.
<----- Has voted Republican for President since 1994, but will NOT vote for Trump.
Or Hillary.
oh thats without a doubt, but the funny thing is many who opposed Trump and still are now getting behind him, very weird politics, on the other hand many of Sanders supporters are demanding he run independent, something tells me this election is going to be a doozy and upset lots of people one way or the other.
what I meant usually when a candidate wins the primary for their party their party usually gets in line behind them, and people will vote their own party, but that is not the case with her this time. and while she won the primary she may lose the election.
The EXACT same thing can be said about Trump.
<----- Has voted Republican for President since 1994, but will NOT vote for Trump.
Or Hillary.
oh thats without a doubt, but the funny thing is many who opposed Trump and still are now getting behind him, very weird politics, on the other hand many of Sanders supporters are demanding he run independent, something tells me this election is going to be a doozy and upset lots of people one way or the other.
Nah. There will be a long and noisy summer, but when November rolls around and America realizes they have to choose between a cold, calculating robot clad in womanskin with decades of political experience vs a insecure, shrieking howler monkey wearing an orange peel with a tenuous grip on reality, well, hail to Prez HRC.
--RNC: The delegates realizes that Trumps would lose in Epic fashion, they vote for any 'not-Trump' to kick off a contested convention.
--DNC: The delegates realizes that the FBI will recommend an indictment (whether DoJ picks it up or not) and pulls the lever for either Sanders or Biden.
Then this guy:
<-------
Gets really excited.
There is no white knight candidate ready to ride in and save either party. There is no credible candidate that could win the nomination at the Republican convention. Nobody thinks that a candidate that couldn't win the nomination or that didn't even try is a legitimate candidate and Trump won enough delegates to win the nomination outright.
Same with Clinton, the DNC can't give the nomination to Sander after Clinton beat him in the primaries and they can't ignore all the voters and the primary process and hand the nomination to Joe Biden just because either. The DNC does have a way out of Clinton's nomination but that requires her to get hit with criminal charges by the DOJ which allow the DNC to give the nomination to Sanders but would upset a lot of Clinton supporters including all of those who are in charge of the DNC.
I think we're heading for an election with 2 candidates with the highest unfavorable ratings ever and we're going to have a low turnout.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Well, my governor is meeting with Trump and is in the running for a VP pick.
Hell, if there is any chance in hell of Trump winning I would vote for him just to get rid of her!
But in reality, it just shows how clueless and out of touch he is. .
--RNC: The delegates realizes that Trumps would lose in Epic fashion, they vote for any 'not-Trump' to kick off a contested convention.
--DNC: The delegates realizes that the FBI will recommend an indictment (whether DoJ picks it up or not) and pulls the lever for either Sanders or Biden.
Then this guy:
<-------
Gets really excited.
There is no white knight candidate ready to ride in and save either party. There is no credible candidate that could win the nomination at the Republican convention. Nobody thinks that a candidate that couldn't win the nomination or that didn't even try is a legitimate candidate and Trump won enough delegates to win the nomination outright.
Same with Clinton, the DNC can't give the nomination to Sander after Clinton beat him in the primaries and they can't ignore all the voters and the primary process and hand the nomination to Joe Biden just because either. The DNC does have a way out of Clinton's nomination but that requires her to get hit with criminal charges by the DOJ which allow the DNC to give the nomination to Sanders but would upset a lot of Clinton supporters including all of those who are in charge of the DNC.
I think we're heading for an election with 2 candidates with the highest unfavorable ratings ever and we're going to have a low turnout.
I beg to differ!
RNC could eventually elect someone like Tom Cotton or Nikki Haley (need to be someone who hasn't ran to quell the ensuing outrage).
DNC? ...right now? I can see Biden do really well. Can't believe I'm saying this now, but compared to the other yahoos... he comes off as the "adult in the room".
If it remains HRC vs Trump? Yeah... I can see record LOW (by percentage) turnout on election day.
d-usa wrote: Well, my governor is meeting with Trump and is in the running for a VP pick.
Hell, if there is any chance in hell of Trump winning I would vote for him just to get rid of her!
But in reality, it just shows how clueless and out of touch he is. .
Can she see Russia from her house?
No, but she was able to see her daughters trailer in the parking lot of the Governor's Mansion and was able to bravely endorse Trump after he locked up the nomination .
But I'm sure she checks all the right boxes:
- Woman
- Governor (and former chairperson of the National Governors Association) of a solid red state
- Lt. Governor
- 2 terms in the House of Representatives
- Graduated from Oklahoma Baptist University
Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.
Did you watch it? It was after meeting with his advisors and the head of the FBI. It was a summary of their assessments. At the end he started focusing on Trump. Maybe you should actually inform yourself before sniping.
Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.
Did you watch it? It was after meeting with his advisors and the head of the FBI. It was a summary of their assessments. At the end he started focusing on Trump. Maybe you should actually inform yourself before sniping.
--RNC: The delegates realizes that Trumps would lose in Epic fashion, they vote for any 'not-Trump' to kick off a contested convention.
--DNC: The delegates realizes that the FBI will recommend an indictment (whether DoJ picks it up or not) and pulls the lever for either Sanders or Biden.
Then this guy:
<-------
Gets really excited.
There is no white knight candidate ready to ride in and save either party. There is no credible candidate that could win the nomination at the Republican convention. Nobody thinks that a candidate that couldn't win the nomination or that didn't even try is a legitimate candidate and Trump won enough delegates to win the nomination outright.
Same with Clinton, the DNC can't give the nomination to Sander after Clinton beat him in the primaries and they can't ignore all the voters and the primary process and hand the nomination to Joe Biden just because either. The DNC does have a way out of Clinton's nomination but that requires her to get hit with criminal charges by the DOJ which allow the DNC to give the nomination to Sanders but would upset a lot of Clinton supporters including all of those who are in charge of the DNC.
I think we're heading for an election with 2 candidates with the highest unfavorable ratings ever and we're going to have a low turnout.
I beg to differ!
RNC could eventually elect someone like Tom Cotton or Nikki Haley (need to be someone who hasn't ran to quell the ensuing outrage).
DNC? ...right now? I can see Biden do really well. Can't believe I'm saying this now, but compared to the other yahoos... he comes off as the "adult in the room".
If it remains HRC vs Trump? Yeah... I can see record LOW (by percentage) turnout on election day.
There is no way that the RNC is taking away the nomination from Trump after he earned enough delegates to win it outright and won the most votes too. The RNC can't deliberately ignore the entire primary process to hand pick a nominee that didn't even campaign in the primaries and expect everyone to just fall in line and turn out to vote for that candidate because, 1. there'll be an R next his/her name 2 it won't be Trump 3. it won't be HRC. That's insanity and exactly the kind of thinking that got the "establishment" in this position in the first place.
There is no way that the RNC is taking away the nomination from Trump after he earned enough delegates to win it outright and won the most votes too. The RNC can't deliberately ignore the entire primary process to hand pick a nominee that didn't even campaign in the primaries and expect everyone to just fall in line and turn out to vote for that candidate because, 1. there'll be an R next his/her name 2 it won't be Trump 3. it won't be HRC. That's insanity and exactly the kind of thinking that got the "establishment" in this position in the first place.
I agree, but I wonder how many more GOP leaders are going to rescind their support for him before this is all over? How many days can Ryan come out and reject Trump's statements before his support becomes untenable?
Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.
He's too busy admonishing legal gun owners.
Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.
That fact does not in any way shape or form put any responsibility for the shootings on the other tens of millions of legal gun owners nor does it convey any moral or legal right to the government to punish the tens of millions of legal gun owners who have done nothing wrong. Guns don't give anyone the desire to murder others, they're inanimate objects they literally cannot do anything on their own or make anyone do anything. Guns didn't make the Tsarnaev brothers blow up people in Boston, didn't make the guy park a car bomb in TImes Square, didn't make the terrorists hijack planes on 9/11. What exactly do you think is going to be accomplished by downplaying the actual motivations behind these shootings and instead focusing on inanimate objects legally owned by tens of millions of law abiding citizens that are using them responsibly?
Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.
Did you watch it? It was after meeting with his advisors and the head of the FBI. It was a summary of their assessments. At the end he started focusing on Trump. Maybe you should actually inform yourself before sniping.
He's giving a speech. Run the damn country. Fire some people.
Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.
how about the killings done with knives? should we ban knives? or the killings done with explosives? oh wait those are banned, oh wait you are going to say the explosives were handmade, guess you never heard of home made weapons, between hardware stores or 3D printing people can make their own guns and bullets, it comes down to the point man has been killing man in massive numbers long before guns were invented, blaming an inanimate object for the killings is a joke, but then again you are probably one of those calling for the banning of Assault Rifles and Automatic Rifles, oh wait those are already banned but you might say AR in AR-15 stands for Assault rifle or Automatic Rifle, it does not it stands for Armalite Rifle the company that made it, so go be sanctimonious and make your stand, but realize you are standing for a joke, the AR-15 is just a rifle that uses basic hunting rifle cartridges it only shoots as fast as the trigger can be pulled.
furthermore out of the few million legal registered gun owners a mere pittance have done any aggressive gun violence, yet all knife killings were done by legal owners.
on another situation, it appears the DNC has been hacked by Russia:
Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.
how about the killings done with knives? should we ban knives? or the killings done with explosives? oh wait those are banned, oh wait you are going to say the explosives were handmade, guess you never heard of home made weapons, between hardware stores or 3D printing people can make their own guns and bullets, it comes down to the point man has been killing man in massive numbers long before guns were invented, blaming an inanimate object for the killings is a joke, but then again you are probably one of those calling for the banning of Assault Rifles and Automatic Rifles, oh wait those are already banned but you might say AR in AR-15 stands for Assault rifle or Automatic Rifle, it does not it stands for Armalite Rifle the company that made it, so go be sanctimonious and make your stand, but realize you are standing for a joke, the AR-15 is just a rifle that uses basic hunting rifle cartridges it only shoots as fast as the trigger can be pulled.
furthermore out of the few million legal registered gun owners a mere pittance have done any aggressive gun violence, yet all knife killings were done by legal owners.
on another situation, it appears the DNC has been hacked by Russia:
Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.
He's too busy admonishing legal gun owners.
Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.
That fact does not in any way shape or form put any responsibility for the shootings on the other tens of millions of legal gun owners nor does it convey any moral or legal right to the government to punish the tens of millions of legal gun owners who have done nothing wrong. Guns don't give anyone the desire to murder others, they're inanimate objects they literally cannot do anything on their own or make anyone do anything. Guns didn't make the Tsarnaev brothers blow up people in Boston, didn't make the guy park a car bomb in TImes Square, didn't make the terrorists hijack planes on 9/11. What exactly do you think is going to be accomplished by downplaying the actual motivations behind these shootings and instead focusing on inanimate objects legally owned by tens of millions of law abiding citizens that are using them responsibly?
But which is easier to get? I could drive down the road, pay $100, and come away with enough supplies to start a a mass shooting. That's with zero knowledge of guns, bombs usually require some knowledge of how to make and use them and are much less readily available.
Do I want to punish legal gun owners? No, but I'd like them to admit that maybe, just MAYBE America has a gun problem, and hiding behind the first Amendment does crap all to help prevent these tragedies.
Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.
how about the killings done with knives? should we ban knives? or the killings done with explosives? oh wait those are banned, oh wait you are going to say the explosives were handmade, guess you never heard of home made weapons, between hardware stores or 3D printing people can make their own guns and bullets, it comes down to the point man has been killing man in massive numbers long before guns were invented, blaming an inanimate object for the killings is a joke, but then again you are probably one of those calling for the banning of Assault Rifles and Automatic Rifles, oh wait those are already banned but you might say AR in AR-15 stands for Assault rifle or Automatic Rifle, it does not it stands for Armalite Rifle the company that made it, so go be sanctimonious and make your stand, but realize you are standing for a joke, the AR-15 is just a rifle that uses basic hunting rifle cartridges it only shoots as fast as the trigger can be pulled.
furthermore out of the few million legal registered gun owners a mere pittance have done any aggressive gun violence, yet all knife killings were done by legal owners.
on another situation, it appears the DNC has been hacked by Russia:
It's a lot harder to kill 50 people and hold another 30 hostage with a knife. Also, for a joke, it sure did a gak ton of damage.
Yeah, a mere pittance have done any gun violence, other than the almost daily individual shootings reported and the several mass shootings we've had this year alone. Yeah, everything's fine.
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems rather strange to turn against Clinton by selecting her as candidate for president.
But obviously for some reason you do not think so.
no it means the majority of her party picked her, but even now there are Democrats who will not vote for her and will even vote for Trump instead of her.
You said her own party turned against her. Now you're dialing it back to ...there are some Democrats, not the majority, who won't vote for her. No kidding, but a few sad sacks are not "the party".
The argument falls further apart when we look at closed vs open primaries.
Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.
He's too busy admonishing legal gun owners.
Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.
That fact does not in any way shape or form put any responsibility for the shootings on the other tens of millions of legal gun owners nor does it convey any moral or legal right to the government to punish the tens of millions of legal gun owners who have done nothing wrong. Guns don't give anyone the desire to murder others, they're inanimate objects they literally cannot do anything on their own or make anyone do anything. Guns didn't make the Tsarnaev brothers blow up people in Boston, didn't make the guy park a car bomb in TImes Square, didn't make the terrorists hijack planes on 9/11. What exactly do you think is going to be accomplished by downplaying the actual motivations behind these shootings and instead focusing on inanimate objects legally owned by tens of millions of law abiding citizens that are using them responsibly?
But which is easier to get? I could drive down the road, pay $100, and come away with enough supplies to start a a mass shooting. That's with zero knowledge of guns, bombs usually require some knowledge of how to make and use them and are much less readily available.
Do I want to punish legal gun owners? No, but I'd like them to admit that maybe, just MAYBE America has a gun problem, and hiding behind the first Amendment does crap all to help prevent these tragedies.
so hiding behind freedom of speech doesn't prevent these? as to bomb making, guessing you never heard of the internet, lots of ways to make bombs on it and then some.
Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.
how about the killings done with knives? should we ban knives? or the killings done with explosives? oh wait those are banned, oh wait you are going to say the explosives were handmade, guess you never heard of home made weapons, between hardware stores or 3D printing people can make their own guns and bullets, it comes down to the point man has been killing man in massive numbers long before guns were invented, blaming an inanimate object for the killings is a joke, but then again you are probably one of those calling for the banning of Assault Rifles and Automatic Rifles, oh wait those are already banned but you might say AR in AR-15 stands for Assault rifle or Automatic Rifle, it does not it stands for Armalite Rifle the company that made it, so go be sanctimonious and make your stand, but realize you are standing for a joke, the AR-15 is just a rifle that uses basic hunting rifle cartridges it only shoots as fast as the trigger can be pulled.
furthermore out of the few million legal registered gun owners a mere pittance have done any aggressive gun violence, yet all knife killings were done by legal owners.
on another situation, it appears the DNC has been hacked by Russia:
It's a lot harder to kill 50 people and hold another 30 hostage with a knife. Also, for a joke, it sure did a gak ton of damage.
Yeah, a mere pittance have done any gun violence, other than the almost daily individual shootings reported and the several mass shootings we've had this year alone. Yeah, everything's fine.
oh so 9/11 never happened? the planes that were taken over by Terrorists with knives? which killed how many people? and if you read what I said Legal gun owners, most of the killings by guns in this country were done by those who did not have the right to own a gun or otherwise.
but on the other hand lets talk about the terrorist on the train in France, he was stopped by unarmed people while he was loaded for bare, how is this possible when he had guns and he was unable to stop unarmed people?
2) See #1; why steal Trump's opposition research? RU could've simply used Google!
3) This further undermines HRC. If Russia is willing to hack the DNC servers... logic suggests they would've certainly hacked HRC's basement server.
maybe they think Trump will be next president, maybe because they have seen Hillary's e-mails and do not think she will be the next president? just rambling.
Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.
He's too busy admonishing legal gun owners.
Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.
That fact does not in any way shape or form put any responsibility for the shootings on the other tens of millions of legal gun owners nor does it convey any moral or legal right to the government to punish the tens of millions of legal gun owners who have done nothing wrong. Guns don't give anyone the desire to murder others, they're inanimate objects they literally cannot do anything on their own or make anyone do anything. Guns didn't make the Tsarnaev brothers blow up people in Boston, didn't make the guy park a car bomb in TImes Square, didn't make the terrorists hijack planes on 9/11. What exactly do you think is going to be accomplished by downplaying the actual motivations behind these shootings and instead focusing on inanimate objects legally owned by tens of millions of law abiding citizens that are using them responsibly?
But which is easier to get? I could drive down the road, pay $100, and come away with enough supplies to start a a mass shooting. That's with zero knowledge of guns, bombs usually require some knowledge of how to make and use them and are much less readily available.
Do I want to punish legal gun owners? No, but I'd like them to admit that maybe, just MAYBE America has a gun problem, and hiding behind the first Amendment does crap all to help prevent these tragedies.
so hiding behind freedom of speech doesn't prevent these? as to bomb making, guessing you never heard of the internet, lots of ways to make bombs on it and then some.
Point was that gun culture is more ingrained in America than bomb culture, hence all the shootings.
Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.
how about the killings done with knives? should we ban knives? or the killings done with explosives? oh wait those are banned, oh wait you are going to say the explosives were handmade, guess you never heard of home made weapons, between hardware stores or 3D printing people can make their own guns and bullets, it comes down to the point man has been killing man in massive numbers long before guns were invented, blaming an inanimate object for the killings is a joke, but then again you are probably one of those calling for the banning of Assault Rifles and Automatic Rifles, oh wait those are already banned but you might say AR in AR-15 stands for Assault rifle or Automatic Rifle, it does not it stands for Armalite Rifle the company that made it, so go be sanctimonious and make your stand, but realize you are standing for a joke, the AR-15 is just a rifle that uses basic hunting rifle cartridges it only shoots as fast as the trigger can be pulled.
furthermore out of the few million legal registered gun owners a mere pittance have done any aggressive gun violence, yet all knife killings were done by legal owners.
on another situation, it appears the DNC has been hacked by Russia:
It's a lot harder to kill 50 people and hold another 30 hostage with a knife. Also, for a joke, it sure did a gak ton of damage.
Yeah, a mere pittance have done any gun violence, other than the almost daily individual shootings reported and the several mass shootings we've had this year alone. Yeah, everything's fine.
oh so 9/11 never happened? the planes that were taken over by Terrorists with knives? which killed how many people? and if you read what I said Legal gun owners, most of the killings by guns in this country were done by those who did not have the right to own a gun or otherwise.
but on the other hand lets talk about the terrorist on the train in France, he was stopped by unarmed people while he was loaded for bare, how is this possible when he had guns and he was unable to stop unarmed people?
As to your train comment, again, one isolated event, shocking. How many weren't able to stopped an armed man? Aurora and Orlando come to mind immediately.
But yeah, Obama wants your guns, not to stop these kinds of tragedies.
Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.
He's too busy admonishing legal gun owners.
Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.
That fact does not in any way shape or form put any responsibility for the shootings on the other tens of millions of legal gun owners nor does it convey any moral or legal right to the government to punish the tens of millions of legal gun owners who have done nothing wrong. Guns don't give anyone the desire to murder others, they're inanimate objects they literally cannot do anything on their own or make anyone do anything. Guns didn't make the Tsarnaev brothers blow up people in Boston, didn't make the guy park a car bomb in TImes Square, didn't make the terrorists hijack planes on 9/11. What exactly do you think is going to be accomplished by downplaying the actual motivations behind these shootings and instead focusing on inanimate objects legally owned by tens of millions of law abiding citizens that are using them responsibly?
But which is easier to get? I could drive down the road, pay $100, and come away with enough supplies to start a a mass shooting. That's with zero knowledge of guns, bombs usually require some knowledge of how to make and use them and are much less readily available.
Do I want to punish legal gun owners? No, but I'd like them to admit that maybe, just MAYBE America has a gun problem, and hiding behind the first Amendment does crap all to help prevent these tragedies.
Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.
how about the killings done with knives? should we ban knives? or the killings done with explosives? oh wait those are banned, oh wait you are going to say the explosives were handmade, guess you never heard of home made weapons, between hardware stores or 3D printing people can make their own guns and bullets, it comes down to the point man has been killing man in massive numbers long before guns were invented, blaming an inanimate object for the killings is a joke, but then again you are probably one of those calling for the banning of Assault Rifles and Automatic Rifles, oh wait those are already banned but you might say AR in AR-15 stands for Assault rifle or Automatic Rifle, it does not it stands for Armalite Rifle the company that made it, so go be sanctimonious and make your stand, but realize you are standing for a joke, the AR-15 is just a rifle that uses basic hunting rifle cartridges it only shoots as fast as the trigger can be pulled.
furthermore out of the few million legal registered gun owners a mere pittance have done any aggressive gun violence, yet all knife killings were done by legal owners.
on another situation, it appears the DNC has been hacked by Russia:
It's a lot harder to kill 50 people and hold another 30 hostage with a knife. Also, for a joke, it sure did a gak ton of damage.
Yeah, a mere pittance have done any gun violence, other than the almost daily individual shootings reported and the several mass shootings we've had this year alone. Yeah, everything's fine.
Where are you going down your road to get enough guns and ammo to do amass shooting for only $100? Seriously I want to know because that is an incredible deal and I want in on it. You can't get a lightly used Glock for less than 3x or 4x that amount and that's with no ammo so you'd have to pistol whip your targets to death with it. It's cheaper and easier to obtain the materials for IEDs and chemical agents from Walmart and other stores.
We don't have a gun problem because guns literally can't cause any problems they're inanimate objects. Get any guns you want in any amount you want and place them anywhere you want and they won't hurt anyone until a person decides to get involved. The number of people that commit crimes with guns is a tiny fraction of the total gun owning population. There is no logical reason to blame inanimate objects for the conscious decisions and actions of people.
I don't see anyone hiding behind the first amendment in regards to any shooting or guns in general.
Nothing can stop people from deciding to hurt others that's a personal individual decision. People hurt others for all kinds of reasons. There's no reason to prevent law abiding people from owning guns simply because a tiny number of people might decide to hurt people with them. That's not how our system works it's reactive not proactive, you're innocent until proven guilty. Nobody gets punished until it can be proven that the person did something wrong until that point everyone gets the benefit of the doubt and gets to enjoy their freedoms.
Automatically Appended Next Post: None of the measures for further gun ownership restrictions put forth by Obama would have prevented the mass shootings so it would appear that whatever his motive is preventing similar occurrences from happening isn't one of them.
Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.
He's too busy admonishing legal gun owners.
Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.
That fact does not in any way shape or form put any responsibility for the shootings on the other tens of millions of legal gun owners nor does it convey any moral or legal right to the government to punish the tens of millions of legal gun owners who have done nothing wrong. Guns don't give anyone the desire to murder others, they're inanimate objects they literally cannot do anything on their own or make anyone do anything. Guns didn't make the Tsarnaev brothers blow up people in Boston, didn't make the guy park a car bomb in TImes Square, didn't make the terrorists hijack planes on 9/11. What exactly do you think is going to be accomplished by downplaying the actual motivations behind these shootings and instead focusing on inanimate objects legally owned by tens of millions of law abiding citizens that are using them responsibly?
But which is easier to get? I could drive down the road, pay $100, and come away with enough supplies to start a a mass shooting. That's with zero knowledge of guns, bombs usually require some knowledge of how to make and use them and are much less readily available.
Do I want to punish legal gun owners? No, but I'd like them to admit that maybe, just MAYBE America has a gun problem, and hiding behind the first Amendment does crap all to help prevent these tragedies.
so hiding behind freedom of speech doesn't prevent these? as to bomb making, guessing you never heard of the internet, lots of ways to make bombs on it and then some.
Point was that gun culture is more ingrained in America than bomb culture, hence all the shootings.
you do realize the 1st. amendment is about freedom of speech?
Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.
how about the killings done with knives? should we ban knives? or the killings done with explosives? oh wait those are banned, oh wait you are going to say the explosives were handmade, guess you never heard of home made weapons, between hardware stores or 3D printing people can make their own guns and bullets, it comes down to the point man has been killing man in massive numbers long before guns were invented, blaming an inanimate object for the killings is a joke, but then again you are probably one of those calling for the banning of Assault Rifles and Automatic Rifles, oh wait those are already banned but you might say AR in AR-15 stands for Assault rifle or Automatic Rifle, it does not it stands for Armalite Rifle the company that made it, so go be sanctimonious and make your stand, but realize you are standing for a joke, the AR-15 is just a rifle that uses basic hunting rifle cartridges it only shoots as fast as the trigger can be pulled.
furthermore out of the few million legal registered gun owners a mere pittance have done any aggressive gun violence, yet all knife killings were done by legal owners.
on another situation, it appears the DNC has been hacked by Russia:
It's a lot harder to kill 50 people and hold another 30 hostage with a knife. Also, for a joke, it sure did a gak ton of damage.
Yeah, a mere pittance have done any gun violence, other than the almost daily individual shootings reported and the several mass shootings we've had this year alone. Yeah, everything's fine.
oh so 9/11 never happened? the planes that were taken over by Terrorists with knives? which killed how many people? and if you read what I said Legal gun owners, most of the killings by guns in this country were done by those who did not have the right to own a gun or otherwise.
but on the other hand lets talk about the terrorist on the train in France, he was stopped by unarmed people while he was loaded for bare, how is this possible when he had guns and he was unable to stop unarmed people?
As to your train comment, again, one isolated event, shocking. How many weren't able to stopped an armed man? Aurora and Orlando come to mind immediately.
But yeah, Obama wants your guns, not to stop these kinds of tragedies.
one incident? you do realize more then one plane was hijacked, also I erred it wasn't knives but razor blades, so in several planes hijackers held hostage and managed to kill hundreds of people with but a razor blade? as to my statement I did not say mass shootings, I said killings by guns, big difference but let us go back to the knives shall we, the largest terrorist attack on this country that killed the most people was done with razor blades, not guns, but razor blades. and those actions killed more people then all of the terrorist attacks in this country involving guns did.
also the last time this Government tried to take away guns and such from people of this land they massacred them (look up Wounded Knee).
Frazzled wrote: Actually the only job he has under the Constitution is the executive function. Giving speeches isn't a requirement. Running the government is.
He should pull his thumb out of his bum and nominate a new Supreme Court judge. You're one short ATM.
Frazzled wrote: Actually the only job he has under the Constitution is the executive function. Giving speeches isn't a requirement. Running the government is.
He should pull his thumb out of his bum and nominate a new Supreme Court judge. You're one short ATM.
that is one thing I never understood people and republicans say they will block any nominee he presents, but he hasn't even tried to present any he has stated he will let the next president choose.
Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.
Did you watch it? It was after meeting with his advisors and the head of the FBI. It was a summary of their assessments. At the end he started focusing on Trump. Maybe you should actually inform yourself before sniping.
He's giving a speech. Run the damn country. Fire some people.
Do you voice this complaint every time he gives the State of the Union, too? Or does this criticism only apply when it's a speech you don't like the content of?
Frazzled wrote: Actually the only job he has under the Constitution is the executive function. Giving speeches isn't a requirement. Running the government is.
He should pull his thumb out of his bum and nominate a new Supreme Court judge. You're one short ATM.
that is one thing I never understood people and republicans say they will block any nominee he presents, but he hasn't even tried to present any he has stated he will let the next president choose.
What are you smoking dude? He has nominated Merrick Garland like two months ago. GOP lawmakers have refused to hold hearings, and most are refusing to even meet with him.
Frazzled wrote: Actually the only job he has under the Constitution is the executive function. Giving speeches isn't a requirement. Running the government is.
He should pull his thumb out of his bum and nominate a new Supreme Court judge. You're one short ATM.
that is one thing I never understood people and republicans say they will block any nominee he presents, but he hasn't even tried to present any he has stated he will let the next president choose.
Frazzled wrote: Actually the only job he has under the Constitution is the executive function. Giving speeches isn't a requirement. Running the government is.
He should pull his thumb out of his bum and nominate a new Supreme Court judge. You're one short ATM.
that is one thing I never understood people and republicans say they will block any nominee he presents, but he hasn't even tried to present any he has stated he will let the next president choose.
What are you smoking dude? He has nominated Merrick Garland like two months ago. GOP lawmakers have refused to hold hearings, and most are refusing to even meet with him.
Asterios wrote: the largest terrorist attack on this country that killed the most people was done with razor blades
It was actually done through ramming airplanes into two large buildings packed with people. *shrug*
Of course the critical component of a mass shooting is firearms. That's why it's a mass shooting instead of a mass stabbing or a mass hammering or whatever else. Firearms make it vastly easier to harm a lot of people very badly on a whim so of course they should be strictly controlled. Having them just sorta float around out there in society is a recipe for disaster.
Asterios wrote: the largest terrorist attack on this country that killed the most people was done with razor blades
It was actually done through ramming airplanes into two large buildings packed with people. *shrug*
Of course the critical component of a mass shooting is firearms. That's why it's a mass shooting instead of a mass stabbing or a mass hammering or whatever else. Firearms make it vastly easier to harm a lot of people very badly on a whim so of course they should be strictly controlled. Having them just sorta float around out there in society is a recipe for disaster.
so planes should be banned? the plane decided to go ram a building of its own accord? the pilot said hey i'm bored lets go ram a building? no it was the guys with the razor blades who decided to ram the buildings with the planes. it was the guys with the razor blades who held a whole plane hostage, and yet jreilly said that is not done since you need a gun to do so.
also do all guns go out doing mass killings? no do all mass killers go do mass killings? why yes, that is why they are called mass killers the critical componant in those mass killings was not the weapons but the people holding the weapons.
Asterios wrote: one incident? you do realize more then one plane was hijacked, also I erred it wasn't knives but razor blades, so in several planes hijackers held hostage and managed to kill hundreds of people with but a razor blade?.
You sure that's the parallel you want to go with? "We can't increase gun control to try and stop mass shootings because 9/11 was done with boxcutters"?
Because after all, after 9/11, we changed a lot of stuff to keep it from happening again. We prevented people from taking blades onto planes, we fortified cockpit doors, we greatly expanded the Air Marshal program, and so on. So, a better parallel if we follow that line of thought would be if 9/11 happened because of hijackers armed with boxcutters, and we said "OH WELL, PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO FIND WAYS TO GET RAZOR BLADES ON PLANES, LOL".
Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.
Did you watch it? It was after meeting with his advisors and the head of the FBI. It was a summary of their assessments. At the end he started focusing on Trump. Maybe you should actually inform yourself before sniping.
He's giving a speech. Run the damn country. Fire some people.
Do you voice this complaint every time he gives the State of the Union, too? Or does this criticism only apply when it's a speech you don't like the content of?
I voice it every time his face is in front of a microphone actually.
Planes do not exist to be slammed into things. That is actually one of the things that plane designers, pilots and related staff specifically believe that planes should not do. it is the opposite of what planes are made for.
The sole reason for firearms is to make it much easier to kill.
Various vehicles and what have you do have their tolls and there's a lot you could say about that (like for example that society shouldn't be designed around cars) but it isn't intellectually honest to liken items with broad utility to items that can only be used to kill.
Asterios wrote: one incident? you do realize more then one plane was hijacked, also I erred it wasn't knives but razor blades, so in several planes hijackers held hostage and managed to kill hundreds of people with but a razor blade?.
You sure that's the parallel you want to go with? "We can't increase gun control to try and stop mass shootings because 9/11 was done with boxcutters"?
Because after all, after 9/11, we changed a lot of stuff to keep it from happening again. We prevented people from taking blades onto planes, we fortified cockpit doors, we greatly expanded the Air Marshal program, and so on. So, a better parallel if we follow that line of thought would be if 9/11 happened because of hijackers armed with boxcutters, and we said "OH WELL, PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO FIND WAYS TO GET RAZOR BLADES ON PLANES, LOL".
but did people call for an outright ban on box cutters? no, did people call for a ban on box cutters? no, the shooting in Orlando was in a gun free zone and wait for it, the perp brought a gun there, the point is guns are only as good as the people obeying them, the ones not obeying the laws could care less what laws you make, it won't stop them.
Rosebuddy wrote: Planes do not exist to be slammed into things. That is actually one of the things that plane designers, pilots and related staff specifically believe that planes should not do. it is the opposite of what planes are made for.
The sole reason for firearms is to make it much easier to kill.
Various vehicles and what have you do have their tolls and there's a lot you could say about that (like for example that society shouldn't be designed around cars) but it isn't intellectually honest to liken items with broad utility to items that can only be used to kill.
same could be said of bows and Arrows and knives and swords, should we ban those too?
Frazzled wrote: Actually the only job he has under the Constitution is the executive function. Giving speeches isn't a requirement. Running the government is.
His track record on doing his job is still far better than Congress
same could be said of bows and Arrows and knives and swords, should we ban those too?
Those weapons require actual effort to use and a close proximity. A fully auto or semi auto AR 15 has range and ease of use to spray and pray or pull the trigger as quickly as possible
These arguments always come up and they're always deflections "Why not ban X too?, Y kills more people a year"
We dont hear about mass stabbings or mass archery shootings, nor do we hear about mass rundowns or plane kamikazies because its A. Harder to do due to physical skill or personal risk to the scumbag. B. It actually takes more effort to acquire something like a Car (which is the go to strawman for these arguments, not only does a credit check and loan application take longer to purchase a car, you also need a prerequisite drivers license to operate it)
America has a gun problem because of the NRA having the government in its pocket. Why does someone need their own personal arsenal, because they're so called "Patriots" that gotta keep the guv'ment in check? Really?
Guns are made for one thing, and one thing only, to kill.
Swords and knives etc are restricted in lots of the countries that have significant gun controls, the countries that don't have constant gun massacres, accidents and a high murder rate, and so on.
same could be said of bows and Arrows and knives and swords, should we ban those too?
Guns made those things obsolete. The idea of "sword control" is laughable because swords are relics. Knives are of course still around because they are multipurpose tools but their days of ehe cutting edge technology are long gone. It's also a hell of a lot more difficult to kill dozens and dozens of people with any of those.
Not that swords are widely available, anyway.
And never mind that most gun deaths are either due to suicide or people getting real angry with each other, both which are times when having a death button nearby is a terrible idea. If someone really wants another person dead there isn't that much that can be done to stop them from having a good go at it but impulse deaths are greatly decreased by making it difficult to follow through. Then there's the accidents.
Basically the benefits of having lots of firearms everywhere are outweighed by the negatives. Someone thinking that their revolver is pretty neat simply isn't worth it.
same could be said of bows and Arrows and knives and swords, should we ban those too?
Guns made those things obsolete. The idea of "sword control" is laughable because swords are relics. Knives are of course still around because they are multipurpose tools but their days of ehe cutting edge technology are long gone. It's also a hell of a lot more difficult to kill dozens and dozens of people with any of those.
Not that swords are widely available, anyway.
swords are still pretty available where ever even local flea markets, as to them being obsolete guns are going that way with explosives replacing them.
same could be said of bows and Arrows and knives and swords, should we ban those too?
Guns made those things obsolete. The idea of "sword control" is laughable because swords are relics. Knives are of course still around because they are multipurpose tools but their days of ehe cutting edge technology are long gone. It's also a hell of a lot more difficult to kill dozens and dozens of people with any of those.
Not that swords are widely available, anyway.
And never mind that most gun deaths are either due to suicide or people getting real angry with each other, both which are times when having a death button nearby is a terrible idea. If someone really wants another person dead there isn't that much that can be done to stop them from having a good go at it but impulse deaths are greatly decreased by making it difficult to follow through. Then there's the accidents.
Basically the benefits of having lots of firearms everywhere are outweighed by the negatives. Someone thinking that their revolver is pretty neat simply isn't worth it.
The US constitution, state constitutions, and SCOTUS disagree with you on that. So do tens of millions of gun owning US citizens. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and nobody is required to buy or own firearms.
Basically the benefits of having lots of firearms everywhere are outweighed by the negatives. Someone thinking that their revolver is pretty neat simply isn't worth it.
That statement has nothing to do with safety either. The federal constitution along with the marjority of state constitution explicitly guarantees the right of people to own firearms. That puts a high value on right of people to own firearms and means that in theory every citizen in the country can own firearms and means that the people that wrote those constitutions and the people that still follow them and continue to preserve the right to own firearms value the widespread possession of firearms. That means to a great many people the benefits of widespread firearms ownership exceeds any and all of the negatives of widespread firearm ownership. That fact opposes Rosebuddy's opinion.
TheAuldGrump wrote: As for why the Bill of Rights protects the right to bear arms...
It was to put down slave revolts.
Yay, us.
One of the wonderful things about our forefathers - they kept records of what they were doing, and why they were doing it.
Which means that there are primary sources.
The Auld Grump
Actually the right to bare arms was put in so that if the Government should ever become to powerful it is up to the people to revolt and tear it down. get it right.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[79]
its in the part of the security of a Free State, if a Government gets all too powerful and oppresive then this is no longer a free state but an oppresive regime.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[79]
its in the part of thesecurity of a Free State, if a Government gets all too powerful and oppresive then this is no longer a free state but an oppresive regime.
Or it could be that there wasnt an established Federal Military, they needed a well regulated militia to defend them selves, yknow with pesky ol Britain still smarting from losing their colonies.
Frazzled wrote: Actually the only job he has under the Constitution is the executive function. Giving speeches isn't a requirement. Running the government is.
He should pull his thumb out of his bum and nominate a new Supreme Court judge. You're one short ATM.
He has nominated one.
The Senate, in their "advise" role, stated that they'll wait till after the election.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[79]
its in the part of thesecurity of a Free State, if a Government gets all too powerful and oppresive then this is no longer a free state but an oppresive regime.
Or it could be that there wasnt an established Federal Military, they needed a well regulated militia to defend them selves, yknow with pesky ol Britain still smarting from losing their colonies.
The country did not have a permanent army, and the constitution provides no basis for one. It authorized the raising of an army for a war or conflict, and then at the end, that army would be disbanded. A permanent professional army is a relatively new thing in the US.
The country did not have a permanent army, and the constitution provides no basis for one. It authorized the raising of an army for a war or conflict, and then at the end, that army would be disbanded. A permanent professional army is a relatively new thing in the US.
but at the Time they did have a Regular army, they did not have a full time army like you said till 1784.
Prestor Jon wrote: The federal constitution along with the marjority of state constitution explicitly guarantees the right of people to own firearms. That puts a high value on right of people to own firearms and means that in theory every citizen in the country can own firearms and means that the people that wrote those constitutions and the people that still follow them and continue to preserve the right to own firearms value the widespread possession of firearms.
It doesn't say that, it says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Emphasis on well regulated. The definition of "regulate" is:
1a: to govern or direct according to rule 1b: to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to
3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of
So no, it's not stated anywhere in the constitution that US citizens have a right to unrestricted access to firearms. To the contrary, regulation is explicitly spelled out by the founding fathers as being a prerequisite for citizens having guns.
Putting down slave revolts, Indian uprisings, rebels, and other outlaws on a dangerous frontier seem to be the prime motive for the 2nd.
You will notice the few times citizens rose up with their arms the Feds were pretty quick to stomp that noise out. Whiskey Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion, John Brown's raid, the Confederacy, etc.
Prestor Jon wrote: The federal constitution along with the marjority of state constitution explicitly guarantees the right of people to own firearms. That puts a high value on right of people to own firearms and means that in theory every citizen in the country can own firearms and means that the people that wrote those constitutions and the people that still follow them and continue to preserve the right to own firearms value the widespread possession of firearms.
It doesn't say that, it says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Emphasis on well regulated. The definition of "regulate" is:
1a: to govern or direct according to rule
1b: to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to
3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of
So no, it's not stated anywhere in the constitution that US citizens have a right to unrestricted access to firearms. To the contrary, regulation is explicitly spelled out by the founding fathers as being a prerequisite for citizens having guns.
I'm pretty sure that there is no consistency between where the commas were located in any number of drafts and the final document. At this point it is pretty safe to say that we are making way more out of them than any of the people who wrote the thing.
d-usa wrote: I'm pretty sure that there is no consistency between where the commas were located in any number of drafts and the final document. At this point it is pretty safe to say that we are making way more out of them than any of the people who wrote the thing.
maybe, maybe not but the Supreme court has decided they are two separate things.
d-usa wrote: I'm pretty sure that there is no consistency between where the commas were located in any number of drafts and the final document. At this point it is pretty safe to say that we are making way more out of them than any of the people who wrote the thing.
maybe, maybe not but the Supreme court has decided they are two separate things.
They can change their mind at any point in time, and the US can repeal the 2nd whenever they want.
d-usa wrote: I'm pretty sure that there is no consistency between where the commas were located in any number of drafts and the final document. At this point it is pretty safe to say that we are making way more out of them than any of the people who wrote the thing.
maybe, maybe not but the Supreme court has decided they are two separate things.
They can change their mind at any point in time, and the US can repeal the 2nd whenever they want.
problem is repealing the 2nd. Amendment would be like declaring a revolution right then and there, no Government official would even dream of trying since it would be the end of this country.
as to the Supreme court it has been thru too many trials now for them to overturn it this case has come before them with both sides in power and in power in the supreme court and has held steadfast, so doubt any would change it in the future.
d-usa wrote: I'm pretty sure that there is no consistency between where the commas were located in any number of drafts and the final document. At this point it is pretty safe to say that we are making way more out of them than any of the people who wrote the thing.
maybe, maybe not but the Supreme court has decided they are two separate things.
They can change their mind at any point in time, and the US can repeal the 2nd whenever they want.
problem is repealing the 2nd. Amendment would be like declaring a revolution right then and there, no Government official would even dream of trying since it would be the end of this country.
If the 2nd ever gets repealed, it will be because enough people wanted it repealed and they voted for politicians willing to repeal it. It wouldn't be the end of the country any more than repealing slavery was.
The only people who will refuse to obey it are people who love their guns more than the constitution.
as to the Supreme court it has been thru too many trials now for them to overturn it this case has come before them with both sides in power and in power in the supreme court and has held steadfast, so doubt any would change it in the future.
There really has only been one case that settled the "punctuation" question, and the number of rulings doesn't always serve as an indication for future rulings. Segregation was ruled constitutional many times, until it wasn't. Bans on interracial marriage were ruled legal, until it wasn't. Gun rulings have gone back and forth. The SCOTUS is always free to change their mind, and whatever their ruling is it will be constitutional since that is how rulings work.
Prestor Jon wrote: The federal constitution along with the marjority of state constitution explicitly guarantees the right of people to own firearms. That puts a high value on right of people to own firearms and means that in theory every citizen in the country can own firearms and means that the people that wrote those constitutions and the people that still follow them and continue to preserve the right to own firearms value the widespread possession of firearms.
It doesn't say that, it says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Emphasis on well regulated. The definition of "regulate" is:
1a: to govern or direct according to rule
1b: to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to
3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of
So no, it's not stated anywhere in the constitution that US citizens have a right to unrestricted access to firearms. To the contrary, regulation is explicitly spelled out by the founding fathers as being a prerequisite for citizens having guns.
You created that argument out of nothing it's a complete straw man. At no point in my post did I ever make the claim that the 2A granted unlimited access to firearms. My post makes factual statements that the federal constitution, the majority of state constitutions and SCotUS all guarantee the right of US citizens to own firearms. It is an incontrovertible truth that the 2A and state constitutions enshrine the right of individual ownership firearms and therefore they support the widespread and ubiquitous ownership if firearms. Those documents and the people who wrote them and continue to abide by them all agree that the benefits of firearms ownership outweighs the negatives. That truth opposes Rosebudy's opinion that was presented as a declarative statement.
The amount of regulation imposed on private firearm ownership that is constitutional is a wholly separate issue that was not addressed in my post.
d-usa wrote: I'm pretty sure that there is no consistency between where the commas were located in any number of drafts and the final document. At this point it is pretty safe to say that we are making way more out of them than any of the people who wrote the thing.
maybe, maybe not but the Supreme court has decided they are two separate things.
They can change their mind at any point in time, and the US can repeal the 2nd whenever they want.
problem is repealing the 2nd. Amendment would be like declaring a revolution right then and there, no Government official would even dream of trying since it would be the end of this country.
If the 2nd ever gets repealed, it will be because enough people wanted it repealed and they voted for politicians willing to repeal it. It wouldn't be the end of the country any more than repealing slavery was.
The only people who will refuse to obey it are people who love their guns more than the constitution.
as to the Supreme court it has been thru too many trials now for them to overturn it this case has come before them with both sides in power and in power in the supreme court and has held steadfast, so doubt any would change it in the future.
There really has only been one case that settled the "punctuation" question, and the number of rulings doesn't always serve as an indication for future rulings. Segregation was ruled constitutional many times, until it wasn't. Bans on interracial marriage were ruled legal, until it wasn't. Gun rulings have gone back and forth. The SCOTUS is always free to change their mind, and whatever their ruling is it will be constitutional since that is how rulings work.
Slaves were never part of the Constitution only the freeing of them, and I repeat we saw how the alcohol ban went, it got repealed really fast. another thing that was not a constitutional amendment that granted us a right to drink, and when slaves were talked about freeing that still started a civil war, i repeat i do not see any Government nor the people removing the 2nd. amendment it would lead to all out war. and one the Government would not win. also segregation was not a constitutional amendment either.
Slaves were never part of the Constitution only the freeing of them
Have you tried reading the thing, or studied any of the history of the thing?
There are quite a number of things that are only in the constitution strictly because of slavery.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote: , i repeat i do not see any Government nor the people removing the 2nd. amendment it would lead to all out war. and one the Government would not win.
I'm just going to assume you don't realize how amendments get passed, so I'll help you out.
If the 2nd ever gets repealed, it will be because enough people voted for pro-repeal politicians that 2/3rds of the House and 2/3rds of the Senate voted in favor of this amendment and enough people voted in state elections to elect enough pro-repeal legislators that 38 state legislatures voted in favor of the amendment.
So if it ever gets repealed, it will be because there is widespread popular support in favor of repeal.
Do I think it's going to happen anytime soon? Heck no. But it's silly to pretend it couldn't happen or that it would be the result of a mandate by a very clear majority of the public if it did.
Prestor Jon wrote: The federal constitution along with the marjority of state constitution explicitly guarantees the right of people to own firearms. That puts a high value on right of people to own firearms and means that in theory every citizen in the country can own firearms and means that the people that wrote those constitutions and the people that still follow them and continue to preserve the right to own firearms value the widespread possession of firearms.
It doesn't say that, it says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Emphasis on well regulated. The definition of "regulate" is:
1a: to govern or direct according to rule
1b: to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to
3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of
So no, it's not stated anywhere in the constitution that US citizens have a right to unrestricted access to firearms. To the contrary, regulation is explicitly spelled out by the founding fathers as being a prerequisite for citizens having guns.
Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.
Did you watch it? It was after meeting with his advisors and the head of the FBI. It was a summary of their assessments. At the end he started focusing on Trump. Maybe you should actually inform yourself before sniping.
I finally watched it.
I fething despise Obama more than ever...
He's more angry at Trump that he is at the death of those 50 victims.
That whole speech can be distilled to:
America... I'm am disappointed in you.
feth him. He's now making me reconsider my #NeverTrump stance just to fething spite Obama. FETH!
d-usa wrote: I'm pretty sure that there is no consistency between where the commas were located in any number of drafts and the final document. At this point it is pretty safe to say that we are making way more out of them than any of the people who wrote the thing.
maybe, maybe not but the Supreme court has decided they are two separate things.
They can change their mind at any point in time, and the US can repeal the 2nd whenever they want.
problem is repealing the 2nd. Amendment would be like declaring a revolution right then and there, no Government official would even dream of trying since it would be the end of this country.
If the 2nd ever gets repealed, it will be because enough people wanted it repealed and they voted for politicians willing to repeal it. It wouldn't be the end of the country any more than repealing slavery was.
The only people who will refuse to obey it are people who love their guns more than the constitution.
as to the Supreme court it has been thru too many trials now for them to overturn it this case has come before them with both sides in power and in power in the supreme court and has held steadfast, so doubt any would change it in the future.
There really has only been one case that settled the "punctuation" question, and the number of rulings doesn't always serve as an indication for future rulings. Segregation was ruled constitutional many times, until it wasn't. Bans on interracial marriage were ruled legal, until it wasn't. Gun rulings have gone back and forth. The SCOTUS is always free to change their mind, and whatever their ruling is it will be constitutional since that is how rulings work.
It isn't easy to get established legal precedents overturned and historically SCOTUS has been hesitant to do it. It also becomes more difficult as time passes and more cases in the lower courts are decided based upon the precedent. The more cases that are decided based on rulings like Heller and McDonald the harder it will be to overturn those rulings because doing so would have a large ripple effect on those other cases and SCOTUS doesn't want to take responsibility for that kind of chaos in no small part because it generates a need for more SCOTUS rulings and their docket is limited.
Poor choice of words, actually, as the content you linked has quite a few significant restrictions as to who is considered to be in the militia, thus making it rather distinguishable from "the people". I get your point, but a better comparison could have been made.
Poor choice of words, actually, as the content you linked has quite a few significant restrictions as to who is considered to be in the militia, thus making it rather distinguishable from "the people". I get your point, but a better comparison could have been made.
See secton (b)(2).
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Poor choice of words, actually, as the content you linked has quite a few significant restrictions as to who is considered to be in the militia, thus making it rather distinguishable from "the people". I get your point, but a better comparison could have been made.
See secton (b)(2).
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Did you miss most of (A)?
"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
So, guys under 17, over 45, (or not able-bodied) as well as all women not in the National Guard, are not in the militia. Definitely not "the people" but only a small part of the "the people".
Edit: So, (A) defined the militia, while (B) merely divides those who meet that definition into two classes.
Edit Edit: Eh, also off-topic at this point, so I'm moving on. As I said, I agree with your point, I just think you could have used better words.
Poor choice of words, actually, as the content you linked has quite a few significant restrictions as to who is considered to be in the militia, thus making it rather distinguishable from "the people". I get your point, but a better comparison could have been made.
See secton (b)(2).
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Did you miss most of (A)?
"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
but he is referring to the unorganized militia which while a militia it is not organized in other senses, but i could be wrong.
It isn't easy to get established legal precedents overturned and historically SCOTUS has been hesitant to do it. It also becomes more difficult as time passes and more cases in the lower courts are decided based upon the precedent. The more cases that are decided based on rulings like Heller and McDonald the harder it will be to overturn those rulings because doing so would have a large ripple effect on those other cases and SCOTUS doesn't want to take responsibility for that kind of chaos in no small part because it generates a need for more SCOTUS rulings and their docket is limited.
I agree with that. The current ruling from the 9th probably has the highest potential for making any significant impact at a national level, but even then it's still a high uncertainty that SCOTUS would do anything with it.
Slaves were never part of the Constitution only the freeing of them
Have you tried reading the thing, or studied any of the history of the thing?
There are quite a number of things that are only in the constitution strictly because of slavery.
ok then show me, what Constitutional Amendments said we have a right to slaves? what Constitutional laws are there because of slaves?
The Connecticut Compromise: bicameral legislature with one chamber based on population and one based on equality between states.
The Three-Fifths Compromise: how slaves are to be counted for purposes of representation in the House and electoral votes.
Article 1, Section 9: prohibiting any attempts to ban slavery until 1808.
The Fugitive Slave Clause: Free states had to return fugitive slaves to their owners.
I'm shedding a tear for whatever educational system failed you.
and what Constitutional Amendment are those?
No. Subject Date submitted for Ratification[4] Date ratification completed[4] Ratification time span[5]
1st Prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 2 years
2 months
20 days
2nd Protects the right to keep and bear arms. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 2 years
2 months
20 days
3rd Places restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent, prohibiting it during peacetime. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 2 years
2 months
20 days
4th Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause as determined by a neutral judge or magistrate. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 2 years
2 months
20 days
5th Sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 2 years
2 months
20 days
6th Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 2 years
2 months
20 days
7th Provides for the right to trial by jury in certain civil cases, according to common law. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 2 years
2 months
20 days
8th Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 2 years
2 months
20 days
9th Protects rights not enumerated in the Constitution. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 2 years
2 months
20 days
10th Reinforces the principle of federalism by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the states or the people through the Constitution. September 25, 1789 December 15, 1791 2 years
2 months
20 days
11th Makes states immune from suits from out-of-state citizens and foreigners not living within the state borders; lays the foundation for sovereign immunity. March 4, 1794 February 7, 1795 11 months
3 days
12th Revises presidential election procedures. December 9, 1803 June 15, 1804 6 months
6 days
13th Abolishes slavery, and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. January 31, 1865 December 6, 1865 10 months
6 days
ok then show me, what Constitutional Amendments said we have a right to slaves? what Constitutional laws are there because of slaves?
and you have yet to show what Constitutional Amendments and/or laws (same thing) you do know what the Constitution is right? consists of preamble, 7 Articles, Bill of rights, and 27 amendments?
or at least that is what Cornell says is the Constitution:
Are the three parts of the constitution that explicitly deal with slavery, and the bicameral legislature established by Section 1 is the result of the compromise regarding the form of representation in the legislature due to the influence slaves had on the population of certain states.
All to the contrary to the argument that slaves were not part of the constitution and that no laws were written because of them.
d-usa wrote: So the answer is yes, we have reached the point of the discussion where you simply change the argument to suit your needs.
That's what, twice today? First the Democratic Party betraying Clinton and now slavery not being in the constitution?
I wonder if we will manage to get a hat trick today.
and you have yet to show where Slavery is permitted in the Constitution. you have shown US laws and such, but not Constitutional laws and/or Amendments, it sounds like you are trying to back pedal out of an argument you know you are wrong on.
Just drop this topic. Whether it was or wasn't in the constitution is no longer relevant to this thread, and won't be after another 2 pages of arguing either. Thanks
Kilkrazy wrote: Three fallacies in one rebuttal! This could be a new record for the OT Forum.
Hardly. The e-mail thing is a big deal. If I were to do what she did, I'd be in jail - or, if not, only because a judge had decided not to put me there.
Democrats and their allies were out for blood when Republicans "mishandled" classified information, but have withdrawn into mocking indifference once it's their guy doing it. Some, I suppose, could charitably just be said to have absolutely no clue what they're talking about, due to being in jobs where they never handle classified information, or not having bothered to look up the rules for those who do.
Donald Trump is infallible — like the pope but with more raw sexual charisma. If Donald Trump appears to be wrong in a story, either because of a statement or an action, or some combination of the two, it should be rewritten so that he is not wrong. A good baseline for what is fair and honest coverage is that fair and honest coverage depicts Donald Trump as the shining, golden god he is, envied of men and beloved of women. Unfair, dishonest coverage does not depict Donald Trump this way.
2. Style is as important as substance. A good post about Donald Trump includes at least one of the following words: “huge,” “great,” “manly,” “terrific,” “incredible,” “fantastic,” “remarkable,” “big”/”bigly,” “immense,” “girthy,” “magisterial,” “gargantuan,” “tumescent.” Ideally, this word would be in the headline. A bad post about Donald Trump includes the words or phrases “puny,” “dangerous,” “Godwin’s law,” “cocktail shrimp in a toupee,” “husk of dead skin and hyperbole,” “garbage fart,” “what results if you accidentally leave Guy Fieri in a microwave.”
3. Does Donald Trump contradict himself? Very well; he contradicts himself. Donald Trump is large. Donald Trump contains multitudes.
4. Who among us has not been in the position where what he means to say is something wise and temperate and what actually comes out of his mouth is a garbage fart? Equipped with this knowledge, it is often best to take into account what Donald Trump should have said and to report that instead of what he actually did say. (The great historian Thucydides used to do this, which is why Pericles’s Funeral Oration is so lovely.)
5. Remember the transitive property of Trump: Whenever Donald Trump loves something, it loves him back. Donald Trump loves women. Therefore, women love Donald Trump. Donald Trump loves Hispanics. Therefore, Hispanics love Donald Trump. Any polls that obscure these truths should be disregarded.
6. Donald Trump’s hair is real. Well, no. “Real” is putting it too mildly. Donald Trump’s hair is a fact that transcends reality or unreality, not to be questioned, merely to be admired, like the triune nature of God or the singular beauty and excellence of a Donald Trump building.
7. Two words: LARGE HANDS.
8. Facts are often biased against Donald Trump and should be used sparingly in reporting, if at all. Think of them as a garnish, not an entree.
9. Donald Trump’s word suffices. Fact-checking is at best gauche and at worst treasonous. What is fact? Donald Trump speaks truth, which is bigger than fact. Donald Trump loves you. You love Donald Trump.
10. Donald Trump believes that criticism is healthy. As Noel Coward put it, Donald Trump can take any amount of criticism, so long as it is unqualified praise.
Some Frequently Asked Questions on Fair Trump Coverage
Q: Can I just print a transcript of what Donald Trump actually said?
A: No. This is very mean and bad. What Donald Trump actually says is, of course, uniformly good and correct. But sometimes if you just write it out and give it to people to see, they will not think so. Therefore, this is to be avoided.
Q: What is a fair question?
A: An example of a fair question is “Donald Trump, why are you so good at business?” An example of an unfair or gotcha question is “Why did Lincoln succeed?”
Q: Can I describe what someone did at a Donald Trump rally?
A: Yes, if that someone is Donald Trump and what that someone did was “be awesome without interruption.”
Q: What if Donald Trump didn’t answer my question?
A: Not true. Donald Trump has given you the answer. Your question was not correct. This isn’t hard, just think of it like “Jeopardy!”
Q: In the statement issued by the Donald Trump campaign stating that it will stop credentialing Post reporters, the campaign said, “Mr. Trump does not mind a bad story, but it has to be honest.” What is a bad story that is honest that Mr. Trump would not mind?
A: A story about Hillary Clinton.
I gave the Obama administration gak for not engaging Fox News...
No one should engage Fox News. Put the remote down and slowly back away from the television.
So, Trump needs to quite whining and toughen up.
HRC only does interviews once a blue moon, so she's not much better in this regard.
It's not a certified Whembly post if there isn't a dig against Clinton in it!
Kilkrazy wrote: Three fallacies in one rebuttal! This could be a new record for the OT Forum.
Hardly. The e-mail thing is a big deal. If I were to do what she did, I'd be in jail - or, if not, only because a judge had decided not to put me there.
Democrats and their allies were out for blood when Republicans "mishandled" classified information, but have withdrawn into mocking indifference once it's their guy doing it. Some, I suppose, could charitably just be said to have absolutely no clue what they're talking about, due to being in jobs where they never handle classified information, or not having bothered to look up the rules for those who do.
There is a clear party allegiance divide about the email investigation. Being a non-US, non-Democrat with admitted lefty leanings, I will try to give an idea of why Democrats are not so concerned about it as Republicans.
The simplest explanation is “The boy who cried wolf.”
Republicans have for over 25 years been bringing accusations of scandals against the Clintons. The only bit that has stuck was that Bill Clinton was found to have got a blow job off Monica Lewinsky and lied to conceal it. This to Republicans may be the crime of the century, but a lot of people see it as a natural, understandable concern for personal privacy in the face of politically motivated intrusion. At worst, a bit sleazy, but being realistic how often have powerful men in history got a blow job off a sexy woman?
To go further, though, several of the more recent “scandals” have turned out to be complete nonsense. Benghazi fell apart when it turned out the main “prosecution witness” had been lying about it. That didn’t stop Republicans from going on about it for months more, until they got hold of the email affair.
The Rape Trial and Clinton University accusations both turned out quickly to be skimpy fabrications.
The history therefore can be seen to paint the Clintons as the victims of a long-standing political campaign of muck-raking and lies. This is not a convincing introduction to the latest “scandal”.
Republicans may well say that all the above simply demonstrates the Clinton's uncanny ability to sideslip away from real scandals, dodge dirt and shut down embarrassing enquiries by their machievellian power network of sleaze and corruption.
Or maybe it's because there really isn't anything substantive to find out.
Now we see a similar pattern of creeping accusation, factoid releases and no substantial action. Why that's happening I don't know. It could be that the FBI don't want to go into the next administration having made an enemy of the president either by finding them guilty of email fraud or by not finding their opponent guilty of email fraud. It could be that the charges against Clinton are trivial and technical.
At any rate, there doesn't seem to be a clear, open and shut case.
Democrats and their allies were out for blood when Republicans "mishandled" classified information, but have withdrawn into mocking indifference once it's their guy doing it. Some, I suppose, could charitably just be said to have absolutely no clue what they're talking about, due to being in jobs where they never handle classified information, or not having bothered to look up the rules for those who do.
I've never heard of any of these Republican scandals, and they don't come up in the first three pages of Google on the topic. Do you have some links that I could follow up?
Kilkrazy wrote: There is a clear party allegiance divide about the email investigation.
No kidding.
Republicans have for over 25 years been bringing accusations of scandals against the Clintons. The only bit that has stuck was that Bill Clinton was found to have got a blow job off Monica Lewinsky and lied to conceal it.
You left out "under oath." Perjury, in other words.
This to Republicans may be the crime of the century, but a lot of people see it as a natural, understandable concern for personal privacy in the face of politically motivated intrusion. At worst, a bit sleazy, but being realistic how often have powerful men in history got a blow job off a sexy woman?
I have no problem with Clinton lying about it, or having done it in the first place, and I don't like the people who do. Once it becomes an issue of testifying under oath, though, that's where things change.
Or maybe it's because there really isn't anything substantive to find out.
What everyone seems to forget when using the "boy who cried wolf" analogy is that there eventually was a wolf.
It could be that the FBI don't want to go into the next administration having made an enemy of the president either by finding them guilty of email fraud or by not finding their opponent guilty of email fraud.
It could be, but if so, that's an even bigger issue.
It could be that the charges against Clinton are trivial and technical.
Trivial is one thing; technically breaking the law, though? That's...breaking the law.
I've never heard of any of these Republican scandals, and they don't come up in the first three pages of Google on the topic. Do you have some links that I could follow up?
Of course you have. Scooter Libby's the biggest and best example from the Bush years, and it's the most analogous, since it also involves deliberate, knowing evasion of confidentiality rules. I'll grant that there have been more under Obama, though I'll leave it up to you to decide if Democratic administrations just have a more careless approach to SCI.
Technically you break the law by driving at 71 mph in a 70 mph zone. This clearly is not the same as getting drunk, evading police in a 100 mph chase and crashing into a bus queue where you injure or kill 17 people.
I am aware that there have been more prosecutions for security breaches in the past eight years than under a previous administration. This of course may have something to do with the wider use of digital communications and the huge increase in security laws since 2001. It might also indicate that the current administration takes greater care with security and is more determined to enforce it.
I shall now go and look up the Scooter Libby affair, which I was previously ignorant about.
Seaward wrote: You left out "under oath." Perjury, in other words.
Sure. But it was perjury about an "investigation" that was nothing more than a blatant attempt to take down a political opponent, asking questions that nobody had any business expecting answers to. Is it a crime? Yes. Should anyone really care? No.
Trivial is one thing; technically breaking the law, though? That's...breaking the law.
Yes, it's still breaking the law. But considering different levels of "breaking the law" is something we do all the time. We offer plea bargains, decline to charge people, etc.
Scooter Libby's the biggest and best example from the Bush years, and it's the most analogous, since it also involves deliberate, knowing evasion of confidentiality rules.
Except it isn't analogous at all. Libby leaked information about a political opponent for his party's gain, and was then prosecuted for lying about it (not for the original leak). There's no similar situation with Clinton. The rules for handling classified information were broken, but there's no credible argument that it was done for any malicious or selfish reasons. Nor is she being charged with obstruction of justice over it. One is an issue with corruption, the other is a reminder of why computer security decisions should be left to the experts.
Peregrine wrote: Sure. But it was perjury about an "investigation" that was nothing more than a blatant attempt to take down a political opponent, asking questions that nobody had any business expecting answers to. Is it a crime? Yes. Should anyone really care? No.
I disagree. We certainly should care. Perjury is perjury. The investigation that led to it may have been bs, but there's no exception to truthful testimony for that.
Yes, it's still breaking the law. But considering different levels of "breaking the law" is something we do all the time. We offer plea bargains, decline to charge people, etc.
That's certainly true. Treating knowingly failing to secure classified information the same as you would speeding is myopic, though.
Except it isn't analogous at all.
It's analogous in that there was a deliberate disregard for SCI in both cases.
You're correct that Libby went down for obstruction charges rather than that, though. I suppose it's also analogous in that both committed crimes for which they weren't prosecuted.
And of course it's analogous in the sense that Democrats lost their minds over Libby's deliberate mishandling of classified information while scoffing over Clinton's, and Republicans did the opposite.
I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure if I'm getting this right, but are you arguing that improperly storing classified information is the same thing as deliberately leaking it? Because that's what it's reading as from here.
I used to think that American presidential elections were a goldmine of entertainment and comedy, and with Trump's toupee on centre stage, they still are to a certain extent.
But you guys have nothing compared to our EU referendum
Rival fleets* are clashing on the Thames (river that runs through London's heart) as the IN and OUT campaigns fight for the future of Great Britain
The last time we had fleets clashing on the Thames was the 1680s when the Dutch sailed up and sunk the Royal Navy.
Bottom line: the American presidential campaign needs to up its game
* fishing boats, dinghies, and anything that floats
Goliath wrote: I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure if I'm getting this right, but are you arguing that improperly storing classified information is the same thing as deliberately leaking it? Because that's what it's reading as from here.
Then you're not aware that both disseminated SCI they didn't have clearance to disseminate in ways that are illegal to do so.
Probably not. Mrs Clinton's email system existed in a grey area of the law - and one that has been changed several times since she left office.
...
The State Department inspector general report, released in May 2016, found that Mrs Clinton's email system violated government policy and that she did not receive permission prior to instituting it - approval that would not have been granted had she asked. Such transgressions, however, do not constitute criminal conduct.
...
A separate FBI investigation, however, is looking into whether her handling of information later deemed classified was illegal. Its report will be provided to the Justice Department, which would then determine whether to file charges. The Washington Post has reported that government officials have found little evidence that Mrs Clinton has "maliciously flouted classification rules".
Goliath wrote: I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure if I'm getting this right, but are you arguing that improperly storing classified information is the same thing as deliberately leaking it? Because that's what it's reading as from here.
Then you're not aware that both disseminated SCI they didn't have clearance to disseminate in ways that are illegal to do so.
Then you aren't aware that Richard Armitage was actually was the source of the leak, not Scooter, which he was never tried for.
Kilkrazy wrote: That has not yet been determined, reported by the BBC.
If she did what she's reported to have done, then yes, it has been. You can't just strip classification headers when it's convenient to do so.
Where is it reported she stripped classification headers? I hadn't seen that. Also, if the classified information originated in the state Dept., she can strip the classification.
Kilkrazy wrote: That has not yet been determined, reported by the BBC.
If she did what she's reported to have done, then yes, it has been. You can't just strip classification headers when it's convenient to do so.
So you totally ignore the motives between the two things just to get your dings in...
So the question is asked again...
Libby leaked information about a political opponent for his party's gain, and was then prosecuted for lying about it (not for the original leak). There's no similar situation with Clinton. The rules for handling classified information were broken, but there's no credible argument that it was done for any malicious or selfish reasons
Kilkrazy wrote: That has not yet been determined, reported by the BBC.
If she did what she's reported to have done, then yes, it has been. You can't just strip classification headers when it's convenient to do so.
Where is it reported she stripped classification headers? I hadn't seen that. Also, if the classified information originated in the state Dept., she can strip the classification.
Because the secured fax wasn't working, she emailed her staff to remove the markings and fax it via non-secured. That's what Seaward was referring to...
And no, many of the emails in question originated outside of her department.
Folks who works with SCI/TS stuff... Hillary's handling is seriously stuff of nightmares and the FBI/Intelligence communities don't feth around with this. What we *should* be asking is this: Do we want to have two sets of laws? One for the connected and one for joe-schmoe? If yes, then HRC and staff easily skates.
If no: Then you're watching the FBI recommending an indictment of not just HRC... but her staff as well.
That's why I qualified the emails originating from State, Whembly.
I like how you talk out of two sides of your mouth with this. On the one hand, the FBI don't feth around with this. On the other, we might have two sets of laws for those in power and those who aren't. It seems like you are setting yourself up to be correct no matter what the FBI determines to state that you were right.
Answer me this, if the FBI does not recommend indictment at the end of the day, will you drop all discussion of this email business because "they don't feth around"?
I challenge you to find a more distinguished living musician than Dave Grohl. Did I like everyone of his songs? No, but they each felt different and had interesting lyrics. That and the guy is just absolutely down to earth, no feths given. Probably one of the most likeable human beings.
