The email/server scandal matters to me because of the principles involved not the technical details of the matter. Public officials are required to use government email/servers because they're public servants and therefore the public needs a certain level of transparency to make accountability possble. There is no reason for public officials to be doing their official governmnt jobs behind the backs of the people. Why did HRC need to do routine SecState business on her own private email/server when the other public employees she was communitcating with were all using ther government email/srvers? Why does HRC not want her work as SecState to be as transparent and accountable as it is required to be? Why hide? People who want to avoid transparency and accountability shouldn't be holding public office and they definitely shouldn't be holding the highest/most powerful public office.
Prestor Jon wrote: The email/server scandal matters to me because of the principles involved not the technical details of the matter. Public officials are required to use government email/servers because they're public servants and therefore the public needs a certain level of transparency to make accountability possble. There is no reason for public officials to be doing their official governmnt jobs behind the backs of the people. Why did HRC need to do routine SecState business on her own private email/server when the other public employees she was communitcating with were all using ther government email/srvers? Why does HRC not want her work as SecState to be as transparent and accountable as it is required to be? Why hide? People who want to avoid transparency and accountability shouldn't be holding public office and they definitely shouldn't be holding the highest/most powerful public office.
I agree with this sentiment in principle, (release the alien information already! ) but it does tend to run counter to the narrative of why this is supposedly a big deal: that Clinton put at risk information which should not have been made public.
Yes, the specific details of what was emailed when is important, but the principle is more important in terms of presidential material, and I think the motive was immediately apparent: an end-run around the Freedom of Information Act, like so many other elected officials before her.
Part of me hopes she loses for that reason alone, if that would make elected officials stop thinking it's OK to run the people's offices like your own private fiefdoms. However, when running against a dude with a mind-blowing 70% disapproval rate...
Prestor Jon wrote: The email/server scandal matters to me because of the principles involved not the technical details of the matter. Public officials are required to use government email/servers because they're public servants and therefore the public needs a certain level of transparency to make accountability possble. There is no reason for public officials to be doing their official governmnt jobs behind the backs of the people. Why did HRC need to do routine SecState business on her own private email/server when the other public employees she was communitcating with were all using ther government email/srvers? Why does HRC not want her work as SecState to be as transparent and accountable as it is required to be? Why hide? People who want to avoid transparency and accountability shouldn't be holding public office and they definitely shouldn't be holding the highest/most powerful public office.
I agree with this sentiment in principle, (release the alien information already! ) but it does tend to run counter to the narrative of why this is supposedly a big deal: that Clinton put at risk information which should not have been made public.
That's because the people making the most noise about it are also politicians, just from the opposing party. Politicians don't really want transparency and accountability that would make it harder for them to do all those shady things that make them personally wealthy and powerful while working for "the people." Republicans in DC know that if they ramp up the righteous indignation over HRC's avoiding govt oversight the first thing Democrats will do is start looking at how those Republicans handle their offcial correspondence. Politicians say they want to be transparent with their work but then they're always trying to dodge FOIA requests, hiding all kinds of stuff behind security clearances and doing backroom deals and off the record meetings/correspondence etc. Politicians always have to twist things up and play semantic games to make sure that they only make accusations against the other side from a position of "strength." So Republicans, believing that they're strong on national security attack Clinton based upon TS protocols instead of the principle of transparency and accountability. Just like they attacked Bill on the affair because they're supposedly the party of family values and morality instead of pushing the narrative that PotUS has to tell the truth under oath regardless of the subject matter because PotUS serves the people and the people are entitled to the truth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Yes, the specific details of what was emailed when is important, but the principle is more important in terms of presidential material, and I think the motive was immediately apparent: an end-run around the Freedom of Information Act, like so many other elected officials before her.
Part of me hopes she loses for that reason alone, if that would make elected officials stop thinking it's OK to run the people's offices like your own private fiefdoms. However, when running against a dude with a mind-blowing 70% disapproval rate...
Both nominees are terrible. The more I see of either of them or listen to them talk the less I want either one in charge of anything. HRC comes across as an entitled back room dealing establishment career politician and Trump comes off as a bloviating egomaniacal reality tv star. It's insane.
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.
I'm not talking both sides of my mouth as they're both questions that we need to answer.
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"?
No. Because, we cannot function as a society if the powerful/well connected are implicitedly allowed to get away from breaking the law.
Ouze wrote: Yes, the specific details of what was emailed when is important, but the principle is more important in terms of presidential material, and I think the motive was immediately apparent: an end-run around the Freedom of Information Act, like so many other elected officials before her.
Part of me hopes she loses for that reason alone, if that would make elected officials stop thinking it's OK to run the people's offices like your own private fiefdoms. However, when running against a dude with a mind-blowing 70% disapproval rate...
And now, you've distilled my delimma...
I've railed against HRC on this issue... then, I turnaround and realize "FETH!" that means Trump's President!
Kilkrazy wrote: In what way is the excerpt from the Cornell site relevant to the Clinton case?
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
Unclassified material doesn’t need to be transmitted by secure fax... if the material wasn’t classified, Sullivan would have had them faxed normally.
Right?
With that in mind: HRC ordering aides to remove headers to facilitate the transmission over unsecured means strongly suggests that the information was not unclassified. in addition, removing headers to avoid transmission security would be a violation of 18 USC 793 anyway, which does not require material to be classified... only sensitive to national security.
This is just an EMAIL about what to do with 'faxing' sensitive information across unsecured lines. Simply turning it to "no identifying heading" and send "nonsecured" is a huge no-no.
So, if her operation is that nonchalant about faxing sensitive information... well... you can finish where I'm going with this....
Besides... *the smoking gun* is literally her private email server.
Isn't it also perfectly legal and appropriate to remove the classified information from papers that also contain talking point, thereby making what's left non-classified and able to send non-secure?
Edit: to clarify non-papers are a specific thing, basically just a memo or informal note. So:
“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” might very well be an intentional order to violate all kinds of laws. But it could also very well mean
"I need these talking points. If you cannot sent me the entire classified document via secure means, write me a memo with the talking points and no classified information and send it to me via non-secure means."
It's not the smoking gun people like to pretend it is.
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.
I'm not talking both sides of my mouth as they're both questions that we need to answer.
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"?
No. Because, we cannot function as a society if the powerful/well connected are implicitedly allowed to get away from breaking the law.
Here's the thing though, if the FBI does not recommend indictment, that would mean they found no evidence of her breaking the law since "they don't feth around". Again, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Of course, since you have already determined the outcome, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by your answer.
d-usa wrote: Isn't it also perfectly legal and appropriate to remove the classified information from papers that also contain talking point, thereby making what's left non-classified and able to send non-secure?
No... that action doesn't "declassify" it... there's a formal process to declassify information.
Furthermore, all DoS talking points are classified (mostly 'confidential' the lowest ranking, but still in the classified bucket).
d-usa wrote: Isn't it also perfectly legal and appropriate to remove the classified information from papers that also contain talking point, thereby making what's left non-classified and able to send non-secure?
No... that action doesn't "declassify" it... there's a formal process to declassify information.
Furthermore, all DoS talking points are classified (mostly 'confidential' the lowest ranking, but still in the classified bucket).
My point is that classifying a document doesn't make it relevant to national defence. If the document that Clinton wanted declassified was not in fact relevant to national defence, then the law from Cornell didn't apply to it.
As far as I am aware, the material Clinton wanted to see was merely a list of talking points. This doesn't immediately spring to mind as being national defence material.
d-usa wrote: Isn't it also perfectly legal and appropriate to remove the classified information from papers that also contain talking point, thereby making what's left non-classified and able to send non-secure?
No... that action doesn't "declassify" it... there's a formal process to declassify information.
Furthermore, all DoS talking points are classified (mostly 'confidential' the lowest ranking, but still in the classified bucket).
See my edit above.
I know it won't matter, but it's there anyway.
I still think that's still a "no no".
You not supposed to "talk around" the information in an unsecured manner. (I think that's what it's called)
And frankly, they have access to secured government communication means... its just that they chose not to use it.
My point is that classifying a document doesn't make it relevant to national defence. If the document that Clinton wanted declassified was not in fact relevant to national defence, then the law from Cornell didn't apply to it.
As far as I am aware, the material Clinton wanted to see was merely a list of talking points. This doesn't immediately spring to mind as being national defence material.
Um... that law isn't just "national defense materials"... read the whole section.
d-usa wrote: Isn't it also perfectly legal and appropriate to remove the classified information from papers that also contain talking point, thereby making what's left non-classified and able to send non-secure?
No... that action doesn't "declassify" it... there's a formal process to declassify information.
Furthermore, all DoS talking points are classified (mostly 'confidential' the lowest ranking, but still in the classified bucket).
There is, it is laid out by presidential executive order and part of it is
"PART 3 -- DECLASSIFICATION AND DOWNGRADING
Sec. 3.1. Authority for Declassification. (a) Information shall be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification under this order.
(b) Information shall be declassified or downgraded by:
(1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification authority;" and
"
(3) a supervisory official of either the originator or his or her successor in function, if the supervisory official has original classification authority; 4) officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official of the originating agency."
So if the classification was established within the Dept. Of State, Clinton, by being the head of the Dept. can declassify anything that originated from that department. The only way I can see her having a legal problem here is with classified information not originating from the DOS, which there could very well be. I just don't have all the facts, and neither do you. However, unlike you, I am withholding my opinion of guilt until I do get the facts or until those who know them make a determination.
My point is that classifying a document doesn't make it relevant to national defence. If the document that Clinton wanted declassified was not in fact relevant to national defence, then the law from Cornell didn't apply to it.
As far as I am aware, the material Clinton wanted to see was merely a list of talking points. This doesn't immediately spring to mind as being national defence material.
Um... that law isn't just "national defense materials"... read the whole section.
I have, and as far as I can see, it does all relate to "information respecting the national defense", "anything connected with the national defense", etc.
As well as this the law speaks about "intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States", and so on. Also, "transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it," Obviously Clinton was entitled to receive the information because it was intended for her use.
Therefore, unless the material is real defence material and Clinton intended to hand it to a foreign power or maybe believed it would be intercepted, this section of law does not seem to apply in this case.
As said previously, the actual facts of the case as far as we know them are that Clinton needed a list of talking points for use at a conference or meeting of some kind, and could not get hold of it through the secure fax machine because of a technical problem, so she asked for it to be sent to her a different way. (But apparently it was not sent anyway.)
From what I can see, there isn't really anything substantive in this specific allegation. I am aware there are others being put forward, of course.
The difficulty this is causing me is that Clinton is being accused of some kind of misdealing that when looked at in detail does not seem to be supported by the actual facts. This worries me because if the people throwing up this kind of thing against Clinton had substantiated facts to work with, presumably they would use them. There have been several previous attempts to throw various kinds of supposed mis-dealings on to Clinton that turned out to be essentially incorrect or even fabrications. (Crying wolf, as I termed it earlier on.)
Therefore I hope you can see why I am uneasy in my mind that this one is going to turn out to be another load of smoke and mirrors.
Yeah, I saw the 7 in 10 poll and mentioned it on the previous page (though I didn't link it).
I hope you remember this later. For a long time, you've been saying HRC was unbeatable and that the election would only be a coronation. I want you to remember later that HRC has very high unfavorables, was mired in scandal, and was totally beatable and that the only reason she won, presuming she does, was that the GOP selected the most odious candidate I've ever seen in my life as their nominee.
Yeah, I saw the 7 in 10 poll and mentioned it on the previous page (though I didn't link it).
I hope you remember this later. For a long time, you've been saying HRC was unbeatable and that the election would only be a coronation. I want you to remember later that HRC has very high unfavorables, was mired in scandal, and was totally beatable and that the only reason she won, presuming she does, was that the GOP selected the most odious candidate I've ever seen in my life as their nominee.
You would be correct there!
Hence why I'm hoping for some DNC/RNC convention chaos in nominating the NotTrumps/NotHillary....
Otherwise, HRC will be the next President and I really hope the GOP keeps both the House and Senate.
Unclassified material doesn’t need to be transmitted by secure fax... if the material wasn’t classified, Sullivan would have had them faxed normally.
Right?
With that in mind: HRC ordering aides to remove headers to facilitate the transmission over unsecured means strongly suggests that the information was not unclassified. in addition, removing headers to avoid transmission security would be a violation of 18 USC 793 anyway, which does not require material to be classified... only sensitive to national security.
This is just an EMAIL about what to do with 'faxing' sensitive information across unsecured lines. Simply turning it to "no identifying heading" and send "nonsecured" is a huge no-no.
So, if her operation is that nonchalant about faxing sensitive information... well... you can finish where I'm going with this....
Besides... *the smoking gun* is literally her private email server.
Exactly. There is no legitimate reason for her to have a private email server for SecState business. It was a deliberate move to avoid transparency and accountability. HRC didn't want the public to know how she was running the State Dept. she didn't want her emails on govt servers, didn't want to use a govt email address. Why the secrecy? Was she mixing in personal business like her upcoming presidential campaign or Clinton Foundation business or just making deals/decisions that she didn't want the public to know for public relations reasons? It doesn't matter why she did, it only matters that somebody that concerned with avoiding scrutiny and accountability shouldn't be in public office. If you're going to take public money to serve in public office then you have to be transparent enough for the public to hold you accountable for you actions. If HRC doesn't want the public to know what she's doing as SecState then she is by definition not trustworthy enough to hold the office or any other public office.
Eh, I severely doubt they will keep the Senate, D's tend do much better in the general than the R's. Doubt they will take the house though. Realistically, this means that you get a moderate to replace Scalia (Garland), and Ginsburg gets to retire and have a liberal judge replace her. Because you know she'd just live to 150 out of pure willpower rather than have a conervative, or an anti-abortion judge, replace her.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Eh, I severely doubt they will keep the Senate, D's tend do much better in the general than the R's. Doubt they will take the house though. Realistically, this means that you get a moderate to replace Scalia (Garland), and Ginsburg gets to retire and have a liberal judge replace her. Because you know she'd just live to 150 out of pure willpower rather than have a conervative, or an anti-abortion judge, replace her.
Meh, Rove v Wade won't be overturned anytime soon if ever and even if it did there wouldn't be much practical difference.
My point is that classifying a document doesn't make it relevant to national defence. If the document that Clinton wanted declassified was not in fact relevant to national defence, then the law from Cornell didn't apply to it.
As far as I am aware, the material Clinton wanted to see was merely a list of talking points. This doesn't immediately spring to mind as being national defence material.
Um... that law isn't just "national defense materials"... read the whole section.
I have, and as far as I can see, it does all relate to "information respecting the national defense", "anything connected with the national defense", etc.
As well as this the law speaks about "intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States", and so on. Also, "transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it," Obviously Clinton was entitled to receive the information because it was intended for her use.
Therefore, unless the material is real defence material and Clinton intended to hand it to a foreign power or maybe believed it would be intercepted, this section of law does not seem to apply in this case.
As said previously, the actual facts of the case as far as we know them are that Clinton needed a list of talking points for use at a conference or meeting of some kind, and could not get hold of it through the secure fax machine because of a technical problem, so she asked for it to be sent to her a different way. (But apparently it was not sent anyway.)
From what I can see, there isn't really anything substantive in this specific allegation. I am aware there are others being put forward, of course.
The difficulty this is causing me is that Clinton is being accused of some kind of misdealing that when looked at in detail does not seem to be supported by the actual facts. This worries me because if the people throwing up this kind of thing against Clinton had substantiated facts to work with, presumably they would use them. There have been several previous attempts to throw various kinds of supposed mis-dealings on to Clinton that turned out to be essentially incorrect or even fabrications. (Crying wolf, as I termed it earlier on.)
Therefore I hope you can see why I am uneasy in my mind that this one is going to turn out to be another load of smoke and mirrors.
Again... look at section (f). If you don't think there's nothing there... by all means. I believe I've made mine.
I'll reiterate. The simple existence of Hillary's personal email server *is* evidence that there's something here. That is a lot of work just to have her own, exclusively used communication tool as Secretary of State.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Eh, I severely doubt they will keep the Senate, D's tend do much better in the general than the R's. Doubt they will take the house though. Realistically, this means that you get a moderate to replace Scalia (Garland), and Ginsburg gets to retire and have a liberal judge replace her. Because you know she'd just live to 150 out of pure willpower rather than have a conervative, or an anti-abortion judge, replace her.
Meh, Rove v Wade won't be overturned anytime soon if ever and even if it did there wouldn't be much practical difference.
No, there would be a pretty big differnfence. It would go from states restricting it to extreme amounts to strait up bans. Think SAFE act vs all guns banned.
Hrm, the SAFE act is only one facet, try getting *any* gun in NYC. Obtaining a handgun there is more paperwork and effort than going through Federal channels to buy an anti tank cannon...literally, and can be denied for something as simole as a parking violation, the NYC model is pretty close to a straight up ban the way youd get for Abortion in places like Oklahima if Roe were overturned
Kilkrazy wrote: Section f relates to national defence, so your argument appears to be wrong.
:sigh: Why do I feel like we're arguing RAWs in YMDC?
d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or ... (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
I'll submit that it's likely section (d) that her actions falls under more the f), but then again... we don't know exactly what was on the fax itself as it's CLASSIFIED.
She ordered someone to REMOVE the "classification headings" and just send it nonsecured.
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.
I'm not talking both sides of my mouth as they're both questions that we need to answer.
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"?
No. Because, we cannot function as a society if the powerful/well connected are implicitedly allowed to get away from breaking the law.
Here's the thing though, if the FBI does not recommend indictment, that would mean they found no evidence of her breaking the law since "they don't feth around". Again, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Of course, since you have already determined the outcome, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by your answer.
and yet you have already determined the outcome too, as it goes the whole thing is still under investigation and with the DoJ holding onto information till November (that they said would be released for the investigation in June or July) this smells of coverup and backroom dealing.
as to classification it doesn't matter if it was about what some private ate for lunch if it is classified as Classified it is classified and not to be sent thru unsecured sources, its not a matter of iuf HRC will be charged, but what she will be charged with, will it effect her running for office? hard to say legal wise, will she do time? highly doubt it.
Please don't attach non wargaming images to Dakka. You need to use offsite hosting if you wish to share any such images.
Reds8n
Co'tor Shas wrote: Eh, I severely doubt they will keep the Senate, D's tend do much better in the general than the R's. Doubt they will take the house though. Realistically, this means that you get a moderate to replace Scalia (Garland), and Ginsburg gets to retire and have a liberal judge replace her. Because you know she'd just live to 150 out of pure willpower rather than have a conervative, or an anti-abortion judge, replace her.
Meh, Rove v Wade won't be overturned anytime soon if ever and even if it did there wouldn't be much practical difference.
No, there would be a pretty big differnfence. It would go from states restricting it to extreme amounts to strait up bans. Think SAFE act vs all guns banned.
I think you over estimate the desire of state legislatures to ban abortion but we can agree to disagree on that. The greater point is that regardless of when Ginsburg retires/dies it is highly unlikely that the complex chain of events needed to overturn the established precedent set by Roe v Wade will come to pass.
Prestor Jon 690357 8716949 nullI wrote:think you over estimate the desire of state legislatures to ban abortion but we can agree to disagree on that. The greater point is that regardless of when Ginsburg retires/dies it is highly unlikely that the complex chain of events needed to overturn the established precedent set by Roe v Wade will come to pass.
I don't see how you can possibly be saying this with a straight face. You're saying you don't think there will be any practical change in abortion rights in the US if Roe v Wade is overturned, and for evidence, you point to the state legislators you don't think want to ban abortion - the same ones that have spent years chipping away at (legal) abortion?
I think the most reasonable, expected outcome of Roe v Wade being overturned is a total ban on abortion in at least 12 states within 90 days.
@asterios: I haven't determined anything. I am presuming her innocence (as the law demands) until her guilt is proven in a court of law, not a court of public opinion.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @asterios: I haven't determined anything. I am presuming her innocence (as the law demands) until her guilt is proven in a court of law, not a court of public opinion.
but right now its not about total innocence, its about what she is innocent of and not, it all comes down to is how much of a breakdown of security occurred, (and if she sent any classified memos to the DNC) last part is a funny after the year long hacking by Russians on their computers.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @asterios: I haven't determined anything. I am presuming her innocence (as the law demands) until her guilt is proven in a court of law, not a court of public opinion.
but right now its not about total innocence, its about what she is innocent of and not, it all comes down to is how much of a breakdown of security occurred, (and if she sent any classified memos to the DNC) last part is a funny after the year long hacking by Russians on their computers.
So what law(s) exactly has she been charged or convicted of here in a court of law that allows you to make this claim? Oh that's right, we aren't even past the recommending indictment stage yet. I'm not saying it isn't possible or even likely that she won't be indicted or that she didn't break laws, but you are putting the cart before the horse here.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @asterios: I haven't determined anything. I am presuming her innocence (as the law demands) until her guilt is proven in a court of law, not a court of public opinion.
but right now its not about total innocence, its about what she is innocent of and not, it all comes down to is how much of a breakdown of security occurred, (and if she sent any classified memos to the DNC) last part is a funny after the year long hacking by Russians on their computers.
So what law(s) exactly has she been charged or convicted of here in a court of law that allows you to make this claim? Oh that's right, we aren't even past the recommending indictment stage yet. I'm not saying it isn't possible or even likely that she won't be indicted or that she didn't break laws, but you are putting the cart before the horse here.
thats what I said evidence shows she did send classified information over a non-secured line, the question is what charges will be levied against her, which depends on the breach of security involved but until the investigation is done we will never know, they may have several things they will bring her up on, but until the full investigation is done no charges will be brought until they know the full scope of the transgressions.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @asterios: I haven't determined anything. I am presuming her innocence (as the law demands) until her guilt is proven in a court of law, not a court of public opinion.
but right now its not about total innocence, its about what she is innocent of and not, it all comes down to is how much of a breakdown of security occurred, (and if she sent any classified memos to the DNC) last part is a funny after the year long hacking by Russians on their computers.
So what law(s) exactly has she been charged or convicted of here in a court of law that allows you to make this claim? Oh that's right, we aren't even past the recommending indictment stage yet. I'm not saying it isn't possible or even likely that she won't be indicted or that she didn't break laws, but you are putting the cart before the horse here.
thats what I said evidence shows she did send classified information over a non-secured line, the question is what charges will be levied against her, which depends on the breach of security involved but until the investigation is done we will never know, they may have several things they will bring her up on, but until the full investigation is done no charges will be brought until they know the full scope of the transgressions.
And if/when she is indicted and convicted I will be more than happy to admit she broke the law (because maybe, possibly somehow Biden could get in which would be far preferable) If that doesn't happen, would you be as willing to say she didn't? I somehow don't think so.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @asterios: I haven't determined anything. I am presuming her innocence (as the law demands) until her guilt is proven in a court of law, not a court of public opinion.
but right now its not about total innocence, its about what she is innocent of and not, it all comes down to is how much of a breakdown of security occurred, (and if she sent any classified memos to the DNC) last part is a funny after the year long hacking by Russians on their computers.
So what law(s) exactly has she been charged or convicted of here in a court of law that allows you to make this claim? Oh that's right, we aren't even past the recommending indictment stage yet. I'm not saying it isn't possible or even likely that she won't be indicted or that she didn't break laws, but you are putting the cart before the horse here.
thats what I said evidence shows she did send classified information over a non-secured line, the question is what charges will be levied against her, which depends on the breach of security involved but until the investigation is done we will never know, they may have several things they will bring her up on, but until the full investigation is done no charges will be brought until they know the full scope of the transgressions.
And if/when she is indicted and convicted I will be more than happy to admit she broke the law (because maybe, possibly somehow Biden could get in which would be far preferable) If that doesn't happen, would you be as willing to say she didn't? I somehow don't think so.
to be honest I have no clue about the whole situation nor care, also Biden will not join the race, think he already said that. if Clinton is removed the only option is Sanders. and Sanders is still a wild card, I hear reports of him working with Clinton to stop Trump and consolidate the Democrat party, then I just read a report where he is saying the Democrat party needs to be tore down and reformed with the removal of the DNC head and so forth http://www.politicususa.com/2016/06/14/bernie-sanders-demands-democrats-unreasonable.html , so I still think he will be running independent in this race if not the Democrat choice.
Kilkrazy wrote: Section f relates to national defence, so your argument appears to be wrong.
:sigh:
Why do I feel like we're arguing RAWs in YMDC?
d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or ...
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
I'll submit that it's likely section (d) that her actions falls under more the f), but then again... we don't know exactly what was on the fax itself as it's CLASSIFIED.
She ordered someone to REMOVE the "classification headings" and just send it nonsecured.
If you don't know what the material was why are you claiming it was military or security secrets that would prejudice the national defence and that Clinton deliberately conspired to reveal it to a foreign power?
Ok, the fact that you are still hoping/thinking Sanders will run independent means you can't be taken seriously anymore.
As to Biden, if Clinton drops out due to indictment after she is declared the primary winner at the convention (and honestly, I don't see how it could happen before given the timelines here) the Democratic Party chair would hold a vote and the winner would fill the seat. He would win that and take it in a heartbeat (as he really wanted to run but wasn't ready because of his son's death). At that point you could pretty much kiss the presidency, Senate, and likely the House goodbye if you are on the GOP's side.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Ok, the fact that you are still hoping/thinking Sanders will run independent means you can't be taken seriously anymore.
As to Biden, if Clinton drops out due to indictment after she is declared the primary winner at the convention (and honestly, I don't see how it could happen before given the timelines here) the Democratic Party chair would hold a vote and the winner would fill the seat. He would win that and take it in a heartbeat (as he really wanted to run but wasn't ready because of his son's death). At that point you could pretty much kiss the presidency, Senate, and likely the House goodbye if you are on the GOP's side.
Oh... i wouldn't be so sure that Sanders wouldn't run as an Independent candidate (Green Party??!?). But, right now.. the DNC is doing everything right to try to bring him into the fold.
As for Biden v. Trump? I agree 100% with your prediction.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Ok, the fact that you are still hoping/thinking Sanders will run independent means you can't be taken seriously anymore.
As to Biden, if Clinton drops out due to indictment after she is declared the primary winner at the convention (and honestly, I don't see how it could happen before given the timelines here) the Democratic Party chair would hold a vote and the winner would fill the seat. He would win that and take it in a heartbeat (as he really wanted to run but wasn't ready because of his son's death). At that point you could pretty much kiss the presidency, Senate, and likely the House goodbye if you are on the GOP's side.
but you are missing the point if such a thing did occur and Biden was selected Sanders would feel slighted then run as independent which would divide the democratic vote maybe not down the middle but enough to cost the Democrats the presidency.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Ok, the fact that you are still hoping/thinking Sanders will run independent means you can't be taken seriously anymore.
As to Biden, if Clinton drops out due to indictment after she is declared the primary winner at the convention (and honestly, I don't see how it could happen before given the timelines here) the Democratic Party chair would hold a vote and the winner would fill the seat. He would win that and take it in a heartbeat (as he really wanted to run but wasn't ready because of his son's death). At that point you could pretty much kiss the presidency, Senate, and likely the House goodbye if you are on the GOP's side.
but you are missing the point if such a thing did occur and Biden was selected Sanders would feel slighted then run as independent which would divide the democratic vote maybe not down the middle but enough to cost the Democrats the presidency.
He would feel slighted, but Biden and Sanders have a long friendship so I don't know if Sanders would really try to get in his way. Considering that however, I could see Biden refusing it on that basis. Regardless, this is all just wish listing on my part. Wait for the inevitable Clinton indictment first, which should be simple based on how clear it all evidently is.
Prestor Jon 690357 8716949 nullI wrote:think you over estimate the desire of state legislatures to ban abortion but we can agree to disagree on that. The greater point is that regardless of when Ginsburg retires/dies it is highly unlikely that the complex chain of events needed to overturn the established precedent set by Roe v Wade will come to pass.
I don't see how you can possibly be saying this with a straight face. You're saying you don't think there will be any practical change in abortion rights in the US if Roe v Wade is overturned, and for evidence, you point to the state legislators you don't think want to ban abortion - the same ones that have spent years chipping away at (legal) abortion?
I think the most reasonable, expected outcome of Roe v Wade being overturned is a total ban on abortion in at least 12 states within 90 days.
d-usa wrote: The Oklahoma legislature straight up passed a bill this year that said "Any doctor performing an abortion will be charged with murder".
All politics is local and I'm no expert on politics in other localities. However, I do think the estimate of 12 states banning abortion to be overly large. Also, it's easy for politicians to pass bills that they know won't actually change anything. Abortion is still legal in Oklahoma, it's not murder. The state legislature can pass token bills that won't become laws just to have something to use to pander to voters in an election year. If the state legislature really had the power to ban abortion they would find more resistance to such a message than when they don't have that power but want to do something for the sake of playing to their party base. It's been my experience that the "red" and "blue" states I've lived in aren't uniformally "red" and "blue" but have areas of both.
Asterios wrote: but you are missing the point if such a thing did occur and Biden was selected Sanders would feel slighted then run as independent which would divide the democratic vote maybe not down the middle but enough to cost the Democrats the presidency.
Alternatively, Sanders would realize that he has zero chance of winning as an independent and the best he can hope for is to draw enough votes from Biden to hand Trump the win. And, whatever you think of the "mainstream" democrats, it's pretty clear that whoever they nominate is closer to Sanders' positions than Trump. All this talk of "continuing the fight to the convention" or "burn down the DNC" or whatever is just an attempt to keep the pressure on party leadership to move to the left. In the end Sanders will make a deal and fall in line.
Asterios wrote: but you are missing the point if such a thing did occur and Biden was selected Sanders would feel slighted then run as independent which would divide the democratic vote maybe not down the middle but enough to cost the Democrats the presidency.
Alternatively, Sanders would realize that he has zero chance of winning as an independent and the best he can hope for is to draw enough votes from Biden to hand Trump the win. And, whatever you think of the "mainstream" democrats, it's pretty clear that whoever they nominate is closer to Sanders' positions than Trump. All this talk of "continuing the fight to the convention" or "burn down the DNC" or whatever is just an attempt to keep the pressure on party leadership to move to the left. In the end Sanders will make a deal and fall in line.
and yet the end has come and he has yet to fall in line, also his supporters are screaming for him to go independent either that or they are going with Jill Stein, me thinks the Democrat party does not have this election in the bag like you think it does.
Asterios wrote: and yet the end has come and he has yet to fall in line
The end hasn't come. That won't be until the convention. The outcome of the nomination isn't in doubt, but I expect he'll be negotiating up until convention day.
also his supporters are screaming for him to go independent either that or they are going with Jill Stein
His supporters are stupid.
me thinks the Democrat party does not have this election in the bag like you think it does.
Then you don't understand how elections in a two-party system work.
Asterios wrote: and yet the end has come and he has yet to fall in line
The end hasn't come. That won't be until the convention. The outcome of the nomination isn't in doubt, but I expect he'll be negotiating up until convention day.
also his supporters are screaming for him to go independent either that or they are going with Jill Stein
His supporters are stupid.
me thinks the Democrat party does not have this election in the bag like you think it does.
Then you don't understand how elections in a two-party system work.
and you still think it will be a 2 party election.
Asterios wrote: and you still think it will be a 2 party election.
It will, or at least any third (or more) parties that attempt to run will have zero chance of winning. Anyone who understands anything about US politics or elections in general knows that the US election system makes a two-party system inevitable. You either join one of the two parties, or you have no hope of winning. Sanders knows this (and if he doesn't his advisors certainly do), the democrat leadership knows this, the republican leadership knows this, etc. Sanders and any possible conservative splinter candidates will get concessions to fall in line with their parties, because they know that's their only hope for influencing the election in the direction they want.
Asterios wrote: and you still think it will be a 2 party election.
It will, or at least any third (or more) parties that attempt to run will have zero chance of winning. Anyone who understands anything about US politics or elections in general knows that the US election system makes a two-party system inevitable. You either join one of the two parties, or you have no hope of winning. Sanders knows this (and if he doesn't his advisors certainly do), the democrat leadership knows this, the republican leadership knows this, etc. Sanders and any possible conservative splinter candidates will get concessions to fall in line with their parties, because they know that's their only hope for influencing the election in the direction they want.
I still see a Sanders/Stein ticket. but it doesn't matter already seen Trump winning the election never missed a mark yet, even when it was presidents I did not like still saw the patterns to their victory.
Libertarian Party candidates get valuable primetime cable news attention.
Tune into CNN a week from today to see Libertarian Party flag-bearers Gary Johnson and William Weld get the same "Town Hall" action given to the candidates from the top two parties.
CNN announced today they will be holding a primetime town hall with Johnson and Weld on June 22 at 9 p.m. Just as with the 10 other town halls they've had with the other candidates, voters will have the opportunity to ask them questions. Chris Cuomo will moderate.
This is a pretty big deal in terms of getting voters acquainted with Johnson and Weld as they try to get their poll numbers up to be included in the presidential debates. CNN set viewing records for the network with their town hall interviews with Republican candidates Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich in March. They averaged more than 3 million viewers during that time (of course, the numbers spiked during the session with Trump).
It may be a bit of a pipe dream to think Johnson and Weld will approach those numbers, but do recall that Johnson received a little bit more than 1 million votes in 2012. The chances are very high that he's going to be seen by a lot of people who currently know very little about him.
General election poll numbers right now have Johnson getting between five and 12 percent of the vote in a three-way race. And a new poll shows Americans have the highest unfavorable opinions of Trump so far, with 70 percent disliking the man. Hillary Clinton is behind him with a 55 percent disliking her. Landing the Democratic nomination has not made voters warm up to her, at least not yet.
Johnson has a long way to go, but there's never been a better opportunity for him to go for it. The latest Google trends numbers for Gary Johnson continue to show a dramatic increase in searches for his name compared to this same time frame in 2012. While Google doesn't provide actual search numbers, their data shows that there are five times as many people searching Johnson's name in June 2016 than there were in June 2012.
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.
No. Not right. In fact, you are dead wrong.
Believe it or not, they actually kept minutes of the congress where it was decided, and why.
Weird, isn't it, that people writing a Constitution, and amending it, would take the same steps as a 4H club, and keep minutes?
They knew that what they were doing was important.
Which is why I said to look up the primary sources.
It was needed to get Virginia to ratify the amendments. The term to look up is "Slave patrols", which were considered militias.
Look up the Whisky Rebellion for how the US handled an early example of people revolting and taking arms against the government. (The quick answer? *SQUISH!*)
The nonsense that the 2nd Amendment was to allow the populace to rise up was something that did not even begin being bandied about until the twentieth century.
Asterios wrote: and yet we have still had Republican presidents.
And yet that has nothing to do with this current election.
it does and it doesn't, as it goes i'm done with this topic, if you want to believe Clinton will win, go for it, me I go by what the currents show and they have yet to be wrong for me, just like people kept saying Trump would not win the Primary and yet he did.
Asterios wrote: and yet we have still had Republican presidents.
And yet that has nothing to do with this current election.
it does and it doesn't, as it goes i'm done with this topic, if you want to believe Clinton will win, go for it, me I go by what the currents show and they have yet to be wrong for me, just like people kept saying Trump would not win the Primary and yet he did.
By currents are you talking some sort of mystical stuff? Because it can't be demographics, polls, logic, history, or common sense that would give one that impression.
Asterios wrote: it does and it doesn't, as it goes i'm done with this topic, if you want to believe Clinton will win, go for it, me I go by what the currents show and they have yet to be wrong for me, just like people kept saying Trump would not win the Primary and yet he did.
IOW "I'm right and no matter what you say I'm right just wait and see how right I am, no matter how much evidence you provide that disagrees with my positions I am still right and will continue to be the rightest thing that has ever been right".
If you can't defend your position with more than "I'm always right" then it's a sign that your position is weak. When you look at the actual evidence you see that Clinton has a decisive lead that Trump will have to overcome, and these vague "currents" you mention can work just as well against Trump as for Trump. It is certainly possible that Trump will win, as a lot can happen between now and november, but arguing that Trump's election is almost inevitable is simply not an argument that is in touch with reality.
19 Reasons why Democrats will remain divided - and what it means for the party's future.
Spoiler:
Throughout most of the 2016 presidential primaries, the media focused on the noisy and reactionary rift among Republicans. Until the battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders turned acrimonious in the home stretch, far less attention was paid to the equally momentous divisions within the Democratic Party. The Clinton-Sanders race wasn’t just about two candidates; instead, it underscored a series of deep and growing fissures among Democrats, along a wide range of complex fault lines—from age and race to gender and ideology. And these disagreements won’t fade with a gracious bow-out from Sanders, or a victory in November over Donald Trump. For all the talk of the Democrats’ need for “unity,” it would be a serious mistake to paper over the differences that came to the fore in this year’s primaries. More than ten million Democrats turned out in force this year to reject the party establishment’s cautious centrism and cozy relationship with Wall Street. Unless Democrats heed that message, they will miss a historic opportunity to forge a broad-based and lasting liberal majority.
To help make sense of what’s causing the split, and where it’s headed, we turned to 23 leading historians, political scientists, pollsters, artists, and activists. Taken together, their insights reinforce the need for a truly inclusive and vigorous debate over the party’s future. “There can be no settlement of a great cause without discussion,” observed William Jennings Bryan, the original Democratic populist insurgent. “And people will not discuss a cause until their attention is drawn to it.”
It goes way, way back
BY RICK PERLSTEIN
The schism between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders is knit into the DNA of the modern Democratic Party, in two interrelated ways. The first is ideological: the battle of left versus right.
Start in 1924, when the party cleaved nearly in two. That year, at Madison Square Garden, the Democratic convention took a record 103 ballots and 16 days to resolve a fight between the party’s urban wing and its conservative opponents. How conservative? Well, the convention was nicknamed the “Klanbake,” because one of the great issues at stake was—no kidding—whether the KKK was a good or a bad thing. The divide was so heated that tens of thousands of hooded Klansmen held a rally and burned crosses to try to bully the party into meeting their demands.
Eight years later, under Franklin Roosevelt, the party’s urban, modernist wing established what would become a long hegemony over its reactionary, Southern one. But that hegemony remained sharply contested from the very beginning. In 1937, bipartisan opponents of FDR banded together to forge the “Conservative Manifesto.” Co-authored by a Southern Democrat, the manifesto called for lowering taxes on the wealthy, slashing government spending, and championing private enterprise. Hillary Clinton’s eagerness to please Wall Street can be traced, in part, to that ideological split during the New Deal.
Indeed, over the years, many of the most “liberal” Democrats have remained sharply conservative on economic questions. Eugene McCarthy, the “peacenik” candidate of 1968, ended up backing Ronald Reagan. Dan Rostenkowski, the lunch-pail chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, proposed a tax package in 1981 that was more corporate-friendly than Reagan’s. Jerry Brown of California, long derided as “Governor Moonbeam,” campaigned for president in 1992 on a regressive flat tax. That same year, Bill and Hillary Clinton won the White House with the business-funded support of the Democratic Leadership Council, which sought to downplay the “big government” solutions championed by FDR.
Which brings us to the second strand in the party’s divided DNA: It’s sociological.
Slate’s Jamelle Bouie has pointed out the pattern’s clocklike consistency: Since the beginning of the modern primary process in 1972, the Democratic divide has settled into a battle between an “insurgent” and the “establishment.” But Bouie errs, I think, in labeling every insurgent as “liberal.” Just look at Brown in 1992—an insurgent who was conservative on economic issues. Or Hubert Humphrey in 1968 and 1972—an establishment favorite whose signature legislative initiatives, including centralized planning boards to dictate industrial production, were more socialist than those of Sanders.
This year, however, the traditional order of battle aligns with crystalline precision. Clinton, endorsed by 205 out of 232 Democratic members of Congress, is clearly the establishment’s pick—and also, increasingly, that of Wall Street masters of the universe terrified by the prospect of Donald Trump. Sanders represents the guerrilla faction, arrayed this time behind the economically populist banner of FDR.
Does history tell us anything about how Democrats can bridge their long-running divide and forge a stronger, more unified party? Sanders would do well to remember that sore loserdom never helps. (“George McGovern is going to lose,” a leading Democrat supposedly vowed after Humphrey lost the nomination in 1972, “because we’re going to make him lose.”) And Clinton needs to recognize that campaigning on economic liberalism is almost always a good political bet. (Even at the height of Reagan’s morning-in-America blather in 1984, barely a third of American voters favored his plans to reduce the deficit by slashing social programs.)
If Hillary has any doubts about embracing the economic agenda laid out by Sanders, she should ask the insurgent of 1992: William Jefferson Clinton. The man who ended a dozen years of presidential exile for the Democrats didn’t do it simply by promising to get tough on crime and to “end welfare as we know it.” He also pledged $80 billion in federal investments to improve America’s cities and to create four million new jobs—not to mention, of course, a plan to deliver health care to all Americans.
It’s Obama’s fault for raising our hopes
JACOB HACKER, PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT YALE AND CO-AUTHOR OF WINNER-TAKE-ALL POLITICS: We’ve now had almost eight years of a Democratic presidency. And with the exception of the policy breakthroughs in 2009 and 2010, they’ve been viewed as relatively lean years by many in the Democratic Party. There’s a sense of, “We went with someone within the system, and look what happened—Republicans still tried to crush that person. So let’s go for the whole thing.” There’s a sense that supporting the Democratic establishment and going the conventional route hasn’t been that productive.
MYCHAL DENZEL SMITH, AUTHOR OF INVISIBLE MAN, GOT THE WHOLE WORLD WATCHING: A lot of young people who showed up to vote for Obama were voting for the very first time. But now they’re looking at the ways economic inequality persists, and they’re saying, “Oh, the Democratic Party doesn’t actually stand against that.” They’re looking at the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, the two big linchpins in the Black Lives Matter movement, and they’re like, “Oh, Democrats are actually the architects of the policies that have affected and continue to define young black life in terms of systemic, institutionalized racism.” So you have young folks getting into the Democratic Party and realizing they don’t have a place.
ASTRA TAYLOR, AUTHOR OF THE PEOPLE’S PLATFORM: TAKING BACK POWER AND CULTURE IN THE DIGITAL AGE: This is in part a symptom of the expectations that people had for the Obama administration that weren’t met. It got its first major expression through Occupy Wall Street, and it’s still playing out. Because nothing has changed, and people know that.
RUY TEIXEIRA, CO-AUTHOR OF THE EMERGING DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY: You can make the case that Obama has been a very successful and progressive president, but people are impatient. What used to keep people in line, so to speak, when they had these kinds of dissatisfactions was, “Oh, I’m really frustrated, but what can we do? The country is so right-wing. We’ve got to worry about the national debt—there’s no room in the system for change.” Now there’s much more of a sense of possibility. The Democratic Party has contributed to this transformation by becoming more liberal, and by ceasing to be obsessed with the national debt and the deficit.
ELAINE KAMARCK, SENIOR FELLOW AT THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION AND AUTHOR OF PRIMARY POLITICS: Here’s the irony—the Bernie people are the Obama people. They’re all the young people; that’s the Obama coalition. They’re frustrated because under Obama, nothing much happened that they liked. They’re taking it out on Hillary, which is unfortunate, since she’s much more capable of making something happen.
JEDEDIAH PURDY, PROFESSOR OF LAW AT DUKE AND AUTHOR OF AFTER NATURE: The disappointment in Obama took a while to set in. The Obama campaign had the form and rhetoric of transformative politics, but not the substance. Many of us believed or hoped the substance might follow the form; but it didn’t. It turns out you need a program that challenges existing power and aims to reshape it. So Sanders represents the continuation of these insurgent energies. Clinton is also the continuation of Obama, but the Obama of governance, not of the campaign.
TweetShare
It’s Hillary’s fault for lowering our hopes
Ron Haviv / VII for the New Republic
JOHN JUDIS, FORMER SENIOR EDITOR AT THE NEW REPUBLIC AND CO-AUTHOR OF THE EMERGING DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY: In 1984, you had Walter Mondale, a candidate of the Democratic establishment, pitted against a young upstart, Gary Hart. The split wasn’t left-right—it was young-old, energetic-tired, vision-pragmatism. Bernie, for all his 74 years, represents something still of the rebellious Sixties that appeals to young voters, while Hillary represents a tired incrementalism—utterly uninspiring and rooted largely in identity politics and special interest groups, rather than in any vision for the future.
The party hasn’t kept up with its base
JILL FILIPOVIC, LAWYER AND POLITICAL COLUMNIST: The party itself has been stuck in some old ideas for a while. You’ve been seeing movement around the edges, whether from Elizabeth Warren or these grassroots movements for income inequality. The pro-choice movement, for example, is a key part of the Democratic base that has liberalized and modernized and completely changed its messaging in a way that the party is now just catching up to. So you get these internal discords that dredge up a lot of bad feelings.
DANIELLE ALLEN, DIRECTOR OF THE EDMOND J. SAFRA CENTER FOR ETHICS AT HARVARD: In the last 20 years, we’ve collectively experienced various forms of social acceleration. Rates of change in social dynamics have increased across the spectrum, from income inequality to mass incarceration to immigration to the effects of globalization and the restructuring of the economy. When you have an acceleration of social transformation, there’s a lag problem. The reigning policy paradigms will be out of sync with the actual needs on the ground. That’s what we’re experiencing now.
JEDEDIAH PURDY: The people who have been drawn to the Sanders campaign have no love for or confidence in elites, Hillary’s habitus. And why should they? They’ve seen growing inequality and insecurity, the naked corruption of politics by oligarchic money, total cynicism in the political class of consultants and pundits, and wars so stupid and destructive that Trump can say as much and win the GOP primaries. There’s a whole world that people are surging to reject.
TweetShare
Bernie’s supporters aren’t living in reality
Mark Peterson / Redux
DAVID SIMON, CREATOR OF THE WIRE: I got no regard for purism. What makes Bernie so admirable is he genuinely believes everything that comes out of his mouth. It’s incredibly refreshing. If he didn’t have to govern with people who don’t believe what he’s saying, what a fine world it would be.
I look at the hyperbole from Bernie supporters that lands on my doorstep. Either it’s stuff they believe—in which case they’re drinking the Kool-Aid, so they’re not even speaking in the vernacular of reality. Or what they’re doing is venal and destructive. That level of hyperbole, which Bernie himself is not responsible for, is disappointing. The truth is, it’s not just your friends who have utility in politics—sometimes it’s the people who are against you on every other issue. If you can’t play that game, then what did you go into politics for?
THEDA SKOCPOL, PROFESSOR OF GOVERNMENT AND SOCIOLOGY AT HARVARD: A lot of Bernie supporters are upper-middle-class people. I’m surrounded by them in Cambridge. I’m not saying they’re hypocritical. I’m just saying they’re overplaying their hand by celebrating his focus on reining in the super-rich as the only way that we can talk about improving economic equality.
ELAINE KAMARCK: This is part of a bigger problem with American presidential politics selling snake oil to the voters. Everybody from Trump with his stupid fething wall, to Sanders with, “Oh, free college for everybody.” Of all the dumb things—let’s go ahead and give all the rich kids in America a nice break. That’s not progressive, I’m sorry. But people want to believe in Peter Pan. And he’s just not there.
MARK GREEN, FORMER PUBLIC ADVOCATE OF NEW YORK AND AUTHOR OF BRIGHT, INFINITE FUTURE: A GENERATIONAL MEMOIR ON THE PROGRESSIVE RISE: There’s a lot of adrenaline in primaries between purity and plausibility. Sanders is the most popular insurgent in American history to get this close to a nomination, and to help define the Democratic agenda. I admire his guts to run in the first place, and I get why his combination of Bulworth and Eugene Debs makes him such an appealing candidate. But the programmatic differences between a walking wish list like Sanders and a pragmatic progressive like Clinton are dwarfed by the differences between either of them and the first proto-fascist president.
There’s a double standard against Hillary
JILL FILIPOVIC: The dovetailing of gender and wealth in this election is really striking. I don’t remember a lot of Democrats ripping John Kerry to shreds for being wealthy when he ran for president. But it’s been interesting to see Clinton demonized for her Goldman Sachs speeches. For some Democrats, that seems to be inherently disqualifying. Obviously, money would be an issue even if she were a male candidate, because this is an election that’s about income inequality. But the sense that she’s somehow undeserving, that does strike me as gendered.
THEDA SKOCPOL: Older women support Clinton because they’ve witnessed her career, and she’s always been into economic redistribution. Some Sanders followers have been quite sexist in things they’ve said; that’s very apparent to older women. A friend who studies abortion politics tells me that the nasty tweets she’s gotten from Bernie supporters for backing Hillary are worse than anything she gets from the right wing.
AMANDA MARCOTTE, POLITICS WRITER FOR SALON:What you’re seeing is a huge drift in the party, away from having our leadership be just a bunch of white men who claim to speak for everybody else. We’re moving to a party that puts women’s interests at the center, that considers the votes of people of color just as valuable as the votes of white people. Unfortunately, some of the support for Sanders comes from people who are uncomfortable with that change and are looking to a benevolent, white patriarch to save them.
ELAINE KAMARCK: Clinton is being penalized because she has a realistic view of what can be done, and that leads people to mistake her for some kind of bad conservative. She’s not. She’s extraordinarily liberal, particularly on children and families. But because she’s been around a while, when Sanders comes out with this new radical stuff, they think, “Oh, he’s the one whose heart is in the right place.” But listen, she took on Wall Street before he did, in a way that hit their bottom line. If people really want to get something done, they’d vote for her.
MARK GREEN: Look, there’s a debate I have with my friend Ralph Nader. He sees Hillary as more Wall Street, and I see her as more Wellesley. She’s as smart as anyone, grounded, practical, engaging, and unlike most testosterone-fueled male politicians, actually listens more than lectures. So she’s not as dynamic a candidate as Bill and Barack? Who is? That’s an unfair comparison. But if I had to bet, I’d guess she’ll be as consequential and good a president as either of them.
Poverty is fueling the divide
BY KEEANGA-YAMAHTTA TAYLOR
The Democratic Party today engages in delusional happy talk about economic recovery, while a staggering 47 million Americans are struggling in poverty. As the rich remain as wealthy as ever, working-class people continue to see their wages stagnate. In the 1970s, 61 percent of Americans fell into that vague but stable category of “middle class.” Today that number has fallen to 50 percent. African Americans, the core of the Democratic Party base, continue to be plagued by dead-end jobs and diminished prospects. Fifty-four percent of black workers make less than $15 an hour. Thirty-eight percent of black children live in poverty. More than a quarter of black households battle with hunger.
This is the heart of the crisis within the Democratic Party. Eight years ago, the party ran on hope: “Yes, we can” and “Change we can believe in.” Pundits openly wondered whether the United States was on the cusp of becoming a “postracial” nation; on the eve of Obama’s first inauguration, 69 percent of black Americans believed that Martin Luther King’s “dream” had been fulfilled. Today, the tune is quite different: Millions of Americans are more disillusioned and cynical than ever about the ability of the state to provide a decent life for them and their families.
Bernie Sanders tapped into the palpable disgust at America’s new Gilded Age, and it’s a revulsion that will not be quieted with a few platitudes from Hillary Clinton to “give the middle class a raise.” Yet the Democratic leadership continues to treat Sanders as an unfortunate nuisance. The party keeps charging ahead the way it always has, as Clinton pivots to her right to appeal to disgruntled Republican voters. As long as the party has no challengers to its left, the thinking goes, its base has nowhere else to go.
This strategy may lead Clinton to victory in November. But there is a danger here: In winning the battle, she very well may lose the war being waged within the Democratic ranks. The inattention to growing inequality, racial injustice, and deteriorating quality of life will likely result in ordinary people voting with their feet and simply opting out of the coming election, and future ones as well. Millions of Americans already do not vote, because most elected officials are out of touch with their daily struggles, and because there is little correlation between voting and an improvement in their lives. By continuing to ignore the issues Sanders has raised, Clinton and the rest of the party establishment risk losing a huge swath of the Democratic electorate for years to come.
There is a way out. More and more voters are identifying as independents. This demonstrates that people want real choices—as opposed to politics driven by sound bites, political action committees, and billionaire candidates. The wide support for both Sanders and Trump points to the incredible vacuum that exists in organized politics. If the movements against police racism and violence were to combine with the growing activism among the disaffected, from low-wage workers to housing advocates, we could build a political party that actually represents the interests of the poor and working class, and leave the Democrats and the Republicans to the plutocrats who already own both parties’ hearts and minds.
It’s the economy, stupid
JOHN JUDIS: There have been insurgencies before—George Wallace in ’64 and ’72—that were radical. What made Wallace radical was the split in the party over civil rights. What makes Sanders radical is the lingering rage over the Great Recession.
If you want to move the question up a level theoretically, you can talk about the failure of “new Democrat” politics to deliver prosperity or economy security. Clinton and the Democrats in Washington don’t understand the level of anxiety that Americans, and particularly the young, feel about their economic prospects. It can’t be addressed by charts showing the drop in the unemployment rate.
BRETT FLEHINGER, HISTORIAN AT HARVARD AND AUTHOR OF THE 1912 ELECTION AND THE POWER OF PROGRESSIVISM: The Democratic Party has done a poor job of delivering on the economic promises of equality. That’s what’s opened up the possibility for Sanders. It’s what he’s believed in for 20-plus years. But the question is: What’s making it resonate now? It’s the failure of the party to liberalize, since Bill Clinton.
JACOB HACKER: There’s a feeling of, “Really? This is it? This is the recovery we’ve been promised?” It’s been a long, difficult path since 2008 and the financial crisis. Even Democratic voters who are doing pretty well are feeling that something has gone seriously awry.
This may be the first time in my life that there’s been a full-throated critique of the Democratic Party as being excessively beholden to money and too willing to work within the system. You saw echoes of this in the Howard Dean campaign, and you saw it much more forcefully in 2000 with Ralph Nader. But Nader was not running within the Democratic Party; he was clearly playing a spoiler role. Whereas Sanders is essentially trying to take the Democratic Party in a different direction.
JEDEDIAH PURDY: Bernie’s campaign is the first to put class politics at its center. Not poverty, which liberal elites have always been comfortable addressing, and not “We are the 99 percent,” which is populist in a more fantastical sense, but class more concretely: the jobs and communities of blue-collar people, the decline of the middle class, the cost of education.
MARK HUGO LOPEZ, DIRECTOR OF HISPANIC RESEARCH AT THE PEW RESEARCH CENTER: When you ask Clinton supporters, or people who see Clinton favorably, you’ll find that more than half will say that, compared to 50 years ago, life is better in America today. Whereas among Sanders supporters, one-third will say that things are actually worse.
Democrats are too fixated on white workers
JILL FILIPOVIC: The class-based concerns that a lot of the loudest voices in the Sanders contingent of the Democratic Party focus on are the concerns of the white working class, and they aren’t bringing a lot of race analysis into it. The income-inequality argument makes a case, particularly to the white working class, in a way that seems to have alienated African Americans and, to a lesser extent, the Hispanic vote.
MYCHAL DENZEL SMITH: Look at every demographic breakdown of who votes. The strongest Democratic Party voters are black women. So why is it that you’re so zeroed in and focused on regaining the white working-class vote? What value does that have to you, as opposed to appeasing the voters that are actually there for you? Democrats want it both ways. They want to attract the white working-class voter again, but what they don’t accept is that the reason they lost that voter is because of Republican appeals to racism. So the Democrats want to be the party of anti-racism but also win back the racists. You can’t do that! Why would you want a coalition of those people? It doesn’t make sense.
Democrats have neglected white workers
DAVID SIMON: There’s certainly something unique about this moment, and the populist rebellion that has affected both the Republican and Democratic parties. And I think it’s earned. Both parties can be rightly accused, not to the same degree, of having ignored and abandoned the working class and the middle-middle class for the past 30 years.
TweetShare
Millennials of color are tired of waiting
ALAN ABRAMOWITZ, PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT EMORY AND AUTHOR OF The Polarized Public? Why American Government Is So Dysfunctional: Why are African Americans so loyal to the Clintons? Part of it is just familiarity. They feel a comfort level with the Clintons, and they really like Bill Clinton, especially older African American voters. But there’s a generational divide even among African American voters. Younger African Americans and Latinos are not as supportive of Clinton.
MARK HUGO LOPEZ: I was in Chicago recently, and I was surprised when a young Latina college student stood up and described how much she did not like Clinton. She actually said, “I hate Hillary Clinton.” That’s the phrase she used, which drew a round of applause from everybody in the room.
JOHNETTA ELZIE, A LEADER OF BLACK LIVES MATTER: I don’t think anyone was ready to deal with black millennials. I just don’t believe that anyone in politics who is running on a national scale knows how to address young black or brown people in a way that’s different from how they addressed our elders. Because we’re not the same.
I remember when Hillary got shut down by some young black students in Atlanta. They wanted to know, “What does she even know about young black people in this neighborhood and what we go through?” John Lewis basically told them, “You need to wait to speak to Hillary. Just be polite, ask questions, yada yada.” And people were like, “But you were a protester before you were a politician! You know what it is, you know the sense of urgency, you know what it means to be told to wait and to know that we don’t have time to wait.”
MYCHAL DENZEL SMITH: Throughout our history, progressive movements have often left out the idea of ending racism. Then they go to communities of color and say, “What choice do you have but to join with us—to put aside your concerns about the differences that we experience in terms of racism?” In this election, the movement on the ground has at least pushed Democrats to adopt the language of anti-racism. They’ve had to say things like “institutionalized racism”—they’re learning the language on the fly. The problem is, they understand that they don’t actually have to move on these issues, because they have Trump to run against. All they have to do is say, “Look at how crazy the other option is. Where else are you going to go?”
Authenticity is gender biased
BY RIVKA GALCHEN
Mark Peterson / Redux
In an early scene in Stendhal’s The Red and the Black, a carpenter’s son hired as a tutor for a wealthy family dons a tailored black suit provided by his new employer. The black suit was a new and radical thing in this era, one in which bakers dressed like bakers, nobility like nobility. In a black suit, one’s social class was cloaked—a form of what back then was often termed hypocrisy.
Lately, as I’ve followed the contest between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, I’ve found myself thinking of The Red and the Black, and its play with antiquated notions of authenticity. The passionate support for Sanders has, one hopes, much to do with excitement about his insistent expression of a platform of economic populism. But it would be naïve to think it doesn’t also have to do with his appearance, his way of speaking. There is authenticity, and there is appearing authentic. These two things may mostly align—as they largely but not entirely do with Sanders. (Most anti-establishment figures avoid 35 years in government.) Or they may almost perfectly not align—as in the case of Donald Trump. (A liar celebrated for speaking the truth.) Either way, it’s worth investigating authenticity in our political thinking, both to understand its power and to consider how it helps or hurts the kind of effective, forward-looking agenda that we hope will emerge from a fractured Democratic Party.
One problem with authenticity as a campaign tactic is its unsettling, subconscious alliance with those who benefit from the status quo. If you’re not who you say you are—if you’re moving on the social ladder, or are not in “your place”—you’re inauthentic. Keeping it real subtly advocates for keeping it just like it is.
The semiotics of Sanders’s political authenticity—dishevelment, raised voice, being unyielding—are available to male politicians in a way they are not to women (and to whites in a way they are not to blacks or Hispanics or Asians). Black women in politics don’t have the option to wear their hair “natural”; nearly all white women appear to have blowouts, even Elizabeth Warren. It’s nonsense, and yet the only politically viable option, and therefore not nonsense.
It’s not just that research has shown that women are perceived to talk too much even when they talk less, or that men who display anger are influential while women who do so are not. It’s that there is no such thing as “masculine wiles.” The phrase just doesn’t exist. This doesn’t mean that calling into question Clinton’s authenticity and trustworthiness—the fault line along which the Democratic Party has riven—is pure misogyny. It just means that it’s not purely not misogyny.
Clinton is often described as the institutional candidate, the establishment. There’s a lot of truth to that. But she’s also the woman who initially kept her name (and her job) as the wife of the governor of Arkansas, who used the role of First Lady as cover to push for socialized health care, and who was instrumental in getting health insurance for eight million children past the Republican gorgons when a full reform failed. Someone who has survived being attacked for nearly 40 years must possess a highly developed sense of what the critic Walter Benjamin calls “cunning and high spirits”—the means by which figures in fairy tales evade the oppressive forces of myth, and mortals evade gods. Somehow she achieved one of the more liberal voting records in the Senate, despite rarely being described as a liberal by either the left or the right.
Perhaps one reason that Clinton’s “firewall” of black support has remained standing is that “authenticity” has less rhetorical force with a historically oppressed people, for whom that strategy—being recognizably who people in power think you ought to be—was never viable. There are, of course, important and substantial criticisms of Clinton. But perhaps when we say that Hillary is inauthentic, we’re simply saying that she is a woman working in the public eye.
Democrats on both sides of the party should consider which tactic best suits the underdogs they feel they are defending, and want to defend. Whoever receives the nomination, perhaps the worry should shift from whether the candidate is cunning to whether the candidate—and the Democratic Party—can be cunning enough.
The disruption is digital
BY ZEYNEP TUFEKCI
Insurgents like Bernie Sanders have been the rule, not the exception, in the modern era of Democratic politics. From Eugene McCarthy to Jesse Jackson, the party’s left wing regularly broke ranks to run on quasi-social democratic platforms. But with the exception of George McGovern in 1972, these challengers all fell short of the nomination, partly because they lacked the money to effectively organize and advertise. The party establishment had a virtual monopoly on every political tool needed to win.
Slowly at first—and then with a big, loud bang—digital technologies changed all that. First came Howard Dean, who used the internet to “disrupt” the Democratic Party in 2004. Powered by small online donations and digitally organized neighborhood “meetups,” Dean outraised his big-money rivals and revolutionized the way political campaigns are funded. Four years later, Barack Obama added a digitally fueled ground game to Dean’s fund-raising innovations, creating a campaign machine that could identify and turn out voters with a new level of accuracy. But when Obama’s policies fell short of the left’s expectations, many turned their energies to building a different kind of digital rebellion—this time, outside of electoral politics.
Sparked by a single email in June 2011, Occupy Wall Street exploded in a matter of months into a worldwide movement that mobilized massive street protests—including many who’d sworn off partisan politics as hopelessly corrupted. Occupy demonstrated how the masses could organize without a campaign or a candidate to rally around, opening a space that would soon be joined by Black Lives Matter and other activist groups. It also unleashed a populist fervor on the left. As the 2016 campaign approached, Occupy veterans joined forces with left-leaning activists inside the party. Instead of rejecting traditional politics, they decided to disrupt the Democratic primaries, the way Tea Party activists did to the GOP in 2010 and 2012.
In some ways, it didn’t matter that Sanders was the candidate they rallied behind. His ideological consistency earned him the trust of the left, and they in turn stoked his online fund-raising—producing the flood of $27 average donations that kept him competitive with Hillary Clinton. In the spirit of Occupy, Sanders’s digital operation was more volunteer-driven and dispersed than Obama’s; instead of “Big Data,” the watchword for Sanders was “Big Organizing,” as hundreds of thousands of volunteers effectively ran major parts of the show. A pro-Sanders Reddit group attracted almost a quarter-million subscribers, who helped organize everything from voter-registration drives to phone banks. A legion of young, pro-Sanders coders on Slack produced apps to mobilize volunteers and direct voters to the polls. There was even a BernieBNB app, where people could offer their spare couches to #FeelTheBern organizers.
Ultimately, the Sanders campaign became a lesson in both the potential and the limitations of a digitally fueled uprising. It seems miraculous that a 74-year-old democratic socialist could come so close to beating a candidate with Clinton’s institutional advantages. But Sanders’s superior digital reach couldn’t help him win over African Americans and older women, most of whom favor Clinton. And all his fans on social media could not alter the mainstream media’s narrative that this was yet another noble but doomed insurgency.
Whether or not Clinton wins in November, it’s safe to expect another Democratic insurgency in 2020—and beyond. Digital fund-raising, organizing, and messaging have given the left the weapons not just to tilt at the establishment’s windmills, but to come close to toppling them. Next time, they might just succeed.
Split? What split?
RUY TEIXEIRA: I don’t see differences massive enough to provoke any kind of split that has serious consequences. It’s just part of an ongoing shift in the Democratic Party. The party is going to continue to consolidate behind a more aggressive and liberal program, and the Sanders people are a reflection of that. We shouldn’t lose track of the fact that Clinton will be the most liberal presidential candidate the Democrats have run since George McGovern.
BRETT FLEHINGER: In historic terms I don’t think this party is split. I don’t even think the divide is as big as it was in 2000, when a significant portion of Democratic voters either considered Ralph Nader or voted for Nader.
ALAN ABRAMOWITZ: It’s easy to overstate how substantial the divide is. Some of it is more a matter of style, the sense that Clinton and some of these longtime party leaders are tainted by their ties to Wall Street and big money. But it’s not based so much on their issue positions, because Clinton’s issue positions are pretty liberal. Not as far left as Bernie—but then, nobody’s as far left as Bernie. Part of it is a distortion, because you can’t get to Bernie’s left, except maybe on the guns issue. So Bernie can always be the one taking the purist position.
THEDA SKOCPOL: This isn’t a revolution. The phenomenon of having a left challenger to somebody called an establishment Democrat goes way back. It’s been happening my whole life, and I’m not a child. It’s never successful, except in the case of Obama. And Obama had something that the other challengers didn’t: He was able to appeal to blacks. Most of these left candidates appeal to white liberals, and Sanders is certainly in that category. His entire base is white liberals.
KEVIN BAKER, AUTHOR OF THE NOVEL STRIVERS ROW: Democrats have almost always been the party that co-opts and brings in literal outsiders and outside movements. In the late nineteenth century, it was a bizarre coalition between Southern bourbon planters and big-city machines, which each had their own grievances. Then it was an uneasy coalition between those same machines and the agrarian populists brought in by William Jennings Bryan. Then you had the Grand Coalition, the biggest, most diverse coalition in American history, which was the New Deal one: farmers and workers, urbanites and Main Street progressives, blacks, whites, feminists, unionists. It lasted a long time, until it broke down over race and the Vietnam War in the 1960s. Finally, you had the rise of the Democratic Leadership Council and the Clinton-ite and Obama-ite version of more conservative progressivism. But what that coalition left unanswered, for a lot of people in the party and in the country, was just how they were going to make a living in this new world. What we’re seeing now is a very civil contest, relatively speaking, over who is going to lead that coalition.
Don’t worry: Trump will unite us
Mark Peterson / Redux
JOHN JUDIS: Whatever shortcomings Clinton’s campaign has in creating unity are likely to be overcome by the specter of a Trump America.
RUY TEIXEIRA: I don’t see the people who support Sanders, particularly the young people, as being radically different from the Clinton folks in terms of what they support. They’ll wind up voting for Hillary when she runs against Trump.
DAVID SIMON: If you’re asking me if I think the Democratic Party will heal in the general election, I think it will. Trump helps that a lot. The risks of folding your arms and walking away are fundamental, in a way they might not be with a more viable and coherent candidate. But let’s face it, the idea of this man at the helm of the republic is some scary gak.
Bernie isn’t the future, but his politics are
ALAN ABRAMOWITZ: Younger voters are the future of the Democratic Party. But Bernie Sanders is not the future of the Democratic Party. The question is: Who’s going to come along who can tap into that combination of idealism and discontent that he represents?
JOHN JUDIS: Sanders is an old guy, like I am, and not one, I suspect, to build a movement. And I think “movement” is probably the wrong word. What inspires movements is particular causes (Vietnam, civil rights, high taxes) or a party in power that is seen as taking the wrong stance on those issues (George W. Bush for liberals, Barack Obama for Republicans). If Clinton is the next president, I don’t expect a movement to spring up. Instead, I’d expect to see caucuses within the party that take a Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren point of view. But if Trump wins, you will see a movement, whatever Sanders does.
JACOB HACKER: There’s a growing chunk of the Democratic electorate that believes the existing policy ideas that define the mainstream of the party don’t go far enough. The question becomes: What do those folks do after the election? What kind of force will they be within the party going forward? Can they form a strong movement that will press national politicians to move to the left, the way the Tea Party did on the right?
If a Democrat wins in November, you probably can’t get a movement like the Tea Party under Obama, or Move On under Bush. But what you could get—what you would hope to get—is a true grassroots, longer-term movement that tries to move the center of gravity of American politics to the left.
JEDEDIAH PURDY: But what would a movement built out of Sanders supporters be for, exactly? The campaign itself gives some answers. The Sanders campaign is much more distinct from the Clinton campaign, in substance, than Obama’s first campaign was. The Fight for $15, single-payer health care, stronger antitrust law, free college: These are huge, concrete goals. If people can organize around one guy who expresses them but, if elected, could do very little unless we also changed Congress, then we should be able to organize around them to try to change the makeup of political structures from top to bottom. Maybe we need to move into our local Democratic parties. The Moral Majority took over school boards with a specific agenda they could implement. Are there electoral institutions, as well as party institutions, that we should be aiming to reshape in our image?
DANIELLE ALLEN: It’s a huge opportunity for Democrats, if they can take all the incoming young participants seriously and give them a real role in digging into hard policy questions. This is a chance to cultivate leaders who can run for office across the landscape—not just national office, but local office. The Republicans have done a much better job, in all honesty, at growing up a generation of younger politicians. Democratic politicians skew older, so that sums up the real question about the Sanders moment: Is this enough of a wake-up call to the Democratic Party to start bringing talent in?
It’s a trap!
ASTRA TAYLOR: The young thing, this millennial left turn, is great. But there’s a part of me that’s afraid. In the 1960s, the story was the counterculture and the new left. It was Students for a Democratic Society, the civil rights movement, the war in Vietnam. But there’s been a lot of smart revisionist scholarship that says the story of the ’60s was not the new left, it was actually the new right, which spent the decade laying the groundwork for its resurgence. At this moment, when left-wing millennials are getting a lot of attention, my fear is that there’s a conservative counterpoint that I’m just not seeing, because we’re all in our little social and political bubbles. We should study the split between the new left and the new right in the ’60s, and make sure that history doesn’t repeat itself.
The worst thing would be to ignore the split
DAVID SIMON: The Democrats are going to win, because they’re up against Trump. But I’m worried they’re going to paper over a fundamental flaw in their coalition, which is: You’ve got to help working people and the middle-middle class. They’re not your guaranteed votes, and you lost them once to Reagan. Maybe you can do without them long-term. But I would get them back because (a) it secures your coalition going forward and (b) it’s the right thing to fething do.
JILL FILIPOVIC: The brawls that people are having on Twitter every day—I don’t know if that’s healthy for the party. But the bigger debates are really important conversations to be having. Who is our coalition? Who are we representing, and how do we best do that? Do we want to be the center-left party of the ’90s, or should we be serving a more diverse and liberal voter base? I don’t think those conversations are going to destroy the party. I think they’re going to set us in a better direction.
JACOB HACKER: It’s nice to be able to talk about what’s happening on the Democratic side, because all of the focus has been on the Republican side. It’s a bit like living in a house that’s got some peeling paint and holes in the roof. Right next to it is a derelict building that’s practically falling over. And you’re like, “Man, I’ve got a nice house.” But if you just put your hand up and cover up your neighbor’s house so you can’t see it, you’d be like, “Um, I think my house needs some work.” The Democratic Party is kind of like that right now. I want to live there, but I really would love to upgrade it.
The best is yet to come
BY NAOMI KLEIN
Mark Peterson / Redux
On the surface, the battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders looks like a deep rift, one that threatens to splinter the Democratic Party. But viewed in the sweep of history, it is evidence of something far more positive for the party’s base and beyond: not a rift but a shift—the first tremors of a profound ideological realignment from which a transformative new politics could emerge.
Many of Bernie’s closest advisers—and perhaps even Bernie himself—never imagined the campaign would do so well. And yet it did. The U.S. left—and not some pale imitation of it—actually tasted electoral victory, in state after state after state. The campaign came so close to winning that many of us allowed ourselves to imagine, if only for a few, furtive moments, what the world would look like with a President Sanders.
Even writing those words seems crazy. After all, the working assumption for decades has been that genuinely redistributive policies are so unpopular in the U.S. that they could only be smuggled past the American public if they were wrapped in some sort of centrist disguise. “Fee and dividend” instead of a carbon tax. “Health care reform” instead of universal public health care.
Only now it turns out that left ideas are popular just as they are, utterly unadorned. Really popular—and in the most pro-capitalist country in the world.
It’s not just that Sanders has won 20-plus contests, all while never disavowing his democratic socialism. It’s also that, to keep Sanders from hijacking the nomination, Clinton has been forced to pivot sharply to the left and disavow her own history as a market-friendly centrist. Even Donald Trump threw out the economic playbook entrenched since Reagan—coming out against corporate-friendly trade deals, vowing to protect what’s left of the social safety net, and railing against the influence of money in politics.
Taken together, the evidence is clear: The left just won. Forget the nomination—I mean the argument. Clinton, and the 40-year ideological campaign she represents, has lost the battle of ideas. The spell of neoliberalism has been broken, crushed under the weight of lived experience and a mountain of data.
What for decades was unsayable is now being said out loud—free college tuition, double the minimum wage, 100 percent renewable energy. And the crowds are cheering. With so much encouragement, who knows what’s next? Reparations for slavery and colonialism? A guaranteed annual income? Democratic worker co-ops as the centerpiece of a green jobs program? Why not? The intellectual fencing that has constrained the left’s imagination for so long is lying twisted on the ground.
This broad appetite for systemic change did not begin with Sanders. During the Obama years, a wave of radical new social movements emerged, from Occupy Wall Street and the Fight for $15 to #NoKXL and Black Lives Matter. Sanders harnessed much of this energy—but by no means all of it. His weaknesses reaching certain segments of black and Latino voters in the Democratic base are well known. And for some activists, Sanders has always felt too much like the past to get overly excited about.
Looking beyond this election cycle, this is actually good news. If Sanders could come this far, imagine what a left candidate who was unburdened by his weaknesses could do. A political coalition that started from the premise that economic inequality and climate destabilization are inextricable from systems of racial and gender hierarchy could well build a significantly larger tent than the Sanders campaign managed to erect.
And if that movement has a bold plan for humanizing and democratizing new technology networks and global systems of trade, then it will feel less like a blast from the past, and more like a path to an exciting, never-before-attempted future. Whether coming after one term of Hillary Clinton in 2020, or one term of Donald Trump, that combination—deeply diverse and insistently forward-looking—could well prove unbeatable.
So, according to my facebook feed, there's some big thing going on in the US Senate right now that none of the news channels are bothering to report on.
For what it's worth, it's related to gun control and involves a bunch of people making speeches.
Prestor Jon wrote: All politics is local and I'm no expert on politics in other localities. However, I do think the estimate of 12 states banning abortion to be overly large. Also, it's easy for politicians to pass bills that they know won't actually change anything. Abortion is still legal in Oklahoma, it's not murder. The state legislature can pass token bills that won't become laws just to have something to use to pander to voters in an election year. If the state legislature really had the power to ban abortion they would find more resistance to such a message than when they don't have that power but want to do something for the sake of playing to their party base. It's been my experience that the "red" and "blue" states I've lived in aren't uniformally "red" and "blue" but have areas of both.
I agree that no state is completely blue or red but that doesn't matter in terms of super odious laws getting passed. Louisiana already passed a law that would automatically kick in if Roe v Wade were reversed that would ban abortion. Not a bill, a law, signed by the governor. Oklahoma has made an attempt now that only won't survive because of Roe v Wade.
Obviously no one's going to be able to prove a hypothetical, but if I were a woman who lived in Texas, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas, Oklahoma, or Utah, I'd be pretty concerned. My mistake on 12, I only really counted 11 when I made my best guesses.
Compel wrote: So, according to my facebook feed, there's some big thing going on in the US Senate right now that none of the news channels are bothering to report on.
For what it's worth, it's related to gun control and involves a bunch of people making speeches.
Can you tell I'm not politically inclined? :p
It's just political grandstanding there's no legislation to be voted on its just a senator filibustering to get attention.
Compel wrote: So, according to my facebook feed, there's some big thing going on in the US Senate right now that none of the news channels are bothering to report on.
For what it's worth, it's related to gun control and involves a bunch of people making speeches.
Can you tell I'm not politically inclined? :p
It's just political grandstanding there's no legislation to be voted on its just a senator filibustering to get attention.
CNN has reported on it. I would qualify it as mostly grandstanding, though. as there is some gun/gun-related legislation being worked on
Prestor Jon wrote: All politics is local and I'm no expert on politics in other localities. However, I do think the estimate of 12 states banning abortion to be overly large. Also, it's easy for politicians to pass bills that they know won't actually change anything. Abortion is still legal in Oklahoma, it's not murder. The state legislature can pass token bills that won't become laws just to have something to use to pander to voters in an election year. If the state legislature really had the power to ban abortion they would find more resistance to such a message than when they don't have that power but want to do something for the sake of playing to their party base. It's been my experience that the "red" and "blue" states I've lived in aren't uniformally "red" and "blue" but have areas of both.
I agree that no state is completely blue or red but that doesn't matter in terms of super odious laws getting passed. Louisiana already passed a law that would automatically kick in if Roe v Wade were reversed that would ban abortion. Not a bill, a law, signed by the governor. Oklahoma has made an attempt now that only won't survive because of Roe v Wade.
Obviously no one's going to be able to prove a hypothetical, but if I were a woman who lived in Texas, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas, Oklahoma, or Utah, I'd be pretty concerned. My mistake on 12, I only really counted 11 when I made my best guesses.
I don't think Florida, Texas, Arizona, and NC are that stridently anti abortion. Those states have a lot of people moving into them from other parts of the country and they all have strong pockets of voters that consistently vote Democrat. The Oklahoma and La laws are disappointing but there's little chance of Roe v Wade getting overturned now or ever.
Prestor Jon wrote: All politics is local and I'm no expert on politics in other localities. However, I do think the estimate of 12 states banning abortion to be overly large. Also, it's easy for politicians to pass bills that they know won't actually change anything. Abortion is still legal in Oklahoma, it's not murder. The state legislature can pass token bills that won't become laws just to have something to use to pander to voters in an election year. If the state legislature really had the power to ban abortion they would find more resistance to such a message than when they don't have that power but want to do something for the sake of playing to their party base. It's been my experience that the "red" and "blue" states I've lived in aren't uniformally "red" and "blue" but have areas of both.
I agree that no state is completely blue or red but that doesn't matter in terms of super odious laws getting passed. Louisiana already passed a law that would automatically kick in if Roe v Wade were reversed that would ban abortion. Not a bill, a law, signed by the governor. Oklahoma has made an attempt now that only won't survive because of Roe v Wade.
Obviously no one's going to be able to prove a hypothetical, but if I were a woman who lived in Texas, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas, Oklahoma, or Utah, I'd be pretty concerned. My mistake on 12, I only really counted 11 when I made my best guesses.
Compel wrote: So, according to my facebook feed, there's some big thing going on in the US Senate right now that none of the news channels are bothering to report on.
For what it's worth, it's related to gun control and involves a bunch of people making speeches.
Can you tell I'm not politically inclined? :p
It's just political grandstanding there's no legislation to be voted on its just a senator filibustering to get attention.
CNN has reported on it. I would qualify it as mostly grandstanding, though. as there is some gun/gun-related legislation being worked on
Showing up on CNN doesn't automatically make it nationally important. Nothing has gotten through the house so nothing has been sent to the senate so there's no pending vote on anything. He is literally filibustering to draw attention to himself because he would like to see some kind of legislation proposed. That's the extent of it.
There are arguments before the SCOTUS right now about a bill that Texas has passed that would make abortion almost totally inaccessible in the state. The argument from the state was that Texans can just go to New Mexico.
I think you're really, really underballing how hot some of these legislators are to ban abortion. They've made it nearly impossible in many jurisdictions even without Roe being overturned.
Prestor Jon wrote: Those states have a lot of people moving into them from other parts of the country and they all have strong pockets of voters that consistently vote Democrat.
That's like arguing the ACA could never pass since no Republicans will vote for it!
Anyway, I will concede what I said was all conjecture, except for LA and OK. I think it's likely conjecture, you don't, we disagree.
Ouze wrote: There are arguments before the SCOTUS right now about a bill that Texas has passed that would make abortion almost totally inaccessible in the state. The argument from the state was that Texans can just go to New Mexico.
I think you're really, really underballing how hot some of these legislators are to ban abortion. They've made it nearly impossible in many jurisdictions even without Roe being overturned.
Prestor Jon wrote: Those states have a lot of people moving into them from other parts of the country and they all have strong pockets of voters that consistently vote Democrat.
That's like arguing the ACA could never pass since no Republicans will vote for it!
Anyway, I will concede what I said was all conjecture, except for LA and OK. I think it's likely conjecture, you don't, we disagree.
I'm not saying it couldn't happen I just think it would be a lot more contentious than you think. Even in Texas Wendy Davis almost single handedly defeated the bill and her opposition was enough to springboard her into being a gubernatorial candidate.
Believe it or not, they actually kept minutes of the congress where it was decided, and why.
Weird, isn't it, that people writing a Constitution, and amending it, would take the same steps as a 4H club, and keep minutes?
They knew that what they were doing was important.
Which is why I said to look up the primary sources.
It was needed to get Virginia to ratify the amendments. The term to look up is "Slave patrols", which were considered militias.
Look up the Whisky Rebellion for how the US handled an early example of people revolting and taking arms against the government. (The quick answer? *SQUISH!*)
The nonsense that the 2nd Amendment was to allow the populace to rise up was something that did not even begin being bandied about until the twentieth century.
The Auld Grump
Just as a quick research aid...if you doubt what Auld Grump is talking about, check out the Federalist Papers, specifically Federalist Paper number 29.
I'm re-reading "Transmetropolitan" by Warren Ellis right now, and of course most major Western elections can be summed up between a douche vs. turd sandwich, I find the over-arching story particularly relevant this election.
Besides the great artwork, fantastic writing, and truly awesome futurist ideas, it couldn't be more on point.
The Beast vs. The Smiler. Anyone who's read it knows who's who, but I'll brief it and urge anyone to who even remotely likes comics to read it. And pretty much anything by Ellis really.
The Beast is an old hand in politics. Gruff, un-likeable, a dirty bastard really. But a known quantity of evil.
The Smiler is a new hope. Outwardly charismatic, but inwardly a sociopath. He gets elected on political violence from the outside, and is ultimately far, far worse.
That's what scares me about an Islamic terror attack in the fall. We get Trump for president, and in my guess, another war.
I don't understand why they are filibustering instead of working with Congress to introduce legislation. I mean, it's literally the guys who pass laws complaining they can't pass laws. It's a little mystifying.
I can understand why Obama is frustrated - he can't sign what he doesn't get, but the Senate doesn't seem like they have as much of a leg to stand on.
Ouze wrote: I don't understand why they are filibustering instead of working with Congress to introduce legislation. I mean, it's literally the guys who pass laws complaining they can't pass laws. It's a little mystifying.
I can understand why Obama is frustrated - he can't sign what he doesn't get, but the Senate doesn't seem like they have as much of a leg to stand on.
I'm having problems finding what the Democrats want to pass... where's the bill?
The one last year had some language about both the 'no-fly' & 'terrorist watch' lists... but, it didn't pass because there were no due process previsions.
d-usa wrote: So top Republicans are continuing to chastise Trump, and Trump is telling Republican leaders to shut up and threatening to run Independent?
Doooooooooo it Trump!
What a lovely mess we got, they really want to have the opportunity to impeach President Clinton I think.
There are no real surprises there. The shocking thing is that millins of voters either don't know this stuff or worse, they do know and approve of the man.
Kilkrazy wrote: There are no real surprises there. The shocking thing is that millins of voters either don't know this stuff or worse, they do know and approve of the man.
gaking on Muslims and immigrants has been standard Republican policy for a while now, tho. Same goes for guns and giving money to the rich. Frankly that last part is official Democratic policy, too. The fething Clinton campaign saying that Trump's foreign policy would make the US an "enemy of the world" is similarly hilarious. She's all about wars.
If this is the heaviest thing they can slam Trump with then Clinton is going to have a very tough road ahead of her. I've read more convincing middle school book reports.
Kilkrazy wrote: I wonder if Trump has a similar book on Clinton. That would be inbteresting reading.
Of course he does. He has the best books; just the best. He has books with things you've never even heard of! I tell you, the attacks in his books are tremendous. just tremendous. Nothing like those weak books Clinton has, Trump's books are much better than hers. Just you see. When he shows you his books, you'll be amazed at what's in them, just amazed.
I'm just saying that it isn't very shocking that Trump has supporters when many of his positions are standard Republican fare. That's a very bad thing but also something that politics for the past decades have been building up to.
He makes a valid point. It's difficult for Clinton to say that Trump will hurt the country with his foreign policy positions when Clinton voted in favor of invading Iraq and while she was SecState Egypt fell apart, we attacked Libya and Yemen. Did Clinton accomplish anything while SecState to make the ME better or make the US safer or make the US more respected in the ME? What is Clinton's ME policy that is going to make things better?
A lot of the attacks Clinton could launch at Trump can very easily bommerang back at her.
"The evidence is clear. On Oct. 10, 2002, during the Senate debate on a resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Clinton rose to express her highly qualified support. First, though, she criticized the idea of attacking Saddam then and there, either alone or "with any allies we can muster." Such a course, she said, "is fraught with danger," in part because "it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us ... This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction ... My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose." A vote for the resolution, she argued, "is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort." "
"The evidence is clear. On Oct. 10, 2002, during the Senate debate on a resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Clinton rose to express her highly qualified support. First, though, she criticized the idea of attacking Saddam then and there, either alone or "with any allies we can muster." Such a course, she said, "is fraught with danger," in part because "it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us ... This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction ... My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose." A vote for the resolution, she argued, "is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort." "
It's hardly warmongering.
I never called it war mongering, I said it makes it difficult for her to label Trump as a candidate that will damage the US standing in the ME and make America less safe. The Iraq War + Arab Spring + Libya + Yemen all happened while Clinton was either a senator or SecState and it can be argued that none of it has benefited the US or the ME. If Clinton wants to highlight Trump's rhetoric on foreign policy she needs to be prepared to defend her own foreign policy record that isn't unblemished.
It isn't just the invasion of Iraq, she has consistently supported using greater military power. It's one of her staples. You can trust her to adamantly refuse to say that the US won't invade a place.
Clinton probably will concentrate on Trump's issues as a liar, racist bigot and serial failure in business (four bankruptcies, Trump Uni etc.)
On foreign policy she will just paint him as naive and completely inexperienced.
That's also something that can bounce back on HRC.
Based on what happened the last time Hillary Clinton ran for President, we should expect that at some point Black people will get thrown under the bus again, especially if it helps Clinton gain or maintain power.
A series of comments from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, her husband and her supporters are spurring a racial backlash and adding a divisive edge to the presidential primary as the candidates head south to heavily African-American South Carolina.
The comments, which ranged from the New York senator appearing to diminish the role of Martin Luther King Jr. in the civil rights movement — an aide later said she misspoke — to Bill Clinton dismissing Sen. Barack Obama’s image in the media as a “fairy tale” — generated outrage on black radio, black blogs and cable television. And now they've drawn the attention of prominent African-American politicians.
A US senator bemoaned Thursday morning that the constitutional right to due process "is what's killing us right now."
Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that the right to due process, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, had made it difficult to pass gun-control legislation denying those on the FBI's terror watch list the ability to purchase a firearm.
"The firewall we have right now is due process," the West Virginia senator said. "It's all due process."
In the aftermath of the Orlando terror attack, which claimed the lives of 49 people, Democrats have renewed calls for legislation aimed at blocking individuals on the terror watch list from being able to buy a gun. Republicans have argued against such legislation, contending it would be wrong to strip citizens of their Second Amendment right without being convicted of a crime.
Manchin noted that the FBI "did everything they were supposed to do," but had "no way" of blocking the Orlando attacker from purchasing a firearm. The bureau conducted two investigations into the shooter, 29-year-old Omar Mateen, but closed both after determining he was not a threat.
"There was no way to do that," he said.
The senator floated the idea of enacting a five-year cooling period, something he said could perhaps garner bipartisan support.
"So can't we say that if a person is under suspicion, there should be a five-year period of time that we have to see if good behavior, if this person continues the same traits?" he asked. "Maybe we can come to that kind of an agreement."
He added: "But due process is what's killing us right now."
I agree with you point on the substance of the allegations but there's plenty of stuff in articles from places like HuffPo and Politico to put in negative campaign ads. It's not like truth is very important in political campaigns, it's all about perception.
A US senator bemoaned Thursday morning that the constitutional right to due process "is what's killing us right now."
Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that the right to due process, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, had made it difficult to pass gun-control legislation denying those on the FBI's terror watch list the ability to purchase a firearm.
"The firewall we have right now is due process," the West Virginia senator said. "It's all due process."
In the aftermath of the Orlando terror attack, which claimed the lives of 49 people, Democrats have renewed calls for legislation aimed at blocking individuals on the terror watch list from being able to buy a gun. Republicans have argued against such legislation, contending it would be wrong to strip citizens of their Second Amendment right without being convicted of a crime.
Manchin noted that the FBI "did everything they were supposed to do," but had "no way" of blocking the Orlando attacker from purchasing a firearm. The bureau conducted two investigations into the shooter, 29-year-old Omar Mateen, but closed both after determining he was not a threat.
"There was no way to do that," he said.
The senator floated the idea of enacting a five-year cooling period, something he said could perhaps garner bipartisan support.
"So can't we say that if a person is under suspicion, there should be a five-year period of time that we have to see if good behavior, if this person continues the same traits?" he asked. "Maybe we can come to that kind of an agreement."
He added: "But due process is what's killing us right now."
They're doing it backwards to boot. You're entitled to due process BEFORE the government places you on an arbitrary watch list not after. The government doesn't get to put you on a super secret list without telling you that you're on it or why you're on it and then take away your rights because you're on it but give you some kind of appeal process once you find out that your rights have been revoked. If the government wants to punish you they have to come after you in the open and respect your presumptive innoncence and right to due process.
Plus, the whole idea is fething insane. The FBI investigated the guy TWICE and both times determined HE WASN"T A THREAT. If the FBI says you're not a threat then there's no reason to put you on a list or take away your rights. Either there was some information that the FBI missed that would have provided cause to charge him with something or he didn't belong on any list. Why would people who are investigated and cleared by the FBI deserve to be punished just for being investigated?
They're doing it backwards to boot. You're entitled to due process BEFORE the government places you on an arbitrary watch list not after. The government doesn't get to put you on a super secret list without telling you that you're on it or why you're on it and then take away your rights because you're on it but give you some kind of appeal process once you find out that your rights have been revoked. If the government wants to punish you they have to come after you in the open and respect your presumptive innoncence and right to due process.
Plus, the whole idea is fething insane. The FBI investigated the guy TWICE and both times determined HE WASN"T A THREAT. If the FBI says you're not a threat then there's no reason to put you on a list or take away your rights. Either there was some information that the FBI missed that would have provided cause to charge him with something or he didn't belong on any list. Why would people who are investigated and cleared by the FBI deserve to be punished just for being investigated?
Exactamundo...
That's like saying Hillary Clinton should legally be disqualified for public office since the FBI is investigating her...
What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.
Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.
Kilkrazy wrote: What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.
Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.
Kilkrazy wrote: What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.
Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.
Kilkrazy wrote: What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.
Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.
What real facts are getting ignored?
Real Fact: Owning a gun does not make you safer.
Real Fact: whether or not owning a gun makes you safer has no impact on your right to own a gun or your ability to exercise that right
Kilkrazy wrote: What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.
Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.
What real facts are getting ignored?
Well, for example, it's pistols that are responsible for the majority of gun incidents, so curbs on assault rifles are more or less pointless.
If you're going to try to design legislation to reduce the danger of guns, it would make sense to tackle the most dangerous type.
Kilkrazy wrote: What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.
Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.
What real facts are getting ignored?
Well, for example, it's pistols that are responsible for the majority of gun incidents, so curbs on assault rifles are more or less pointless.
If you're going to try to design legislation to reduce the danger of guns, it would make sense to tackle the most dangerous type.
True dat. Problem is... you'll end up disarming a victim who may have been able to stop the bad guy.
Kilkrazy wrote: What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.
Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.
What real facts are getting ignored?
Real Fact: Owning a gun does not make you safer.
Myth.
A 2013 study sponsored by the CDC stated that approx 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun use.
Kilkrazy wrote: What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.
Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.
What real facts are getting ignored?
Well, for example, it's pistols that are responsible for the majority of gun incidents, so curbs on assault rifles are more or less pointless.
If you're going to try to design legislation to reduce the danger of guns, it would make sense to tackle the most dangerous type.
Pistols are easier to conceal than rifles so criminals can carry them and use them more easily. Pistols aren't any more or less dangerous than rifles.
What measures do you think could be taken to make pistols less likely to be used by criminals?
Kilkrazy wrote: What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.
Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.
What real facts are getting ignored?
Real Fact: Owning a gun does not make you safer.
Myth.
A 2013 study sponsored by the CDC stated that approx 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun use.
Are we actually meant to take a study seriously when it has that large an uncertainty? Seriously, you are saying that we should listen to a study which doesn't know whether the number is X or 6 times X. That uncertainty is huge. Not to mention that that doesn't actually dispel what feeder said. It is still defensive gun use if the person defending themselves died, or even wouldn't have gone into the situation in which they needed to defend themselves if they didn't have the gun in the first place.
If you read it you will notice there are some caveats about the methodology, accuracy and relevance of that quoted figure.
Even accounting for all that the number of defensive gun uses greatly out numbers the 10k or so gun homicides we average per year. Which was whbly's point that more guns are used to protect people than to hurt people, hence improving safety by keeping people safe from harm.
Kilkrazy wrote: What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.
Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.
What real facts are getting ignored?
Real Fact: Owning a gun does not make you safer.
Myth.
A 2013 study sponsored by the CDC stated that approx 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun use.
Are we actually meant to take a study seriously when it has that large an uncertainty? Seriously, you are saying that we should listen to a study which doesn't know whether the number is X or 6 times X. That uncertainty is huge. Not to mention that that doesn't actually dispel what feeder said. It is still defensive gun use if the person defending themselves died, or even wouldn't have gone into the situation in which they needed to defend themselves if they didn't have the gun in the first place.
The CDC is a nonpartisan federal agency is you won't trust their reports whose reports do you trust?
Kilkrazy wrote: What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.
Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.
What real facts are getting ignored?
Real Fact: Owning a gun does not make you safer.
Myth.
A 2013 study sponsored by the CDC stated that approx 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun use.
Are we actually meant to take a study seriously when it has that large an uncertainty? Seriously, you are saying that we should listen to a study which doesn't know whether the number is X or 6 times X. That uncertainty is huge. Not to mention that that doesn't actually dispel what feeder said. It is still defensive gun use if the person defending themselves died, or even wouldn't have gone into the situation in which they needed to defend themselves if they didn't have the gun in the first place.
The CDC is a nonpartisan federal agency is you won't trust their reports whose reports do you trust?
One who actually gets decent results. If your result is that uncertain then you cannot draw anything from it other than you need to improve your methodology or data or both.
Kilkrazy wrote: What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.
Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.
What real facts are getting ignored?
Real Fact: Owning a gun does not make you safer.
Myth.
A 2013 study sponsored by the CDC stated that approx 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun use.
Are we actually meant to take a study seriously when it has that large an uncertainty? Seriously, you are saying that we should listen to a study which doesn't know whether the number is X or 6 times X. That uncertainty is huge. Not to mention that that doesn't actually dispel what feeder said. It is still defensive gun use if the person defending themselves died, or even wouldn't have gone into the situation in which they needed to defend themselves if they didn't have the gun in the first place.
The CDC is a nonpartisan federal agency is you won't trust their reports whose reports do you trust?
One who actually gets decent results. If your result is that uncertain then you cannot draw anything from it other than you need to improve your methodology or data or both.
Gun crimes generate police investigations that are easily tracked and reported. Defensive gun uses don't have to generate any such paper trail. You'll never get precise results when you are collecting anecdotal evidence.
Even accounting for all that the number of defensive gun uses greatly out numbers the 10k or so gun homicides we average per year. Which was whbly's point that more guns are used to protect people than to hurt people, hence improving safety by keeping people safe from harm.
This.
We know those statistic exists and that study both admits that the # of occurances is not insignificant and more research is needed to tighten down those methodologies.
Kilkrazy wrote: Clinton probably will concentrate on Trump's issues as a liar, racist bigot and serial failure in business (four bankruptcies, Trump Uni etc.)
On foreign policy she will just paint him as naive and completely inexperienced.
I think we got a preview of her likely approach in her "foreign policy" speech a little while ago - you don't have to do anything with Trump other than republish some of the things he's said, and make sure the voters know he said them.
I'm hoping some superPAC does nothing but cut together his own words into themed commercials: "Trump's greatest misogynist hits", "Trump's greatest racist hits", etc.
Kilkrazy wrote: What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.
Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.
What real facts are getting ignored?
Real Fact: Owning a gun does not make you safer.
Real Fact: whether or not owning a gun makes you safer has no impact on your right to own a gun or your ability to exercise that right
No disagreement here. 2E is apparently a big deal to some people.
The accident/suicide/crime of passion rate is higher than the "keeps you safe" rate. That's what I was getting at.
Kilkrazy wrote: What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.
Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.
What real facts are getting ignored?
Real Fact: Owning a gun does not make you safer.
Real Fact: whether or not owning a gun makes you safer has no impact on your right to own a gun or your ability to exercise that right
No disagreement here.
The accident/suicide/crime of passion rate by guns is higher than the "keeps you safe" rate. That's what I was getting at.
whembly wrote: Problem is... you'll end up disarming a victim who may have been able to stop the bad guy.
The Pulse security guard was armed.
So?
So a lot of these "If someone had a gun, they could've stopped this tragedy!" arguments are actually bullgak.
An armed guard at the door was ambushed by a determined assailant with an AR15 there's not much you can do when you're outgunned and taken by complete surprise. Doesn't invalidate the fact that if there had been more armed people at pulse there would have a greater chance of the attacker getting put down sooner.
An armed guard at the door was ambushed by a determined assailant with an AR15 there's not much you can do when you're outgunned and taken by complete surprise. Doesn't invalidate the fact that if there had been more armed people at pulse there would have a greater chance of the attacker getting put down sooner.
A loud, dark, cramped nightclub filled with armed people shooting at whatever they think is going on does not strike me as a good situation.
An armed guard at the door was ambushed by a determined assailant with an AR15 there's not much you can do when you're outgunned and taken by complete surprise. Doesn't invalidate the fact that if there had been more armed people at pulse there would have a greater chance of the attacker getting put down sooner.
A loud, dark, cramped nightclub filled with armed people shooting at whatever they think is going on does not strike me as a good situation.
Yeah, what if someone decides to shoot up a mall. He starts shooting. A concealed carrying person pulls out a pistol, starts shooting at the shooter. Another concealed carrying person notices the first CC shooting, so starts shooting at him, and so on. Also, any police at the area would shoot everyone holding a gun, killing those who try to help.
I love how when something like this happens people scream "More guns!" Cause you know everyone who owns a gun is a cool and collected cowboy capable of a rational desicion at the drop of a hat to be the hero when the need arises.
I know one donkey-cave who carries a pecker extension on his hip 24/7 because he used to live in Pheonix and black people are scary. I would trust him to save my life as far as I could throw his lardbutt.
lonestarr777 wrote: I love how when something like this happens people scream "More guns!" Cause you know everyone who owns a gun is a cool and collected cowboy capable of a rational desicion at the drop of a hat to be the hero when the need arises.
I know one donkey-cave who carries a pecker extension on his hip 24/7 because he used to live in Pheonix and black people are scary. I would trust him to save my life as far as I could throw his lardbutt.
Really? i honestly only ever hear "LESS GUNS!" the second these things happens.
whembly wrote: Problem is... you'll end up disarming a victim who may have been able to stop the bad guy.
The Pulse security guard was armed.
So?
So a lot of these "If someone had a gun, they could've stopped this tragedy!" arguments are actually bullgak.
An armed guard at the door was ambushed by a determined assailant with an AR15 there's not much you can do when you're outgunned and taken by complete surprise. Doesn't invalidate the fact that if there had been more armed people at pulse there would have a greater chance of the attacker getting put down sooner.
Except CC people don't stop mass shootings, look at the one in oregon a year back or so (kinda sad that we have had so many that we forget the dates). There were multiple CC people on campus and they didn't stop the guy.
Kilkrazy wrote: What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.
Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.
What real facts are getting ignored?
Real Fact: Owning a gun does not make you safer.
Real Fact: whether or not owning a gun makes you safer has no impact on your right to own a gun or your ability to exercise that right
No disagreement here.
The accident/suicide/crime of passion rate by guns is higher than the "keeps you safe" rate. That's what I was getting at.
Citation is needed for that...
Considering defensive gun use estimates vary from 61,000 to 5 million per year, this is going to be difficult.
Even accounting for all that the number of defensive gun uses greatly out numbers the 10k or so gun homicides we average per year. Which was whbly's point that more guns are used to protect people than to hurt people, hence improving safety by keeping people safe from harm.
This.
We know those statistic exists and that study both admits that the # of occurances is not insignificant and more research is needed to tighten down those methodologies.
Sadly the funding for continuing the research was voted away after this initial study.
As things stand, there is no immediate prospect of improving the methodology.
whembly wrote: Problem is... you'll end up disarming a victim who may have been able to stop the bad guy.
The Pulse security guard was armed.
So?
So a lot of these "If someone had a gun, they could've stopped this tragedy!" arguments are actually bullgak.
An armed guard at the door was ambushed by a determined assailant with an AR15 there's not much you can do when you're outgunned and taken by complete surprise. Doesn't invalidate the fact that if there had been more armed people at pulse there would have a greater chance of the attacker getting put down sooner.
Except CC people don't stop mass shootings, look at the one in oregon a year back or so (kinda sad that we have had so many that we forget the dates). There were multiple CC people on campus and they didn't stop the guy.
whembly wrote: Problem is... you'll end up disarming a victim who may have been able to stop the bad guy.
The Pulse security guard was armed.
So?
So a lot of these "If someone had a gun, they could've stopped this tragedy!" arguments are actually bullgak.
An armed guard at the door was ambushed by a determined assailant with an AR15 there's not much you can do when you're outgunned and taken by complete surprise. Doesn't invalidate the fact that if there had been more armed people at pulse there would have a greater chance of the attacker getting put down sooner.
Except CC people don't stop mass shootings, look at the one in oregon a year back or so (kinda sad that we have had so many that we forget the dates). There were multiple CC people on campus and they didn't stop the guy.
whembly wrote: Problem is... you'll end up disarming a victim who may have been able to stop the bad guy.
The Pulse security guard was armed.
So?
So a lot of these "If someone had a gun, they could've stopped this tragedy!" arguments are actually bullgak.
An armed guard at the door was ambushed by a determined assailant with an AR15 there's not much you can do when you're outgunned and taken by complete surprise. Doesn't invalidate the fact that if there had been more armed people at pulse there would have a greater chance of the attacker getting put down sooner.
Except CC people don't stop mass shootings, look at the one in oregon a year back or so (kinda sad that we have had so many that we forget the dates). There were multiple CC people on campus and they didn't stop the guy.
Kilkrazy wrote: There aren't mass shootings in the UK. We've had I think it's four in the past century, despite a near total lack of armed citizens to stop them.
You've had five in the past two weeks.
(Mass shooting defined as 3+ killed in one spree.)
I am advocating that shutting down the epidemiological research into gun violence was wrong. It should be continued in order to get clarity around the whole phenomenon so that the nation can consider what ought to be done from a position of knowledge.
An armed guard at the door was ambushed by a determined assailant with an AR15 there's not much you can do when you're outgunned and taken by complete surprise. Doesn't invalidate the fact that if there had been more armed people at pulse there would have a greater chance of the attacker getting put down sooner.
A loud, dark, cramped nightclub filled with armed people shooting at whatever they think is going on does not strike me as a good situation.
Yeah, what if someone decides to shoot up a mall. He starts shooting. A concealed carrying person pulls out a pistol, starts shooting at the shooter. Another concealed carrying person notices the first CC shooting, so starts shooting at him, and so on. Also, any police at the area would shoot everyone holding a gun, killing those who try to help.
Aside from Vermont and Alaska every state requires a permit for concealed carry so every citizen that carries concealed has a state issued permit. The state keeps track of the permits. We know that the you can't get a concealed carry permit unless you have a clean criminal record. We know that there haven't been any documented cases of concealed carry permit holders going on shooting sprees. So in the aftermouth of a religious zealot going on a shooting spree in a gay club you want to clamp down on the one group of armed citizens that we know have clean criminal records and have historically been crime free after receiving their permits? That doesn't make any sense. You can invent whatever hypothetical situations you want but the fact remains that concealed carry permit holders have proven to be law abiding citizens both before and after they get their permits. You're inventing boogeymen to justify governmental restrictions that wouldn't have an impact on preventing the mass murders from happening or recurring.
whembly wrote: Problem is... you'll end up disarming a victim who may have been able to stop the bad guy.
The Pulse security guard was armed.
So?
So a lot of these "If someone had a gun, they could've stopped this tragedy!" arguments are actually bullgak.
An armed guard at the door was ambushed by a determined assailant with an AR15 there's not much you can do when you're outgunned and taken by complete surprise. Doesn't invalidate the fact that if there had been more armed people at pulse there would have a greater chance of the attacker getting put down sooner.
Except CC people don't stop mass shootings, look at the one in oregon a year back or so (kinda sad that we have had so many that we forget the dates). There were multiple CC people on campus and they didn't stop the guy.
Leaked document shows the DNC wanted Clinton from start
A document leaked by a hacker who took responsibility for the Democratic National Committee data breach appears to show the DNC coordinating with Hillary Clinton from the start of the presidential campaign — just as Bernie Sanders has claimed.
A document to the DNC dated May 26, 2015 – a month after Sanders kicked off his presidential bid — declared that “our goals & strategy” are to “provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC.”
HRC stands for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The document, posted online by the hacker “Guccifer 2.0,” outlines ways to hit back at the GOP presidential field, such as “use specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency and campaign finance attacks on HRC.”
The author of the document is not listed. The DNC stayed officially neutral during the prolonged primary between Clinton and Sanders.
But some Sanders backers say the document shows what they’ve felt all along: the system was rigged in favor of Clinton.
“With proof that #Bernie never even had a chance, I shall double down and vote #BernieOrBust in Nov. @TheDemocrats,” tweeted a Sanders supporter from Chicago.
Sanders has declined to drop out of the Democratic primary race. Among his demands to Clinton and the Democratic National Committee: oust DNC leader Debbie Wasserman Schultz and get rid of super delegates.
“There are lots of valid reasons to question Schultz’s leadership, including how the DNC conducted itself during this last primary election season,” Sanders’ backer, Ben Jealous, former head of the NAACP, told The Post. “However, what is just as concerning is how the party has performed in general under her leadership.”
The DNC confirmed the computer break-in earlier this week and blamed Russian government hackers.
A senior DNC official stands by the assessment despite Gussifer’s claim it was a “lone hacker.”
“We believe that today’s release and the claims around it may be a part of a disinformation campaign by the Russians,” the official said, declining to address the alleged collusion. “We’ve deployed the recommended technology so that today our systems are secure thanks to a swift response to that attack and we will continue to monitor our systems closely.”
Leaked document shows the DNC wanted Clinton from start
A document leaked by a hacker who took responsibility for the Democratic National Committee data breach appears to show the DNC coordinating with Hillary Clinton from the start of the presidential campaign — just as Bernie Sanders has claimed.
A document to the DNC dated May 26, 2015 – a month after Sanders kicked off his presidential bid — declared that “our goals & strategy” are to “provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC.”
HRC stands for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The document, posted online by the hacker “Guccifer 2.0,” outlines ways to hit back at the GOP presidential field, such as “use specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency and campaign finance attacks on HRC.”
The author of the document is not listed. The DNC stayed officially neutral during the prolonged primary between Clinton and Sanders.
But some Sanders backers say the document shows what they’ve felt all along: the system was rigged in favor of Clinton.
“With proof that #Bernie never even had a chance, I shall double down and vote #BernieOrBust in Nov. @TheDemocrats,” tweeted a Sanders supporter from Chicago.
Sanders has declined to drop out of the Democratic primary race. Among his demands to Clinton and the Democratic National Committee: oust DNC leader Debbie Wasserman Schultz and get rid of super delegates.
“There are lots of valid reasons to question Schultz’s leadership, including how the DNC conducted itself during this last primary election season,” Sanders’ backer, Ben Jealous, former head of the NAACP, told The Post. “However, what is just as concerning is how the party has performed in general under her leadership.”
The DNC confirmed the computer break-in earlier this week and blamed Russian government hackers.
A senior DNC official stands by the assessment despite Gussifer’s claim it was a “lone hacker.”
“We believe that today’s release and the claims around it may be a part of a disinformation campaign by the Russians,” the official said, declining to address the alleged collusion. “We’ve deployed the recommended technology so that today our systems are secure thanks to a swift response to that attack and we will continue to monitor our systems closely.”
An election was rigged from the start?!? GASP! Shock and awe!
Side note, the fact that Sander's backer is named Ben Jealous, is just comedy gold.
Surely it is hardly a shock the party would prefer Clinton who has been a stalwart member for decades and is ex-First Lady and so on, over Bernie who as I understand it actually is an independent who allies with the Democrats.
There's no implication of vote rigging, and the primaries seem to have been done on the correct procedure and Bernie is losing by a reasonable margin.
He can definitely get some compromises out of the Democrats but his room for manoeuvre is limited by the fact that if he runs independently it will split the anti-Trumpo vote and probably let him win, which would be a bad result for both Clinton and Sanders.
Leaked document shows the DNC wanted Clinton from start
A document leaked by a hacker who took responsibility for the Democratic National Committee data breach appears to show the DNC coordinating with Hillary Clinton from the start of the presidential campaign — just as Bernie Sanders has claimed.
A document to the DNC dated May 26, 2015 – a month after Sanders kicked off his presidential bid — declared that “our goals & strategy” are to “provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC.”
HRC stands for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The document, posted online by the hacker “Guccifer 2.0,” outlines ways to hit back at the GOP presidential field, such as “use specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency and campaign finance attacks on HRC.”
The author of the document is not listed. The DNC stayed officially neutral during the prolonged primary between Clinton and Sanders.
But some Sanders backers say the document shows what they’ve felt all along: the system was rigged in favor of Clinton.
“With proof that #Bernie never even had a chance, I shall double down and vote #BernieOrBust in Nov. @TheDemocrats,” tweeted a Sanders supporter from Chicago.
Sanders has declined to drop out of the Democratic primary race. Among his demands to Clinton and the Democratic National Committee: oust DNC leader Debbie Wasserman Schultz and get rid of super delegates.
“There are lots of valid reasons to question Schultz’s leadership, including how the DNC conducted itself during this last primary election season,” Sanders’ backer, Ben Jealous, former head of the NAACP, told The Post. “However, what is just as concerning is how the party has performed in general under her leadership.”
The DNC confirmed the computer break-in earlier this week and blamed Russian government hackers.
A senior DNC official stands by the assessment despite Gussifer’s claim it was a “lone hacker.”
“We believe that today’s release and the claims around it may be a part of a disinformation campaign by the Russians,” the official said, declining to address the alleged collusion. “We’ve deployed the recommended technology so that today our systems are secure thanks to a swift response to that attack and we will continue to monitor our systems closely.”
HRC has been planning this campaign since the end of the 2008 campaign. It's been rather overt. It's not like nobody knew that Wasserman Schultz was a huge HRC supporter when she became DNC chair or that her support of HRC didn't play a big role in her becoming DNC chair.
It's the same in both parties. Everybody knew McCain was going to be the nominee in 2008 because he was runner up to Bush43. Everyone knew Romney would be the nominee in 2012 because he lost to McCain. It was their "turn" so they got the nomination. HRC lost to Obama in 2008 so now in 2016 it's her turn and she got the nomination.
Parties don't have to cheat or rig the primaries to get the outcomes they want. The Parties control the entire process, run the elections and everything. All it takes is a little bit of manipulation and favortism to make sure the right candidate gets the backing of the establishment and everyone falls into line. The media get the "leaks" that cast the right nominee in a favorable light and get negative leaks about the rest of the field. The various Party Committees make sure the establishment machinery pushes for the right candidate, makes sure they get the best endorsements and donors, etc. They don't have to rig the voting when they control all the options, the media access/narratives, the money, the political activity, etc..
Janthkin wrote: I think we got a preview of her likely approach in her "foreign policy" speech a little while ago - you don't have to do anything with Trump other than republish some of the things he's said, and make sure the voters know he said them.
I'm hoping some superPAC does nothing but cut together his own words into themed commercials: "Trump's greatest misogynist hits", "Trump's greatest racist hits", etc.
Now this is something...
(WSJ paywall article) U.S. State Department Officials Call for Strikes Against Syria’s Assad
BEIRUT—Dozens of State Department officials this week protested against U.S. policy in Syria, signing an internal document that calls for targeted military strikes against the Damascus government and urging regime change as the only way to defeat Islamic State.
The “dissent channel cable” was signed by 51 State Department officers involved with advising on Syria policy in various capacities, according to an official familiar with the document. The Wall Street Journal reviewed a copy of the cable, which repeatedly calls for “targeted military strikes” against the Syrian government in light of the near-collapse of the ceasefire brokered earlier this year.
The views expressed by the U.S. officials in the cable amount to a scalding internal critique of a longstanding U.S. policy against taking sides in the Syrian war, a policy that has survived even though the regime of President Bashar al-Assad has been repeatedly accused of violating ceasefire agreements and Russian-backed forces have attacked U.S.-trained rebels.
...
“It’s embarrassing for the administration to have so many rank-and-file members break on Syria,” said a former State Department official who worked on Middle East policy. . . The recent letter marked a move by the heart of the bureaucracy, which is largely apolitical, to break from the White House.
...
Apparently in response to the laws being passed to drug test lower income people, a congresswoman has introduced a bill to drug test anyone with over $150k in itemized deductions.
People spend a lot of time criticising Obama and Clinton for getting us involved in Libya and now they are to be criticised for not getting us involved in Syria.
skyth wrote: Apparently in response to the laws being passed to drug test lower income people, a congresswoman has introduced a bill to drug test anyone with over $150k in itemized deductions.
People spend a lot of time criticising Obama and Clinton for getting us involved in Libya and now they are to be criticised for not getting us involved in Syria.
Which is right?
Both can be right or wrong. Obama can be criticized for getting involved in Libya and not getting results that show any tangible benefits for our involvement. Is Libya more or less stable? Are there groups/forces in Libya that are now more or less friendly to the US? Are US interests in the region better or worse off than before? Are we more or less safe as a nation due to our involvement in Libya? What was the objective in getting involved in Libya? Was it accomplished? Was it worth it?
Is our lack of involvement in Syria making our national interests in the region better or worse off? Does our lack of involvment make us more or less safe as a nation? Is the region more or less hostile to US interests because of our lack of involvement? What is the objective of abstaining from getting involved? Are we meeting that objective? How do we evaluate if we're being successful at our objective and it's worth whatever cost is incurred in obtaining it?
The PotUS and SecState should be able to speak coherently and knowledgably on our foreign policy objectives, the status of those objectives and pros and cons of our efforts to achieve them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: Apparently in response to the laws being passed to drug test lower income people, a congresswoman has introduced a bill to drug test anyone with over $150k in itemized deductions.
Nobody is required to be drug tested just because they are poor. Do you think the government should act to prevent people who receive government assistance from spending some of the money on recreational drug use? I personally take a Libertarian stance on the issue and feel that the govt should either give people money with no strings or not give people money but giving people money just to justify interferring with people's personal lives isn't the role govt should be playing.
People spend a lot of time criticising Obama and Clinton for getting us involved in Libya and now they are to be criticised for not getting us involved in Syria.
Which is right?
I'm a few thoughts on this...
1) US don't want another war... and Obama/Clinton really buys into that.
2) Having said that, it's a cop-out. The leadership need to make those hard decisions and make the case to the public.
3) Right now, there is no case (either way), which is frustrating.
4) To be fair: I don't want to engage Assad unilaterally. If we can't go big and curbstomp him... don't bother.
People spend a lot of time criticising Obama and Clinton for getting us involved in Libya and now they are to be criticised for not getting us involved in Syria.
Which is right?
I'm a few thoughts on this...
1) US don't want another war... and Obama/Clinton really buys into that.
2) Having said that, it's a cop-out. The leadership need to make those hard decisions and make the case to the public.
3) Right now, there is no case (either way), which is frustrating.
4) To be fair: I don't want to engage Assad unilaterally. If we can't go big and curbstomp him... don't bother.
Slow your roll there Whembly. If we went over there and curbstomped Assad into oblivion, what happens to Syria? Who takes over being in charge? Does it become a theocracy? Does it become more or less friendly to the US? Russia has a lot of ties to Syria, what we chose to do about Syria is going to have a direct impact with our relationship with Russia. I'm not a fan of Assad in any way but before we take him out we really need to have a plan for what comes next.
Leaked document shows the DNC wanted Clinton from start
A document leaked by a hacker who took responsibility for the Democratic National Committee data breach appears to show the DNC coordinating with Hillary Clinton from the start of the presidential campaign — just as Bernie Sanders has claimed.
A document to the DNC dated May 26, 2015 – a month after Sanders kicked off his presidential bid — declared that “our goals & strategy” are to “provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC.”
HRC stands for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The document, posted online by the hacker “Guccifer 2.0,” outlines ways to hit back at the GOP presidential field, such as “use specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency and campaign finance attacks on HRC.”
The author of the document is not listed. The DNC stayed officially neutral during the prolonged primary between Clinton and Sanders.
But some Sanders backers say the document shows what they’ve felt all along: the system was rigged in favor of Clinton.
“With proof that #Bernie never even had a chance, I shall double down and vote #BernieOrBust in Nov. @TheDemocrats,” tweeted a Sanders supporter from Chicago.
Sanders has declined to drop out of the Democratic primary race. Among his demands to Clinton and the Democratic National Committee: oust DNC leader Debbie Wasserman Schultz and get rid of super delegates.
“There are lots of valid reasons to question Schultz’s leadership, including how the DNC conducted itself during this last primary election season,” Sanders’ backer, Ben Jealous, former head of the NAACP, told The Post. “However, what is just as concerning is how the party has performed in general under her leadership.”
The DNC confirmed the computer break-in earlier this week and blamed Russian government hackers.
A senior DNC official stands by the assessment despite Gussifer’s claim it was a “lone hacker.”
“We believe that today’s release and the claims around it may be a part of a disinformation campaign by the Russians,” the official said, declining to address the alleged collusion. “We’ve deployed the recommended technology so that today our systems are secure thanks to a swift response to that attack and we will continue to monitor our systems closely.”
swift response? their system was hacked for over a year.
People spend a lot of time criticising Obama and Clinton for getting us involved in Libya and now they are to be criticised for not getting us involved in Syria.
Which is right?
I'm a few thoughts on this...
1) US don't want another war... and Obama/Clinton really buys into that.
2) Having said that, it's a cop-out. The leadership need to make those hard decisions and make the case to the public.
3) Right now, there is no case (either way), which is frustrating.
4) To be fair: I don't want to engage Assad unilaterally. If we can't go big and curbstomp him... don't bother.
Slow your roll there Whembly. If we went over there and curbstomped Assad into oblivion, what happens to Syria? Who takes over being in charge? Does it become a theocracy? Does it become more or less friendly to the US? Russia has a lot of ties to Syria, what we chose to do about Syria is going to have a direct impact with our relationship with Russia. I'm not a fan of Assad in any way but before we take him out we really need to have a plan for what comes next.
I should've clarified...*if* we do engage our military, there must be clear objective and plans. If we can't do that... don't bother.
Prestor Jon wrote: Slow your roll there Whembly. If we went over there and curbstomped Assad into oblivion, what happens to Syria? Who takes over being in charge? Does it become a theocracy? Does it become more or less friendly to the US? Russia has a lot of ties to Syria, what we chose to do about Syria is going to have a direct impact with our relationship with Russia. I'm not a fan of Assad in any way but before we take him out we really need to have a plan for what comes next.
In a just world, we'd deploy a large peacekeeping force there, weed out their corrupt local government and hold free and fair elections, rebuild their crumbling infrastructure, put the people to work, and win the hearts and minds of the population.
Then, when we're done with Detroit, we should stay the feth out of Syria.
Prestor Jon wrote: Slow your roll there Whembly. If we went over there and curbstomped Assad into oblivion, what happens to Syria? Who takes over being in charge? Does it become a theocracy? Does it become more or less friendly to the US? Russia has a lot of ties to Syria, what we chose to do about Syria is going to have a direct impact with our relationship with Russia. I'm not a fan of Assad in any way but before we take him out we really need to have a plan for what comes next.
In a just world, we'd deploy a large peacekeeping force there, weed out their corrupt local government and hold free and fair elections, rebuild their crumbling infrastructure, put the people to work, and win the hearts and minds of the population.
Then, when we're done with Detroit, we should stay the feth out of Syria.
Ah, good one. I was well on board and then you dropped Detroit out of left field.
The fact that Europe and Japan are stable, functioning democracies after being bombed to rubble can be directly credited to the Marshall Plan.
Is there a Marshall Plan for Iraq and Libya and Syria and Afganistan?
Prestor Jon wrote: Slow your roll there Whembly. If we went over there and curbstomped Assad into oblivion, what happens to Syria? Who takes over being in charge? Does it become a theocracy? Does it become more or less friendly to the US? Russia has a lot of ties to Syria, what we chose to do about Syria is going to have a direct impact with our relationship with Russia. I'm not a fan of Assad in any way but before we take him out we really need to have a plan for what comes next.
In a just world, we'd deploy a large peacekeeping force there, weed out their corrupt local government and hold free and fair elections, rebuild their crumbling infrastructure, put the people to work, and win the hearts and minds of the population.
Then, when we're done with Detroit, we should stay the feth out of Syria.
I'm not sure if you pulled that strategy from the Emeror's own notes or described the Modus operand of Banks' Culture but it works so well for both of them, it just might work for us
skyth wrote: Apparently in response to the laws being passed to drug test lower income people, a congresswoman has introduced a bill to drug test anyone with over $150k in itemized deductions.
Nobody is required to be drug tested just because they are poor. Do you think the government should act to prevent people who receive government assistance from spending some of the money on recreational drug use? I personally take a Libertarian stance on the issue and feel that the govt should either give people money with no strings or not give people money but giving people money just to justify interferring with people's personal lives isn't the role govt should be playing.
I'd disagree if you are getting assistance it is the right of the government to set requirements on said assistance, since they don't have to help you, but if you want their help then yeah you get drug screened, its like a job, you want the job you get drug tested.
as to drug testing anyone who gets over $150K in itemized deductions, go for it, only ones I see that hurting is the Kardashians and well no loss there.
skyth wrote: Apparently in response to the laws being passed to drug test lower income people, a congresswoman has introduced a bill to drug test anyone with over $150k in itemized deductions.
Nobody is required to be drug tested just because they are poor. Do you think the government should act to prevent people who receive government assistance from spending some of the money on recreational drug use? I personally take a Libertarian stance on the issue and feel that the govt should either give people money with no strings or not give people money but giving people money just to justify interferring with people's personal lives isn't the role govt should be playing.
I'd disagree if you are getting assistance it is the right of the government to set requirements on said assistance, since they don't have to help you, but if you want their help then yeah you get drug screened, its like a job, you want the job you get drug tested.
Why? What business of the employer is it what you do on your own time?
skyth wrote: Apparently in response to the laws being passed to drug test lower income people, a congresswoman has introduced a bill to drug test anyone with over $150k in itemized deductions.
Nobody is required to be drug tested just because they are poor. Do you think the government should act to prevent people who receive government assistance from spending some of the money on recreational drug use? I personally take a Libertarian stance on the issue and feel that the govt should either give people money with no strings or not give people money but giving people money just to justify interferring with people's personal lives isn't the role govt should be playing.
I'd disagree if you are getting assistance it is the right of the government to set requirements on said assistance, since they don't have to help you, but if you want their help then yeah you get drug screened, its like a job, you want the job you get drug tested.
Why? What business of the employer is it what you do on your own time?
and yet it is permitted. a business does not have to hire or employ someone who does drugs (unless prescription and weed still isn't a prescription drug even though used medically in some states).
skyth wrote: Apparently in response to the laws being passed to drug test lower income people, a congresswoman has introduced a bill to drug test anyone with over $150k in itemized deductions.
Nobody is required to be drug tested just because they are poor. Do you think the government should act to prevent people who receive government assistance from spending some of the money on recreational drug use? I personally take a Libertarian stance on the issue and feel that the govt should either give people money with no strings or not give people money but giving people money just to justify interferring with people's personal lives isn't the role govt should be playing.
I'd disagree if you are getting assistance it is the right of the government to set requirements on said assistance, since they don't have to help you, but if you want their help then yeah you get drug screened, its like a job, you want the job you get drug tested.
Why? What business of the employer is it what you do on your own time?
and yet it is permitted. a business does not have to hire or employ someone who does drugs (unless prescription and weed still isn't a prescription drug even though used medically in some states).
Sounds like those businesses hate freedom and therefore hate America.
skyth wrote: Apparently in response to the laws being passed to drug test lower income people, a congresswoman has introduced a bill to drug test anyone with over $150k in itemized deductions.
Nobody is required to be drug tested just because they are poor. Do you think the government should act to prevent people who receive government assistance from spending some of the money on recreational drug use? I personally take a Libertarian stance on the issue and feel that the govt should either give people money with no strings or not give people money but giving people money just to justify interferring with people's personal lives isn't the role govt should be playing.
I'd disagree if you are getting assistance it is the right of the government to set requirements on said assistance, since they don't have to help you, but if you want their help then yeah you get drug screened, its like a job, you want the job you get drug tested.
Why? What business of the employer is it what you do on your own time?
and yet it is permitted. a business does not have to hire or employ someone who does drugs (unless prescription and weed still isn't a prescription drug even though used medically in some states).
Sounds like those businesses hate freedom and therefore hate America.
no they are employing their freedom of choice and thereby embracing America.
feeder wrote: Policing your employee's private lives violates their liberty and pursuit of happiness. Those evil America hating corporate bastards.
no they are not policing anyone, they are saying if you want a job with them, you have to be drug free, or do you want to take away their rights to run their own company? you want to be a dictator and tell them how they have to run their company? it is their right, hell even the Government and police agencies and such have the same laws of drug testing, so get off your hobby horse and wake up, this is not about taking away "drug" users rights since doing drugs is illegal, it is about companies exercising their rights. or would you want a surgeon who just got done doing a line of crack before coming into work to operate on you? or even a surgeon who is drunk?
feeder wrote: Policing your employee's private lives violates their liberty and pursuit of happiness. Those evil America hating corporate bastards.
no they are not policing anyone, they are saying if you want a job with them, you have to be drug free, or do you want to take away their rights to run their own company? you want to be a dictator and tell them how they have to run their company? it is their right, hell even the Government and police agencies and such have the same laws of drug testing, so get off your hobby horse and wake up, this is not about taking away "drug" users rights since doing drugs is illegal, it is about companies exercising their rights. or would you want a surgeon who just got done doing a line of crack before coming into work to operate on you? or even a surgeon who is drunk?
If the person is not using drugs when at work, or impaired by their drug use whilst at work, then what business is it of the company whether they use drugs at home?
The problem with drug testing welfare recipients is that there is zero proof that welfare recipients waste their welfare money on drugs.
Every atate that has implemented mandatory welfare drug testing has ended up spending more on welfare and drug tests than they did on just welfare.
It's a waste of money, increases the size of government, increases the erosion of privacy, and is pretty much everything that the GOP opposes on paper. But it does reinforce the stereotype about the poor, so it gets support.
I think at least some of the states funneled the drug testing money to companies owned by relatives of politicians.
feeder wrote: Policing your employee's private lives violates their liberty and pursuit of happiness. Those evil America hating corporate bastards.
no they are not policing anyone, they are saying if you want a job with them, you have to be drug free, or do you want to take away their rights to run their own company? you want to be a dictator and tell them how they have to run their company? it is their right, hell even the Government and police agencies and such have the same laws of drug testing, so get off your hobby horse and wake up, this is not about taking away "drug" users rights since doing drugs is illegal, it is about companies exercising their rights. or would you want a surgeon who just got done doing a line of crack before coming into work to operate on you? or even a surgeon who is drunk?
If the person is not using drugs when at work, or impaired by their drug use whilst at work, then what business is it of the company whether they use drugs at home?
and yet if the employee is tested and they test positive then the drugs are still in their system, lets face it the government even says employers have the right, especially since the government practices such testing.
feeder wrote: What right? BoR says nothing about it.
You are saying that companies have the "right" to control what their employees do on their own time? Chairman Mao would approve.
and what right says that employers have to hire them?
feeder wrote: Policing your employee's private lives violates their liberty and pursuit of happiness. Those evil America hating corporate bastards.
no they are not policing anyone, they are saying if you want a job with them, you have to be drug free, or do you want to take away their rights to run their own company? you want to be a dictator and tell them how they have to run their company? it is their right, hell even the Government and police agencies and such have the same laws of drug testing, so get off your hobby horse and wake up, this is not about taking away "drug" users rights since doing drugs is illegal, it is about companies exercising their rights. or would you want a surgeon who just got done doing a line of crack before coming into work to operate on you? or even a surgeon who is drunk?
If the person is not using drugs when at work, or impaired by their drug use whilst at work, then what business is it of the company whether they use drugs at home?
The problem is that it's hard to prove that people are not currently impaired if they test positive. Alcohol clears out pretty quickly, but other drugs stick around since they are more complex and they are testing for the components that result from the breaking down of the drugs. So if you test positive for the wacky weed, it's hard to prove if you are just a little high right now, or really high last night.
feeder wrote: Policing your employee's private lives violates their liberty and pursuit of happiness. Those evil America hating corporate bastards.
no they are not policing anyone, they are saying if you want a job with them, you have to be drug free, or do you want to take away their rights to run their own company? you want to be a dictator and tell them how they have to run their company? it is their right, hell even the Government and police agencies and such have the same laws of drug testing, so get off your hobby horse and wake up, this is not about taking away "drug" users rights since doing drugs is illegal, it is about companies exercising their rights. or would you want a surgeon who just got done doing a line of crack before coming into work to operate on you? or even a surgeon who is drunk?
If the person is not using drugs when at work, or impaired by their drug use whilst at work, then what business is it of the company whether they use drugs at home?
The problem is that it's hard to prove that people are not currently impaired if they test positive. Alcohol clears out pretty quickly, but other drugs stick around since they are more complex and they are testing for the components that result from the breaking down of the drugs. So if you test positive for the wacky weed, it's hard to prove if you are just a little high right now, or really high last night.
Yeah... i oppose any mandatory drug testing for public assistance. I'd rather that culturally, it's a stigma to be on public assistance if you're able to work.
As for employers testing for drugs... it's probably their legal team (or liability insurance) that's driving Employers to test for those drugs, moreso than those "evil corporations who wants to control their employees private lives".
Asterios wrote: and yet if the employee is tested and they test positive then the drugs are still in their system, lets face it the government even says employers have the right, especially since the government practices such testing.
I don't think you understand how drug tests work. The tests identify trace amounts of the drug, well below the amount that would have any effect on your body. And in some cases those trace amounts can be identified weeks or more after the person used the drug. So a positive test does NOT mean that the person was under the influence of drugs at work.
Now, you can correctly argue that it is legal for an employer to impose drug tests and fire employees if they fail, but let's not pretend that this is something that has anything to do with their job performance. It's a case of an employer deciding that running your private life they way they want is a condition of employment, and I think it's entirely reasonable for people to object to that level of control.
Yeah... i oppose any mandatory drug testing for public assistance. I'd rather that culturally, it's a stigma to be on public assistance if you're able to work.
I'm not a huge fan of either of those things, honestly. If you need to be on assistance, something's probably gone seriously wrong with your life, you don't need strangers crapping on you in the grocery checkout line.
If you're genuinely a shiftless lazy jerk, then the people who know you and know that for certain can judge you for it, of course.
Mandatory drug testing for benefits is a useless money sink. Employer drug testing is easier than doing actual performance evaluations, so that's what they do. And stupid, pointless 1-5 ratings.
Now, you can correctly argue that it is legal for an employer to impose drug tests and fire employees if they fail, but let's not pretend that this is something that has anything to do with their job performance. It's a case of an employer deciding that running your private life they way they want is a condition of employment, and I think it's entirely reasonable for people to object to that level of control.
I disagree.
I work 90% of the time in a cubicle for a large healthcare organization.
The other 10% I'm in the hopsital inpatient/retail pharmacy handling drugs in every manner.
If I tested positive for recreational drug... my ass would be fired with cause. (unless I'm on some valid pain management/treatment regimen)
That's why I'm not partaking any wacky weed stuff when I'm in Denver next week.
Likewise, any heavy operators would fall in that category because it's a safety/liability concerns.
Asterios wrote: and yet if the employee is tested and they test positive then the drugs are still in their system, lets face it the government even says employers have the right, especially since the government practices such testing.
I don't think you understand how drug tests work. The tests identify trace amounts of the drug, well below the amount that would have any effect on your body. And in some cases those trace amounts can be identified weeks or more after the person used the drug. So a positive test does NOT mean that the person was under the influence of drugs at work.
Now, you can correctly argue that it is legal for an employer to impose drug tests and fire employees if they fail, but let's not pretend that this is something that has anything to do with their job performance. It's a case of an employer deciding that running your private life they way they want is a condition of employment, and I think it's entirely reasonable for people to object to that level of control.
the problem is the test also does not prove if they are not on drugs while at work either, the company does not control a persons life, the person has other choices on where to work, but if you want to work at that company you have to be drug free, saying a company has control over a persons life is saying that person cannot work anywhere because one company will not hire them, that is not the case, that person made a choice to do drugs, no one forced them to do drugs, no one pointed a gun at their head and said do these drugs, they were done by choice nothing else, just like a company has the choice on whether to hire them or not, the person doing drugs are not protected by law, this isn't racism, or discrimination because of sex or religion or disability, it is based on requirements of the company, one that is controllable by the person seeking the job.
Either you're on the side of freedom, personal choice and America, or you're on the side of oppressive government and corporate control, slavery and Communists.
feeder wrote: Either you're on the side of freedom, personal choice and America, or you're on the side of oppressive government and corporate control, slavery and Communists.
Which side are you on?
so your saying the company has no freedom? or personal choice? is that what you are saying? sounds very unamerican to me, since said company is not stopping the drug user from doing drugs, nor are they preventing them from working, if someone entered your house, and you did not know them would you let them stay? or kick them out? since it is their freedom to enter your house.
feeder wrote: Either you're on the side of freedom, personal choice and America, or you're on the side of oppressive government and corporate control, slavery and Communists.
Which side are you on?
so your saying the company has no freedom? or personal choice? is that what you are saying? sounds very unamerican to me, since said company is not stopping the drug user from doing drugs, nor are they preventing them from working, if someone entered your house, and you did not know them would you let them stay? or kick them out? since it is their freedom to enter your house.
your argument is utter fail.
I'm saying the company has no right to your personal time. You are saying the company can control your private life. You are COBRA. I'm GI Joe.
feeder wrote: Either you're on the side of freedom, personal choice and America, or you're on the side of oppressive government and corporate control, slavery and Communists.
Which side are you on?
so your saying the company has no freedom? or personal choice? is that what you are saying? sounds very unamerican to me, since said company is not stopping the drug user from doing drugs, nor are they preventing them from working, if someone entered your house, and you did not know them would you let them stay? or kick them out? since it is their freedom to enter your house.
your argument is utter fail.
I'm saying the company has no right to your personal time. You are saying the company can control your private life. You are COBRA. I'm GI Joe.
the company is not telling them what they can do on their own time (the law might, but not the company) if you don't like the companies rules then get a job somewhere else its as simple as that, just like if you don't like a company that doesn't give you a company car or expense account go somewhere else, the company is not controlling you, you are, the company is only controlling what happens on their property and business within the law. I repeat you never answered my question, if a stranger breaks into your house and decides to live there will you kick them out?
Ustrello wrote: Corporations are good people and would never ever take advantage of telling what their employees can do, where they can shop and live.
once upon a time they did and the military still does to an extent.
skyth wrote: Of course the point was that the bill introduced drug testing for the wealthy in order to get government assistance in the form of tax breaks...
pretty much the same tax breaks available to any tax payer. so it would be discriminating against those who made more money? so you work hard and make something of yourself you get discriminated against? but then again such a law would also effect some members of congress and the senate and even Hillary and Trump and Obama? yeah don't see that law passing anytime soon.
skyth wrote: Of course the point was that the bill introduced drug testing for the wealthy in order to get government assistance in the form of tax breaks...
That woosh of air is the sound of that point flying over peoples heads. Have an exalt.
the company is not telling them what they can do on their own time
Yeah, they are. This is self evident.
the company is not controlling you, you are, the company is only controlling what happens on their property and business
No, they're not. this is self evident.
if a stranger breaks into your house and decides to live there will you kick them out?
I ignored this because it is nonsense. Breaking and entering a private residence is not analogous with dictating what your employees may do on their own time.
skyth wrote: Of course the point was that the bill introduced drug testing for the wealthy in order to get government assistance in the form of tax breaks...
That woosh of air is the sound of that point flying over peoples heads. Have an exalt.
problem is if the law was made for anyone paying taxes and taking write offs, that would be a different matter altogether, but by saying only certain people then its discrimination.
the company is not telling them what they can do on their own time
Yeah, they are. This is self evident.
the company is not controlling you, you are, the company is only controlling what happens on their property and business
No, they're not. this is self evident.
if a stranger breaks into your house and decides to live there will you kick them out?
I ignored this because it is nonsense. Breaking and entering a private residence is not analogous with dictating what your employees may do on their own time.
but the trespasser is only exercising their freedom to go where they want, ever hear the of the song signs?
Spoiler:
that is your stance? but wait, when it invades your residence then its not a freedom?
if they are not employed at the company how can the company tell them what to do? and you already said you do have the right to say who can come on your property, so its ok for you to do that, but not for companies to do that?
skyth wrote: Of course the point was that the bill introduced drug testing for the wealthy in order to get government assistance in the form of tax breaks...
pretty much the same tax breaks available to any tax payer. so it would be discriminating against those who made more money? so you work hard and make something of yourself you get discriminated against? but then again such a law would also effect some members of congress and the senate and even Hillary and Trump and Obama? yeah don't see that law passing anytime soon.
As welfare payments are available to any citizen that meets the criteria. Both are government benefits to them. Mr. Soros, please pee into this cup.
skyth wrote: Of course the point was that the bill introduced drug testing for the wealthy in order to get government assistance in the form of tax breaks...
pretty much the same tax breaks available to any tax payer. so it would be discriminating against those who made more money? so you work hard and make something of yourself you get discriminated against? but then again such a law would also effect some members of congress and the senate and even Hillary and Trump and Obama? yeah don't see that law passing anytime soon.
As welfare payments are available to any citizen that meets the criteria. Both are government benefits to them. Mr. Soros, please pee into this cup.
yeah but it is not all tax payers who are taking tax breaks, its like saying only certain welfare recipients only have to take drugs tests, its either all or nothing, but like I said don't see the law passing anyway.
feeder wrote: Policing your employee's private lives violates their liberty and pursuit of happiness. Those evil America hating corporate bastards.
no they are not policing anyone, they are saying if you want a job with them, you have to be drug free, or do you want to take away their rights to run their own company? you want to be a dictator and tell them how they have to run their company? it is their right, hell even the Government and police agencies and such have the same laws of drug testing, so get off your hobby horse and wake up, this is not about taking away "drug" users rights since doing drugs is illegal, it is about companies exercising their rights. or would you want a surgeon who just got done doing a line of crack before coming into work to operate on you? or even a surgeon who is drunk?
If the person is not using drugs when at work, or impaired by their drug use whilst at work, then what business is it of the company whether they use drugs at home?
and yet if the employee is tested and they test positive then the drugs are still in their system, lets face it the government even says employers have the right, especially since the government practices such testing.
Uh, I know a lot of people who work for the government. I am always amazed when they tell me there is no random drug testing.
If you are high at home, your boss should not be able to fire you for that. If you are high at work, your boss should be able to fire you for that. As soon as your boss is able to dictate what you do on your own private time, it becomes an issue.
Dreadwinter wrote: If you are high at home, your boss should not be able to fire you for that. If you are high at work, your boss should be able to fire you for that. As soon as your boss is able to dictate what you do on your own private time, it becomes an issue.
So one minute after quitting time, I should be able to hop on social media and spew racist bs and proclaim how much I hate my boss and my job while making up egregious lies about them?
Kilkrazy wrote: That would be slander, or maybe libel. It's prohibited by existing law and doesn't need to be covered by special contractual conditions.
Oh Jesus Christ.
Do we get into a discussion about the differences between libel tourism capitals like the UK and sane places like the United States, where the threshold for libel/slander - especially from private citizens - is considerably higher than you're used to, and why this wouldn't qualify?
Or should we overlook that and get back to the meat of the point, which was that of course a company can fire you for what you do during your private time?
Ignore what would doubtlessly be slander or libel in the UK and stick with the racism (remembering that we don't put people in jail for that over here), and ask yourself the question again.
Kilkrazy wrote: That would be slander, or maybe libel. It's prohibited by existing law and doesn't need to be covered by special contractual conditions.
Oh Jesus Christ.
Do we get into a discussion about the differences between libel tourism capitals like the UK and sane places like the United States, where the threshold for libel/slander - especially from private citizens - is considerably higher than you're used to, and why this wouldn't qualify?
If you are lying about someone in a way as to damage their reputation, then how is that not libel or slander?
For example, what lies are being said about the boss? Specifics, please, as that can have a very big impact on how it is handled.
Dreadwinter wrote: If you are high at home, your boss should not be able to fire you for that. If you are high at work, your boss should be able to fire you for that. As soon as your boss is able to dictate what you do on your own private time, it becomes an issue.
So one minute after quitting time, I should be able to hop on social media and spew racist bs and proclaim how much I hate my boss and my job while making up egregious lies about them?
No, because at that point you are involving your job and work place. However when people take drugs on their private time, they do not exclaim it on the internet that "I DO THESE DRUGS IN THE NAME OF WALMART!"
Ridiculous argument is ridiculous. You are on here in threads talking about how people should not infringe upon your rights to firearms, why should people be able to infringe upon your rights to privacy?
Dreadwinter wrote: No, because at that point you are involving your job and work place. However when people take drugs on their private time, they do not exclaim it on the internet that "I DO THESE DRUGS IN THE NAME OF WALMART!"
Same question, leave out the abuse of job/boss.
A second after I get off work, I hop on Twitter and start voicing the most vile, racist stuff imaginable. You don't think my company should be able to fire me?
You are on here in threads talking about how people should not infringe upon your rights to firearms, why should people be able to infringe upon your rights to privacy?
Ignore what would doubtlessly be slander or libel in the UK and stick with the racism (remembering that we don't put people in jail for that over here), and ask yourself the question again.
Also, you do put people in jail for defamation, 17 of your states have criminal defamation laws, some of which allow for incarceration.
Ignore what would doubtlessly be slander or libel in the UK and stick with the racism (remembering that we don't put people in jail for that over here), and ask yourself the question again.
Also, you do put people in jail for defamation, 17 of your states have criminal defamation laws which allow for incarceration.
Hmm.
stick with the racism (remembering that we don't put people in jail for that over here)
Dreadwinter wrote: No, because at that point you are involving your job and work place. However when people take drugs on their private time, they do not exclaim it on the internet that "I DO THESE DRUGS IN THE NAME OF WALMART!"
Same question, leave out the abuse of job/boss.
A second after I get off work, I hop on Twitter and start voicing the most vile, racist stuff imaginable. You don't think my company should be able to fire me?
You are on here in threads talking about how people should not infringe upon your rights to firearms, why should people be able to infringe upon your rights to privacy?
Because this isn't a right to privacy issue.
As long as you are not in a position to be a public figure of your company and it is not in a contract you have signed with your company to act like a decent human being, you should not be fired for what you say on your private time.
How is this not a privacy issue? If I am privately taking drugs at home and doing so as a responsible person, why does my boss get to take a urine/hair sample from me?
but the trespasser is only exercising their freedom to go where they want, ever hear the of the song signs?
Spoiler:
that is your stance? but wait, when it invades your residence then its not a freedom?
if they are not employed at the company how can the company tell them what to do? and you already said you do have the right to say who can come on your property, so its ok for you to do that, but not for companies to do that?
Have you ever met an incoherent argument you're not willing to make?
if they are not employed at the company how can the company tell them what to do?
They can't. Who said they could? Nobody, that's who.
The problem is some people (like yourself) who claim to freedom-loving Americans, are actually freedom-hating Communists, who believe that a corporation should be allowed decide what their employees get up to on their own time.
As long as you are not in a position to be a public figure of your company and it is not in a contract you have signed with your company to act like a decent human being, you should not be fired for what you say on your private time.
If you're being racist enough and enough people care, you'll be in a position to be a "public figure of your company" right quick, whether you're the CEO or a fry cook. These are the days of Twitter campaigns to get people fired before we forget about them entirely.
How is this not a privacy issue?
Well, it's not government infringement, for one.
If I am privately taking drugs at home and doing so as a responsible person, why does my boss get to take a urine/hair sample from me?
Because he wants to, because you work for him, and because drug testing employees is not illegal.
but the trespasser is only exercising their freedom to go where they want, ever hear the of the song signs?
Spoiler:
that is your stance? but wait, when it invades your residence then its not a freedom?
if they are not employed at the company how can the company tell them what to do? and you already said you do have the right to say who can come on your property, so its ok for you to do that, but not for companies to do that?
Have you ever met an incoherent argument you're not willing to make?
if they are not employed at the company how can the company tell them what to do?
They can't. Who said they could? Nobody, that's who.
The problem is some people (like yourself) who claim to freedom-loving Americans, are actually freedom-hating Communists, who believe that a corporation should be allowed decide what their employees get up to on their own time.
and yet there you go assuming again, if a prospective employee fails a drug test, they are not hired, if they fail a drug test at work they are fired, and yet you are the one who is a hypocrit, you say a company cannot keep someone out of their business while saying you can keep someone out of your house? even though they want to hang out in your house on their own time, so which is it? companies have the same choices you do or they don't? do they have the same "freedoms" you do or not? if a company doesn't want a drug user on their premises that is their right.
The problem is some people (like yourself) who claim to freedom-loving Americans, are actually freedom-hating Communists, who believe that a corporation should be allowed decide what their employees get up to on their own time.
I'm saying that allowing a corporation to dictate what someone does on their own private time is contrary to the principals of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, two of the three things that make America great.
feeder wrote: I'm saying that allowing a corporation to dictate what someone does on their own private time is contrary to the principals of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, two of the three things that make America great.
You act like this is a huge thing...
I've only see it as a pre-employment test...
... or if it could compromise your function at your job:
Like in my case, I handle narcotics in regular fashion... (divergence is a big deal)
Or, if I operative heavy equipment (safety of yourself and others).
So, you're making a Mountain out of an anthill here.
feeder wrote: I'm saying that allowing a corporation to dictate what someone does on their own private time is contrary to the principals of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, two of the three things that make America great.
and companies have the right to hire and fire who they want as long as they do not discriminate based on sex, race, disability and religion.
but you would rather dictate what a company can and cannot do depriving them of their liberties and pursuit of happiness, neither of which is guaranteed by the Constitutional Amendments.
that is like saying serial killers should be allowed to kill since that is their right in the pursuit of happiness.
feeder wrote: I'm saying that allowing a corporation to dictate what someone does on their own private time is contrary to the principals of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, two of the three things that make America great.
You act like this is a huge thing...
I've only see it as a pre-employment test...
... or if it could compromise your function at your job:
Like in my case, I handle narcotics in regular fashion... (divergence is a big deal)
Or, if I operative heavy equipment (safety of yourself and others).
So, you're making a Mountain out of an anthill here.
certain fields also do annual drug testing too like medical and such and dealing with heavy machinery and law enforcement.
feeder wrote: I'm saying that allowing a corporation to dictate what someone does on their own private time is contrary to the principals of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, two of the three things that make America great.
and companies have the right to hire and fire who they want as long as they do not discriminate based on sex, race, disability and religion.
but you would rather dictate what a company can and cannot do depriving them of their liberties and pursuit of happiness, neither of which is guaranteed by the Constitutional Amendments.
that is like saying serial killers should be allowed to kill since that is their right in the pursuit of happiness.
But that infringes on others rights to pursue happiness, no?
feeder wrote: I'm saying that allowing a corporation to dictate what someone does on their own private time is contrary to the principals of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, two of the three things that make America great.
and companies have the right to hire and fire who they want as long as they do not discriminate based on sex, race, disability and religion.
but you would rather dictate what a company can and cannot do depriving them of their liberties and pursuit of happiness, neither of which is guaranteed by the Constitutional Amendments.
that is like saying serial killers should be allowed to kill since that is their right in the pursuit of happiness.
But that infringes on others rights to pursue happiness, no?
and like I said it is not protected by the Constitutional Amendments, if it was killers would be allowed to kill, rapists would be allowed to rape and so on and so on. as it goes drug testing has been taken to court and the companies won since working is not a right and working for a specific company is definitely not a right.
feeder wrote: I'm saying that allowing a corporation to dictate what someone does on their own private time is contrary to the principals of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, two of the three things that make America great.
and companies have the right to hire and fire who they want as long as they do not discriminate based on sex, race, disability and religion.
but you would rather dictate what a company can and cannot do depriving them of their liberties and pursuit of happiness, neither of which is guaranteed by the Constitutional Amendments.
that is like saying serial killers should be allowed to kill since that is their right in the pursuit of happiness.
But that infringes on others rights to pursue happiness, no?
and like I said it is not protected by the Constitutional Amendments, if it was killers would be allowed to kill, rapists would be allowed to rape and so on and so on. as it goes drug testing has been taken to court and the companies won since working is not a right and working for a specific company is definitely not a right.
Reducto ad absurdum is the rebuttal you're going all in on?
feeder wrote: I'm saying that allowing a corporation to dictate what someone does on their own private time is contrary to the principals of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, two of the three things that make America great.
and companies have the right to hire and fire who they want as long as they do not discriminate based on sex, race, disability and religion.
but you would rather dictate what a company can and cannot do depriving them of their liberties and pursuit of happiness, neither of which is guaranteed by the Constitutional Amendments.
that is like saying serial killers should be allowed to kill since that is their right in the pursuit of happiness.
But that infringes on others rights to pursue happiness, no?
and like I said it is not protected by the Constitutional Amendments, if it was killers would be allowed to kill, rapists would be allowed to rape and so on and so on. as it goes drug testing has been taken to court and the companies won since working is not a right and working for a specific company is definitely not a right.
Reducto ad absurdum is the rebuttal you're going all in on?
you need to wake up and join the real world, if you need a job, doesn't mean the company needs you though. companies have the right to pick and choose who they want to hire based on their requirements, if they don't want drug users then they don't have to hire drug users, if you don't want to test, then you don't have to be hired.
as to some other fields it is law for them to be tested, just like Sports, are you saying athletes should not have to be tested? even though they are doing what they want on their own time? seriously wake up.
you need to wake up and join the real world, if you need a job, doesn't mean the company needs you though. companies have the right to pick and choose who they want to hire based on their requirements, if they don't want drug users then they don't have to hire drug users, if you don't want to test, then you don't have to be hired.
as to some other fields it is law for them to be tested, just like Sports, are you saying athletes should not have to be tested? even though they are doing what they want on their own time? seriously wake up.
I'm having flashbacks to elementary school, and the spastic kid forgot his adderall again.
Allowing private corporations to dictate what their employees do on their own time in their own home is contrary to the inalienable rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness as described in the DoI. Yes or no.
No ludicrous comparisons, no wildly tangential arguments, yes or no.
you need to wake up and join the real world, if you need a job, doesn't mean the company needs you though. companies have the right to pick and choose who they want to hire based on their requirements, if they don't want drug users then they don't have to hire drug users, if you don't want to test, then you don't have to be hired.
as to some other fields it is law for them to be tested, just like Sports, are you saying athletes should not have to be tested? even though they are doing what they want on their own time? seriously wake up.
I'm having flashbacks to elementary school, and the spastic kid forgot his adderall again.
Allowing private corporations to dictate what their employees do on their own time in their own home is contrary to the inalienable rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness as described in the DoI. Yes or no. No ludicrous comparisons, no wildly tangential arguments, yes or no.
No, because no one is forcing you to work said private corporation.
Are you familiar with Workman's Comp Laws? If you get injured on the job, you almost ALWAYS get tested.
It's a liability thing... not some desire to control the employer's private time.
you need to wake up and join the real world, if you need a job, doesn't mean the company needs you though. companies have the right to pick and choose who they want to hire based on their requirements, if they don't want drug users then they don't have to hire drug users, if you don't want to test, then you don't have to be hired.
as to some other fields it is law for them to be tested, just like Sports, are you saying athletes should not have to be tested? even though they are doing what they want on their own time? seriously wake up.
I'm having flashbacks to elementary school, and the spastic kid forgot his adderall again.
Allowing private corporations to dictate what their employees do on their own time in their own home is contrary to the inalienable rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness as described in the DoI. Yes or no.
No ludicrous comparisons, no wildly tangential arguments, yes or no.
No, because no one is forcing you to work said private corporation.
Are you familiar with Workman's Comp Laws? If you get injured on the job, you almost ALWAYS get tested.
It's a liability thing... not some desire to control the employer's private time.
As far as I can see, drug tests from workplace injury wasn't mentioned, I believe it's about drug test during the hiring/interview process.
you need to wake up and join the real world, if you need a job, doesn't mean the company needs you though. companies have the right to pick and choose who they want to hire based on their requirements, if they don't want drug users then they don't have to hire drug users, if you don't want to test, then you don't have to be hired.
as to some other fields it is law for them to be tested, just like Sports, are you saying athletes should not have to be tested? even though they are doing what they want on their own time? seriously wake up.
I'm having flashbacks to elementary school, and the spastic kid forgot his adderall again.
Allowing private corporations to dictate what their employees do on their own time in their own home is contrary to the inalienable rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness as described in the DoI. Yes or no.
No ludicrous comparisons, no wildly tangential arguments, yes or no.
so your saying the entire sports world is violating Athletes rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
as to your question, if it effects their company or violates their policies, you know those papers you sign when you get hired and the employees show up with drugs or drug residue in their systems, that is on company time and company property so they have every right, just like you have a right to kick anyone out of your house you want, but by your definition you do not. nobody forced you to work for the company just like nobody forced you to sign the paperwork so as to have a job jut like no one forced you to violate the law and do drugs, you did those things of your own free choice and just like free choice you have to suffer the consequences of those choices.
It's amazing that we will likely see the death of the thread that has survived a year of the dumbest arguments made in the history of Dakka, and it will be at the hand of less than a handful of posters.
The OT of the past few weeks truly explains the rise of Trump.
d-usa wrote: we will likely see the death of the thread that has survived a year
10/05/2016 09:21:14
It has only recently broken 1 month. Which is sadder.
On topic, now. If I see people dragging threads off topic, and believe me this is off topic, then I'm just going to give you warnings rather than constantly doing general ones for the thread. There have been more than enough chances given
Its tough. But I honestly see Trump winning. I think more democrats hate Hillary than Rubulicans hate trump. I bet a significant part of the left will stay home on tuesday.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Its tough. But I honestly see Trump winning. I think more democrats hate Hillary than Rubulicans hate trump. I bet a significant part of the left will stay home on tuesday.
I disagree with you here... I honestly think that there are enough "never trump" people out there to keep him out, and I think that there's enough Bernie supporters who, when the time really comes, will bite the bullet as it were, and vote for Clinton, just to keep trump out.
It's a bit early to tell, but, I can see myself putting a check next to her name, though this isn't a vote FOR her, so much as it is voting for Not Trump.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Its tough. But I honestly see Trump winning. I think more democrats hate Hillary than Rubulicans hate trump. I bet a significant part of the left will stay home on tuesday.
I disagree with you here... I honestly think that there are enough "never trump" people out there to keep him out, and I think that there's enough Bernie supporters who, when the time really comes, will bite the bullet as it were, and vote for Clinton, just to keep trump out.
It's a bit early to tell, but, I can see myself putting a check next to her name, though this isn't a vote FOR her, so much as it is voting for Not Trump.
That logic got Trudeau in office here and he is worthless.
I think Trump has a good chance, I think people will start to see how awful Hillary is, heard there was some documentaries coming out about her, media is a game changer.
We shall see.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Its tough. But I honestly see Trump winning. I think more democrats hate Hillary than Rubulicans hate trump. I bet a significant part of the left will stay home on tuesday.
I disagree with you here... I honestly think that there are enough "never trump" people out there to keep him out, and I think that there's enough Bernie supporters who, when the time really comes, will bite the bullet as it were, and vote for Clinton, just to keep trump out.
It's a bit early to tell, but, I can see myself putting a check next to her name, though this isn't a vote FOR her, so much as it is voting for Not Trump.
That logic got Trudeau in office here and he is worthless.
I think Trump has a good chance, I think people will start to see how awful Hillary is, heard there was some documentaries coming out about her, media is a game changer.
We shall see.
It is, and I think as time goes on, it's going to show more and more of the ugly side of Trump (there's a not-ugly side?). The lack of respect he has for people's intelligence, as shown by his constant, blatant lies. The frivolous use of the legal system, that's something a lot of people get angry about. His lack of a concrete platform. The bullying, the braggadocio, the misogyny, the bigotry...the hardline supporters certainly aren't going to change their minds, but I think a lot of the more moderate Republican base would be disgusted enough to stay home or write in someone else.
Clinton's certainly not my first choice, but if it comes down to her and Trump and it looks like it might be close in my state (although I'm not expecting it to be), then she's getting my vote. And, frankly, anyone in the Republican party that gives Trump support, tacit or otherwise, isn't going to. Not that they had much chance anyway, the modern GOP being what it is, but I don't like to write off a party just because.
Is Gary Johnson showing up on enough polls to have a shot at being included in the debates (absolutely ridiculous how non 2 party candidates are kept out of the process.)
Eldarain wrote: Is Gary Johnson showing up on enough polls to have a shot at being included in the debates (absolutely ridiculous how non 2 party candidates are kept out of the process.)
hotsauceman1 wrote: Its tough. But I honestly see Trump winning. I think more democrats hate Hillary than Rubulicans hate trump. I bet a significant part of the left will stay home on tuesday.
I disagree with you here... I honestly think that there are enough "never trump" people out there to keep him out, and I think that there's enough Bernie supporters who, when the time really comes, will bite the bullet as it were, and vote for Clinton, just to keep trump out.
It's a bit early to tell, but, I can see myself putting a check next to her name, though this isn't a vote FOR her, so much as it is voting for Not Trump.
That logic got Trudeau in office here and he is worthless.
I think Trump has a good chance, I think people will start to see how awful Hillary is, heard there was some documentaries coming out about her, media is a game changer.
We shall see.
Considering the other options were Harper(lol) and Mulcair(who decided to turn the NDP into Liberals the Worse), it wasn't like we had many options. I guess we could throw our vote away for the Green Party, or Bloc in Quebec.
Harper was one of the worst things to happen to Canada, who sugar coated himself just enough with the GST cuts to get in. That, and, with the previous Liberal leader being a turd (don't even remember his name, some professor), managed to get ten years of power.
Edit: the only chance the NDP has of ever winning is if they dig up Jack Layton and let him run the party again. His corpse has more charisma then any of the other NDP members.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Its tough. But I honestly see Trump winning. I think more democrats hate Hillary than Rubulicans hate trump. I bet a significant part of the left will stay home on tuesday.
I disagree with you here... I honestly think that there are enough "never trump" people out there to keep him out, and I think that there's enough Bernie supporters who, when the time really comes, will bite the bullet as it were, and vote for Clinton, just to keep trump out.
It's a bit early to tell, but, I can see myself putting a check next to her name, though this isn't a vote FOR her, so much as it is voting for Not Trump.
I'm not sure that turnout is going to be particularly impressive so I can see it going either way. Clinton has an advantage in that her campaign seems to be better organised but she is definitely fully capable of screwing that up due to being so disconnected from what anyone actually wants. The Democratic Party busying itself with purging its left may end up biting it in the ass when it would be better to put up a united front against the mess that the Republican Party has become.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Its tough. But I honestly see Trump winning. I think more democrats hate Hillary than Rubulicans hate trump. I bet a significant part of the left will stay home on tuesday.
I disagree with you here... I honestly think that there are enough "never trump" people out there to keep him out, and I think that there's enough Bernie supporters who, when the time really comes, will bite the bullet as it were, and vote for Clinton, just to keep trump out.
It's a bit early to tell, but, I can see myself putting a check next to her name, though this isn't a vote FOR her, so much as it is voting for Not Trump.
I think this will be an election where more people will be voting just to block the other person, rather than voting for who they believe in. It's really that bad. I don't "believe" in Hillary, but I sure as feth will do what I can to block Trump.
By the way, I heard this, um, "political ad" on the radio yesterday and I just had to share it with you all.
I'm not sure that turnout is going to be particularly impressive so I can see it going either way. Clinton has an advantage in that her campaign seems to be better organised but she is definitely fully capable of screwing that up due to being so disconnected from what anyone actually wants. The Democratic Party busying itself with purging its left may end up biting it in the ass when it would be better to put up a united front against the mess that the Republican Party has become.
I don't foresee good times ahead.
Where is this "purging its left" narrative coming from, out of curiosity? Sanders is a deeply flawed candidate who would never have gotten through a general election without being utterly destroyed, and he lost the primary. There's no voodoo involved, he simply lost. Now he's being rather petulant about it.
I'm not sure that turnout is going to be particularly impressive so I can see it going either way. Clinton has an advantage in that her campaign seems to be better organised but she is definitely fully capable of screwing that up due to being so disconnected from what anyone actually wants. The Democratic Party busying itself with purging its left may end up biting it in the ass when it would be better to put up a united front against the mess that the Republican Party has become.
I don't foresee good times ahead.
Where is this "purging its left" narrative coming from, out of curiosity? Sanders is a deeply flawed candidate who would never have gotten through a general election without being utterly destroyed, and he lost the primary. There's no voodoo involved, he simply lost. Now he's being rather petulant about it.
I'm not sure that turnout is going to be particularly impressive so I can see it going either way. Clinton has an advantage in that her campaign seems to be better organised but she is definitely fully capable of screwing that up due to being so disconnected from what anyone actually wants. The Democratic Party busying itself with purging its left may end up biting it in the ass when it would be better to put up a united front against the mess that the Republican Party has become.
I don't foresee good times ahead.
Where is this "purging its left" narrative coming from, out of curiosity? Sanders is a deeply flawed candidate who would never have gotten through a general election without being utterly destroyed, and he lost the primary. There's no voodoo involved, he simply lost. Now he's being rather petulant about it.
The Democrats do stuff like immediately drop Sanders' NJ chair from the DNC and, like you, talk gak about Sanders because he doesn't give in to the DNC-appointed heir to the throne. The issues Sanders got popular because of aren't going to go away despite what the Democratic Party likes to think.
And lol at describing Sanders as "deeply flawed" as opposed to Clinton, that gem of political perfection.
I should rephrase that, who do you think will win?
I am convinced Hillary's going to win. No matter what happens and who wins the popular vote, she will be our next president. Of course, this is based on feelings and not evidence.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Its tough. But I honestly see Trump winning. I think more democrats hate Hillary than Rubulicans hate trump. I bet a significant part of the left will stay home on tuesday.
Sorry bud. Trump doesn't have a chance.
'Tis why I'm praying for the GOP Convention to revolt and pick a 'not-Trump'.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Its tough. But I honestly see Trump winning. I think more democrats hate Hillary than Rubulicans hate trump. I bet a significant part of the left will stay home on tuesday.
Sorry bud. Trump doesn't have a chance.
'Tis why I'm praying for the GOP Convention to revolt and pick a 'not-Trump'.
Yeah, it's best for the GOP to implode now, and rebuild and hopefully emerge stronger for it in 2020, than to just suck it up, stand behind Trump, and have an even harder time recovering.
They will say, again, that Trump wasn't a true conservative and that they would have won if they truly doubled down on being conservative and will run someone on the right of Cruz the next time around.
Well, Trump has fired his campaign manager. I'm not sure why exactly. It wasn't his campaign manager who made all the stupid tweets and comments in recent weeks. It wasn't his campaign manager who refuses to try to raise money by contacting donors or hiring, you know, actual campaign staffers.
Trump started to change his team a month or two back with a view to properly competing in the main event and hired a new chief strategist. This must be another step in the same direction.
I think that's roughly the same thing you said at the beginning of the Primaries.
I'll submit that I was wrong here... but, there were 16 candidates in the primary and Trump was successful in sucking up the oxygen in the Primary room. In the General... yeah, no chance at all.
I have seen 0 evidence that Trump can flip Ohio, Florida, or Penn. Without those states, it is Romney vs. Obama all over again, but the names are changed to Trump/Hillary.
I'll submit that I was wrong here... but, there were 16 candidates in the primary and Trump was successful in sucking up the oxygen in the Primary room. In the General... yeah, no chance at all.
He's only ~6 points behind Hillary, and he beat Cruz with a lesser margin.
Reagan. So much Reagan. To the point that Ted Cruz painted himself as a Reaganaut 30 years after The Gipper last took office. That's pathetic. It is 2016, it is not 1985.
dogma wrote: To the point that Ted Cruz painted himself as a Reaganaut 30 years after The Gipper last took office. That's pathetic. It is 2016, it is not 1985.
You say that like selling arms to Iran, supporting gun control, and supplying religious fundamentalists in Afghanistan doesn't have the same cachet it once did.
You say that like selling arms to Iran, supporting gun control, and supplying religious fundamentalists in Afghanistan doesn't have the same cachet it once did.
Times change, but the Mississippi Reagan runs eternal.
I'll submit that I was wrong here... but, there were 16 candidates in the primary and Trump was successful in sucking up the oxygen in the Primary room. In the General... yeah, no chance at all.
He's only ~6 points behind Hillary, and he beat Cruz with a lesser margin.
Seems like you're engaging in wishful thinking.
He has 30 people on the ground THIRTY. HRC/NDC has well over 300.
Reagan. So much Reagan. To the point that Ted Cruz painted himself as a Reaganaut 30 years after The Gipper last took office. That's pathetic. It is 2016, it is not 1985.
he's not the 'conservative' choice. He's a GOP candidate... yes. But conservative?
Nah.
Like I said. The GOP will continue their slow and purposeful march into "crazy racist uncle" territory claiming that Hillary wouldn't be in the White House if they only ran a "true" conservative, so they will run someone to the right of Cruz in 2020.
he's not the 'conservative' choice. He's a GOP candidate... yes. But conservative?
Nah.
Like I said. The GOP will continue their slow and purposeful march into "crazy racist uncle" territory claiming that Hillary wouldn't be in the White House if they only ran a "true" conservative, so they will run someone to the right of Cruz in 2020.
and promptly lose because everyone hates cruz including republicans
he's not the 'conservative' choice. He's a GOP candidate... yes. But conservative?
Nah.
Like I said. The GOP will continue their slow and purposeful march into "crazy racist uncle" territory claiming that Hillary wouldn't be in the White House if they only ran a "true" conservative, so they will run someone to the right of Cruz in 2020.
he's not the 'conservative' choice. He's a GOP candidate... yes. But conservative?
Nah.
Like I said. The GOP will continue their slow and purposeful march into "crazy racist uncle" territory claiming that Hillary wouldn't be in the White House if they only ran a "true" conservative, so they will run someone to the right of Cruz in 2020.
he's not the 'conservative' choice. He's a GOP candidate... yes. But conservative?
Nah.
What constitutes "conservative"?
You know what I mean, so please don't be insulting.
GOP <> "conservative"
Democrats <> "lefties"
It's not an absolute with respect to the parties. Sure, they're both moving further apart over the last few years, but it's lazy to label one party "Da Lefties" and the other "Dur Righties of dere".
So, to head off a bit from what I think it means 'to be a conservative' here's the basic principles imo:
Spoiler:
As a philosophy, conservatism is about caution. We tend to be leery of HUGE big sweeping (do something!!!) that promises to change complex systems. We tend to think that society has evolved in a certain way based on a multitudes of unknowable examples of trial and error. We think it’s the height of folly and hubris to accept that a few self-appointed experts can order things better than the collective wisdom of free people, whom are simply attempting to maximize their personal liberty and happiness.
What conservative philosophy does not demand... is the unthinking perpetuation of big government programs because “that’s what’s always been done.”
Essentially, conservatisms directly opposes to practices of statisms.
While conservative philosophy provides a cautionary note when faced with upsetting long held positions, it is not the perpetual defense of the status-quo. So, try to recognize the dangers and potential costs of any change... and furthermore, discern how important this objective is, and in turn effectively communicate these positions and act accordingly.
“Conservative” in the American political sense tends to mean a vision for government that is more modest in terms of size and scope than establishment GOP (or, 'GOPe' for short) and their close relatives, Democrats and liberals. This doesn't necessary mean we want a tiny governmental footprint at the expense of rational programs. Only that, let's review the current state for appropriateness and use these guiding principles in the future. Succinctly stated, conservatives want something a bit closer to the constitutional limits placed on the federal government at the founding.
'Tis why you always see me harping about how the 10th amendment is turned upside down from it's intent and how top-heaving the Federal Government has become.
he's not the 'conservative' choice. He's a GOP candidate... yes. But conservative?
Nah.
Like I said. The GOP will continue their slow and purposeful march into "crazy racist uncle" territory claiming that Hillary wouldn't be in the White House if they only ran a "true" conservative, so they will run someone to the right of Cruz in 2020.
At this point... any 'not-Trump' would be better.
So if the GOP nominated Clinton...?
I don't think it's possible for them to nominate Clinton, as he's already served two terms. But it would be the battle of the century if they could!
We think it’s the height of folly and hubris to accept that a few self-appointed experts can order things better than the collective wisdom of free people, whom are simply attempting to maximize their personal liberty and happiness.
'Tis why you always see me harping about how the 10th amendment is turned upside down from it's intent and how top-heaving the Federal Government has become.
We think it’s the height of folly and hubris to accept that a few self-appointed experts can order things better than the collective wisdom of free people, whom are simply attempting to maximize their personal liberty and happiness.
Sounds more libertarianism.
Actually sounds more like a fantasy. It's the height of folly and hubris to pretend the prisoner's dilemna doesn't exist.
We think it’s the height of folly and hubris to accept that a few self-appointed experts can order things better than the collective wisdom of free people, whom are simply attempting to maximize their personal liberty and happiness.
'Tis why you always see me harping about how the 10th amendment is turned upside down from it's intent and how top-heaving the Federal Government has become.
Says the Rubio fanboi.
Rubio is anti 10th amendment? I'm sure you can provide justifications for that retort...
Could you guys stop flirting and just answer the questions you pose to one another? Calling each other out is cute and all, but just assume he is being genuine and go with it.
Far-left activists aren’t going away quietly — or with a pleasant aroma.
Cheri Honkala, head of Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign, is organizing the world’s largest ‘fart-in’ to be held on July 28 at Philadelphia’s Wells Fargo Center during Hillary Clinton’s anticipated Democratic nomination acceptance speech.
“We will be holding a massive bean supper for Bernie Sanders delegates on American Street in my Kensington neighborhood on the afternoon of July 28,” Honkala says, TruthDig reports.
“We are setting up a Clintonville there, modeled on the Hoovervilles of the 1930s where the poor and unemployed built shanty towns. The Sanders delegates, their bellies full of beans, will be able to return to the Wells Fargo Center and greet the rhetorical flatulence of Hillary Clinton with the real thing.”
Activists have invited Bernie Sanders to join their bean supper, which Honkala has dubbed “Beans for Hillary.”
“Any remaining beans will be served to the homeless, although we will, of course, be urging Sanders delegates to eat as much as possible,” she says.
Leftist author Chris Hedges will be offering a “nondemoniational” prayer at the dinner.
“I am happy to bless a meal that will be put to such effective political use,” Hedges says, according to TruthDig.
The “fart-in” ironically has its roots with the activist movement leader then-Hillary Rodham sidled up to in the 1960s: Saul Alinsky.
He promoted a “flatulent blitzkrieg” as a way to offend the elites of Rochester, New York.
He explained in a 1972 interview with Playboy magazine:
Another idea I had that almost came to fruition was directed at the Rochester Philharmonic, which was the establishment’s — and Kodak’s — cultural jewel. I suggested we pick a night when the music would be relatively quiet and buy 100 seats.
The 100 blacks scheduled to attend the concert would then be treated to a preshow banquet in the community consisting of nothing but huge portions of baked beans. Can you imagine the inevitable consequences within the symphony hall?
The concert would be over before the first movement — another Freudian slip — and Rochester would be immortalized as the site of the world’s first fart-in.
When questioned about the level of maturity of such a stunt, Alinsky defended it, saying:
First of all, the fart-in would be completely outside the city fathers’ experience. Demonstrations, confrontations and picketings they’d learned to cope with, but never in their wildest dreams could they envision a flatulent blitzkrieg on their sacred symphony orchestra. It would throw them into complete disarray.
Second, the action would make a mockery of the law, because although you could be arrested for throwing a stink bomb, there’s no law on the books against natural bodily functions. Can you imagine a guy being tried in court on charges of first-degree farting? The cops would be paralyzed.
Third, when the news got around, everybody who heard it would break out laughing, and the Rochester Philharmonic and the establishment it represents would be rendered totally ridiculous.
A fourth benefit of the tactic is that it’s psychically as well as physically satisfying to the participants. What oppressed person doesn’t want, literally or figuratively, to gak on his oppressors? Here was the closest chance they’d have.
“Such tactics aren’t just cute; they can be useful in driving your opponent up the wall,” Alinsky said. “Very often the most ridiculous tactic can prove the most effective.”
) but it does tend to run counter to the narrative of why this is supposedly a big deal: that Clinton put at risk information which should not have been made public.
