Indeed. Appealing it isn't the answer. Amending it would be. Change Section 1 from this,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
to this,
All persons born to legal residents or citizens of the United States, or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
No way the 14th gets changed. We had the worst war in US history to get that. Anyone who wants to change it can suck my great great great great grandad's 1858 revolver.
Frazzled wrote: No way the 14th gets changed. We had the worst war in US history to get that. Anyone who wants to change it can suck my great great great great grandad's 1858 revolver.
Frazzled wrote: No way the 14th gets changed. We had the worst war in US history to get that. Anyone who wants to change it can suck my great great great great grandad's 1858 revolver.
Won't that set off alarms in the museum?
Nah, its wrapped in a towel next to a shoebox full of .380s.
What ought to be discussed are "Anchor Baby" policies.
The term "anchor baby" is rather misleading, as no US citizen can petition for a change in the status of its non-citizen parents until the age of 21. The whole "issue" is little more than a fabrication designed to generate outrage.
What ought to be discussed are "Anchor Baby" policies.
The term "anchor baby" is rather misleading, as no US citizen can petition for a change in the status of its non-citizen parents until the age of 21. The whole "issue" is little more than a fabrication designed to generate outrage.
That is a lot less than true. The 'Anchor baby' means mommy and likely daddy (if present) don't get deported and do become eligible for more taxpayer funded assistance.
That is a lot less than true. The 'Anchor baby' means mommy and likely daddy (if present) don't get deported and do become eligible for more taxpayer funded assistance.
However they frequently are deported. Indeed, their US citizen children are often sent with them.
Benefit eligibility isn't really an issue tied to "anchor babies" as many aid programs targeted at children are open to illegal immigrants regardless of the status of their child.
That is a lot less than true. The 'Anchor baby' means mommy and likely daddy (if present) don't get deported and do become eligible for more taxpayer funded assistance.
However they frequently are deported. Indeed, their US citizen children are often sent with them.
Benefit eligibility isn't really an issue tied to "anchor babies" as many aid programs targeted at children are open to illegal immigrants regardless of the status of their child.
Please show statistics in the last two years on numbers of deportations using the parameters you just stated. That runs contrary to executive orders.
That is a lot less than true. The 'Anchor baby' means mommy and likely daddy (if present) don't get deported and do become eligible for more taxpayer funded assistance.
However they frequently are deported. Indeed, their US citizen children are often sent with them.
Benefit eligibility isn't really an issue tied to "anchor babies" as many aid programs targeted at children are open to illegal immigrants regardless of the status of their child.
Please show statistics in the last two years on numbers of deportations using the parameters you just stated. That runs contrary to executive orders.
Yeah, I'm calling BS on this one. My dad is a recently retired fed immigration judge, and a US citizen dependent/anchor baby meant you never got to a deportation hearing. INS/ICE just didn't go that route. I'm sure someone can find a few cases where maybe it did happen, but those are going to be rare exceptions.
A US citizen social security number gets the family more/easier access to programs as well.
EDIT: Most of the cases where you see a parent deported is when the spouse IS a US citizen and the kids stay with the spouse. And that really isn't the 'anchor baby' we are talking about.
Grey Templar wrote:Indeed. Appealing it isn't the answer. Amending it would be. Change Section 1 from this,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
to this,
All persons born to legal residents or citizens of the United States, or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That doesn't fix anything. That still would mean any person that is the decendant of a slave/indentured servant would be subject to deportation. Anyone who had a great great grandpapi/mami that came here undocumented would be subject to deportation. On top of creating a system where you could allege that somebody is of illegal decent to get them deported.
That would still amount to ethnic cleansing by deportation being legal in the United States. Which would start the civil war that racists so desperately dream for.
Frazzled wrote:No way the 14th gets changed. We had the worst war in US history to get that. Anyone who wants to change it can suck my great great great great grandad's 1858 revolver.
Agreed, I won't peacefully react to treason against my fellow citizens. Some who have served in the military along side me and have done far more for this country than most "Americans".
We have a well documented legal concept that changes to the law only affect future cases and that they do not punish retroactively.
The 14th Amendment is not a law. Legal concepts are irrelevant. Amendments are what MAKE the legal concepts.
One could effectively argue that the descendants of slaves would not be citizens without the 14th Amendment. You want to start a new civil war, this is a way to do it.
Exactly you would be changing what qualifies as citizen in the foundation of what informs law.
Furthmore it would just take a few successful cases to create a precedent of it retroactively applying and now it is part of law. The flood gates are open and we have an era that makes McCathy's look preschool.
That is a lot less than true. The 'Anchor baby' means mommy and likely daddy (if present) don't get deported and do become eligible for more taxpayer funded assistance.
However they frequently are deported. Indeed, their US citizen children are often sent with them.
Benefit eligibility isn't really an issue tied to "anchor babies" as many aid programs targeted at children are open to illegal immigrants regardless of the status of their child.
Please show statistics in the last two years on numbers of deportations using the parameters you just stated. That runs contrary to executive orders.
Yeah, I'm calling BS on this one. My dad is a recently retired fed immigration judge, and a US citizen dependent/anchor baby meant you never got to a deportation hearing. INS/ICE just didn't go that route. I'm sure someone can find a few cases where maybe it did happen, but those are going to be rare exceptions.
A US citizen social security number gets the family more/easier access to programs as well.
EDIT: Most of the cases where you see a parent deported is when the spouse IS a US citizen and the kids stay with the spouse. And that really isn't the 'anchor baby' we are talking about.
Indeed.
I have no problem with the law granting citizenship to those born on US soil. But, that shouldn't allows Mommy and Daddy (non-citizens) to stay in the states. it shouldn't be an issue to deport the entire family. Then, when the child is of age, can come back to the states.
We have a well documented legal concept that changes to the law only affect future cases and that they do not punish retroactively.
The 14th Amendment is not a law. Legal concepts are irrelevant. Amendments are what MAKE the legal concepts.
One could effectively argue that the descendants of slaves would not be citizens without the 14th Amendment. You want to start a new civil war, this is a way to do it.
When the 18th Amendment was passed, nobody was prosecuted for manufacturing or selling alcohol prior to ratification.
When the 12th Amendment was passed, it didn't undo actions made my people that wouldn't have been Vice Presidents.
When the 19th Amendment was passed, we didn't redo all previous elections because things would have been different if women could have voted.
When the 22nd Amendment was passed, we didn't repeal every law signed by FDR during his third and fourth term because he wouldn't have been president.
Point being, that if for some stupid reason birthright citizenship is repealed, it would only affect people born after an amendment to that effect is ratified.
There is no point in arguing that we suddenly have to display pedigree papers to prove that we are citizenships tracing back to before the 14th was ratified.
Please show statistics in the last two years on numbers of deportations using the parameters you just stated. That runs contrary to executive orders.
Finding useful statistics regarding DAPA would be pretty difficult even if the program wasn't being blocked by legal action, so that particular EO doesn't really matter. Indeed, it could be argued that its existence is evidence to support my statement regarding US policy towards the illegal immigrant parents of US citizens and the "anchor baby" phenomenon.
As to stats that are avilable: In 2012 23% of deportations involved the parents of US citizen children. This number fell in 2013, to ~16%, as only ~72,000 parents of US citizens were deported (down from ~100,000) despite the total number of deportations rising to ~438,000. This can be attributed to a number of factors ranging from greater care being taken by the parents of US citizens to a fear of being separated from one's children, but the most likely cause is DACA disproportionately affecting parents of US citizens.
We have a well documented legal concept that changes to the law only affect future cases and that they do not punish retroactively.
The 14th Amendment is not a law. Legal concepts are irrelevant. Amendments are what MAKE the legal concepts.
One could effectively argue that the descendants of slaves would not be citizens without the 14th Amendment. You want to start a new civil war, this is a way to do it.
When the 18th Amendment was passed, nobody was prosecuted for manufacturing or selling alcohol prior to ratification.
When the 12th Amendment was passed, it didn't undo actions made my people that wouldn't have been Vice Presidents.
When the 19th Amendment was passed, we didn't redo all previous elections because things would have been different if women could have voted.
When the 22nd Amendment was passed, we didn't repeal every law signed by FDR during his third and fourth term because he wouldn't have been president.
Point being, that if for some stupid reason birthright citizenship is repealed, it would only affect people born after an amendment to that effect is ratified.
There is no point in arguing that we suddenly have to display pedigree papers to prove that we are citizenships tracing back to before the 14th was ratified.
Again, precedent is irrelevant. If the 14th is repealed, it never existed. Thats war boyo. Quit arguing legalities related to mere laws.
Please show statistics in the last two years on numbers of deportations using the parameters you just stated. That runs contrary to executive orders.
Finding useful statistics regarding DAPA would be pretty difficult even if the program wasn't being blocked by legal action, so that particular EO doesn't really matter. Indeed, it could be argued that its existence is evidence to support my statement regarding US policy towards the illegal immigrant parents of US citizens and the "anchor baby" phenomenon.
As to stats that are avilable: In 2012 23% of deportations involved the parents of US citizen children. This number fell in 2013, to ~16%, as only ~72,000 parents of US citizens were deported (down from ~100,000) despite the total number of deportations rising to ~438,000. This can be attributed to a number of factors ranging from greater care being taken by the parents of US citizens to a fear of being separated from one's children, but the most likely cause is DACA disproportionately affecting parents of US citizens.
So your argument is as weak as a baby's walking ability. Got it.
Again, precedent is irrelevant. If the 14th is repealed, it never existed. Thats war boyo. Quit arguing legalities related to mere laws.
Honest question then, because I really don't know:
When the 18th was repealed, was anyone that was charged or convicted for the manufacturing or possession of alcohol released from prison, had their records wiped clean, and any fines repaid to them?
1. It does not seem hard at all to read the text of the Constitution as not requiring birthright citizenship unless one is construing the word “jurisdiction” to mean something plainly different from what the term meant when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.
As the Lino Graglia law review article Rich excerpted demonstrates, the term meant being subject to jurisdiction in the sense of the complete allegiance inherent in citizenship, not in the sense of merely being subject to American laws. Regarding the latter, every person present in the United States – citizen or not, legally present or not – is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in the narrow sense of being expected to follow our laws. (Even diplomats, though they have an immunity defense against prosecution for criminal law violations, are expected to follow our laws and subject to expulsion for failing to do so.)
Yet, every person present in the United States is not presumed to have fealty to the United States, which is what “jurisdiction” means in the Fourteenth Amendment. And it is clearly not the case that every person born in the United States is automatically a citizen pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment: U.S.-born children of foreign diplomats are not; nor are the U.S.-born children of American Indians (they were granted citizenship by an act of Congress in 1924). Given that it is not true that every person born in the United States is an American citizen under the Constitution, how difficult can it be to read the Constitution to not require something it does not require?
2. I don’t know that it’s necessary to “make war” on birthright citizenship, but there is nothing odd about opposition to it. In fact, the United States is one of the few countries in the world that confers citizenship on illegal aliens based on nothing other than the happenstance of their birth within national borders.
I am not suggesting that the laws of other countries shed light on the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment; just that birthright citizenship is rightly seen as bad policy in most of the world. (Somehow, I suspect that the Supreme Court’s progressives, who believe in consulting foreign law when “interpreting” the U.S. Constitution, would resist that impulse when it comes to birthright citizenship.) There are many people who believe in robust legal immigration and are open to the notion of some qualified amnesty for some categories of illegal aliens but who nevertheless think it is a terrible idea to grant citizenship automatically to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens – a policy that can only encourage more illegal immigration. I am not a fan of “comprehensive immigration reform”; but if reform is to be comprehensive, and we are trying to discourage illegal immigration, why would we not address every policy that incentivizes illegal immigration?
If denying birthright citizenship seems like an offensive proposition to some, it can only be because we’ve lost our sense of what citizenship should be – the concept of national allegiance inherent in it. If a couple who are nationals of Egypt enter our country and have a baby while they are here, why is it sensible to presume that child’s allegiance is to the United States rather than Egypt? If the baby of an American couple happened to be born while they were touring Egypt, would we not presume that the child’s allegiance was to the United States?
Frazzled wrote: I wipe my wiener dog's rear with his argument. Its a plain language document.
Well... when it hits the SCOTUS... "plain language" may mean jack gak.
The 14th Amendment has been adjudicated for 150 years. Its settled. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to quit chewing on the mushrooms they found in their back yard and take off the aluminum hat.
The US Constitution specifically forbids Ex Post Facto laws. The Constitution is law (the highest law of the land, come on people it is literally called that).
Any repeal of the 14th Amendment (which won't be happening anytime soon) can't effect anyone who benefited from it while it was the law of the land. It would be unconstitutional to retroactively remove citizenship so that wouldn't really be an issue when relooking at how citizenship is conferred.
As to the 'anchor baby' debate, it is a trumped up pile of nonsense. Regardless of how many get deported, Few government bodies (very few) restrict access to benefits and services based on immigration status. Even if they did, you then run into the problem that many illegals are paying the taxes that pay for these services anyway. The later bit is really all that matters imo. If someone is paying into the system, they have a legal right to services regardless of whether they are legal.
Frazzled wrote: I wipe my wiener dog's rear with his argument. Its a plain language document.
Well... when it hits the SCOTUS... "plain language" may mean jack gak.
Well, good thing that we have the records of the actual conversations that happened in congress when the law was created. So we have plain text as well as indent:
Mr. Cowan: “I will ask whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?”
Mr. Trumbull: “Undoubtedly.”
Mr. Trumbull: “I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?”
Mr. Cowan: “I think not.”
Mr. Trumbull: “I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. This is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”
Mr. Cowan: “The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.”
Mr. Trumbull: “If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I may be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much of a citizen as the child of a European.”
1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2891. During the debate on the Amendment, Conness declared, "The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law [the Civil Rights Act]; now it is proposed to incorporate that same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage, whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal Civil Rights with other citizens."
whembly wrote: D... this isn't the hill I'm fighting for... I was yanking frazz's "plain language" chain there.
I posted that earlier article as a possible genesis of Trump's anti-birthright stance.
For the record, I'm flummoxed why this is garnering as much attention now...
"Don't worry guys, nothing will stick to Hillary, she's Teflon" - whembly, as he throws more and more dirt on her.
"I don't know why this is gaining so much attention now" - whembly, as he keeps on posting arguments against birthright citizenship
whembly wrote: D... this isn't the hill I'm fighting for... I was yanking frazz's "plain language" chain there.
I posted that earlier article as a possible genesis of Trump's anti-birthright stance.
For the record, I'm flummoxed why this is garnering as much attention now...
"Don't worry guys, nothing will stick to Hillary, she's Teflon" - whembly, as he throws more and more dirt on her.
"I don't know why this is gaining so much attention now" - whembly, as he keeps on posting arguments against birthright citizenship
Notice a pattern there?
Whembly already stated he was pro-14th so I figured he was just making a Devil's Advocate argument.
Repeal the 14th is one of those "dog whistles" everyone complains about, this time to the more rabid nativist elements of the US.
I am sure the surviving Comanches are all for it. "Out of my country white eyes!"
Automatically Appended Next Post: And another issue.. Repeal the 14th and how much easier is it to strip citizenship from people (a real question on my part). I'd be leery that in a future time, undesirables of the moment could be kicked out.
We have a well documented legal concept that changes to the law only affect future cases and that they do not punish retroactively.
The 14th Amendment is not a law. Legal concepts are irrelevant. Amendments are what MAKE the legal concepts.
One could effectively argue that the descendants of slaves would not be citizens without the 14th Amendment. You want to start a new civil war, this is a way to do it.
When the 18th Amendment was passed, nobody was prosecuted for manufacturing or selling alcohol prior to ratification.
When the 12th Amendment was passed, it didn't undo actions made my people that wouldn't have been Vice Presidents.
When the 19th Amendment was passed, we didn't redo all previous elections because things would have been different if women could have voted.
When the 22nd Amendment was passed, we didn't repeal every law signed by FDR during his third and fourth term because he wouldn't have been president.
Point being, that if for some stupid reason birthright citizenship is repealed, it would only affect people born after an amendment to that effect is ratified.
There is no point in arguing that we suddenly have to display pedigree papers to prove that we are citizenships tracing back to before the 14th was ratified.
I good question to that is if anyone tried to apply retroactively any precedents made by those amendments and were they successful.
One could argue that if the 14th amendment disappeared all those that benefitted would be illegal and thus not subject to the rights of the Constitution. All of what you showed would still aplly to US citizens.
Repeal the 14th is one of those "dog whistles" everyone complains about, this time to the more rabid nativist elements of the US.
I am sure the surviving Comanches are all for it. "Out of my country white eyes!"
How big of a problem is it anyway?
I found a Pew survey done in 2008 that showed that 8% of children born in the US have at least one illegal immigrant as a parent, but even without the 14th those children would have received citizenship as long as one of those parents was a US citizen. The study didn't break those 8% down to determine how many had one illegal immigrant parent or two illegal immigrant parents.
Probably wouldn't have any effect (14th Amendment doesn't really have much connection to the laws that remove citizenship). What might happen is what caused the 14th Amendment in the first place; discrimination resulting in people being denied citizenship. Right now that doesn't really happen, since it's a de facto entitlement, but especially for hispanics the fight for legal recognition would become much harder given that there's already a fair bit of bias stacked against them as it is. They might end up subject to litmus tests "How'd you get here? Did you wait in line?" effecting them in ways it wouldn't effect other groups.
When the 18th was repealed, was anyone that was charged or convicted for the manufacturing or possession of alcohol released from prison, had their records wiped clean, and any fines repaid to them?
Roy Olmstead... though not exactly what you were after, it's still someone who's record (eventually) got cleaned.
Cliffnotes: There's two and ONLY two types of people who falls outside of the 14th... children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation (whut?)or children of diplomatic representatives of foreign states (makes sense).
And another issue.. Repeal the 14th and how much easier is it to strip citizenship from people (a real question on my part). I'd be leery that in a future time, undesirables of the moment could be kicked out.
Yep. In fact, such situations are still in living memory where such a thing probably would have been done. Japanese Americans in WWII, and any random person Joe McCarthy decided he didn't like during his little crusade. Civil rights leaders in the 60s. And so on.
If life begins at conception, then shouldn’t citizenship depend on where the child was conceived, not where it was born?
Anyhow, all I have to say on the issue is that I live in a country where citizenship doesn’t derive automatically from birth, and this leaves some assumptions that flow in to greater issues of race and country. We can talk all day about whether your country or mine has bigger problems with race, but I’ve got no doubt that when it comes to citizenship, who belongs, the US has a much healthier attitude than Australia. There is an ugly undercurrent to racial issues in Australia that immigrants aren’t really Australian, even second or third generation immigrants. I don’t see that idea in the US in anywhere near the same level. Even suggesting a repeal of the 14th opens the door to letting ideas about who is really an American start forming, and that can only lead to bad things.
children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation (whut?
If Canada invades Michigan, and two Canadian soldiers have a child while in occupied Michigan, then that child is not granted US citizenship.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: I Even suggesting a repeal of the 14th opens the door to letting ideas about who is really an American start forming, and that can only lead to bad things.
Realistically, its completely outside the realm of possibility that the 14th would be repealed. Democrats would never go for it, if only because of the black caucus. The Republicans are too easy to paint as profoundly racist as it is, and no matter how much they like telling other people who they should blame for all their problems and how unamerican those people are against them, repealing the 14th is a bit too far even for them.
If anything, the 14th itself would be amended, not repealed, but I think the issue of 'birthright citizenship' is a nonstarter issue. It won't really do anything to curb the immigration issue, or offer any real solutions to what we do about illegals already here in the US. Besides, as I've said in other threads about immigration, both parties have spent years hedging bets on the immigration issue. They're both smart enough to realize that amnesty is the only real solution for those already here in the US. They're just waiting for it to become politically survivable to push for it.
Personally I think the abortion issue will be quite important to this election, as that is now the R's main moral issue to score points with highly religious voters now that SSM is legal.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Personally I think the abortion issue will be quite important to this election, as that is now the R's main moral issue to score points with highly religious voters now that SSM is legal.
I wouldn't be surprised if Right to Die becomes the next divisive social issue this decade.
IME, Trumps popularity is based on red meat promises that he can't possibly provide.
Specifically:
-Huge growth in the US manufacturing sector, and return of jobs US corporations have outsourced to other countries.
-Repeal of the 14th Amendment.
I've seen one of his speeches now, and to my surprise, once you get past the 'stupid dummy' part of them, his message is largely optimistic as relates to jobs. "Morning in America" stuff that is pushing people's Reagan button.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Personally I think the abortion issue will be quite important to this election, as that is now the R's main moral issue to score points with highly religious voters now that SSM is legal.
I wouldn't be surprised if Right to Die becomes the next divisive social issue this decade.
I get a giggle by that term. The Right to Die is probably the only universal, "natural" human right . Euthanasia is a better term, I guess maybe it's to closely associated to animal euthanasia...I'm not sure when that phrase became popular, but back in the Kervorkian days, the issue was called euthanasia, or somwtimes "assisted suicide"
jasper76 wrote: IME, Trumps popularity is based on red meat promises that he can't possibly provide.
Obama rode the exact same wave.
But Obama actually could have passed universal healthcare. He caved into he insurance lobby, and perhaps he thought the GOP would actually compromise. He got zero support from Republicans on the ACA just like he would have got zero support for the far-preferable single payer system he ran on. Big let down. All the cards were in place, but he wouldn't pull the trigger.
No, he couldn't do any such thing. Only Congress could do that. And Obamacare only got passed because congress went along with it at the time. The President has no power to create legislation, only to suggest legislation to congress and then sign/not sign whatever lands on his desk.
All of Trump's promises would only require the same thing, except for the 14th amendment(but thats only 1 thing).
Grey Templar wrote: No, he couldn't do any such thing. Only Congress could do that. And Obamacare only got passed because congress went along with it at the time. The President has no power to create legislation, only to suggest legislation to congress and then sign/not sign whatever lands on his desk.
Conceded, although Obama won with a clear mandate on the issue of universal health care, and typically a friendly Congress, which Obama had at the time, will attempt to enact such policies after a presidential election. But for reasons I suppose are debatable, he abandoned the position he was originally elected on.
A lot of people watch FoxNews only, believe Obama is a Muslim anti-christ that is supplying his allies ISIS, created a convert military operation in the Southwest to conquer the "real" Americans and instill martial law.
You can put out the message but its up to people to educate themselves and the media to not alter it to push their agenda.
I would love to see videos from Fox News spreading the Jade Helm conspiracy theory. I recall Megyn Kelly and the group on The Five mocking the conspiracy theorists.
You may want to educate yourself on 'the media' and figure out who actually says what.
If it were... then, they wouldn't have had such a hard time passing the PPACA.
He won by almost 10,000,000 popular votes, and 68% of electoral votes.
But whatever, no need to argue semantics over the word mandate. My point was he ran on universal healthcare, and won by a wide, indisputable, and undisbuted margin, and afterwards abandoned the position he ran on, when he really didn't need to.
Not to be morbid, but did anybody else see the news that Jimmy Carter's cancer has spread to his brain? I wonder if any of the candidates will try to politicize it?
Anyway 90 years old, and still trying to help people. He has certainly worked a good shift.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Not to be morbid, but did anybody else see the news that Jimmy Carter's cancer has spread to his brain? I wonder if any of the candidates will try to politicize it?
Anyway 90 years old, and still trying to help people. He has certainly worked a good shift.
One can only hope that all candidates will do nothing to politicize this sad news. I'm thinking everybody but Trump has the class and decency to leave that one alone, outside of offering their sympathies.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Not to be morbid, but did anybody else see the news that Jimmy Carter's cancer has spread to his brain? I wonder if any of the candidates will try to politicize it?
I doubt it. There's lots of room for backlash, and to what gain? There is no attack that I can conceive of that gives a boost in the polls to any meaningful segment of the electorate.
Not on air but through the radio they support the fear.
You'll have to point out where on that site there is something attributable to Fox News claiming Jade Helm was a take over plot.
All I see is:
4) Jade Helm 15 Takeover
Now that the race war is here, it’s only a matter of time before Obama declares martial law, and according to some right-wing observers, the upcoming Jade Helm 15 military drill is practice for a military takeover that will include forcing political prisoners into cattle cars and shipping them off to Wal-Mart FEMA camps.
As Stewart Rhodes of the radical Oath Keepers explains, the exercise is meant to “condition the public” and military service members to go along with a military coup, or at least become too afraid to rise against it.
One post on the Oath Keepers website adds: “It strikes many people as a portentous government plan, a pre-fabricated and pre-constructed umbrella under which a black op by the Deep State’s compartmentalized agencies could possibly ‘Go Live’ in a fantastic sort of Shock and Awe False Flag psycho-coup to jar the public mind of America through fear into acceptance of some nefarious policy the government desired, such as the establishment of Martial Law and the complete loss of individual liberty and our Constitution. To do that, the public mind must be conditioned first. That is part of what is behind the Special Operation Command’s Jade Helm 15.”
And as far as i can tell Rhodes is not a Fox News guy.
I don't even know what why I'm attempting to argue with with you as I wasn't trying to imply Fox news is jade helm source. I was implying that people who only watch Foxnews tend to be pretty damn misinformed (there are actual studies on this).
I don't even know what why I'm attempting to argue with with you as I wasn't trying to imply Fox news is jade helm source. I was implying that people who only watch Foxnews tend to be pretty damn misinformed (there are actual studies on this).
Sure as heck seems like you were when you posted:
A lot of people watch FoxNews only, believe Obama is a Muslim anti-christ that is supplying his allies ISIS, created a convert military operation in the Southwest to conquer the "real" Americans and instill martial law.
You can put out the message but its up to people to educate themselves and the media to not alter it to push their agenda.
I honestly read that as you saying Fox was spreading those conspiracy theories. If they ONLY watch Fox News, and believe those theories, how else would you say they get those beliefs if not from Fox?
Tannhauser42 wrote: Not to be morbid, but did anybody else see the news that Jimmy Carter's cancer has spread to his brain? I wonder if any of the candidates will try to politicize it?
I doubt it. There's lots of room for backlash, and to what gain? There is no attack that I can conceive of that gives a boost in the polls to any meaningful segment of the electorate.
It's not that I could see any of the candidates attacking him. It's that I could see them trying to get his endorsement, or trying to outdo each other in praising him.
BrotherGecko wrote: A lot of people watch FoxNews only, believe Obama is a Muslim anti-christ that is supplying his allies ISIS, created a convert military operation in the Southwest to conquer the "real" Americans and instill martial law.
You can put out the message but its up to people to educate themselves and the media to not alter it to push their agenda.
Those are Republicans. He had a Democratic majority in both, and he acted like it. Blaming the other guy when you control the Executive, the Senate, and the House is what we call....lame.
Tannhauser42 wrote: It's not that I could see any of the candidates attacking him. It's that I could see them trying to get his endorsement, or trying to outdo each other in praising him.
I think that's unlikely as well; he wasn't generally considered a super successful president and he doesn't really peddle influence currently. I would expect some token gestures of support all around, but the only one I see really reaching out is President Obama, since he really has nothing to lose in doing so. I don't really see the GOP tripping over themselves to praise Jimmy Carter.
But I could be wrong. I could see ¡Jeb! saying something, maybe. We'll have to see, be something to watch.
Hmmmm, I could see that, apologies for the miscommunication.
I meant that as a list rather than a symptom of FoxNews. However, watching only *FoxNews would lead people see only a demonized Obama (and liberals).
So your argument is as weak as a baby's walking ability. Got it.
Its stronger than the one behind the notion that "anchor babies" are a significant problem.
BrotherGecko wrote: Hmmmm, I could see that, apologies for the miscommunication.
I meant that as a list rather than a symptom of FoxNews. However, watching only *FoxNews would lead people see only a demonized Obama (and liberals).
*you can include MSNBC in the converse.
That really applies to any instance in which a person gets their information from a single source, or group of similar sources. But the fact of the matter is that thinking critically is much more difficult and time consuming than not doing so and, at least with respect to politics, there is often very little to gain in expending the effort.
Here's the interesting part. As Secretary of State, who routinely gets secret info, but if we followed her words, she then could never get emails about secret info.
How did she expect to do business in the 21st century?
Sanders is getting more and more popular support. It is a shame that the mainstream media is neglecting to cover him. The despicable incident where BLM crashed his rally was the only time I have properly seen him on TV.
Verviedi wrote: Sanders is getting more and more popular support. It is a shame that the mainstream media is neglecting to cover him. The despicable incident where BLM crashed his rally was the only time I have properly seen him on TV.
As much as I would like otherwise, I don't think he has any realistic chance at the nomination for a multitude of reasons. However, I do think he's gong to push Clinton into having to co-opt his platform and his issues up as her own and keep them going that way.
Verviedi wrote: Sanders is getting more and more popular support. It is a shame that the mainstream media is neglecting to cover him. The despicable incident where BLM crashed his rally was the only time I have properly seen him on TV.
As much as I would like otherwise, I don't think he has any realistic chance at the nomination for a multitude of reasons. However, I do think he's gong to push Clinton into having to co-opt his platform and his issues up as her own and keep them going that way.
But he was never going to get a fair shake.
No one thought Obama had a chance before the first primary either...
Those two emails that the IG reported as classified?
Hillary received email full of sensitive military intelligence & troop movements during our Not War with Libya. https://t.co/xffpNy9j6L
— Cuffy (@CuffyMeh) August 19, 2015
Apparently weren't marked as classified when Clinton received them.
From the article referenced by Noah Rothman in the tweet referenced by whoever the feth @CuffyMeh is:
One of the emails was originally written by the State Department's Timmy Davis in April of 2011 and forwarded to then-Secretary Clinton by longtime aide Huma Abedin. It contained what Davis believed to be sensitive but unclassified information from U.S. Special Envoy to Libya Christopher Stevens -- "(SBU) Per Special Envoy Stevens," according to the email. The email mentioned the diplomat's concerns about departing from Benghazi and also detailed the "phased checkout" of Stevens' envoy delegation from the area.
Another email, forwarded by Clinton's deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan in November 2012, contained information on reports of Libyan police arresting people who may have had a connection to the Benghazi attack. Several lines of the original message are redacted, and a note on the email reads that it was "[c]lassified" earlier this year.
No one thought Obama had a chance before the first primary either...
Not really. There were people as early as 2005 who were predicting that Obama would be the Presidential Candidate in 2008 (hell, The West Wing predicted it!). Conventional expectations certainly didn't peg him for it, but I don't think Bernie Sander's is comparable to Obama. Bernie is running a similar campaign to Trump, namely in that his platform derives its basis from rejecting political establishment. It assures popularity at a time when people are very cynical about the political establishment, but it is counter productive to winning a nomination given that the political establishment he's railing against picks the nominees. Which isn't to say that it's impossible for him to be the nominee, but Obama is very much a conventional politician albeit a very energetic and charismatic one.
motyak wrote: It's an undercurrent out west? They're pretty accepting out there it seems...
I’d think we’re probably second behind Queensland in how racist you can be in polite company. We don’t have the direct race issues of say, NSW, but that’s because we’ve had a lot less non-white immigration.
In contrast, we’ve probably get healthier attitudes towards aboriginals, but we also have loads more problems because they’re a larger percentage of the population. This isn’t to say our attitudes towards aboriginals are healthy… perhaps ‘less horrible’ is a better descriptor.
LordofHats wrote: Realistically, its completely outside the realm of possibility that the 14th would be repealed.
Sure, repeal or amendment is almost impossible. My point was that in just opening up conversation about repeal or amendment could have negative consequences. One of the most amazing things about the US is the idea that wherever you came from, whether Americans love that country, hate that country or have never heard of that country, if you were born here you’re unquestionably American.
That’s an amazing thing, and it’s amazing not just in how it works in the law, but also in how it works culturally. You should do everything possible to make sure you don’t feth that up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if Right to Die becomes the next divisive social issue this decade.
whembly wrote: Two different IG said they should've remainedclassified.
The emails Clinton received were not marked as classified when she received them, and would have remained unmarked when she surrendered them to the public domain. Her actions, at least in that regard, can be said to be in accordance with the information available to her.
jasper76 wrote: But Obama actually could have passed universal healthcare. He caved into he insurance lobby, and perhaps he thought the GOP would actually compromise. He got zero support from Republicans on the ACA just like he would have got zero support for the far-preferable single payer system he ran on. Big let down. All the cards were in place, but he wouldn't pull the trigger.
Or, more likely, he got the insurance reform he wanted.
People have made a hell of a lot of noise about Obama as this leftwing figure, but if you look at what's he's actually set out to do and done, he's a straight centre moderate. It means the simplest answer for why he didn't fight for a more progressive healthcare reform is simply because he didn't want anything more progressive.
If Clinton gets through this email probe, and anybody brings it up against her in the general election, it will only make her look that much better, because her opponent would be harping on a lost cause that she was officially cleared from.
Lets face it, we all know that, in all likelihood, she's not going to take the fall from anything that's found here. Plausible deniability, and all that. The email thing will end up in a couple funny internet memes, but mark my words, if this thing fizzles out, it will be political gold for the Clintons.
jasper76 wrote: But Obama actually could have passed universal healthcare. He caved into he insurance lobby, and perhaps he thought the GOP would actually compromise. He got zero support from Republicans on the ACA just like he would have got zero support for the far-preferable single payer system he ran on. Big let down. All the cards were in place, but he wouldn't pull the trigger.
Or, more likely, he got the insurance reform he wanted.
People have made a hell of a lot of noise about Obama as this leftwing figure, but if you look at what's he's actually set out to do and done, he's a straight centre moderate. It means the simplest answer for why he didn't fight for a more progressive healthcare reform is simply because he didn't want anything more progressive.
Obama is a miserable failure for progressives on most issues. Gay rights have advanced under his watch, and at least some modicum of healthcare is accesible to the poor now. But I have a feeling gay civil rights would have been secured no matter who was President, or in charge of Congress, because its a basic civil rights issue. He should receive some credit for expanding healthacare accessibility rather than accepting the status quo, as Republicans have been supporting since forever
But he didnt achieve nearly enough. War on Drugs wages on, Strife in the Middle East is worse than when he got there (though I dont think he can be blamed for that, he certainly didn't improve the situation by any means). No truly transforming immigration reform. Some results on global warming, but nothing that any scientist anywhere thinks will improve prospects for future generations. Some economic ecovery, but not nearly enough. The list goes on and on.
ANyways, Obama's a lame duck and pretty boring to talk about these days.
Grey Templar wrote: No, he couldn't do any such thing. Only Congress could do that. And Obamacare only got passed because congress went along with it at the time. The President has no power to create legislation, only to suggest legislation to congress and then sign/not sign whatever lands on his desk.
And if people were complete idiots with no foresight, that'd be how the system would work. But as long as people are smart enough to know that it's sensible to find out what the president will and won't veto before voting, and know that getting popular support for the legislation involves having the president sell it for you, then the president will play an active role in shaping legislation, at least when it comes from his own party.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: Obama is a miserable failure for progressives on most issues.
Meh, everything is disappointing to progressives. The real world will never be progressive enough, and if it is they'll just become more progressive and continue to complain.
ANyways, Obama's a lame duck and pretty boring to talk about these days.
I would consider Ron Paul to be more of a parallel to Bernie than Obama, insofar as election patterns.
Fairly successful initially, will get almost no press, then fade away when everyone wakes up and remembers that he has no chance in hell of ever getting elected.
(CNN)"Donald Trump was right," the two men said, according to police, as they beat a homeless man with a metal pipe and then urinated on him. "All these illegals need to be deported."
Hours later, Trump responded -- with regret and then some.
While the Republican front-runner had not heard about the particular incident when reporters asked him about before a town hall event Wednesday night, he nonetheless said it would "be a shame." But he didn't stop there, as he quickly went to applaud those who echo his views.
RELATED: Trump's immigration plan is racist, Mexico says
"I will say, the people that are following me are very passionate," Trump said. "They love this country, they want this country to be great again."
The two men, identified by police as Scott Leader, 38, and his brother, Steve Leader, 30, were being held in jail without bond Thursday. Authorities say they were on their way home from a Red Sox game when they came upon the victim sleeping near a train station, according to a police report.
Witnesses told police that the two men beat the victim with a metal pole repeatedly and walked away laughing, according to a press release from the Suffolk County District Attorney's office.
The elder Leader brother, Scott, later told police they attacked him because he was "homeless," "Hispanic," and an "illegal immigrant."
The victim told police that he awoke to the men urinating on him. He was brought to Boston Medical Center to be treated for a broken nose and serious bruising across his ribs, among other injuries, the press release said.
Donald Trump: I'll end birthright citizenship
Donald Trump: I'll end birthright citizenship 01:48
The victim is not undocumented, according to a Social Security number for the man listed in the police report but blacked out for privacy reasons. Social Security numbers are issued to U.S. citizens and authorized workers, according to the Social Security Administration website.
RELATED: Does the RNC have a secret anti-Trump war room?
The Leader brothers, facing a number of assault and battery charges as well as gross lewdness, were ordered to be held without bail Wednesday, according to the Suffolk County District Attorney's office. They are expected back in court on Sept. 3.
Calls to their lawyers were not immediately returned Thursday.
The physical attack comes after Trump's divisive immigration proposals have made international headlines in his White House campaign.
Trump has called for a wall to be built along the U.S.-Mexican border, revoking citizenship of babies born in the U.S. to undocumented parents and deporting undocumented immigrants.
"I have to do the right thing," the mogul said in an interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo Wednesday, when asked about his immigration plan being under fire.
jasper76 wrote: IME, Trumps popularity is based on red meat promises that he can't possibly provide.
Obama rode the exact same wave.
But Obama actually could have passed universal healthcare. He caved into he insurance lobby, and perhaps he thought the GOP would actually compromise. He got zero support from Republicans on the ACA just like he would have got zero support for the far-preferable single payer system he ran on. Big let down. All the cards were in place, but he wouldn't pull the trigger.
jasper76 wrote: If Clinton gets through this email probe, and anybody brings it up against her in the general election, it will only make her look that much better, because her opponent would be harping on a lost cause that she was officially cleared from.
If you couple the hatred many dyed-in-the-wool Republican voters have towards the Clintons, the hatred many of them have for Obama, and the (correct) belief that a Clinton Administration will be much like the Obama Administration...you get a decent recipe for mobilizing GOP voters. Tag on the message of "She dodged punishment too!" and you get bonus points.
BlaxicanX wrote: I would consider Ron Paul to be more of a parallel to Bernie than Obama, insofar as election patterns.
Fairly successful initially, will get almost no press, then fade away when everyone wakes up and remembers that he has no chance in hell of ever getting elected.
Yep. And both play very well with the kind of people who vote in their respective primaries, making their support look vastly bigger in the primary season than it really is.
jasper76 wrote: If Clinton gets through this email probe, and anybody brings it up against her in the general election, it will only make her look that much better, because her opponent would be harping on a lost cause that she was officially cleared from.
If you couple the hatred many dyed-in-the-wool Republican voters have towards the Clintons, the hatred many of them have for Obama, and the (correct) belief that a Clinton Administration will be much like the Obama Administration...you get a decent recipe for mobilizing GOP voters. Tag on the message of "She dodged punishment too!" and you get bonus points.
I guess I wonder if this may just all end up playing into Clinton's hands. If Clinton comes away clean from this, if the Republican candidates that remain overplay their hand, Clinton will be able to pull the beleaguered-for-no-reason female/progressive card. The degree to which Republicans are still harping about Benghazi has set her up for this pretty well. You'd think something like Benghazi would play against Clinton, but when Republican candidates bring it up, outside of their base, it just seems petty and small, but its one of the few issues that allows Clinton to say things like "I won't get in the mud with them" and actually seem forceful, resolved, and, well, experienced and Presidential.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, never underestimate the power of a Clinton to turn gak into gold.
Jimmy Carter gets a bad rap I think. All the complaints people have about politicians today, it's kind of ironic that one of the most genuinely decent human beings to ever sit in the White House is regarded as having been so ineffective in office.
Bowden's book on the Hostage Crisis is pretty good and casts Carter in a very sympathetic light, made me change my opinion on his handling of the whole deal.
Agree with the above regarding Carter. As honest and sincere as he is, I think events spiralled beyond his ability to effectively manage.
To be fair to Carter, some of the problems were outwith his control. It was Delta forces' first mission, if memory serves, and as highly trained as they were, new units always seem to suffer a baptism of fire.
The early days of the SAS and British commandos missions in WW2 suffered many a disaster (including the capture of the unit's founder) and it was unfortunate for Carter and the hostages, the same thing happened on Delta's first mission.
And let's not forget that the US military's morale in the 1970s was rock bottom due to Vietnam.
CptJake wrote: Unfortunately being decent =/= being effective.
Bowden's book on the Hostage Crisis is pretty good and casts Carter in a very sympathetic light, made me change my opinion on his handling of the whole deal.
CptJake wrote: Unfortunately being decent =/= being effective.
Bowden's book on the Hostage Crisis is pretty good and casts Carter in a very sympathetic light, made me change my opinion on his handling of the whole deal.
What's the name of the book?
Very good book (as are most of his books in my opinion).
CptJake wrote: Unfortunately being decent =/= being effective.
Bowden's book on the Hostage Crisis is pretty good and casts Carter in a very sympathetic light, made me change my opinion on his handling of the whole deal.
What's the name of the book?
Very good book (as are most of his books in my opinion).
I'll add it to my reading list. Cheers.
On the flip side, what happened to those hostages was obviously a bad thing, but having read 'A legacy of ashes', which is a book about the history of the CIA, I don't blame the Iranians for wanting American influence out of their country. But that's another debate.
Exclusive: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest
For months, the U.S. State Department has stood behind its former boss Hillary Clinton as she has repeatedly said she did not send or receive classified information on her unsecured, private email account, a practice the government forbids.
While the department is now stamping a few dozen of the publicly released emails as "Classified," it stresses this is not evidence of rule-breaking. Those stamps are new, it says, and do not mean the information was classified when Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in the 2016 presidential election, first sent or received it.
But the details included in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.
The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.
In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.
This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.
"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House's National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.
"If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."
Reuters' findings may add to questions that Clinton has been facing over her adherence to rules concerning sensitive government information. Spokesmen for Clinton declined to answer questions, but Clinton and her staff maintain she did not mishandle any information.
"I did not send classified material, and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified," Clinton told reporters at a campaign event in Nevada on Tuesday.
Although it appears to be true for Clinton to say none of her emails included classification markings, a point she and her staff have emphasized, the government's standard nondisclosure agreement warns people authorized to handle classified information that it may not be marked that way and that it may come in oral form.
The State Department disputed Reuters' analysis but declined requests to explain how it was incorrect.
The findings of the Reuters review are separate from the recent analysis by the inspector general for U.S. intelligence agencies, who said last month that his office found four emails that contained classified government secrets at the time they were sent in a sample of 40 emails not yet made public.
FOR THE SECRETARY'S EYES ONLY
Clinton and her senior staff routinely sent foreign government information among themselves on unsecured networks several times a month, if the State Department's markings are correct. Within the 30 email threads reviewed by Reuters, Clinton herself sent at least 17 emails that contained this sort of information. In at least one case it was to a friend, Sidney Blumenthal, not in government.
The information appears to include privately shared comments by a prime minister, several foreign ministers and a foreign spy chief, unredacted bits of the emails show. Typically, Clinton and her staff first learned the information in private meetings, telephone calls or, less often, in email exchanges with the foreign officials.
In an email from November 2009, the principal private secretary to David Miliband, then the British foreign secretary, indicates that he is passing on information about Afghanistan from his boss in confidence. He writes to Huma Abedin, Clinton's most senior aide, that Miliband "very much wants the Secretary (only) to see this note."
Nearly five pages of entirely redacted information follow. Abedin forwarded it on to Clinton's private email account.
State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach, in an initial response to questions on how the department applies classification regulations, said that Reuters was making "outlandish accusations." In a later email, he said it was impossible for the department to know now whether any of the information was classified when it was first sent.
"We do not have the ability to go back and recreate all of the various factors that would have gone into the determinations," he wrote.
The Reuters review also found that the declassification dates the department has been marking on these emails suggest the department might believe the information was classified all along. Gerlach said this was incorrect.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
A series of presidential executive orders has governed how officials should handle the ceaseless incoming stream of raw, usually unmarked information they acquire in their work. Since at least 2003, they have emphasized that information shared by a foreign government with an expectation or agreement of confidentiality is the only kind that is "presumed" classified.
The State Department's own regulations, as laid out in the Foreign Affairs Manual, have been unequivocal since at least 1999: all department employees "must ... safeguard foreign government and NATO RESTRICTED information as U.S. Government Confidential" or higher, according to the version in force in 2009, when these particular emails were sent.
"Confidential" is the lowest U.S. classification level for information that could harm national security if leaked, after "top secret" and "secret".
State Department staff, including the secretary of state, receive training on how to classify and handle sensitive information, the department has said. In March, Clinton said she was "certainly well aware" of classification requirements.
Reuters was unable to rule out the possibility that the State Department was now overclassifying the information in the emails, or applying the regulations in some other improper or unusual way.
John Fitzpatrick, the current ISOO director, said Reuters had correctly identified all the governing rules but said it would be inappropriate for his office to take a stance on Clinton's emails, in part because he did not know the context in which the information was given.
A spokeswoman for one of the foreign governments whose information appears in Clinton's emails said, on condition of anonymity to protect diplomatic relations, that the information was shared confidentially in 2009 with Clinton and her senior staff.
If so, it appears this information should have been classified at the time and not handled on a private unsecured email network, according to government regulations.
The foreign government expects all private exchanges with U.S. officials to be treated that way, the spokeswoman for the foreign government said.
Leonard, the former ISOO director, said this sort of information was improperly shared by officials through insecure channels more frequently than the public may realize, although more typically within the unsecured .gov email network than on private email accounts.
With few exceptions, officials are forbidden from sending classified information even via the .gov email network and must use a dedicated secure network instead. The difference in Clinton's case, Leonard said, is that so-called "spillages" of classified information within the .gov network are easier to track and contain.
I really enjoyed his book "Killing Pablo" about Pablo Escobar in Colombia. Having been in the SOUTHCOM AOR during that time I found his coverage pretty darned good and interesting.
pities2004 wrote: I think this will hurt her severely in the election, people can't trust her. I sure as hell don't.
I've said it once, I've said it 100 times: Hilary Clinton is bulletproof. The day this email scandal hurts her, is the day the Union Jack flies over the White House (again!)
It may have escaped people's attention, but the following has happened: Donald Trump has been talking about immigration. And now, every other GOP candidate is talking about immigration. And some of Trump's ideas on immigration are crazy. And the rest of the GOP candidates are trying to match him.
And Hilary welcomes the Hispanic vote with open arms
Mitt Romney lost the Hispanic vote by 44 points. Alarm bells should be ringing at Republican HQ but here we go again. The Republicans have found a way to once again annoy America's fastest growing demographic
LordofHats wrote: Jimmy Carter gets a bad rap I think. All the complaints people have about politicians today, it's kind of ironic that one of the most genuinely decent human beings to ever sit in the White House is regarded as having been so ineffective in office.
Its because he sucked, utterly and completely, as President.
pities2004 wrote: I think this will hurt her severely in the election, people can't trust her. I sure as hell don't.
I've said it once, I've said it 100 times: Hilary Clinton is bulletproof. The day this email scandal hurts her, is the day the Union Jack flies over the White House (again!)
It may have escaped people's attention, but the following has happened: Donald Trump has been talking about immigration. And now, every other GOP candidate is talking about immigration. And some of Trump's ideas on immigration are crazy. And the rest of the GOP candidates are trying to match him.
And Hilary welcomes the Hispanic vote with open arms
Mitt Romney lost the Hispanic vote by 44 points. Alarm bells should be ringing at Republican HQ but here we go again. The Republicans have found a way to once again annoy America's fastest growing demographic
I'm Hispanic and would rather be castrated with a rusty spoon then vote for Hilary Clinton. ( Though it would be entertaining to see people address Hilary and Bill as President Clinton and President Clinton)
pities2004 wrote: I think this will hurt her severely in the election, people can't trust her. I sure as hell don't.
I've said it once, I've said it 100 times: Hilary Clinton is bulletproof. The day this email scandal hurts her, is the day the Union Jack flies over the White House (again!)
It may have escaped people's attention, but the following has happened: Donald Trump has been talking about immigration. And now, every other GOP candidate is talking about immigration. And some of Trump's ideas on immigration are crazy. And the rest of the GOP candidates are trying to match him.
And Hilary welcomes the Hispanic vote with open arms
Mitt Romney lost the Hispanic vote by 44 points. Alarm bells should be ringing at Republican HQ but here we go again. The Republicans have found a way to once again annoy America's fastest growing demographic
Which really just shows how Hispanics are weird voters.
Only those who got here legally are able to become citizens and vote. These are the same people who should hate illegal immigration because they ignored the rules that the legal voters had to go through to get here.
If there’s a Clinton crash, the vice president might not be the only one who exploits it
It’s time to ask a question, the answer to which we do not know: Will former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal do fatal damage to her campaign?
Over the past few months it’s become clearer that the questions surrounding Clinton’s emails — and a corresponding flood of negative press that she has been unable to counteract — have done her considerable harm, at least in the short term. Her favorability rating has continued to erode. In June, we noted that despite months of questions about her emails — the story broke in early March — Clinton’s net favorability had only gone from 48%-46% favorable to 46%-48% unfavorable, according to HuffPost Pollster’s average. Since then, her unfavorability has only inched up to 49%, but her favorability has dropped to about 41%.
The fact that her unfavorability number hasn’t grown much while her favorability number has clearly dropped suggests that some Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are not willing to say they like their party’s frontrunner right now, but they also aren’t willing to say they dislike her. These are the voters that Clinton, as the nominee, would probably be able to bring back into the fold. Polarization raises the floor for candidates of both parties, even ones who are damaged.
So perhaps the damage is only temporary.
However, it’s possible to imagine that the email scandal could get so bad that it would drive Clinton from the race. It’s certainly not something we’d predict right now, but we also can’t rule it out. Not when the FBI is sniffing around and Clinton felt compelled, after months of stalling, to turn over her private server, and when there are indications that those tens of thousands of emails she deleted might be retrievable on a backup server.
Clinton could be brought down by facts about the emails we don’t know. Her secretive behavior has reinforced preexisting suspicions, as she’s reminded voters of the consistent scent of scandal that has hung around the Clintons ever since they arrived on the national scene. Like so many other Clinton scandals, this one might roll off their backs. Or it might be the one that sticks.
If Clinton does leave the race, then Katie, bar the door: Every Democratic governor and senator will look in the mirror and see a future president.
However: If she remains in the contest, which is still highly probable, we continue to believe Clinton is a very formidable favorite for her party’s nomination.
Our argument for Clinton’s primary strength is largely unchanged from last month, and we won’t reiterate those points here in detail. The case for Clinton, in short, is this: Party leaders still overwhelmingly support Clinton over any other contenders; the impressive crowds that Clinton’s chief rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT), has been attracting have no predictive value; Clinton is widely supported by Democratic women and minorities, both of whom have a dominant say in the primary process; and the primary calendar suggests looking beyond the very white, unrepresentative opening contests of Iowa and New Hampshire to the more diverse contests that follow, where Clinton should be stronger than Sanders.
But what if Clinton’s perceived weakness draws other candidates into the race even as she remains? This brings us to the rumor of the moment: a potential run by Vice President Joe Biden.
Dartmouth College’s Brendan Nyhan, a shrewd analyst who has contributed to the Crystal Ball, recently argued that Biden already is running. Not because he has announced a decision, but because the growing media buzz around his potential candidacy is a way for Biden and his allies to “test the waters.” If donors, elected Democratic officials, and others are receptive to his candidacy, Biden might actually run. If they are not, he won’t.
In effect, Biden is doing what 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney did at the start of 2015, when he semi-publicly considered a candidacy. The reaction among GOP elites to a third Romney run was mixed at best, so Romney passed. If Biden does run, it will tell us that Democratic elites are less sold on Clinton than her long list of endorsements from sitting party officials would suggest, and that the email scandal and her declining favorability have done her harm.
But just because a Biden run would add to Clinton’s mounting list of woes doesn’t automatically mean Biden is a truly serious threat to win the nomination.
As a candidate, Biden would find himself in an unenviable situation. So long as Clinton remains in the race, Biden would have to contend with her daunting funding, organization, and popularity in the party (which remains quite strong). And if Clinton is not in the race, it is unlikely Biden would have to contend only with Sanders, former Gov. Martin O’Malley (MD), and the other existing candidates: As noted above, a Clinton-less field could entice several others to launch a late entrance. It’s unclear whether Biden would be the favorite in a reshuffled Democratic presidential scrum.
That’s because, for a sitting vice president, Biden is unintimidating.
Throughout the entire presidential cycle — going all the way back to 2013 — Clinton has led every single national poll of Democrats, and even in her weakened state her level of support in every poll is near or over 50%. Biden, on the other hand, has never reached even 20% in any national primary poll included in RealClearPolitics’ list, and his average in the most recent surveys is 12%. That strikes us as a fairly weak number for a sitting vice president who did not, unlike former Vice President Dick Cheney, frequently and loudly insist he was not considering a run for president. There just has not been much grassroots support for Biden.
Now, there’s an important caveat here. If Biden actually announces his run, his poll numbers will assuredly improve. But by how much? It’s hard to say, but it doesn’t seem likely that he would jump ahead of Clinton in the polls. It’s also not impossible that a Biden run would hurt Sanders more than Clinton. Although Clinton and Biden are ideologically closer to each other than either is to the socialist senator, Sanders is benefitting somewhat from the perception that he is the leading alternative to Clinton among the currently announced candidates.
Biden’s two previous presidential runs in 1988 and 2008 were busts. He was forced from the former race long before voting started in part because of https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/biden.htm]accusations that he plagiarized from the stump speech of British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock. More recently, in 2008, Biden’s candidacy was almost inert, barely registering in Iowa before he dropped out. Biden’s public persona as a scrappy underdog from Scranton also feels increasingly out of step with the diverse Democratic Party, particularly because of the things Biden has often said — “You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.” — and done — getting much too close to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter’s wife (pawing her, in fact, to her obvious discomfort) during Carter’s swearing-in earlier this year. These incidents are problematic when running for the nomination of a party increasingly reliant on women and minorities.
This gets at Biden’s perception problem: To many, it’s impossible to separate Biden the vice president from Biden the caricature. One of the most popular running gags on The Onion, the satirical news site, is poking fun at “Diamond Joe” Biden (example headlines: “Shirtless Biden Washes Trans Am In White House Driveway” and “Biden To Cool His Heels in Mexico For A While”). His frequentgaffes make him the subject of ridicule, and conservatives have criticized press coverage of Biden for years, saying that the vice president gets away with behavior that would imperil Republicans.
Responding to another Biden flub last year — Biden told a group of girls learning computer programming and coding that they were “as smart as any guy” — the sharp conservative commentator Noah Rothman summed up what he saw as Biden’s frequent free passes from the media: “What frustrates conservatives is that a small but influential community that occupies itself with daily outrages over trivialities just can’t seem to find it in themselves to express dissatisfaction over these comments.”
But it’s possible that Biden has paid a deeper price for his years of verbal missteps and indecorous behavior. The public and the media may excuse or ignore his behavior because they just don’t view him as a truly serious presidential candidate.
It’s an uncomfortable thing to discuss Biden’s vulnerabilities, given his recent personal tragedy: His beloved elder son Beau died in May of a brain tumor. Supplementing this is that, for many, Joe Biden is impossible to dislike.
But if Biden runs for president, the personal behavior outlined here will come up. Certainly Biden’s rivals would try to argue that he’s unfit for the presidency, and they will have plenty of examples to cite as they try to make that point.
We’ll just have to wait and see, and if the Donald Trump surge has taught us anything, it’s that primary polls can move on a dime. Perhaps all the previous polls on Biden are meaningless and he’ll get a giant surge in support if he runs. But just because we can imagine something happening doesn’t mean we expect it.
One other note about Biden: There are a couple of rumors surrounding his potential candidacy that merit comment.
The first is that Biden could make a one-term pledge as an acknowledgement of his advanced age (74 at the time of the 2017 inauguration). He could promise to protect President Obama’s legacy and spend his four years in office trying to govern without worrying about reelection. He also could pick a running mate with the idea of grooming that person to be the nominee in the 2020 election and make a contrast with Clinton, who is also an older candidate (Biden is currently 72, Clinton is 67).
This is probably a non-starter and it wouldn’t go over well with the base, which not only wants to win the White House but keep it for eight more years. He would also be a lame duck as soon as he was elected. Republican presidential nominees Bob Dole (1996) and John McCain (2008) considered this strategy, and the fact that both underdog nominees decided against it means they ultimately did not believe it would be very effective. We suspect Biden might discover the same thing.
The other rumor is that Clinton could potentially cut a deal with Biden in order to keep him out, promising to make him her running mate instead.
There would be some precedent for a vice president serving under two different presidents, though it’s ancient. George Clinton served as vice president during President Thomas Jefferson’s second term and President James Madison’s first, and John C. Calhoun held the position under both Presidents John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson (during his first term).
Frankly, if Clinton sees Biden as such a threat to her that she has to keep him on as her running mate, then she has more problems than we think. And more broadly, the Democrats don’t have much of a national bench right now. At least from a purely political standpoint, the running mate slot would be better used on a promising, younger politician who could either try to retain the White House after a President Hillary Clinton retires or win it back if the Republicans triumph in 2016. Biden would also add little or nothing from an Electoral College standpoint, whereas someone like Sen. Tim Kaine (VA) could help Clinton squeeze a few extra votes out of a swing state, which could be the difference in the election.
With that, Table 1 features our most recent ratings of the Democratic presidential field. The order of the candidates is unchanged. Given the uncertainty surrounding Biden, we’re keeping him just as a wild card. If he runs, we’ll probably put him above Sanders but behind Clinton. The other three candidates — O’Malley, former Sen. Jim Webb (VA), and former Gov. Lincoln Chafee (RI) — have largely failed to make much of an impression. Of these candidates, O’Malley has the best chance to have a moment, as he’s working Iowa hard and has an ideological profile generally in line with the Democratic electorate.
Harvard law Prof. Lawrence Lessig is considering running for the Democratic nomination as a referendum president. If elected, he says, he would stay in office only until he oversaw the passage of a package of political and ethical reforms, after which he would resign the presidency, allowing his liberal vice president — someone like Sanders or Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA) — to take over. His candidacy is a pipe dream, but so too are many of the other campaigns this year. If he announces and indicates he is running an actual campaign, we’ll add him — to the very bottom of our list.
Table 1: Crystal Ball rankings of 2016 Democratic presidential primary field
**see table at link**
Doesn't really work for me unless I have closed captioning turned on. I actually read lips!
Also... Trump is expecting over 30,000 people at a rally tonight in Alabama. With the Dow dropping 500-points today and if its driven by China, that feeds right into Trump's wheelehouse, no?
This thing keeps following everywhere I go. Watching my every move, waiting until there is a lapse of judgement, waiting for it's time to strike. It's like a bad internet horror story bu even scarier.
Spoiler:
But seriously, they are everywhere I go. And I don't even like her.
Co'tor Shas wrote: This thing keeps following everywhere I go. Watching my every move, waiting until there is a lapse of judgement, waiting for it's time to strike. It's like a bad internet horror story bu even scarier.
Spoiler:
But seriously, they are everywhere I go. And I don't even like her.
Switch to Republican and those will go away. And, as an added bonus, the Republican and NRA banner adds that will replace her are more pleasing to look at.
Somehow I'm sure we're still going to see that accusation repeated anyway, though.
One thing I was wrong about, though, was when I said that I didn't think any of the candidates would take swipes at the likely terminally-ill Jimmy Carter - wherever there's a bar, here comes Turd Cruz to lower it. Point to Tannhauser.
David Miliband, the former British foreign secretary, sent confidential diplomatic emails to Washington, through the usual channels...which somehow ended up in Hilary's private email accounts, violating security procedures...
What HRC does, is America's business, but I'm warning you America, don't drag Britain into this mess
If you do, the Royal Navy will blockade the Chesapeake, and the New England merchants will pressure President Madison to sue for peace
PS for any American who doesn't know, the Daily Mail is the British version of Fox news. You have been warned
Somehow I'm sure we're still going to see that accusation repeated anyway, though.
Okay... I gotta just jump in... how in the bloody hell are these investigations in any way accurate? Were they in the locations while these procedures are performed? Or, did they just review documentations? Specificallly, how did they determine it didn't happen?
Because, that "blob of cells" at the 6th minute mark tells a different story. Unless... you think its an elaborate hoax.
IF that were true, then why would StemExpress cut ties with PP? If there were no wrong doings... seems like StemExpress is overreacting... no?
One thing I was wrong about, though, was when I said that I didn't think any of the candidates would take swipes at the likely terminally-ill Jimmy Carter - wherever there's a bar, here comes Turd Cruz to lower it. Point to Tannhauser.
(Note that I'm only discussing this because it seems salient to the discussion at hand, many of the candidates involved have brought this up specifically as a campaign issue. It seems inextricable from this discussion to me. I don't intend this as an end-run around the locked thread that discussed this when the story broke a few weeks ago.)
Ouze wrote: The old "they're not finding what that dubiously edited video said they'd find" means "the investigations must be slipshod", eh?
"dubiously edited videos"? They released the full unedited videos man.
But, whateve. *shrugs*
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: (Note that I'm only discussing this because it seems salient to the discussion at hand, many of the candidates involved have brought this up specifically as a campaign issue. It seems inextricable from this discussion to me. I don't intend this as an end-run around the locked thread that discussed this when the story broke a few weeks ago.)
Yeah... that's why I'm trying not to engage the discussion too much... because we know how it all end.
MrDwhitey wrote: So official investigations are slipshod and untrustworthy, but edited videos from a biased source are impeccable sources of truth.
Presumably the 5 million Benghazi investigations that turned up no real evidence of wrongdoing were similarly slipshod, as was the George Zimmerman trial that failed to convict, and the Darren Wilson grand jury that failed to indict.
For this thread, that's the equivalent of a tetris. 4 lines!
MrDwhitey wrote: So official investigations are slipshod and untrustworthy, but edited videos from a biased source are impeccable sources of truth.
Presumably the 5 million Benghazi investigations that turned up no real evidence of wrongdoing were similarly slipshod, as was the George Zimmerman trial that failed to convict, and the Darren Wilson grand jury that failed to indict.
For this thread, that's the equivalent of a tetris. 4 lines!
Again... take a look at the 6 minute mark of that video, then come back to me.
MrDwhitey wrote: So official investigations are slipshod and untrustworthy, but edited videos from a biased source are impeccable sources of truth.
Presumably the 5 million Benghazi investigations that turned up no real evidence of wrongdoing were similarly slipshod, as was the George Zimmerman trial that failed to convict, and the Darren Wilson grand jury that failed to indict.
For this thread, that's the equivalent of a tetris. 4 lines!
Again... take a look at the 6 minute mark of that video, then come back to me.
I'm sorry, I started watching at the 6 minute mark like you said and I am not sure what you want me to see. Because it looks like she just didn't like her job.
MrDwhitey wrote: So official investigations are slipshod and untrustworthy, but edited videos from a biased source are impeccable sources of truth.
Presumably the 5 million Benghazi investigations that turned up no real evidence of wrongdoing were similarly slipshod, as was the George Zimmerman trial that failed to convict, and the Darren Wilson grand jury that failed to indict.
For this thread, that's the equivalent of a tetris. 4 lines!
Again... take a look at the 6 minute mark of that video, then come back to me.
I'm sorry, I started watching at the 6 minute mark like you said and I am not sure what you want me to see. Because it looks like she just didn't like her job.
Okay then... *shrug*
Switching gears then... Trump's speech in AL yesterday:
That was one of the most rambling, multi-tangential speech I've seen in awhile...
Am I the only one that thinks he refers to global economics like it was the 80s?
Suppose that would fit the narrative his voter base wants to hear. Inarticulate angry older white people who don't like things that look or sound different. Unfortunately they are also the most consistent voting block lol.
I watched that entire pep rally and giggled like a school girl. At times laughing out loud. Convinced myself he has my vote regardless if he get nominated or not. Just for the entertainment and the Balls he has. Anyone else catch the reverse Jeb did on "Anchor Baby"?
BrotherGecko wrote: Inarticulate angry older white people who don't like things that look or sound different. Unfortunately they are also the most consistent voting block lol.
Seriously? Older white people are THE most consistent voting block?
CptJake wrote: Older white people are THE most consistent voting block?
Well yeah. Though I suppose it depends on what we mean by consistent: if we mean voting the same way then that is questionable as I don't know how they vote, but if we mean they tend to vote in every election then that seems right. Older people most likely have more time on their hands and use it to wave their fists and scream at the air. Just ask Frazzled.
BrotherGecko wrote: Inarticulate angry older white people who don't like things that look or sound different. Unfortunately they are also the most consistent voting block lol.
Seriously? Older white people are THE most consistent voting block?
Yah they vote the most often, they are very consistent. Win them over and you have the voting block that is most likely to actually show to the polls. Unlikely the the younger "vote or die" voting block that just discuss how they are going to show up but never do.
CptJake wrote: Older white people are THE most consistent voting block?
Well yeah. Though I suppose it depends on what we mean by consistent: if we mean voting the same way then that is questionable as I don't know how they vote, but if we mean they tend to vote in every election then that seems right. Older people most likely have more time on their hands and use it to wave their fists and scream at the air. Just ask Frazzled.
CptJake wrote: Older white people are THE most consistent voting block?
Well yeah. Though I suppose it depends on what we mean by consistent: if we mean voting the same way then that is questionable as I don't know how they vote, but if we mean they tend to vote in every election then that seems right. Older people most likely have more time on their hands and use it to wave their fists and scream at the air. Just ask Frazzled.
Ease off.....we eventually be there ourselves and more likely vote the same way they do. Alzheimer and all that......gumming as we read over the candidates.....senior discount at Denny's to afterwards....
Co'tor Shas wrote: This thing keeps following everywhere I go. Watching my every move, waiting until there is a lapse of judgement, waiting for it's time to strike. It's like a bad internet horror story bu even scarier.
Spoiler:
But seriously, they are everywhere I go. And I don't even like her.
I ignore her attempts to get me to swing for her. Bernie for pres, and progressives for Senate and House t help avoid the road-blocks the Reps love to put up all the time.
Again... take a look at the 6 minute mark of that video, then come back to me.
So your argument is "Abortion is bad!"?
That's a fair argument, because abortion is bad, but it isn't an argument related to the present Planned Parenthood fiasco; that fiasco relates to what is done with the fetus after the abortion.
dogma wrote: I guess I wonder if this may just all end up playing into Clinton's hands. If Clinton comes away clean from this, if the Republican candidates that remain overplay their hand, Clinton will be able to pull the beleaguered-for-no-reason female/progressive card. The degree to which Republicans are still harping about Benghazi has set her up for this pretty well. You'd think something like Benghazi would play against Clinton, but when Republican candidates bring it up, outside of their base, it just seems petty and small, but its one of the few issues that allows Clinton to say things like "I won't get in the mud with them" and actually seem forceful, resolved, and, well, experienced and Presidential.
Not just Benghazi, but Whitewater, the Lewinsky thing and so on, the Republicans have hunting for muck on the Clintons for something about the Clintons been slogging through the mud for more than two decades.
This thing will most likely wind up with no action taken, and then it’ll be a question of how the story is told. Among the Democratic faithful and Clinton fans it will be seen as yet another Republican smear attempt, while among the Republican faithful and Clinton haters it will be yet another bit of malfeasance that the Clintons have skirted away from.
Exactly which story ends up taking hold in the mainstream will be the big question. I don’t think we can answer that with certainty, but personally, given how trivial and convoluted this scandal is, I’d have to favour Clinton getting away from this with pretty minimal damage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Unfortunately being decent =/= being effective.
Carter’s alleged ineffectiveness is based pretty much entirely on economic myths. First up, there’s the myth that a president can produce a good or a bad economy – it’s actually almost entirely out of their control.
But even if a president had some magical economic control, Carter actually had stronger jobs growth over his term in office than Reagan had. The only difference is that Carter hit recession in the lead up to election, while Reagan got his recession out of the way early in his first term.
pities2004 wrote: I'm Hispanic and would rather be castrated with a rusty spoon then vote for Hilary Clinton. ( Though it would be entertaining to see people address Hilary and Bill as President Clinton and President Clinton)
Oh oh, without you that only leaves 54,999,999 hispanic voters for Clinton
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: So your argument is "Abortion is bad!"?
That's a fair argument, because abortion is bad, but it isn't an argument related to the present Planned Parenthood fiasco; that fiasco relates to what is done with the fetus after the abortion.
It is related, though, in that the reason people are telling lies about Planned Parenthood is because they don’t like abortion.
Ouze wrote: The old "they're not finding what that dubiously edited video said they'd find" means "the investigations must be slipshod", eh?
"dubiously edited videos"? They released the full unedited videos man.
But, whateve. *shrugs*
And rag newspapers will always print a retraction to their bs stories. But the retraction will be hidden among the minor stories, and about 1/10 the size of the original story. It's the same thing here - publish a heavily edited version and let that play for weeks and whip up hysteria and outrage, then quietly release the full version and trust that no-one will go back and do the work to find out that the outrage they've already committed to is actually true.
And people will fall for it, because they basically don't care that they're getting lied to, if the lie suits their politics.
Ouze wrote: The old "they're not finding what that dubiously edited video said they'd find" means "the investigations must be slipshod", eh?
"dubiously edited videos"? They released the full unedited videos man.
But, whateve. *shrugs*
And rag newspapers will always print a retraction to their bs stories. But the retraction will be hidden among the minor stories, and about 1/10 the size of the original story. It's the same thing here - publish a heavily edited version and let that play for weeks and whip up hysteria and outrage, then quietly release the full version and trust that no-one will go back and do the work to find out that the outrage they've already committed to is actually true.
And people will fall for it, because they basically don't care that they're getting lied to, if the lie suits their politics.
In most cases... that's true. In this case, that group released both the edited (easier viewing) and full (unedited) versions on the same day.
Washington (CNN)Vice President Joe Biden met privately with Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Saturday in his residence at the Naval Observatory, CNN has learned, another sign he is seriously deciding whether to jump into the Democratic presidential race.
Warren and Biden discussed economic policy during a meeting that lasted about two hours, a person familiar with the discussion told CNN, adding that the presidential campaign or Biden's future was not a particular focus of the discussion.
The meeting, confirmed by two people familiar with the session, is the biggest indication yet that Biden is feeling out influential Democrats before announcing his intentions.
Beloved by liberal Democrats, Warren decided to sit out a campaign of her own, but she has yet to formally endorse a candidate. In an interview on Friday, she told WBZ in Boston: "I don't think anyone has been anointed."
The vice president arrived in Washington shortly before lunchtime, even though his official schedule said he was planning to spend the weekend at his home in Delaware.
Kendra Barkoff, a Biden spokeswoman, declined to comment on the meeting. But an aide to Biden confirmed a meeting, telling CNN: "The vice president traveled last minute to Washington, D.C. for a private meeting and will be returning to Delaware."
Another source familiar with the meeting told CNN that Warren went to the meeting at Biden's request.
Biden is increasingly weighing whether to challenge Hillary Clinton and other Democratic candidates for the party's presidential nomination. A small team of advisers has spent weeks quietly putting together a campaign strategy and fundraising plan in case Biden decides to run. He had at least one meeting with them this week in Wilmington, one person familiar with the session told CNN.
He has told his associates he intends to make his decision in the next month, an announcement that could upend the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination.
With the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary six months away, Biden is the leading figure Democrats believe they could turn to if they needed to find an alternative to Clinton, whose favorability ratings have taken a deep hit as her email use while secretary of state is drawing deeper controversy.
Biden, 72, has a large and loyal collection of friends and advisers from more than four decades in Washington. Yet even inside his sprawling constellation, affectionately known as "Biden World," deep divisions exist over the wisdom of him making another bid for the presidency.
Mapping out the steps
Earlier this week, Biden met with top advisers at his home in Delaware to further map out the steps to mounting a third presidential bid, though people familiar with the confab say the vice president is no closer to deciding on a run.
Biden met with his political team in Wilmington, where he spent the last week out of sight following a vacation in South Carolina. Longtime political allies Mike Donilon and former Sen. Ted Kaufman were among the operatives advising Biden on a run, a person familiar with the meeting said.
The factors Biden continues to mull include a timeline for getting in the race, and a fundraising plan that could help him launch a come-from-behind campaign against Clinton.
Like many Democrats, Biden and his team are carefully eyeing the continued questions about Clinton's email use at the State Department. Developments this week, including allegations that classified information may have passed through her private account, have led to new anxiety within the Democratic Party about the frontrunner's viability.
Those jitters haven't necessarily led to widespread calls for Biden to join the race; at the White House, there is some concern a Biden candidacy could end poorly and damage the vice president's reputation.
But with polls showing Clinton's trustworthiness slipping, some top Democrats are looking elsewhere.
"Frankly when it became clear that he was giving the race serious consideration, I just raised my hand," Steve Schale, who ran President Obama's 2008 and 2012 campaigns in Florida, told CNN on Wednesday. Last week Schale joined "Draft Biden," the independent group encouraging the vice president to run.
Draft Biden, which began earlier this year as a bare-bones effort to rally support behind Biden, has recently morphed into a full-fledged organizing campaign, including robust fundraising efforts, that could provide a framework for Biden should he jump into the race.
Costs of running
Biden's advisers have told the vice president he must decide by Oct. 1 -- roughly a week after his self-proclaimed "end-of-summer" deadline. A top Biden adviser told CNN this week the vice president is expected to wait at least until mid-September to announce a decision.
If Biden does mount a run for president, the cost of flying him from event to event on Air Force Two would come under scrutiny, as political travel for sitting presidents running for re-election has for decades.
Current regulations enacted during the last presidential election stipulate a candidate must reimburse the government for a pro-rated share of an equivalent-sized charter plane.
Biden often flies in a C-32, the military analogue to a Boeing 757. The cost to charter a 757 is between $12,000 and $15,000 per hour, according to charter companies.
That's far less than the actual costs to fly Air Force Two, which comes retrofitted with secure communication and navigation equipment, and costs north of $100,000 to operate per hour.
Travelers who must reimburse the government for political trips include the candidate and any staff traveling on behalf of his campaign. Other passengers, including security personnel, aren't required to reimburse the government for their portion of the trip.
The goal of the regulations: to ensure the costs of an office-holder's travel requirements neither hinder nor help a candidacy.
If he runs, Biden could combine campaign trips with official travel to mitigate the costs, which presidents have done for decades. The formula breaking down campaign and official costs, however, has been kept secret by White Houses going back to the 1970s.
The distinction between official and political travel has also been blurry in the past. Official travel requires the president or vice president to be advancing or explaining the work of the administration -- and as vice president, much of Biden's campaign pitch would entail doing just that.
Clinton has traveled using a mix of commercial and private air, none of which is nearly as large as a Boeing 757. The Gulfstream G500 she flew to Martha's Vineyard in on Saturday costs between $7,000-$8,000 to charter per hour.
But she or her campaign must foot the bill for the entire flight, not only a pro-rated portion of it, or a percentage split with official travel. Unlike Air Force Two, the government assumes none of the costs.
In her first quarterly FEC filing from July, Clinton's campaign reported spending almost $134,000 on a single private jet service, Executive Fliteways.
As a former first lady, Clinton travels with a Secret Service detail, though its footprint appears far smaller than Biden's. The Secret Service is not reimbursed for any costs associated with political travel.
A few things...
1) Biden/Warren will need to jump in soon, or there won't be any money left... I seriously doubt HRC will *release* the funds if she's not the nominee.
2) Knowing crazy uncle Joe and you'd got to think he'd loath running against HRC... doesn't this strike you as "prankish"??
Joe: Hey, 'Liz... come down to the WH and we'll watch a movie.
Warren: We're only going to watch Mad Max???
Joe: Best. Prank. Ever!
In most cases... that's true. In this case, that group released both the edited (easier viewing) and full (unedited) versions on the same day.
The Center for Medical Progress would not have posted unedited film in the absence of the edited film. The only reason unedited film was posted was so supporters could point to it while saying "Look, this group is honest!", assuming no one would actually watch it or dig into the laws that were apparently being broken.
Jihadin wrote: Ease off.....we eventually be there ourselves and more likely vote the same way they do. Alzheimer and all that......gumming as we read over the candidates.....senior discount at Denny's to afterwards....
Old People. Vote early, and then have a discounted breakfast so you can get back to the home in time for Matlock reruns...
whembly wrote: The WH is shivving (or preparing to) the Clinton campaign.
Is anyone actually surprised by that? The Clinton and Obama camps weren't exactly the best of buddies, the prevailing attitude seems to have been better to have her in the tent whizzing out than outside the tent whizzing in.
whembly wrote: In most cases... that's true. In this case, that group released both the edited (easier viewing) and full (unedited) versions on the same day.
Reminds of the Hitchhiker’s Guide. "But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months." "Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything." "But the plans were on display ..." "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them." "That's the display department." "With a flashlight." "Ah, well the lights had probably gone." "So had the stairs." "But look, you found the notice didn't you?" "Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."
Making something available in a long and very boring format, and then putting that up next to the selectively edited version is just playing funny buggers. Of course the people who want the quick hit of outrage will just watch the edited version. And then it’s up to everyone else to sit through the whole, unedited version, to go back and explain to people who’ve already made their minds up how the version they watched was actually really misleading.
The only way to do that is to release a video that isn’t dubiously edited. But there’s lots of reasons that didn’t happen.
Anyhoo... is anyone excited for a Biden/Warren ticket?
Biden is, possibly. That’d be about it, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Is anyone actually surprised by that? The Clinton and Obama camps weren't exactly the best of buddies, the prevailing attitude seems to have been better to have her in the tent whizzing out than outside the tent whizzing in.
I wouldn’t describe it as a shivving, or a product of any animosity between the camps. I mean, I’m under no illusion that they like each other, but I don’t think that’s what is driving this. It’s politics, everyone is a rival.
I guess its best thought of like a game of Diplomacy. In that game you’ll form your alliances pre-game, and commit to a mutual strategy. Britain and France will often ally to capture Germany, for instance. But after a few turns if your French ally isn’t doing what he should, perhaps he’s been unable to do anything against Germany and is losing ground to Italy, then it only makes sense to look for another ally, maybe instead switch to either Italy or Germany, to attack France. Your original ally might look at that as a betrayal, maybe, but it’s been brought on by them failing to live up to what was expected of them.
It’s perhaps a slightly too dramatic way of describing Biden looking at challenging Clinton for the nomination, but the underlying logic is there – Hillary’s run a middling to average campaign, and everything else is a product of that.
whembly wrote: In most cases... that's true. In this case, that group released both the edited (easier viewing) and full (unedited) versions on the same day.
Reminds of the Hitchhiker’s Guide.
"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."
"But the plans were on display ..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a flashlight."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."
Making something available in a long and very boring format, and then putting that up next to the selectively edited version is just playing funny buggers. Of course the people who want the quick hit of outrage will just watch the edited version. And then it’s up to everyone else to sit through the whole, unedited version, to go back and explain to people who’ve already made their minds up how the version they watched was actually really misleading.
The only way to do that is to release a video that isn’t dubiously edited. But there’s lots of reasons that didn’t happen.
Exalted only because you used the Hitchhiker’s Guide.
Anyhoo... is anyone excited for a Biden/Warren ticket?
Biden is, possibly. That’d be about it, though.
Dunno man... makes you wonder if Biden/Obama knows something about the FBI's investigation over Emailgate™.
Biden has the name recognition to jump into this now. The only issue is that he's literally running for a third Obama term... which is why when he announces... it would be a genius stroke for him to also announce that Warren would be his VP pick. Warren represent that populist progressive that the young Democratic voters are trending to.
WILDWOOD, Mo (KSDK) -- You never know what you're going to get when you open up a container of butter. We received this interesting photo on Facebook from viewer Jan Castellano of Wildwood. This morning she opened up her new package of Earth Origins Organic Spread to find this 'image' in her butter.
Biden has the name recognition to jump into this now. The only issue is that he's literally running for a third Obama term... which is why when he announces... it would be a genius stroke for him to also announce that Warren would be his VP pick. Warren represent that populist progressive that the young Democratic voters are trending to.
It would be incredibly stupid for any Democrat to push for Warren to vacate her Senate seat.
whembly wrote: Exalted only because you used the Hitchhiker’s Guide.
It was kind of cheating, wasn’t it?
But I think my point is still solid – putting the unedited video up so people can wade through hours of crap is just a way to sidestep the accusations that are inevitable given the misleading editing in the main video. The only way to defeat those accusations is to not produce misleading editing.
To give another comparison, back when we debated Bowling for Columbine over and over again, people pointed out that the movie included lots of selective edits. The other side said there’s always editing etc, and there were no incorrect claims made, and if people assumed certain things that’s on them, not on Michael Moore. But at the end of the day there’s a really simple way to determine if something was misleading – people walked out of Bowling for Columbine thinking that Heston had gone to their convention just after Columbine and given the cold dead hands line, but he hadn’t – Moore just tricked people in to thinking that.
Similarly, most people who are claiming outrage over PP think that foetal tissue was harvested for profit, because that’s exactly what the video tricked people in to thinking.
Dunno man... makes you wonder if Biden/Obama knows something about the FBI's investigation over Emailgate™.
Clinton’s numbers are kind of crappy, but I don’t think it’s got much to do with the email thing, which I really doubt has any real traction. I think her numbers are underwhelming for the same reason they were underwhelming in 2008 – she isn’t very good at giving speeches that make people like her.
Look at it this way – if it was revealed in 2007 that the junior Senator from Illinois Barack Obama was receiving confidential emails on a private server in his home, do you think it would have done anything to derail his push for the presidency?
Has any non incumbent candidate ever announced a running mate before securing their party's nomination? I can't recall any.
Honestly, It would be Biden's only shot this late in the game. Hillary has a huge fundraising lead that wouldn't be able to be overcome, particularly with the donors she has locked up. She has a solid ground game in place and pretty much the cream of the democratic crop of party campaign workers in every state (except for possibly a handful of Biden/Obama operatives who have been holding out hope for his possible run). Biden would largely be appealing to the same voters Clinton does (blue collars, minorities, moderates) and although her favorablity ratings have slumped some generally, her favorablity is still >75% among Dems but he might be able to peel some votes away from her if the email controversy gets worse. But if Warren gets in with Biden from the get go, they would be able to peel voters from Sanders (he is old and a self identified socialist, he is not going to get the nomination).
What is interesting about Biden is he is the left's genuine Trump that people seem to like right now: he doesn't have much of a brain/mouth filter. However, where Trump's positions are all pretty much new now that he is running, and therefore suspect to credibility, Biden has been pretty consistent for, what, forty five years? Polling suggests people don't like Trump because of his positions, but because he doesn't seem to talk like a politician and is brash. Biden is just as brash ("this is a huge frakking deal", but he actually believes what he says.
sebster wrote: To give another comparison, back when we debated Bowling for Columbine over and over again, people pointed out that the movie included lots of selective edits. The other side said there’s always editing etc, and there were no incorrect claims made, and if people assumed certain things that’s on them, not on Michael Moore. But at the end of the day there’s a really simple way to determine if something was misleading – people walked out of Bowling for Columbine thinking that Heston had gone to their convention just after Columbine and given the cold dead hands line, but he hadn’t – Moore just tricked people in to thinking that.
Similarly, most people who are claiming outrage over PP think that foetal tissue was harvested for profit, because that’s exactly what the video tricked people in to thinking.
Yes, I posted something about this on the last page and I am 99% sure Whembly missed it because it was a edit and then we flipped pages, so I'll repost:
When called out on it, the video guys did exactly what you describe above.
"We never claimed that was an image of an aborted baby. It's just an illustration of what a baby looks like at the end of the 2nd trimester," he wrote in a statement. "It's interesting that Planned Parenthood and their allies assumed so quickly that's what was happening – are they just grasping at straws, or are their consciences also starting to get to them?"
It's pretty clear that the presentation was dishonest on a few levels.
Yes, I posted something about this on the last page and I am 99% sure Whembly missed it because it was a edit and then we flipped pages, so I'll repost:
When called out on it, the video guys did exactly what you describe above.
"We never claimed that was an image of an aborted baby. It's just an illustration of what a baby looks like at the end of the 2nd trimester," he wrote in a statement. "It's interesting that Planned Parenthood and their allies assumed so quickly that's what was happening – are they just grasping at straws, or are their consciences also starting to get to them?"
It's pretty clear that the presentation was dishonest on a few levels.
Guess someone forgot Commandment #9 Pretty sure that's an important one
Biden has the name recognition to jump into this now. The only issue is that he's literally running for a third Obama term... which is why when he announces... it would be a genius stroke for him to also announce that Warren would be his VP pick. Warren represent that populist progressive that the young Democratic voters are trending to.
It would be incredibly stupid for any Democrat to push for Warren to vacate her Senate seat.
Why? Her Senate seat is pretty safe for Democrats.
sebster wrote: To give another comparison, back when we debated Bowling for Columbine over and over again, people pointed out that the movie included lots of selective edits. The other side said there’s always editing etc, and there were no incorrect claims made, and if people assumed certain things that’s on them, not on Michael Moore. But at the end of the day there’s a really simple way to determine if something was misleading – people walked out of Bowling for Columbine thinking that Heston had gone to their convention just after Columbine and given the cold dead hands line, but he hadn’t – Moore just tricked people in to thinking that.
Similarly, most people who are claiming outrage over PP think that foetal tissue was harvested for profit, because that’s exactly what the video tricked people in to thinking.
Yes, I posted something about this on the last page and I am 99% sure Whembly missed it because it was a edit and then we flipped pages, so I'll repost:
When called out on it, the video guys did exactly what you describe above.
"We never claimed that was an image of an aborted baby. It's just an illustration of what a baby looks like at the end of the 2nd trimester," he wrote in a statement. "It's interesting that Planned Parenthood and their allies assumed so quickly that's what was happening – are they just grasping at straws, or are their consciences also starting to get to them?"
It's pretty clear that the presentation was dishonest on a few levels.
No... I didn't miss it. It's just that I'm hesitant to really engage on this subject matter as everyone's mind is made up and there's nothing really to "debate" because i've realized that this topic (as well as topics like religion)... no one is ever changing minds on dakka's OT forums.
We just normally talk at each other and it's almost a self-fullfilling prophesy that things will eventually get out of hand and the MODS will have no recourse then to shut down the current thread.
*shrugs*
But, full disclosure time, here's what *I*, whembly believes.... in quote below, before I address your points, so that you know where I'm coming from:
I believe abortions should only be used if the mother's life is in danger. Unequivocally. Even in that case, all efforts should be made to save the child.
It should never be used as a means of birth control. I truly believe that our current environment allowing this is a stain to our culture. Even in the same vein as our horrid history over slavery.
No before you go off and dismiss me as hating women and all that...
I personally know 4 women in my life who were raped.
One of them had a child.... beforeshe was 18 years old. A beautiful girl whom she chose to keep. A child that I can't fathom now had the mother chosen to abort later.
The other three confided to me that they can't imagine getting abortions either, with exception to taking the morning after pills afterwards.
Even after that, I could be "convinced" to allow the morning after pills, as long as it was administered recently. But other than that... I wish abortions weren't widely used.
I've had folks challenged me whether it's true that this happened... and frankly, I don't care if you do/don't believe me. I'm mature enough to let it go, because, again, this is one of those subject matters that folks already made up their minds.
I've have folks challenged me that if abortions were reduced, be prepared to have your taxes go to single-mom welfares and such. I'm prepared.
I realize that all of this is driven mostly by anecdotal associations and as contributing members in a society, we need to be on-guard with ourselves so that we don't unnecessarily burden our viewpoints to others. However, this is one of those subjects that I will not budge.
Does those viewpoints makes me an extremist in your opinion? Do I care? I just say this a clearly as I can without being too much of a jackass.
whembly <--- zero feths given
With that out of the way, you know where I'm coming from... and I don't really want to engage on the merits of my belief here, because we'll know how it'll end.
With respect to what you posted, I really don't believe that's qualifies as an "edited video" meaning, it's meant to distort what's going on. I believe it's meant to shine more sunlight on the issues at hand, as most people want to keep their heads in the sand... rather than facing the harsh realities.
What PP and StemExpress have done/said should horrify folks.
Politically (as it's germane to this thread), with my stated opposition, I don't believe Federal nor State funding should be going to PP. Those same fundings should be re-directed to community healthcare providers, who can more than adequately provide Women services.
Additionally, since Obamacare is the law, with it's plethora of FREE women care. Federal/State funding isn't needed to be sent to PP, as other providers can offer those services.
What PP and StemExpress have done/said should horrify folks.
They have done nothing illegal and every investigation since the videos has cleared them. You are confusing "I don't like it" with "It's illegal".
Politically (as it's germane to this thread), with my stated opposition, I don't believe Federal nor State funding should be going to PP. Those same fundings should be re-directed to community healthcare providers, who can more that adequately provide Women services.
Additionally, since Obamacare is the law, with it's plethora of FREE women care. Federal/State funding isn't needed to be sent to PP, as other providers can offer those services.
So just to be clear:
You want to deny legal funding to legal groups providing a legal service despite zero evidence that they committed any illegal activity, who in fact now have had multiple investigations clearing them of any legal wrongdoing, just because you don't like that they provide a legal service that none of the legal funding is even paying for?
Politically (as it's germane to this thread), with my stated opposition, I don't believe Federal nor State funding should be going to PP. Those same fundings should be re-directed to community healthcare providers, who can more than adequately provide Women services.
Additionally, since Obamacare is the law, with it's plethora of FREE women care. Federal/State funding isn't needed to be sent to PP, as other providers can offer those services.
So, you want to remove funding from community healthcare providers.... to give them to.... community healthcare providers???
I think we all know by know that ACA isn't all that good, and that there's still a very real need for "affordable" services like PP offers. If we were able to still improve the overall healthcare system, then maybe we could return to the discussion of the value of PP.
What PP and StemExpress have done/said should horrify folks.
They have done nothing illegal and every investigation since the videos has cleared them. You are confusing "I don't like it" with "It's illegal".
Nope. No confusion.
Politically (as it's germane to this thread), with my stated opposition, I don't believe Federal nor State funding should be going to PP. Those same fundings should be re-directed to community healthcare providers, who can more that adequately provide Women services.
Additionally, since Obamacare is the law, with it's plethora of FREE women care. Federal/State funding isn't needed to be sent to PP, as other providers can offer those services.
So just to be clear:
You want to deny legal funding to legal groups providing a legal service despite zero evidence that they committed any illegal activity, who in fact now have had multiple investigations clearing them of any legal wrongdoing, just because you don't like that they provide a legal service that none of the legal funding is even paying for?
I think we all know by know that ACA isn't all that good, and that there's still a very real need for "affordable" services like PP offers. If we were able to still improve the overall healthcare system, then maybe we could return to the discussion of the value of PP.
Again... what I was suggesting was that those Federal/State fundings be redirected to other community healthcare providers. No services would be cut, in fact, some providers could scale up. The issue would be access... which, shouldn't be a prob:
I think we all know by know that ACA isn't all that good, and that there's still a very real need for "affordable" services like PP offers. If we were able to still improve the overall healthcare system, then maybe we could return to the discussion of the value of PP.
Again... what I was suggesting was that those Federal/State fundings be redirected to other community healthcare providers. No services would be cut, in fact, some providers could scale up. The issue would be access... which, shouldn't be a prob:
Spoiler:
So, you want to take away funding from something that provides services and give it to another place so it can provide the exact same services? Did I read that right?
That's not sig worthy, but it is a new contender for dumbest analogy that I have seen on DakkaDakka.
Maybe we should shut down whembly's hospital, there are other places that are hospitals out there so there is no real reason to keep it around. We don't need actual legal reasons for wanting to defund places, so it's as good a place as any.
d-usa wrote: That's not sig worthy, but it is a new contender for dumbest analogy that I have seen on DakkaDakka.
Maybe we should shut down whembly's hospital, there are other places that are hospitals out there so there is no real reason to keep it around. We don't need actual legal reasons for wanting to defund places, so it's as good a place as any.
d-usa wrote: That's not sig worthy, but it is a new contender for dumbest analogy that I have seen on DakkaDakka.
Maybe we should shut down whembly's hospital, there are other places that are hospitals out there so there is no real reason to keep it around. We don't need actual legal reasons for wanting to defund places, so it's as good a place as any.
I've explicitlystated my reasons.
Keep strawmanning mang.
Your reason is "I don't like them", which is as much of a reason as wanting to shut down your hospital because I don't like them.
The whole "calling them healthcare providers" analogy is idiotic because it has zero basis in reality of any kind. Even if you want to continue with the whole "I don't like abortions and that's that" route, you can't ignore the fact that 97% of their services have nothing to do with abortions at all:
They are a community healthcare provider who provides STI screening and treatment, contraception, cancer screenings, and other services that have nothing to do with abortions to almost all of their patients. Pretending that providing these services makes them a healthcare provider in the same way that selling cocaine makes you a pharmacist is ridiculous. It is also ridiculous to argue that every other provider is going to step up and provide these services (60% of which are not covered by any federal funding in the first place) if PP were to be shut down. You want to dump over 10 million visits on every other health care clinic because you don't like that 320,000 visits were abortion related (and well within the scope of the law).
"I don't like it" has long been struck down as a reason by the courts and years of legislation and politics have put us at the uneasy truce that exists at this time. Abortion is legal the way it is provided, PP gets federal funding (which accounts for 40% of their budget) for all the other service, but no federal funding can be used for abortions by them or anyone else, and other than occasional pot shots back and forth, most of which get struck down by various courts, this is the status quo. Both legally and politically.
The big "break" for conservatives and politicians running on the "no abortions of any kind at any time" platform was the brief promise of illegal procedures and illegal sale of fetal tissue by Planned Parenthood. It gave them hope of being able to shut down PP without looking like they were trying to rob women of needed services, but instead by being able to shut them down for being criminal enterprise. "I'm sorry, we don't mean to take away your abortion providers, but we can't let modern grave robbers go unpunished" was the brief rallying cry of the politicians running for office and politicians already in office. That hope came crashing down when it was revealed that it was based on lies and was taken out behind the barn and shot with every investigation that cleared PP.
There are still presidential candidates that repeat that lie to this day, and that is what they are: liars. And people who argue that PP should be shut down because they are illegally harvesting body parts and selling them are either liars as well, or victims that are just repeating the same lies that they have been told. People arguing that we should not pay PP for non-abortion related legal services that they provide because 3% of their services are related to abortion, and for which they are not receiving federal money, really have no good argument at all.
And just to clarify (and hopefully keep the post from being considered off-topic): I'm not looking to argue abortion itself. I'm just arguing that the legality is not affected by how we fell about a service as well as the political effects of these feelings.
Why? Her Senate seat is pretty safe for Democrats.
Republicans won the last special election in Massachusetts, there is no sense in risking another loss; especially given that it could cause the Democrats to lose the filibuster.
Why? Her Senate seat is pretty safe for Democrats.
Republicans won the last special election in Massachusetts, there is no sense in risking another loss; especially given that it could cause the Democrats to lose the filibuster.
Hmmm... good point. Although, I'd bet big that R's won't win again in Mass, and I'd even argue further is still "safe" for Democrats.
The number is not bunk. Off all the services provided, 3% are abortion procedures.
The other way people have tried to look at the numbers it to compare the actual number of abortion services to the actual number of clients served, and the highest percentage that people have come up with that way is 12% (assuming that one abortion related service = 1 abortion). If we take into account that most states now require multiple visits to get an abortion, that number will shrink quite a bit. One abortion service for the initial consultation, another for the required counseling, another for the required ultrasound, another for the required return visit days later to actually get your abortion, another for your return visit to get day 2 of your pills if you are going that route. Realistically the number is quite a bit lower than 12% of patients, but that doesn't change that 3% of services rendered were abortion related. Every woman would have still been given a pregnancy test even if they never intended to have an abortion, just like the first thing your wife got when she went to the doctor when she was pregnant was a pregnancy test. A pregnancy test, surprisingly enough, is the baseline to establish pregnancy regardless of your intentions.
Of course none of that changes that the vast majority of services provided are not related to abortion, that they are not doing anything illegal, and that arguing that you can dump 10 million patients into an already stressed system without any consequence to them or the other providers and that the only reason you are doing that is because a vast minority of their services is a legal procedure that people don't agree with and which isn't covered by any of the funding that they want to withdraw anyway is simply ridiculous.
whembly wrote: I believe it's meant to shine more sunlight on the issues at hand, as most people want to keep their heads in the sand... rather than facing the harsh realities.
The people who engage with the abortion issue are universally aware of the harsh realities surrounding it. This is one of the problems the pro-life movement has, its members assume that pro-choice people don't believe abortion is bad because they are ignorant of what happens as a result of the procedure. As a result they produce videos like the one we're discussing, stand in public places with placards bearing the image of aborted fetuses, and hand out fliers with the same. This pushes people away from the pro-life movement because it either grosses them out, causing them to ignore the abortion issue, or annoys them, leading to new members of the pro-choice movement.
Most of the pro-choicers I've discussed the issue with find abortion distasteful. One can find abortion to be wrong while still believing it's none of the government's business.
And that kind of just gets back to the issue the Republicans are having. Politics of exclusion. The only position the Republicans back as a party is "all abortion is bad all the time," and if you disagree with that then you're an evil sinner, worship satan, and probably want the terrorists to win.
LordofHats wrote: Most of the pro-choicers I've discussed the issue with find abortion distasteful. One can find abortion to be wrong while still believing it's none of the government's business.
And that kind of just gets back to the issue the Republicans are having. Politics of exclusion. The only position the Republicans back as a party is "all abortion is bad all the time," and if you disagree with that then you're an evil sinner, worship satan, and probably want the terrorists to win.
How is that different than the Democrats-all abortion all the time! stance?
Frazzled wrote: How is that different than the Democrats-all abortion all the time! stance?
Because the Republican stance is expressly exclusive (forcing out anyone who doesn't agree with the position), while the Democratic stance is inclusive (an open door to anyone who agrees with the basic position that it's not the government's business)
Frazzled wrote: How is that different than the Democrats-all abortion all the time! stance?
Because the Republican stance is expressly exclusive (forcing out anyone who doesn't agree with the position), while the Democratic stance is inclusive (an open door to anyone who agrees with the basic position that it's not the government's business)
Bwahahaha... that's hysterical.
Both parties have their share of sacred cows and bugaboo's.
"My legs are shaking," the pollster Frank Luntz says of the results
A flock of two dozen mad-as-hell supporters of Donald Trump agreed to assemble on Monday night in a political consultant’s office to explain their passion for the Republican frontrunner. Gathered in a corporate-looking room with the shades drawn, they railed against Washington politicians who hire consultants, and sang their admiration for the one presidential candidate who promises to go his own way.
“I think America is pissed. Trump’s the first person that came out and voiced exactly what everybody’s been saying all along,” one man said. “When he talks, deep down somewhere you’re going, ‘Holy crap, someone is thinking the same way I am.’”
Frank Luntz, a fast-talking Republican pollster who frequently appears on television and writes newspaper op-eds, urged them on. When did you first decide you liked Trump? he asked. And why are you mad as hell?
“When Trump talks, it may not be presented in a pristine, PC way, but we’ve been having that crap pushed to us for the past 40 years!” said another man. “He’s saying what needs to be said.”
This 29-person focus group, conducted by Luntz and observed by a group of national press reporters from behind a pane of one-way glass, had gathered to explain the phenomenon of Trump. Why is a billionaire real estate mogul, TV celebrity and oft-accused demagogue who has never held office leading the Republican field with some 22% support in the polls?
After the first Republican debate, Luntz had held a similar focus group of likely Republican voters that found Trump had performed poorly. In trademark fashion, Trump responded by attacking Luntz on Twitter at 3:28 a.m. the following morning. “@FrankLuntz is a low class slob who came to my office looking for consulting work and I had zero interest. Now he picks anti-Trump panels!” Trump wrote.
Luntz’s firm paid each of the participants $100 for the two-and-a-half hour session. (They wore tags with their first names that were mostly illegible to reporters behind the glass.) The group was not a representative sample of the Republican party, or early state voters, as all of them had been selected because they like (or love) Trump and live in Washington or its suburbs in Maryland and Virginia. But they offered a glimpse into the Trump mystique, a lucrative brand whose success has caught the national media, the Republican establishment and experienced pollsters like the veteran Luntz off guard.
The Donald devotees sang a contrapuntal tune, simultaneously a dirge to national decline and an ode to Trump. They believed Washington politicians and the Republican party had repeatedly misled them, and that the country is going down the tubes. They looked for relief in Trump.
“I used to sleep on my front porch with the door wide open, and now everyone has deadbolts,” one man said. “I believe the best days of the country are behind us.”
“I’m frustrated beyond belief. I feel like I’ve been lied to,” a woman said. “Nothing’s getting better.”
Many sounded like relations of an ill patient, furious that all the previous doctors have botched a test or fumbled the scalpel. To them, Trump actually is the real-deal fixer-upper, and he is going to make America great again.
“We know his goal is to make America great again,” a woman said. “It’s on his hat. And we see it every time it’s on TV. Everything that he’s doing, there’s no doubt why he’s doing it: it’s to make America great again.”
The focus group watched taped instances on a television of Trump’s apparent misogyny, political flip flops and awe-inspiring braggadocio. They watched the Donald say Rosie O’Donnell has a “fat, ugly face.” They saw that Trump once supported a single-payer health system, and they heard him say, “I will be the greatest jobs president God ever created.” But the group—which included 23 white people, 3 African-Americans and three Hispanics and consisted of a plurality of college-educated, financially comfortably Donald devotees—was undeterred.
At the end of the session, the vast majority said they liked Trump more than when they walked in.
“You guys understand how significant this is?” Luntz asked the press breathlessly when he came back into the room behind the glass. “This is real. I’m having trouble processing it. Like, my legs are shaking.”
“I want to put the Republican leadership behind this mirror and let them see. They need to wake up. They don’t realize how the grassroots have abandoned them,” Luntz continued. “Donald Trump is punishment to a Republican elite that wasn’t listening to their grassroots.”
The group said Trump has their best interests in mind, while other Republicans are looking out for themselves. “We’ve got to show the Republicans that we’ve had it with them, that we will not be there every single time. They treat us like crap and they lie to us and promise us things and then they expect us to vote again,” said a Republican woman. “That’s why we want Trump.”
The crowd in the room was angriest about national security. Nearly all of them, it appeared, had an unshakeable feeling that U.S. border was porous as a sieve and that the very things that once defined the nation: army, border and national pride—were fading. They complained of America’s reduced standing in the world, and Obama’s apparent ineptitude in challenging Russia, Syria and ISIS.
When the group listened to a clip of Trump claiming that as president “the military is going to be so strong” that “nobody is going to mess around with the United States,” nearly everyone registered approval on their dial meters of 100—a seldom occurrence among focus groups.
“We love our country and we love what our country stands for,” said a woman who added she comes from a military family. “I look at where we are now as a country where entitlements are just totally out of control. Our borders have completely dissolved. We’re not what we used to be. I want to people to represent my interest.”
Trump’s unapologetic focus on strengthening the border—he wants to build a wall and deport all 11 million immigrants before letting many back into the country—excites many conservatives, as well as some who don’t traditionally vote Republican. Though he has announced scant specific plans, Trump has said he will expand the military, commit to veterans, and take a tough line on dealing with China and Iran.
“He’s not afraid,” said a woman who voted twice for Obama. “He keeps prodding on even if people give him negative press. He doesn’t change and apologize.”
Much of Trump’s support in the room seemed to stem from a weakness in the Republican party. The 2014 midterms did not usher in the conservative renaissance Republicans expected. Obamacare has still not been repealed, Congress is looking less likely to override a veto on the Iran deal, and there are still 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States.
The group of 29 went around the room, each supplying a single adjective for the legislative body that let them down after the 2014 elections. Congress “does nothing.” It’s “too old.” “Useless.” “Lame.” “Inept.” “Wrong party.” “Cocktail party.” “Gridlock.” “Costly.” “Sold out.” “Sucks.” “Douchebags.”
Then, the group did the same for Trump. This time: “Tough.” “Businessman.” “Great.” “Successful.” “Not afraid.” “Leader.” “Has guts.” “Charismatic.” “A true American.” “Kicks ass and takes names.”
Congress’ failures were Trump’s gains. The worse Congress and everyone else falls, the more the businessman has to gain. These supporters were evidence that Trump is winning by a new political paradigm, where disappointment and enchantment go hand in hand.
Well... that's what I was saying that Trump is evidently that anti-Establisment candidate.
O.o
I thought that was Cruz's positions? (since he's an equal opportunity piss every one off Senator).
Frazzled wrote: How is that different than the Democrats-all abortion all the time! stance?
Because the Republican stance is expressly exclusive (forcing out anyone who doesn't agree with the position), while the Democratic stance is inclusive (an open door to anyone who agrees with the basic position that it's not the government's business)
They look like identical litmus tests.
Republicans: All our candidates must agree abortion must be illegal.
Democrats: All our candidates must agree abortion must be legal.
Republicans: All our candidates must agree abortion must be illegal.
Democrats: All our candidates must agree abortion must be legal.
Its that subtle.
There are many ways to support the legality of abortion, there's only one way to support the illegality of it. As such the Democratic position is inclusive relative to the Republican position.
Republicans: All our candidates must agree abortion must be illegal.
Democrats: All our candidates must agree abortion must be legal.
Its that subtle.
There are many ways to support the legality of abortion, there's only one way to support the illegality of it. As such the Democratic position is inclusive relative to the Republican position.
^ This. I'm not saying the whole thing isn't silly, I'm just trying to bring this back around to an issue that I think bears relevance; That Republican politics have become increasingly exclusive, while Democratic positions have generally been more open. Once you've taken an anti-abortion stance, you've automatically excluded whole swathes of people. You could break the most general views of abortion into three categories;
Think abortion is right and support its legality.
Think abortion is wrong and support its legality.
Think abortion is wrong and do not support its legality.
The Republicans basically exclude the middle camp from being included and lump them in the first camp, while the Democrats don't care whether someone thinks abortion is right or wrong, only where it should be legal.
This dynamic spreads to many Republican positions, and is why we've seen Republican candidates go increasingly to the right on social issues in general elections. They've excluded anyone who doesn't agree with 1 position, and are forced to drum up that one camp to gain their support since the other two camps will never support them. That's why stuff like the PP video happens. It's not about truth. It's about making that one camp rabid and angry so they'll vote.
Property much. Most people couldn't give a gak about a lot of politics or government , that why a lot of highly important but boring topics (like infistructure) trend to fall by the wayside most of the time.
“I think America is pissed. Trump’s the first person that came out and voiced exactly what everybody’s been saying all along,” one man said. “When he talks, deep down somewhere you’re going, ‘Holy crap, someone is thinking the same way I am.’”
Umm, hate to break it here, but Sanders has been saying the same gak, and for longer than Trump... Good googly moogly, people are dum
Also Trump: "Go back to Univision"
That right there is the sound of 11 million Latino voters flocking to the "other" candidate regardless of their politics.
“I think America is pissed. Trump’s the first person that came out and voiced exactly what everybody’s been saying all along,” one man said. “When he talks, deep down somewhere you’re going, ‘Holy crap, someone is thinking the same way I am.’”
Umm, hate to break it here, but Sanders has been saying the same gak, and for longer than Trump... Good googly moogly, people are dum
Not really... Sanders hasn't permeated the culture like Trump has... (active twittah, Apprentice, bombastic New Yawker).
Also Trump: "Go back to Univision"
That right there is the sound of 11 million Latino voters flocking to the "other" candidate regardless of their politics.
That was awesome because Jorge is an activist jackass.
To be fair to Trump, towards the end of the meeting, he engaged and answered Jorge's questions. Said something like "Are we good? Are you good? Great... we'll talk in a year or so". #heh
Not really... Sanders hasn't permeated the culture like Trump has... (active twittah, Apprentice, bombastic New Yawker).
As I said, people are dumb. Sanders may not have the instant recognition, but he has been saying things that, every single one of his supporters says, "man, we think just alike"
Not really... Sanders hasn't permeated the culture like Trump has... (active twittah, Apprentice, bombastic New Yawker).
People have short memories. Sanders has traditionally been the Liberal version of Ron Paul (Trump has simply taken Paul's place on the Republican side this year) and with the Republican primaries being so loud, and Trump especially, he's simply getting more media attention at the moment.
Not really... Sanders hasn't permeated the culture like Trump has... (active twittah, Apprentice, bombastic New Yawker).
People have short memories. Sanders has traditionally been the Liberal version of Ron Paul (Trump has simply taken Paul's place on the Republican side this year) and with the Republican primaries being so loud, and Trump especially, he's simply getting more media attention at the moment.
True. I'm just waiting for the inevitable Trump-flame-out and is very surprised that it hasn't happened yet.
Why would it need to? He isn't under any real pressure yet because it's still so far from the primaries. When he's under proper pressure we'll see him drop out and either wait until next cycle or go all out independent
That's because there's 20+ candidates on the Republican side. We probably won't see that start to narrow to a point Trump falls out for another 2-3 months (well after his big mouth has significantly hurt the Republican candidates).
LordofHats wrote: That's because there's 20+ candidates on the Republican side. We probably won't see that start to narrow to a point Trump falls out for another 2-3 months.
Indeed.
It's just that Trump is all bedazzle, but no substenance. Folks will get tired if his shtick soon.
Depends on what folks you're talking about... my FB feed is full of a mixture of political articles, both pro and "con" (though really the con ones are more satirical, or poking fun at the guy than anything).... Nearly every time I see one, there's minimum 2-3k comments with a large amount saying "OMG, I can't WAIT till Trump is in the WH. #Trump2016" or something to that effect.
He clearly resonates with the scariest/worst voter class (and this swings both ways): the ill informed, or just plain stupid voter.
1) why the feth you reading Breibart? That need to change that fething website name.
Because Breitbart.com is a reliable source for extreme, conservative opinions; that's the basis of the Breitbart brand. I'm not sure why you believe the website should change its name, as you regularly link to websites with names that brand them as extremely conservative, indeed you did so by linking to a Fox Youtube channel.
That video is the same as the one posted by the Breitbart reporter, and does not feature Trump stating that Ramos was being removed for "speaking out of turn" as you claimed. Trump did state that Ramos was not called on to ask a question, and subsequently mocked him for being a Univision journalist, in keeping with his position on immigration.
To be fair to Trump, towards the end of the meeting, he engaged and answered Jorge's questions. Said something like "Are we good? Are you good? Great... we'll talk in a year or so". #heh
Republicans: All our candidates must agree abortion must be illegal.
Democrats: All our candidates must agree abortion must be legal.
Its that subtle.
There are many ways to support the legality of abortion, there's only one way to support the illegality of it. As such the Democratic position is inclusive relative to the Republican position.
Blah blah horse gak nonsense. Both parties have equal litmus tests. You'll never get a pro-life candidate in the Democratic Party again.
Blah blah horse gak nonsense. Both parties have equal litmus tests. You'll never get a pro-life candidate in the Democratic Party again.
Well that's not really true. There are Pro-Life Democrats and Pro-Choice Republicans, but those guys/gals will never win a Presidential election (not anytime soon anyway)
That's kind of been my point... The Party has a position, and that position has the effect of alienating a large segment of the voting population, a much larger segment than the opposite position. To make it worse, the Republican position is harsher, going beyond mere "Abortion bad" to include religion and "Americanness." The Democratic position takes no moral or ethical position on the issue besides "abortion should be legal" which is far less exclusive and much more open for people of divergent opinion. The parties have boiled a complex political question into two all or nothing positions sure, but one party's position is much more open while the others has become mired in radical talking points.
Exactly. Its a litmus test. Same for the Republicans. Nothing wrong with it, just own it and quit the "we're better than they are NAH NAH" nonsense.
Why are you trying to put words in the mouths of Democrats? None of them are arguing "we're better than they are NAH NAH", that is what Republicans are trying to convince their base Democrats are saying.
Exactly. Its a litmus test. Same for the Republicans. Nothing wrong with it, just own it and quit the "we're better than they are NAH NAH" nonsense.
Why are you trying to put words in the mouths of Democrats? None of them are arguing "we're better than they are NAH NAH", that is what Republicans are trying to convince their base Democrats are saying.
It's pretty obtuse to equate a critique of the Republican party platform and how it plays in the electorate as a statement of superiority.
It's an observable problem that Republicans have been dealing with (and arguably helped to cost them the last 2 elections, with Romney and McCain both struggling to gain support from the Pro-Life end of the party). It's not even a new observation. Political analysis have been saying for years that the Republican party has been running into trouble with insularity. That isn't saying the Democratic Party is plain superior, only that the Democratic position on abortion plays better with the electorate. Itself a recent development, prior to 2004-2008, the Republican position probably played better, but public attitudes on Abortion have shifted markedly since then.
EDIT: Though to be honest, it is a major issue I have with the Republican Party. "Feth you you didn't work hard enough. Feth you you shouldn't have grown up poor. Feth you you weren't born here." I know that's a broad brush, but that's what a part platform is. I don't like way it often plays out in society or in political discourse, and it really makes me reluctant to back Republicans when I disagree with the party in general on economic and social policy. Granted I have issues with the Democrats too, but my issues with them are much less off putting.
It's pretty obtuse to equate a critique of the Republican party platform and how it plays in the electorate as a statement of superiority.
It's an observable problem that Republicans have been dealing with (and arguably helped to cost them the last 2 elections, with Romney and McCain both struggling to gain support from the Pro-Life end of the party). It's not even a new observation. Political analysis have been saying for years that the Republican party has been running into trouble with insularity. That isn't saying the Democratic Party is plain superior, only that the Democratic position on abortion plays better with the electorate. Itself a recent development, prior to 2004-2008, the Republican position probably played better, but public attitudes on Abortion have shifted markedly since then.
EDIT: Though to be honest, it is a major issue I have with the Republican Party. "Feth you you didn't work hard enough. Feth you you shouldn't have grown up poor. Feth you you weren't born here." I know that's a broad brush, but that's what a part platform is. I don't like way it often plays out in society or in political discourse, and it really makes me reluctant to back Republicans when I disagree with the party in general on economic and social policy. Granted I have issues with the Democrats too, but my issues with them are much less off putting.
Nope. I voted for McCain in 2008, and Romney in 2012. I liked Romney. I think he'd have made a decent president. I'm also a registered member of the Republican Party (In case I ever decide to vote in a primary... which I don't ).
Though I suppose that is more something I've just never bother changing. I've moved away from most conservative political positions over the past few years.
Well you're not completely wrong. I don't think i will vote Republican in 2016. In 2008, I was 18, and I honestly had never gone out into the real world (sheltered impetulant children aren't always Dems ). I don't think I really started to decide what it was I really believed in till I graduated college four years ago, and even then, it's only been the past 2-3 years where I've really decided I'm just not a Republican. *shurgs* I'm just not.
1) why the feth you reading Breibart? That need to change that fething website name.
Because Breitbart.com is a reliable source for extreme, conservative opinions; that's the basis of the Breitbart brand. I'm not sure why you believe the website should change its name, as you regularly link to websites with names that brand them as extremely conservative, indeed you did so by linking to a Fox Youtube channel.
Ever since Andrew Breibart passed away... that site has gone to the deep end like infowars imo. I mean... I find myself even saying "Yo... I can't even" after reading some of their gak.
That video is the same as the one posted by the Breitbart reporter, and does not feature Trump stating that Ramos was being removed for "speaking out of turn" as you claimed. Trump did state that Ramos was not called on to ask a question, and subsequently mocked him for being a Univision journalist, in keeping with his position on immigration.
To be fair to Trump, towards the end of the meeting, he engaged and answered Jorge's questions. Said something like "Are we good? Are you good? Great... we'll talk in a year or so". #heh
I can't find any evidence of that happening.
It's out there... towards the end of the conference he did indeed let Jorge back in and answered his questions.
I say this as a Trump-hater... Trump was "in the right" on how he handled Jorge. He handled it in a way that even *I* could respect.
But, then... he goes back on twittah and starts up a catfight with Megyn Kelly again.
Doesn't much matter. Trump just lost the Latino vote of Florida, which will cost him the nomination, if he ever had it with the Cuban vote in Florida, who are traditionally Conservative voters, what with Rubio being on the ticket and a local there.
Bobby Jindal going on and on about "anchor babies" is some impressive hypocrisy, considering that he, himself, is an anchor baby.
Overall? It is tragic to see that *this* is the state of American politics.
That is, at this point, a manufactured scandal, since absolutely nothing HRC did, pertaining to the email, was illegal at the time. Was it the best course of action? No, but I note that the Republicans aren't bringing up the fact that Karl Rove, under GWB, did the exact same thing, and was likely used to obfuscate the dismissal of Federal prosecutors on political grounds.
Psienesis wrote: That is, at this point, a manufactured scandal, since absolutely nothing HRC did, pertaining to the email, was illegal at the time. Was it the best course of action? No, but I note that the Republicans aren't bringing up the fact that Karl Rove, under GWB, did the exact same thing, and was likely used to obfuscate the dismissal of Federal prosecutors on political grounds.
Bobby Jindal going on and on about "anchor babies" is some impressive hypocrisy, considering that he, himself, is an anchor baby.
Huh???
His parents were here illegally????
No, but his parents weren't citizens and he was born on US soil. What makes a child an "anchor baby" is that, regardless of the nationality of the parents, any child born on US soil is a US citizen, which prevents deportation of both child and parents. That's part of the 14th Amendment. His birth here is what allowed his parents to stay.
Bobby Jindal going on and on about "anchor babies" is some impressive hypocrisy, considering that he, himself, is an anchor baby.
Huh???
His parents were here illegally????
No, but his parents weren't citizens and he was born on US soil. What makes a child an "anchor baby" is that, regardless of the nationality of the parents, any child born on US soil is a US citizen, which prevents deportation of both child and parents. That's part of the 14th Amendment. His birth here is what allowed his parents to stay.
You're talking about "birthright citizenship", not anchor baby.
Anchor baby is a term where an illegal alien gave birth here in the states, and by virtue of various policies, the whole family ( who are not citizen ) can petition to stay in the states. Circumventing the normal immigration process. Hence the descriptive use of "anchor".
Bobby Jindal going on and on about "anchor babies" is some impressive hypocrisy, considering that he, himself, is an anchor baby.
Huh???
His parents were here illegally????
No, but his parents weren't citizens and he was born on US soil. What makes a child an "anchor baby" is that, regardless of the nationality of the parents, any child born on US soil is a US citizen, which prevents deportation of both child and parents. That's part of the 14th Amendment. His birth here is what allowed his parents to stay.
You're talking about "birthright citizenship", not anchor baby.
Anchor baby is a term where an illegal alien gave birth here in the states, and by virtue of various policies, the whole family ( who are not citizen ) can petition to stay in the states. Circumventing the normal immigration process. Hence the descriptive use of "anchor".
Bobby Jindal going on and on about "anchor babies" is some impressive hypocrisy, considering that he, himself, is an anchor baby.
Huh???
His parents were here illegally????
No, but his parents weren't citizens and he was born on US soil. What makes a child an "anchor baby" is that, regardless of the nationality of the parents, any child born on US soil is a US citizen, which prevents deportation of both child and parents. That's part of the 14th Amendment. His birth here is what allowed his parents to stay.
You're talking about "birthright citizenship", not anchor baby.
Anchor baby is a term where an illegal alien gave birth here in the states, and by virtue of various policies, the whole family ( who are not citizen ) can petition to stay in the states. Circumventing the normal immigration process. Hence the descriptive use of "anchor".
does it serve the same purpose?
Tangentially...
We can keep the birthright citizenship, as defined in the 14th amendment. But why do we have to accept that the entire illegal alien family MUST be able to stay in the states? Deport them all... When the child becomes of age, can come back to the states.
Psienesis wrote: No, but I note that the Republicans aren't bringing up the fact that Karl Rove, under GWB, did the exact same thing, and was likely used to obfuscate the dismissal of Federal prosecutors on political grounds.
I think it's a problem - a big problem - but ultimately these sorts of shenanigans rate a "no1curr" from the American People. Whembly keeps thinking there is some kind of magical force field Hillary has but the truth is that historically no one really gives a gak about these kinds of shenanigans, ever. It's sad, but eh, so was only a single season of Firefly. That's life.
whembly wrote: We can keep the birthright citizenship, as defined in the 14th amendment.
It's interesting people are so willing to screw with the 14th amendment, but the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct, handed from from on high.
Personally I'd love to see the 2nd amendment tightened up a bit. However, I can't imagine any political candidate of either party seriously saying such a thing.
edit: to be clear, I'm not trying to turn this into a guns argument, debate, or discussion: I think we've already tried Motyak's patience enough in the last 4 or 5 pages. I'm simply trying to point out how weird it is that some parts of the Constitution are more sacred than others.
I think it's a problem - a big problem - but ultimately these sorts of shenanigans rate a "no1curr" from the American People. Whembly keeps thinking there is some kind of magical force field Hillary has but the truth is that historically no one really gives a gak about these kinds of shenanigans, ever.
However, every media outlet in the country would be lambasting her if it were alleged that she had an aide "hiding" under the desk
Ensis Ferrae wrote: [However, every media outlet in the country would be lambasting her if it were alleged that she had an aide "hiding" under the desk
God no. One blue dress was enough for a lifetime, I think.
Bobby Jindal going on and on about "anchor babies" is some impressive hypocrisy, considering that he, himself, is an anchor baby.
Huh???
His parents were here illegally????
No, but his parents weren't citizens and he was born on US soil. What makes a child an "anchor baby" is that, regardless of the nationality of the parents, any child born on US soil is a US citizen, which prevents deportation of both child and parents. That's part of the 14th Amendment. His birth here is what allowed his parents to stay.
You're talking about "birthright citizenship", not anchor baby.
Anchor baby is a term where an illegal alien gave birth here in the states, and by virtue of various policies, the whole family ( who are not citizen ) can petition to stay in the states. Circumventing the normal immigration process. Hence the descriptive use of "anchor".
does it serve the same purpose?
Not really. They're were at least here legally to begin with. And I think its ok if that is the case. But you shouldn't be able to sneak into the country illegally, have a baby, and then get a free pass because of it. Hence my idea to change the 14th to require the parents of a baby born here to be legal residents or citizens themselves to grant citizenship to the baby.
Bobby Jindal going on and on about "anchor babies" is some impressive hypocrisy, considering that he, himself, is an anchor baby.
Huh???
His parents were here illegally????
No, but his parents weren't citizens and he was born on US soil. What makes a child an "anchor baby" is that, regardless of the nationality of the parents, any child born on US soil is a US citizen, which prevents deportation of both child and parents. That's part of the 14th Amendment. His birth here is what allowed his parents to stay.
You're talking about "birthright citizenship", not anchor baby.
Anchor baby is a term where an illegal alien gave birth here in the states, and by virtue of various policies, the whole family ( who are not citizen ) can petition to stay in the states. Circumventing the normal immigration process. Hence the descriptive use of "anchor".
does it serve the same purpose?
Not really. They're were at least here legally to begin with. And I think its ok if that is the case. But you shouldn't be able to sneak into the country illegally, have a baby, and then get a free pass because of it. Hence my idea to change the 14th to require the parents of a baby born here to be legal residents or citizens themselves to grant citizenship to the baby.
That would effectively take a Constitutional amendment in order to survive future court challenges.
It would be easier to implement policies to discourage folks attempts to illegally immigrate, (ie, E-Verify, drop MOABs on bad employers, roll-back anchor baby policies, etc...)
I think it's a problem - a big problem - but ultimately these sorts of shenanigans rate a "no1curr" from the American People. Whembly keeps thinking there is some kind of magical force field Hillary has but the truth is that historically no one really gives a gak about these kinds of shenanigans, ever.
However, every media outlet in the country would be lambasting her if it were alleged that she had an aide "hiding" under the desk
The "Clinton magical force field" *is* a combination of "It's her time", "her gender", "being a Clinton", "low information voters", etc..
That's what makes them survive things that would normally destroy other politicians.
IMO, the only way HRC is held accountable for this is if the Intelligence Community (IC) take her to tasks for this. Keep in mind, the States Dept does NOT have the right to declassify those informations.
d-usa wrote: In a surprise to everyone it turns out that the "unedited" PP videos were in fact edited.
The amount of surprise that I am feeling is so tremendous, words to not begin to describe..... Next you'll tell me the sky is blue and that there's a bridge for sale in Brooklyn (or was that one sold and we're now trying to buy the one in Miami?)
I am stating that you seem like a "low information voter", and insinuating that if "low information voters" are part of the "Clinton magical force field" you are contributing to it.
I am stating that you seem like a "low information voter", and insinuating that if "low information voters" are part of the "Clinton magical force field" you are contributing to it.
Me, a political junkie... a "low information voter".
M'kay.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: In a surprise to everyone it turns out that the "unedited" PP videos were in fact edited.
An independent analysis commissioned by Planned Parenthood...
...you don't say!
That's like letting Iran conduct it's own nuclear inspections.
Me, a political junkie... a "low information voter".
M'kay.
Lots of political junkies are "low information voters". The word "junkie" generally refers to a person who behaves in a way that information available to him indicates he shouldn't.
I am stating that you seem like a "low information voter", and insinuating that if "low information voters" are part of the "Clinton magical force field" you are contributing to it.
Me, a political junkie... a "low information voter".
M'kay.
Considering you just spout off whatever gets put out there that seemingly validates your held beliefs?
Yeah...you're a "low information voter". That doesn't mean you can't be a "political junkie"(whatever that's supposed to really mean--someone who is actually knowledgeable about politics and follows it like sportsball maybe? I dunno) as well. I like to call myself a "sportsball junkie"---despite it being a made-up thing that I occasionally use when discussing sports with friends who are big into it. It lets them talk about it to their heart's content while I just pretend to be interested.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: In a surprise to everyone it turns out that the "unedited" PP videos were in fact edited.
An independent analysis commissioned by Planned Parenthood...
...you don't say!
That's like letting Iran conduct it's own nuclear inspections.
So what does letting Fox News run the Republican debate resemble?
I get that you're anti-abortion. That's fine. That's your held beliefs.
But you really need to understand that maybe, just maybe, in this case the smoke? It's not because there's a fire coming from inside of Planned Parenthood. It's because some nutbag anti-abortion advocate threw a Molotov at the brick facade outside.
I am stating that you seem like a "low information voter", and insinuating that if "low information voters" are part of the "Clinton magical force field" you are contributing to it.
Me, a political junkie... a "low information voter".
M'kay.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: In a surprise to everyone it turns out that the "unedited" PP videos were in fact edited.
An independent analysis commissioned by Planned Parenthood...
...you don't say!
That's like letting Iran conduct it's own nuclear inspections.
As a high jnformation voter I am sure that you are aware that the group now admits that the unedited videos were in fact edited, but that they only cut out non-important parts like bathroom breaks.
I am also sure that a group caught lying twice in a week will continue to have your blind support.
To summarize:
"This is an aborted fetus!" "That is my stillborn child." "We mean it is an example of what an aborted fetus looks like..."
"This is unedited!" "It's edited..." "We meant that nothing important was edited..."
I am stating that you seem like a "low information voter", and insinuating that if "low information voters" are part of the "Clinton magical force field" you are contributing to it.
Me, a political junkie... a "low information voter".
M'kay.
Considering you just spout off whatever gets put out there that seemingly validates your held beliefs?
Yeah...you're a "low information voter". That doesn't mean you can't be a "political junkie"(whatever that's supposed to really mean--someone who is actually knowledgeable about politics and follows it like sportsball maybe? I dunno) as well. I like to call myself a "sportsball junkie"---despite it being a made-up thing that I occasionally use when discussing sports with friends who are big into it. It lets them talk about it to their heart's content while I just pretend to be interested.
It's like listening to a Dallas Cowboys fan who keeps on sharing every article and repeating every blog post and who 'knows' that this is the year that they are going to the Super Bowl.
You might be a sports junkie, but I wouldn't call you "high information" sports fan.
I read today that Biden has the highest favorability rating of all the plausible candidates from both sides, and currently beats the GOP by a wider margin than Clinton.
If he decides to run, my thinking is he could beat a beleaguered Clinton in the primaries, and win the election with basically the same map as Obama has been doing. He could even do better than Obama because I think conservatives have some level of respect for Biden, because he is a working class kind of dude. And Trump has delivered the conservative Hispanic vote to the Democrats with his shennanigans.
I am stating that you seem like a "low information voter", and insinuating that if "low information voters" are part of the "Clinton magical force field" you are contributing to it.
Me, a political junkie... a "low information voter".
M'kay.
Considering you just spout off whatever gets put out there that seemingly validates your held beliefs?
Yeah...you're a "low information voter". That doesn't mean you can't be a "political junkie"(whatever that's supposed to really mean--someone who is actually knowledgeable about politics and follows it like sportsball maybe? I dunno) as well. I like to call myself a "sportsball junkie"---despite it being a made-up thing that I occasionally use when discussing sports with friends who are big into it. It lets them talk about it to their heart's content while I just pretend to be interested.
I disagree... but, whatever floats your boat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: In a surprise to everyone it turns out that the "unedited" PP videos were in fact edited.
An independent analysis commissioned by Planned Parenthood...
...you don't say!
That's like letting Iran conduct it's own nuclear inspections.
So what does letting Fox News run the Republican debate resemble?
Wasn't it obvious?
I get that you're anti-abortion. That's fine. That's your held beliefs.
Cool.
But you really need to understand that maybe, just maybe, in this case the smoke? It's not because there's a fire coming from inside of Planned Parenthood. It's because some nutbag anti-abortion advocate threw a Molotov at the brick facade outside.
Maybe... but my BS meter ping'ed at that, as I hope everyone elses.
In regards to this report... I'm standing by when they publish this "analysis".
Not like Fox is doing ALL the R debates. Seems silly to bitch that they did this one when CNN and CNBC and even Telemundo also get turns.
Monday, August 3, 2015 C-SPAN "Voters First" Republican Forum Watch Full Video Location: St. Anselm College in Manchester, NH Moderator(s): Jack Heath Rules: Candidates appear separately answering questions Candidates: Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Graham, Paul, Perry, Christie, Fiorina, Kasich, Walker, Santorum, Pataki, Jindal, Carson (Trump, Huckabee declined invitation)
Thursday, August 6, 2015 Fox News Republican Debate 5pm ET - Watch Full 5pm Video 9pm ET - Watch Full 9pm Video Aired On: Fox News Channel Location: Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, OH Sponsors: Fox News, facebook Moderators: Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace Candidates 5pm: Perry, Santorum, Jindal, Fiorina, Graham, Pataki, Gilmore Candidates 9pm: Trump, Bush, Walker, Huckabee, Carson, Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Christie, Kasich
Wednesday, September 16, 2015 CNN Republican Primary Debate Aired On: CNN and Salem Radio Location: Reagan Library in Simi Valley, CA Sponsors: Reagan Library Foundation, CNN, Salem Media Group Moderator(s): Jake Tapper, Dana Bash and Hugh Hewitt Rules: Split field into Segment B (top 10 candidates) and Segment A (remaining candidates getting at least 1% in polls) (Details) Candidates Prime-time: Trump, Bush, Walker, Huckabee, Carson, Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Christie, Kasich Candidates Outside Top 10: Perry, Santorum, Fiorina, Jindal, Pataki, Graham (finalized Sept. 10)
Wednesday, October 28, 2015 CNBC Republican Debate Aired On: CNBC Location: University of Colorado in Boulder Sponsors: CNBC Candidates: To be determined
November, 2015* Fox Business/WSJ Republican Debate Aired On: Fox Business Network Location: Wisconsin Sponsors: Fox Business Network, Wall Street Journal Candidates: To be determined
December 15, 2015 CNN/Salem Republican Debate Aired On: CNN Location: Las Vegas, Nevada Sponsors: CNN, Salem Media Group Candidates: To be determined
2016 January, 2016* Fox News Republican Debate Aired On: Fox News Channel Location: Iowa Sponsors: Fox News Candidates: To be determined
February 6, 2016 ABC/IJReview Republican Debate Aired On: ABC Location: St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire Sponsors: ABC News, IJReview.com Candidates: To be determined
February 13, 2016 CBS News Republican Debate Aired On: CBS Location: The Peace Center in Greenville, South Carolina Sponsors: CBS News Moderator: John Dickerson Candidates: TBD
February 26, 2016 NBC/Telemundo Republican Debate Aired On: NBC and Telemundo Location: Texas Sponsors: NBC/Telemundo, National Review Candidates: To be determined
March, 2016* Fox News Republican Debate Aired On: Fox News Channel Location: TBD Sponsors: Fox News Candidates: To be determined
March 10, 2016 CNN/Salem Republican Debate Aired On: CNN Location: Florida Sponsors: CNN, Salem Media Group Candidates: To be determined
So far the Ds have:
Oct. 13 in Nevada (hosted by CNN); Nov. 14 in Des Moines, Iowa (CBS/KCCI and The Des Moines Register); Dec. 19 in Manchester, New Hampshire (ABC/WMUR); Jan. 17 in Charleston, South Carolina (NBC/Congressional Black Caucus Institute); and two scheduled for either February or March in Miami, Florida, and Wisconsin, hosted by Univision/The Washington Post and PBS, respectively. The DNC said it would release additional details about debate dates, locations and partnerships soon.
If you want a good idea of how much water the media is willing to carry for Planned Parenthood, go ahead and check out this Politico story. It seems Planned Parenthood commissioned a "forensic report" to analyze the undercover videos that have got the organization in trouble for harvesting and selling fetal organs, and leaked it to Politico. This is an obvious PR move and should be a non-story but naturally, headline at Politico is "Report for Planned Parenthood finds sting videos manipulated." But despite that favorable headline, the results of the study -- which given the circumstances that brought it about -- seem somewhat mixed [emphasis added]:
A report commissioned by Planned Parenthood has found that the sting videos targeting its tissue donation practices contain intentionally deceptive edits, missing footage and inaccurately transcribed conversations. But there is no evidence that the anti-abortion group behind the attack made up dialogue. ...
But the firm also wrote that it is impossible to characterize the extent to which the edits and cuts distort the meaning of the conversations depicted and that there was no “widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.”
But one other detail caught my eye that bears mentioning: "The report by research firm Fusion GPS, which was obtained by POLITICO, attempts to undermine the videos’ political, legal, and journalistic value."
Just who, exactly, is behind Fusion GPS? Turns out it's an opposition research firm with ties to the Democratic party and has a history of harassing socially conservative Republican donors, possibly on behalf of the Obama campaign:
As Ms. Strassel has reported in recent columns, Idaho businessman Frank VanderSloot has become the target of a smear campaign since it was disclosed earlier this year that he had donated $1 million to a super PAC supporting Mr. Romney. President Obama's campaign website teed him up in April as one of eight "less than reputable" Romney donors and a "bitter foe of the gay rights movement." One sin: His wife donated to an anti-gay-marriage campaign, of the kind that have passed in 30 or so states.
Now we learn that little more than a week after that Presidential posting, a former Democratic Senate staffer called the courthouse in Mr. VanderSloot's home town of Idaho Falls seeking his divorce records. Ms. Strassel traced the operative, Michael Wolf, to a Washington, D.C. outfit called Fusion GPS that says it is "a commercial research firm."
Fusion GPS is run by a former Wall Street Journal reporter, Glenn Simpson, who wouldn't say who is paying him for this high-minded slumming but said in an email that Mr. VanderSloot was a "legitimate" target because of "his record on gay issues."
Politico should have mentioned this. But the pro-life movement has never gotten a fair shake from the media, and it seems that's not about to change.
UPDATE -- A fellow journalist alerts me to the New York Times's favorable write-up of the same report. The Times only identifies Fusion GPS in the following way, and doesn't mention any details that might undermine the report's credibility:
The analysis was by Fusion GPS, a Washington-based research and corporate intelligence company, and its co-founder Glenn Simpson, a former investigative reporter for The Wall Street Journal.
Nah... they're total legits, right? So... c'mon PP, go ahead sue CMP... the discovery sessions would be something else.
d-usa wrote: They lied about the fetus being aborted, and they lied about the video being unedited. Two pretty simple facts really.
Cool... then PP has a solid defamation case then.
Hehe... every time I see that abbreviation, I keep thinking... What the heck does Privateer Press have to do with aborted fetal tissue? Or, how would an edited video be harmful to Warmachine?
d-usa wrote: They lied about the fetus being aborted, and they lied about the video being unedited. Two pretty simple facts really.
Cool... then PP has a solid defamation case then.
For someone who consistently hitched his wagon to the "they hid nothing, they posted the unedited video online" train it is amazing how little you care that they admitted to lying. Especially considering how much you care about the truth and how quick you are to post a 500 word thesis whenever you catch someone in a perceived lie.
Ouze wrote: Yes, I posted something about this on the last page and I am 99% sure Whembly missed it because it was a edit and then we flipped pages, so I'll repost:
When called out on it, the video guys did exactly what you describe above.
"We never claimed that was an image of an aborted baby. It's just an illustration of what a baby looks like at the end of the 2nd trimester," he wrote in a statement. "It's interesting that Planned Parenthood and their allies assumed so quickly that's what was happening – are they just grasping at straws, or are their consciences also starting to get to them?"
It's pretty clear that the presentation was dishonest on a few levels.
Ah, I missed that too. It's a perfect illustration of not outright lying, but manipulating heavily enough that everyone who watches walks away with a wrong impression of what happened. And it's a much beloved tactic of the anti-abortion movement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: No... I didn't miss it. It's just that I'm hesitant to really engage on this subject matter as everyone's mind is made up and there's nothing really to "debate" because i've realized that this topic (as well as topics like religion)... no one is ever changing minds on dakka's OT forums.
We just normally talk at each other and it's almost a self-fullfilling prophesy that things will eventually get out of hand and the MODS will have no recourse then to shut down the current thread.
*shrugs*
You aren't being asked to comment on your own personal view on abortion, but about the tactics used to push the anti-abortion cause.
I am okay with abortion, but I can certainly understand opposition to abortion - if you believe life begins at conception then you should seek to preserve life from that point onwards. Not my POV but an entirely legitimate one, I believe. But then whatever your POV, you should argue it on its merits, you shouldn't lie to trick people in to following your cause. And that, unfortunately, is what so much of the anti-abortion movement does as a matter of course.
If you're interested I can send you a bunch of links from Fred Clarke showing how fundamentally awful the day to day tactics of many anti-abortion groups are.
And once you've realised how these groups operate on lies as a daily matter of course, then you should start to think about the politicians, mostly but not entirely Republicans, who ally themselves directly with these groups. And if that doesn't finally give you the insight in to how the modern Republican party operates... well then we'll have to find something else that will
d-usa wrote: They lied about the fetus being aborted, and they lied about the video being unedited. Two pretty simple facts really.
Cool... then PP has a solid defamation case then.
For someone who consistently hitched his wagon to the "they hid nothing, they posted the unedited video online" train it is amazing how little you care that they admitted to lying. Especially considering how much you care about the truth and how quick you are to post a 500 word thesis whenever you catch someone in a perceived lie.
Uh huh... those "analysis" are in dispute.
My quip about PP suing CMP is for real... if PP believes all of this is libel/slander, then they should sue.
dogma wrote: The people who engage with the abortion issue are universally aware of the harsh realities surrounding it. This is one of the problems the pro-life movement has, its members assume that pro-choice people don't believe abortion is bad because they are ignorant of what happens as a result of the procedure. As a result they produce videos like the one we're discussing, stand in public places with placards bearing the image of aborted fetuses, and hand out fliers with the same. This pushes people away from the pro-life movement because it either grosses them out, causing them to ignore the abortion issue, or annoys them, leading to new members of the pro-choice movement.
Simplistic, shock based tactics have their place in politics, but at the end of the day the impact of any such tactic going to be very short lived. It produces is an immediate emotional reaction, it doesn't change people's understanding of the issue. So one brief campaign of flashing about aborted foetuses might work for a month or two, but longer than that and you start getting serious diminishing returns.
So if the anti-abortion campaign was about results, it's a tactic that would have been surrendered years ago. But most people in the anti-abortion movement are far more interested in fighting a noble fight than in actually winning their cause.
So if the anti-abortion campaign was about results, it's a tactic that would have been surrendered years ago. But most people in the anti-abortion movement are far more interested in fighting a noble fight than in actually winning their cause.
IMO, a fair number of them are fairly hypocritical....There's a political cartoon floating around that very well illustrates what I'm talking about...
On the one hand, they decry abortion as being evil and fight against it till they are blue in the face... On the other hand, they ALSO fight tooth and nail to get rid of, or severely diminish programs that would actually help the women who don't get abortions.
If life is so precious, why are they fighting against society's best interests so much?
So if the anti-abortion campaign was about results, it's a tactic that would have been surrendered years ago. But most people in the anti-abortion movement are far more interested in fighting a noble fight than in actually winning their cause.
IMO, a fair number of them are fairly hypocritical....There's a political cartoon floating around that very well illustrates what I'm talking about...
On the one hand, they decry abortion as being evil and fight against it till they are blue in the face... On the other hand, they ALSO fight tooth and nail to get rid of, or severely diminish programs that would actually help the women who don't get abortions.
If life is so precious, why are they fighting against society's best interests so much?
Hey... I don't want to get rid of those programs.
I even don't believe in the Death Penalty anymore.
d-usa wrote: They lied about the fetus being aborted, and they lied about the video being unedited. Two pretty simple facts really.
Cool... then PP has a solid defamation case then.
For someone who consistently hitched his wagon to the "they hid nothing, they posted the unedited video online" train it is amazing how little you care that they admitted to lying. Especially considering how much you care about the truth and how quick you are to post a 500 word thesis whenever you catch someone in a perceived lie.
Uh huh... those "analysis" are in dispute.
My quip about PP suing CMP is for real... if PP believes all of this is libel/slander, then they should sue.
Let's try this one more time in simple language because I can explain it to you, but I can't help you understand it:
The group has admitted that the videos that they claimed were unedited were in fact edited. That's independent of the three firms that analyzed the videos confirming the edits. It's the people that filmed and posted it admitting it.
After claiming over and over that the unedited videos were posted, they are now switching their story to "yes they were edited, but only because we took bathroom breaks and stuff, we promise that nothing important was cut out".
That's not PP claiming that, that's not the three companies that analyzed the video claiming that, that's the group admitting that they lied about providing the unedited videos.
And you parroted that lie, and now you are just "meh, whatever".
This 29-person focus group, conducted by Luntz and observed by a group of national press reporters from behind a pane of one-way glass, had gathered to explain the phenomenon of Trump. Why is a billionaire real estate mogul, TV celebrity and oft-accused demagogue who has never held office leading the Republican field with some 22% support in the polls?
Why do evangelicals support a guy who's been divorced three times, and owns casinos? Why does the party that is meant worship at the altar of the free market now fall in love with a guy who sees economics through a mercantilist lens that would have seemed bizarrely outdated in 1850?
I think, basically, it's because we've been thinking about the Republican party all wrong. Maybe the 'big tent' thing that split people up in to religious evangelicals, free marketeers etc wasn't so much wrong as too simplistic, as it left out a central theme - people who see change to the status quo as a direct threat.
And once that's understood, I think it becomes possible to understand why Trump is polling so well. He just hammers away again and again on that one basic theme, while throwing away a lot of the Republican sacred cows like free trade and restricting one's racism to dog whistles.
Hence one of the reason why I keep banging that drum that HRC will skate.
Or as I've been saying for months now, any scandal needs to be described in a single sentence so that people feel outraged, don't need follow up questions, and don't suspect bs. If you can't do that, then the scandal won't get traction.
Note that the sentence doesn't have to actually be true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Not really... Sanders hasn't permeated the culture like Trump has... (active twittah, Apprentice, bombastic New Yawker).
I really don't think twitter posts and a reality show are the difference. And Sanders certainly doesn't lack bombasticness. Which should be a word.
Nah, the difference between Trump and Sanders is that, amazingly, when people say they're pissed it's not the whole of it. They're actually pissed about specific things, even if they lack the ability, time or patience to articulate exactly what they're pissed about. Sanders appeals to people who are pissed about shortages in essential services, about growing wealth discrepancy, stuff like that. Trump appeals to people who are pissed that the old order is going away, that the social structure that gave so much certainty and power to certain classes isn't disappearing.
d-usa wrote: They lied about the fetus being aborted, and they lied about the video being unedited. Two pretty simple facts really.
Cool... then PP has a solid defamation case then.
For someone who consistently hitched his wagon to the "they hid nothing, they posted the unedited video online" train it is amazing how little you care that they admitted to lying. Especially considering how much you care about the truth and how quick you are to post a 500 word thesis whenever you catch someone in a perceived lie.
Uh huh... those "analysis" are in dispute.
My quip about PP suing CMP is for real... if PP believes all of this is libel/slander, then they should sue.
Let's try this one more time in simple language because I can explain it to you, but I can't help you understand it:
The group has admitted that the videos that they claimed were unedited were in fact edited. That's independent of the three firms that analyzed the videos confirming the edits. It's the people that filmed and posted it admitting it.
After claiming over and over that the unedited videos were posted, they are now switching their story to "yes they were edited, but only because we took bathroom breaks and stuff, we promise that nothing important was cut out".
That's not PP claiming that, that's not the three companies that analyzed the video claiming that, that's the group admitting that they lied about providing the unedited videos.
And you parroted that lie, and now you are just "meh, whatever".
Again... what was the deliberate "edit" that skewed the viewer's perception of the video?
It's just that Trump is all bedazzle, but no substenance. Folks will get tired if his shtick soon.
There's just as much substance in Trump as anyone else. Ron Paul was a darling of the primaries for multiple cycles, and he's spent every year since about 1980 claiming hyperinflation was just around the corner. When you can be 100% wrong for 35 on your key issue and carry on just fine, then it's unlikely the electorate is clamouring for substance. Jeb Bush has built his campaign around a claim that he can deliver 4% growth, which is probably the silliest piece of economics since Ron Paul's return to the gold standard, and it's done him no harm at all. Huckabee one-upped that with a claim of 6%, and while he's presidential roadkill, it isn't because of nonsense like that.
No, Trump doesn't have an issue with a lack of substance. The ability to brazenly state all manner of insane bs and be accept is a key strength among his demographic.
This 29-person focus group, conducted by Luntz and observed by a group of national press reporters from behind a pane of one-way glass, had gathered to explain the phenomenon of Trump. Why is a billionaire real estate mogul, TV celebrity and oft-accused demagogue who has never held office leading the Republican field with some 22% support in the polls?
Why do evangelicals support a guy who's been divorced three times, and owns casinos? Why does the party that is meant worship at the altar of the free market now fall in love with a guy who sees economics through a mercantilist lens that would have seemed bizarrely outdated in 1850?
I think, basically, it's because we've been thinking about the Republican party all wrong. Maybe the 'big tent' thing that split people up in to religious evangelicals, free marketeers etc wasn't so much wrong as too simplistic, as it left out a central theme - people who see change to the status quo as a direct threat.
And once that's understood, I think it becomes possible to understand why Trump is polling so well. He just hammers away again and again on that one basic theme, while throwing away a lot of the Republican sacred cows like free trade and restricting one's racism to dog whistles.
I think you're over analyzing this.
There are LARGE segments of the population that are simply pissed at the established political class and donor class... and they don't really know how to express it. Hence why Trump/Carson/Sanders are enjoying high poll activites.
I firmly believe had Trump not jump in... it would be Cruz or Fiorina leading the pack now.
Hence one of the reason why I keep banging that drum that HRC will skate.
Or as I've been saying for months now, any scandal needs to be described in a single sentence so that people feel outraged, don't need follow up questions, and don't suspect bs. If you can't do that, then the scandal won't get traction.
Note that the sentence doesn't have to actually be true.
But it's primary season and things get ugly. It's all forgotten during the general election and folks will vote for her to, if nothing else, keep the Republicans out of the office.
The only way she doesn't get elected, is if this email scandal truly come to head... and it's possible as it's the Intelligence Community themselves pushing for accountability.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Not really... Sanders hasn't permeated the culture like Trump has... (active twittah, Apprentice, bombastic New Yawker).
I really don't think twitter posts and a reality show are the difference. And Sanders certainly doesn't lack bombasticness. Which should be a word.
Heh... bombasticness™ ought to be a word.
Nah, the difference between Trump and Sanders is that, amazingly, when people say they're pissed it's not the whole of it. They're actually pissed about specific things, even if they lack the ability, time or patience to articulate exactly what they're pissed about. Sanders appeals to people who are pissed about shortages in essential services, about growing wealth discrepancy, stuff like that. Trump appeals to people who are pissed that the old order is going away, that the social structure that gave so much certainty and power to certain classes isn't disappearing.
d-usa wrote: They lied about the fetus being aborted, and they lied about the video being unedited. Two pretty simple facts really.
Cool... then PP has a solid defamation case then.
For someone who consistently hitched his wagon to the "they hid nothing, they posted the unedited video online" train it is amazing how little you care that they admitted to lying. Especially considering how much you care about the truth and how quick you are to post a 500 word thesis whenever you catch someone in a perceived lie.
Uh huh... those "analysis" are in dispute.
My quip about PP suing CMP is for real... if PP believes all of this is libel/slander, then they should sue.
Let's try this one more time in simple language because I can explain it to you, but I can't help you understand it:
The group has admitted that the videos that they claimed were unedited were in fact edited. That's independent of the three firms that analyzed the videos confirming the edits. It's the people that filmed and posted it admitting it.
After claiming over and over that the unedited videos were posted, they are now switching their story to "yes they were edited, but only because we took bathroom breaks and stuff, we promise that nothing important was cut out".
That's not PP claiming that, that's not the three companies that analyzed the video claiming that, that's the group admitting that they lied about providing the unedited videos.
And you parroted that lie, and now you are just "meh, whatever".
Again... what was the deliberate "edit" that skewed the viewer's perception of the video?
They lied, and it's clear that you don't care.
It's bad enough that you parroted their lie, it's worse that you don't care.
You are still defending a group that has been caught lying twice in a week about their actions. One wonders why people might consider you a low information voter.
My quip about PP suing CMP is for real... if PP believes all of this is libel/slander, then they should sue.
CMP, very carefully, made certain that it did not engage in any form of defamation; as did supportive politicians and their associates. The only people Planned Parenthood could sue are those who stated they did something illegal.
My quip about PP suing CMP is for real... if PP believes all of this is libel/slander, then they should sue.
CMP, very carefully, made certain that it did not engage in any form of defamation; as did supportive politicians and their associates. The only people Planned Parenthood could sue are those who stated they did something illegal.
Actually, CMP could get in trouble from their StemExpress sting in California for wiretap... (I think).
My quip about PP suing CMP is for real... if PP believes all of this is libel/slander, then they should sue.
CMP, very carefully, made certain that it did not engage in any form of defamation; as did supportive politicians and their associates. The only people Planned Parenthood could sue are those who stated they did something illegal.
It's hard to fight false narratives as long as people fall for them:
Again... what specifically did the "lie" about? The fact that there's gaps??? fething hell man, as if anything could be said that could render what was said out of those official's mouth would make it any better or worst.
It's bad enough that you parroted their lie, it's worse that you don't care.
You are still defending a group that has been caught lying twice in a week about their actions. One wonders why people might consider you a low information voter.
Bad enough that you're parroting PP's defense from sites like Political, Media Matters... it's no wonder people might consider you a low information voter.
LordofHats wrote: Well you're not completely wrong. I don't think i will vote Republican in 2016. In 2008, I was 18, and I honestly had never gone out into the real world (sheltered impetulant children aren't always Dems ). I don't think I really started to decide what it was I really believed in till I graduated college four years ago, and even then, it's only been the past 2-3 years where I've really decided I'm just not a Republican. *shurgs* I'm just not.
Just remember that the insanity putting itself up as the Republican party right now isn't necessarily how it will always be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: However, every media outlet in the country would be lambasting her if it were alleged that she had an aide "hiding" under the desk
The "Clinton magical force field" *is* a combination of "It's her time", "her gender", "being a Clinton", "low information voters", etc..
That's what makes them survive things that would normally destroy other politicians.
But this scandal wouldn't destroy anyone, because it's a big load of nothing.
To flip this, I'd say this wouldn't rate a mention on any news site unless it was about a Clinton. This goes down with Whitewater and every other invented bit of nonsense produced by the Clinton derangement syndrome, where every accusation, no matter how ludicrous, no matter how insignificant, must be treated as the great scandal of our time.
whembly wrote: Me, a political junkie... a "low information voter"
Testing the knowledge of voters, it's been found that people who follow politics closely don't actually score a lot higher than people who don't. The party faithful will accurately give their own side's view on the issue, but they're not actually any more likely to understand the actual facts of the issue.
Not saying that's true of you per se, but once I read that I started seeing it in lots of politic junkies, including myself on some issues.
Are you honestly unable to comprehend that "we posted the unedited footage" and "yes we edited that footage, but we didn't cut anything important" are two very different things?
I'm not repeating PPs defense, I'm not getting my news from leftist blogs, I am repeating the statements from the group that shot and released the video.
They claimed that the video was unedited. They now claim that it was edited but nothing important was cut out.
Just let me know if you honestly don't see that and I will go back to not wasting my time.
“Despite Mr. Daleiden’s three-year effort to entrap Planned Parenthood, he failed to succeed in convincing even a single affiliate to enter into a procurement contract with his fake company,” (PP President Cecile) Richards wrote, referring to David Daleiden, the Center for Medical Progress’s ringleader. In the case of one video filmed in Colorado, Richards said, the doctor “repeatedly told the Biomax representative that legal counsel would have to review any contract with Biomax. These references were consistently deleted from the video excerpt Mr. Daleiden released. Indeed, legal counsel did in fact review the proposed Biomax contract and objected to its terms because they did not comply with federal law.”
Huh. What are the odds that these undercover videos were selectively edited, like the previous 100% of the other right-wing scandal videos were as released by James O'Keefe et al were?
It doesn't matter. It's a great strategy; just lie, and when called on it, repeat the lie. It doesn't matter that it's not true, all you need to be willing to do is out-endure the people willing to call you out on the lie.
God knows the people you're aiming these videos at aren't inclined to view them critically, as we've seen. They want to believe.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: IMO, a fair number of them are fairly hypocritical....There's a political cartoon floating around that very well illustrates what I'm talking about...
On the one hand, they decry abortion as being evil and fight against it till they are blue in the face... On the other hand, they ALSO fight tooth and nail to get rid of, or severely diminish programs that would actually help the women who don't get abortions.
If life is so precious, why are they fighting against society's best interests so much?
Yep, they're fixated on the number of abortions, and completely indifferent to the number of preventable miscarriages.
And to expand that out, the same party that is worried about abortions is also absolutely opposed to welfare. Welfare that keeps kids in schools, reduces financial pressure on families, that let's families have another kid if they want. They're family values, except on policies about actually helping families raise kids.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: IMO, a fair number of them are fairly hypocritical....There's a political cartoon floating around that very well illustrates what I'm talking about...
On the one hand, they decry abortion as being evil and fight against it till they are blue in the face... On the other hand, they ALSO fight tooth and nail to get rid of, or severely diminish programs that would actually help the women who don't get abortions.
If life is so precious, why are they fighting against society's best interests so much?
Yep, they're fixated on the number of abortions, and completely indifferent to the number of preventable miscarriages.
And to expand that out, the same party that is worried about abortions is also absolutely opposed to welfare. Welfare that keeps kids in schools, reduces financial pressure on families, that let's families have another kid if they want. They're family values, except on policies about actually helping families raise kids.
A fitting phrase I have heard is "pro-birth, not pro-life".
Edit: meh, I'm getting myself off topic. Just cared about the videos and how they are used in this elections, not abortion itself.
Let's go with that, I've been busy or else I probably would have stopped this PP train earlier. No more abortion talk until page 123, PM me if something major comes up
Washington (CNN)Vice President Joe Biden fares better against top GOP candidates in hypothetical general election match-ups than Hillary Clinton, according to a new national survey.
The Quinnipiac University poll, released Thursday, also shows Donald Trump smashing the GOP presidential competition garnering 28% support from registered Republican voters in the 17-member field. The real estate mogul's closest competitor is retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who tallies 12%.
Just 7% said they would vote for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a record low since November 2013.
Those results show just how far both Trump -- now the Republican front-runner -- and Bush -- the old one -- have come. Bush led national polls for much of the first half of 2015, but was quickly dislodged by Trump, after he announced his presidential ambitions this June.
Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida both are tied with Bush at 7%, the polls shows, with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker at 6% and former tech CEO Carly Fiorina and Ohio Gov. John Kasich tied at 5%.
"Donald Trump soars; Ben Carson rises; Jeb Bush slips and some GOP hopefuls seem to disappear," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the survey. "Trump proves you don't have to be loved by everyone, just by enough Republicans to lead the GOP pack."
And Trump certainly isn't loved by everyone, the survey shows. About 1-in-4 GOP voters say they would never vote for Trump, topping the field. Bush comes in second with 18%.
Clinton still leads the Democratic race at 45% support from registered Democrats, followed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders at 22% and Biden -- who is currently mulling a 2016 bid -- at 18%.
But Biden, currently sporting the highest favorability rating among any 2016 candidates polled of either party, tops Trump 48% to 40%, compared to Clinton, who beats Trump 45% to 41%. Biden also beats Bush, 45% to 39%, compared to Clinton, who beats Bush 42% to 40%.
Malloy said Biden could be encouraged by these polling results.
"If he is sitting on the fence, his scores in the match-ups and his favorability ratings may compel him to say, 'Let's do this,'" Malloy said.
The Quinnipiac poll surveyed 1,563 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, including 666 Republicans with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points and 647 Democrats with a margin of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.
Democrats’ election outreach efforts to veterans may need to start with a refresher course on what U.S. troops look like.
For starters, they don’t wear Polish military uniforms.
Until Thursday, the Democratic National Committee’s “Veterans and Military Families” website had as its only picture a shot from White House photographers during President Obama’s visit to Warsaw in 2011.
The president had been cropped out, but faces of four elderly veterans wearing European-style military uniforms were visible above several paragraphs asserting the party’s “commitment to America’s veterans.” The Polish military’s White Eagle insignia was clear on the headgear of two of the veterans.
They did switch out the picture pretty quickly when it was brought to their attention.
They did switch out the picture pretty quickly when it was brought to their attention.
Not really party related, but:
The TSA website used to have different pages where they talked about all the awesome things they do to keep us safe from 3+oz liquids. One of the pages talked about railroad safety.
On top of the page about "Protecting America's Railways" was a picture of the German InterCity Express high speed train.
I made it a hobby to email them once a year for 5 years with a "Hey guys, just my annual reminder to let you guys know that I'm grateful that you guys are protecting my brother in Germany while he travels on the train, btw you got the wrong country on your website" message. It finally changed when the website was redesigned. But I'm guessing that this is what you get when you let your local intern set up your website.
Could be worse, they could have had WWII reenactors in German uniforms in front of the White House on their campaign material...
Anyway, I had to giggle at Motyak's post. My mind totally translated "PP train" to mean something else. Although, the fact that I read it just after using the bathroom may have influenced that interpretation.
The Obama administration is redefining what it means to be an employer.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on Thursday handed down one of its biggest decisions of President Obama’s tenure, ruling that companies can be held responsible for labor violations committed by their contractors.
While the ruling from the independent agency specifically deals with the waste management firm Browning-Ferris, the so-called “joint employer” decision could have broad repercussions for the business world, particularly for franchise companies.
Opponents of the action warn the ruling could hurt businesses as diverse as restaurants, retailers, manufacturers and construction firms, as well as hotels, cleaning services and staffing agencies.
“This decision has broad implications, as it appears to upend decades of settled law defining who the employer is under the National Labor Relations Act,” said Randy Johnson, a senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Restaurants could see the biggest changes. Fast food chains such as McDonald’s and Burger King will likely assert more authority over — or even cut ties altogether with — local franchise owners, business advocates say.
At issue in the case was whether Browning-Ferris was responsible for the treatment of contracted employees. The Houston-based company hired Leadpoint Business Services to staff a recycling facility in California.
The labor board determined Browning-Ferris should be considered a "joint employer" with the Phoenix-based staffing agency. As a result, the company can be pulled into collective bargaining negotiations with those employees and held liable for any labor violations committed against them.
The NLRB ruling is a sharp departure from previous decisions that stated companies were only responsible for employees who were under their direct control. Without the power to set hours, wages or job responsibilities, the earlier rulings held, companies could not be held responsible for the labor practices of the contractors.
But the National Labor Relations Board charted a new course Thursday, saying the old standard is “increasingly out of step with changing economic circumstances.”
Labor unions cheered the decision, saying it will help vulnerable workers challenge unresponsive employers.
"Simply put, labor laws in America have failed to keep pace as the workplace has continued to evolve," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement.
The NLFB ruling could affect the growing number of temporary workers and independent contractors who do not receive the same protections as full-time employees.
Rather than hiring their own employees, many companies have grown accustomed to turning to staffing agencies to supply temporary workers or contract with other companies to complete tasks.
The arrangement provides them with less responsibility than for in-house employees, but it can also place those employees in somewhat of a no man’s land. They don’t know who their boss is, because the person who tells them what to do does not pay them.
The NLRB is seeking to end that situation by holding that both companies responsible as joint employers, because they “share or co-determine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment."
Teamsters union General President Jim Hoffa called the ruling a “victory for workers across America."
"Employers will no longer be able to shift responsibility for their workers and hide behind loopholes to prevent workers from organizing or engaging in collective bargaining,” Hoffa said.
The decision is the latest in a string of major victories for labor groups under the Obama administration, which has already issued several sweeping executive actions on worker protections and wages.
The NLRB, which now has a Democratic majority, has also taken steps to make it easier for employees to unionize.
The two Republican appointees on the labor board, Harry Johnson and Philip Miscimarra, dissented from Thursday’s 3-2 ruling.
They argued that “no bargaining table is big enough” for two companies.
"Changing the test for identifying the ‘employer,’ therefore, has dramatic implications for labor relations policy and its effect on the economy,” they wrote.
Business groups had been on the warpath in anticipation of the Browning-Ferris decision.
The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), for instance, warned it could “blow up” longstanding business models.
The National Retail Federation (NRF) denounced the ruling as an instance of “unelected government bureaucrats creating roadblocks in the path of job creation.”
“This is further evidence that the NLRB has given up its position as an objective arbiter of workplace issues and sees itself as an advocate for organized labor as a means of imposing new workplace obligations and legal liabilities on well-known corporations,” said David French, the NRF’s senior vice president for government relations.
Companies are already threatening to cut ties with staffing agencies that help recruit temporary workers and subcontractors that provide janitorial and security services because they don’t want to be responsible for another company’s employees.
They say they would rather bring those jobs in-house to establish more control over the situation.
“It will make it much harder for self-employed subcontractors to get jobs,” said Beth Milito, senior legal counsel at the NFIB. “Subcontractors will come under pressure by their clients to change their employment policies or they’ll be cut out of the picture altogether."
I wonder how that will work for the Feds themselves. If Boeing or SAIC for example commit a labor violation and the violated were on a contract for DoD, can the victims bring Uncle Sam to court?
I do know the admin cost per contractor just went up.
Come on Democrats take back your party. Hillary is claiming she already has 1/5 of needed delegates through pledges from "super delegates" aka party hacks.
All without a single vote being cast, a single debate being held.
As Hillary Clinton's campaign seeks to project dominance in a field that could soon include Vice President Joe Biden, her top advisers are touting a decisive edge on a little-discussed metric: superdelegate commitments.
At the Democratic National Committee meeting in Minneapolis, where she will speak Friday, senior Clinton campaign officials are claiming that she has already secured one-fifth of the pledges needed to win the Democratic presidential nomination. They come from current and former elected officials, committee officeholders, and other party dignitaries.
The campaign says that Clinton currently has about 130 superdelegates publicly backing her, but a person familiar with recent conversations in Minneapolis said that officials are telling supporters and the undecided in the last few days that private commitments increase that number to more than 440—about 20 percent of the number of delegates she would need to secure the nomination.
Clinton campaign aides at the DNC meeting are privately briefing uncommitted superdelegates there on their mounting totals as a way to coax them to get them aboard the Clinton train now. Campaign manager Robby Mook, chief administrative officer Charlie Baker, political director Amanda Renteria, and state campaigns and political engagement director Marlon Marshall are among top Clinton aides in attendance.
Final numbers are still in flux, but current estimates peg the total number of delegates to next summer’s presidential nominating convention at about 4,491, meaning that a candidate would need 2,246 to win. The Clinton camp’s claim to more than 440 delegates means she’s already wrapped up the support of more than 60 percent of the approximately 713 superdelegates who, under party rules, are among those who cast votes for the nomination, along with delegates selected by rank-and-file voters in primaries and caucuses beginning next February. Delegate totals won’t be finalized until the DNC determines the number of bonus delegates awarded to states, a party official said.
To be sure, Clinton had a superdelegate edge early against Barack Obama in 2008, and superdelegates are free to change their allegiance at any time between now and next summer's convention. But Clinton is ahead of the pace she had eight years ago in securing these commitments, and her support from the core of the establishment represented by these superdelegates is arguably the most tangible evidence of the difficulty Biden would have overtaking her with a late-starting campaign.
While Clinton said earlier this week that Biden “should have the space and the opportunity to decide what he wants to do,” her campaign is at the same time flexing its muscles to stress the strength of her candidacy. The campaign this week unveiled its first endorsement from a sitting member of the Obama Cabinet, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who just happens to be a former governor of Iowa and who spent Wednesday touring the state with Clinton.
The Clinton campaign also released memos on Thursday touting the strength of its field operations in the early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. The memos include specific tallies of thousands of volunteer commitments, dozens of paid organizers, and offices opened, including 11 in Iowa.
Barring some major scandal or controversy, and given Hillary and Bill Clinton's long-standing ties to Democratic Party elites, overcoming her superdelegate edge would be quite a challenge for Biden or the major candidates already competing against her for the nomination, including Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
The 300-or-so gap between Clinton's public and private superdelegate commitments derives mostly from state party officials who have yet to reveal their backing of the frontrunner, but have privately pledged to cast their convention votes for the former first lady, according to the person familiar with the campaign's tally.
In their Minneapolis discussions intended to persuade additional uncommitted superdelegates to commit to Clinton, her team is taking care not to mention Biden, but the message is clear: Much of the party establishment is supporting Clinton and the math is in her favor. In 2008, Clinton’s team made a version of this argument before being overtaken by Barack Obama. After Obama took the lead in overall delegates, his campaign began to make a comparable argument about the mathematical inevitability of his ultimate victory.
I'm sure some R candidates are making backroom deals with super delegates as well. The fact that type of crap happens exacerbates the perception of a Political Class/Ruling Class which is why the Trumps and Sanders (who work hard to give the impression they are not native to that class) are doing well in polls of public.
Super Delegates have always been a big deal. But if I remember right Hillary had a lot of them secured before they voted for a certain other senator in 2008 as well.
It doesn't really bother me all that much to be honest. Primaries should be internal party affairs anyway and they can set their own rules on how to select their own candidate. I would rather they get rid of the whole primary mess altogether and stop publically financing what amounts to a private members club circle jerk, especially as long as parties are allowed to have closed primaries.
It's either a private election and you can make your own rules, pick who votes, and pay for it with party money; or it's a public election with no undemocratic super delegates, everybody can participate, and then you get to use my tax payer money.
Of course I'm kinda socialistish, so my opinions usually don't matter
Obama had the majority of pledged candidates that were selected by voters and just like the electoral college it is possible to win enough states to get the most voters even if you didn't win the popular vote (heck, even you should know that Gore got the votes but Bush got the electors).
Obama got 51% of the delegates selected by voters, so even without the super delegates he had more delegates than Hillary. The "Hillary won the popular vote" claim also ignores the fact that Michigan moved around their dates and was punished by the DNC and didn't have Obama on the ballot which kind of hurts you on the "popular vote" count.
D... this isn't the hill I'm fighting for... I was yanking frazz's "plain language" chain there.
, but he actually believes what he says.
