Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/08/28 20:40:34


Post by: Co'tor Shas


I want to see it's birth certificate!


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/08/28 21:05:22


Post by: whembly


Well damn... this ain't looking good for team Clinton:
Source: FBI ‘A-team’ leading ‘serious’ Clinton server probe, focusing on defense info
An FBI "A-team" is leading the "extremely serious" investigation into Hillary Clinton's server and the focus includes a provision of the law pertaining to "gathering, transmitting or losing defense information," an intelligence source told Fox News.

The section of the Espionage Act is known as 18 US Code 793.

A separate source, who also was not authorized to speak on the record, said the FBI will further determine whether Clinton should have known, based on the quality and detail of the material, that emails passing through her server contained classified information regardless of the markings. The campaign's standard defense and that of Clinton is that she "never sent nor received any email that was marked classified" at the time.

It is not clear how the FBI team's findings will impact the probe itself. But the details offer a window into what investigators are looking for -- as the Clinton campaign itself downplays the controversy.

The FBI offered no comment, citing the ongoing investigation.

A leading national security attorney, who recently defended former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling in a leak investigation, told Fox News that violating the Espionage Act provision in question is a felony and pointed to a particular sub-section.

"Under [sub-section] F, the documents relate to the national defense, meaning very closely held information," attorney Edward MacMahon Jr. explained. "Somebody in the government, with a clearance and need to know, then delivered the information to someone not entitled to receive it, or otherwise moved it from where it was supposed to be lawfully held."

Additional federal regulations, reviewed by Fox News, also bring fresh scrutiny to Clinton's defense.

The Code of Federal Regulations, or "CFR," states: "Any person who has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person(s) shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose."

A government legal source confirmed the regulations apply to all government employees holding a clearance, and the rules do not make the "send" or "receive" distinction.

Rather, all clearances holders have an affirmative obligation to report the possible compromise of classified information or use of unsecured data systems.

Current and former intelligence officers say the application of these federal regulations is very straightforward.

"Regardless of whether Mrs. Clinton sent or received this information, the obligations under the law are that she had to report any questions concerning this material being classified," said Chris Farrell, a former Army counterintelligence officer who is now an investigator with Judicial Watch. "There is no wiggle room. There is no ability to go around it and say I passively received something -- that's not an excuse."

The regulations also state there is an obligation to meet "safeguarding requirements prescribed by the agency." Based on the regulations, the decision to use a personal email network and server for government business -- and provide copies to Clinton attorney David Kendall -- appear to be violations. According to a letter from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Kendall and his associate did not have sufficient security clearances to hold TS/SCI (Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information) contained in two emails. Earlier this month, the FBI took physical custody of the server and thumb drives.

Fox News was first to report, Aug. 19, that two emails -- from aides Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan -- with classified information kick-started the FBI probe, a point not disputed by the Clinton campaign.

The CFR also require a damage assessment once a possible compromise has been identified "to conduct an inquiry/investigation of a loss, possible compromise or unauthorized disclosure of classified information."

Farrell said, "There is no evidence there has been any assessment of Mrs. Clinton and her outlaw server."

Citing the ongoing investigation, a State Department spokesman had no comment, but did confirm that Clinton's immediate staff received regular training on classification issues.

Clinton told reporters Friday that she remains confident no violations were committed.

"I have said repeatedly that I did not send nor receive classified material and I'm very confident that when this entire process plays out that will be understood by everyone," she said. "It will prove what I have been saying and it's not possible for people to look back now some years in the past and draw different conclusions than the ones that were at work at the time. You can make different decisions because things have changed, circumstances have changed, but it doesn't change the fact that I did not send or receive material marked classified."

The Clinton campaign did not provide an on-the-record comment on the matter when given questions by Fox News.


<tinfoil>
Obama's DoJ won't let it get that far... right? I mean... Clinton ought to have some skeletons that would embarrass Obama... dontcha think? Benghazi folks... don't forget the 'ghazi!!
</tinfoil>


This reads to me that it's the Intelligence Community that is pushing the FBI really hard to assert whether or not security laws were broken. Because, if she (or her staff) truly broke the law... then, skates... that'll undermine any future prosecutions of any security malfeasance.

Is team Biden getting ready?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/08/28 21:17:20


Post by: Co'tor Shas


Interesting article on the distribution of campaign donation per candidate. The charts are all in line, so you have to actually to look at the site (but it's just NPR).

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/28/435186527/charts-2016-presidential-donors-millionaires


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/08/29 00:09:02


Post by: whembly


Trump is not my guy... but, man, I can see why folks like him:


Trump: Well, I don’t see a lot of protesters. I see thousands of people. And there are a few protesters. And, I figured you’d ask that question because you know, that’s the way it is. CNN is terrible. CNN. Are you with CNN. Are you with CNN. You people do not cover us accurately. So they have a few protesters outside. And thousands of people. And the first question from CNN is about protesters. Yes.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/08/29 00:37:09


Post by: Tannhauser42


So, he's moved on from attacking Fox News and Univision to attacking CNN?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/08/29 03:14:18


Post by: Gordon Shumway


Way to go Whembly, the soldier you screenshoted above had a bullet in the arm for fighting for his country in Korea, as a result, he cannot physically make an official salute.

Hey everybody, listen up, Whembly hates american heroes!

I'm going to repeat this every time you post an update about the newest news of the Clinton emails.because the more someone repeats something, the more it makes it true, right?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/08/29 03:54:07


Post by: Ouze


.... are you posting in the right thread?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/08/29 13:25:12


Post by: whembly


Ouze wrote:
.... are you posting in the right thread?

He's claiming that none of HRC's email snafu is, as Joe Biden said "a big fething deal". Thus, my constant postings on updates along that tangent is participating in the ol' "if you repeat a lie enough, it'll be true" bs.

@Gordon... do you have any constructive criticism? Attacking the messenger won't get you far...


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/08/29 13:28:12


Post by: Ouze


No, I mean, that first really specific line about the soldier with a bullet in his arm.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/08/29 14:03:32


Post by: whembly


Ouze wrote:
No, I mean, that first really specific line about the soldier with a bullet in his arm.

Oh...

It was obviously a weak argument so...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/08/29 22:49:46


Post by: Ahtman


Edit: Eh, nm


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/08/30 22:29:23


Post by: Breotan


Hillary did some poll testing and decided a new hair style was in order.





The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/08/30 23:16:25


Post by: shasolenzabi


Hilary is feeling so entitled that her campaign is telling Biden "Don't bother"

Why that should be allowed so early on I do not get. But seems the Powers that be want her to quell the masses, but the masses actually are flocking to Bernie and trump


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/08/31 02:37:27


Post by: sebster


 d-usa wrote:
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.


Yeah, either pick your candidate privately, or have a straight up vote. This weirdo hybrid stuff is the worst of both worlds.

But fixing it would require backroom powerbrokers to give up power, so it’s pretty much never going to happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 shasolenzabi wrote:
Why that should be allowed so early on I do not get.


How would they stop it? What would they be stopping? At this stage people are just making political calculations on their chances, and Biden is just figuring out if he has a real chance. Clinton is trying to convince him he doesn’t.

How do you outlaw politicians making political judgements?

But seems the Powers that be want her to quell the masses, but the masses actually are flocking to Bernie and trump


This is the absolute best time for outside candidates, especially ones who appeal very strongly to one part of the most committed voters for the party. But while having one or two thousand people turn up to a speech looks amazing on tv, the eventual candidates will draw in more than 60 million votes each. Having 2,000 really enthusiastic voters needs to be understood against that reality.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/08/31 05:19:33


Post by: shasolenzabi


 sebster wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
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.


Yeah, either pick your candidate privately, or have a straight up vote. This weirdo hybrid stuff is the worst of both worlds.

But fixing it would require backroom powerbrokers to give up power, so it’s pretty much never going to happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 shasolenzabi wrote:
Why that should be allowed so early on I do not get.


How would they stop it? What would they be stopping? At this stage people are just making political calculations on their chances, and Biden is just figuring out if he has a real chance. Clinton is trying to convince him he doesn’t.

How do you outlaw politicians making political judgements?

But seems the Powers that be want her to quell the masses, but the masses actually are flocking to Bernie and trump


This is the absolute best time for outside candidates, especially ones who appeal very strongly to one part of the most committed voters for the party. But while having one or two thousand people turn up to a speech looks amazing on tv, the eventual candidates will draw in more than 60 million votes each. Having 2,000 really enthusiastic voters needs to be understood against that reality.




Wel,, when you look at the much higher than 2k attending voters per meet you see the usual politics as usual has lost it's appeal to a great many, especially when Sanders goes and gets thousands in "red" states like SC or AZ or even TX, as he seeks to show the other states he has not given up on them the way the DNC seems to have by not having candidates stump in them, or totally disavowing that they may have democratic voters registered who might be sparked to enthusiasm by getting visitors. I think that at the end, Bernie becoming the Presidential Candidate will show an upset in the way the usual political thinking has slipped up for the DNC, and that their reliance on the usual corporate news types and such failed.

Trump winning the RNC over to face Bernie would also turn people's heads upside down.

Basically while WSJ and WP and NYT are touting Hilary the true grip may be when the masses of Millennials actually vote for Bernie and he becomes President so that the same political BS is overturned, especially if they can als mutser themselves to have more progressive politicians take the seats of the regressives in both parties.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/08/31 10:51:32


Post by: Dreadclaw69


 shasolenzabi wrote:
Wel,, when you look at the much higher than 2k attending voters per meet you see the usual politics as usual has lost it's appeal to a great many, especially when Sanders goes and gets thousands in "red" states like SC or AZ or even TX

Are these "thousands" over and above what the democrat base is, or is it just Democrats who do not want to vote for Hilary?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/08/31 12:32:56


Post by: d-usa


I am cautiously encouraged by the crowds Sanders gets, but I try to remember that Ron Paul was also very good at getting large crowds and that it never really translated to success in the primaries.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/08/31 15:52:31


Post by: whembly


Carson, Trump Tie for Top Spot in Iowa: Monmouth University Poll
Ben Carson, Donald Trump at 23% each show “most Iowa Republicans prefer someone without a traditional political pedigree,” according to Monmouth University Poll.

Results mark first time since July 26 that poll in first four nominating states has shown Trump without nominal lead
Carly Fiorina 10%, Ted Cruz 9%, Scott Walker 7%, Jeb Bush 5%
John Kasich, Marco Rubio 4%, Rand Paul 3%, Mike Huckabee,Rick Santorum 2%

NOTE: Aug. 27-30 phone poll of 405 Iowans likely to attend Republican presidential caucuses has error margin of +/-4.9ppts


Participant seems low... but, at least it's a phone poll.

I like that Fiorina is trending up.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 d-usa wrote:
I am cautiously encouraged by the crowds Sanders gets, but I try to remember that Rob Paul was also very good at getting large crowds and that it never really translated to success in the primaries.

Sanders need to get Kanye West as is VP.

They'd lockup the DNC nomination.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/08/31 23:03:31


Post by: shasolenzabi


 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
 shasolenzabi wrote:
Wel,, when you look at the much higher than 2k attending voters per meet you see the usual politics as usual has lost it's appeal to a great many, especially when Sanders goes and gets thousands in "red" states like SC or AZ or even TX

Are these "thousands" over and above what the democrat base is, or is it just Democrats who do not want to vote for Hilary?



The main point is that his platform/message is along the lines of what people are thinking, and that these large crowds also crop up in states that are listed as "Red-states" by the DNC shows Bernie is right to not forsake any state as the DNC has apparently


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/01 00:23:23


Post by: sebster


 shasolenzabi wrote:
Wel,, when you look at the much higher than 2k attending voters per meet you see the usual politics as usual has lost it's appeal to a great many, especially when Sanders goes and gets thousands in "red" states like SC or AZ or even TX, as he seeks to show the other states he has not given up on them the way the DNC seems to have by not having candidates stump in them, or totally disavowing that they may have democratic voters registered who might be sparked to enthusiasm by getting visitors. I think that at the end, Bernie becoming the Presidential Candidate will show an upset in the way the usual political thinking has slipped up for the DNC, and that their reliance on the usual corporate news types and such failed.


No, seriously I'll just say it again - getting a few thousand people to turn up for a speach is nice, and looks great on camera, but it doesn't actually mean anything when a winning electoral count will be in excess of 60 million votes.

The ability to enthuse one wing of your party is nice, but it doesn't actually mean you have any real mainstream support.

If you want to understand Sanders’ real chances of winning the primary, let alone the general, ask yourself who’s bothered to attack him? The guy is vulnerable in all kinds of places, but neither Clinton nor the Republicans have spent any of their time trying to bring him down. Because they know what his real chances are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 d-usa wrote:
I am cautiously encouraged by the crowds Sanders gets, but I try to remember that Rob Paul was also very good at getting large crowds and that it never really translated to success in the primaries.


His brother Ron was even better at it


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/01 01:33:48


Post by: d-usa


 sebster wrote:

His brother Ron was even better at it


Fine, I'll return to the Ron Standard...


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/01 08:17:17


Post by: sebster


 d-usa wrote:
Fine, I'll return to the Ron Standard...


In Ron We Trust


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/01 15:50:20


Post by: whembly


And the HRC email saga gets worst:
Email from Hillary to staff over then-classified document "Just send it!" pic.twitter.com/O813ioq10t

— THE Chris (@Coondawg68) September 1, 2015


And this is embarrassing:
2010 email: @HillaryClinton sent "confidential" David Brock memo about "impeaching" #SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas pic.twitter.com/zrbOgd0ma6

— Dave Levinthal (@davelevinthal) September 1, 2015


Keep in mind... these are printed emails (w/o metadata) that she actually sent to the States Department. NOT the ones she deleted.





The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/01 15:52:37


Post by: Jihadin


HRC and crew from that time frame going to have to see the FBI panel soon I believe
I wonder who from HRC crew going to throw their self on his/her sword


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/01 15:57:21


Post by: whembly


To stroke the 'ghazi fire a bit...
Spoiler:

edit: spoiler'ed due to image size.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/01 22:59:49


Post by: Tannhauser42


 whembly wrote:
And the HRC email saga gets worst:
Email from Hillary to staff over then-classified document "Just send it!" pic.twitter.com/O813ioq10t

— THE Chris (@Coondawg68) September 1, 2015


And this is embarrassing:
2010 email: @HillaryClinton sent "confidential" David Brock memo about "impeaching" #SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas pic.twitter.com/zrbOgd0ma6

— Dave Levinthal (@davelevinthal) September 1, 2015


Keep in mind... these are printed emails (w/o metadata) that she actually sent to the States Department. NOT the ones she deleted.


For that first one, it still falls on the person who sent the material to her. I can tell you to go rob a bank, but you're the one who goes to jail if you actually do so. Now, an argument can be made if she used her authority to coerce someone ("send it to me or I fire you"), but that doesn't absolve the person who sent it to her.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/01 23:24:04


Post by: whembly


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
 whembly wrote:
And the HRC email saga gets worst:
Email from Hillary to staff over then-classified document "Just send it!" pic.twitter.com/O813ioq10t

— THE Chris (@Coondawg68) September 1, 2015


And this is embarrassing:
2010 email: @HillaryClinton sent "confidential" David Brock memo about "impeaching" #SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas pic.twitter.com/zrbOgd0ma6

— Dave Levinthal (@davelevinthal) September 1, 2015


Keep in mind... these are printed emails (w/o metadata) that she actually sent to the States Department. NOT the ones she deleted.


For that first one, it still falls on the person who sent the material to her. I can tell you to go rob a bank, but you're the one who goes to jail if you actually do so. Now, an argument can be made if she used her authority to coerce someone ("send it to me or I fire you"), but that doesn't absolve the person who sent it to her.

I'm confused... she said she didn't receive any classified emails...

You'll notice that the spin is 'evolving'.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/01 23:51:45


Post by: Co'tor Shas


I think it's pretty obvious that she did something wrong, the only questions are

a. Is it wrong enough to stop her from become president? (and should it be)

and

b. does anybody who isn't a political junkie really care?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/01 23:57:11


Post by: Grey Templar


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
 whembly wrote:
And the HRC email saga gets worst:
Email from Hillary to staff over then-classified document "Just send it!" pic.twitter.com/O813ioq10t

— THE Chris (@Coondawg68) September 1, 2015


And this is embarrassing:
2010 email: @HillaryClinton sent "confidential" David Brock memo about "impeaching" #SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas pic.twitter.com/zrbOgd0ma6

— Dave Levinthal (@davelevinthal) September 1, 2015


Keep in mind... these are printed emails (w/o metadata) that she actually sent to the States Department. NOT the ones she deleted.


For that first one, it still falls on the person who sent the material to her. I can tell you to go rob a bank, but you're the one who goes to jail if you actually do so. Now, an argument can be made if she used her authority to coerce someone ("send it to me or I fire you"), but that doesn't absolve the person who sent it to her.


IDK, receiving classified information you aren't supposed to and storing it improperly could definitely be a crime.

If I receive an email containing material of a sexual nature that involves a minor its not a crime necessarily, but if I keep it it is a crime. Similarly here, if you receive classified documents you shouldn't have its a crime if you continue to keep these documents and store them in an improper fashion. And I think in this case "I didn't know" isn't a good enough excuse, we are dealing with national security after all.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 00:01:44


Post by: Psienesis


 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
 shasolenzabi wrote:
Wel,, when you look at the much higher than 2k attending voters per meet you see the usual politics as usual has lost it's appeal to a great many, especially when Sanders goes and gets thousands in "red" states like SC or AZ or even TX

Are these "thousands" over and above what the democrat base is, or is it just Democrats who do not want to vote for Hilary?


Getting 10k+ people to show up and cheer at a rally in Arizona doesn't matter what party they're in.

The Washington Post wrote:
Roughly 28,000 people showed up for a recent Sanders rally in Portland, Ore. The self-described democratic socialist drew 15,000 in Seattle; 11,000 in Phoenix; 10,000 in Madison, Wis.; 8,000 in Dallas; and 4,500 in New Orleans.


Those are huge numbers for a guy who was, until recently, a virtual unknown to the public at large.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 00:05:12


Post by: Co'tor Shas


For a guy who is, let's be honest, not that exciting, he does excite people a lot. The question is, does that excitement turn into votes?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 01:12:15


Post by: Tannhauser42


 Grey Templar wrote:
Spoiler:
 Tannhauser42 wrote:
 whembly wrote:
And the HRC email saga gets worst:
Email from Hillary to staff over then-classified document "Just send it!" pic.twitter.com/O813ioq10t

— THE Chris (@Coondawg68) September 1, 2015


And this is embarrassing:
2010 email: @HillaryClinton sent "confidential" David Brock memo about "impeaching" #SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas pic.twitter.com/zrbOgd0ma6

— Dave Levinthal (@davelevinthal) September 1, 2015


Keep in mind... these are printed emails (w/o metadata) that she actually sent to the States Department. NOT the ones she deleted.


For that first one, it still falls on the person who sent the material to her. I can tell you to go rob a bank, but you're the one who goes to jail if you actually do so. Now, an argument can be made if she used her authority to coerce someone ("send it to me or I fire you"), but that doesn't absolve the person who sent it to her.


IDK, receiving classified information you aren't supposed to and storing it improperly could definitely be a crime.

If I receive an email containing material of a sexual nature that involves a minor its not a crime necessarily, but if I keep it it is a crime. Similarly here, if you receive classified documents you shouldn't have its a crime if you continue to keep these documents and store them in an improper fashion. And I think in this case "I didn't know" isn't a good enough excuse, we are dealing with national security after all.


That's the point I already made many pages ago in this thread. The simple act of receiving classified material does not fall on her (as she can't control what pops into her inbox); it falls on the person who sent it. Failing to remove the classified material from an unapproved storage device and failing to to report it and taking corrective action to prevent future instances of it, that falls on her.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 01:30:08


Post by: Ouze


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
For a guy who is, let's be honest, not that exciting, he does excite people a lot. The question is, does that excitement turn into votes?


The box office results of "Snakes on a Plane" seem to indicate not.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 01:59:59


Post by: shasolenzabi


 sebster wrote:
 shasolenzabi wrote:
Wel,, when you look at the much higher than 2k attending voters per meet you see the usual politics as usual has lost it's appeal to a great many, especially when Sanders goes and gets thousands in "red" states like SC or AZ or even TX, as he seeks to show the other states he has not given up on them the way the DNC seems to have by not having candidates stump in them, or totally disavowing that they may have democratic voters registered who might be sparked to enthusiasm by getting visitors. I think that at the end, Bernie becoming the Presidential Candidate will show an upset in the way the usual political thinking has slipped up for the DNC, and that their reliance on the usual corporate news types and such failed.


No, seriously I'll just say it again - getting a few thousand people to turn up for a speach is nice, and looks great on camera, but it doesn't actually mean anything when a winning electoral count will be in excess of 60 million votes.

The ability to enthuse one wing of your party is nice, but it doesn't actually mean you have any real mainstream support.

If you want to understand Sanders’ real chances of winning the primary, let alone the general, ask yourself who’s bothered to attack him? The guy is vulnerable in all kinds of places, but neither Clinton nor the Republicans have spent any of their time trying to bring him down. Because they know what his real chances are.




What I was speaking of is what the Mainstream Media are not catching on the social networks, the underground below the radar stuff of the Sanders movement. I guess we will find out once the primaries are over, though, Hilary has masses of Money from some of her alleged targets for her "reforms" so I doubt those will suffer too much as she owes them for the cash. Bernie does not, and he has actually gained numbers lately, as well as that he gets them in allegedly hostile to Democrats states he has visited.

The DNC has even done some sniping at him for Hilary, the top person, Wasserman, and another senator went for the "He's a socialist" attack to discredit him among "mainstream" democrats who do not get that voting based on party "frontrunner" that is being crammed by the media and others down our throats before the first of a mere 6 democratic debates has taken place seems like "King fixing" to myself and many others who do see Bernie having a chance as folks are fed up with things as they have been. Hilary would be similar to Obama, while he did get some things done, he also has shown he is party to the corporate types.

So, one merely needs to stop relying on just the news of his speeches gaining thousands, and also look online at the following he has gained so far. Also, Bernie makes it less "fun" to attack as he stays on cue for his platform and will not allow himself to be shifted to join the usual reindeer games of mud slinging, or baiting, name calling and other stupidity that the news feels makes for a political race in this country.

Issues matter more than party lines or circular rhetoric as Hilary gave to the guy from BLM who asked her some very on target, relevant questions.

Hilary is establishment, and politics as usual, her left sounding platform is because Bernie forced her to sound that way. the other Dem hopefuls also are parroting Bernie to try and get votes.




The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 04:05:16


Post by: dogma


 shasolenzabi wrote:

What I was speaking of is what the Mainstream Media are not catching on the social networks, the underground below the radar stuff of the Sanders movement.


Lets not pretend that the Mainstream Media exists in a vacuum, its journalists and researchers all have social media accounts and access to social network trend pages. Indeed, every Mainstream Media outlet I know of has an active social network presence, and its own trend page. What goes on within social networks is not missed, it is deemed to be unworthy of a great deal of attention. There is a reason for this, and that reason is Ron Paul. The guy made all kinds of noise across multiple social networks, when social networks were filled with significantly less noise, but he wasn't able to convert it into real world success.

This is not dissimilar to what goes on within the DNC. I can tell you from personal experience that it does pay attention to what goes on within social networks, because it employs analysis firms to do exactly that. The reality is that it simply doesn't matter enough to make it a viable thing for the Party itself to be concerned about, as it isn't likely to do anything beyond tipping a close Primary; something which is primarily up to a given candidate's campaign.

 shasolenzabi wrote:

The DNC has even done some sniping at him for Hilary, the top person, Wasserman, and another senator went for the "He's a socialist" attack...


He is a socialist, by his own admission.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 05:03:40


Post by: shasolenzabi


 dogma wrote:
 shasolenzabi wrote:

What I was speaking of is what the Mainstream Media are not catching on the social networks, the underground below the radar stuff of the Sanders movement.


Lets not pretend that the Mainstream Media exists in a vacuum, its journalists and researchers all have social media accounts and access to social network trend pages. Indeed, every Mainstream Media outlet I know of has an active social network presence, and its own trend page. What goes on within social networks is not missed, it is deemed to be unworthy of a great deal of attention. There is a reason for this, and that reason is Ron Paul. The guy made all kinds of noise across multiple social networks, when social networks were filled with significantly less noise, but he wasn't able to convert it into real world success.

This is not dissimilar to what goes on within the DNC. I can tell you from personal experience that it does pay attention to what goes on within social networks, because it employs analysis firms to do exactly that. The reality is that it simply doesn't matter enough to make it a viable thing for the Party itself to be concerned about, as it isn't likely to do anything beyond tipping a close Primary; something which is primarily up to a given candidate's campaign.

 shasolenzabi wrote:

The DNC has even done some sniping at him for Hilary, the top person, Wasserman, and another senator went for the "He's a socialist" attack...


He is a socialist, by his own admission.


The Mainstream media still seem invested in dismissing or even downplaying Sanders' chances, unlike Paul there is a disgust with Politics as usual. But they have to if they are paying attention, realize that trying to cram circular-lawyerese speaking Hilary down the throats may also not work. I suspect the Milennials may for once act and make a mockery of the tried and relied on "wisdom"

Well, he is if you listen less a true socialist, more Social Democrat, pr was it Democratic Socialist? either one is a big difference from the mis-perceived notion most Americans have of the equating Socialist with Communists, but there have been attempts to make him seem part of the later, so as to scare the majority, even though we need an actual slight dose of more socialism here to counter the rampant for decade oligarchialismn we have suffered under.

America has worked more smoothly with the right balance of socialism/capitalism/federalism. Now we have corporatism and oligarchialism making things so bad and misinforming people so they vote against their own best interests.



The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 06:10:21


Post by: dogma


 shasolenzabi wrote:

The Mainstream media still seem invested in dismissing or even downplaying Sanders' chances, unlike Paul there is a disgust with Politics as usual. But they have to if they are paying attention, realize that trying to cram circular-lawyerese speaking Hilary down the throats may also not work. I suspect the Milennials may for once act and make a mockery of the tried and relied on "wisdom"


Actually, a lot of the support for Paul was the result of a disgust for "politics as usual", because the disgust for "politics as usual" is ultimately just a sense of disgust for the positions espoused by the dominant Parties.

At any rate, large media corporations don't pick and choose the stories they feature on a whim. You'll probably argue that they do so as a result of some political agenda, and that's partially true, but this is the age of the internet. All major media organizations have access to mountains of data telling them exactly what sort of stories people are interested in, and a very clear financial incentive to feature those stories. If stories claiming that candidates like Sanders have a strong chance at being nominated aren't being featured, there's a good chance that there just aren't that many people interested in them.

And let's be honest, any consideration of recent history indicates that Sanders doesn't have a strong chance at being nominated. To say as much isn't to down play anything, it is simply to state a fact.

 shasolenzabi wrote:

Well, he is if you listen less a true socialist, more Social Democrat, pr was it Democratic Socialist? either one is a big difference from the mis-perceived notion most Americans have of the equating Socialist with Communists, but there have been attempts to make him seem part of the later, so as to scare the majority, even though we need an actual slight dose of more socialism here to counter the rampant for decade oligarchialismn we have suffered under.


Democratic Socialist, which is a type of Socialism. If the guy can't get past being called a socialist in the Democratic Primary he will never make it through the General.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 08:23:31


Post by: sebster


 shasolenzabi wrote:
Hilary is establishment, and politics as usual, her left sounding platform is because Bernie forced her to sound that way. the other Dem hopefuls also are parroting Bernie to try and get votes.


No, seriously, understand that being in the middle of an active on-line movement, or in the middle of a crowd of thousands can feel like it's this amazing groundswell of people, but it doesn't actually work that way. Every election has a candidate or three with really excited fans who think they're in the middle of an amazing groundswell, only to get a nasty shock when they crash in to the reality of how many people you actually need to win an election in a country of 300 million people.

And it's the same every time, the candidate says exactly what one specific group of voters wants to hear, gets them extremely enthusiastic, but then never expands his appeal outside that group. You can't win an election appealing to just one group, even if that group really loves you. Ron Paul had three groups - libertarians, goldbugs and crypto-racists, and he never even came close.

Don't get me wrong. I like Sanders, I've liked Sanders for a long time. I think he's saying things that need to be said, and I hope he gets more exposure, to drag the conversation towards more worthwhile issues, especially equality. And the longer he stays in the race, the more he'll be able to get her to address that issue.

But he isn't going to win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 dogma wrote:
Actually, a lot of the support for Paul was the result of a disgust for "politics as usual", because the disgust for "politics as usual" is ultimately just a sense of disgust for the positions espoused by the dominant Parties.




It seems every election cycle is the election where people aren't going to take it anymore.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 15:22:36


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


Guardian newspaper in the UK reporting that Obama has secured enough support in the Senate to stop the Republicans in Congress from causing mischief over the Iran nuclear deal.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/02/iran-nuclear-deal-congress-34th-senator

Of course, the key question is what will happen if the Republicans win in 2016?

Interesting times ahead.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 15:28:30


Post by: Ouze


Even if the GOP retook the white house - which seems unlikely with the clown car they have lined up, but who knows - I sort of doubt they would revisit the issue once it's no longer useful for political point scoring. I suspect once they saw the reality; that this actually is the best deal we're going to get and not such a bad one at that - that they'll quietly let the issue drop.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 15:44:38


Post by: CptJake


 Ouze wrote:
Even if the GOP retook the white house - which seems unlikely with the clown car they have lined up, but who knows - I sort of doubt they would revisit the issue once it's no longer useful for political point scoring. I suspect once they saw the reality; that this actually is the best deal we're going to get and not such a bad one at that - that they'll quietly let the issue drop.


It seems more folks than just the Rs do not like the deal:

Survey: 2/3 of Natsec Pros Give Iran Deal Thumbs Down

And kind of a counterpoint, some responses to criticism of the deal.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 15:49:31


Post by: d-usa


It will be like Obamacare. Everyone hates it, it will be horrible, people will die in the streets because we can't process them through the death panels fast enough. Oh wait, it wasn't so bad? That isn't happening? There is room for improvement without scrapping the whole thing? I guess we can work on that.

People won't be idiotic enough to just gak on an international agreement once it is approved and implemented.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 16:30:22


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 d-usa wrote:
It will be like Obamacare. Everyone hates it, it will be horrible, people will die in the streets because we can't process them through the death panels fast enough. Oh wait, it wasn't so bad? That isn't happening? There is room for improvement without scrapping the whole thing? I guess we can work on that.

People won't be idiotic enough to just gak on an international agreement once it is approved and implemented.


There are people in the USA who think the UN is going to come and take away their guns

As things stand, the UN would struggle to shut down a hot dog stand in America, never mind disarm a nation with an abundance of handguns and rifles for every citizen.

I wouldn't be too confident about people not acting like idiots.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 20:21:57


Post by: shasolenzabi


Well, to those who are skeptical of Bernie getting in, I leave this, A) it appears as though the Republicans are throwing this race
B) Clinton is looking less favorable, and there is a report in a mainstream article

http://observer.com/2015/09/bernie-sanders-secret-weapon/

As I have repeatedly written the Sanders campaign is empowered and driven by communications through social media that are under the radar and beyond the vision of old style pundits, old style media, and old style politicians and old style journalists who report about them.

But the means of communications—Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, emails, text messages and web sites whose organizing political power most insider politicians and reporters still fail to understand—provide only half the story. The other half, which gives the technology of media whatever power it may possess, is people and it is the people who support him who are the secret weapon of Bernie Sanders.


He says he has written about this multiple times. Now if it turns out that we inaugurate Sanders 1/2017, how will you guys react?

The people who support these causes create the people power that can transform our politics. They are fed up with being told what to think, fed up with forces on the right who want to dictate to them how they should live and love, and fed up with the powers who dominate finance who want to keep them down and rip them off to make a buck for themselves.



That may be far stronger than the same-old-same-old we have been dealing with, that some of the posters here are so steadfast to stay on that tired old road which has sank us deeper into the crapper, I ask why would you NOT want to get out of this mess?



Anyway looks like we have to wait and see how this truly goes.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 20:25:15


Post by: Grey Templar


If Sanders did win the election, he would probably be a 1 term president who wouldn't accomplish much while in office. Unless he also miraculously got a congress stacked with like-minded people. A very unlikely result.

That said, a race between him and Trump could be very interesting.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 20:27:14


Post by: jasper76


As much as I wish it was not the case, Sanders will never get elected. If the emails sink Clinton, expect Biden to be your next President.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 20:28:41


Post by: whembly


 jasper76 wrote:
As much as I wish it was not the case, Sanders will never get elected. If the emails sink Clinton, expect Biden to be your next President.

Biden would be running on a 3rd Obama-term.

Not happening.

Elizabeth Warren or Martin O'Malley? Now, there's something there.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 20:30:36


Post by: Grey Templar


Indeed. I feel that if Clinton sinks, which actually seems like a more and more likely event, we'd see Biden be the nominee. And he'd almost certainly lose the general election.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 20:32:51


Post by: jasper76


 whembly wrote:
 jasper76 wrote:
As much as I wish it was not the case, Sanders will never get elected. If the emails sink Clinton, expect Biden to be your next President.

Biden would be running on a 3rd Obama-term.

Not happening.

Elizabeth Warren or Martin O'Malley? Now, there's something there.


As someone from Maryland, let me assure you that Martin O'Malley is a dufus.

One thing Obama haters fail to come to terms with is that if Obama could run again, he'd win a third election.

Biden has higher favorability ratingns than any candidate from either party, and outs up better numbers against the GOP contenders than Clinton does. Biden would just inherit Obama's electoral map, and likely add to it, while Clinton would have to work hard to win the purple states like VA, OH, and FL.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 20:33:00


Post by: Gordon Shumway


It will go like this: Sanders will win or come close in Iowa and NH and the media will glom onto the story. "Can Sanders really win?" The answer is no. Then he will hit a brick wall called SC and not win another primary from there. The fact that he is polling at around 7% among minorities (Clinton is over 80%), a group that makes up roughly 27% of the Dems' base tells you all you need to know about his chances. He can do well in Iowa and NH because the primary voters there are disproportionately white. And I really like the guy and think he is really contributing something important to the debate.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 20:35:58


Post by: jasper76


I'm actually starting to believable Biden presidency is the most likely outcome, unless Clinton can spin her gak into gold, which she has shown a penchant for achieving. The GOP field is hopeless. Trump has all but destroyed the already tarnished national brand.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 20:36:25


Post by: Grey Templar


 jasper76 wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 jasper76 wrote:
As much as I wish it was not the case, Sanders will never get elected. If the emails sink Clinton, expect Biden to be your next President.

Biden would be running on a 3rd Obama-term.

Not happening.

Elizabeth Warren or Martin O'Malley? Now, there's something there.


As someone from Maryland, let me assure you that Martin O'Malley is a dufus.

One thing Obama haters fail to come to terms with is that if Obama could run again, he'd win a third election.

Biden has higher favorability ratingns than any candidate from either party, and outs up better numbers against the GOP contenders than Clinton does. Biden would just inherit Obama's electoral map, and likely add to it, while Clinton would have to work hard to win the purple states like VA, OH, and FL.


I seriously doubt Obama could win a 3rd term. What is your basis for that?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 20:42:06


Post by: LordofHats


 Grey Templar wrote:


I seriously doubt Obama could win a 3rd term. What is your basis for that?


Because most of the country doesn't descend into irrational Obama bashing on a monthly basis

Just last week, Gallup put his approval rating at 47%. And that's just the people who bother answering Gallup. In a general election, compared to anyone else available right now, Obama would probably be a safe bet to win a 3rd term if he were allowed to run again (granted, imo I think that has less to do with Obama himself and more the current Republican field, which is markedly uninspiring).


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 20:42:18


Post by: jasper76


@Grey Templars: The electoral map basically did not change from Obamas first election to his second one, and demographic shifts are now even more favorable to Democrats than they were in the last 2 cycles.

Couple that with the GOPs alienation of Hispanic voters, which is probably the only area where a party beholden to religious consrvarives could have gained any real ground, and the GOP is likely to do worse than they did in 2008.

Elections favor incumbants.

The GOP has doubled down on its bizarre obsession with women's reproductive decisions.

I could go on...


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 20:51:47


Post by: Gordon Shumway


No need, I will. His favor ability numbers now are actually a point or two above where he was at this time last general election cycle. Look how well that worked. Also, he is a known quantity. In a time of distress.(which many view us in right now), people go with the known outcome, even if they don't particularly like it. Finally, name any other politician right now who is better than Obama (arguably Billy Clinton was-- one could absolutely hate the man's politics, yet still like him somehow). Like Obama or not, he knows how to hire people to run his elections and he gives a damn fine speech when he needs to. Finally, finally, his election apparatus (voter emails, locations, button issues, etc.) was the finest we have seen in many years and he understood (or at least his advisors did) the value of social media that candidates are still wrestling with.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 21:01:43


Post by: d-usa


 LordofHats wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:


I seriously doubt Obama could win a 3rd term. What is your basis for that?


Because most of the country doesn't descend into irrational Obama bashing on a monthly basis

Just last week, Gallup put his approval rating at 47%. And that's just the people who bother answering Gallup. In a general election, compared to anyone else available right now, Obama would probably be a safe bet to win a 3rd term if he were allowed to run again (granted, imo I think that has less to do with Obama himself and more the current Republican field, which is markedly uninspiring).


I'm pro-Obama and I think that the GOP lost 2012 more than Obama won it, and I can see them doing the same in 2016.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 21:03:07


Post by: whembly


 d-usa wrote:
 LordofHats wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:


I seriously doubt Obama could win a 3rd term. What is your basis for that?


Because most of the country doesn't descend into irrational Obama bashing on a monthly basis

Just last week, Gallup put his approval rating at 47%. And that's just the people who bother answering Gallup. In a general election, compared to anyone else available right now, Obama would probably be a safe bet to win a 3rd term if he were allowed to run again (granted, imo I think that has less to do with Obama himself and more the current Republican field, which is markedly uninspiring).


I'm pro-Obama and I think that the GOP lost 2012 more than Obama won it, and I can see them doing the same in 2016.

Yup... especially if HRC skates the her current email/TS saga...

Unless, Carly Fiorina is the R's nominee. All bets are off then!


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 21:06:25


Post by: Vaktathi


 whembly wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
 LordofHats wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:


I seriously doubt Obama could win a 3rd term. What is your basis for that?


Because most of the country doesn't descend into irrational Obama bashing on a monthly basis

Just last week, Gallup put his approval rating at 47%. And that's just the people who bother answering Gallup. In a general election, compared to anyone else available right now, Obama would probably be a safe bet to win a 3rd term if he were allowed to run again (granted, imo I think that has less to do with Obama himself and more the current Republican field, which is markedly uninspiring).


I'm pro-Obama and I think that the GOP lost 2012 more than Obama won it, and I can see them doing the same in 2016.

Yup... especially if HRC skates the her current email/TS saga...

Unless, Carly Fiorina is the R's nominee. All bets are off then!
I wouldn't be surprised if Fiorina made it on as a VP candidate, but I couldn't possibly see Fiorina making it on the ticket otherwise.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 21:11:08


Post by: Co'tor Shas


Meh, she speaks a good game (that is to say, a baseline republican game), but she has no experience.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 21:13:41


Post by: Gordon Shumway


 whembly wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
 LordofHats wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:


I seriously doubt Obama could win a 3rd term. What is your basis for that?


Because most of the country doesn't descend into irrational Obama bashing on a monthly basis

Just last week, Gallup put his approval rating at 47%. And that's just the people who bother answering Gallup. In a general election, compared to anyone else available right now, Obama would probably be a safe bet to win a 3rd term if he were allowed to run again (granted, imo I think that has less to do with Obama himself and more the current Republican field, which is markedly uninspiring).


I'm pro-Obama and I think that the GOP lost 2012 more than Obama won it, and I can see them doing the same in 2016.

Yup... especially if HRC skates the her current email/TS saga...

Unless, Carly Fiorina is the R's nominee. All bets are off then!


No way. The one shot the GOP has is Kasich. Possibly, possibly Rubio (though he would be a better VP pick at this point). Other than that, good luck getting any swing voters or any sort of enthusiasm voters.

Take off your personal like/dislike blinders for a minute and look at the landscape as it really is.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 21:25:06


Post by: whembly


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
 LordofHats wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:


I seriously doubt Obama could win a 3rd term. What is your basis for that?


Because most of the country doesn't descend into irrational Obama bashing on a monthly basis

Just last week, Gallup put his approval rating at 47%. And that's just the people who bother answering Gallup. In a general election, compared to anyone else available right now, Obama would probably be a safe bet to win a 3rd term if he were allowed to run again (granted, imo I think that has less to do with Obama himself and more the current Republican field, which is markedly uninspiring).


I'm pro-Obama and I think that the GOP lost 2012 more than Obama won it, and I can see them doing the same in 2016.

Yup... especially if HRC skates the her current email/TS saga...

Unless, Carly Fiorina is the R's nominee. All bets are off then!


No way. The one shot the GOP has is Kasich. Possibly, possibly Rubio (though he would be a better VP pick at this point). Other than that, good luck getting any swing voters or any sort of enthusiasm voters.

Take off your personal like/dislike blinders for a minute and look at the landscape as it really is.

The landscape is who can inspire folks to vote. Simply that...


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 21:47:20


Post by: jasper76


The GOP is doing a surprisingly goofd job at inspiring folks to vote up to now...just not in the way they want to. They were given every opportunity to tone down by the team at Fox News in the debate, yet they chose, almost to a man, to double-down on female reproductive control, with some of them clearly stating that they don't even want an exception for abortions in cases of rape or life of the mother (which is a pill even most conservatives can;t stomach due to its abject cruelty)

Unless you are surrounded by an echo chamber of religious women, the implications of this failure to adapt (whether principled or cynical) should be quite clear.

And Trump is basically begging for Hispanics to come out and vote Democratic. If the GOP hopes to win the election, they better ramp up the damage control with Hispanics. That might be salvageable. I don't think their standing with women is salvageable without a platform makeover, to be honest. It's too fundamental of a difference to just sweep under the rug and play nice.



The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 21:52:29


Post by: Gordon Shumway


Exactly, Fiorina's problem is precisely that. She would depress the GOP (she burned her bridges with the reliably Republican Wall Street, voters Clinton is strangely good at considering her party, and let's face it, she is a woman. In the GOP of traditional values, that would be good for a VP slot, not a prime candidate, sorry to be non PC.) vote and the only thing I can see her running on as of yet is "not Hillary". The traditional values vote would be gone, or divided (stand by your man). And the economic vote would be divided. Both are traditional GOP voters. I don't see her winning any split voters (unless she has some stances on issues I'm unaware of, and Clinton is still >70% with her party. So tell me, other than the rhetoric you like that she says, and her anti Clinton stance, where are her votes coming from exactly? She would be great as a VP nom though.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 21:55:16


Post by: jasper76


Didn't she, like, run Hewlett Packard into the ground? (that's what my conservative workmates insist whenever I bring her up).





The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 21:56:36


Post by: whembly


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Exactly, Fiorina's problem is precisely that. She would depress the GOP (she burned her bridges with the reliably Republican Wall Street, voters Clinton is strangely good at considering her party, and let's face it, she is a woman. In the GOP of traditional values, that would be good for a VP slot, not a prime candidate, sorry to be non PC.) vote and the only thing I can see her running on as of yet is "not Hillary". The traditional values vote would be gone, or divided (stand by your man). And the economic vote would be divided. Both are traditional GOP voters. I don't see her winning any split voters (unless she has some stances on issues I'm unaware of, and Clinton is still >70% with her party. So tell me, other than the rhetoric you like that she says, and her anti Clinton stance, where are her votes coming from exactly? She would be great as a VP nom though.

In recent polls in IA, NH and SC... Trump, Carson and Fiorina combined polled well over 50%.

That tells me right there, that the primary voters are pissed at the GOP establishment.

It's still too soon, but in the general election, things go cray-cray.

The only sure thing, imo, is that if HRC is the DNC nominee... Fiorina in the ticket is the only way the GOP has even a chance at the WH.

All these HRC *bad news* will be *old news* by then... the voters have very short attention span.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 jasper76 wrote:
Didn't she, like, run Hewlett Packard into the ground? (that's what my conservative workmates insist whenever I bring her up).




Nope. In fact, you could argue her merger* with Compaq solidified HP's footing in the aftermath of the market's tech bubble implosion.

*That merger was one P.R. disaster though.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 22:00:55


Post by: jasper76


Wikipedia tells me she was "forced to resign" by the board of HP (and given the magical CEO "golden parachute").

On a shallow note, she is so friggin plastic looking! I think my brain would go into anti-phony spasms if I ever saw her and Clinton debate.



The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 22:02:38


Post by: d-usa


The GOP candidates, and arguably the party as a whole, is following the same horrible game plan from 2012: position yourself as far to the right as possible to win the primary while at the same time alienating the moderates needed to win while "rallying" the base that would have voted for whoever didn't have a D behind the name anyway. Especially if the opponent is Hillary.

Quit throwing away the 30 cents on the ground just to get a a tighter grip on the quarter that is already in your pocket.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 22:07:40


Post by: LordofHats


 jasper76 wrote:
Wikipedia tells me she was "forced to resign" by the board of HP (and given the magical CEO "golden parachute").


She didn't run HP into the ground so much as she was sitting in the chair when the plane crashed into the runway. To be fair to her, she only worsened a hole HP was already in and took the fall.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 d-usa wrote:
The GOP candidates, and arguably the party as a whole, is following the same horrible game plan from 2012: position yourself as far to the right as possible to win the primary while at the same time alienating the moderates needed to win while "rallying" the base that would have voted for whoever didn't have a D behind the name anyway. Especially if the opponent is Hillary.

Quit throwing away the 30 cents on the ground just to get a a tighter grip on the quarter that is already in your pocket.


To be fair, I think the GOP is well aware of how demographics have turned against them. The stage for GOP politics today was set by Regan, who realized that to win a Presidential Election all the Republicans needed to do was rally white christian voters and make sure they went out to vote. In 1980, that was enough to win the electoral college and the White House. So the GOP got into the habit of not giving a damn who they alienated or turned off. In fact, alienating some groups (Blacks, Hispanics, Women, Non-Christians) became a valuable tool in making sure the base came out to vote.

The GOP built its entire grand strategy around making sure their base knew how horrible and unamerican and unchristian everyone who wasn't them was and that they wanted the terrorists to win! Now that's coming back to bite them in the ass, because they've been banging that drum so long and had such success with it for 20 odd years, it's hard to turn the boat around. Drumming up the right and getting all of them on their hackles is no longer sufficient to win a general election. The middle has moved further to the left since 1980 and the base has dwindled in size. It's still a huge population, but no longer huge enough that relying on it can win the GOP elections. The opposite in fact. The strategy now backfires in general elections, because the base drumming scares everyone else away. It's even started scaring the base itself away.

Right now though the GOP knows they can afford to lose Presidential Elections. In 2010 they stacked the deck heavily in their favor for Congressional and State politics. It's more than enough to ensure the GOP has a strong and influential role in policy making.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 22:26:21


Post by: Grey Templar


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Meh, she speaks a good game (that is to say, a baseline republican game), but she has no experience.


Neither did Obama.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 22:27:55


Post by: Gordon Shumway


 whembly wrote:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Exactly, Fiorina's problem is precisely that. She would depress the GOP (she burned her bridges with the reliably Republican Wall Street, voters Clinton is strangely good at considering her party, and let's face it, she is a woman. In the GOP of traditional values, that would be good for a VP slot, not a prime candidate, sorry to be non PC.) vote and the only thing I can see her running on as of yet is "not Hillary". The traditional values vote would be gone, or divided (stand by your man). And the economic vote would be divided. Both are traditional GOP voters. I don't see her winning any split voters (unless she has some stances on issues I'm unaware of, and Clinton is still >70% with her party. So tell me, other than the rhetoric you like that she says, and her anti Clinton stance, where are her votes coming from exactly? She would be great as a VP nom though.

In recent polls in IA, NH and SC... Trump, Carson and Fiorina combined polled well over 50%.

That tells me right there, that the primary voters are pissed at the GOP establishment.

It's still too soon, but in the general election, things go cray-cray.

The only sure thing, imo, is that if HRC is the DNC nominee... Fiorina in the ticket is the only way the GOP has even a chance at the WH.

All these HRC *bad news* will be *old news* by then... the voters have very short attention span.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 jasper76 wrote:
Didn't she, like, run Hewlett Packard into the ground? (that's what my conservative workmates insist whenever I bring her up).

Again, as you said, the election will be decided upon who can excite voters the best. What exactly is exciting about Fiorina other than she has the best one liners against Hilary (whose handlers will be well aware of the attacks coming her way so she will be prepared to swat them aside)? Which positions of hers are attracting voters, exactly? The only candidates as of now who even remotely look like they can get enthusiasm (positive fortes for as opposed to votes against) are Kasich and Rubio. Bush might have been able to, but Trump has effectively exposed his weaknesses (the man has no counter punch).


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 22:28:41


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 Grey Templar wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Meh, she speaks a good game (that is to say, a baseline republican game), but she has no experience.


Neither did Obama.


And who complains about him all the time?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 22:49:09


Post by: Gordon Shumway


Ok, here's an idea. Who do you think alive today (running or not) would make for the best president today? I would bet neither side would pick anybody in the field, but who would be your ideal candidate, even if he/she would have no chance of winning?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 22:58:48


Post by: LordofHats


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Ok, here's an idea. Who do you think alive today (running or not) would make for the best president today?


I vote for President LeBeouf. His Just Do It platform has won me over;



The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/02 23:17:13


Post by: Co'tor Shas


I'm not sure he'd be able to get past those accusation of cannibalism though.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 00:02:14


Post by: Gordon Shumway


I should have known better...


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 00:09:44


Post by: Co'tor Shas


What, did you expect us to take an interesting question that may show a lot about peoples political beliefs seriously?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 00:19:58


Post by: LordofHats


But I'm being super duper serial! I would totally vote for President LeBeouf. If we're gonna put a clown in office, lets at least put someone in office who knows he's a clown


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 00:22:09


Post by: shasolenzabi


For me as is now known, Bernie.

Hilary and Biden are too tied to past presidents and their pr0-roporate monkey-business as usual

O' Malley took in his full amount pay and extras as much as he could, the rest on the DNC ticket are to me, "Who the hell are you?"


As for the republicans, Kasich blew it with speculations of himself being "King of America", Having grown up and lived a decent chunk of my life in NY I know what a buffoon Trumpenstein is, and Walker Wrecked Wisconsin, the rest are all different levels of just wrong, wrong, and more wrong for America and sound like squabbling kids fighting over who is more popular to be class president.

Comes back to Bernie who does not play that childs' game, and has said what ideas he sees to help fix America and get us at least back on center track by steering us a some leftwards from the hard right rudder we have been in for the last few decades.

Had it been Warren running, I am sure Bernie would have settled in for VP or backed down for her. She is not looking to run, so, we have Bernie with set platform vs all others with they mention, but nothing clear on theirs, just vague circular talk, Hilary is too used to speaking like a lawyer IMHO


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 00:36:40


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Ok, here's an idea. Who do you think alive today (running or not) would make for the best president today?



Morgan Freeman with Samuel L. Jackson as VP


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 00:59:22


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Ok, here's an idea. Who do you think alive today (running or not) would make for the best president today? I would bet neither side would pick anybody in the field, but who would be your ideal candidate, even if he/she would have no chance of winning?


Colin Powell anyone?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 01:02:59


Post by: BlaxicanX


Colon Powell would certainly be interesting.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 01:38:56


Post by: sebster


It's good the Republicans have found a way to avoid getting in the way of the Iran deal. They never should have backed themselves in to such a stupid corner, but at least they’re showing enough to actually get out.


 CptJake wrote:
It seems more folks than just the Rs do not like the deal:


And that should surprise hopefully no-one. Because the general public is always going to support being hard on international rivals. And especially because most of the public is completely fething clueless about Iran’s actual level of power.

That such policies are not often the most effective approach, and sometimes directly counter-productive, is why it is good that treaties are done between national leaders, without the involvement of the general public.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
Elizabeth Warren or Martin O'Malley? Now, there's something there.


The only people who ever mention Warren are Republicans. That's... never a good sign.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 d-usa wrote:
The GOP candidates, and arguably the party as a whole, is following the same horrible game plan from 2012: position yourself as far to the right as possible to win the primary while at the same time alienating the moderates needed to win while "rallying" the base that would have voted for whoever didn't have a D behind the name anyway. Especially if the opponent is Hillary.


Sure, but that isn’t so much because the candidates are stupid, but because the game right now is so hard for Republicans to play. It’s been the case for a long time that to win the presidency you have to be more extreme to win the primary, then swing back to the middle in the general. But right now the Republican base is so far past crazy that to win the primary you have to push to be slightly right of Ghengis Khan, and that makes swinging back to the centre more or less impossible.

Bush’s 2000 campaign is basically impossible now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 LordofHats wrote:
To be fair, I think the GOP is well aware of how demographics have turned against them.


Yeah, they’ve been talking about it longer than anyone else, really. It’s just they haven’t actually managed to do anything about it.

Not that they can really be singled out for that, most organisations and most people can rarely summon up the strength to do anything about a problem that isn’t really costing them right now. It just isn’t human nature to sacrifice now, for a problem that occur sometime in the future.

Heh, Republicans are going to come out of this with a keener understanding of the issues of Climate Change than the rest of us

Right now though the GOP knows they can afford to lose Presidential Elections. In 2010 they stacked the deck heavily in their favor for Congressional and State politics. It's more than enough to ensure the GOP has a strong and influential role in policy making.


Thanks to the long running failure of Democrat groups to get out in non-presidential election cycles, Republicans will remain competitive for some time to come. But whether they can score another 2010 style counter protest win is a pretty open question, and without it’s looks pretty likely they’ll be out of power in the senate a lot more often than not.

The other strength the Republicans have is the House of Reps. But that strength is built on electoral advantages, they’re actually well down in votes cast. Like all gerrymandered structures, when it finally isn’t enough then you lost almost every seat all at once.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 03:42:14


Post by: Gordon Shumway


Well, I guess a few people took it seriously. I would have to say Kerry. Yeah, he couldn't beat a weakened Bush, yeah he was a horrible campaigner, but when it comes to policy, nobody knows it better. He would be able to get republican votes if in office (I think his biggest mistake was not tapping McCain at the time for VP, he would have ran). He is level headed. He is too old to really care about image anymore. He doesn't need to worry about what he will do after his term. And dammit, he is one of the few people, say what you you want about his politics, that actually gives a gak about this country we are living in. He is smart. And he can't be swift boated twice, right? Too bad he is too old.

Ten years ago I would have said Powell as well, again too old. I would still vote for him. Easy decision.

With no whipper snappers left that actually seem to get it, I guess I would vote for Niel de grasse Tyson. He doesn't seem to care about politics, he knows science, and he knows how to explain complex ideas to the masses. He would likely be a horrible president, but so was Reagan, but people are still delusional about him.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 07:29:22


Post by: jasper76


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Ok, here's an idea. Who do you think alive today (running or not) would make for the best president today? I would bet neither side would pick anybody in the field, but who would be your ideal candidate, even if he/she would have no chance of winning?


Bill Gates, unless Colin Powell decides to run.


-------------------------------------------------------------
I take it back. I would totally vote for Neil deGrasse Tyson over anyone I can think of, inclufing Bill Gates, but not necessarily Powell.


I would fething !!!LOVE!!! to be given the choice of TYSON v. POWELL, rather than Clinton v Blah...and so would everyone...both sides!

Give the people what they want, just sayin...




The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 10:22:52


Post by: CptJake


 sebster wrote:
It's good the Republicans have found a way to avoid getting in the way of the Iran deal. They never should have backed themselves in to such a stupid corner, but at least they’re showing enough to actually get out.


 CptJake wrote:
It seems more folks than just the Rs do not like the deal:


And that should surprise hopefully no-one. Because the general public is always going to support being hard on international rivals. And especially because most of the public is completely fething clueless about Iran’s actual level of power.

That such policies are not often the most effective approach, and sometimes directly counter-productive, is why it is good that treaties are done between national leaders, without the involvement of the general public.



Of course, after having read the article I linked to, you realized it had NOTHING to do with "the general public's" feelings/opinions, and instead was about people who are much less than "fething clueless about Iran's actual level of power". But don't let that stand in the way of your snarky reply.



The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 10:38:09


Post by: reds8n


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Ok, here's an idea. Who do you think alive today (running or not) would make for the best president today? I would bet neither side would pick anybody in the field, but who would be your ideal candidate, even if he/she would have no chance of winning?





#WestWestwing

be worth it for the State of the Union addresses alone.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 11:04:44


Post by: Frazzled


First Clinton Flack takes the Fifth. I wonder if they will be the first to roll.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/clinton-aide-fifth-amendment-emails/index.html


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 12:06:07


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


Great news: the stars and stripes is gone! I've got my Union Jack back

Actually, that's bad news. I'm Scottish independence - I want away from the UK

Back OT. Clinton's emails have dragged quite a few British politicians into the mix as well. Red faces all round.

Still, she thinks David Cameron is an idiot, and Clinton should be applauded for saying that, because it's true!


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 14:55:14


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


Seriously though.... who WOULDN'T vote for Morgan Freeman and Samuel L. Jackson??

I mean, one's got the voice of God, and the other will set gak straight in a way that everyone can understand.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 14:59:52


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Seriously though.... who WOULDN'T vote for Morgan Freeman and Samuel L. Jackson??

I mean, one's got the voice of God, and the other will set gak straight in a way that everyone can understand.


Even those two would be no match for a Congressional oversight committee. No force on earth can stop one of them


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 15:02:27


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Seriously though.... who WOULDN'T vote for Morgan Freeman and Samuel L. Jackson??

I mean, one's got the voice of God, and the other will set gak straight in a way that everyone can understand.


Even those two would be no match for a Congressional oversight committee. No force on earth can stop one of them


Nah other way around... Remember, Freeman is God. And don't make "Jules" come out


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 15:11:28


Post by: whembly


 Frazzled wrote:
First Clinton Flack takes the Fifth. I wonder if they will be the first to roll.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/clinton-aide-fifth-amendment-emails/index.html

Oh...

Looks like a solid strategy. (if I were his lawyer, I'd be invoking the 5th too).

Offer complete immunity.... see if he'll take that.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 16:28:29


Post by: Jihadin


Clintons will ensure that never happens.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 16:35:56


Post by: Co'tor Shas


Hey, if he does get into trouble, she'll just pardon him when she's elected.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 17:54:45


Post by: Frazzled


Sorry, corrected. Meant to type HRC official.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 18:22:04


Post by: whembly


/tinfoild hat on...

Wut?
Exposed! Libya Security Briefs, Algeria Hostage Info & More — Hacker Threatens To Sell Hillary Clinton’s ENTIRE UNRELEASED Private Emails For $500K

Just as email-gate looked to be winding down, RadarOnline.com has exclusively learned a person claiming to be a computer specialist has come forward with the stunning news that 32,000 emails from Hillary Clinton‘s private email account are up for sale. The price tag — a whopping $500,000!

Promising to give the trove of the former Secretary of State’s emails to the highest bidder, the specialist is showing subject lines as proof of what appear to be legitimate messages.

PHOTOS: Exposed! 10 New Revelations From Hillary Clinton’s Recently Released Emails — Overworked Staff And Guilty Pleasures!

“Hillary or someone from her camp erased the outbox containing her emails, but forgot to erase the emails that were in her sent box,” an insider reveals to Radar of the Presidential contender’s latest nightmare.

Radar has learned that some of the topics discussed in the email appear to include everything from Benghazi to the Algerian hostage crisis — with subject lines such as:

“H Libya security latest. Sid” (with attachment)
“H FYI, best analysis so far of hearing Sid,’ about the latest security
in Libya”
“H Algeria latest French Intel on Algeria hostage Sid”
“H Latest French Intel in Algeria hostage Sid” (with attachment)
“H Latest Libya intel internal govt discussions high level” (with
attachment)
“H HIGHLY IMPORTANT! Comprehensive Intel Report on (with attachment)”

Warns the insider, “If these emails get out to the public domain, not only is Hillary finished as a potential Presidential nominee, she could put our country’s national security at risk.”

Highly likely that this is a hoax...but... if true... damn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Didn't go far enough in my readings...

The Sale is "off" and the hacker actually gave it to the FBI.
http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/hillary-clinton-hacked-email-server-wont-sell-turns-over-fbi/

o.O


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 18:33:17


Post by: CptJake


Hillary or someone from her camp erased the outbox containing her emails, but forgot to erase the emails that were in her sent box


Yeah, because most email servers maintain a full outbox and don't automatically delete from it and put the email into the sent box.


Whoever wrote the article does not seem too educated on the topic.



The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 18:38:36


Post by: whembly


 CptJake wrote:
Hillary or someone from her camp erased the outbox containing her emails, but forgot to erase the emails that were in her sent box


Yeah, because most email servers maintain a full outbox and don't automatically delete from it and put the email into the sent box.


Whoever wrote the article does not seem too educated on the topic.


Huh...?

Outbox 'are' traditionally maintained and archived. However, if we truly believed that HRC staff tried to "wiped" the server... I'd have a hard time believing that they'd miss the archived/sent folders as well.

I'm just waiting to see if the FBI will acknowledge if they did indeed, received a batch of emails from this hacker. I'd give it a 1% chance...


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 18:50:10


Post by: CptJake


 whembly wrote:
 CptJake wrote:
Hillary or someone from her camp erased the outbox containing her emails, but forgot to erase the emails that were in her sent box


Yeah, because most email servers maintain a full outbox and don't automatically delete from it and put the email into the sent box.


Whoever wrote the article does not seem too educated on the topic.


Huh...?

Outbox 'are' traditionally maintained and archived. However, if we truly believed that HRC staff tried to "wiped" the server... I'd have a hard time believing that they'd miss the archived/sent folders as well.

I'm just waiting to see if the FBI will acknowledge if they did indeed, received a batch of emails from this hacker. I'd give it a 1% chance...


I'm pretty sure the 'sent' and 'draft' make the archives. 'Outbox' generally empties out when a connection to the net is made, and in most cases that is a continuous connection so even though the whole .pst (or enterprise equivalent) is archived, the 'outbox' portion of it is generally pretty vacant.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 18:54:37


Post by: whembly


 CptJake wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 CptJake wrote:
Hillary or someone from her camp erased the outbox containing her emails, but forgot to erase the emails that were in her sent box


Yeah, because most email servers maintain a full outbox and don't automatically delete from it and put the email into the sent box.


Whoever wrote the article does not seem too educated on the topic.


Huh...?

Outbox 'are' traditionally maintained and archived. However, if we truly believed that HRC staff tried to "wiped" the server... I'd have a hard time believing that they'd miss the archived/sent folders as well.

I'm just waiting to see if the FBI will acknowledge if they did indeed, received a batch of emails from this hacker. I'd give it a 1% chance...


I'm pretty sure the 'sent' and 'draft' make the archives. 'Outbox' generally empties out when a connection to the net is made, and in most cases that is a continuous connection so even though the whole .pst (or enterprise equivalent) is archived, the 'outbox' portion of it is generally pretty vacant.

That's exchange... and you're right.

I'm on the old Novell Groupwise (ugh... I interpreted outbox to sent folder)... but, yes to your original point I see it and stand corrected.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/03 23:17:05


Post by: Tannhauser42


Even after awhile the "sent items" folder will get full and you either have to delete stuff or move them to an archive. At least, that's how it works in my little corner of the government, and our system doesn't automatically archive stuff when the mailbox gets full; you just lose the ability to send or receive until you clean some of the crap out.

EDIT:
Also, Trump has signed the pledge to remain loyal to whomever the GOP nominates.

Somehow, though, I bet if the nominee is someone he doesn't like, he'll make some excuse and still try to run anyway.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/04 02:22:18


Post by: LordofHats


Also arguably the nail in his campaign. He will continue to make noise, but is a back door admission by Trump and the Party that he is not going to be the nominee.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/04 02:31:27


Post by: whembly


 LordofHats wrote:
Also arguably the nail in his campaign. He will continue to make noise, but is a back door admission by Trump and the Party that he is not going to be the nominee.

How do you figure?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/04 02:44:18


Post by: sebster


 LordofHats wrote:
Also arguably the nail in his campaign. He will continue to make noise, but is a back door admission by Trump and the Party that he is not going to be the nominee.


Is it possibly a strategy to appeal to more than just his current group of Republicans? To see if he can actually expand his voting group enough to actually win?

When he originally said that he might run even without the Republican nomination was basically ‘I do what I want’, and worked great with the disaffected and oddballs. But now he probably figures he’s got that group all sewn up, but they aren't enough to actually win the nomination. That same ploy didn't work so well with more loyal conservatives, so now he’s throwing that second group a bone, to see what happens. He should keep the disaffected, and if he can somehow win over enough of the rest, well...


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/04 02:46:00


Post by: Ouze


Yeah, I don't at all see it as him giving up. Why should he? The competition sucks.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/04 03:09:33


Post by: LordofHats


 Ouze wrote:
Yeah, I don't at all see it as him giving up. Why should he? The competition sucks.


Because the powers that be in the RNC will never back Trump and however dumb I think Trump is, he has to know that.

I would that this as little more than the quiet understanding between Trump and the RNC that Trump can make all the noise he wants but both acknowledging that he will not be on the Republican ticket.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/04 03:16:29


Post by: Co'tor Shas


The real question is, what would happen if he won the popular vote in the primary, but didn't get the nomination. There would be a shitstorm the likes of which would never been shat before. That would probably doom the R's presidential hopes more than him being the nominee. I'm sure a lot of his supporters would try a write in, and he might even go third party, he'd probably be pissed beyond all rekoning.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/04 03:21:06


Post by: LordofHats


I think that if he won tthe popular vote he would be nominee (the RNC wouldn't have much choice), but I don't think he's going to get the popular vote at the primary, nor does the RNC. Another way to take this is that the RNC has acknowledged Trump has drawn a lot of attention. Enough to consider him a significant threat where he to run third party when they don't pick him.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/04 03:26:10


Post by: Co'tor Shas


Meh, I think he has a chance, especially if none of the less popular ones drop out, pulling the vote away from the real competitors. Not a big chance mind you, but a chance nevertheless.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/04 04:40:30


Post by: sebster


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Meh, I think he has a chance, especially if none of the less popular ones drop out, pulling the vote away from the real competitors. Not a big chance mind you, but a chance nevertheless.


I think if it gets to the pointy end and a lot of the more sensible* candidates are pulling votes away from each other, allowing Trump to still lead, then deals will quickly be done to make sure there's only one real candidate running against Trump.




*Well, less crazy.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/04 19:25:43


Post by: whembly


HRC "sorry/not-sorry" for Emailgate:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-sorry-email-controversy-n421851
In an exclusive interview with NBC News/MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Friday, Hillary Clinton said she's "sorry" there's been so much controversy over her private email server, but declined to apologize for the decision to use it. She also suggested that GOP front-runner Donald Trump is unqualified to be president and weighed in on the surprisingly robust challenge to her candidacy from Democratic primary rival Bernie Sanders.

"At the end of the day, I am sorry that this has been confusing to people and has raised a lot of questions, but there are answers to all these questions," Clinton said of her email server after being pressed by Mitchell on whether she should apologize for the controversy that has dogged her campaign from the outset. "And I take responsibility and it wasn't the best choice."

It was just the third nationally televised interview for Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic 2016 front-runner, since announcing her campaign in April. Beset by flagging approval ratings, the Sanders challenge and the possibility that Vice President Joe Biden may enter the race, Clinton's interview with Mitchell appeared to be part of her campaign's latest effort to offer more access to the candidate.

Yet as her own campaign chairman John Podesta acknowledged in a conference call with reporters Thursday, Clinton's campaign has faced "headwinds" since March, when her private email server was first revealed. Her poll numbers have fallen as the number of people who consider her untrustworthy has risen.

"Certainly, it doesn't make me feel good," Clinton said when asked by Mitchell about those who find her dishonest. "But I am very confident that by the time this campaign has run its course, people will know that what I have been saying is accurate."

After laughing off questions about her server for months, Clinton has begun to strike a more contrite tone.

She explained that she had used a personal email account as a senator from New York and didn't spend much time considering alternatives when she became secretary of state in 2009. "I did all my business on my personal email [in the Senate]," Clinton said. "I was not thinking a lot when I got in [to the State Department]. There was so much work to be done. We had so many problems around the world. I didn't really stop and think what kind of email system will there be."

"This was fully above board, people knew I was using a personal email, I did it for convenience. I sent emails that I thought were work related to people's dot gov accounts," she added.

Asked by Mitchell about Trump's attacks on longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin, Clinton said the Republican's candidacy is "a bad development for our American political system" and that his bravado could have dangerous repercussions if he became president.

"Loose talk, threats, insults -- they have consequences," she said. "The president of the United States needs to be careful about what he or she says.

She went to say that Trump is "great at innuendo and conspiracy theories and really defaming people."

"He is the candidate of being against," she continued.

Trump and fellow Republican candidate Ted Cruz will hold a rally opposing President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran next week at the same time Clinton will be defending it in a speech in Washington. Asked about that, Clinton suggested that Trump and Cruz "don't believe in diplomacy" and said Americans want a president who does.

Clinton planned to deliver remarks on the Iran deal next week in Washington. "It is by no means perfect, but it's an important step," Clinton told Mitchell, adding that Iran "can never, ever have a nuclear weapon."

The Democratic front-runner has avoided getting into tangles with her primary opponents, and refused to weigh in on the political ramifications of Vice President Joe Biden's potential decision to the enter race.

But asked about why voters find Biden and challenger Bernie Sanders more authentic than Clinton, the former secretary of state seemed to take subtle dig at Sanders. "I started out listening because I think you can come with your own ideas and you can wave your arms and give a speech, but at the end of the day, are you connecting with and really hearing?" she said.

Aides have promised that Clinton in the coming weeks would take on a greater focus on women and stress her own role as a potential woman president. She appeared to make good on that promise with Mitchell, saying her candidacy was part of an career-long commitment to help women and girls around the world.

"My running for president is a way of sending a message -- we have an opportunity to lift up everyone," Clinton said.


Soooo... do we really want a president who admits that she “was not thinking a lot” about the national security implications of her email conduct as SoS??


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/04 20:48:09


Post by: Jihadin


Was she using the government version of Outlook?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/04 20:49:14


Post by: angelofvengeance


What's the likelihood of you guys having Donald Trump for president?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/04 22:21:44


Post by: whembly


 angelofvengeance wrote:
What's the likelihood of you guys having Donald Trump for president?

Not very... keep in mind that it's still waaaay early in the process.

At about this time in 2008... HRC & Guiliani was leading a bunch in their respective primaries.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/04 23:57:39


Post by: Tannhauser42


 whembly wrote:

Soooo... do we really want a president who admits that she “was not thinking a lot” about the national security implications of her email conduct as SoS??


Certainly, the answer is no. Sadly, however, in things like that she's no different than many of the politicians in Washington over the age of 50. They're just not a part of the I.T. generation.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/05 00:06:50


Post by: Psienesis


 whembly wrote:


Soooo... do we really want a president who admits that she “was not thinking a lot” about the national security implications of her email conduct as SoS??


No one seemed to give a feth when it was Rove & Bush's cabinet doing much the same thing.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/05 01:32:48


Post by: Ouze


Nah, people cared then too. *I* care about this issue, even though I downplay the issue because I don't think it's going to impact the election. I give Whembly gak about it because I think it's clear he's going to post about it every 12 hours between now and November 3rd, but I'm only poking fun at his single mindedness, and in that his interest in good governance appears - at least to me - motivated solely by how useful a cudgel it is to use against a Democratic front-runner. However I agree this needs to be investigated.

Whether or not classified information was transmitted or not, using personal email as an end-run around the Freedom of Information act is pretty dirty pool, whether it's Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, or any of the many, many other politicians who played hide-the-emails. It sucks and it needs to be treated seriously.



The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/05 02:07:57


Post by: Tannhauser42


I do wonder how many members of Congress are secretly squeezing cheeks hoping they don't get caught for the same thing. With as many emails as they must send, and as much information as they deal with, I'm sure that every one of them has, at some time, used their personal phone, computer, whatever to send/receive something they shouldn't have.

I'm not justifying HRC's extensive use of personal equipment, I'm just thinking out loud here about just how often these little slips happen.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/05 02:29:14


Post by: Grey Templar


While I'm sure there have been a lot of minor slip ups, I doubt any of them have done anything approaching this magnitude.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/05 02:47:31


Post by: Ouze


Community has forever ruined the word "magnitude" for me.

Pop-pop!


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/05 04:00:45


Post by: whembly


 Ouze wrote:
Nah, people cared then too. *I* care about this issue, even though I downplay the issue because I don't think it's going to impact the election. I give Whembly gak about it because I think it's clear he's going to post about it every 12 hours between now and November 3rd, but I'm only poking fun at his single mindedness, and in that his interest in good governance appears - at least to me - motivated solely by how useful a cudgel it is to use against a Democratic front-runner. However I agree this needs to be investigated.

Whether or not classified information was transmitted or not, using personal email as an end-run around the Freedom of Information act is pretty dirty pool, whether it's Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, or any of the many, many other politicians who played hide-the-emails. It sucks and it needs to be treated seriously.


Remember this day... because I'll surprise you if a Republican President starts pulling the same gak that Obama does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I do wonder how many members of Congress are secretly squeezing cheeks hoping they don't get caught for the same thing. With as many emails as they must send, and as much information as they deal with, I'm sure that every one of them has, at some time, used their personal phone, computer, whatever to send/receive something they shouldn't have.

It's NORMAL s.o.p. for Congressional Critters to have their own servers.

Remember, they're NOT supposed to use the .gov accounts while "campaigning" and furthermore, FIOA laws largely excludes Congress because it's only a "deliberative" body... not a government agency that enforces the law.

I'm not justifying HRC's extensive use of personal equipment, I'm just thinking out loud here about just how often these little slips happen.


Let's play "what ifs"... bear with me.


WHAT IF - - that the emails that HRC deleted were truly about her daughter's wedding, or her yoga stuff, or even some fetish pr0n?? Such that, there's no incriminating evidences of quid pro quo for her foundation's benefit...

Don't you think she'd release them by now? Like... here... it's fething embarrasing... but, FETHING HERE and you stupid Right-wingers are really being unreasonable.

Don't you think that HRC would gain more sympathy and, gasp, possible admiration had she released "everything"?

Yet... at the end of the day... she had her peeps try to delete an unknown amount of emails...


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/05 04:37:20


Post by: Gordon Shumway


I think what bothers me the most about her and all of this is her seemingly complete surprise and utter bewilderment that anybody would care. I'm not sure if it says something about her age (maybe she really doesn't understand the digital age, which is scary considering emails are pretty rudimentary and they aren't ephemeral like the trusty corded telephone). My mom is about her age and while her job was nothing like the magnitude of Sec. Of State, she was the operating VP of the largest bank in my state. She really does not understand the interwebs at all. She just figured out how to send text messages. When I talk to my students, I always have to keep in mind how fast stuff changes as I age. I made a reference to "Smells like teen spirit" the other day, and only two people in a class of thirty were familiar with it. This is a class of predominately college Sophomores. I felt pretty ancient.

On the other hand, it might suggest something about the general culture in DC that she really didn't think it was all that big of a deal. Which is even more scary because it suggests that the problem is more widespread.

Finally, I guess it is possible she is just pretending like she is surprised to downplay it, but damn if that's the case, she is more talented than I give her credit for as the entire campaign seems to have not been prepared how to handle it at all.

@Whembly, it was my understanding that at this point she has released everything to the authorities. They are just taking their time sorting through it and trying to recover deleted files. I honestly think she would like them to be released as soon as possible to allow her to get on with the damage control instead of the drip, drip, drip of recurring news stories that keeps the issue fresh in voters minds. That said, if they really were just private messages about her family and whatnot, I would actually lose respect for her if she turned those over. Everybody, even public officials, have the right to a certain amount of privacy. That is something I would never surrender. Granted, they shouldn't have been intermingled with the job related emails.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/05 06:05:37


Post by: dogma


 whembly wrote:

Don't you think she'd release them by now? Like... here... it's fething embarrasing... but, FETHING HERE and you stupid Right-wingers are really being unreasonable.


No. The "You big, mean Republicans baited me into X." defense only worked for Bill because he was a popular, charismatic President, presiding over a strong economy. Hillary is none of those things. Anything in those emails is just GOP ammunition for later on (and not just regarding her), regardless of whether or not she is guilty of anything criminal.

 whembly wrote:

Don't you think that HRC would gain more sympathy and, gasp, possible admiration had she released "everything"?


No. She's far too polarizing as a public figure to generate any form of public sympathy from people that don't already feel that way.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I honestly think she would like them to be released as soon as possible to allow her to get on with the damage control instead of the drip, drip, drip of recurring news stories that keeps the issue fresh in voters minds.


Which, as Whembly is interested in what-ifs, brings into question the political leanings of the investigators.

What if the investigation has found no wrong-doing, and the investigators are instead trying to draw out the scandal?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/05 06:54:09


Post by: Ouze


Do you think they would do that? Just waste taxpayer dollars on a partisan witch-hunt?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/05 08:10:17


Post by: dogma


 Ouze wrote:
Do you think they would do that? Just waste taxpayer dollars on a partisan witch-hunt?


Of course not, defense and intelligence professionals have no bias...man!

Is that how the punctuation works, I'm not sure.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/05 15:34:38


Post by: whembly


So... uh... this just happened:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/252825-poll-trump-beats-hillary-head-to-head

Labor Day Look at the 2016 General Election For President: Every Democrat Trails Trump, Though Narrowly:
Spoiler:
In an election for President of the United States, today, Labor Day, business provocateur Donald Trump narrowly defeats Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Al Gore, in head-to-head matchups, according to nationwide polling conducted by SurveyUSA.

Today it's:

* Trump 45%, Clinton 40%. (There is a 20-point Gender Gap; Trump leads by 18 points among seniors.)
* Trump 44%, Sanders 40%. (Trump leads by 10 among independents and by 6 among moderates.)
* Trump 44%, Biden 42%. (Trump leads by 10 among the best educated; Biden leads by 17 among the least educated.)
* Trump 44%, Gore 41%. (Trump leads by 12 among men and by 18 among voters age 50+.)

Among a subset of registered voters who tell SurveyUSA that they pay "a lot" of attention to politics, the scale tilts to the right: Today it's:

* Trump 54%, Clinton 36%.
* Trump 53%, Sanders 39%.
* Trump 53%, Biden 37%.
* Trump 54%, Gore 36%.

Voters were asked whether they support for a given Democrat "enthusiastically," "with reservations," or, whether they are "holding their nose" voting for a particular candidate.

* 57% of Clinton voters say they are voting enthusiastically.
* 53% of Sanders voters say they are voting enthusiastically.
* 49% of Biden backers say they are voting enthusiastically.
* 45% of Gore voters say they are voting enthusiastically.

By contrast:

* 8% of Clinton supporters say they are holding their nose.
* 8% of Sanders voters say they are holding their nose.
* 9% of Biden voters say they are holding their nose.
* 12% of Gore voters say they are holding their nose.

Voters were asked, regardless of whether they were Democrats or Republicans, and regardless of whom they might vote for in a primary, who they thought would be the major party nominees. Today, Labor Day, voters handicap the primary contests this way:

* 44% say Clinton will be the Democratic Party nominee.
* 22% say Biden will be the nominee.
* 14% say Sanders will be the nominee.
* 3% say Gore.
* 9% say someone else.

* 30% say Trump will be the Republican party nominee.
* 20% say Jeb Bush will the the GOP nominee.
* 14% say Ben Carson will be the GOP nominee.
* 6% say Ted Cruz will be the nominee.
* 4% say Marco Rubio will be the nominee.
* 4% say John Kasich will be the nominee.
* 3% say Carly Fiorina will be the nominee.
* 2% say Scott Walker will be the nominee.

Cell-phone and home-phone respondents are included in this survey. SurveyUSA interviewed 1,000 USA adults 09/02/15 and 09/03/15. Of the adults, 900 were registered to vote. Of the registered voters, 58% (522) pay "a lot" of attention to politics. This survey was conducted using blended sample, mixed-mode. Respondents reachable on a home telephone (62% of registered voters) were interviewed on their home (landline) telephone in the recorded voice of a professional announcer. Respondents not reachable on a home telephone (38% of registered voters) were shown a question on their smartphone, tablet or other electronic device. Cell respondents, as is typically the case, vote more Democratic than do landline respondents. Among just the universe of cell-phone respondents, Clinton defeats Trump by 16 points; Sanders defeats Trump by 12 points; Biden defeats Trump by 17 points; and Gore defeats Trump by 17 points. The more cell-phone respondents a pollster includes in its "mix" of voters, the more Democratic the poll results will be.


Crap...


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/05 15:47:42


Post by: Tannhauser42


Meh, I don't put much faith in random telephone surveys of such small sample sizes. 1000 people would only be 20 in each state, and that assumes the survey tried to spread it out equally across the whole country.
Anyway, you know what I found to be the most interesting bit in that?

Cell respondents, as is typically the case, vote more Democratic than do landline respondents. Among just the universe of cell-phone respondents, Clinton defeats Trump by 16 points; Sanders defeats Trump by 12 points; Biden defeats Trump by 17 points; and Gore defeats Trump by 17 points. The more cell-phone respondents a pollster includes in its "mix" of voters, the more Democratic the poll results will be.


What does that suggest about party demographics?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/05 16:03:56


Post by: Grey Templar


1000 people is actually a plenty big sample size if its collected correctly. And they would not spread it across each state. The areas would be chosen based on demographics that are most representative of the entire country.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/05 16:16:30


Post by: Tannhauser42


1000 may be good enough for asking people if they prefer McDonalds or Burger King, but when it comes to something as complex as political opinions, I feel a sample size of 1000 is far too small.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/05 16:25:37


Post by: CptJake


Generally polling is a science and not a 'feelings' based endeavor.




The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/05 16:49:20


Post by: Tannhauser42


And yet, the results of any poll are based on the opinions or "feelings" of those being polled. Go figure.

Simply put, I do not trust the results of any single survey, especially one that freely admits its results can be skewed based on the type of phone used by the respondents.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/05 18:09:51


Post by: dogma


 Grey Templar wrote:
The areas would be chosen based on demographics that are most representative of the entire country.


Where in the methodology is that indicated?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/05 21:46:07


Post by: Ouze


Way, way too early to be concerned with general election matchup polls. To be clear, I'm speaking about actually being worried.

I mean it's fun to compare them and all so I'm not gaking on anyone who posts them, and I'm sure I have or at least will have posted them myself, but realistically, the election is a lifetime away. Look how fast things can go wrong! Herman Cain. 47%. Self-deportation. Not being sure about the number of houses you own. Almost every candidate is ultimately just a single scandal or serious verbal screwup from flaming out or at least seriously hurting their odds.

And there's always this season where it's "anyone but the front runner". Wasn't Santorum on top for a minute at one point in 2008 or 2012? Santorum, FFS.



The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/05 22:28:21


Post by: Grey Templar


 dogma wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
The areas would be chosen based on demographics that are most representative of the entire country.


Where in the methodology is that indicated?


I can't tell for sure if that is actually what they did. Just saying thats what a good poll would do. But from what I see I think they did an acceptable job of it.

For the benefit of those interested, here is the actual survey.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d950cadf-05ce-4148-a125-35c0cdab26c6

According to the info here, it did in fact include cell phone and other device respondents and was not only landline users.

Questions 5-7 aren't using the best phrasing, but at least they aren't terrible like a lot of poll questions tend to be.

Naturally you should never take just 1 poll as your sole indicator and always read the fine print.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/06 04:25:29


Post by: dogma


 Grey Templar wrote:

According to the info here, it did in fact include cell phone and other device respondents and was not only landline users.


But that doesn't mean the poll controlled for demographics.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/06 06:13:58


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


Can someone please explain the HRC email scandal? It really comes across like "old woman uses computer only way she knows how, draws hatred of haters". Isn't the use of personal email for business the norm for politicians?


I think we'd all be happier if she had just found a horny intern.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/06 07:02:52


Post by: Co'tor Shas


Essentially it comes down to the fact that she technically wasn't allowed to use a private server, and the fact that sensitive or secret information may have been sent to her, which is a security issue. That is then wrapped up in lots of partisan politics, with a buttload of stupidity. It's not really a super big issue to most of the US electorate, but if they can prove she broke the law, than something might come of it.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/06 08:25:04


Post by: Ouze


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Isn't the use of personal email for business the norm for politicians?


No - it isn't, and should not be, for several reasons. The first is because generally email is a public record and is subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. Those systems are owned by the people, and the work that is done on them is the people's work. They have a right to know what their elected officials are doing on their dime. Using the government-issued systems ensures that, at least theoretically, the messages are being properly archived in line with the required retention policies.

Several politicians have been caught doing the state's business on private email to evade FOIA requests. Unfortunately there are rarely any significant consequences for this, regardless of how outrageous it was.

One legitimate reason for a private email, however, is to segregate fundraising and political activities(which should not happen on state time) from state business.

In HRC's specific example, an additional wrinkle is that her role means it's likely she would come into contact with sensitive and secret information. A private system may not be as secure as an official government one. Keeping classified information on such a system may be a criminal act; people have been prosecuted for mishandling classified information (although some people have skated when they should not have). Thusfar, all of the information that was found on HRC's server that was classified was retroactive, as in nor classified at the time it was handled.


I think that is about that.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/06 13:57:39


Post by: Co'tor Shas


Although knowing the US government, I wouldn't be surprised if a private server was more secure.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/06 15:15:41


Post by: Jerram


Ouze has most of it right except one important clarifying point. Several of the emails including ones she wrote were classified at the moment they were written just not properly marked. Retroactive marking is not retroactive classification. Clinton's team is counting on peoples misunderstanding of that point. As a person with access to classified information she had a legal obligation to both properly mark emails and to notify the proper people about improperly marked emails (so damage could be mitigated). She failed at both.

Co'tor

It isn't just the server its the entire network that classified info gets passed over. To use a regular mail anlogy she sent something that should have been hand carried with a private courier through the post office.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/06 17:18:35


Post by: Jihadin


Think the first flag thrown was where the email originated first. CIA, NSA, DOD, FBI etc etc should make one pause at first and check the nature of the message before forwarding.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/06 22:49:43


Post by: Ouze


Jerram wrote:
Ouze has most of it right except one important clarifying point. Several of the emails including ones she wrote were classified at the moment they were written just not properly marked. Retroactive marking is not retroactive classification. Clinton's team is counting on peoples misunderstanding of that point. As a person with access to classified information she had a legal obligation to both properly mark emails and to notify the proper people about improperly marked emails (so damage could be mitigated). She failed at both.


I'll readily admit I haven't followed this story super closely so I definitely can't speak to that point, I tried to give a broad overview. If what you say is accurate it then wasn't a intentional omission.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/07 02:50:13


Post by: sebster


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I think what bothers me the most about her and all of this is her seemingly complete surprise and utter bewilderment that anybody would care. I'm not sure if it says something about her age (maybe she really doesn't understand the digital age, which is scary considering emails are pretty rudimentary and they aren't ephemeral like the trusty corded telephone).


I think her bewilderment is pretty much in line with standard Clinton procedure. Her and her husband see governance laws and regs as something to be bypassed or overcome, and when they're caught on this stuff they seem surprised, every single time, that anyone cares about that stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Tannhauser42 wrote:
What does that suggest about party demographics?


It suggests the Republican voters are generally older than Democrats. Which sounds bad, except that it's always been that way, because there's a trend for Democrat voters to move to the Republican party as they get older and more financially secure.

To be clear, the Republicans have serious demographic problems. But it isnt because their voters are old, it's because they're white and rural.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/07 16:12:41


Post by: Jihadin


<---is not Caucasian (White)


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/07 17:47:53


Post by: shasolenzabi


I myself am older, mixed cultural heritage (Caucasian-Seminole) and am pretty much in the Bernie camp all the way


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 13:33:37


Post by: whembly


The intelligence community doesn't want to this to go away...

Second Review Says Classified Information Was in Hillary Clinton’s Email.

TL;DR - - Both the CIA and NGA agrees with the two independent IG that the two emails (out of 40 reviewed) were Top Secret at birth.

This is big...

The Obama FBI / DoJ is in a bind of some sort. Their best bet may be enpanel a federal grand jury...



The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 13:52:23


Post by: Ouze


 whembly wrote:
The Obama FBI / DoJ is in a bind of some sort.


As opposed to the other FBI / DoJ?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 13:59:08


Post by: Frazzled


WWNDJD?

(What would Nixon's DoJ do? )


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 14:02:22


Post by: whembly


 Ouze wrote:
 whembly wrote:
The Obama FBI / DoJ is in a bind of some sort.


As opposed to the other FBI / DoJ?

Well... sure.

First and foremost... the FBI / DoJ historically really loathe to investigate political figures, especially during an election season (which is understandable).

Additionally, you're kidding yourself if party politics is absent at FBI / DoJ. Which is why Special Prosecutor is a thing.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 14:09:21


Post by: Tannhauser42





Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
The intelligence community doesn't want to this to go away...

Second Review Says Classified Information Was in Hillary Clinton’s Email.

TL;DR - - Both the CIA and NGA agrees with the two independent IG that the two emails (out of 40 reviewed) were Top Secret at birth.

This is big...

The Obama FBI / DoJ is in a bind of some sort. Their best bet may be enpanel a federal grand jury...



I'm sorry, maybe I missed it, but is there anything new here that we haven't already known for some time new?

And I see nothing in that article using the term "at birth".


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 14:12:24


Post by: whembly


Are you still buying into the red herring that HRC skates because it wasn't "marked"?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 14:42:33


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 whembly wrote:
Are you still buying into the red herring that HRC skates because it wasn't "marked"?


Is it possible that after the whole Benghazi fizzle, people just tend to assume anti-HRC/anti-Obama Administration investigations are partisan attacks full of crap hat go nowhere?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe that's what she's skating on.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 14:56:40


Post by: d-usa


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Are you still buying into the red herring that HRC skates because it wasn't "marked"?


Is it possible that after the whole Benghazi fizzle, people just tend to assume anti-HRC/anti-Obama Administration investigations are partisan attacks full of crap hat go nowhere?


It's probably a combination of a variety of things.

- People thinking "It's the anti-Hillary scandal of the month."
- People thinking it's "gotcha politics".
- People thinking "Republicans have had a hate-boner for anything Clinton since the 90s" and not paying much attention to it.
- People thinking "Maybe she did something bad, but the Republicans are making too big a deal out of it".
- People thinking "Maybe she did something bad, but it doesn't affect me/the economy/jobs/immigration/whatever."
- The continuing fact that you have to spend more than 30 seconds explaining to people why you think she broke the law and why they should care. A scandal needs to be fresh and you need to be able to hook people with a 10 second audio clip to get their attention if you want them to listen to your 5 minute presentation on what really happened.

I'm with Ouze on his analysis of the situation.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 15:05:18


Post by: dogma


 whembly wrote:
Are you still buying into the red herring that HRC skates because it wasn't "marked"?


I don't see how that's a red herring. High ranking officials have gotten away with similar violations on equally flimsy pretenses.

 whembly wrote:

Additionally, you're kidding yourself if party politics is absent at FBI / DoJ. Which is why Special Prosecutor is a thing.


Are you under the impression that special prosecutors are immune to partisan politics?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 15:29:19


Post by: whembly


 dogma wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Are you still buying into the red herring that HRC skates because it wasn't "marked"?


I don't see how that's a red herring. High ranking officials have gotten away with similar violations on equally flimsy pretenses.

Sure and even in some cases, totally got away with it:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422863/bill-clinton-pardon-classified-documents


 whembly wrote:

Additionally, you're kidding yourself if party politics is absent at FBI / DoJ. Which is why Special Prosecutor is a thing.


Are you under the impression that special prosecutors are immune to partisan politics?

Of course not and let's be real... it ain't happening again (if ever).


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 15:32:57


Post by: Tannhauser42


 whembly wrote:
Are you still buying into the red herring that HRC skates because it wasn't "marked"?


Do not misrepresent me, I have never "bought" such a thing. You, however, have still failed, after multiple attempts at explanation, to understand just what it is she can and should be in trouble for.

For the LAST TIME, she CANNOT be faulted for the simple act of receiving (regardless if it was sent to her by private email, post office, or folded up into a paper airplane and thrown in her general direction) classified material, correctly marked or not.

She CAN AND SHOULD be faulted for:
-Maintaining marked classified material on an unapproved system.
-Failing to recognize unmarked classified material as classified, assuming the content is what she would normally be able to recognize as such, and then falling to properly classify it herself.
-Failing to report spillage of classified material (if she knew it was classified, see above).
-Failing to take corrective action against those who improperly sent it to her and who failed to mark it.

That second one is the big one. While she can reasonably claim that she wouldn't know if, say, a random military report should be classified, as it doesn't fall within her direct knowledge, she damn well should recognize when diplomatic assessments and such should be classified, as that falls directly within her duties.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 15:52:19


Post by: Jerram


You left out the most important one, writing a classified email on an unclassified system and not properly marking it ie originating the spillage.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/01/breaking-hillary-intentionally-originated-and-distributed-highly-classified-information/

Both points he uses to arrive at his conclusion are available pieces of info (policy and the redacted emails) which is why while yahoo and reuters and the guardian may have tried to spin in when they referenced his article but none could say he was wrong.




(Edit: Fixed Typo)


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 15:58:55


Post by: shasolenzabi


Odd double post


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 16:12:22


Post by: whembly


 Tannhauser42 wrote:

That second one is the big one. While she can reasonably claim that she wouldn't know if, say, a random military report should be classified, as it doesn't fall within her direct knowledge, she damn well should recognize when diplomatic assessments and such should be classified, as that falls directly within her duties.

I'm not trying to misrepresent you... but, my question stems from the "at birth" inquiry...

Again... according to Obama's EO in 2009, HRC and her staff should've known what to do.

Put it another way: It’s not sensitive because someone marked it... it’s sensitive because of what it is.

The real question is, those emails were supposedly marked from the sender - - who stripped the markings off in attempt to give cover to HRC and her staff?

Keep in mind that these sort of information are always "air-gapped", as the IC buzzwords goes.... meaning that, the conveyance of TS information is never accessible by public network/internets.

In other words... there is no way that any computer system should/could be connected to these types of data (ie, HRC's email server) and to the outside world. To do so is a major breach.

What hasn't been clarified is that someone had to have copied the information, onto a piece of paper or a transferable electronic media (ie, thumbdrive) and then copy it into an email in an uncontrolled system, which is how its likely got into HRC's email system. The person doing it had to know that it’s coming from a secure system, and has to know how sensitive the data really is. That's why the Intelligence Community got their hackles up on this...

It has to be done on purpose, and it has to be done knowingly. There has to have been conscious intent to do it. So, the questions naturally morphs into:
Who Dun It??

And to your point, HRC and her staff are trained to recognize this and should've reported the "spillage".

So, to recap:
-HRC went out of her way to conduct State's business on unsecured email system
-HRC own emails were TS from birth by virtue of Obama's EO
-Those emails were very LIKELY to have been marked appropriately anyways (sat image from NGA)... so, who removed the classification markings (a felony by itself)
-Rather than to turn over the server, HRC staff deleted about 30k messages and [u]went out of their way to print out[/u] the remaining 30k as they deemed as "states business". Electronic email metadata is lost by doing so.
-The State's admin who setup her email server is pleading the 5th in future congressional hearings

But, everyone is acting like:


So, any attempt to spin this as some sort of Vast Right Wing Conspiracy against the Clintons is going to meet my massive eye rollings...


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 18:06:30


Post by: dogma


 whembly wrote:
-HRC own emails were TS from birth by virtue of Obama's EO


Is that something you know because you read the EO and can point to the sections which specify as much, or is it a talking point you're repeating? Because from a very quick perusal of the EO you cited I'm not seeing any indication that Hillary's emails would necessarily be classified at all, let alone classified Top Secret.

 whembly wrote:

So, any attempt to spin this as some sort of Vast Right Wing Conspiracy against the Clintons is going to meet my massive eye rollings...


Who is trying to do that? Certainly no one in this thread.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 18:55:51


Post by: Jerram


 dogma wrote:
 whembly wrote:
-HRC own emails were TS from birth by virtue of Obama's EO


Is that something you know because you read the EO and can point to the sections which specify as much, or is it a talking point you're repeating? Because from a very quick perusal of the EO you cited I'm not seeing any indication that Hillary's emails would necessarily be classified at all, let alone classified Top Secret.



Based on the redacted emails, the professionals disagree with you. Specifically 1.4 B and 1.4 D in the handful of redacted emails I've seen. In order to have an informed opinion as to whether the professionals are correct you would need to have seen the unredacted versions, surely you're not claiming you've done that are you ?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 19:28:34


Post by: d-usa


Trump was never captured, so he has that going for him.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 19:29:09


Post by: whembly


Heh... another Trump gaff...

*shrugs*

Not going to hurt him though.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 19:29:42


Post by: Grey Templar


Please tell me Duffleblog is similar to the Onion



The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 19:31:28


Post by: Frazzled


 d-usa wrote:
Trump was never captured, so he has that going for him.


This makes his hair the most heroic hair ever.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 19:37:43


Post by: BrotherGecko


 Grey Templar wrote:
Please tell me Duffleblog is similar to the Onion



Thankfully yes it is.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 19:38:45


Post by: whembly


Heh... would this work?
Spoiler:


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 19:41:01


Post by: Grey Templar


Yes, all of my yes


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 19:50:43


Post by: BrotherGecko


Hahaha, it gives the slightest impression of, "get off my lawn."


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 22:36:14


Post by: whembly


Oh my... what a trainwreck:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/08/hillary-clinton-apologizes-for-e-mail-system-i-take-responsibility/

Hillary Clinton apologizes for e-mail system: ‘I take responsibility’

A day after again declining to apologize for her use of a private e-mail system while she was secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton told an interviewer Tuesday that the arrangement was a mistake and that she is "sorry" for it.

"That was a mistake. I’m sorry about that. I take responsibility,” Clinton said in an interview with ABC News.

The statement was the furthest Clinton has gone in showing remorse for the arrangement, which mingled her work and personal communications and kept them outside the regular State Department e-mail system. The FBI is investigating whether the system, maintained on a privately owned computer server at Clinton's New York home, jeopardized classified information.

In interviews Friday with NBC and Monday with the Associated Press, Clinton had declined to apologize, even as she said the arrangement was a poor choice that she regrets. She told NBC interviewer Andrea Mitchell that she is sorry the issue is confusing for people, but insisted that she had done nothing wrong.

She would not apologize, she told the AP, because “what I did was allowed.”

Republican critics had begun to use the question of an apology against her, undermining the campaign's plan to address the complex e-mail issue more directly and with greater humility. Questions about the private system have contributed to Clinton's slide in the polls, with more people saying they do not trust her.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll this month found that 53 percent of Americans now see Clinton unfavorably. That rating rose by 8 percentage points since earlier in the summer, tipping the balance to a majority of Americans now seeing her in an unfavorable light.

Clinton turned over copies of roughly 30,000 e-mails at the State Department's request late last year, nearly two years after she left office. At the same time she directed that a slightly larger number of e-mails stored on the server be destroyed because she deemed them personal and not part of her government business. Initially she refused to turn over the server, but did so in August.

Clinton told ABC that she did not send or receive classified material on the account and said she is “trying to be as transparent as I possibly can.”

Portions of the ABC interview were set to air on the Tuesday evening newscast, and later on Nightline.


Great Hill... what's your orange jumpsuit size?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 22:37:38


Post by: Grey Templar


I know. This is pure gold for the investigators.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 22:46:44


Post by: Dreadclaw69


What is the full quote? I ask because I find it hard to believe that a politician of her level of experience would make such an utterly unqualified comment like that.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 22:46:49


Post by: whembly


/tinfoil hat on...

I think the Clinton camp is hearing some damning news from the FBI's investigation and is desperately trying to leverage a means to skate on this issue...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
What is the full quote? I ask because I find it hard to believe that a politician of her level of experience would make such an utterly unqualified comment like that.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-private-email-mistake-im/story?id=33608970

Full quote... I think:
Clinton said... wrote:“I do think I could have and should have done a better job answering questions earlier. I really didn’t perhaps appreciate the need to do that,” the democratic presidential candidate told Muir in an exclusive interview in New York City. "What I had done was allowed, it was above board. But in retrospect, as I look back at it now, even though it was allowed, I should have used two accounts. One for personal, one for work-related emails. That was a mistake. I’m sorry about that. I take responsibility.”


Still really, really bad...


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 22:51:25


Post by: Grey Templar


Especially since its clear much of what happened was definitely NOT allowed.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 23:05:44


Post by: whembly


To the "yeah but, other Secretary of State did this too!" crowd...

Colin Powell: I used two computers at State
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday he used two computers while leading the department, one for transmitting sensitive material and another for emailing “housekeeping stuff.”

“I had a secure State Department machine for secure material and I had a laptop that I could use for email. I would email relatives, friends, but I would also email in the department,” Powell explained on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“But it was mostly housekeeping stuff -- what’s the status of this paper, what’s going on here.”

Powell, a Republican who served in the George W. Bush administration, has spoken before about his two computers, and said he wrote an entire chapter about it in his book.

But questions about Powell’s private email setup came as another former secretary of State, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, has struggled to answer questions about why she used a private email account while conducting official business.

Powell wouldn’t say whether it was inappropriate for Clinton to be sending work emails -- some of which were later determined to contain classified information -- from a private account. He noted that the State inspector general and FBI are looking into the matter, and that Clinton and her top aides are testifying before Congress.

“It’s best for me to talk about what I know and not what occurred under Secretary Clinton’s jurisdiction,” Powell said.


You see? It's not that hard to do this...

And that last 2 sentence... this man should be running for President. What he said is pretty damning to HRC... and yet, he's letting the process play itself out without jumping into the pot.



The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 23:40:10


Post by: Grey Templar


I'm kinda surprised there isn't a permanent computer network for each of the various cabinet positions.

Seems like with each change it should be "Here's the password for the official X-position business computer and affiliated network"


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 23:41:04


Post by: Gordon Shumway


And yet, that is exactly what you have been doing the last two months Whembly. Never run for office, you can't help yourself with " jumping into the pot". My dog once jumped into the pot...it was not pretty.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/08 23:56:22


Post by: whembly


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
And yet, that is exactly what you have been doing the last two months Whembly. Never run for office, you can't help yourself with " jumping into the pot". My dog once jumped into the pot...it was not pretty.

Hey... as the original author to these "political junkie" threads... it's sorta my hobby.

As a US citizen of this great nation, it is my solemn duty for me to "spread the good word" on how The Clinton's give politicians a bad name.

And there's no way in Nurgle's playground that I'm ever running for office.

No. FETHING. Way.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 00:12:29


Post by: Gordon Shumway


So that's a yes?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 00:16:46


Post by: CptJake


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
And yet, that is exactly what you have been doing the last two months Whembly. Never run for office, you can't help yourself with " jumping into the pot". My dog once jumped into the pot...it was not pretty.


We took Tank, our adopted English Bulldog, out kayaking on the river for the first time yesterday. Big dummy bent over to try to drink the river and his big noggin pulled him over and he fell in. Bulldogs don't swim well. It also was not pretty. Thankfully he had a leash on.






The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 00:23:35


Post by: Grey Templar


 CptJake wrote:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
And yet, that is exactly what you have been doing the last two months Whembly. Never run for office, you can't help yourself with " jumping into the pot". My dog once jumped into the pot...it was not pretty.


We took Tank, our adopted English Bulldog, out kayaking on the river for the first time yesterday. Big dummy bent over to try to drink the river and his big noggin pulled him over and he fell in. Bulldogs don't swim well. It also was not pretty. Thankfully he had a leash on.



Even the Rock will get wet to save his pets

https://celebrity.yahoo.com/news/dwayne-johnson-saves-puppy-012528761.html


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 00:40:20


Post by: CptJake


I graduated from Miami the year The Rock started playing for us.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 01:07:08


Post by: Jerram


 Grey Templar wrote:
I'm kinda surprised there isn't a permanent computer network for each of the various cabinet positions.

Seems like with each change it should be "Here's the password for the official X-position business computer and affiliated network"



You mean @state.gov, like some of the email addresses in the redacted emails linked above ? So while I cant speak for all the cabinet departments, I'm sure state like defense had an IT dept ready to bend over backboard to set her up with whatever she wanted on that network. Heck knowing how govt bureaucracies work it wouldn't surprise me if she didn't have an official email she just chose to never use.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 01:47:35


Post by: whembly


Jebus she's changing her tune again... on the Ellen Show earlier:
She's flipping from “I’m sorry” to “I’m sorry you guys are so confused”...

Onset dementia?

Here is Clinton's full answer on emails to @TheEllenShow. pic.twitter.com/MxoFiqVSOc


Dan Merica (@danmericaCNN) September 8, 2015



The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 03:03:50


Post by: Ouze


I'm not a big Hillary fan but if she does win, I'll be 20% happy because I support her political views and 80% happy because of what it will do to this thread.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 03:11:59


Post by: whembly


 Ouze wrote:
I'm not a big Hillary fan but if she does win, I'll be 20% happy because I support her political views and 80% happy because of what it will do to this thread.

I still think that'll likely happen...


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2040/05/09 04:06:41


Post by: sebster


 Jihadin wrote:
<---is not Caucasian (White)


I will never, ever understand this weird thing so many internet posters have with pointing out they don't fit the general descriptor.

It just... I mean, yeah, if anyone on Earth thought that every single Republican voters was white, then the existence of a single non-white voter would totally change the opinions of those fictional people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 d-usa wrote:
It's probably a combination of a variety of things.


And, as I've said a bunch of times, if you have to write an essay to explain what she's done, and at the end of that people ask 'is that bad?' then it's pretty unlikely you'll get much outrage out of the general public, except those people who really want to be outraged about this.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 09:40:23


Post by: shasolenzabi


She finally apologizes after she dropped behind Bernie in the NH and Iowa polls, Hmmmmm.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 09:56:31


Post by: dogma


Jerram wrote:

Based on the redacted emails, the professionals disagree with you. Specifically 1.4 B and 1.4 D in the handful of redacted emails I've seen.


Certainly some of her emails could be classified, possibly even Top Secret, but not all of them; meaning they would not necessarily be classified at all. Whembly made it seem as though Clinton's emails would be classified Top Secret by virtue of being Clinton's emails, which the EO does not seem to support.

Jerram wrote:

In order to have an informed opinion as to whether the professionals are correct you would need to have seen the unredacted versions, surely you're not claiming you've done that are you ?


No, and you have no reason to suppose that I am. But then I also have no reason to defer to the professionals in this matter either. The only position I can reasonably take is one of relative indifference, as I do not have enough information to form a complete opinion on the entirety of situation.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 11:10:48


Post by: Gordon Shumway


Oh but based upon the rumors, conjecture and smoke floating around out there, surely you can form a well reasoned opinion, right? This is the Internet, after all.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 12:42:46


Post by: Co'tor Shas


I guess it's time for Biden 2016!

Oh, the fun we shall have.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 12:46:21


Post by: Frazzled


 Grey Templar wrote:
I'm kinda surprised there isn't a permanent computer network for each of the various cabinet positions.

Seems like with each change it should be "Here's the password for the official X-position business computer and affiliated network"


Indeed.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 14:12:01


Post by: whembly


So... the next Republican debate on CNN next week.

I'm going to predict that Trump will finally be overtaken by either Carson or Fiorina.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 14:21:18


Post by: Ouze


I think Trump is going to go all the way.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 14:24:19


Post by: d-usa


 Ouze wrote:
I think Trump is going to go all the way.


He's had a trump card up his sleeve, I'm sure of it.



The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 14:25:57


Post by: whembly


 Ouze wrote:
I think Trump is going to go all the way.

To the White House?

No.Freaking.Way.

Hillary beats him to a pulp in a likely landslide.

EDIT: heh... good find d. Is there one for Hillary?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 14:30:27


Post by: Ouze


No, not to the White House. No way.

My guess is he goes to the primary, the establishment finds a way to screw him out of the nomination his polling numbers warrant, and then he runs as an independent.

That, or he flames out in some spectacular fashion beforehand. But I think that's unlikely, as he's run for president several times and if he was, like, flying to Thailand for a thing, it would have been exposed by now.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 14:31:00


Post by: Co'tor Shas


That would be an interesting faceoff though. The bombastic idiot and the compulsive liar.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 14:51:30


Post by: whembly


This caught my eye:
Senate Republicans want immunity for Clinton's former IT staffer

Two Senate chairmen want to give immunity to Hillary Clinton’s former top IT staffer, who’s planning to invoke his Fifth Amendment right not to answer incriminating questions from congressional investigators.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Homeland Security and Government Affairs Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) hope an immunity agreement would allow Bryan Pagliano to testify about the former secretary of state's unusual email server setup. They sent a letter to Pagliano and his lawyer this week asking him to “make yourself available to provide information.”

The committees need "the unique information you likely have in order to exercise their oversight functions under the Constitution, which are unrelated to any potential prosecution or criminal inquiry,” the joint letter says. “Thus, the committees have the authority to obtain an immunity order, to acquire the information they need, while also protecting your right against self-incrimination.”

The two senators also asked Pagliano’s attorney to “meet with the committees' staff to explore how to obtain the unique information you possess while respecting your constitutional rights, such as the possibility of a proffer session so that we can better understand what your testimony would be without any waiver of your rights.”

The 2008 Clinton campaign staffer, who followed Clinton to the State Department to oversee the special server, said through his lawyers that he would assert his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself when subpoenaed by the House Benghazi Committee. He’s refusing to answer the committee’s and FBI’s questions about what he knew of the technology.

But immunity could change all that and make it easier for him to answer the panels' questions. But it would also prevent any federal charges related to the email matter from being brought against him the future.

That’s what happened in the case of staffers involved in the Iran-Contra affair. Judges dropped charges against Oliver North, a key figure who opened up about the weapons scandal, because he had testified before Congress under immunity. When the Justice Department brought charges against him, officials were unable to prove that they did not use any of his testimony to make their case.

Since then, Congress has been leery of giving immunity to just anybody.

But both chairmen seem to think it would be worth the offer.

“My job is to get information,” was all Grassley would say to POLITICO when asked about the matter.

“I think it’s appropriate that we have those discussions” about immunity, Johnson said in a short interview off the Senate floor Tuesday evening. “He has information that we need to have, partly because of the national security implications of Secretary Clinton’s actions.”


What I didn't know, and I think this is extrodinary, that even if Pagliano refuses to cooperate... immunity can still be granted. Which would actually negate Pagliano’s use of the 5thamendment. Evidently, if a person is no longer at risk of self-incrimination, then he must testify fully when under subpoena. Refusal to testify can bring a contempt charge.

After that, the trick would be to get the DoJ to cooperate...


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 14:53:53


Post by: Grey Templar


Interesting. So if you are given immunity you can be forced to testify and you cannot refuse either the immunity or the requirement to testify.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 15:02:47


Post by: Frazzled


 Grey Templar wrote:
Interesting. So if you are given immunity you can be forced to testify and you cannot refuse either the immunity or the requirement to testify.


Correct.

I think Trump's hair will win the debate and decide its the best hair ever and will run without him, therefor leading to a brokered convention between Trump supporters and Trump's hair supporters.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 15:09:38


Post by: Ouze


 Grey Templar wrote:
Interesting. So if you are given immunity you can be forced to testify and you cannot refuse either the immunity or the requirement to testify.


It depends on what type of testimony, but yes. If you still refuse you can be found in contempt and jailed.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 15:18:44


Post by: whembly


 Ouze wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Interesting. So if you are given immunity you can be forced to testify and you cannot refuse either the immunity or the requirement to testify.


It depends on what type of testimony, but yes. If you still refuse you can be found in contempt and jailed.

Well... that's no bite. (ex AG Holder was held in contempt over Fast & Furious).

:shrugs:

I just thought that you "had to accept the immunity deal" in order for that to work. Meaning that if you don't what to play ball, you just don't accept the immunity deal and maintain your 5th.

Not... *shoves legal document* "Here... you now have Immunity... NOW TALK!".


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 15:22:10


Post by: Ouze


 whembly wrote:
Not... *shoves legal document* "Here... you now have Immunity... NOW TALK!".


Pretty much, yeah.



The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 15:22:57


Post by: Grey Templar


I wonder if the HC campaign just shat their pants a little.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 15:25:47


Post by: whembly


 Ouze wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Not... *shoves legal document* "Here... you now have Immunity... NOW TALK!".


Pretty much, yeah.


Well damn... that's interesting.

I wonder how often this is done in high profile cases. (Oliver North is one famous one).

I guess it's not often employed due to the fact that... it's a guessing game. No one wants to give Immunity to a monster, nor waste it on a trivial matter. However, in this case, it might be worthwhile.

Furthermore, has it been truly considered for Lois Lerner over the IRS controversy?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:
I wonder if the HC campaign just shat their pants a little.

I think she sharted already:


I swear, that gif and stills will be gold for a long time.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 18:45:47


Post by: Easy E


I was at our MN state fair and was amazed at the number of Bernie items at the "Official" Dems booth. I thought it would be all Hilary and Bernie would have a token section. I was wrong.

I looked for the Repub booth to see the amount of Trump stuff but did not find it. I did find the Independence and Constitution party booths too. FYI.

Point? I don't have one.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 19:44:09


Post by: whembly


 Easy E wrote:
I was at our MN state fair and was amazed at the number of Bernie items at the "Official" Dems booth. I thought it would be all Hilary and Bernie would have a token section. I was wrong.

I looked for the Repub booth to see the amount of Trump stuff but did not find it. I did find the Independence and Constitution party booths too. FYI.

Point? I don't have one.


Feel.The.Bern.

In other news... as much as I don't like Trump... he's an equal opportunity Trollmaster:
Just announced that because of "Trump", advertising rates for debate on @CNN are going from $5000 to $200,000, a 4000% increase.PAY CHARITY?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2015


He's poking everyone's eyes here...


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 22:04:36


Post by: BrotherGecko


He will only achieve 'master' level if he wins the presidency and turns into a bleeding heart save the whales liberal.

Then and only then.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015000/09/09 22:26:22


Post by: CptJake


You guys see where John McAfee is running for Pres?

http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/08/news/john-mcafee-for-president/index.html


John McAfee, the antivirus software magnate who fled Belize after police tried to question him for murder, confirmed to CNNMoney that he plans to run for President in 2016 and that he'd created his own party -- the Cyber Party.


More at the link. Seems to be big on the privacy issue.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 23:38:21


Post by: LordofHats


Yeah. let's elect the guy who can't even make a decent anti-virus software to run privacy for the whole country. That'll end well. I can see it now;

"Mr. president, we think we've finally solved all our internet security issues. We are now secure against Russian, iranian, and Chinese cyber-attacks."

"Are you sure Mr. Defense Secretary? We should test it. Make sure it's safe. Send a copy of all our security protocols to the Chinese. If anyone can find a way through, it's them."

"..."


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/09 23:59:16


Post by: whembly


This is enlightening...

Hillary’s Sources, Methods, and Lies
I’ve been doing my best to explain the complex intelligence realities behind Hillary Clinton’s on-going #EmailGate scandal for months now, and we’re still far from the end of this messy saga.

Hillary’s take on what happened with her State Department “unclassified” email and her “private” server has see-sawed with the customary Clintonian lawyerly evasions, untruths, and now something approaching half-truths.

First it was: everything done was legal and acceptable.

Then came: mistakes were perhaps made, but not by me, and I’m not apologizing.

Followed by: the inevitable Clintonian sorry-not-sorry.

Now, having seen her polls dropping in rock-like fashion, we’re at: I’m kinda sorry but still nothing I emailed was “marked” classified.

The last is a particularly dishonest evasion, given that the Intelligence Community has twice determined that in fact TOPSECRET//SCI information was included in Hillary’s “private” email on at least two occasions. Given that’s from a sample of just forty emails, out of the 30,000 she has handed over to investigators (to say nothing of the 30,000 more that Hillary deleted), the mind boggles at how many actually classified (if unmarked) emails Hillary and her Foggy Bottom staff put on her personal server. As I’ve recently explained, this is a complex counterintelligence investigation that will last for months yet.

The core of this debate is what makes information classified in the U.S. Government. Much of what’s marked — and it’s always marked — classified relates to policy matters and is customarily classified at the CONFIDENTIAL or SECRET level. The vast majority of the information identified as actually classified in Hillary’s “unclassified” emails is in this group, with most being CONFIDENTIAL, the lowest level of classification.

Critics of secrecy (including some Hillary defenders) love to point out that the U.S. Government, the Pentagon especially, habitually overclassifies things. While this is a hoary Beltway cliché it contains more than a grain of truth, and anybody who’s spent time in our secret government and is honest will admit to having seen things that were marked classified, usually at low levels, that really didn’t need to be. Some of this is mere bureaucratic habit while some can be placed at the doorstep of those three most important letters in Washington, DC; C-Y-A.

That said, what Hillary and her staff seem to have compromised was mainly what the State Department terms Foreign Government Information and, when it involves high-level diplomatic conversations — say, discussions between a Secretary of State and a foreign counterpart — that sort of FGI is always considered classified at Foggy Bottom. Secrecy lies at the heart of international diplomacy and always has, and if Hillary planned to change that she really needed to inform the countless allies and friends abroad who confided in her with the expectation that their conversation would remain out of view of the public and foreign intelligence agencies — and not on Hillary’s unencrypted private email and server.

The most serious allegations facing Team Clinton, however, focus on the compromised intelligence. Exposing TOPSECRET information is a much more serious matter, legally and practically, than compromising less classified things. If, as now appears certain, Hillary and/or her staff placed such highly sensitive information, reported to deal with North Korean WMDs, in private unclassified email, that is something the FBI will be unable to ignore.

How the Intelligence Community classifies its information is opaque to outsiders yet needs clarification as such knotty issues occupy an important part of the #EmailGate story. I’ve previously elaborated in detail how intelligence analysis from multiple classified sources winds up on the desks of senior policymakers inside the Beltway, creating a complex picture.

How that information gets classified in the first place needs explanation. Most, though by no means all, of the Intelligence Community’s output consists of information that’s been purloined one way or the other. As I like to explain to outsiders, the business of any spy agency is learning things that they are not supposed to know. Which is really a nice way of saying the core work of every intelligence service is breaking the laws of foreign countries.

How classified any information is derives from a process termed intelligence sources and methods. This is so critical that it’s called “the heart of all intelligence operations” in Washington, DC. All this really means is that how intelligence has been obtained determines its classification level, not the information itself.

Since our Intelligence Community is a seventeen-agency behemoth with a lot of people churning out a lot of information — remember, they’re not stovepipes, they’re “cylinders of excellence” — sometimes the same information gets reported through different channels at very different levels of classification. This provides an ideal example of showing how sources and methods actually work.

Let’s say that Zendia’s top general officer, Abu Jackson, is deathly ill and may not have long to live. High-ranking people in Washington, DC, care about this because General Jackson is considered a friend of the United States and he has been cooperative regarding hush-hush joint counterterrorism operations in his country.

If his illness is revealed in local press, that will likely be picked up by our Embassy there and probably also by the CIA’s Open Source Center, which translates foreign media. Since this is open press, it’s considered UNCLASSIFIED (though the Embassy may put a Sensitive But Unclassified — SBU, or what the Pentagon calls For Official Use Only or FOUO — stamp on it as a formality). Of course, Zendian press is sensationalist and it’s good not to put much credence in such reports without independent corroboration.

However, if our defense attaché hears whispers that General Jackson is seriously ill through his or her channels, which really amounts to hall gossip inside the Zendian Ministry of Defense, that will be reported by the Defense Intelligence Agency at the CONFIDENTIAL level, SECRET at most.

Meanwhile, if a Central Intelligence Agency case officer learns from a cultivated and validated human source about General Jackson’s illness and possible impending death, that report will flow through Langley with a SECRET//NOFORN stamp on it (unless the Zendian asset is unusually well placed, in which case a TOPSECRET//NOFORN marking and even special compartments could apply).

Let’s say, that same day, the National Security Agency intercepts a phone call between a top Zendian officer, a senior staffer to General Jackson, who tells a counterpart in Dirtbagistan, on what both believe to be a secure line, that his boss is dying of cancer and has three or four months to live. That will be reported by NSA at the TOPSECRET//SCI level since it relies on that Agency’s ability to decipher encrypted Dirtbagistani defense communications, and it will be given a high level of credibility by U.S. decision-makers since it’s “horse’s mouth” testimony.

The salient point is that the essential information — that General Jackson is a seriously unwell man — is identical. How this information was obtained by our intelligence services, the relevant sources and methods, alone determine classification levels.

The fact of General Jackson’s grave illness came from several different sources:

— Foreign press reporting, termed Open Source Intelligence or OSINT;

— Low-level Human Intelligence or HUMINT from DIA;

— High-level HUMINT from CIA;

— High-grade Signals Intelligence or SIGINT from NSA.

This complexity also goes some way to explaining why the Intelligence Community is prone to overclassifying things, for instance labeling press reports that appear in U.S. Government correspondence — as has happened with #EmailGate — as classified. This sounds crazy to outsiders but is commonplace since these are comments by senior officials who are reading classified intelligence in addition to press accounts (insiders term these “reflections”).

The next time a member of the media or a Hillary advocate, few of whom possess any real understanding of intelligence matters, presents these issues brought forth by #EmailGate as simple or straightforward — or, alternately, so complicated that no mere mortal could be expected to understand classification — remember that in fact they are complex yet comprehensible. As I have explained here.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/10 01:40:18


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


 Ouze wrote:

My guess is he goes to the primary, the establishment finds a way to screw him out of the nomination his polling numbers warrant, and then he runs as an independent.



I honestly think that him running as an independent would be the best thing for anyone on the left side of the aisle running... Whether the nominee is Sanders or Clinton. The only real difference there is, if Sanders has the nomination, I'll vote; if Hillary does, I won't.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/10 03:30:16


Post by: sebster


 LordofHats wrote:
Yeah. let's elect the guy who can't even make a decent anti-virus software to run privacy for the whole country.


Forget whatever problems his software might have had, the guy is straight up crazy. As in moved to a South American country and maybe ran a meth lab, suspected of killing a guy, and fled back to the US.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/10 03:56:16


Post by: LordofHats


Oh I forgot about that XD


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/10 04:07:10


Post by: sebster


 LordofHats wrote:
Oh I forgot about that XD


Oh yes, all that murder and drug insanity...


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/10 11:55:33


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


Very slightly OT, but still relevant to this thread.

You may or may not now that the big news story in the UK is the death of 2 British citizens in Syria who were members of ISIL.

The two men were killed by a RAF drone attack. As a result, there is a massive debate about the legality of it under UK/international law.

Now, for the American angle. Obviously, the US has been doing this for a while, and I believe that a few US citizens have been killed by drone attacks.

What's the legality of this in the US? Has Congress or the Supreme court ruled on US citizens abroad being killed in this manner?

I'm curious to know.



The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/10 12:14:33


Post by: LordofHats


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


What's the legality of this in the US? Has Congress or the Supreme court ruled on US citizens abroad being killed in this manner?

I'm curious to know.



It's a... Hot topic. The famous case of a US Drone strike targeting a US citizen is that of Anwar al-Awlaki, and American Citizen who was a member of Al-Qaeda and was killed by a drone in 2011. There hasn't been much court law on the issue in part because it just hasn't come up much. Al-Awlaki's father attempted to sue in US courts to file an injunction against targeting his son with drone (we'd attempted and failed to drone strike him once or twice), but the court judge ruled that the father had no grounds to sue and that the issue of who to target in a drone strike was what is called in US law a "Political Question" (this means that it is a question involving powers directly granted by the Constitution to the political branches of government and that the Judicial Branch has no grounds on which to even hear the case let alone rule on it). I tend to see this case as the court passing the buck on the issue of Al-Awlaki.

The issue here is called "targeted killing" and it is a low boil hot topic issue. Extra-judicial killing is illegal in the US, but thus far no courts here have ruled against the Government's ability to target and kill persons using drones. Al-Awlaki himself, right or wrong, suffered the misfortune of very few people caring that the US government was trying to kill him. He was a terrorist, with evident ties to terrorist organizations and activities (several countries had already tried and convicted him in absentia of terrorism charges). I'd argue there's little to be drawn for the court's ruling on his case, as the reality is even the court didn't care enough about the guy to go looking for a fight with the executive branch over him.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/10 13:10:15


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 LordofHats wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


What's the legality of this in the US? Has Congress or the Supreme court ruled on US citizens abroad being killed in this manner?

I'm curious to know.



It's a... Hot topic. The famous case of a US Drone strike targeting a US citizen is that of Anwar al-Awlaki, and American Citizen who was a member of Al-Qaeda and was killed by a drone in 2011. There hasn't been much court law on the issue in part because it just hasn't come up much. Al-Awlaki's father attempted to sue in US courts to file an injunction against targeting his son with drone (we'd attempted and failed to drone strike him once or twice), but the court judge ruled that the father had no grounds to sue and that the issue of who to target in a drone strike was what is called in US law a "Political Question" (this means that it is a question involving powers directly granted by the Constitution to the political branches of government and that the Judicial Branch has no grounds on which to even hear the case let alone rule on it). I tend to see this case as the court passing the buck on the issue of Al-Awlaki.

The issue here is called "targeted killing" and it is a low boil hot topic issue. Extra-judicial killing is illegal in the US, but thus far no courts here have ruled against the Government's ability to target and kill persons using drones. Al-Awlaki himself, right or wrong, suffered the misfortune of very few people caring that the US government was trying to kill him. He was a terrorist, with evident ties to terrorist organizations and activities (several countries had already tried and convicted him in absentia of terrorism charges). I'd argue there's little to be drawn for the court's ruling on his case, as the reality is even the court didn't care enough about the guy to go looking for a fight with the executive branch over him.


I see, thanks. It's bound to happen again in the future, so I suppose that the courts may have to rule on it sooner or later.

From the top of my head, I'm pretty sure that article 3 section 3 of the constitution says that treason against the USA is dependent on the testimony of 2 witness and that the 8th amendment protects against cruel and unusual punishments, which I'm sure a drone attack qualifies as!

Like you say, I doubt if anybody cares about this, but I suppose a good lawyer could make a case out of it.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/10 13:23:26


Post by: whembly


No... there's plenty of us that really cares about the fact that this administration justifies the extrajudicial killings.

Its one thing targeting an American who's on the battlefield as our adversary... but, it's completely different than assassinating an American while he's having dinner.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/10 14:39:09


Post by: pities2004


 whembly wrote:
 Ouze wrote:
I'm not a big Hillary fan but if she does win, I'll be 20% happy because I support her political views and 80% happy because of what it will do to this thread.

I still think that'll likely happen...


I just watched Hillary whip and then I watched her Nae nae, shes so hip and cool.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/10 14:40:46


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 whembly wrote:
No... there's plenty of us that really cares about the fact that this administration justifies the extrajudicial killings.

Its one thing targeting an American who's on the battlefield as our adversary... but, it's completely different than assassinating an American while he's having dinner.


According to the Wikipedia page on the subject, technically, there is no provision for executive orders in the constitution. Every president since Washington has made it up as they went along

As for checks and balances, the SCOTUS has struck down a handful over the years (mostly in the 1930s) but these military strikes fall under the 72hrs war powers or something, so there's not a lot anybody can do about Obama's decision making on this.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/10 14:48:21


Post by: whembly


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 whembly wrote:
No... there's plenty of us that really cares about the fact that this administration justifies the extrajudicial killings.

Its one thing targeting an American who's on the battlefield as our adversary... but, it's completely different than assassinating an American while he's having dinner.


According to the Wikipedia page on the subject, technically, there is no provision for executive orders in the constitution. Every president since Washington has made it up as they went along

As for checks and balances, the SCOTUS has struck down a handful over the years (mostly in the 1930s) but these military strikes fall under the 72hrs war powers or something, so there's not a lot anybody can do about Obama's decision making on this.

What happened is that Obama's had his Attorney actually justifiy under existing laws... Ouze been really on this topic, he may be able to whip up some post in abit.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/10 15:26:12


Post by: Grey Templar


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 LordofHats wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


What's the legality of this in the US? Has Congress or the Supreme court ruled on US citizens abroad being killed in this manner?

I'm curious to know.



It's a... Hot topic. The famous case of a US Drone strike targeting a US citizen is that of Anwar al-Awlaki, and American Citizen who was a member of Al-Qaeda and was killed by a drone in 2011. There hasn't been much court law on the issue in part because it just hasn't come up much. Al-Awlaki's father attempted to sue in US courts to file an injunction against targeting his son with drone (we'd attempted and failed to drone strike him once or twice), but the court judge ruled that the father had no grounds to sue and that the issue of who to target in a drone strike was what is called in US law a "Political Question" (this means that it is a question involving powers directly granted by the Constitution to the political branches of government and that the Judicial Branch has no grounds on which to even hear the case let alone rule on it). I tend to see this case as the court passing the buck on the issue of Al-Awlaki.

The issue here is called "targeted killing" and it is a low boil hot topic issue. Extra-judicial killing is illegal in the US, but thus far no courts here have ruled against the Government's ability to target and kill persons using drones. Al-Awlaki himself, right or wrong, suffered the misfortune of very few people caring that the US government was trying to kill him. He was a terrorist, with evident ties to terrorist organizations and activities (several countries had already tried and convicted him in absentia of terrorism charges). I'd argue there's little to be drawn for the court's ruling on his case, as the reality is even the court didn't care enough about the guy to go looking for a fight with the executive branch over him.


I see, thanks. It's bound to happen again in the future, so I suppose that the courts may have to rule on it sooner or later.

From the top of my head, I'm pretty sure that article 3 section 3 of the constitution says that treason against the USA is dependent on the testimony of 2 witness and that the 8th amendment protects against cruel and unusual punishments, which I'm sure a drone attack qualifies as!

Like you say, I doubt if anybody cares about this, but I suppose a good lawyer could make a case out of it.


In the modern world, I don't think drones count as cruel and unusual. Really whats the difference between a drone and a sniper? And snipers have been around since the 18th century, the Revolutionaries were quite happy to snipe out officers and such.

Anyway, if you can absentee convict someone of terrorism it stands to reason you could absentee convict someone of treason. Seems like the evidence gathered showing his terrorism links would be sufficient.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/10 15:44:56


Post by: CptJake


Except the administration never attempted to 'absentee convict' them of anything...

Wether you are for or against capping those guys, the way the administration went about the justification/explanation really was poorly done. There were ways they could have made the case that their actions were tantamount to renouncing citizenship for example, and the admin could have worked with the congress critters to firm up that case.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/10 15:47:58


Post by: Ouze


I think that in general the premeditated killing of Americans overseas violates EO 12333's assassination ban, and the rights to due process. It well exceeds the AUMF that is claimed to be the basis for it.



The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/10 15:50:23


Post by: Grey Templar


Well yeah. He should have gone through the courts for sure.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/10 16:13:27


Post by: d-usa


 CptJake wrote:
Except the administration never attempted to 'absentee convict' them of anything...


Even one of those sham-trials you get in third world countries against guys that aren't even there would have been a vast improvement over the actual "we get to kill him because we said so and it's hard to go find him to actually capture him but if he doesn't like it he can always let us arrest him and fight his assassination in court" tactic that was used.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/10 19:21:22


Post by: Bran Dawri


Personally, I think that anyone who leaves a country to go fight for ISIS/L forfeits any rights and nationality they may have had beforehand and deserves to be shot/bombed/executed/dronestruck/ on sight just like you would a rabid dog.
(I disapprove of torture or killing them painfully though - I'm not vindictive.)

Still, some process should be in place where proof of their departure to join these nutjobs should be documented and registered. I do disapprove of dronestriking people (even traitors) without some proof to be presented (whether before or after the fact) that they are indeed traitors.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/10 19:24:19


Post by: Grey Templar


I think there should be some process.

Like submission of evidence to a special court who takes some time to review each case. If the target in question is collateral damage from another strike against a different target OR is killed in an engagement with our armed forces no further process is necessary.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/10 19:31:46


Post by: CptJake


 Grey Templar wrote:
I think there should be some process.

Like submission of evidence to a special court who takes some time to review each case. If the target in question is collateral damage from another strike against a different target OR is killed in an engagement with our armed forces no further process is necessary.


There may well be cases where the designated target is not known to be a US citizen, is capped, and subsequently found out to have been a US citizen. Very often these guys take up a nom-de-guerre and recently in some cases have began attempting to disguise/hide faces/voices to beat biometric ID. There will be other cases where a strike os ordered due to pattern analysis and the specific ID of the target(s) will not be known before the strike is executed.

Coming up with a workable policy/process does need to happen, but it needs to cover a lot of different contingencies and is not as cut and dried as it may initially appear.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/10 19:34:56


Post by: Grey Templar


Well yeah, in these situations you're not gonna be able to perfectly identify the target. Its definitely a messy situation, but if the person was clearly and obviously engaging in direct terrorist activities I'm not all that ripped up about it.

We could easily pass a law saying that any US citizen engaging in terrorist activities voluntarily forfeits their right to due process.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/10 19:46:10


Post by: Prestor Jon


 Grey Templar wrote:
Well yeah, in these situations you're not gonna be able to perfectly identify the target. Its definitely a messy situation, but if the person was clearly and obviously engaging in direct terrorist activities I'm not all that ripped up about it.

We could easily pass a law saying that any US citizen engaging in terrorist activities voluntarily forfeits their right to due process.


Who determines the definition of terroristic activities and if the accused US citizen is in fact guilty of committing them before we drone him/her to death?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/10 19:46:16


Post by: CptJake


If such a law was put in front of a court it would be rightfully slammed down. It would lead to Bad Things. Who 'proves' the citizen is engaging in terrorist activities? What burden of proof would be acceptable?

We've kind of brought this upon ourselves. We mix 'war' and the set of laws that govern it with 'policing' and the laws that govern it, and intel collection and the laws that govern it. We've created gray areas then failed to adopt polices or pass legislation that can help define those gray areas and how we can and should handle them.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/10 19:46:45


Post by: Grey Templar


Prestor Jon wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Well yeah, in these situations you're not gonna be able to perfectly identify the target. Its definitely a messy situation, but if the person was clearly and obviously engaging in direct terrorist activities I'm not all that ripped up about it.

We could easily pass a law saying that any US citizen engaging in terrorist activities voluntarily forfeits their right to due process.


Who determines the definition of terroristic activities and if the accused US citizen is in fact guilty of committing them before we drone him/her to death?


Something for Congress to do that might actually be useful


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/10 20:03:25


Post by: Prestor Jon


 Grey Templar wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Well yeah, in these situations you're not gonna be able to perfectly identify the target. Its definitely a messy situation, but if the person was clearly and obviously engaging in direct terrorist activities I'm not all that ripped up about it.

We could easily pass a law saying that any US citizen engaging in terrorist activities voluntarily forfeits their right to due process.


Who determines the definition of terroristic activities and if the accused US citizen is in fact guilty of committing them before we drone him/her to death?


Something for Congress to do that might actually be useful


Even after Congress passes legislation the accused would still have to be tried. Congress can make terroristic activity a federal capital crime but you'd still have to determine if the accused citizen is guilty. Congress can't just remove the right to due process from a citizen based solely on the particular crime he/she is accused of committing. If the govt can accuse a citizen of committing terrorism, try them in absentia and keep all of their evidence classified, pronounce them guilty and order their execution via drone then there's actually no meaningful accountability at all and we're right back where we started with the govt assassinating US citizens without due process. If we, as US citizens, have a right to due process then we have the right to a fair trial, not a super secret govt trial we're not allowed to attend where evidence we're not allowed to see is presented as proof that we're guilty. If the govt has the power to circumvent our rights whenever they want then what's the point of codifying our rights into law?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/11 06:15:58


Post by: sebster


 CptJake wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
I think there should be some process.

Like submission of evidence to a special court who takes some time to review each case. If the target in question is collateral damage from another strike against a different target OR is killed in an engagement with our armed forces no further process is necessary.


There may well be cases where the designated target is not known to be a US citizen, is capped, and subsequently found out to have been a US citizen. Very often these guys take up a nom-de-guerre and recently in some cases have began attempting to disguise/hide faces/voices to beat biometric ID. There will be other cases where a strike os ordered due to pattern analysis and the specific ID of the target(s) will not be known before the strike is executed.

Coming up with a workable policy/process does need to happen, but it needs to cover a lot of different contingencies and is not as cut and dried as it may initially appear.


I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that there should probably a court review of any decision to kill someone, whether they're American or not.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/11 10:33:26


Post by: CptJake


 sebster wrote:
 CptJake wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
I think there should be some process.

Like submission of evidence to a special court who takes some time to review each case. If the target in question is collateral damage from another strike against a different target OR is killed in an engagement with our armed forces no further process is necessary.


There may well be cases where the designated target is not known to be a US citizen, is capped, and subsequently found out to have been a US citizen. Very often these guys take up a nom-de-guerre and recently in some cases have began attempting to disguise/hide faces/voices to beat biometric ID. There will be other cases where a strike os ordered due to pattern analysis and the specific ID of the target(s) will not be known before the strike is executed.

Coming up with a workable policy/process does need to happen, but it needs to cover a lot of different contingencies and is not as cut and dried as it may initially appear.


I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that there should probably a court review of any decision to kill someone, whether they're American or not.


That is a stupid statement. Many (though not all) of these drone strikes are in war zones. 'Any decision to kill someone' would seem to cover the decision of an A-10 pilot or an infantryman as well. To impose your standard would be asinine.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/11 18:14:23


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


Symbolic vote by congress to strike down Iran nuclear deal. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/11/house-rejects-obama-nuclear-accord-iran

Of course, totally pointless given what happened in the Senate.

Still, can't help but thinking that maybe the GOP might have put its time, and taxpayers' money, to better use...


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/11 22:28:08


Post by: d-usa


And Rick Perry is the first to drop out of the race.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/11 22:41:32


Post by: Co'tor Shas


So apparently a bill has been floated that would remove the presidents ability to get rid of sanctions. This bill would expire at the end of obama's term. It's so hilariously partisan, and it's not even trying to hide.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/11 22:52:17


Post by: Psienesis


Still, can't help but thinking that maybe the GOP might have put its time, and taxpayers' money, to better use...


I've been saying that for years now. The Republican Party was put in office to do a job... and that job wasn't to just stamp their feet, put their fingers in their ears and shout "No!" at the President. Yet, they seem to not be very interested in offering alternative plans or ideas to much of anything.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/11 22:59:04


Post by: Ouze


 d-usa wrote:
And Rick Perry is the first to drop out of the race.


... and nothing of value was lost.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/12 02:09:51


Post by: whembly


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So apparently a bill has been floated that would remove the presidents ability to get rid of sanctions. This bill would expire at the end of obama's term. It's so hilariously partisan, and it's not even trying to hide.

*meh*

The current Iran Act, which allows for the President's discretion for these sanctions, is still a legal statute.

And yes, it's partisan... which obviously won't go anywhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ouze wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
And Rick Perry is the first to drop out of the race.


... and nothing of value was lost.

That's unfair...

He had a good tenure in Texas and arguably, he'd be a decent President.

I think it's a shame that he's not at least "going deep" into the primary.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/12 02:13:50


Post by: Tannhauser42


At least Perry was one of the first to have the balls to call out Trump on his BS.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/12 02:22:22


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
At least Perry was one of the first to have the balls to call out Trump on his BS.


And look where it got him


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/12 02:47:59


Post by: Gordon Shumway


You know, last time at the dance I was totally convinced he had no clue which way the door was. This time he seemed sort of reasonable. Was I really tricked by his glasses that much? Did the drugs really affect him that much last time? Why did the GOP love him for a brief period of time last time when he was clearly bonkers, and this time, when he was making coherent statements, they totally ignored him? I'm so confused. Where is the vicatin?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/12 03:25:27


Post by: Jihadin


Never go on the attack on Trump.....bad things happen
Graham
Perry
Jeb
are a few that can attest to that

I figure Walker went to zero for the Northern Wall idea even though we do have issues with Canada on border crossing. Just don't jump on a band wagon of a opposite direction


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/12 04:12:02


Post by: whembly


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
You know, last time at the dance I was totally convinced he had no clue which way the door was. This time he seemed sort of reasonable. Was I really tricked by his glasses that much? Did the drugs really affect him that much last time? Why did the GOP love him for a brief period of time last time when he was clearly bonkers, and this time, when he was making coherent statements, they totally ignored him? I'm so confused. Where is the vicatin?

He couldn't overcome the 2012 debate...

One of the things I liked about him is his humility and doesn't toot personal stuff...

He took in Marcus Luttrel and it took Marcus' book to get the word out what the Perry's have done for him...

In the 2012 debate, when Santorum talked about the challenges of healthcare regarding Bella... he noticed that Perry wrote something down (and it was the only thing). At the end of the debate, while Santorum was shaking Perry's hand, he glanced at Perry's written note... it simply said: "Pray for Bella". Santorum tells this story....

I believe having that sort of humility in the position of power, such as the President, is a good indicator on how he'd perform as President.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/12 05:35:59


Post by: Gordon Shumway


That's a really good story. I think he was a good guy and deserved more than he got. And now the canidate for the GOP wishes he could commit incest. To be fair, she is really pretty. I guess that is fair?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/12 06:15:49


Post by: whembly


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
That's a really good story. I think he was a good guy and deserved more than he got. And now the canidate for the GOP wishes he could commit incest. To be fair, she is really pretty. I guess that is fair?

I think the more Carson and Fiorina gets more mainstream exposure... the more Trump will fall.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/12 06:28:39


Post by: Gordon Shumway


I doubt it. They are essentially fighting over the same voters (low voter I.D., and I.T.,voted once or twice, anti establishment, Sean Hannity/Karl Levin wannabes.) There is no way the party will allow any of them to be the candidate. They will change the rules if needs be to allow the Karl Roves and the National Reviews to get their candidate.i wish that wasn't the case (easy win for the Dems) but it is. Done deal. I've said it before: the only candidate the Dems even need to worry about is Kasich. Every other one is a mulligan.

Edit: but did anybody see Biden's interview last night? The man seems genuine. If only he could get his ducks in a row by the nominating deadlines (not likely), vow to run for just one term (to get rid of the aged comments) and pick Warren as VP right off the bat, I doubt anybody could come close to him. It won't happen, but it would sure be interesting. And it would pretty much assure the White House for the next twelve,years.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/12 08:03:17


Post by: dogma


 whembly wrote:

I think the more Carson and Fiorina gets more mainstream exposure... the more Trump will fall.


Fiorina is sitting at ~3 points, ~5 if you're generous. This means that Ted Cruz is ahead of her, and she's running even with Mike "Team Kim!" Huckabee.

Not an auspicious position.

 whembly wrote:
... it simply said: "Pray for Bella". Santorum tells this story....


Obviously. Santorum's shtick is basically "I'm Christian!"


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/12 08:56:29


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Psienesis wrote:
Still, can't help but thinking that maybe the GOP might have put its time, and taxpayers' money, to better use...


I've been saying that for years now. The Republican Party was put in office to do a job... and that job wasn't to just stamp their feet, put their fingers in their ears and shout "No!" at the President. Yet, they seem to not be very interested in offering alternative plans or ideas to much of anything.


As I've mentioned a few times, I sat through that Senate oversight committee on the Iran deal, God knows why

and the sheer lack of a Republican alternative to the deal was something to behold.

When Kerry rightly pointed out that the deal was almost identical to what GW Bush offered, the Republican response was OBAMA BAD!.

When Kerry asked the Republicans what they would have done differently, they paused for a while and then it was OBAMA BAD.

It's just as well that 99% of the American public doesn't watch these committees because there would be another American Revolution the next day.

I would not trust these Senators/Congressmen to run a hotdog stand, never mind a global superpower.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Was going to start a new thread on this, but on reflection, I'll post it here.

Anyway, a poll suggests that a 1/3 of Americans would support a military coup against their government: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/11/military-coup-some-americans-would-vote-yes

If you don't want to read the full article, here are the key facts:

It was an online poll, sample size was 1000, 43% of Republicans would support it in certain circumstances, only 20% of Democrats would support it, and most participants (43%) said that it would take violations of the constitution to trigger support for such a move.

Seems the revolutionary spirit is alive and well in America.

Or, you could say that Republicans don't like being out of office. In my lifetime, this talk always springs up when the democrats are in 1600.

Anyway, it's food for thought.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2019/02/14 01:53:20


Post by: sebster


 CptJake wrote:
That is a stupid statement. Many (though not all) of these drone strikes are in war zones. 'Any decision to kill someone' would seem to cover the decision of an A-10 pilot or an infantryman as well. To impose your standard would be asinine.


If there was no identifiable difference between an engagement with armed opponents, and a mission designed ahead of time to take out a specific target, then you'd have a point. But there is a clear difference and so your point is nonsense.

Moving on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 d-usa wrote:
And Rick Perry is the first to drop out of the race.


NPR put up a pretty good article about why he ran two terrible campaigns. The short version is that being a Republican in Texas means you don't have to try very hard, so you get kind of lazy and don't develop the skills you need in a competitive race.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
He had a good tenure in Texas and arguably, he'd be a decent President.


I think it's very arguable that he would have made a decent Republican president, his policies are basically the same old reheated Republican mush.

But there's no denying he had a record as governor that should have made him a strong contender among Republicans. He's delivered exactly what people say they want - small government and strong economic growth. But he went nowhere, and I don't think it's entirely because of a poor campaign performance. Maybe people were never able to get past the third agency thing, or maybe the base has shifted to the point where it doesn't even care about boring stuff like delivering small government and growth anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Or, you could say that Republicans don't like being out of office. In my lifetime, this talk always springs up when the democrats are in 1600.

Anyway, it's food for thought.


To be fair, through the Bush years there was no plenty of crazy rhetoric coming from the left. I'm not sure if I heard much in the way of armed rebellion, but I remember a lot of people who were quite earnest believed Bush was going to find a way to give himself more terms as some kind of dictator.

The difference, I think, is that Republican leadership is way more likely to play up to their fringe than Democrats.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/14 02:51:28


Post by: d-usa


 sebster wrote:

To be fair, through the Bush years there was no plenty of crazy rhetoric coming from the left. I'm not sure if I heard much in the way of armed rebellion, but I remember a lot of people who were quite earnest believed Bush was going to find a way to give himself more terms as some kind of dictator.

The difference, I think, is that Republican leadership is way more likely to play up to their fringe than Democrats.


Wasn't there some noise from time to time where random towns or counties talked about arresting Bush for war-crimes if he ever showed up in town?

Unrelated:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-dept-affirms-clinton-could-delete-personal-emails/2015/09/11/800772c4-58e8-11e5-9f54-1ea23f6e02f3_story.html

Clinton asserts that she had the right under government rules to decide which emails were private and to delete them. This week’s filing puts the Justice Department’s approval on Clinton’s claim.

“There is no question that former Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision — she appropriately could have done so even if she were working on a government server,” attorneys from the Justice Department’s civil division wrote.

Judicial Watch had requested a court order from the judge to ensure that Clinton’s emails were being preserved. But the Justice Department said there was no need for such an order given that Clinton had the right to delete personal emails and that those messages are not subject to the public records law.

The government said Judicial Watch had presented no evidence to suggest Clinton had mistakenly or intentionally deleted government records instead of personal emails, and said “government agencies are not required to take steps to recover deleted material based on unfounded speculation that responsive information had been deleted.”


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/15 18:21:51


Post by: shasolenzabi


So, it has happened, with Sanders Poll surges in New Hampshire and Iowa, the HRC camp is getting upset and nervous as he rises, and she drops. they have started attack e-mails
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-jeremy-corbyn_55f73339e4b00e2cd5e79e11

Meanwhile, Bernie also speaks in places left alone by other Democrats





Yep, and listen carefully, during that speech, some of the audience cheers and claps at what he says.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/15 22:43:59


Post by: whembly


The policies he's advocating for has been estimated to cost US tax payers over 16 trillions (yes, with a "T") over 10 years.

He'd (well... Congress) have to slap a big tax hikes on the uber rich... but, also massively raise it on EVERYONE.

We have a lesson to be learned in Venezuela. I suggest we'd start paying attention.

Also... damn, NYT is actually admitting that HRC may be in trouble because of emailgate:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/upshot/signs-of-hillary-clintons-troubles-in-charts.html?rref=upshot


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/15 22:50:19


Post by: Co'tor Shas


Which policies may I ask? Just saying "policies" isn't very helpful. For all I know, it could be a plan to build a death star .

Also wouldn't it be easier to just say 1.6 trillion a year?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/15 23:33:29


Post by: Tannhauser42


 whembly wrote:
The policies he's advocating for has been estimated to cost US tax payers over 16 trillions (yes, with a "T") over 10 years.

He'd (well... Congress) have to slap a big tax hikes on the uber rich... but, also massively raise it on EVERYONE.

We have a lesson to be learned in Venezuela. I suggest we'd start paying attention.


True, but there are also lessons to be learned from our own country, and we're not bothering to pay attention to those, either.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 00:24:30


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


 whembly wrote:
The policies he's advocating for has been estimated to cost US tax payers over 16 trillions (yes, with a "T") over 10 years.



I've seen those numbers, but it being election season, I feel I must ask: who is estimating??

Because if it's Republicans, then obviously they have "good" reason to over-estimate.
If it's Pro-HRC Democrats, then obviously they have "good" reason to over-estimate.

But, I will put it the way one of my very Libertarian friends put it earlier: if the net gain for the country is greater than the net cost, then the government should be all for it.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 03:02:54


Post by: jasper76


While Sanders is cleaning up the Evangelical vote at Liberty "University", I'm excited to see the clown show tomorrow night. I actually think this may be the night that someone busts ahead of Trump. My reasoning for this is a certain segment of otherwise disengaged GOP voters may tune in and watch the debate based on last debates buzz, and see what a lightweight Trump is on policy. Of course, he will have to have one of the big kids at the adult table expose him.

Who will it be? Will anyone grow a pair, or is this going to be another "terrific" Trump performance?

Trump won't go after Bush, he knows better, so I still think this is Bush's nomination to lose ultimately. If he can muster even a bit of the GW swagger, Trump is done IME. I don't see a real challenge other than Bush to Trump's surprisingly successful campaign so far.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 03:48:55


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


 jasper76 wrote:
If he can muster even a bit of the GW swagger.



IMHO... that just simply isn't "Jeb" at all. He seems much more soft spoken, but I haven't heard hims speak enough to opine whether he's got a soft voice with a major backbone (family members often tell me this was Bush Sr kind of in a nutshell)

It'll be interesting to see it play out. I know it's still very early, but both sides of the aisle are beginning to shape up some extremely interesting races, and each for different reasons.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015000/09/16 03:59:47


Post by: jasper76


 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

IMHO... that just simply isn't "Jeb" at all. He seems much more soft spoken, but I haven't heard hims speak enough to opine whether he's got a soft voice with a major backbone (family members often tell me this was Bush Sr kind of in a nutshell).


I'm inclined to agree. However if you are old enough to remember the 2000 elections, GW appeared like a softy as well (remember "Compassionate Conservatism"?...how would that fly today?). It was only after 9/11/01 that Bush was thrust into growing a pair of gonads. He overgrew them, in fact, which has led to the disaster in the MIddle East and Europe today.

Jeb could hypothetically beat the Democrats with a "kinder, gentler set of GW balls", but he certainly has to at least be able to fake it to make it, and I think he can catch a few pointers from his brother in that arena.



The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 04:07:20


Post by: whembly


 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
 whembly wrote:
The policies he's advocating for has been estimated to cost US tax payers over 16 trillions (yes, with a "T") over 10 years.



I've seen those numbers, but it being election season, I feel I must ask: who is estimating??

Because if it's Republicans, then obviously they have "good" reason to over-estimate.
If it's Pro-HRC Democrats, then obviously they have "good" reason to over-estimate.

But, I will put it the way one of my very Libertarian friends put it earlier: if the net gain for the country is greater than the net cost, then the government should be all for it.

Neither...

WSJ:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511


Snippet:
His agenda includes an estimated $15 trillion for a government-run health-care program that covers every American, plus large sums to rebuild roads and bridges, expand Social Security and make tuition free at public colleges.


Fun fact: you could completely stop spending $$$ on the military, and confiscate all earnings after the first million dollars... and it still won't be enough to pay for Bern's pie-in-the-sky socialist dream.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 04:11:17


Post by: jasper76


Wow...is Whembly starting to get worried about a Sanders Presidency?

(don't worry, dude, Sanders will never get the Democratic nomination, even if Hilary implodes)


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 05:02:45


Post by: Co'tor Shas


I think the problem here is over-zealousness. You can't turn the US (one of the least socialist western nations) into Sweden overnight. Although he's damned sure correct that we need to put a gak-ton into our infrastructure. If we don'[t soon, it will turn into a major disaster. Sadly, it seems to take a major disaster to get congress to do anything that isn't political football these days.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 05:06:16


Post by: sebster


 whembly wrote:
The policies he's advocating for has been estimated to cost US tax payers over 16 trillions (yes, with a "T") over 10 years.


The WSJ actually put the figure at 18 trillion. The figure is fething stupid though, because it's the WSJ so of course it is.

The first part is the old con of listing the figure over 10 years, rather than a more sensible annual amount. This allows you to give a figure that's not only 10 times higher and therefore 10 times scarier, but it actually allows you to inflate the figure even more, by loading future assumptions in to the system so the last years of the projection are even scarier (don't think your number is scary enough, just make healthcare cost increases higher so the number gets crazy high in the out years!).

The second part of the con is that it lists only the cost to the government, and then says that will have to raised through taxes which is totally scary. But, fairly obviously, if government is paying for your healthcare, then you aren't paying for it anymore. So across the population you'd see a change from paying insurance to paying tax, with the difference determined by policies not yet known and personal circumstances. That's obvious enough that I feel kind of patronising for having typed it. But it was hidden by the WSJ's gakky con job.

I mean, I think Sanders policies are almost entirely pie in the sky, even if they were economically practical they're politically dead in the water. But reality fething matters, and sleazy gak from the WSJ needs to be called as what it is.

We have a lesson to be learned in Venezuela.


Do you have a lesson to learn from Argentina as well? Or do we only accept really loose comparisons to countries with totally different economic structures and levels of prosperity when they argue against socialism?

Anyhow, for some sensible comparisons to similar countries, France does just fine. The Scandanavian countries do just fine. The US, also, does just fine. All are examples of perfectly functional economies that deliver, to most people, pretty decent standards of living. And so the only question becomes whether you would prefer some further left like France, or something further right like the US, so something in between.

But then, framing it like that makes it much harder to defend the growing income inequality, so of course people prefer the 'Venezuela failed' narrative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I've seen those numbers, but it being election season, I feel I must ask: who is estimating??

Because if it's Republicans, then obviously they have "good" reason to over-estimate.
If it's Pro-HRC Democrats, then obviously they have "good" reason to over-estimate.


It's the WSJ, so yeah, good reason to over-estimate.

But, I will put it the way one of my very Libertarian friends put it earlier: if the net gain for the country is greater than the net cost, then the government should be all for it.


National comparisons have found pretty consistently that government run healthcare is much cheaper than private sector healthcare, so it would be a net gain.

But it's all pretty academic, because ACA limped over the line amongst some incredible political madness, and that was a fairly minor reform of the existing system. The idea that a president could undertake nationalisation of healthcare is just not going to happen.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 06:03:05


Post by: jasper76


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I think the problem here is over-zealousness. You can't turn the US (one of the least socialist western nations) into Sweden overnight. Although he's damned sure correct that we need to put a gak-ton into our infrastructure. If we don'[t soon, it will turn into a major disaster. Sadly, it seems to take a major disaster to get congress to do anything that isn't political football these days.


The only reason this hasn't happened already, to the benifit of the entire nation, is the corporate stranglehold on all politicians, which all GOP politicians publicly recognize, admit their complicity in, and simultaneously denounce. It's all a numbers game so far. The power and the money is all to be found in the Bush camp, whether Bush is their ultimate candidate, or whether they back their resources with an alternate because Jeb might not be Presidential; material.

Either way, at this point its all a known commodity. Polls show noone in the GOP beating Clinton, and they do even worse against "Biden his time". Sanders will never get the nod because he is too much a threat to the banks and the corporations, unless there is a complete public swell on bothe sides of the electorate, but the right hates Europe and Sanders, and could never buy in to his overhaul program, despite how much they otherwise respect him on many issues, as evinced by his recent speech at an evangelical university.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 06:14:20


Post by: sebster


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I think the problem here is over-zealousness. You can't turn the US (one of the least socialist western nations) into Sweden overnight. Although he's damned sure correct that we need to put a gak-ton into our infrastructure. If we don'[t soon, it will turn into a major disaster. Sadly, it seems to take a major disaster to get congress to do anything that isn't political football these days.


It isn't so much over-zealousness as Sanders not really worrying about what is actually practical. Not because he's foolish, but because he entered this race with zero expectation of winning, just with the intent of dragging Hillary to the left. Talk about nationalisation of healthcare to get people talking about improving public healthcare, for instance.

It's interesting that the WSJ has decided to actually spend some time on Sanders. It may just be that they couldn't figure out how to write any more on Benghazi or emails, or maybe they're starting to think Sanders might actually be a real candidate. Or maybe it was just too easy to make up something scary with the 18 trillion figure, and deadlines were tight. Who knows?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 06:23:15


Post by: jasper76


My guess is that Sanders entered the race for one of two reasons:

1. To become Clinton's Vice President
2. To force the Democratic Party back to an actual leftist position.

Clinton wins in any scenario. If Sanders appeals to the right, she gets more right sway votes. If he doesn;t appeal to anyone but the leftists, he just goes back to being a valuable Senator.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 06:25:40


Post by: sebster


 jasper76 wrote:
The only reason this hasn't happened already, to the benifit of the entire nation, is the corporate stranglehold on all politicians, which all GOP politicians publicly recognize, admit their complicity in, and simultaneously denounce. It's all a numbers game so far. The power and the money is all to be found in the Bush camp, whether Bush is their ultimate candidate, or whether they back their resources with an alternate because Jeb might not be Presidential; material.


The biggest advertising budget for a soft drink launch couldn't convince people to drink Crystal Pepsi. Advertising dollars really matter, but if the product is a turd then money will only go so far. The establishment candidates with some kind of broad appeal, Jeb!, Perry, Walker, they're all really gakky candidates for lots of reasons. That leaves the hard right establishment players like Cruz, Paul and Santorum, and the outsider candidates like Trump and Fiorina. Candidates in those latter categories have performed better, but they're limited by their narrow appeal.

I guess something similar is happening in the Democratic primary. Clinton is New Coke.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 jasper76 wrote:
My guess is that Sanders entered the race for one of two reasons:

1. To become Clinton's Vice President
2. To force the Democratic Party back to an actual leftist position.

Clinton wins in any scenario. If Sanders appeals to the right, she gets more right sway votes. If he doesn;t appeal to anyone but the leftists, he just goes back to being a valuable Senator.


I didn't think of the VP possibility. Interesting.

Though I will say there's one circumstance where Clinton doesn't win - if her campaign continues to suck so hard that she doesn't win. There's a part of me that kind of hopes for that because I like Biden way more than I like Clinton, but mostly as a political junkie I'm just annoyed at having to watch someone at the highest level of the game go about doing such a crappy job of campaigning.

The email thing continues to get attention, but it isn't because it really deserves much attention, but because Clinton has given us nothing interesting to talk about.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 06:32:25


Post by: jasper76


That's why it seems to me just a numnbers game alredy. If the Republicans nominate thier best candidates in Bush and Rubio, they might lose 54%/46%.

If they nomiate someone like Truthey might lose 59%/41%.

If they go for Cruz or Santorum it will reach Mandate territory.



The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 06:39:39


Post by: sebster


 jasper76 wrote:
That's why it seems to me just a numnbers game alredy. If the Republicans nominate thier best candidates in Bush and Rubio, they might lose 54%/46%.

If they nomiate someone like Truthey might lose 59%/41%.

If they go for Cruz or Santorum it will reach Mandate territory.


Maybe, the Republicans have been a clown show so far, but the Democrats have been pretty crappy as well, except Sanders.

Seems like we're waiting for somebody, anybody with some kind of broad appeal to actually do something. While we're waiting its all Trump and Sanders (though it's very unfair to put them together for lots of reasons, it works on the level that they're both outsiders with appeal to specific audiences).


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 06:49:29


Post by: shasolenzabi


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Which policies may I ask? Just saying "policies" isn't very helpful. For all I know, it could be a plan to build a death star .

Also wouldn't it be easier to just say 1.6 trillion a year?


He is quoting numbers like Fox News is spewing, trying to scare people. Meanwhile the Pentagon can't account for some major amounts of a 20yr period that could have been saved if they were better at accounting.

Love how some folks forget that.

Besides, we have a lot to fix in this country, roads, bridges, dams and railways for starters.

Oh and Sanders is gaining a broader audience every day.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 07:33:48


Post by: sebster


 shasolenzabi wrote:
He is quoting numbers like Fox News is spewing, trying to scare people. Meanwhile the Pentagon can't account for some major amounts of a 20yr period that could have been saved if they were better at accounting.


Not quite. It means they've lost track of where it was spent, it doesn't mean it wasn't actually spent on something necessary.

So for instance the government could have lost records for a million dollars worth of combat boots - it is bad that the system can't properly state what was spent but the spending itself may have been legitimate. Elsewhere they might have spent a million dollars on a machine that writes USA! on the moon before abandoning that because they couldn't get it to glow red, white and blue. So that would be accounted for but wasteful spending.

Don't take this is a defence of the system, because US government accounting is horrific, but it's important to understand what those failings mean, and what they don't mean. Unaccounted dollars aren't automatically wasted, and accounted for dollars aren't necessarily well spent.

But either way, the issue is not really anything to do with the cost of Sanders' proposals.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 07:43:18


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 jasper76 wrote:
Wow...is Whembly starting to get worried about a Sanders Presidency?

(don't worry, dude, Sanders will never get the Democratic nomination, even if Hilary implodes)


Of course Whembly is worried. If Clinton doesn't get the nomination, what's Whembly going to post on this thread for the next 12 months?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 sebster wrote:
 jasper76 wrote:
That's why it seems to me just a numnbers game alredy. If the Republicans nominate thier best candidates in Bush and Rubio, they might lose 54%/46%.

If they nomiate someone like Truthey might lose 59%/41%.

If they go for Cruz or Santorum it will reach Mandate territory.


Maybe, the Republicans have been a clown show so far, but the Democrats have been pretty crappy as well, except Sanders.

Seems like we're waiting for somebody, anybody with some kind of broad appeal to actually do something. While we're waiting its all Trump and Sanders (though it's very unfair to put them together for lots of reasons, it works on the level that they're both outsiders with appeal to specific audiences).


I think the Democrat strategy is just let the Republicans keep on talking. Give them enough rope to hang themselves and all that.

Seems to be working, because Trump seems to be dragging everybody down to his level.

Trump's talking about immigration and when Republicans start talking about immigration, they tend not to win...


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 12:48:08


Post by: Tannhauser42


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I think the problem here is over-zealousness. You can't turn the US (one of the least socialist western nations) into Sweden overnight. Although he's damned sure correct that we need to put a gak-ton into our infrastructure. If we don'[t soon, it will turn into a major disaster. Sadly, it seems to take a major disaster to get congress to do anything that isn't political football these days.


Exalted for truth. The sad part is that we've already had the disasters. Bridges collapsing, railway derailments, power grid failures, etc.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 12:53:47


Post by: whembly


 jasper76 wrote:
Wow...is Whembly starting to get worried about a Sanders Presidency?

(don't worry, dude, Sanders will never get the Democratic nomination, even if Hilary implodes)

nope.

I'm actually worried about a Clinton Presidency.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 12:56:05


Post by: Co'tor Shas


So am I.... Probably for different reasons though.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 12:56:40


Post by: whembly


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 jasper76 wrote:
Wow...is Whembly starting to get worried about a Sanders Presidency?

(don't worry, dude, Sanders will never get the Democratic nomination, even if Hilary implodes)


Of course Whembly is worried. If Clinton doesn't get the nomination, what's Whembly going to post on this thread for the next 12 months?


Don't worry... I ain't scurred.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So am I.... Probably for different reasons though.

Heh...

Hey... did you hear HRC's speech last weekend (I think) that she said that we all should believe in what sexual assault victims says?
“I want to send a message to all of the survivors,” she said. “Don’t let anyone silence your voice, you have the right to be heard, the right be believed, and we are with you as you go forward.”


Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones would like to have a word.

I think a lot of folks had a coronary after that.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 13:40:25


Post by: dogma


 whembly wrote:

I'm actually worried about a Clinton Presidency.


I would expect a GOP devotee to be far more worried about a Sanders Presidency, at least in terms of policy goals. Are you worried that Clinton might actually accomplish some of her's?


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 13:56:12


Post by: reds8n


... as we are a Gaming forum...


http://www.cosmicwombatgames.com/#!campaign-trail/c22qj


The confetti is flying, the champagne is flowing and you have just accepted your party's nomination to run for President of the United States! It will be a long few months with campaign stops, advertising campaigns, fundraisers, and trying to uncover those skeletons in your opponent's closet.
Campaign Trail is a strategy board game in which players pit their campaign skills against one another as they vie for the Presidency of the United States. Engage in grass roots campaigning, advertise, fundraise, debate, and so much more! The candidate who best manages his resources and connects with the public on key issues will win the presidency!




The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 14:01:11


Post by: Prestor Jon


 dogma wrote:
 whembly wrote:

I'm actually worried about a Clinton Presidency.


I would expect a GOP devotee to be far more worried about a Sanders Presidency, at least in terms of policy goals. Are you worried that Clinton might actually accomplish some of her's?


Even if Sanders won, and he's going to need to change his party affiliatoin first, it's not going to matter much because without a Democratic supermajority in Congress none of Sanders' proposals are becoming legislation. That kind of turnover in Congress isn't going to happen in 2016 and probably wouldn't in 2018 either so Sanders really isn't threatening. The idea of Clinton continuing existing policies from both the Bush and Obama administration and getting Democrats and Republicans like Graham, Boehner, McCain, McConnel to go along with too is much scarier. None of the problems that have been created by the previous administrations will get fixed by a Clinton presidency and she'll just double down on my failed agendas.

Sanders isn't a threat but at least there would be more gridlock and the chance of some ill thought agendas getting stonewalled or defunded. Even with a Democratic supermajority in congress at some point in the future Sanders isn't scary because even when Obama had a supermajority he showed that special interests controlled it with far more authority than he did.

Sanders won't be VP either. If Hillary wins the nomination the party will want her VP to be a younger politician that could be the presidential candidate in 2020 or 2024 and Sanders is too old to run again in 4-8 years.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 14:49:40


Post by: dogma


Prestor Jon wrote:

Sanders isn't a threat but at least there would be more gridlock and the chance of some ill thought agendas getting stonewalled or defunded.


The GOP will probably maintain control of Congress, and there are lots of Republican supporters who hate anyone whose last name is "Clinton". That means anything a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton tries to do will be stonewalled by Congress because there is hay to made by claiming "I opposed something a Clinton tried to do!".


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 14:59:36


Post by: Prestor Jon


 dogma wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

Sanders isn't a threat but at least there would be more gridlock and the chance of some ill thought agendas getting stonewalled or defunded.


The GOP will probably maintain control of Congress, and there are lots of Republican supporters who hate anyone whose last name is "Clinton". That means anything a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton tries to do will be stonewalled by Congress because there is hay to made by claiming "I opposed something a Clinton tried to do!".


I think you are overestimating the partisanship of establishment republicans like McConnel who are clearly out of touch with the base of the party. There are plenty of career politicians in the Republican party that will work with Clinton if it means they get to maintain political power and it benefits the special interests that pay them big money. The limited govt libertarian-esque small c conservative part of the Republican party is constantly marginalized by the big govt big business party establishment appartchiks and politicians. While there are some politicians that still seem to care about their constiuents there are plenty of other politicians that just want to take money and make the lobbyists happy and spin it in a way that won't cost them the next election. There are plenty of ways for guys like McConnel and Boehner to help HRC continue the Bush/Obama policies without looking like HRC supporters. A lot of the big money that has poured into HRC's campaign is from people who want/expect her to maintain the status quo if she's elected and there are plenty of "Republicans" willing to go along on that lucrative ride of not rocking the boat.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 16:01:36


Post by: whembly


 dogma wrote:
 whembly wrote:

I'm actually worried about a Clinton Presidency.


I would expect a GOP devotee to be far more worried about a Sanders Presidency, at least in terms of policy goals. Are you worried that Clinton might actually accomplish some of her's?

Yup. The Democrats will go to bat for HRC ala Obama...

I'm not so sure they would for Sanders.

EDIT: what Jon said above.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 17:12:43


Post by: Prestor Jon


 whembly wrote:
 dogma wrote:
 whembly wrote:

I'm actually worried about a Clinton Presidency.


I would expect a GOP devotee to be far more worried about a Sanders Presidency, at least in terms of policy goals. Are you worried that Clinton might actually accomplish some of her's?

Yup. The Democrats will go to bat for HRC ala Obama...

I'm not so sure they would for Sanders.

EDIT: what Jon said above.


First they need Bernie to switch from Sanders (I) to Sanders (D). Still not sure how he's running for the Democrat nomination when he's officially an Independent that chooses to caucus with Democrats.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 18:13:01


Post by: whembly


Fiorina is finding the next gear...

http://www.wbur.org/2015/09/16/wbur-poll-new-hampshire-september
WBUR Poll: Close N.H. Race Between Trump, Carson

usinessman Donald Trump leads retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson in the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, 22 percent to 18 percent, according to WBUR’s first poll of the race.

Trump’s lead is within the survey’s margin of error of 4.9 percent.

In third place is former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, with 11 percent. She’s ahead of the one-time New Hampshire front-runner, ex-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who’s at 9 percent with Ohio Gov. John Kasich.



The poll (topline, crosstabs) indicates that Carson is closing in on Trump.

“This is a much closer race than we’ve seen over the last few months in pretty much any state, but it’s similar to a couple polls that have come out just in the last few days, and a couple in Iowa from the last few weeks, that have shown Ben Carson doing much better against Donald Trump than anybody has done in quite a while,” said Steve Koczela, of The MassINC Polling Group, which conducted the survey for WBUR.

Overwhelmingly, likely voters in the New Hampshire Republican primary say it’s “very important” that their chosen candidate “says what he or she truly believes.” Eighty-seven percent of poll respondents said that.

And 94 percent of Trump supporters said it’s “very important” their candidate “says what he or she truly believes.”

“He’s not politically correct,” Trump supporter Theodore Martin said in a phone interview. “He says what he means and does what he means.”

Martin, who lives in Rindge, on the border with Massachusetts, said he wants a president who is going to do what he says he’s going to do.

“When [presidents] get into office they never seem to do what they told the American people they were going to do,” Martin said.

Carson, too, benefits from people looking for someone who “says what he or she truly believes.” Ninety-two percent of his supporters said that’s what they want to see in their candidate.

Among them: contractor Gary Anderson. “I believe what he puts out there is going to be the truth and he’ll most likely act on it, not like most of the politicians we’ve seen in the recent past,” Anderson said.

The poll also found that just 24 percent of likely Republican primary voters say it’s “very important” that their candidate have “experience in [another] elected office.”

That’s what Anderson, who lives in Nottingham, near Durham, said.

“I don’t think political experience is what’s needed,” Anderson said. “I think it’s knowledge of how the system works, but also knowledge of what the people want.”

Fiorina also benefits from the fact that likely Republican voters don’t want someone who is part of the political establishment.

Elizabeth Tibbets said she supports Fiorina because she’s not part of the Washington clique. Tibbets, who lives in Goffstown, near Manchester, said political experience is not very important.

“Except that they have to know how to get around the entrenched politicians that we have in there now,” Tibbets said.

Eighty-five percent of Fiorina supporters said it’s very important that their candidate be able to bring real change to Washington.

The live telephone survey of 404 likely primary voters was conducted Saturday through Monday. Its margin of error is 4.9 percentage points.


The three "outsiders" are leading this poll 1-2-3.

Yowsa!


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 19:38:22


Post by: Ouze


Carly Fiorina has been running for various political offices for nearly 8 years now. The only thing keeping her from being a de facto professional politician is the fact she's as good at campaigning as she was at CEO'ing.

Anyway, my guess is her star will rise, and she'll flame out soon enough.



The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 19:49:15


Post by: whembly


 Ouze wrote:
Carly Fiorina has been running for various political offices for nearly 8 years now. The only thing keeping her from being a de facto professional politician is the fact she's as good at campaigning as she was at CEO'ing.

Anyway, my guess is her star will rise, and she'll flame out soon enough.


Actually... I don't.

I seem Carly and Trump getting into it tonight...

Carson may benefit the most out of it.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 19:52:55


Post by: curran12


Whembly, if I'm not mistaken, one of the polls in your link has only a total response of 404 people.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/media.wbur.org/wordpress/1/files/2015/09/Crosstabs-2015-09-WBUR-NH-1-Reps.pdf

With 767,383 registered voters in 2012 (that's the easiest data I could find) how accurate can we say these polls are? The more I read of these polls, the less credence I feel I can give them. Between that and the 24 hour news cycle rewarding volume over reality, I am downright confused.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 20:12:00


Post by: whembly


 curran12 wrote:
Whembly, if I'm not mistaken, one of the polls in your link has only a total response of 404 people.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/media.wbur.org/wordpress/1/files/2015/09/Crosstabs-2015-09-WBUR-NH-1-Reps.pdf

With 767,383 registered voters in 2012 (that's the easiest data I could find) how accurate can we say these polls are? The more I read of these polls, the less credence I feel I can give them. Between that and the 24 hour news cycle rewarding volume over reality, I am downright confused.

The only interesting thing we can glean from the polls at this stage is to see if the "no names" compares to the higher name recognized candidates.

Hillary is tanking now is sort of interesting... she's sucking now against Bernie (largely unknown) is a disaster.

Trump is leading because he's a "TV guy" and not one of these "DC guys".

The time to really pay attention to polls is next spring.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 20:18:23


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 curran12 wrote:
Whembly, if I'm not mistaken, one of the polls in your link has only a total response of 404 people.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/media.wbur.org/wordpress/1/files/2015/09/Crosstabs-2015-09-WBUR-NH-1-Reps.pdf

With 767,383 registered voters in 2012 (that's the easiest data I could find) how accurate can we say these polls are? The more I read of these polls, the less credence I feel I can give them. Between that and the 24 hour news cycle rewarding volume over reality, I am downright confused.


Hey that's nothing

Over here a newspaper poll of 101 people came to the conclusion that their new party leader would cost the Labour party the next two elections, despite the first of those not being for 5 years


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 20:18:23


Post by: dogma


Prestor Jon wrote:

I think you are overestimating the partisanship of establishment republicans like McConnel who are clearly out of touch with the base of the party.


I hope that I am. I would like a functional US Federal government to exist.

Prestor Jon wrote:

The limited govt libertarian-esque small c conservative part of the Republican party is constantly marginalized by the big govt big business party establishment appartchiks and politicians.


Perhaps they shouldn't advocate such extreme positions, or perhaps their constituents should hold fewer extreme beliefs? The Pauls and their ilk have some good ideas, but the platforms those guys run on won't survive long if they compromise. And at the Federal level you need to compromise if you want to get anything done.


The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition @ 2015/09/16 20:27:03


Post by: curran12


 whembly wrote:

The only interesting thing we can glean from the polls at this stage is to see if the "no names" compares to the higher name recognized candidates.

Hillary is tanking now is sort of interesting... she's sucking now against Bernie (largely unknown) is a disaster.

Trump is leading because he's a "TV guy" and not one of these "DC guys".

The time to really pay attention to polls is next spring.


I suppose, but my thinking is that such small snapshots are, for lack of a better term, fodder for the news cycle. Which, politics aside, is probably closer to the truth.