I find it interesting that many believe his beliefs should automatically disqualify him from the office, but when he opined that he wouldn't vote for a Muslim... all hell breaks loose.
My head hurts man..
I don't believe anyone on this thread opined that his beliefs should disqualify him from office, so I think that's a bit of a strawman.
As for me personally, I certainly don't think he should be disqualified from office. I simply find it very hard - nay, impossible - to believe that's what he really believes. I think he is lying about not believing in evolution because he knows that is what the GOP base wants to hear. And even that, really, I don't have a problem with per se; politicians lie all the time about how much they care about x or y. My concern is that a large bloc of our voting public now appear to believe in very very stupid ideas to the point that even really smart people must pretend to also believe in their stupid ideas or prove unelectable. This is a big problem, I think, but it's not really Dr. Carson's problem; he's simply playing the game, and I don't hate the player.
And, to be clear, it's a big problem for you. I consider myself a moderate independant. I have in the past and presumably will in the future vote for GOP candidates. However, as I'm generally socially pretty liberal, and that's the part of the platform I actually are about, I'm going to tend to vote for Democrats in a presidential election. While indeed there is a large bloc of the voting public that seems to need to hear stupid ideas, it's not a big enough bloc to win elections anymore. Demographic-wise, it's now I think very difficult for the GOP to win a national election and growing increasingly so as old conservative white people die off, and are replaced with demographics who the GOP makes no effort to reach out to, other than as a token or to demonize in an attempt to appeal to the dwindling former.
So if the party I generally find less desirable for president decided to step up the pace on their willing march off into unelectability.... like I said, that's not a problem for me.
I find it interesting that many believe his beliefs should automatically disqualify him from the office, but when he opined that he wouldn't vote for a Muslim... all hell breaks loose.
My head hurts man..
I don't believe anyone on this thread opined that his beliefs should disqualify him from office, so I think that's a bit of a strawman.
As for me personally, I certainly don't think he should be disqualified from office. I simply find it very hard - nay, impossible - to believe that's what he really believes. I think he is lying about not believing in evolution because he knows that is what the GOP base wants to hear. And even that, really, I don't have a problem with per se; politicians lie all the time about how much they care about x or y. My concern is that a large bloc of our voting public now appear to believe in very very stupid ideas to the point that even really smart people must pretend to also believe in their stupid ideas or prove unelectable. This is a big problem, I think, but it's not really Dr. Carson's problem; he's simply playing the game, and I don't hate the player.
And, to be clear, it's a big problem for you. I consider myself a moderate independant. I have in the past and presumably will in the future vote for GOP candidates. However, as I'm generally socially pretty liberal, and that's the part of the platform I actually are about, I'm going to tend to vote for Democrats in a presidential election. While indeed there is a large bloc of the voting public that seems to need to hear stupid ideas, it's not a big enough bloc to win elections anymore. Demographic-wise, it's now I think very difficult for the GOP to win a national election and growing increasingly so as old conservative white people die off, and are replaced with demographics who the GOP makes no effort to reach out to, other than as a token or to demonize in an attempt to appeal to the dwindling former.
So if the party I generally find less desirable for president decided to step up the pace on their willing march off into unelectability.... like I said, that's not a problem for me.
edit: come on, like 2 typos per sentences? jfc
While I agree with the general premise here... I've been hearing this notion that it's "very difficult for the GOP to win a national election and growing increasingly" drum since 2008. That doesn't jive with the massive GOP wins in 2010 and 2014. From context, I think you're really just targeting the Presidential elections... and if that's the case, I think you're spot on with a twist.
The twist is that, now more than ever, the establishments in both parties are getting kicked in the teef now. Can this acrimony sustain throughout the grind?
President is really the only national election. 'Big' wins in non-presidential years for senate doesn't count. Any election for the house doesn't even come close to counting since the Republicans have basically cheated with that (Gerrymandering).
This kind of points to the remaining strength of the Republican party. They are motivated by hate which is a stronger motivator to go out and vote. They vote more often even though they are very much a minority. Having an enemy is a great motivator and the GOP is good at having enemies (Muslims, Atheists, immigrants, homosexuals, the poor, Blacks, etc). Combine that with being the party that tries to make it harder for people to vote.
The Democrats are more of an live and let live party so they have more trouble motivating people to go out and vote.
This gives the Republicans more of a representation and more power than they deserve.
The Democrats are more of an live and let live party so they have more trouble motivating people to go out and vote.
Seriously?
They have a HUGE election day ground game supported by the various unions (and the public unions are VERY good at this) along with 'Acorn like' community organizations.
Yes, seriously. And what you posted had absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.
That the organizational structure tries to encourage people to vote has nothing to do with it being harder to motivate people to vote who could care less compared to people who have enemies. Having an enemy is a great motivator to do something especially if your feelings for that enemy rise to the level of hatred like it does for the Republican base.
Look at the voter participation rates in the US. Granted, it's just conjecture, but I believe that if the people who didn't vote would have cast a vote, the vast majority would have voted for a Democrat. The fact that Republicans do everything they can to make it harder for people to vote gives some proof to this.
Augustus Sol Invictus, Floridian former lawyer and current Libertarian candidate for Senate, once described himself as “of genius intellect,” “God’s gift to humankind where the English language is concerned,” and “everything you ever wanted to be.” Critics describe him as “a self-proclaimed fascist” and “absolute insanity.” One time, he killed a goat and drank its blood.
Other members of the Libertarian party, in an effort to disown Invictus and his calls for open revolt against the government, have repeatedly brought up rumors that Invictus participated in a pagan sacrifice. And now, according to the AP, he’s owned up to it: “I did sacrifice a goat. I know that’s probably a quibble in the mind of most Americans,” he said. “I sacrificed an animal to the god of the wilderness ... Yes, I drank the goat’s blood.”
The AP notes that he drank the blood in order to “give thanks” for a successful week of prayer and fasting in the Mojave Desert, so it’s understandable.
Invictus—who legally changed his name to the Latin for “unconquered sun”—was previously best known for a rambling, vainglorious “departure memo” in which he renounced his law degree, his educational institutions, and his U.S. citizenship, and declared a “Second Civil War.”...
Look at the voter participation rates in the US. Granted, it's just conjecture, but I believe that if the people who didn't vote would have cast a vote, the vast majority would have voted for a Democrat. The fact that Republicans do everything they can to make it harder for people to vote gives some proof to this.
Like how Obama said post '14 election:
“To everyone who voted, I want you to know that I hear you. To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you too,” he said.
WASHINGTON — With conference finished on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), it appears that sweeping acquisition reforms spearheaded by Sen. John McCain will become the law of the land.
The bill, reported out of a joint committee Sept. 29, gives service chiefs and secretaries overall responsibility for acquisition programs within the services — a shift away from the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L), which has held milestone decision authority over programs for roughly the past 30 years.
“That’s designed to establish clear lines of authority and clear accountability so the service chief and service secretary are given greater responsibility in this bill,” a Senate Armed Services Committee staff member said during a briefing with reporters a day after the committee report was filed.
Months of negotiations between House and Senate committee conferees sorted through more than 120 acquisition policy provisions to yield a conference report with mostly Senate provisions. The measures are aimed at increasing accountability, streamlining existing rules, and gaining access to different and nontraditional parts of the industrial base.
That McCain’s vision for reform won out is no small thing, particularly when it comes to the authorities that will devolve to the service chiefs — a key component of the senator's language.
That was in contrast to the version authored by Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, who heads the House Armed Services Committee. The HASC version did not include as large a role for the service chiefs, leading to questions about how things would shake out in conference.
A House Armed Services Committee staff member, however, said the two bills were “incredibly complementary” and denied there were huge differences. “I think there was an over-irrationalization of the differences between what the two chairmen were trying to get to,” he said.
The biggest change from the language means service secretaries and chiefs are expected to be engaged in the early stages of programs, deciding on performance, technical and cost issues before they allow programs to advance. They would also have to sign off on any new requirements, and to certify that a program’s funding and requirements are stable.
Cost overruns of more than 15 percent — a Nunn-McCurdy breach — would mean a transfer of the program back to AT&L, and it would require the services to pay penalties at 3 percent of the overrun. These penalties would pay into a fund controlled by AT&L for prototyping throughout the Department of Defense.
The shift in authority will apply to new programs in 2017, and AT&L will retain authority over joint programs.
Supporters of the language have pitched it as a way to curb the requirements creep that bloats defense programs, but there are concerns both inside and outside the Pentagon that the language will effectively gut the power wielded by Pentagon acquisitions chief Frank Kendall.
Congressional staffers downplayed the shift in power, insisting the provisions will apply to relatively few programs at first, would not change the defense secretary’s authority and actually provides the defense secretary with new tools to conduct business with commercial entities.
“Last time I checked, the services report to the secdef, and AT&L reports to secdef, and the undersecretary for policy reports to secdef,” said the Senate Armed Services Committee staff member. “The secretary of defense retains ultimate authority here.”
A spokeswoman for Kendall declined to comment, but in a July letter to Congress, Defense Secretary Ash Carter warned of “significant concerns” if power was shifted from AT&L to the service chiefs.
Doing so, Carter wrote, would prevent Pentagon leadership’s ability to "guard against unwarranted optimism in program planning and budget formulation, and prevent excessive risk-taking during execution — all of which is essential to avoiding overruns and costly delays."
Reaction
In order to provide new flexibility in acquisition, the language aims at having the Pentagon formalize rapid acquisition pathways typically reserved for crises, streamlining and creating waiver authority for two-to-five-year programs to allow foreign purchases. It also adds cyber to the urgent acquisitions process established in 2003.
Other such tools provide access to nontraditional parts of the industrial base, with expanded authorities to buy commercial products — outside federal acquisitions — for space systems, medical needs and other areas.
As the Pentagon makes overtures to Silicon Valley, the intent is to provide the military greater speed and flexibility to meet its urgent needs, congressional aides said.
“One of the things that’s different between acquisition reform then and now is that it is really tied to national security” the HASC staffer said. “From a technological superiority standpoint, we had 20 years to overcome the gaps, and in today’s day and age we just don’t have that. We have to do things faster.”
Dave McCurdy, the former congressman and co-creator of the Nunn-McCurdy rules, said the chairmen are trying to “put more teeth” in order to “actually impose some costs associated with nonperformance” in the acquisition system.
“It is certainly different from what we originally proposed, but I think they are becoming more frustrated with some of the breaches,” McCurdy said.
At a Sept. 30 event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a panel of experts were largely optimistic about the changes.
Moshe Schwartz, a specialist in defense acquisition policy for the Congressional Research Service, praised the focus on “issues of human beings being part of that acquisition process.”
He notes that reform efforts talk about accountability, program manager authority and training, areas that often have been overlooked in the past.
Andrew Hunter, director of the Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group at CSIS and a former director for DoD's Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell, said the reform language is largely positive. But he raised concerns about changes to Milestone B authority, where the service chiefs will have greater authority.
“My concern is that I think it treats every milestone as if they are all the same,” Hunter said. “In my view, Milestone B, you’re making a huge decision about strategy and an investment for the department that the process simply will demand the secretary of defense’s view play a heavy role, because it is a departmental decision.
“And I think that will have to happen, to some extent, through the backdoor as a result of the way the language is written, rather than it being out in the open for everyone to see and participate in,” Hunter said. “I think that ultimately is not a great thing.”
Steve Grundman, a former Pentagon industrial policy chief and now the principal of Grundman Advisory, called that a fair concern, but believes the service chiefs are uniquely positioned to weigh in on requirements, budgets and force decisions for a program.
“That’s their job,” he said. “So I would like to think their authority and stature will help good decisions get made.”
Of course, the looming caveat of any acquisition reform language is when, or if, it goes into effect.
President Obama is expected to veto the NDAA over $38 billion in additional funding included in the overseas contingency operations (OCO) wartime account. Obama and leading Democrats have derided OCO, which is exempt from congressionally mandated budget caps, as a “gimmick” that allows GOP leaders to inflate defense funding without increasing domestic spending.
Service Chiefs
Grundman does expect some “short-term turmoil” as the rules are figured out and the service chiefs adjust to their new responsibilities.
And the chiefs have largely appeared eager to adjust to the new rules. A sense of welcome for additional authority has permeated discussions over the last several months.
Both Gen. Ray Odierno, the recently retired chief of staff for the Army, and Adm. Jon Greenert, who has also since retired as chief of naval operations, have praised the idea of taking a larger role in acquisition.
But with new powers come new responsibilities, and at least one of the Joint Chiefs is concerned that the new language may prove to be a double-edged sword.
“I think you have to be a little careful what you ask for,” Gen. Mark Welsh, Air Force chief of staff, said in a September exclusive interview with Defense News.
While agreeing with his fellow chiefs that being involved in the process is important, he said that the services already have major input about how programs are acquired: “I have never felt disconnected from acquisition since I've been in this job.”
Assigning extra responsibilities to the service chiefs, he said, requires a deep understanding of acquisition policy and technology — adding another proverbial spinning plate to the ones the chiefs are already monitoring.
“I spent a few years working in the acquisition business in the Air Force, and I know how much work goes into it,” Welsh said. “I know how much energy is spent trying to get these programs right. I know the level of expertise of our acquisition professionals that do the job.
“Putting acquisition authorities into the service chief's box may create a problem because it would completely change the job, and we'd have to think through that because you'd have to spend an awful lot of time getting smart about the acquisition business.”
Both Hunter and Grundman were optimistic about the increased role for the chiefs. But Grundman also pointed out that OSD is not being entirely cut out of the process.
“It’s not like OSD will have no authority over the choices the services make. There is the program and budget review. And ultimately if the thing doesn’t make it into the budget, it won’t matter what authorities the services have over the programs.”
McCurdy also worries that removing AT&L from the mix might lead to more stovepiped acquisition — one of the primary targets of Goldwater-Nichols so many years ago.
“You have to be a little careful that you don’t undermine AT&L and its role as well,” he said, “because ultimately, in my opinion, ultimately it’s about making strategic choices.”
skyth wrote: Yes, seriously. And what you posted had absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.
That the organizational structure tries to encourage people to vote has nothing to do with it being harder to motivate people to vote who could care less compared to people who have enemies. Having an enemy is a great motivator to do something especially if your feelings for that enemy rise to the level of hatred like it does for the Republican base.
Look at the voter participation rates in the US. Granted, it's just conjecture, but I believe that if the people who didn't vote would have cast a vote, the vast majority would have voted for a Democrat. The fact that Republicans do everything they can to make it harder for people to vote gives some proof to this.
Damn, the Ds put up enemies all the time to motivate their voting blocks. Your side uses the 'war on women' meme, the 'wall street fat cats' meme, the 'they are racists' meme, the 'They want to take away your healthcare so you die' meme, the 'They'll get you into wars and force your children to die' meme, the 'They'll destroy more of the environment' meme and so on to build up enemies, and it works well for them. For feths sake, they ran a damned ad showing a R-candidate look-a-like pushing someone in a wheel chair over a fething cliff.
The twist is that, now more than ever, the establishments in both parties are getting kicked in the teef now. Can this acrimony sustain throughout the grind?
The issue is that many of the people who are kicking the GOP establishment in the teeth believe some very foolish things. These things include "Evolution is not real, and should not be taught in public school!", "Muslims are evil!", "Christians are persecuted!", "Conservatives are persecuted!", etc. Not all of these people believe those things, but they will likely be dragged into voting alongside the people who do.
skyth wrote: Yes, seriously. And what you posted had absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.
That the organizational structure tries to encourage people to vote has nothing to do with it being harder to motivate people to vote who could care less compared to people who have enemies. Having an enemy is a great motivator to do something especially if your feelings for that enemy rise to the level of hatred like it does for the Republican base.
Look at the voter participation rates in the US. Granted, it's just conjecture, but I believe that if the people who didn't vote would have cast a vote, the vast majority would have voted for a Democrat. The fact that Republicans do everything they can to make it harder for people to vote gives some proof to this.
Damn, the Ds put up enemies all the time to motivate their voting blocks. Your side uses the 'war on women' meme, the 'wall street fat cats' meme, the 'they are racists' meme, the 'They want to take away your healthcare so you die' meme, the 'They'll get you into wars and force your children to die' meme, the 'They'll destroy more of the environment' meme and so on to build up enemies, and it works well for them. For feths sake, they ran a damned ad showing a R-candidate look-a-like pushing someone in a wheel chair over a fething cliff.
Funny, I specifically said that I wasn't talking about the organization structure but rather the people, so why do you keep on trying to bring up the organizational structure? I believe that is what is called a straw man, though worse because I specifically said I wasn't talking about something and you keep on trying to bring up arguments about it.
The level of hate and vitriol expressed by the people voting (Not the organizations trying to get people to vote) is significantly higher for Republicans.
The Republican party is based on the idea that people not like them are evil people. The Democratic party is based on the idea of more of an open tent and a live and let live ideal.
And even your examples show the difference in strategy. Republican idea is that 'different from me==bad person'. Democrat strategy is that 'actively trying to hurt someone else==bad person'.
Being open minded means that you question whether they are actually trying to hurt someone or are just misguided, thus it is harder to build up the hate for them. If you think a person who is different is a bad person for being different, it's a lot harder to be open minded about them.
It's a lot harder and less effective for the Democratic party to create an enemy because of the mentality of the people in the party and what the party stands for.
skyth wrote: Yes, seriously. And what you posted had absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.
That the organizational structure tries to encourage people to vote has nothing to do with it being harder to motivate people to vote who could care less compared to people who have enemies. Having an enemy is a great motivator to do something especially if your feelings for that enemy rise to the level of hatred like it does for the Republican base.
Look at the voter participation rates in the US. Granted, it's just conjecture, but I believe that if the people who didn't vote would have cast a vote, the vast majority would have voted for a Democrat. The fact that Republicans do everything they can to make it harder for people to vote gives some proof to this.
Damn, the Ds put up enemies all the time to motivate their voting blocks. Your side uses the 'war on women' meme, the 'wall street fat cats' meme, the 'they are racists' meme, the 'They want to take away your healthcare so you die' meme, the 'They'll get you into wars and force your children to die' meme, the 'They'll destroy more of the environment' meme and so on to build up enemies, and it works well for them. For feths sake, they ran a damned ad showing a R-candidate look-a-like pushing someone in a wheel chair over a fething cliff.
skyth wrote: You act like the Democrats back then are anything like the Democrats now.
It was Clinton people who first brought up the issue of whether Obama was a US citizen.
It was the Obama administration that declaimed a "war on women."
It was Ann Richards who said Bush was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. (I just threw that in because I loved it).
And on the flip side we have the Dukakis ad showing him bebopping around like the world biggest dork in a tank.Wait what, that was a Dukakis pr move? Ooops!
Still waiting for something relevant relating to my argument.
You have to look hard for stuff that the Democratic organization did but nothing about the effects of those things and the underlying mentality of the base.
But please, keep up the straw man arguments. It's quite amusing.
skyth wrote: Still waiting for something relevant relating to my argument.
You have to look hard for stuff that the Democratic organization did but nothing about the effects of those things and the underlying mentality of the base.
But please, keep up the straw man arguments. It's quite amusing.
Okay... the last Democratic National Convention...
You must be looking at another video. I watched it in real time and still remember it vividly...
So, yes... you're right that the DNC participants didn't really specifically "boo" God... it's more complicated than that....
Keep in mind that the Democratic leaders had removed references to God (and to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel) prior to the main DNC event. The main reason why they boo'ed was when Villaigosa(sp?)asked for 3 separate voice votes on the amendment for the DNC plank to restore then mention of God. It was on the 3rd vote, the third try, Villaigosa ruled that the “Yes" won by a two-thirds majority. All tally'ed up by a "voice" vote.
It was a complete sham because the participants stood up loudly and protested, waving and shouting, when they realized that the fix was in.
It was obvious that there wasn't a two-third majority to restore the mention of God... in fact, the delegates obviously thought that amendment was controversial...
In the end, the DNC apparatchick realized the ensuing PR disaster and didn’t want an open debate on God or the capitol of Israel during the convention.
Thus, the FUBAR'ed work Villaigosa was forced to conduct...
It's a shame that we don’t know whether or not a majority of participants at this DNC convention actually objected to mentioning God in the party’s platform or stating which is the capitol of Israel, or some general objection to God/Isreal/Jerusalem...
Obviously, the party leadership didn’t want us to know.
whembly wrote: You must be looking at another video. I watched it in real time and still remember it vividly...
The only booing I heard was when it was called as an "aye" when it seemed pretty evenly split between "aye" and "nay" to me. It must have seemed pretty evenly split to him as well since he did it 3 times.
The only booing I heard was when it was called as an "aye" when it seemed pretty evenly split between "aye" and "nay" to me. It must have seemed pretty evenly split to him as well since he did it 3 times.
You need your hearing aids check?
Ask yourself this... why did Villiargos felt the need to redo the vote three times?
Hey... man... I'm 'splaining to skyth that the Democrats ain't all sunshines and rainbows... He keeps sprouting some nonsense that there's nothing wrong with the DNC leaderships/structures.
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! We are "Breaking With Convention." This is "War, Peace and the Presidency," covering the Democratic convention, inside and out. I’m Amy Goodman. The 2012 Democratic National Convention has entered its third day here in Charlotte. President Obama arrived here last night and is scheduled to accept his party’s nomination for a second presidential term tonight.
Democratic delegates held a surprise voice vote on the party platform yesterday afternoon. The convention invoked God and reinstated language from the 2008 platform describing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In confusing scenes in the first moments of the convention proceedings on Wednesday, when many delegates were not present, a vote on the language was called three times, because of the large number of voices both for and against the motion. Despite loud objections from the audience, convention chair, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, said he determined that two-thirds of delegates had voted in favor of the proposed changes. This is [Ted] Strickland, former Ohio governor and chair of the party’s platform [drafting] committee.
TED STRICKLAND: This summer, I was proud to serve this party as the platform drafting committee chair. As the chair, I come before you today to discuss two important matters related to our party’s national platform. As an ordained United Methodist minister, I am here to attest and affirm that our faith and belief in God is central to the American story and informs the values we’ve expressed in our party’s platform. In addition, President Obama recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and our party’s platform should, as well. Mr. Chairman, I have submitted my amendment in writing, and I believe it is being projected on the screen for the delegates to see. I move adoption of the amendment as submitted and shown to the delegates.
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: A motion has been made. Is there a second? Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, the matter requires a two-thirds vote in the affirmative. All those delegates in favor, say "aye."
DELEGATES: Aye!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: All those delegates opposed, say "no."
DELEGATES: No!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: In the opinion of the—let me do that again. All of those delegates in favor, say "aye."
DELEGATES: Aye!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: All those delegates opposed, say "no."
DELEGATES: No!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: I—I guess—
UNIDENTIFIED: You’ve got to rule, and then you’ve got to let them do what they’re going to do.
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: I’ll do that one more time. All those delegates in favor, say "aye. "
DELEGATES: Aye!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: All those delegates opposed, say "no."
DELEGATES: No!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: In the opinion of the chair, two-thirds have voted in the affirmative. The motion is adopted, and the platform has been amended as shown on the screen.
AMY GOODMAN: That was convention chair and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announcing the results of the surprise voice vote held on Wednesday afternoon at the Democratic National Committee. The Democratic Party had faced mounting criticism from Republican nominee Mitt Romney and others for omitting the reference to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan said, quote, "This is tragic. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Mitt Romney and I are very clear on this. ... What is so tragic about this is that this is one of the few issues where the Republican Party and the Democratic Party agreed," Paul Ryan said. Reports emerged shortly afterwards that President Obama had personally intervened to change the platform’s language back.
Well, to talk more about the significance of the vote, we’re joined now by James Zogby. He’s the president of the Arab American Institute, and he’s a superdelegate here at the Democratic National Convention, also a member of the convention’s platform committee.
Welcome to Democracy Now!
JAMES ZOGBY: No cape, though. Superdelegate, but I don’t fly, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: OK. What does "superdelegate" mean exactly?
JAMES ZOGBY: It means we’re members of the Democratic National Committee, and we become automatic delegates to the convention.
AMY GOODMAN: So, can you explain what took place yesterday afternoon, to the shock of people, I think, both in the convention center as well as people watching on television?
JAMES ZOGBY: Look, I’ve been dealing with platforms on the Middle East on this issue now for almost 30 years. They run scared, like Chicken Little, any time somebody raises a peep about the issue. I think, you know, the mounting criticism came from Republicans, and then from the predictable characters in the Democratic Congress. Frankly, the platform was just fine, and it should have made the Israeli side very happy. The new language coming from 2008 is so inconsequential that—and so vague.
AMY GOODMAN: It started in 2008?
JAMES ZOGBY: No, no, no. They’ve actually had some language on Jerusalem. Other language, they dropped. Really offensive language about refugees, etc., they dropped, thank God. But the Jerusalem language is rather vague and inconsequential. And so, the notion of adding it and solving a problem, it doesn’t mean anything. What they’ve done is, they’ve frankly dumped on their own convention. I mean, today, we’re talking about this. We ought to be talking about Bill Clinton’s speech. And that was a huge blunder. I think it was a—not thought through. You can see from Villaraigosa’s face as he gets out there that—you know, what’s going on here? And three votes. At some point—
AMY GOODMAN: Because he could not figure out—I mean, how you determine—
JAMES ZOGBY: At some point—
AMY GOODMAN: —two-thirds of the delegates? Also, how many of the delegates were even there?
JAMES ZOGBY: They just assumed it was going to be a slam dunk, everyone was going to go. We’ve polled in the Democratic Party. Most Democrats do not support these positions. We’ve known this now for decades. And the fact is, is that they just should let it go, because raising it now means we’ll be talking about this for days yet to come.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain how it came out. It was in the platform in 2008. And then, what happened in 2012?
JAMES ZOGBY: Don’t know. They took some heat for the language of 2008, because, frankly, the president is supposed to be negotiating a peace process or involved in that. And the 2008 platform predetermined many of the issues of the negotiations about refugees and borders, etc. Wiser minds, I suppose, prevailed. So when we looked at the draft—and everyone looked at the draft. AIPAC and everyone saw the draft. The draft had language that was very supportive of Israel on the security and defense front, supportive of Israel on the—Israel is the—you know, our ally, etc., etc. And then it eliminated some of these predetermining of negotiated issues, like borders in Jerusalem, etc. Why now, after Romney complains and Paul Ryan? I didn’t know that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan wrote the Democratic Party platform. They didn’t have a voice. They weren’t on our committee. And yet, they reacted scared and did what sometimes the party does, which is make a mistake out of fear.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to Democratic Congressmember Jerrold Nadler. Democracy Now! producer Mike Burke interviewed him inside the convention last night and asked him about the change in the platform and this extremely irregular vote—
JAMES ZOGBY: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: —that took place yesterday afternoon.
REP. JERROLD NADLER: I’m very glad we did that. It was never a substantive issue, but it was entirely a political issue. And there’s no reason to open up a huge debate over—over a non-substantive issue. The fact of the matter is, it’s been the policy of this administration, and every prior administration going back I don’t know how many years, that the status of Jerusalem is what’s called the "final status issue." That means it’s supposed to be negotiated between the parties—that is, the Palestinians and the Israelis—before an agreement, and they both have to agree to it, which is a practical matter. Since Israel will never believe that Jerusalem isn’t its capital, Jerusalem is going to be its capital. Now, that does not mean, as several—as any number of schemes have said, that part of Jerusalem might not be the Palestinian capital also, and there might be shared—all kinds of arrangements which have been discussed from time to time. But to get into a fight over omitting language that says that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital, which has been in previous platforms, and—is silly, because the practical consequences are zero. The reality is that the platform says and said, both the prior platform and the current platform, that we’d have a two-state—that we want a two-state solution with agreed-upon borders and so forth. And that means, as a practical matter, that—and again, since Jerusalem is a final status issue and everybody agrees on it, it’s got to be agreed upon. So, whether you have that language in the platform or not makes a political difference, because people are looking to try to make differences where there aren’t any, to try to make political points. But it has no practical significance. So there’s no point having a fight and giving the Republicans ammunition over something that’s meaningless.
MIKE BURKE: Now, what is the process? How was the platform drafted?
REP. JERROLD NADLER: I don’t know. I mean, technically, I mean, there’s a platform drafting committee, and they hold hearings, and they draft. And I suppose there’s supposed to be a vote by the platform committee. And there could be minority and majority reports, which there weren’t, on this or anything else. But I didn’t hear about any of this. No one I knew heard about it 'til 5:00 yesterday. And the platform was printed and distributed on the seats. I'm not sure what the mechanism of changing it was. Now, technically, I mean, the rules that I read—and they may only have been summaries of rules—say that the platform committee can present majority-minority reports, the convention can vote on it. It doesn’t say anything about bringing up a new version from the floor. So, I’m not sure—now, they could have moved to suspend the rules. I’m not sure how it was done. But the whole thing—but the platform itself was adopted yesterday when no one was paying attention, and the amendment was passed when no one was paying attention. Not the most democratic of procedures.
MIKE BURKE: Now, when it comes to, you know, the issue of Israel and Palestine, where do you see the differences between President Obama and Mitt Romney?
REP. JERROLD NADLER: That’s very difficult to say, because it depends on what Mitt Romney really means, which one doesn’t know. Certainly, the president agrees that we ought to have a—that we have a negotiated two-state solution, that the boundaries of the two states are final status issues that should be negotiated and agreed upon. I presume, if asked, Romney would say the same thing. But no one’s talking about that very much. I mean, Romney just keeps saying the president is throwing Israel under the bus, without specifically—without saying specifically what he’s talking about. So, one really doesn’t know. And no one is really talking about the parameters of negotiations, because, unfortunately, there do not seem to be any great prospects for negotiations in the immediate future. And the more immediate issues are Iran’s nuclear—or presumed or potential nuclear capability, Hamas shooting rockets into Israel, the United States supplying defenses to that, military aid, intelligence aid and all those sorts of things, all of which Obama has been, from a pro-Israeli point of view, very strong.
MIKE BURKE: Now, I know a few hours ago there was a protest outside the Levine Museum of the New South. There was an AIPAC gathering inside. CODEPINK and several other groups were— REP. JERROLD NADLER: I’m sorry. What?
MIKE BURKE: There was an AIPAC gathering at the museum.
REP. JERROLD NADLER: Yeah, I heard that.
MIKE BURKE: And there was a protest outside. The protesters were saying that AIPAC has too much sway on policy in Washington.
REP. JERROLD NADLER: Well, they’re entitled to their opinion. I don’t know that that’s true. I mean, AIPAC has—AIPAC has swayed to the extent that it voices opinions which most people and most policymakers agree with in the first place, in general terms. And AIPAC—now, there’s a dispute over whether AIPAC knew about this platform change and—the change, that is, from four years ago. The change that was in yesterday is a document and agreed on it or not. Some people said they were—that their people were present in the public drafting sessions, which were all public, and that they didn’t raise any objection. Somebody, who’s quoted in the Washington Post, from AIPAC is saying that’s not true. So I don’t know.
MIKE BURKE: All right. I’m sure you’re busy.
REP. JERROLD NADLER: But let me say just one thing about AIPAC. AIPAC is a lobbying agency, representing a lot of American citizens. It is not a—despite its name, it’s not a PAC—doesn’t contribute—it’s "Public Action Committee," not "political action committee." It doesn’t give out campaign contributions or anything. But it does represent the views of a lot of people, and it has a certain amount of political sway. But it’s a—it’s a standard lobbying operation, grassroots lobbying operation, representing a lot of people. And it would have no strength to the extent that people disagreed with it.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Congressmember Jerrold Nadler on the floor of the Democratic convention, interviewed by Democracy Now!’s Mike Burke. Well, last night, also on the floor of the convention, I ran into Congressmember Keith Ellison of Minneapolis, the first Muslim elected to Congress. I asked him to respond to the vote on changing the platform to include language that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
REP. KEITH ELLISON: Quite frankly, this is a final status issue, which should be negotiated between the parties. And I don’t know if it’s the proper place, in a Democratic or Republican platform, to identify where the capital of any foreign country should be. I mean, this is something that should be negotiated between Palestinians and Israelis. But we don’t say where the capital of Peru or Canada should be, so why—I don’t think it is the proper—I don’t think it’s the proper place for either party. But politics in the United States suggests that these things are going to be there. And so, the thing that bothers me the most is that, you know, look, Israel is an ally of the United States. Why should it be a political football such that Democrats and Republicans are trying to out-pro-Israel each other? This is a bad mistake and won’t lead to any good end. And we should—if we really want a platform position, it should be that we are going to work hard to help bring these parties together for a full, final and fair negotiation, not where a capital should be.
AMY GOODMAN: Another issue that was brought back in was the word "God."
REP. KEITH ELLISON: Yeah. Well, you know, I mean, the First—the First Amendment has a clause. The first cause of the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or abridge the free exercise thereof." I mean, the bottom line is, you know, the right—I mean, faith is an issue for individual Americans to decide for themselves. Again, it’s a political decision so that Republicans cannot say that Democrats are less religious than them, because we have allowed religion itself to become a political football, which is a very unfortunate thing. And I’m sad about it, quite frankly, that it’s in either one, or that we’re debating these issues, when we’re dealing—when, you know, you want to honor God—and I’m a person of faith—put people to work, heal the—take care of the poor, heal the sick. That’s what my faith tells me.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Congressmember Keith Ellison, first Muslim member of Congress, speaking on the House floor yesterday of the convention here in Charlotte. I also spoke to Michigan delegate, the vice chair of the Michigan Democratic Party, Ish Ahmed, to get his response to Wednesday’s vote.
ISMAEL AHMED: One, we’re not happy with that, and we’re probably going to challenge it procedurally. The first, two-thirds of the delegates were not here. The first two votes, they clearly lost, and yet they brought it up for a third vote and passed it. Having said that, this platform is still better than 2008, because it doesn’t talk about an undivided Jerusalem, and so it leaves room for it to be the capital of both Israel and Palestine. And I think that that’s a good thing. I also feel good because our voice is being heard here. There are more Arab Americans here than any time in history—about 55 of us from my state. There is an affirmative action agreement to have 12 Arab Americans on the slate when we come here every year. So, we’re making real, real progress.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Ish Ahmed, who is vice chair of the Democratic Party of Michigan, responding to this chaotic vote that took place yesterday afternoon on the floor of the Democratic National Convention. James Zogby is our guest, who’s a member of the Democratic National Committee. Your response to all of what you’ve heard? Let’s start with Jerrold Nadler.
JAMES ZOGBY: He’s right: the language is inconsequential. Where he’s wrong is that, procedurally, this was a huge embarrassment. And I think Keith Ellison is right: no good comes of this. The simple fact is, is that you don’t win any votes on one side, but you run the risk of losing votes on the other side. My community had been at this convention, came to this convention, as Ish noted, very excited. It was a record number, and we were treated with respect. Folks felt like they had literally gotten punched in the solar plexus by this procedural, very heavy-handed tactic that was used by the chair. Someone at a higher level in the party needed to think through how they did this and what the optics of it were. The optics were: "Oh, my god! Israel is upset! We’ve got to do it! Let’s do it. Oh, the delegates don’t care? I mean, they don’t support it? To hell with them! We’re going to do it anyway." That was really dumb. And that’s why we’re talking about it today. We’re not talking about whether Jerusalem ought to be the capital of Israel. We’re talking about how the party behaved. That was dumb.
AMY GOODMAN: President Obama has taken responsibility. He says he pushed this through.
JAMES ZOGBY: I don’t know that. Look, I’ve been to the White House for now 30-something years, and every time some 21-year-old kid walks in the room, he says, "Oh, the president really wants me to express his deep regards to all of you, and the president is very committed to this." I just don’t know. When I hear President Obama speak on it, I’ll believe it. But tell me, did Barack Obama want the mayor of Los Angeles to go out and create this embarrassing situation? No. Could it have been handled better? Absolutely. Is Nadler right that the language doesn’t mean a damn thing? Because, ultimately, what the language says is that a united city—Palestinians want a united city. The capital of Israel? It’s going to be the capital of Israel. But it also is going to be the capital of Palestine. And sovereignty has to be shared between both parties. The platform doesn’t speak to any, it doesn’t rule out any of those things. It says it needs to be negotiated. I can live with the language. But the way it was done, I can’t live with that.
AMY GOODMAN: How does Mayor Villaraigosa, who has to hear people shouting "yea" and "nay" three times, determine on the third time, where you can’t hear a difference in decibel level, that two-thirds of those who were there, however many there were that were there at that early hour, have voted for the amendment?
JAMES ZOGBY: He actually doesn’t. What he goes into it is with the notion that "I’m going to pass this damn thing, no matter what happens." But I think that they were up-ended by the fact that there was such opposition on the floor. And, you know, I mean, Republicans sort of spun it as Democrats booed this. Democrats were upset about the procedure, went through the platform, past the platform. The committee met over the platform. To then sort of, "Oh, my god! Republicans are upset! We’ve got to change the platform," that’s what bothered people.
AMY GOODMAN: And Ted Strickland, who introduced it, the former governor of Ohio, was the head of the—
JAMES ZOGBY: The drafting committee, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: —drafting committee of the platform.
JAMES ZOGBY: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Jim Zogby, I want to thank you very for being with us.
JAMES ZOGBY: Thank you, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: President of the Arab American Institute and a superdelegate at the Democratic National Convention. He’s a member of the Democratic National Committee. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, "Breaking With Convention." Back in a minute.
The only booing I heard was when it was called as an "aye" when it seemed pretty evenly split between "aye" and "nay" to me. It must have seemed pretty evenly split to him as well since he did it 3 times.
You need your hearing aids check?
Ask yourself this... why did Villiargos felt the need to redo the vote three times?
Hey... man... I'm 'splaining to skyth that the Democrats ain't all sunshines and rainbows... He keeps sprouting some nonsense that there's nothing wrong with the DNC leaderships/structures.
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! We are "Breaking With Convention." This is "War, Peace and the Presidency," covering the Democratic convention, inside and out. I’m Amy Goodman. The 2012 Democratic National Convention has entered its third day here in Charlotte. President Obama arrived here last night and is scheduled to accept his party’s nomination for a second presidential term tonight.
Democratic delegates held a surprise voice vote on the party platform yesterday afternoon. The convention invoked God and reinstated language from the 2008 platform describing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In confusing scenes in the first moments of the convention proceedings on Wednesday, when many delegates were not present, a vote on the language was called three times, because of the large number of voices both for and against the motion. Despite loud objections from the audience, convention chair, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, said he determined that two-thirds of delegates had voted in favor of the proposed changes. This is [Ted] Strickland, former Ohio governor and chair of the party’s platform [drafting] committee.
TED STRICKLAND: This summer, I was proud to serve this party as the platform drafting committee chair. As the chair, I come before you today to discuss two important matters related to our party’s national platform. As an ordained United Methodist minister, I am here to attest and affirm that our faith and belief in God is central to the American story and informs the values we’ve expressed in our party’s platform. In addition, President Obama recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and our party’s platform should, as well. Mr. Chairman, I have submitted my amendment in writing, and I believe it is being projected on the screen for the delegates to see. I move adoption of the amendment as submitted and shown to the delegates.
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: A motion has been made. Is there a second? Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, the matter requires a two-thirds vote in the affirmative. All those delegates in favor, say "aye."
DELEGATES: Aye!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: All those delegates opposed, say "no."
DELEGATES: No!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: In the opinion of the—let me do that again. All of those delegates in favor, say "aye."
DELEGATES: Aye!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: All those delegates opposed, say "no."
DELEGATES: No!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: I—I guess—
UNIDENTIFIED: You’ve got to rule, and then you’ve got to let them do what they’re going to do.
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: I’ll do that one more time. All those delegates in favor, say "aye. "
DELEGATES: Aye!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: All those delegates opposed, say "no."
DELEGATES: No!
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA: In the opinion of the chair, two-thirds have voted in the affirmative. The motion is adopted, and the platform has been amended as shown on the screen.
AMY GOODMAN: That was convention chair and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announcing the results of the surprise voice vote held on Wednesday afternoon at the Democratic National Committee. The Democratic Party had faced mounting criticism from Republican nominee Mitt Romney and others for omitting the reference to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan said, quote, "This is tragic. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Mitt Romney and I are very clear on this. ... What is so tragic about this is that this is one of the few issues where the Republican Party and the Democratic Party agreed," Paul Ryan said. Reports emerged shortly afterwards that President Obama had personally intervened to change the platform’s language back.
Well, to talk more about the significance of the vote, we’re joined now by James Zogby. He’s the president of the Arab American Institute, and he’s a superdelegate here at the Democratic National Convention, also a member of the convention’s platform committee.
Welcome to Democracy Now!
JAMES ZOGBY: No cape, though. Superdelegate, but I don’t fly, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: OK. What does "superdelegate" mean exactly?
JAMES ZOGBY: It means we’re members of the Democratic National Committee, and we become automatic delegates to the convention.
AMY GOODMAN: So, can you explain what took place yesterday afternoon, to the shock of people, I think, both in the convention center as well as people watching on television?
JAMES ZOGBY: Look, I’ve been dealing with platforms on the Middle East on this issue now for almost 30 years. They run scared, like Chicken Little, any time somebody raises a peep about the issue. I think, you know, the mounting criticism came from Republicans, and then from the predictable characters in the Democratic Congress. Frankly, the platform was just fine, and it should have made the Israeli side very happy. The new language coming from 2008 is so inconsequential that—and so vague.
AMY GOODMAN: It started in 2008?
JAMES ZOGBY: No, no, no. They’ve actually had some language on Jerusalem. Other language, they dropped. Really offensive language about refugees, etc., they dropped, thank God. But the Jerusalem language is rather vague and inconsequential. And so, the notion of adding it and solving a problem, it doesn’t mean anything. What they’ve done is, they’ve frankly dumped on their own convention. I mean, today, we’re talking about this. We ought to be talking about Bill Clinton’s speech. And that was a huge blunder. I think it was a—not thought through. You can see from Villaraigosa’s face as he gets out there that—you know, what’s going on here? And three votes. At some point—
AMY GOODMAN: Because he could not figure out—I mean, how you determine—
JAMES ZOGBY: At some point—
AMY GOODMAN: —two-thirds of the delegates? Also, how many of the delegates were even there?
JAMES ZOGBY: They just assumed it was going to be a slam dunk, everyone was going to go. We’ve polled in the Democratic Party. Most Democrats do not support these positions. We’ve known this now for decades. And the fact is, is that they just should let it go, because raising it now means we’ll be talking about this for days yet to come.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain how it came out. It was in the platform in 2008. And then, what happened in 2012?
JAMES ZOGBY: Don’t know. They took some heat for the language of 2008, because, frankly, the president is supposed to be negotiating a peace process or involved in that. And the 2008 platform predetermined many of the issues of the negotiations about refugees and borders, etc. Wiser minds, I suppose, prevailed. So when we looked at the draft—and everyone looked at the draft. AIPAC and everyone saw the draft. The draft had language that was very supportive of Israel on the security and defense front, supportive of Israel on the—Israel is the—you know, our ally, etc., etc. And then it eliminated some of these predetermining of negotiated issues, like borders in Jerusalem, etc. Why now, after Romney complains and Paul Ryan? I didn’t know that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan wrote the Democratic Party platform. They didn’t have a voice. They weren’t on our committee. And yet, they reacted scared and did what sometimes the party does, which is make a mistake out of fear.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to Democratic Congressmember Jerrold Nadler. Democracy Now! producer Mike Burke interviewed him inside the convention last night and asked him about the change in the platform and this extremely irregular vote—
JAMES ZOGBY: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: —that took place yesterday afternoon.
REP. JERROLD NADLER: I’m very glad we did that. It was never a substantive issue, but it was entirely a political issue. And there’s no reason to open up a huge debate over—over a non-substantive issue. The fact of the matter is, it’s been the policy of this administration, and every prior administration going back I don’t know how many years, that the status of Jerusalem is what’s called the "final status issue." That means it’s supposed to be negotiated between the parties—that is, the Palestinians and the Israelis—before an agreement, and they both have to agree to it, which is a practical matter. Since Israel will never believe that Jerusalem isn’t its capital, Jerusalem is going to be its capital. Now, that does not mean, as several—as any number of schemes have said, that part of Jerusalem might not be the Palestinian capital also, and there might be shared—all kinds of arrangements which have been discussed from time to time.
But to get into a fight over omitting language that says that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital, which has been in previous platforms, and—is silly, because the practical consequences are zero. The reality is that the platform says and said, both the prior platform and the current platform, that we’d have a two-state—that we want a two-state solution with agreed-upon borders and so forth. And that means, as a practical matter, that—and again, since Jerusalem is a final status issue and everybody agrees on it, it’s got to be agreed upon. So, whether you have that language in the platform or not makes a political difference, because people are looking to try to make differences where there aren’t any, to try to make political points. But it has no practical significance. So there’s no point having a fight and giving the Republicans ammunition over something that’s meaningless.
MIKE BURKE: Now, what is the process? How was the platform drafted?
REP. JERROLD NADLER: I don’t know. I mean, technically, I mean, there’s a platform drafting committee, and they hold hearings, and they draft. And I suppose there’s supposed to be a vote by the platform committee. And there could be minority and majority reports, which there weren’t, on this or anything else. But I didn’t hear about any of this. No one I knew heard about it 'til 5:00 yesterday. And the platform was printed and distributed on the seats. I'm not sure what the mechanism of changing it was. Now, technically, I mean, the rules that I read—and they may only have been summaries of rules—say that the platform committee can present majority-minority reports, the convention can vote on it. It doesn’t say anything about bringing up a new version from the floor. So, I’m not sure—now, they could have moved to suspend the rules. I’m not sure how it was done. But the whole thing—but the platform itself was adopted yesterday when no one was paying attention, and the amendment was passed when no one was paying attention. Not the most democratic of procedures.
MIKE BURKE: Now, when it comes to, you know, the issue of Israel and Palestine, where do you see the differences between President Obama and Mitt Romney?
REP. JERROLD NADLER: That’s very difficult to say, because it depends on what Mitt Romney really means, which one doesn’t know. Certainly, the president agrees that we ought to have a—that we have a negotiated two-state solution, that the boundaries of the two states are final status issues that should be negotiated and agreed upon. I presume, if asked, Romney would say the same thing. But no one’s talking about that very much. I mean, Romney just keeps saying the president is throwing Israel under the bus, without specifically—without saying specifically what he’s talking about. So, one really doesn’t know. And no one is really talking about the parameters of negotiations, because, unfortunately, there do not seem to be any great prospects for negotiations in the immediate future. And the more immediate issues are Iran’s nuclear—or presumed or potential nuclear capability, Hamas shooting rockets into Israel, the United States supplying defenses to that, military aid, intelligence aid and all those sorts of things, all of which Obama has been, from a pro-Israeli point of view, very strong.
MIKE BURKE: Now, I know a few hours ago there was a protest outside the Levine Museum of the New South. There was an AIPAC gathering inside. CODEPINK and several other groups were—
REP. JERROLD NADLER: I’m sorry. What?
MIKE BURKE: There was an AIPAC gathering at the museum.
REP. JERROLD NADLER: Yeah, I heard that.
MIKE BURKE: And there was a protest outside. The protesters were saying that AIPAC has too much sway on policy in Washington.
REP. JERROLD NADLER: Well, they’re entitled to their opinion. I don’t know that that’s true. I mean, AIPAC has—AIPAC has swayed to the extent that it voices opinions which most people and most policymakers agree with in the first place, in general terms. And AIPAC—now, there’s a dispute over whether AIPAC knew about this platform change and—the change, that is, from four years ago. The change that was in yesterday is a document and agreed on it or not. Some people said they were—that their people were present in the public drafting sessions, which were all public, and that they didn’t raise any objection. Somebody, who’s quoted in the Washington Post, from AIPAC is saying that’s not true. So I don’t know.
MIKE BURKE: All right. I’m sure you’re busy.
REP. JERROLD NADLER: But let me say just one thing about AIPAC. AIPAC is a lobbying agency, representing a lot of American citizens. It is not a—despite its name, it’s not a PAC—doesn’t contribute—it’s "Public Action Committee," not "political action committee." It doesn’t give out campaign contributions or anything. But it does represent the views of a lot of people, and it has a certain amount of political sway. But it’s a—it’s a standard lobbying operation, grassroots lobbying operation, representing a lot of people. And it would have no strength to the extent that people disagreed with it.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Congressmember Jerrold Nadler on the floor of the Democratic convention, interviewed by Democracy Now!’s Mike Burke. Well, last night, also on the floor of the convention, I ran into Congressmember Keith Ellison of Minneapolis, the first Muslim elected to Congress. I asked him to respond to the vote on changing the platform to include language that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
REP. KEITH ELLISON: Quite frankly, this is a final status issue, which should be negotiated between the parties. And I don’t know if it’s the proper place, in a Democratic or Republican platform, to identify where the capital of any foreign country should be. I mean, this is something that should be negotiated between Palestinians and Israelis. But we don’t say where the capital of Peru or Canada should be, so why—I don’t think it is the proper—I don’t think it’s the proper place for either party. But politics in the United States suggests that these things are going to be there. And so, the thing that bothers me the most is that, you know, look, Israel is an ally of the United States. Why should it be a political football such that Democrats and Republicans are trying to out-pro-Israel each other? This is a bad mistake and won’t lead to any good end. And we should—if we really want a platform position, it should be that we are going to work hard to help bring these parties together for a full, final and fair negotiation, not where a capital should be.
AMY GOODMAN: Another issue that was brought back in was the word "God."
REP. KEITH ELLISON: Yeah. Well, you know, I mean, the First—the First Amendment has a clause. The first cause of the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or abridge the free exercise thereof." I mean, the bottom line is, you know, the right—I mean, faith is an issue for individual Americans to decide for themselves. Again, it’s a political decision so that Republicans cannot say that Democrats are less religious than them, because we have allowed religion itself to become a political football, which is a very unfortunate thing. And I’m sad about it, quite frankly, that it’s in either one, or that we’re debating these issues, when we’re dealing—when, you know, you want to honor God—and I’m a person of faith—put people to work, heal the—take care of the poor, heal the sick. That’s what my faith tells me.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Congressmember Keith Ellison, first Muslim member of Congress, speaking on the House floor yesterday of the convention here in Charlotte. I also spoke to Michigan delegate, the vice chair of the Michigan Democratic Party, Ish Ahmed, to get his response to Wednesday’s vote.
ISMAEL AHMED: One, we’re not happy with that, and we’re probably going to challenge it procedurally. The first, two-thirds of the delegates were not here. The first two votes, they clearly lost, and yet they brought it up for a third vote and passed it. Having said that, this platform is still better than 2008, because it doesn’t talk about an undivided Jerusalem, and so it leaves room for it to be the capital of both Israel and Palestine. And I think that that’s a good thing. I also feel good because our voice is being heard here. There are more Arab Americans here than any time in history—about 55 of us from my state. There is an affirmative action agreement to have 12 Arab Americans on the slate when we come here every year. So, we’re making real, real progress.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Ish Ahmed, who is vice chair of the Democratic Party of Michigan, responding to this chaotic vote that took place yesterday afternoon on the floor of the Democratic National Convention. James Zogby is our guest, who’s a member of the Democratic National Committee. Your response to all of what you’ve heard? Let’s start with Jerrold Nadler.
JAMES ZOGBY: He’s right: the language is inconsequential. Where he’s wrong is that, procedurally, this was a huge embarrassment. And I think Keith Ellison is right: no good comes of this. The simple fact is, is that you don’t win any votes on one side, but you run the risk of losing votes on the other side. My community had been at this convention, came to this convention, as Ish noted, very excited. It was a record number, and we were treated with respect. Folks felt like they had literally gotten punched in the solar plexus by this procedural, very heavy-handed tactic that was used by the chair. Someone at a higher level in the party needed to think through how they did this and what the optics of it were. The optics were: "Oh, my god! Israel is upset! We’ve got to do it! Let’s do it. Oh, the delegates don’t care? I mean, they don’t support it? To hell with them! We’re going to do it anyway." That was really dumb. And that’s why we’re talking about it today. We’re not talking about whether Jerusalem ought to be the capital of Israel. We’re talking about how the party behaved. That was dumb.
AMY GOODMAN: President Obama has taken responsibility. He says he pushed this through.
JAMES ZOGBY: I don’t know that. Look, I’ve been to the White House for now 30-something years, and every time some 21-year-old kid walks in the room, he says, "Oh, the president really wants me to express his deep regards to all of you, and the president is very committed to this." I just don’t know. When I hear President Obama speak on it, I’ll believe it. But tell me, did Barack Obama want the mayor of Los Angeles to go out and create this embarrassing situation? No. Could it have been handled better? Absolutely. Is Nadler right that the language doesn’t mean a damn thing? Because, ultimately, what the language says is that a united city—Palestinians want a united city. The capital of Israel? It’s going to be the capital of Israel. But it also is going to be the capital of Palestine. And sovereignty has to be shared between both parties. The platform doesn’t speak to any, it doesn’t rule out any of those things. It says it needs to be negotiated. I can live with the language. But the way it was done, I can’t live with that.
AMY GOODMAN: How does Mayor Villaraigosa, who has to hear people shouting "yea" and "nay" three times, determine on the third time, where you can’t hear a difference in decibel level, that two-thirds of those who were there, however many there were that were there at that early hour, have voted for the amendment?
JAMES ZOGBY: He actually doesn’t. What he goes into it is with the notion that "I’m going to pass this damn thing, no matter what happens." But I think that they were up-ended by the fact that there was such opposition on the floor. And, you know, I mean, Republicans sort of spun it as Democrats booed this. Democrats were upset about the procedure, went through the platform, past the platform. The committee met over the platform. To then sort of, "Oh, my god! Republicans are upset! We’ve got to change the platform," that’s what bothered people.
AMY GOODMAN: And Ted Strickland, who introduced it, the former governor of Ohio, was the head of the—
JAMES ZOGBY: The drafting committee, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: —drafting committee of the platform.
JAMES ZOGBY: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Jim Zogby, I want to thank you very for being with us.
JAMES ZOGBY: Thank you, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: President of the Arab American Institute and a superdelegate at the Democratic National Convention. He’s a member of the Democratic National Committee. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, "Breaking With Convention." Back in a minute.
I'm actually with Rep. Keith Ellison on this...
So now you feel the need to lie about what I was sayin?
Well, in a slightly um... less sci-fi version of events, I believe Whembly honestly believes what he thought he remembered because that's literally what he remembers. Your mind makes stuff up all the time.
Ouze wrote: Well, in a slightly um... less sci-fi version of events, I believe Whembly honestly believes what he thought he remembered because that's literally what he remembers. Your mind makes stuff up all the time.
You have to look hard for stuff that the Democratic organization did but nothing about the effects of those things and the underlying mentality of the base.
As if the Democratic organization is the party of the sensible, sane party.
That's okay to have an opinion stating such things.... but, evidence supporting such is basically nil or weak sauce.
First, can we please put the huge quoted articles in spoiler tags to reduce the size? My finger thanks you for not having to scroll down so much on my phone.
Second, I think we all realize there are nutjobs on both sides. The problem is that, while the D nutjobs usually restrain themselves (or get restrained by others) after election, the R nutjobs don't.
And on the subject of "booing" references to God: I'd rather have the party that generally wants to keep God out of politics, instead of the party that constantly uses God to justify their politics, claims followers of certain religions shouldn't be voted for, claims the current president is just "pretending to be Christian", and so on. We're not a theocracy.
You have to look hard for stuff that the Democratic organization did but nothing about the effects of those things and the underlying mentality of the base.
As if the Democratic organization is the party of the sensible, sane party.
That's okay to have an opinion stating such things.... but, evidence supporting such is basically nil or weak sauce.
First off, you are using false equivalencies. The stuff the Democrats have done is no where near how bad the R's are.
Second off...I have explicitly been talking about the base not the organization. You continue to lie and say I was talking about the organization. Dishonest tactics all around.
First off, you are using false equivalencies. The stuff the Democrats have done is no where near how bad the R's are.
Again... opinion.
Second off...I have explicitly been talking about the base not the organization. You continue to lie and say I was talking about the organization. Dishonest tactics all around.
I've been trying to tell you... you hold the Republican party/organization/officials accountable to the fringe GOP voters.
Yet, you're expousing the exact opposite with the Democrat party.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: First, can we please put the huge quoted articles in spoiler tags to reduce the size? My finger thanks you for not having to scroll down so much on my phone.
Oops... sorry.
Second, I think we all realize there are nutjobs on both sides. The problem is that, while the D nutjobs usually restrain themselves (or get restrained by others) after election, the R nutjobs don't.
I think it swings opposite to whomever is the incumbant.
And on the subject of "booing" references to God: I'd rather have the party that generally wants to keep God out of politics, instead of the party that constantly uses God to justify their politics, claims followers of certain religions shouldn't be voted for, claims the current president is just "pretending to be Christian", and so on. We're not a theocracy.
I find it interesting that many believe his beliefs should automatically disqualify him from the office, but when he opined that he wouldn't vote for a Muslim... all hell breaks loose.
My head hurts man...
Holding religious beliefs isn't a problem. Holding religious beliefs that deny basic elements of science is a problem.
"Everybody's free to do whatever they want. To try to impose one's religious beliefs on someone else is absolutely what we should not be doing. That goes in both directions. Someone who is an atheist doesn't have a right to tell someone who isn't an atheist what they can or cannot do or what they can or cannot say. We have to be fair but it has to be fair in both directions"
As anyone running for public office... that is something we'd want all of our elected officials to preach... right?
Yeah, as a statement without context it reads just fine. But the trick is in where people's definition of freedom begins and ends. It's an extremely complex subject, where reasonable people can disagree. But there are also people who have no reasonable view on the issue, and define religious freedom so inconsistently that they basically lose the concept entirely, and basically replace it with a very crude kind of tribalism - getting whatever their side wants on a given issue is religious freedom, giving something up to any other religious group is a loss of religious freedom.
And so consider Carson in that light. Consider this guy thinks religious freedom means that because gay marriage is against his religion, that non-christian gay people should be denied marriage. And then consider that Carson also said that he wouldn't vote for a Muslim for president, just because of their religion.
That's a guy who just goes for whatever his tribe wants. He has no real idea of religious freedom.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: While I agree with the general premise here... I've been hearing this notion that it's "very difficult for the GOP to win a national election and growing increasingly" drum since 2008. That doesn't jive with the massive GOP wins in 2010 and 2014.
The GOP strategy of keeping a smaller base, but having that base really motivated and determined to vote in every election means they still hold a decent advantage in mid-terms. But even that's a strategy with a declining returns - each election cycle the demographics drift further away from them, and so to maintain competitiveness they crank the volume on their message.
And then they squeeze out a little more competitiveness through re-districting, so even if they can't win the most votes in the house, they are likely to win the most seats.
It's a strategy that will result in a slow, almost unnoticeable decline in power, until all of sudden it just drops away overnight. Once the re-districting can't protect enough seats, the swing will be brutal. Once the greater motivation can't counter-punch in the mid-terms then you're looking at a permanent minority.
Anyone with little love for the Democratic Party, which should be everyone, including most Democrats, has a strong interest in a healthy, long term viable Republican Party. I mean, if we have to choose between one of two tyrants then they'll have to keep themselves somewhat honest, but if one tyrant falls over then what controls the survivor?
Augustus Sol Invictus, Floridian former lawyer and current Libertarian candidate for Senate, once described himself as “of genius intellect,” “God’s gift to humankind where the English language is concerned,” and “everything you ever wanted to be.” Critics describe him as “a self-proclaimed fascist” and “absolute insanity.” One time, he killed a goat and drank its blood.
That is the most amazing thing. And here I was thinking this election race was getting a little dull.
skyth wrote: I have explicitly been talking about the base not the organization. You continue to lie and say I was talking about the organization. Dishonest tactics all around.
What you are missing, and we've tried to point out, is the tactics the organization uses are designed to work on your base. And they do. If your base was not susceptible to the tactics, your organization would not spend millions and millions on it. And lets also be clear, your base includes the unions, the environmental groups and the Acorn type organizations, your base IS a part of your party's organization in many ways. Hence why they are pandered to by the politicians.
And I've been pointing out, the tactics don't work as well on the Democratic Base because of the composition and ideology of the base.
You have negative things about a Republican and the Democrats don't like him. They see the basic humanity of the person and think that there might be nuance to why he did what he's accused of.
You have negative things about a Democrat and the Republicans hate him. They see things in black and white.
There is a huge difference. The pure hatred make it a lot more likely for the person to go out and vote.
I have been talking about the voters as the base, not the organizations. The Republicans are just full of hatred for anything different. This is part and parcel of being a conservative. That is the strength of the Republican party that they are a minority of voters that is well motivated, so they punch above their weight come election time for percentage of eligibles that vote.
Of course, I love the constant tactics of 'they did something bad, so they are just as bad as we are' when you are comparing stealing someone's wallet to gunning down a half dozen people...
If Judge deemed the clinton.com email as official records, it's the Dept of State officials who'll be reviewing the emails to determine if they're retrievable via FOIA requests...
I find it mildly amusing that he seems to be quietly boycotting CNN because of an interview he didn't like.
I do not, however, find it amusing at all that he decided campaigning for a job he doesn't have is more important than doing the job he was actually elected to do.
Rubio: "When I miss a vote, it's not because I'm out playing golf. We're out campaigning for the future of America where I believe I can make more of a difference as president than I could as a senator." Except, you are not president, but you are a senator. If campaigning for one is more important than actually doing the other, what are you going to do if you are president?
I freely admit this problem is not unique to Rubio; he was just the one in the headlines today and this is one of the things that really irks me.
This year, is the first time what a candidate says or acts actually scares me because its so off base and the guy should know better from his credentials
It seems to have worked for him. Did you criticize hime for it?
It's bad enough for the senate critters. But house critters are even worse. They only have a two year term to begin with, and it feels like 1.5 of those years are spend campaigning.
Interesting to see Clinton come out strongly on gun control. I think she’s identified it as an issue where she can place herself to the left of Sanders, and maybe try and chip away at his base. This is especially clear since she’s based much of her gun control position on repealing a 2005 bill that gave industry protections to gun manufacturers – Clinton voted against that bill, Sanders voted for it.
It’s an interesting development. It shows Sanders is not going away, and that Clinton has to do something about him. The question now is whether she’s moving too late, and if whether this an any other positions she takes in the future will risk hurting her in the general, should she get there.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I do not, however, find it amusing at all that he decided campaigning for a job he doesn't have is more important than doing the job he was actually elected to do.
Then you will continue to be unamused for as long as US politics exist.
Is there are a pairing arrangement in US politics? Over here the whips of the two major parties will get together and arrange to pair off all the voters who can’t attend a vote, generally for reasons of illness or needing to attend government business. If one side has more absent members than the other then they’ll arrange for members to be absent to even up the score.
I find it mildly amusing that he seems to be quietly boycotting CNN because of an interview he didn't like.
Good for him.
But, it'll hurt him...
I do not, however, find it amusing at all that he decided campaigning for a job he doesn't have is more important than doing the job he was actually elected to do.
Rubio: "When I miss a vote, it's not because I'm out playing golf. We're out campaigning for the future of America where I believe I can make more of a difference as president than I could as a senator." Except, you are not president, but you are a senator. If campaigning for one is more important than actually doing the other, what are you going to do if you are president?
I freely admit this problem is not unique to Rubio; he was just the one in the headlines today and this is one of the things that really irks me.
You do know that Obama was damn new absent about 70% of the time during his tenure... right?
In 2007 he missed 137 of 213 votes
In 2008 he missed 166 of 442 votes
It seems to have worked for him. Did you criticize hime for it?
...
Did you not read what he just said?
Yes, I did. And many times folk say that, but in action many folk don't actually criticize "their" side.
No, you and Whembly quite clearly DID NOT read what I said. I said BOTH SIDES do it AND that it "irks me". Do I need to go through congressional voting records and call out every single politician by name who missed a vote for any reason other than medical or other personal emergencies to hammer the point through? I don't like that Obama did it, I don't like that Rubio is doing it, etc., etc. But, I shouldn't have to do that because it should have been damned obvious what I meant!
In 2007 he missed 137 of 213 votes In 2008 he missed 166 of 442 votes
It seems to have worked for him. Did you criticize hime for it?
...
Did you not read what he just said?
Yes, I did. And many times folk say that, but in action many folk don't actually criticize "their" side.
No, you and Whembly quite clearly DID NOT read what I said. I said BOTH SIDES do it AND that it "irks me". Do I need to go through congressional voting records and call out every single politician by name who missed a vote for any reason other than medical or other personal emergencies to hammer the point through? I don't like that Obama did it, I don't like that Rubio is doing it, etc., etc. But, I shouldn't have to do that because it should have been damned obvious what I meant!
Time Period Votes Eligible Missed Votes
2008 Apr-Jun 77 65 84.4%
2008 Jul-Sep 47 41 87.2%
Kinda busy wasn't he?
Yeah, running for President, like I've already mentioned.
In case you forgot, you said he was absent over 70% of the time for his tenure. Which for the third time now, is a false statement. Over his tenure as Senator, he missed 314 of 1,300 roll call votes, which is 24.2% (with a most of those missed votes occurring during his campaign). Granted, that isn't that great, it sure as hell isn't "absent damn near 70% of the time."
I know that means jack gak to you because you don't let pesky facts get in your way, but maybe, just maybe, you should actually look into some things before you say them instead of just throwing gak to the wall and seeing what sticks.
Time Period Votes Eligible Missed Votes 2008 Apr-Jun 77 65 84.4% 2008 Jul-Sep 47 41 87.2%
Kinda busy wasn't he?
Yeah, running for President, like I've already mentioned.
In case you forgot, you said he was absent over 70% of the time for his tenure. Which for the third time now, is a false statement. Over his tenure as Senator, he missed 314 of 1,300 roll call votes, which is 24.2% (with a most of those missed votes occurring during his campaign). Granted, that isn't that great, it sure as hell isn't "absent damn near 70% of the time."
I know that means jack gak to you because you don't let pesky facts get in your way, but maybe, just maybe, you should actually look into some things before you say them instead of just throwing gak to the wall and seeing what sticks.
Hey, I flubbed that one... when I was writing that, I was thinking of his tenure as Senator while he was campaigining for President. Obviously not the every year he was in the Senate. Point being, I was being snarky to Tanner as he forgot literally the last guy who did that, who's the sitting President.
I think the idea that you can track a politicians work performance by how many votes they physically turn up to say yay or nay to is pretty foolish, to be honest. I mean, consider there's a senior Democrat and a senior Republican, and they're in a meeting hashing out a deal to avoid shutdown, and the clock hits 2.00 and they both drop everything and go dashing across Capitol Hill, just in time to be present for the vote. One votes yay, one votes nay, and then they turn around and run back to their meeting room.
Was democracy better served than if they'd both remained in that meeting, hashing out a deal on shutdown?
Or to put it another way, if it turns out Rubio had made sure he was present for every single vote while a senator, would that change anyone's opinion of the guy? If Obama had made every vote, would that change anyone's opinion?
I'm not saying that elected representative don't have to show up to vote, but just looking at total votes is pretty nonsensical. If someone can pick out some stats for important, close votes that were missed, then that would have some substance.
I remember threats like this from both sides of the isle as far back as 96. Canada even went so far as to put out a notice that they wouldn't be accepting immigration applications from people fleeing North because their guy didn't get into the Oval Office.
Personally, I think it's immature. I also think it's just the beginning. Again.
It's only immature of they don't actually follow though on it. Otherwise, yes, if you're the kind of person whose personal life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is dependant on who is the head of state, then you should move to a country that meets your needs better.
WrentheFaceless wrote: This year, is the first time what a candidate says or acts actually scares me because its so off base and the guy should know better from his credentials
Ben Carson is a scary, scary man
Most surgeons are scary. They get paid to cut people up.
If I were Rubio or any Republican I'd never go on CNN, ever.
WrentheFaceless wrote: This year, is the first time what a candidate says or acts actually scares me because its so off base and the guy should know better from his credentials
Ben Carson is a scary, scary man
Most surgeons are scary. They get paid to cut people up.
My nickname for any surgeons are "cutters".
Weirdly enough, most surgeons took that as a badge of honor.
If I were Rubio or any Republican I'd never go on CNN, ever.
Eh... it might bite him in the ass... but, it's interesting that it hasn't happened yet.
Duran was part of a tide of conservative elected officials nationwide who won political points by focusing on possible violations of voter ID laws.
Duran faces 64 charges related to fraud, embezzlement and money laundering. The attorney general's office alleged that she frequented casinos across the state, withdrawing $430,000 between 2013 and 2014 from her personal accounts while also depositing campaign funds into her personal accounts.
A 65th charge, identity theft, was added Friday after Kidd's interview with an investigator. Duran's attorney could not be reached for comment Saturday.
The FBI has seized four State Department computer servers as part of its probe into how classified information was compromised on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email system, according to people familiar with the investigation.
The four servers, which were located at the State Department’s headquarters building, were seized by the FBI several weeks ago. They are being checked by technical forensic analysts charged with determining how Top Secret material was sent to Clinton’s private email by State Department aides during her tenure as secretary from 2009 to 2013, said two people familiar with the probe. The people spoke on condition of anonymity because it is an ongoing investigation.
...
Yes, it's already been long established that the mishandling of classified material was rather widespread and not limited solely to Hillary. This is not new news that lots of people will be in trouble.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Yes, it's already been long established that the mishandling of classified material was rather widespread and not limited solely to Hillary. This is not new news that lots of people will be in trouble.
True. But it will be interesting in newsworthy to see who the other people mishandling classified material were, the circumstances under which it was done and what censure they face. It's never bad to shine a light on govt malfeasance and hold bureaucrats and officials accountable for their actions.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Yes, it's already been long established that the mishandling of classified material was rather widespread and not limited solely to Hillary. This is not new news that lots of people will be in trouble.
At this point... it's surprising that it has been deep-six'ed yet. KnowWhatIMean?
Tannhauser42 wrote: Yes, it's already been long established that the mishandling of classified material was rather widespread and not limited solely to Hillary. This is not new news that lots of people will be in trouble.
True. But it will be interesting in newsworthy to see who the other people mishandling classified material were, the circumstances under which it was done and what censure they face. It's never bad to shine a light on govt malfeasance and hold bureaucrats and officials accountable for their actions.
Who the other people are will pretty much be "everybody", I'm guessing. As to what will happen, half of them probably aren't there anymore (so nothing more than an oopsie in the media for them) and the other half will just get a letter of reprimand and some refresher training on classified material handling. Assuming none of them passed on classified stuff to someone unauthorized for it.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Yes, it's already been long established that the mishandling of classified material was rather widespread and not limited solely to Hillary. This is not new news that lots of people will be in trouble.
True. But it will be interesting in newsworthy to see who the other people mishandling classified material were, the circumstances under which it was done and what censure they face. It's never bad to shine a light on govt malfeasance and hold bureaucrats and officials accountable for their actions.
Who the other people are will pretty much be "everybody", I'm guessing. As to what will happen, half of them probably aren't there anymore (so nothing more than an oopsie in the media for them) and the other half will just get a letter of reprimand and some refresher training on classified material handling. Assuming none of them passed on classified stuff to someone unauthorized for it.
Mmm so what you're saying is...
1. The State Department sucks at maintaining security, something which should be pretty basic.
2. But HRC was in charge of the State Department for years so...
3. She's incompetent or intentionally letting the department be illegally sloppy?
I think the upper bureaucracy has become too complacent which results in a bit of incompetence and sloppiness and an attitude of "everybody else does it so I can do it too." And it's probably between that way for decades, too.
Besides, it's D.C., you make a mistake, you can just move into a different office in a different building down the street. It's just like the politicians, they don't really care about the consequences of what they do in office, because they're already on the gravy train for life.
It's like I said many pages ago, I bet lots of people all over D.C. are squeezing cheeks right now over this, hoping someone doesn't go poking into their correspondence.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I think the upper bureaucracy has become too complacent which results in a bit of incompetence and sloppiness and an attitude of "everybody else does it so I can do it too." And it's probably between that way for decades, too.
Besides, it's D.C., you make a mistake, you can just move into a different office in a different building down the street. It's just like the politicians, they don't really care about the consequences of what they do in office, because they're already on the gravy train for life.
It's like I said many pages ago, I bet lots of people all over D.C. are squeezing cheeks right now over this, hoping someone doesn't go poking into their correspondence.
At a minimum... folks could lose their security clearance.
Well, last time I did the isidewith survey, I got a popup asking to add my name to some online petition thingy for Bernie Sanders. I don't remember what it was about, but clearly it seemed like a good idea at the time, because I have now received my first email from BernieSanders.com:
Spoiler:
Dear Bernie Supporters,
In two weeks, Bernie will be giving a big speech at the Iowa Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner. It is the largest gathering of Iowa Democrats of the year, and it comes exactly 100 days before the Iowa caucuses.
This event is a BIG deal. Usually, campaigns make sure big-time contributors get the premium tickets. That's what we expect the other candidates to do. Same old, same old.
Our campaign has a different idea, and we need your help to carry it out.
We want to pack the Iowa Events Center with regular folks — supporters carrying crushing student debt, parents who would benefit from a $15 minimum wage, and workers who have lost their jobs due to our disastrous trade policies.
General admission tickets cost $50 apiece, and our campaign is asking for supporters across the country to sponsor a student, a parent, a worker, or a campaign supporter by covering their cost of admission.
Contribute $25 to our campaign today and we’ll pair you with another supporter to cover the cost of admission for one person.
Every member of the national political media will be there, and this is a moment we can ensure the voices of students, parents, and those looking for work are heard loud and clear. Let’s send a powerful message about what a united national movement standing in solidarity with each other looks like.
All my best,
Robert Becker
Iowa State Director
Bernie 2016
That...is actually an interesting idea to get the "not rich and powerful" into some of the events. I'm not actually contributing myself, but I am tempted to at least get a "Feel the Bern" bumper sticker to troll my fellow Texans.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Well, last time I did the isidewith survey, I got a popup asking to add my name to some online petition thingy for Bernie Sanders. I don't remember what it was about, but clearly it seemed like a good idea at the time, because I have now received my first email from BernieSanders.com:
Spoiler:
Dear Bernie Supporters,
In two weeks, Bernie will be giving a big speech at the Iowa Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner. It is the largest gathering of Iowa Democrats of the year, and it comes exactly 100 days before the Iowa caucuses.
This event is a BIG deal. Usually, campaigns make sure big-time contributors get the premium tickets. That's what we expect the other candidates to do. Same old, same old.
Our campaign has a different idea, and we need your help to carry it out.
We want to pack the Iowa Events Center with regular folks — supporters carrying crushing student debt, parents who would benefit from a $15 minimum wage, and workers who have lost their jobs due to our disastrous trade policies.
General admission tickets cost $50 apiece, and our campaign is asking for supporters across the country to sponsor a student, a parent, a worker, or a campaign supporter by covering their cost of admission.
Contribute $25 to our campaign today and we’ll pair you with another supporter to cover the cost of admission for one person.
Every member of the national political media will be there, and this is a moment we can ensure the voices of students, parents, and those looking for work are heard loud and clear. Let’s send a powerful message about what a united national movement standing in solidarity with each other looks like.
All my best,
Robert Becker
Iowa State Director
Bernie 2016
That...is actually an interesting idea to get the "not rich and powerful" into some of the events. I'm not actually contributing myself, but I am tempted to at least get a "Feel the Bern" bumper sticker to troll my fellow Texans.
I hope he comes to MO with the same idea. I'd go. The bill that smashes right to work might actually flip this state. There's a LOT of people here more than a little pissed off about that, at least, that's what I gather from the frequency of related bumper stickers I see.
Tannhauser42 wrote: It's only immature of they don't actually follow though on it. Otherwise, yes, if you're the kind of person whose personal life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is dependant on who is the head of state, then you should move to a country that meets your needs better.
It’s immature then as well. People get caught up in this idea that because people talk about politics all the time then it must have this massive, life altering impact on society and on each person. But there’s been a flow of good, bad and indifferent politicians for hundreds of years and life just bubbles on anyway.
For a real eye opener, try going to a country that doesn’t even get to vote. It was a real eye opener when I first went to China. I don’t want say it’s okay to not have democracy, but for almost all daily living it doesn’t actually matter. So having a crap president for four years isn’t good, but it’s no reason to give up on the life you’ve built in that country.
sebster wrote: For a real eye opener, try going to a country that doesn’t even get to vote. It was a real eye opener when I first went to China. I don’t want say it’s okay to not have democracy, but for almost all daily living it doesn’t actually matter. So having a crap president for four years isn’t good, but it’s no reason to give up on the life you’ve built in that country.
"The common people pray for rain, health, and a summer that never ends. They don't care what games the high lords play." ~ Some TV Show based on some book somewhere
Washington (CNN)House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy has dropped out of the race to succeed House Speaker John Boehner, in a shocking move that reflected his inability to gather the support of the Republican caucus.
The move comes as House Republicans were in a closed-door meeting to select their nominee for speaker and came without any warning. Boehner has postponed the vote.
Members had no indication the move was coming. "Totally stunned," said Rep. Peter King on CNN.
*
And now McCarthy is out of the Speaker race. Really concerned about the state of the GOP at this point. I don't want to trot out the word 'implosion' but it's hard not to think about it.
curran12 wrote: Really concerned about the state of the GOP at this point. I don't want to trot out the word 'implosion' but it's hard not to think about it.
I wouldn't be. We might be witnessing the actual creation of an ACTUAL third (albeit insanely conservative) party if the Rs split into "far right / tea party" and "corporate sellout / center right". Despite my names for the two groups, I think it would actually be a good move, as we might actually get a group of people who are capable of actual cooperation. If they don't have to constantly pander to the far-right, maybe we can get some ACTUAL Republicans.
I'm sure everyone has heard that Dr. Ben Carson, if confronted with a person with a gun, said he wouldn't just stand around waiting to be shot., right? It turns out when that actually did happen, it went a little differently than he boasted it would today.
curran12 wrote: Really concerned about the state of the GOP at this point. I don't want to trot out the word 'implosion' but it's hard not to think about it.
I wouldn't be. We might be witnessing the actual creation of an ACTUAL third (albeit insanely conservative) party if the Rs split into "far right / tea party" and "corporate sellout / center right". Despite my names for the two groups, I think it would actually be a good move, as we might actually get a group of people who are capable of actual cooperation. If they don't have to constantly pander to the far-right, maybe we can get some ACTUAL Republicans.
Won't happen.
The Cons are flexing their muscle now.
Maybe Paul Ryan will save the day:
Robert Costa ✔ @costareports
BREAKING: BOEHNER IS PERSONALLY ASKING RYAN TO STEP UP AND BE SPEAKER, have spoken twice today by phone...
2:57 PM - 8 Oct 2015
I think as we get closer to crunchtime and when the Republicans have to start getting serious about picking their candidate rather than running the circus they have now, we may start seeing some of that implosion factor, particularly if the "wrong" candidate is in the lead by that point. A lot may also depend on whether Cornyn's move to extend the debt ceiling into 2017 goes smoothly or turns into another pointless pissing match, because playing chicken with the USA's credit is always such a good idea...
But I don't think we'll see any real implosion until after the elections. If more of the supercrazy far right Rs get voted in, but the Ds still get the White House, we might as well replace the congressional seal with the 8 pointed star of Chaos.
Anyway, as a followup on my earlier post about that Bernie Sanders email I got to sponsor normal people into the Democrat dinner event, I got an email today saying over 1350 tickets have already been purchased so far. I don't know how many seats there are in total for the event, but that sounds like a lot?
streamdragon wrote: I wouldn't be. We might be witnessing the actual creation of an ACTUAL third (albeit insanely conservative) party if the Rs split into "far right / tea party" and "corporate sellout / center right". Despite my names for the two groups, I think it would actually be a good move, as we might actually get a group of people who are capable of actual cooperation. If they don't have to constantly pander to the far-right, maybe we can get some ACTUAL Republicans.
Yeah, the story floating around is that McCarthy couldn't win any votes from the Freedom caucus, and without them he wouldn't have enough votes.
Honestly, as much as I like the Ameican culture of crossing the aisle and voting for conscience and district over party lines, there's times where you just have to except party voting or you're not really a party anymore. Once the party has decided its nomination for speaker, then anyone who doesn't follow the party line and vote for that person needs to be booted.
Robert Costa ✔ @costareports BREAKING: BOEHNER IS PERSONALLY ASKING RYAN TO STEP UP AND BE SPEAKER, have spoken twice today by phone... 2:57 PM - 8 Oct 2015
It's an interesting pick, and maybe he is the guy who'll bridge the gap between the far right and the more sensible end of the Republican party.
Ryan has this kind of amazing ability to seem like a moderate, considered politician, while actually pushing a platform that's really hardline. So if he can sell his really conservative policies to the far right of his party, while keeping a more moderate face to appeal to the rest, maybe it'll work. It would be an amazing job if he can hold it together as long as Boehner did.
Some of his errors have been unforced. Last week, days before Hurricane Joaquin was projected to hit the East Coast, a reporter tossed Carson a softball in asking how he would prepare for the storm if he were in the White House.
"I don't know," he replied, touching off mockery on social media.
You know what? I think that was a great answer. I think that was a totally appropriate answer. He's running as a political outsider, which is what he base wants, and that goes hand in hand with not really knowing a lot of public policy. I don't really endorse the idea that a total outsider is a great idea; but it doesn't matter, because this is what his base actually wants, and I think it was a totally fair, honest answer.
I've often found that "I don't know" is an entirely honest answer that isn't accepted as much as it should be. I have a hard time trusting people that seem to have explanations for everything, including things they couldn't possibly have explanations for.
Some of his errors have been unforced. Last week, days before Hurricane Joaquin was projected to hit the East Coast, a reporter tossed Carson a softball in asking how he would prepare for the storm if he were in the White House.
"I don't know," he replied, touching off mockery on social media.
You know what? I think that was a great answer. I think that was a totally appropriate answer. He's running as a political outsider, which is what he base wants, and that goes hand in hand with not really knowing a lot of public policy. I don't really endorse the idea that a total outsider is a great idea; but it doesn't matter, because this is what his base actually wants, and I think it was a totally fair, honest answer.
The "I don't know" is certainly better than this: Ben Carson said today that Adolf Hitler’s mass murder of Jews “would have been greatly diminished” if German citizens had not been disarmed by the Nazi regime.
Gordon Shumway wrote: The "I don't know" is certainly better than this: Ben Carson said today that Adolf Hitler’s mass murder of Jews “would have been greatly diminished” if German citizens had not been disarmed by the Nazi regime.
Gordon Shumway wrote: The "I don't know" is certainly better than this: Ben Carson said today that Adolf Hitler’s mass murder of Jews “would have been greatly diminished” if German citizens had not been disarmed by the Nazi regime.
Someone needs to get this neurosurgeon a head doctor.
I can't comment on the situation in Nazi Germany so many years ago. You all likely know much more history than I do, but they quipped about the gunpoint situation, and I can't fault him for that. We all want to think noble and empowering things about how we would react when faced with imminent danger, but I'd likely toss any number of people in my way to get out myself. Survival is human. So is ego.
And having guns probably wouldn't have made a difference. By and large the German population supported the Nazi regime up until the final 2-3 years of the war, and even if they had opposed it anti-Semitism was rampant among Germans anyway.
Suggesting that gun rights would have made a difference in anything that happened there is the height of "just not getting it."
The thing about the "I don't know" also shows a bit of forgetfulness regarding relatively recent history. At the very least, Katrina made sure everybody knew that FEMA existed (probably only Deus Ex players knew about FEMA before that). So, at the least, he should have said he would ahve mobilized FEMA and other federal emergency response services, even if he didn't have any detailed action plan.
LordofHats wrote: And having guns probably wouldn't have made a difference. By and large the German population supported the Nazi regime up until the final 2-3 years of the war, and even if they had opposed it anti-Semitism was rampant among Germans anyway.
Suggesting that gun rights would have made a difference in anything that happened there is the height of "just not getting it."
I dunno...
I'd rather go down fighting with a Heckler & Koch in my hands than marched into a gas chamber.
LordofHats wrote: And having guns probably wouldn't have made a difference. By and large the German population supported the Nazi regime up until the final 2-3 years of the war, and even if they had opposed it anti-Semitism was rampant among Germans anyway.
Suggesting that gun rights would have made a difference in anything that happened there is the height of "just not getting it."
I dunno...
I'd rather go down fighting with a Rutger in my hands than marched into a gas chamber.
But, that's me...
What's just you? Preferring to be dead more quickly from a gunshot wound when they rounded you up? I can respect that. The end result would have been the same was my point.
Edit: I would have probably used a variation of what Carson claimed he actually did when he had a gun held to him at a diner in Baltimore. I would have said, "nope, no Jews here. The people you want are next door".
whembly wrote: Um... the Nazi did disarm the populace...
No, they didn't. The law they passed actually increased gun availability in almost all cases. The one exception being, of course, the Jews.
And the bigger issue, as LordofHats points out, is that Hitler was popularly supported, until the war started to turn bad and impact life at home.
And that's the reality of totalitarian governments that gun people just refuse to understand - these governments don't keep power because people lack the small arms. Look at the people in almost any regime and you'll find loads of guns. In Saddam's Iraq you could own guns that'd make an American survivalist green with envy. But the revolution doesn't come, for one of three reasons. Often these governments are popular despite their atrocities, because their atrocities are committed on only a minority of the population. Or they're unpopular, but still better than open war, because you still get food and shelter for your family, while in open war it's anyone guess. Or people are willing to risk taking up arms, but are ineffective, or incapable of even starting it, because there are informants and secret police everywhere, and building sophisticated cell structures that can be effective while still safe from total infiltration is really hard.
As I've said so many times before, getting a gun is the easy bit. But so many people like to pretend that's all there is to it, because they like to play imaginary roleplaying freedom fighter heroes, just by buying a gun.
Carson is playing up to that fantasy. Whether it's because he's telling a certain kind of Republican what they want to hear, or because he actually believes that nonsense himself, I don't know.
Anybody hear that a Mexican drug lord put out a bounty 'dead or alive' notice on Donald trump for wanting to close the Mexican/U.S. border?
Personally I think this can mostly end well for Donald trump. I heard it was 100 million U.S. dollars on his head. What you have to understand is Trump now has a name and a face of who to go after. He can out-bid the bounty on him and put one on the drug lord for infinitely more money. After that Trump would be sure to win the election if he got a drug lord killed. First off the hit on him would be gone and 2nd who's going to beat that during the election.
"I plan do to this when I'm in office."
'Oh yeah. Well I got a Mexican drug lord killed during my campaign.'
"Crap."
This would even give him more weight to wanting the wall on the border (though even I think that's a crazy and fairly offensive idea).
Anyway I heard this on some news and i'll see if I can find it.
whembly wrote: Um... they also disarmed the less "desirables" and I believe the Social Democrats. Or anyone who won't play ball either.
No, I believe it was just the Jews.
Carson is appealing to those who believes an armed citizen keeps their government in check.
Yeah, and as I just explained, it's a very, very silly belief, that relies on having almost complete ignorance of how resistance against government works.
Same sort of thing the Hillary Clinton proposing more gun control laws to appeal to the "do something!" crowd.
So far Clinton's approach has been pretty minor. You'd have more success comparing to the Brady's campaign's black guns are scary campaign. To this day I have no idea if those guys honestly have no idea how guns work, or if they were just playing up to a crowd who had no idea how guns work.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Anybody hear that a Mexican drug lord put out a bounty 'dead or alive' notice on Donald trump for wanting to close the Mexican/U.S. border?
Personally I think this can mostly end well for Donald trump. I heard it was 100 million U.S. dollars on his head. What you have to understand is Trump now has a name and a face of who to go after. He can out-bid the bounty on him and put one on the drug lord for infinitely more money. After that Trump would be sure to win the election if he got a drug lord killed. First off the hit on him would be gone and 2nd who's going to beat that during the election.
"I plan do to this when I'm in office."
'Oh yeah. Well I got a Mexican drug lord killed during my campaign.'
"Crap."
This would even give him more weight to wanting the wall on the border (though even I think that's a crazy and fairly offensive idea).
Anyway I heard this on some news and i'll see if I can find it.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Anybody hear that a Mexican drug lord put out a bounty 'dead or alive' notice on Donald trump for wanting to close the Mexican/U.S. border?
Personally I think this can mostly end well for Donald trump. I heard it was 100 million U.S. dollars on his head. What you have to understand is Trump now has a name and a face of who to go after. He can out-bid the bounty on him and put one on the drug lord for infinitely more money. After that Trump would be sure to win the election if he got a drug lord killed. First off the hit on him would be gone and 2nd who's going to beat that during the election.
"I plan do to this when I'm in office."
'Oh yeah. Well I got a Mexican drug lord killed during my campaign.'
"Crap."
This would even give him more weight to wanting the wall on the border (though even I think that's a crazy and fairly offensive idea).
Anyway I heard this on some news and i'll see if I can find it.
Search this and you can find any of the news stories you'd prefer to read.
'donald trump el chapo'
Drug lord or not, I don't think I'd want to vote for a president who brags about putting a kill bounty on someone.
The bounty was put on trump's head first. He never put out a bounty or anything. At this point he has justification as the other guy started this. I'm not saying it's super right but what other way would you plan to get rid of a bounty on your head while not coming off as weak and also cowing down before a baddie. Honestly this is by far the best outcome for Trump to do as I said. People would be impressed and I know I'd be. Personally if Trump throws a hit back out on this guy it'd be infinitely better the way I see it. I mean another drug lord or drug lords would probably take chapo's place if he died. That said it justifies a bit of what Trump wants the wall for. I'm not saying it's a good thing overall but 'El Chapo' throwing around this threat will make Trump look better for it.
Anyway in my eyes if Trump died he has family and such to seek revenge as well as FBI and all that. If 'El Chapo' dies it's just another power shift. Somebody else will take 'El Chapo's' place like I'm sure it usually works out when a drug lord dies. They'll also see what happens when you mess with Trump and back off. Sure they won't take the building of the wall well but if they truly felt threatened they'd find a way to work around the wall or just deal with it. It's not like building a massive wall around the border would be easy to patrol at all times even with all the rednecks in the southwest (not saying the southwest in general but the much fewer rednecks in those areas).
Who put a bounty on who fist doesn't matter when one says they wouldn't want a President that brags about putting bounties on someone's head. We expect that behavior from a drug lord, who most likely has put a lot of bounties out there, but we don't want that from a person seeking high office. Unless they are a grandstanding narcissist, of course.
I think any time a potential president is using 'he started it' as a defense there's cause for concern.
I'm not saying it's super right but what other way would you plan to get rid of a bounty on your head while not coming off as weak and also cowing down before a baddie. Honestly this is by far the best outcome for Trump to do as I said.
Why does he have to respond at all? Is he going to lose credibility in the playground? Will it lead to the other kids getting together behind the swings and talking smack about him?
You know you guys must totally be right. He should just ignore the fact a 'hit' was called out on him. In fact he should just let the guy kill him because that's what geniuses do. Or maybe he should try doing the equivalent of negotiating with terrorists only leading to more people trying the same. You know you guys totally know what'd help Trump most in this situation. Apparently looking like a coward or getting himself in the line of fire is the best option here.
Ben Carson's comments about Jews suffering the Holocaust because they didn't have guns, is probably the most ignorant utterance I've ever heard from any Republican presidential candidate, ever, and I've been on God's earth nigh on 40 years!
Carson makes Bob Dole look like FDR!
By his logic, his ancestors only have themselves to blame for being slaves, because they never had guns.
By his logic, Native Americans lost their lands because they never had guns...wait they did!
If Jesus Christ had been armed, then he wouldn't have been crucified....
I could go on and on.
This man should not be entrusted with running a hotdog stand, never mind a global superpower.
Really, if Trump puts out a hit on the guy and brags about getting him killed, it wouldn't matter what the voters think because he'd probably simply be arrested for murder.
flamingkillamajig wrote: You know you guys must totally be right. He should just ignore the fact a 'hit' was called out on him. In fact he should just let the guy kill him because that's what geniuses do.
Why would he ignore it or just let the guy kill him? Do you really believe that when something like this happens the only response is to get the other guy first? Do you live in a mid-90s gangster movie?
Anyhow, Trump is a rich and connected man. He has vast personal resources to cover excellent personal security in case anything real comes out of this. And on top of that he's also got great government connections and personal clout to ensure the US and Mexican governments take this as seriously as it should be taken.
So Trump should, you know, respond like a grown adult living in the real would.
Or maybe he should try doing the equivalent of negotiating with terrorists only leading to more people trying the same.
And where does that come from? Who suggested negotiation? Who has ever responded to a death threat from a crimelord with asking that crimelord to sit down and talk things out? Why would you even mention that in order to reject it?
sebster wrote: Who has ever responded to a death threat from a crimelord with asking that crimelord to sit down and talk things out? Why would you even mention that in order to reject it?
Bro, have you ever even seen the Sopranos? If you ask for a sit-down, the other guy has to honor it, even if it doesn't work out and then you have to go to the mattresses.
Like so many bullies, Trump has skin of gossamer. He thinks nothing of saying the most hurtful thing about someone else, but when he hears a whisper that runs counter to his own vainglorious self-image, he coils like a caged ferret. Just to drive him a little bit crazy, I took to referring to him as a “short-fingered vulgarian” in the pages of Spy magazine. That was more than a quarter of a century ago. To this day, I receive the occasional envelope from Trump. There is always a photo of him—generally a tear sheet from a magazine. On all of them he has circled his hand in gold Sharpie in a valiant effort to highlight the length of his fingers. I almost feel sorry for the poor fellow because, to me, the fingers still look abnormally stubby. The most recent offering arrived earlier this year, before his decision to go after the Republican presidential nomination. Like the other packages, this one included a circled hand and the words, also written in gold Sharpie: “See, not so short!” I sent the picture back by return mail with a note attached, saying, “Actually, quite short.” Which I can only assume gave him fits.
"Now"? The far right cons are a large part of the reason for multiple years of impasse and crap governance by Congress. Paul Ryan doesn't want to be Speaker. He's said it multiple times.
sebster wrote:
Yeah, the story floating around is that McCarthy couldn't win any votes from the Freedom caucus, and without them he wouldn't have enough votes.
Honestly, as much as I like the Ameican culture of crossing the aisle and voting for conscience and district over party lines, there's times where you just have to except party voting or you're not really a party anymore. Once the party has decided its nomination for speaker, then anyone who doesn't follow the party line and vote for that person needs to be booted.
I think the big thing is that for actual politician Rs, the amount of damage done by imbecilic ding dongs like Chaffetz, is becoming fully apparent and threatening their own positions. When part of your caucus is threatening your leadership, you have to decide if having their numbers is worth it. I suspect it's becoming increasingly apparent that it is not, in fact, worth it.
Lolz. I was discussing this yesterday. It's basically put Boehner in a great position. He's already announced he wants to resign, so it's no longer exactly worthwhile to threaten him with revoking his position. The Ds and more moderate Rs are going to back him. It allows him to put forward things the far right Rs don't want but that would actually pass with moderate D support.
whembly wrote: Um... they also disarmed the less "desirables" and I believe the Social Democrats. Or anyone who won't play ball either.
No, I believe it was just the Jews.
Not just the jews... sure, the "pure race" was a thing and it was popular. But, there were other groups/people who resisted the Nazi as well...
My point stands.
Carson is appealing to those who believes an armed citizen keeps their government in check.
Yeah, and as I just explained, it's a very, very silly belief, that relies on having almost complete ignorance of how resistance against government works.
History is littered with events where certain populations were disarmed for the express purpose of eradication. feth man, the Jews in Warsaw rebelled in '44:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising
So, all this talk that "it wouldn't have made a difference so stop talking about Gun Rights" is asinine. Every human being has the right to defend themselves from fething murder.
Same sort of thing the Hillary Clinton proposing more gun control laws to appeal to the "do something!" crowd.
So far Clinton's approach has been pretty minor. You'd have more success comparing to the Brady's campaign's black guns are scary campaign. To this day I have no idea if those guys honestly have no idea how guns work, or if they were just playing up to a crowd who had no idea how guns work.
Funny thing... the US gun right's ARE regulated. MOAR regulation isn't going to knock sense into those who break the laws anyways.
whembly wrote: So, all this talk that "it wouldn't have made a difference so stop talking about Gun Rights" is asinine. Every human being has the right to defend themselves from fething murder.
See, the sad part is that there is not only a wild disconnect from these two statements, but no one has done anything to challenge the later in this conversation, and you've given absolutely zero reason to support the former except to proclaim the later as gospel.
whembly wrote: So, all this talk that "it wouldn't have made a difference so stop talking about Gun Rights" is asinine. Every human being has the right to defend themselves from fething murder.
See, the sad part is that there is not only a wild disconnect from these two statements, but no one has done anything to challenge the later in this conversation, and you've given absolutely zero reason to support the former except to proclaim the later as gospel.
Gordy said:
Gordon Shumway wrote: The "I don't know" is certainly better than this: Ben Carson said today that Adolf Hitler’s mass murder of Jews “would have been greatly diminished” if German citizens had not been disarmed by the Nazi regime.
You said:
LordofHats wrote: And having guns probably wouldn't have made a difference. By and large the German population supported the Nazi regime up until the final 2-3 years of the war, and even if they had opposed it anti-Semitism was rampant among Germans anyway.
Suggesting that gun rights would have made a difference in anything that happened there is the height of "just not getting it."
What is it that Carson is "just not getting it"?
Had the Jews (and other undesirables) not be disarmed by the Weimer Republic/Nazi regime, does anyone think they'll still obediently be herded to the death camps?
There's a plethora of dumb things Carson has said... this? This ain't one of them.
Today I learned the Nazis, which fought the Red Army across half of Russia, would have been stopped if the German Jews still had their hunting rifles, shotguns, and pistols.
whembly wrote: So, all this talk that "it wouldn't have made a difference so stop talking about Gun Rights" is asinine. Every human being has the right to defend themselves from fething murder.
See, the sad part is that there is not only a wild disconnect from these two statements, but no one has done anything to challenge the later in this conversation, and you've given absolutely zero reason to support the former except to proclaim the later as gospel.
Gordy said:
Gordon Shumway wrote: The "I don't know" is certainly better than this: Ben Carson said today that Adolf Hitler’s mass murder of Jews “would have been greatly diminished” if German citizens had not been disarmed by the Nazi regime.
You said:
LordofHats wrote: And having guns probably wouldn't have made a difference. By and large the German population supported the Nazi regime up until the final 2-3 years of the war, and even if they had opposed it anti-Semitism was rampant among Germans anyway.
Suggesting that gun rights would have made a difference in anything that happened there is the height of "just not getting it."
What is it that Carson is "just not getting it"?
Had the Jews (and other undesirables) not be disarmed by the Weimer Republic/Nazi regime, does anyone think they'll still obediently be herded to the death camps?
There's a plethora of dumb things Carson has said... this? This ain't one of them.
True. The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising did happen. Jews did forcibly resist the Nazis when they had the means to do so. If more of them had been armed there is no reason to not believe that instances of organized armed resistance such as what happened in Warsaw would have been widespread. While armed Jews would not have been able to single handedly defeat Nazi Germany it certainly would have allowed Jewish people to die fighting against their attackers instead of being taken to death camps and dying there instead.
Ouze wrote: Today I learned the Nazis, which fought the Red Army across half of Russia, would have been stopped if the German Jews still had their hunting rifles, shotguns, and pistols.
Ouze... that's not what I was saying.
Nor was Carson either.
Pick something else to ding Carson... there's better stuff than this.
Having sidearms isn't really going to help much against a two million-strong military with tanks. The idea that personal weapons help to defend the people against the government is best dis-proven by a simple consideration of every totalitarian state of the 20th century.
Charles Rampant wrote: Having sidearms isn't really going to help much against a two million-strong military with tanks. The idea that personal weapons help to defend the people against the government is best dis-proven by a simple consideration of every totalitarian state of the 20th century.
Agreed, having served in the military, civilians wouldn't stand a snowballs chance in hell against a military. Your Uncle Ted and his AR-15 would make it 5 minutes despite how awesome he thinks he is.
Best way to prevent the gubnit from taking over completely is to raise children that will serve in the armed forces with integrity, compassion and empathy so that if the order ever came down they would flat refuse it.
Don't expect the AR-15 armed guy to deliberately go head to head with an infantry or armor unit. Having served in the military, you're smarter than to assume that, and have seen what relatively untrained and poorly equipped guys can do in mountainous and urban terrain.
And Son1 did enlist but not stay in, and Son2 is an infantry ossifer right now. So I'm doing my part.
Well, rereading Maus brought me back to one of the explanations given by a holocaust survivor: we knew about Auschwitz, we knew about the gas, we knew they were wanting to kill us all. We knew that if you tried to fight they kill the whole ghetto right away, all your friends and family. If you don't fight they will probably kill you later. But the guarantee to die is to fight, if you don't fight you might survive.
d-usa wrote: Well, rereading Maus brought me back to one of the explanations given by a holocaust survivor: we knew about Auschwitz, we knew about the gas, we knew they were wanting to kill us all. We knew that if you tried to fight they kill the whole ghetto right away, all your friends and family. If you don't fight they will probably kill you later. But the guarantee to die is to fight, if you don't fight you might survive.
And I've read plenty of other survivor saying "I wish I'd had a gun." And when countered that they wouldn't have survived anyways, almost verbatim they'd say "I would have taken several of the bastards with me."
And no Ouze, in this case, this isn't even close to Stupid.
Ouze wrote: Anyway, let's stipulate it was something stupid to say and drop it. We're really treading ground well covered in every gun thread ever.
It's stupid to say that it's harder to coerce armed citizens into death camps than it is to coerce unarmed citizens into death camps?
Kind of, yeah.
The Nazis wound up ultimately killing 13,000 Jews and rounding up 50,000. The Nazi's lost 17, and another 93 wounded. So, I guess it was a little harder, but ultimately, barely so. This is a terrible example and the more we flesh it out the stupider it looks and you guys should feel bad for fronting it, team spirit or not.
And that's only if we let you move the goalposts to where you did, that it would have been more difficult!
Carson actually implied that the Jews could have prevented the holocaust if they had been armed; which, beyond setting a new gold standard in "blaming the victim", uses an example that really, really doesn't bear out at all. There were 234,000 Jews in Germany, and it's safe to assume since that's where things started, that is where the resistance would also start, yes? Assuming they were as well armed as the Warsaw uprising, and that they were all men and women of fighting age (which of course they all weren't, but when you're knee deep in intellectual sewage, what's another few gak nuggets) they would have killed as many as 85 Nazis and wounded perhaps 500. Now, I'm not that great at math, but I feel like even with those 600 losses, the Nazi's still would have been able to keep on trucking with their remaining 2,699,400 remaining troops.
Ouze wrote: Anyway, let's stipulate it was something stupid to say and drop it. We're really treading ground well covered in every gun thread ever.
It's stupid to say that it's harder to coerce armed citizens into death camps than it is to coerce unarmed citizens into death camps?
Kind of, yeah.
The Nazis wound up ultimately killing 13,000 Jews and rounding up 50,000. The Nazi's lost 17, and another 93 wounded. So, I guess it was a little harder, but ultimately, barely so. This is a terrible example and the more we flesh it out the stupider it looks and you guys should feel bad for fronting it, team spirit or not.
And that's only if we let you move the goalposts to where you did, that it would have been more difficult!
Carson actually implied that the Jews could have prevented the holocaust if they had been armed; which, beyond setting a new gold standard in "blaming the victim", uses an example that really, really doesn't bear out at all. There were 234,000 Jews in Germany, and it's safe to assume since that's where things started, that is where the resistance would also start, yes? Assuming they were as well armed as the Warsaw uprising, and that they were all men and women of fighting age (which of course they all weren't, but when you're knee deep in intellectual sewage, what's another few gak nuggets) they would have killed as many as 85 Nazis and wounded perhaps 500. Now, I'm not that great at math, but I feel like even with those 600 losses, the Nazi's still would have been able to keep on trucking with their remaining 2,699,400 remaining troops.
Just stop, FFS. Just stop.
That's *not* what Carson said... unless, you have it somewhere that I haven't heard/seen. In that original article, Carson said:
“I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed,”
The issue at question isn't so much, could've the Jews stopped the holocaust. It's, do you think an armed populace provides enough deterrance to PREVENT a facist government from even TRYING to march said populace into those death camps?
No... I will not stop, as there are lessons to be learned. Anyways, this isn't the thread for that, other than countering this criticism on Dr. Carson.
Jesus guys, Carson is ripe with other stupid gak and this is what you want to yammer about?
whembly wrote: No... I will not stop, as there are lessons to be learned. Anyways, this isn't the thread for that, other than countering this criticism on Dr. Carson.
What are the lessons to be learned, other than just how willing people are to whore out their intellect to service their political beliefs?
The Red Army had 7 million men and they were armed. They had tanks and planes and mortars and machine guns and bombs and mines and were on their home turf. The Nazis cut through them for half a country, and it weren't for the weather, they might have won.
whembly wrote: Um... they also disarmed the less "desirables" and I believe the Social Democrats. Or anyone who won't play ball either.
Carson is appealing to those who believes an armed citizen keeps their government in check.
*shrugs*
Same sort of thing the Hillary Clinton proposing more gun control laws to appeal to the "do something!" crowd.
Carson is an idiot who, judging from his own words, doesn't know a damn thing about the Holocaust.
The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto attempted to fight against the Nazis and you know what happened? The Nazis burned the entire ghetto down, only 8 buildings were left standing. They killed 13,000 of the 50,000 population in the fighting then shipped the rest off to the camps, such as Treblinka.
Don't expect the AR-15 armed guy to deliberately go head to head with an infantry or armor unit. Having served in the military, you're smarter than to assume that, and have seen what relatively untrained and poorly equipped guys can do in mountainous and urban terrain.
And Son1 did enlist but not stay in, and Son2 is an infantry ossifer right now. So I'm doing my part.
The difference being that the Nazis didn't care at all about collateral damage. Fighters hiding in buildings? Burn them all down. Fighters hiding in mountains? Bomb those mountains to destroy cover and food sources.
whembly wrote: No... I will not stop, as there are lessons to be learned. Anyways, this isn't the thread for that, other than countering this criticism on Dr. Carson.
What are the lessons to be learned, other than just how willing people are to whore out their intellect to service their political beliefs?
The Red Army had 7 million men and they were armed. They had tanks and planes and mortars and mines and were on their home turf. The Nazis cut through them for half a country, and it weren't for the weather, they might have won.
So what? That's fething irrelevant Ouze and I know you know that.
What you're basically saying that in the face of superior firepower... we should what? Take it in the ass just because?
Historically, the Nazis strengthened their hold based on laws of the preceding Weimar Republic that required universal weapons registration. Even the law’s architects realized that these records could be dangerous in the hands of “extremist groups” ... so who preceeded the Weimar's government? Exactly. This proved extremely convenient for the Nazis, who used the registration records as a targeting list.
Those are the lessons. An armed citizen is NOT helpless against the military and law-enforcement machinery of the modern state. Just ask any service men/women from Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan of the trials and tribulation of going up against armed residences.
We can sit here what-if'ing all day about what could've happen in German... or what-if'ing the possibility of our own government ever going the totalitarian route. That fact remains, if we were disarmed... it'll be easier for those who wish to do harm.
Yeah, it's probably time for the thrice-daily Hillary post.
Did I imagine the media gak storm over the outing of Valarie Plame? Media is awfully quiet over HRC outtage an active CIA agent in her correspondences with Sid Blumenthal. I mean, that Gowdy letter I posted earlier? HRC is the Dick F'n Cheney that the left accuses all the time... and that is a war-profiteer.
Don't expect the AR-15 armed guy to deliberately go head to head with an infantry or armor unit. Having served in the military, you're smarter than to assume that, and have seen what relatively untrained and poorly equipped guys can do in mountainous and urban terrain.
And Son1 did enlist but not stay in, and Son2 is an infantry ossifer right now. So I'm doing my part.
The difference being that the Nazis didn't care at all about collateral damage. Fighters hiding in buildings? Burn them all down. Fighters hiding in mountains? Bomb those mountains to destroy cover and food sources.
My post had zero to do with WW2, and was in response to someone mentioning modern armies against folks with AR-15s, specifically the US army. Don't add your context to my post.
Don't expect the AR-15 armed guy to deliberately go head to head with an infantry or armor unit. Having served in the military, you're smarter than to assume that, and have seen what relatively untrained and poorly equipped guys can do in mountainous and urban terrain.
And Son1 did enlist but not stay in, and Son2 is an infantry ossifer right now. So I'm doing my part.
The difference being that the Nazis didn't care at all about collateral damage. Fighters hiding in buildings? Burn them all down. Fighters hiding in mountains? Bomb those mountains to destroy cover and food sources.
My post had zero to do with WW2, and was in response to someone mentioning modern armies against folks with AR-15s, specifically the US army. Don't add your context to my post.
Right but if you're against a totalitarian government then you cannot expect the standard rules of war to be followed. Look at Syria for an example. Assad and his forces aren't afraid to bomb cities which fighters are in just because there's civilians there, too.
So if the US government did go full dictator, these small militias would not stand a chance, especially with the monitoring systems that the US has (satellites, drones, internet monitoring etc.).
The Jedi were armed and tried to resist the clone troopers to stop their own massacre, but it didn't work and even Yoda was forced to retreat. This was followed by strict lightsaber control measures by the emperor. When a totalitarian regime tries to wipe out resistance they will simply do it, it won't matter if you are armed or not.
Hillary Clinton used her private email account to pass along the identity of one of the CIA’s top Libyan intelligence sources, raising new questions about her handling of classified information, according to excerpts from previously undisclosed emails released Thursday by Rep. Trey Gowdy, the Republican chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
On March 18, 2011, Sidney Blumenthal — Clinton’s longtime friend and political adviser — sent the then secretary of state an email to her private account that contained apparently highly sensitive information he had received from Tyler Drumheller, a former top CIA official with whom Blumenthal at the time had a business relationship.
“Tyler spoke to a colleague currently at CIA, who told him the agency had been dependent for intelligence from [redacted due to sources and methods],” the email states, according to Gowdy’s letter.
The redacted information was “the name of a human source,” Gowdy wrote to his Democratic counterpart, Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, and was therefore “some of the most protected information in our intelligence community.”
“Armed with that information, Secretary Clinton forwarded the email to a colleague — debunking her claim that she never sent any classified information from her private email address,” wrote Gowdy in a letter to Cummings.
Clinton has repeatedly said she never sent or received classified information on her private email server “that was marked classified at the time that it was sent or received.” But the FBI, at the request of the inspectors general for the intelligence community and the State Department, is investigating the handling of classified information on the private server.
And while there is nothing that indicates that the email from Blumenthal (who was not a government employee) was marked classified at the time Clinton received it, the sensitive nature of its contents should have been a red flag and never should have been passed along, according to a former veteran CIA officer.
“She is exposing the name of a guy who has a clandestine relationship with the CIA on her private, unprotected server,” said John Maguire, who served for years as one of the CIA’s top Mideast officers.
In addition, he noted, the email should trigger a “crimes report” by the CIA to the Justice Department seeking an investigation into who within the agency revealed the information to Drumheller.
“Unless Tyler was blowing smoke, it’s an unauthorized disclosure of information,” said John Rizzo, a former CIA general counsel. “And it’s the most sensitive kind of classified information — the identity of a human source. She should have told Blumenthal, ‘delete this — and don’t send me that again.’ And then she should have reported it to State Department security.”[whembly: finally, a description of what SHOULD be done when there's a spillage]
Asked for comment, Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon emailed: “Trey Gowdy continues to release selective and misleading information about emails sent to Hillary Clinton, even as he refuses to make public any of the transcripts from the closed-door witness interviews that actually relate to Benghazi. This letter is one more example of the partisan approach taken throughout his thoroughly discredited investigation.”[whembly: nice spin... 'bout the only thing that could be said]
A Clinton campaign official, who asked not to be identified by name, said that as described in Gowdy’s own letter, “the information at issue was not only unmarked, but also was transmitted by no fewer than two individuals who were outside the government before it ever reached Hillary Clinton’s inbox.”[whembly: doesn't matter... still a serious security breach. Like, how did this info jump the "air gap"??]
A CIA spokesman declined to comment. Drumheller, a 25-year CIA official who had once headed the agency’s European division, died in August.
Gowdy’s 13-page letter to Cummings, ranking member of the Benghazi panel, comes as the committee prepares for Clinton’s long-awaited public testimony, scheduled for Oct. 22. It was aimed at rebutting mounting Democratic criticism that the investigation into the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans — including Ambassador Chris Stevens — has morphed into a partisan political exercise designed to damage Clinton’s candidacy. Gowdy says he is simply “following the facts.”
The letter also came the same day that Rep. Kevin McCarthy, who had been considered the likely successor to House Speaker John Boehner, dropped out of the speaker’s race. McCarthy has apologized to GOP members for comments that seemed to support the charge that the investigation was, in fact, aimed at driving down Clinton’s poll numbers.
Cummings immediately shot back that Gowdy’s letter only proves the Democrats’ point. The letter “is a defensive and desperate attempt to save face, but it only proves that McCarthy’s statement is true — [Gowdy’s] new proposal to selectively release yet another subset of emails reveals his obsession with Secretary Clinton and no new information about the Benghazi attacks,” Cummings said in a statement.
The letters contained multiple excerpts from over 1,500 emails to and from Clinton about Libya — one-third of them from Blumenthal, a former journalist and longtime political adviser who had forged a business relationship with Drumheller and with Cody Shearer, another longtime friend of Clinton’s. The two were helping a security company called Osprey Global Solutions, headed by retired Army Major Gen. David Grange, a former Delta Force commander.
In one of the emails, Blumenthal informs Clinton about Osprey’s efforts to get a contract to provide “field medical help, military training, organize supplies and logistics” to Libyan rebels. “Tyler, Cody and I acted as honest brokers, putting this arrangement together though a series of connections, linking the Libyans to Osprey and keeping it moving,” Blumenthal wrote in the July 14, 2011, email to Clinton, according to Gowdy’s letter.[whembly: starting a war for some crony's profit motif? Say it ain't so yo!]
Blumenthal’s emails also included derisive remarks about others in the Obama White House, referring in one to then national security adviser Tom Donilon’s “babbling rhetoric” and Drumheller’s assessment of then Secretary of Defense Bob Gates as a “mean, vicious little prick.”[whembly: example of how much of a dick Sid was towards the Obama crew...]
Gowdy in his letter called the contents of the Blumenthal emails “quite remarkable” and referred to the fact that Clinton relied on him for advice as “mind boggling.” James Cole, Blumenthal’s lawyer, did not respond to a request for comment.[whembly: not much to say here.]
d-usa wrote: The Jedi were armed and tried to resist the clone troopers to stop their own massacre, but it didn't work and even Yoda was forced to retreat. This was followed by strict lightsaber control measures by the emperor. When a totalitarian regime tries to wipe out resistance they will simply do it, it won't matter if you are armed or not.
A lot of people would probably want to fight back and resist being wiped out by a totalitarian regime as best they could and they are entitled to their human right of self defense. Being an armed populace doesn't mean you can defeat the military in pitched battles but it does mean that it is harder for your government to oppress you without having you push back. The harder it is for the govt to destroy you or control you the more freedom you will have.
Can't we all just live with and accept, that lightsabers are totally fething kick ass? When you really get down to it, that's the only reason we want them. Awesomeness.. Anything else is just some childish fantasy that has no real baring on reality at all, and just makes us all look unbelievably stupid. Some people just like lightsabers. What's so wrong with simply admitting that and living with it? No need to demean ourselves and our intellectual integrity with really dumb 'but what if' scenarios that will never play out in actuality like we dream they will in our heads.
Okay... you guys got me thinking on this and saw some things on my twittah feed discussing this....
Remember, this is the Republican primary where conservatives and gun-rights group dominate. All these nazi discussions by Carson is down right brilliant.
He took quite a big hit for that comment and most don't trust Carson on this issue. So what does he do?
What better way to prove to the primary voters that you'll be strong on gun-rights than sprouting Nazism/Hilterism in correlating Gun Control efforts... than to get the hostile media to jump on Carson on this?
Sneaky bastich.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Can't we all just live with and accept, that lightsabers are totally fething kick ass? When you really get down to it, that's the only reason we want them. Awesomeness.. Anything else is just some childish fantasy that has no real baring on reality at all, and just makes us all look unbelievably stupid. Some people just like lightsabers. What's so wrong with simply admitting that and living with it? No need to demean ourselves and our intellectual integrity with really dumb 'but what if' scenarios that will never play out in actuality like we dream they will in our heads.
Ouze wrote: Anyway, let's stipulate it was something stupid to say and drop it. We're really treading ground well covered in every gun thread ever.
It's stupid to say that it's harder to coerce armed citizens into death camps than it is to coerce unarmed citizens into death camps?
Kind of, yeah.
The Nazis wound up ultimately killing 13,000 Jews and rounding up 50,000. The Nazi's lost 17, and another 93 wounded. So, I guess it was a little harder, but ultimately, barely so. This is a terrible example and the more we flesh it out the stupider it looks and you guys should feel bad for fronting it, team spirit or not.
And that's only if we let you move the goalposts to where you did, that it would have been more difficult!
Carson actually implied that the Jews could have prevented the holocaust if they had been armed; which, beyond setting a new gold standard in "blaming the victim", uses an example that really, really doesn't bear out at all. There were 234,000 Jews in Germany, and it's safe to assume since that's where things started, that is where the resistance would also start, yes? Assuming they were as well armed as the Warsaw uprising, and that they were all men and women of fighting age (which of course they all weren't, but when you're knee deep in intellectual sewage, what's another few gak nuggets) they would have killed as many as 85 Nazis and wounded perhaps 500. Now, I'm not that great at math, but I feel like even with those 600 losses, the Nazi's still would have been able to keep on trucking with their remaining 2,699,400 remaining troops.
Just stop, FFS. Just stop.
You're the one moving goalposts. Nobody in this thread is suggesting that armed civilian Jews would have defeated the combined military might of the Third Reich. What has been argued is that armed resistance to genocide is preferable to meekly accepting ones fight and willing walking to your doom. You're the one arguing that it is pointless to fight back when people are trying to kill you unless you're guaranteed to win. That's absurd. It's better to fight and have a very slight chance of surviving than surrendering and being guaranteed to die.
Fact, it is harder to kill armed people who resist than unarmed people who don't resist. If more Jews had been armed it would have been more difficult to kill them and the history of the holocaust would be different. If somebody is trying to kill me I'm going to make it as difficult as possible for them to do so.
Prestor Jon wrote: You're the one moving goalposts. Nobody in this thread is suggesting that armed civilian Jews would have defeated the combined military might of the Third Reich. What has been argued is that armed resistance to genocide is preferable to meekly accepting ones fight and willing walking to your doom. You're the one arguing that it is pointless to fight back when people are trying to kill you unless you're guaranteed to win. That's absurd. It's better to fight and have a very slight chance of surviving than surrendering and being guaranteed to die.
Fact, it is harder to kill armed people who resist than unarmed people who don't resist. If more Jews had been armed it would have been more difficult to kill them and the history of the holocaust would be different. If somebody is trying to kill me I'm going to make it as difficult as possible for them to do so.
Except we know it wouldn't have worked because it didn't work. I think people tend to forget that there was an armed and organized Jewish resistance. Saying anything else is just spouting counterfactual history and is entirely stupid and pointless. Most importantly, it's speculative.
I mean fething seriously people, it took nearly the entire military might of the three most powerful nations on Earth to crush the Third Reich. As awesome as it would have been, the minority population of Jews in Germany would not have stopped the German propaganda and war machine from spreading across Europe.
Do we really need to keep talking about illogical what-ifs?
Prestor Jon wrote: Nobody in this thread is suggesting that armed civilian Jews would have defeated the combined military might of the Third Reich.
That's exactly what Carson suggested and it's utterly amazing how quickly the 'history' of this thread shifted to completely ignore that and start arguing a different but related nonsensical point.
Prestor Jon wrote: Nobody in this thread is suggesting that armed civilian Jews would have defeated the combined military might of the Third Reich.
That's exactly what Carson suggested and it's utterly amazing how quickly the 'history' of this thread shifted to completely ignore that and start arguing a different but related nonsensical point.
.
Carson said:
“I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed,”
Is this the quote you referring to? Did I miss something?
Prestor Jon wrote: You're the one moving goalposts. Nobody in this thread is suggesting that armed civilian Jews would have defeated the combined military might of the Third Reich. What has been argued is that armed resistance to genocide is preferable to meekly accepting ones fight and willing walking to your doom. You're the one arguing that it is pointless to fight back when people are trying to kill you unless you're guaranteed to win. That's absurd. It's better to fight and have a very slight chance of surviving than surrendering and being guaranteed to die.
Fact, it is harder to kill armed people who resist than unarmed people who don't resist. If more Jews had been armed it would have been more difficult to kill them and the history of the holocaust would be different. If somebody is trying to kill me I'm going to make it as difficult as possible for them to do so.
Except we know it wouldn't have worked because it didn't work. I think people tend to forget that there was an armed and organized Jewish resistance. Saying anything else is just spouting counterfactual history and is entirely stupid and pointless. Most importantly, it's speculative.
I mean fething seriously people, it took nearly the entire military might of the three most powerful nations on Earth to crush the Third Reich. As awesome as it would have been, the minority population of Jews in Germany would not have stopped the German propaganda and war machine from spreading across Europe.
Do we really need to keep talking about illogical what-ifs?
What didn't work? They chose to resist, they resisted. Just because they didn't defeat Germany single handedly doesn't mean they should have meekly surrendered and let the Germans torture them to death in the camps. Resisting the people waging genocidal pogroms against you is a good thing. Making it as difficult as possible on the regime to destroy a people is a good thing. An armed Jewish populace would have been able to fight back harder and history would be different, not radically different, but I think it's safe to say most Jews would have rather have had the holocaust resemble the Alamo than Auschwitz. Resistance itself is a worthwhile act, regardless of the eventual outcome.
This argument falls into one degree of lunacy to me.
A common argument is "Guns don't kill people, people kill people... also, Criminals can get away with killing using knives! or bombs!"
Yet, couldn't you say the exact same line in regards to say, that ludicrous holocaust argument?
Surely, a resisting populace could just use knives or make bombs! Weapons don't resist evil governments, people resist evil governments!
---
Of course, it's ludicrous. There's no cases of armed uprisings in a home country by a minority actually doing anything appreciable. Revolutions against a 'tyranical government' within home territory always comes from within the government or military itself... and are very often not any better.
Just because they didn't defeat Germany single handedly doesn't mean they should have meekly surrendered and let the Germans torture them to death in the camps.
There it is, the single most disgusting thing you could have possibly said. Can I fill out my victim blaming square on Dakka bingo now?
Resisting the people waging genocidal pogroms against you is a good thing. Making it as difficult as possible on the regime to destroy a people is a good thing.
You know what's even better? Not having genocidal pogroms. Lack of gun control doesn't cause that. Since you don't seem to understand the point I'm making, it isn't a pro-gun control argument... It's a anti-bull gak argument.
An armed Jewish populace would have been able to fight back harder and history would be different, not radically different, but I think it's safe to say most Jews would have rather have had the holocaust resemble the Alamo than Auschwitz. Resistance itself is a worthwhile act, regardless of the eventual outcome.
See the above point about counterfactual history and think about what you wrote.
After you do that, go read a book about the Holocaust. Or go the Holocaust Museum. Or to a concentration camp. If you do any (or all) of those things, and you can still sit there and think to yourself, "You know what would have made this suck less? Guns," congratulations, you're slightly more educated but still wrong.
Just because they didn't defeat Germany single handedly doesn't mean they should have meekly surrendered and let the Germans torture them to death in the camps.
There it is, the single most disgusting thing you could have possibly said. Can I fill out my victim blaming square on Dakka bingo now?
Resisting the people waging genocidal pogroms against you is a good thing. Making it as difficult as possible on the regime to destroy a people is a good thing.
You know what's even better? Not having genocidal pogroms. Lack of gun control doesn't cause that. Since you don't seem to understand the point I'm making, it isn't a pro-gun control argument... It's a anti-bull gak argument.
An armed Jewish populace would have been able to fight back harder and history would be different, not radically different, but I think it's safe to say most Jews would have rather have had the holocaust resemble the Alamo than Auschwitz. Resistance itself is a worthwhile act, regardless of the eventual outcome.
See the above point about counterfactual history and think what you wrote.
After you do that, go read a book about the Holocaust. Or go the Holocaust Museum. Or to a concentration camp. If you do any (or all) of those things, and you can still sit there and think to yourself, "You know what would have made this suck less? Guns," congratulations, you're slightly more educated but still wrong.
This. There was absolutely nothing that the Jews could do to prevent what the Nazis inflicted on them, short of every single one of them getting on boats to the UK/USA before Hitler came to power.
If every Jew had resisted, every Jew would have died. It was those "meek" jews who "allowed" themselves to be deported to the camps, and who were lucky enough to be strong enough, who survived, not the ones who fought with weapons. When faced with an enemy whose only objective is your complete extermination, survival is victory, not ineffective armed resistance.
Anybody saying otherwise is spitting in the face of the millions of people who died.
We do know that every armed resistance by Jewish people resulted in massive retaliation where everybody involved died as well as their families, friends, and often the entire ghetto.
We also know that not everybody who didn't resist ended up dead.
And that is the main reason why the majority of Jews didn't launch an armed resistance against the Nazis. Not because of gun control, not because "they quietly resigned themselves to be killed", not because they weren't as brave as every internet hero on this board, not because of any of that.
Because what they saw was "resist and you will definitely die, use your skills and lay low and try to survive and maybe you are one of the few lucky ones". And that is what the majority of them did.
But hey, continue to use the holocaust to score political points I guess, who cares about dead Jews.
This is the difference between fantasy, and cruel, statistical reality that lies at the core of a number of the arguments about gun availability and use.
In the fantasy scenario, a heroic individual goes and saves the day from greater disaster thanks to the responsible use of a tool.
In real life, less than 3% of large-scale shootings is stopped by a 'good guy' shooter, in a country with 800% the rate of large-scale shootings than any other developed country on earth. Likewise, if you're personally attacked, the 'bad guy' always has the initiative and will almost certainly screw you, gun or not.
--
In fantasy, gun control won't have any effect since bad guys break laws and it's as simple as that.
In real life, reduced gun availabilty drives up cost to get and find weapons, even illegally, and produces additional negatives to the profitability of violent crime.
--
Finally, for this example
In Fantasy, thousands of oppressed Jews get out rifles and overthrow the third reich.
In Real Life, resistance is impossible at a coordinated large scale in a home country and has never resulted in defeating the despot without substantial support within the government and/or military itself already. Nazi Germany, as evil as it was, was an internally stable structure and mass resistance would have little effect.
Well I found this interesting, not sure if anyone else will: "On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians)
Prestor Jon wrote: . Nobody in this thread is suggesting that armed civilian Jews would have defeated the combined military might of the Third Reich. What has been argued is that armed resistance to genocide is preferable to meekly accepting ones fight and willing walking to your doom. You're the one arguing that it is pointless to fight back when people are trying to kill you unless you're guaranteed to win. That's absurd.
Of course that's an absurd argument, which is why I didn't make it, even though you're pretending I did.
Prestor Jon wrote: Fact, it is harder to kill armed people who resist than unarmed people who don't resist. If more Jews had been armed it would have been more difficult to kill them and the history of the holocaust would be different.
So, this was my point, which was perhaps more nuanced that I thought. Yes, it's harder to kill armed people, obviously. But in the specific example we're talking about , not significantly so. You (and Carson) are arguing the history of the holocaust would be different; he specifically said "the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished..." No, it wouldn't have, not at all. it wouldn't mattered at all, because when it did happen, it didn't matter at all, really. When you have a population of around 65,000 civilians, and they manage to kill 20 people and injure a few hundred, that's not going to "greatly diminish goals" if you scale that up fivefold. It's by any definition a totally non-event that means nothing whatsoever.
Prestor Jon wrote: What didn't work? They chose to resist, they resisted. Just because they didn't defeat Germany single handedly doesn't mean they should have meekly surrendered and let the Germans torture them to death in the camps.
Except, again, no one was suggesting that they shouldn't have fought at all. We simply pointed out that when civilians fight a highly advanced army, it matters literally not at all. Carson is using his example as one of the classical underpinnings of gun rights in the US: that we need an armed populace in case we need to overthrow tyranny. It's a laughable, stupid, childish idea, a power fantasy writ large. No, civilians aren't going to overthrow an advanced army of suddenly tyranny starts happening. They're going to get killed in wild ratios, like thousands to one. Should they resist? Of course, if your choice is marching into a death camp or fighting, you literally have nothing to lose.
But we should pull up our collective big boy pants and stop fantasizing about Red Dawn scenarios.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Guys, can we switch this conversation to the gun thread, I don't want this to be locked.
Man, I tried. You saw it! But no, there were "lessons to be learned here", so I wanted to at least keep this string running long enough to determine what those lessons were.
Did anyone else read about Kasich's response to someone who didn't like his proposed cuts to social security benefits? He basically said "get over it".
Of course, no way in hell will Cruz be the GOP nominee for President, anyway. People like me who would honestly consider voting for Jeb (and maybe Rubio) over Hillary will run screaming into Hillary's comforting arms if Cruz were to get the nomination. And I'd like to think the GOP leadership is smart enough to know that.
Of course, no way in hell will Cruz be the GOP nominee for President, anyway. People like me who would honestly consider voting for Jeb (and maybe Rubio) over Hillary will run screaming into Hillary's comforting arms if Cruz were to get the nomination. And I'd like to think the GOP leadership is smart enough to know that.
Cruz won't get the nomination... at best, he'd be a VP pick, but if Rubio's the top ticket, I can see him go outside of the current lineup (or maybe tap Fiorina).
Cruz/Fiorina: Now that's a ticket!
Still won't beat a Hillary/Warren ticket though...
Still won't beat a Hillary/Warren ticket though...
You really think Clinton would pick Warren or Warren would accept? I don't see it. If Biden were to get in, he would be a fool not to pick her, but I see Clinton wanting to own the first female spotlight herself.
Yep, let's face it, with the mobilization that Sanders has had, if he's the nominee, I very much see him winning. If Clinton gets the nod, I see her choosing a good solid VP and then going on to win due to R incompetence. If Biden steps into the game and gets the nod, I also see him getting a strong VP, and moving his gak from wherever the VP lives to where the Pres. lives in the WH.
Absolutely NONE of the current Republican candidates are any good, and I honestly hope they are prepared for the fallout that will be seen as "their" fault.
Still won't beat a Hillary/Warren ticket though...
You really think Clinton would pick Warren or Warren would accept? I don't see it. If Biden were to get in, he would be a fool not to pick her, but I see Clinton wanting to own the first female spotlight herself.
Agreed on Biden... totally.
However, a Clinton/Warren ticket would be nigh unbeatable.
Really... I think you'll say that for any Republican ticket.
Cruz/Fiorina is not a solid ticket. I know you love Fiorina, but she doesn't bring much to the table. Indeed the main component of her public image, her business record, is as much of a liability as it is a strength.
Really... I think you'll say that for any Republican ticket.
Cruz/Fiorina is not a solid ticket. I know you love Fiorina, but she doesn't bring much to the table. Indeed the main component of her public image, her business record, is as much of a liability as it is a strength.
At the moment the GOP doesn't seem to have one, but in the general Rubio/Bush is likely the most electable option. It avoids the "dynasty" claims, while still pulling in Bush's money and networks. At least if we only consider potential Presidential candidates for the VP slot.
whembly wrote: Really... I think you'll say that for any Republican ticket.
I absolutely would for anyone running currently, yes. You see it as me just being a partisan liberal, but the truth is, as a moderate, I honest believe this is the worst electoral lineup of my lifetime. There is no permutation of currently available assclowns that are workable. Maybe Lindsey Graham, but he has no chance.
While as I'm not a Republican, none of these guys are my ideal candidate, nonetheless here are some of the Republicans I would like to have seen: Lisa Murkowski, Mark Kirk, Kelly Ayotte, Mitt Romney, or Susan Collins. But, alas, we throw elections with the lineup we have, not the one we wish we had.
whembly wrote: Really... I think you'll say that for any Republican ticket.
I absolutely would for anyone running currently, yes. You see it as me just being a partisan liberal, but the truth is, as a moderate, I honest believe this is the worst electoral lineup of my lifetime. There is no permutation of currently available assclowns that are workable. Maybe Lindsey Graham, but he has no chance.
While as I'm not a Republican, none of these guys are my ideal candidate, nonetheless here are some of the Republicans I would like to have seen: Lisa Murkowski, Mark Kirk, Kelly Ayotte, Mitt Romney, or Susan Collins. But, alas, we throw elections with the lineup we have, not the one we wish we had.
Throw in the fact that we are repeating the same primary mistakes that were made in 2012 and you end up with the few moderates in the mix having to do the "I'm not moderate, I'm pant-on-head crazy too" thing to survive the primary and moving too far to the right to be electable in the general.
I do think Bush is trying. It seems like he is doing the minimum amount of talking needed to let people know he is still in the run while trying to lay low enough to let the other guys implode without suffering collateral damage.
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson admonished the Washington press corps Friday, calling the news media “embarrassing” and “insincere” and vowing to “expose” the institutional bias he says runs rampant.
Speaking at a gathering of reporters and communications professionals at the National Press Club in Washington, Carson lashed out at the press, citing several instances where he believes his views have been misrepresented.
“Many in the press will say I’m sensitive and that I should not be thinking about running for office, because I get offended by what they do,” he said. “But the reason I expose the press is because I want the people of America to understand what they’re doing. It’s not because I’m sensitive.”
he retired neurosurgeon said he has no intention of calling a truce with the news media.
“I will continue to expose them every time they do something, so that as more people understand what they are and what they’re doing, it will negate their affect,” he said. “Until they have the kind of transformation that’s necessary for them to become allies of the people, we have to know what they’re doing.”
Carson’s frustration with the press is boiling over as the presidential candidate, who is soaring in the polls and raising tens of millions of dollars from grassroots conservatives, has battled weeks of controversial headlines.
Carson believes his views on guns and religion have been intentionally distorted by reporters eager to sink his presidential hopes.
“The good thing is that a lot of people in America are on to them and understand what they’re trying to do, and that’s one of the reasons we’re doing well,” Carson said. “It seems like the more they attack me, the better we do.”
This week, Carson said that if he had been at Umpqua Community College, the site of a recent mass shooting, he would have stood up to the gunman. Many people interpreted the remarks to mean that the victims didn’t do enough to protect themselves.
Carson this week also called for arming officials on school grounds, described an encounter with a gunman at a Popeye’s restaurant and said that the Holocaust would have been less likely if the Jews in Germany had been armed.
Carson on Friday defended his remarks on the Holocaust but said that in several other instances, his words had been taken out of context or overblown.
“Everything needs to be looked at in context, and when news media picks one word or one phrase and they run with it and try to characterize people like that, I gotta tell you guys, that’s why people don’t trust you anymore,” he said. “I mean you’re down there with used car salesmen.”
Carson also recalled an encounter with a reporter that led to a story about him being unprepared to deal with the threat of a hurricane.
Carson said he was getting on a bus when he was approached by the reporter and didn’t have time to answer in full.
“I mean, this is the level of insincerity that we see, and it really is kind of embarrassing to see that,” Carson said.
Carson said he’s a frequent target for attacks because as a black Republican, doesn’t fit the mold of a traditional conservative and therefore is viewed as a threat to the liberal order.
He said there’s “still hope for the press” but that they must be called out on their hypocrisies in the hopes “that some of them will recognize it’s almost a sacred obligation they have to the people, to be honest.”
“There is only one business in America that is protected by the Constitution, and that is the press, and there was a reason for that. It was because the press was supposed to be an ally of the people," Carson said.
"They were supposed to expose and inform the people in a nonpartisan way. When they become partisan, as they are, they distort the system as it was supposed to work, and they allow the side that they pick to get away with all kinds of things.”
d-usa wrote: I do think Bush is trying. It seems like he is doing the minimum amount of talking needed to let people know he is still in the run while trying to lay low enough to let the other guys implode without suffering collateral damage.
He just doesn't excite me other than the fact that he "checks the box" for me as having been a State Governor.
The thought process about Bush is that he's laid enormous groundwork in SEC country (the south/east states). That's his firewall.
Then, he'd like pick someone like Nikki Haley (who's term-limited) or Susan Martinez as VP.
whembly wrote: But, man... the 90's truly did call back... eh?
Yes, I look forward to hearing all about Clinton and Bush while watching the X-files.
The 90s are really making a flashback, before you know it we will have investigations against a Clinton because of one thing while celebrating political victories because that investigation caught a Clinton doing something completely unrelated to the investigation.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Meanwhile the totally non-partisan investigation continues to move along the "is anyone surprised" track:
I still think a Kasich ticket could bring down any democrat right now, maybe with a Rubio as VP (mainstream enough at the head to get votes and the VP would blunt the Latino vote maybe just enough), better would be Nikki Haley. Anything else is just a pipe dream IMHO. As far as Clinton/Warren, I agree that it would likely be a winning ticket (watch as 65% of the female pop votes dem) but I don't think Clinton thinks she needs it (and she probably doesn't). And if she doesn't need Warren, she won't pick her. My guess is she picks Evan Bayh. She has had a little crush on him for years. She would be smart to pick Warren, but when has she been smarter than she needs to be?
The Warren issue is that she is a pretty good strength to the Democrats where she is at right now.
And while you always look at what you gain when picking a VP candidate, you also need to look at what you lose when that person leaves their old office.
d-usa wrote: The Warren issue is that she is a pretty good strength to the Democrats where she is at right now.
And while you always look at what you gain when picking a VP candidate, you also need to look at what you lose when that person leaves their old office.
Right, though she could run up the female percentage vote (who wouldn't love a Poehler/Fey ticket on the left?), pretty much anybody that would vote for Hillary would vote for Warren, and vice versa. Bayh would help with the middle.
Edit: or if Bayh isn't timely enough, she will pick that curly haired former military ginger from NC who is running for pres. What's his name again? Thanks media, not for email scandals, but for not letting me remember who is actually running right now. What's that guys name?
It looks like Carson is really, really trying to 1-up Trump in appealing to a portion of Trump supporters: The openly insane.
Fiorina's not going to be able to escape the fact that her only qualifications are that she was a CEO, and that she was quantifiably awful CEO.
Trump remains popular with the base of open racists.
The rest probably really should keep their heads low, and wait for later in the process. It's almost certainly the right strategy in these interesting times.
Killionaire wrote: It looks like Carson is really, really trying to 1-up Trump in appealing to a portion of Trump supporters: The openly insane.
Fiorina's not going to be able to escape the fact that her only qualifications are that she was a CEO, and that she was quantifiably awful CEO.
Trump remains popular with the base of open racists.
The rest probably really should keep their heads low, and wait for later in the process. It's almost certainly the right strategy in these interesting times.
Oh sure, "quantifiably" she was a bad CEO, but unquantifiably she is really good at speaking in front of a camera and pretending she is really upset with stuff. And really, what matters here? Gimme the outrage, I hunger for blood...Khorne beckons.
I still think a Kasich ticket could bring down any democrat right now, maybe with a Rubio as VP (mainstream enough at the head to get votes and the VP would blunt the Latino vote maybe just enough), better would be Nikki Haley. Anything else is just a pipe dream IMHO. As far as Clinton/Warren, I agree that it would likely be a winning ticket (watch as 65% of the female pop votes dem) but I don't think Clinton thinks she needs it (and she probably doesn't). And if she doesn't need Warren, she won't pick her. My guess is she picks Evan Bayh. She has had a little crush on him for years. She would be smart to pick Warren, but when has she been smarter than she needs to be?
Right now? No, not after Kasich's response to concerns about his plan to cut Social Security benefits was to "get over it". Senior citizens are a pretty large voting block (not much else for them to do), and you certainly don't want to piss them off by trying to take their bingo money.
I still think a Kasich ticket could bring down any democrat right now, maybe with a Rubio as VP (mainstream enough at the head to get votes and the VP would blunt the Latino vote maybe just enough), better would be Nikki Haley. Anything else is just a pipe dream IMHO. As far as Clinton/Warren, I agree that it would likely be a winning ticket (watch as 65% of the female pop votes dem) but I don't think Clinton thinks she needs it (and she probably doesn't). And if she doesn't need Warren, she won't pick her. My guess is she picks Evan Bayh. She has had a little crush on him for years. She would be smart to pick Warren, but when has she been smarter than she needs to be?
Right now? No, not after Kasich's response to concerns about his plan to cut Social Security benefits was to "get over it". Senior citizens are a pretty large voting block (not much else for them to do), and you certainly don't want to piss them off by trying to take their bingo money.
And how many news cycles did that last? less than one? Old people are forgetful for as much as they hold grudges. I find it weird that a policy issue would be held to a regular standard in this election cycle. How sad.
I still think a Kasich ticket could bring down any democrat right now, maybe with a Rubio as VP (mainstream enough at the head to get votes and the VP would blunt the Latino vote maybe just enough), better would be Nikki Haley. Anything else is just a pipe dream IMHO. As far as Clinton/Warren, I agree that it would likely be a winning ticket (watch as 65% of the female pop votes dem) but I don't think Clinton thinks she needs it (and she probably doesn't). And if she doesn't need Warren, she won't pick her. My guess is she picks Evan Bayh. She has had a little crush on him for years. She would be smart to pick Warren, but when has she been smarter than she needs to be?
Right now? No, not after Kasich's response to concerns about his plan to cut Social Security benefits was to "get over it". Senior citizens are a pretty large voting block (not much else for them to do), and you certainly don't want to piss them off by trying to take their bingo money.
And how many news cycles did that last? less than one? Old people are forgetful for as much as they hold grudges. I find it weird that a policy issue would be held to a regular standard in this election cycle. How sad.
It only dropped off of CNN's front page today. Besides, you forget the power of a short soundbite easily used in political ads. "Get over it" can be easily replayed just as much as "Not my job to care about 47%" can be.
I think I may have to reconsider my position of Trump being the most terrifying GOP candidate. Carson, the more I read about him, is starting to sound like a potential dictator.
BrotherGecko wrote: I think I may have to reconsider my position of Trump being the most terrifying GOP candidate. Carson, the more I read about him, is starting to sound like a potential dictator.
O.o
What is he advocating that is "starting to sound like a potential dictator"??/
One month ago, this staffer had a chance to bare his soul, and raise his claim this Committee was focused on Secretary Clinton in a legal document, not an interview, and he did not do it. Nor did he mention Secretary Clinton at any time during his counseling for deficient performance, when he was terminated, or via his first lawyer who withdrew from representing him. In fact, throughout the pendency of an ongoing legal mediation, which is set to conclude October 13, this staffer has not mentioned Secretary Clinton. But as this process prepares to wrap, he has demanded money from the Committee, the Committee has refused to pay him, and he has now run to the press with his new salacious allegations about Secretary Clinton.
To wit, until his Friday conversations with media, this staffer has never mentioned Secretary Clinton as a cause of his termination, and he did not cite Clinton’s name in a legally mandated mediation. He also has not produced documentary proof that in the time before his termination he was directed to focus on Clinton. The record makes it clear not only did he mishandle classified information, he himself was focused on Clinton improperly and was instructed to stop, and that issues with his conduct were noted on the record as far back as April.
Because I do not know him, and cannot recall ever speaking to him, I can say for certain he was never instructed by me to focus on Clinton, nor would he be a credible person to speak on my behalf. I am equally confident his supervisor, General Chipman, did not direct him to focus on Clinton.
In fact, when this staffer requested interns do a project that focused on Clinton and the National Security Council, he was informed by the Committee’s deputy staff director his project was ‘not approved.’ This individual was hired as a former intelligence staffer to focus on intelligence, not the politics of White House talking points.
On September 11th, in his mediation filing, this staffer specifically claimed his reserve status as a basis for his termination. I would note first this staffer’s reserve duty was approved both times it was requested.
In all of the interviews conducted since news broke of Secretary Clinton’s email arrangement, exactly half of one interview focused on Clinton’s unusual email arrangement. The Benghazi Committee has now interviewed 44 new witnesses, including 7 eyewitnesses to the attacks never before interviewed, and recovered more than 50,000 pages of new documents. Approximately 5 percent of those are Secretary Clinton’s self-selected email records. I cannot say it any plainer than stating the facts, the Benghazi Committee is not focused on Secretary Clinton, and to the extent we have given any attention to Clinton, it is because she was Secretary of State at all relevant times covered by this Committee’s jurisdiction.
“Had CNN contacted the Committee regarding its interview with this staffer before it rushed to air his sensationalistic and fabulist claims, it could have fully questioned him about his unsubstantiated claims. But that is the difference between journalism as practiced by CNN, and the fact-centric investigation being conducted by this Committee.
This Committee always has been, and will be, focused on the four brave Americans we lost in Benghazi and providing the final, definitive accounting of the Benghazi terrorist attacks for the American people.
One month ago, this staffer had a chance to bare his soul, and raise his claim this Committee was focused on Secretary Clinton in a legal document, not an interview, and he did not do it. Nor did he mention Secretary Clinton at any time during his counseling for deficient performance, when he was terminated, or via his first lawyer who withdrew from representing him. In fact, throughout the pendency of an ongoing legal mediation, which is set to conclude October 13, this staffer has not mentioned Secretary Clinton. But as this process prepares to wrap, he has demanded money from the Committee, the Committee has refused to pay him, and he has now run to the press with his new salacious allegations about Secretary Clinton.
To wit, until his Friday conversations with media, this staffer has never mentioned Secretary Clinton as a cause of his termination, and he did not cite Clinton’s name in a legally mandated mediation. He also has not produced documentary proof that in the time before his termination he was directed to focus on Clinton. The record makes it clear not only did he mishandle classified information, he himself was focused on Clinton improperly and was instructed to stop, and that issues with his conduct were noted on the record as far back as April.
Because I do not know him, and cannot recall ever speaking to him, I can say for certain he was never instructed by me to focus on Clinton, nor would he be a credible person to speak on my behalf. I am equally confident his supervisor, General Chipman, did not direct him to focus on Clinton.
In fact, when this staffer requested interns do a project that focused on Clinton and the National Security Council, he was informed by the Committee’s deputy staff director his project was ‘not approved.’ This individual was hired as a former intelligence staffer to focus on intelligence, not the politics of White House talking points.
On September 11th, in his mediation filing, this staffer specifically claimed his reserve status as a basis for his termination. I would note first this staffer’s reserve duty was approved both times it was requested.
In all of the interviews conducted since news broke of Secretary Clinton’s email arrangement, exactly half of one interview focused on Clinton’s unusual email arrangement. The Benghazi Committee has now interviewed 44 new witnesses, including 7 eyewitnesses to the attacks never before interviewed, and recovered more than 50,000 pages of new documents. Approximately 5 percent of those are Secretary Clinton’s self-selected email records. I cannot say it any plainer than stating the facts, the Benghazi Committee is not focused on Secretary Clinton, and to the extent we have given any attention to Clinton, it is because she was Secretary of State at all relevant times covered by this Committee’s jurisdiction.
“Had CNN contacted the Committee regarding its interview with this staffer before it rushed to air his sensationalistic and fabulist claims, it could have fully questioned him about his unsubstantiated claims. But that is the difference between journalism as practiced by CNN, and the fact-centric investigation being conducted by this Committee.
This Committee always has been, and will be, focused on the four brave Americans we lost in Benghazi and providing the final, definitive accounting of the Benghazi terrorist attacks for the American people.
Honestly, Whembly, would anyone have expected Gowdy to say otherwise? Also, the current version of the story (already linked above) also includes CNN's response to Gowdy's response to CNN's report (I await Gowdy's response to CNN's response to Gowdy's response to CNN's report, and then CNN's response to Gowdy's response to etc., etc. ):
Spoiler:
"We categorically deny Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy's statement about CNN," a network spokesperson said. "We reached out to the committee for a response prior to publishing or broadcasting, which the committee provided. That response was included in our reporting. In addition, Chairman Gowdy was invited to discuss this on CNN and declined. Chairman Gowdy is wrong."
Regardless, I suppose we'll know the truth of it soon enough as Podliska will certainly have to provide evidence for his lawsuit.
Indeed... both Podliska and Gowdy should be able to provide documented evidences to support their claims. Especially if Podliksa's suit proceeds past the discovery phase.
For what it's worth, I'll take Gowdy's word more seriously over CNN "Dude... where's my plane" every time.
And what an obvious "truth" it is. Despite numerous investigations already clearing the matter being investigated a partisan group decides that yet another investigation is needed, with the only result being the discovery of something completely unrelated to Benghazi. That something being celebrated by the partisan group as a victory with one of the leading members of the house actually admitting that the only purpose of the investigation being a political witch-hunt designed to damage a political enemy, an admission that cost him a very prestigious political post, and another person now coming forward stating the same thing that was already admitted: it has nothing to do with Benghazi and dead Americans are being used for a political vendetta.
It's obvious to anyone that manages to come out of the partisan sea long enough to catch a breath of reason.
For what it's worth, I'll take Gowdy's word more seriously over CNN "Dude... where's my plane" every time.
Of course you will. Gowdy is searching for a "truth" that you want.
Heh... CNN claims that they contacted the committee without stipulating "who".
It could've been Cummings... but Gowdy's response infers that *he* was not contacted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: And what an obvious "truth" it is. Despite numerous investigations already clearing the matter being investigated a partisan group decides that yet another investigation is needed, with the only result being the discovery of something completely unrelated to Benghazi. That something being celebrated by the partisan group as a victory with one of the leading members of the house actually admitting that the only purpose of the investigation being a political witch-hunt designed to damage a political enemy, an admission that cost him a very prestigious political post, and another person now coming forward stating the same thing that was already admitted: it has nothing to do with Benghazi and dead Americans are being used for a political vendetta.
It's obvious to anyone that manages to come out of the partisan sea long enough to catch a breath of reason.
Why can't it be "all of the above"?
The political ramifications, among them HRC taking a beating, is a side effect... not a justification for, the Select Committee. This administration has avoided taking responsibilties over a plethora of brain-dead decisions. I will demand my pound-o-flesh for this... but, ya'll knew that.
whembly wrote: The political ramifications, among them HRC taking a beating, is a side effect... not a justification for, the Select Committee.
Is this another one of those things that you've repeated so many times that you just regard it as truth? Because that's what it looks like to everyone else.
whembly wrote: The political ramifications, among them HRC taking a beating, is a side effect... not a justification for, the Select Committee.
Is this another one of those things that you've repeated so many times that you just regard it as truth? Because that's what it looks like to everyone else.
Nah... i refuse to believe that a fething YouTube director incited a bunch of rag-tag terrorist in Benghazi that lead to the death of 4 American... who one was the fething ambassador.
But, because in the heat of Obama's re-election campaign, everything's kosher because the winning team got what they wanted. Right? So shut the feth up whembly?
I've been consistent in saying that this shouldn't be swept under the rug... so, if the investigation by this committee brings more pain and agony to Hillary's election hopes and Obama's legacy building... so be it.
Without this committee... Hillary's email scandal wouldn't be where it's at now. So, yeah, that's the political aspect. But to say that's the *only* reason is a crying shame.
I'm still very interested in the events the lead up to and the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks. We owe it to the 4 dead americans not to ignore this simply because it's politically expedient.
We aren't interested in it. Neither is this thread. You had a thread almost all to yourself for that, and it's gone now, lost to the mists of time. Don't start to drag this thread there as well.
motyak wrote: We aren't interested in it. Neither is this thread. You had a thread almost all to yourself for that, and it's gone now, lost to the mists of time. Don't start to drag this thread there as well.
Hey man... it's political now.
Okay... okay, I'll stop.
Still waiting to hear from BrotherGecko why he thinks Carson is a "potential dictator". I mean... I guess any President *could* go that route... but, meh... Carson?
motyak wrote: We aren't interested in it. Neither is this thread. You had a thread almost all to yourself for that, and it's gone now, lost to the mists of time. Don't start to drag this thread there as well.
Hey man... it's political now.
Okay... okay, I'll stop.
Still waiting to hear from BrotherGecko why he thinks why Carson is a "potential dictator". I mean... I guess any President *could* go that route... but, meh... Carson?
Its the way he refers to the media, bible based economics and how he would "deal" with immigration. There are also his mannerisms when he talks. It was funny when I thought of him as ole grandpa Carson, but as I have now paid more attention to him they are just off putting.
Partially its the feeling he gives off but also his policies. For being a man that saved lives he has an odd lack of empathy. He refers to the media as not telling the truth (or rather his truth) and not representing real America (who ever that is). It sounds of a man that would silence media decent and supplement his own propaganda as justification for 'protecting' us. His bible economics is theocratic at minimum which is about as anti-American as you can get. An his immigration ideas are as fethed as it can get.
Its all very 'Putineque' to me.
Now I don't think we would allow him to become a dictator but rather I see him as having the potential if given the room. He has a manner that says I know best for every one with deaf ears to disagreement.
Still waiting to hear from BrotherGecko why he thinks Carson is a "potential dictator". I mean... I guess any President *could* go that route... but, meh... Carson?
I have posed numerous question to you, and you failed to respond to most of them.
Still waiting to hear from BrotherGecko why he thinks Carson is a "potential dictator". I mean... I guess any President *could* go that route... but, meh... Carson?
I have posed numerous question to you, and you failed to respond to most of them.
Why is that?
What questions? I've responded to you in these last few pages...
motyak wrote: We aren't interested in it. Neither is this thread. You had a thread almost all to yourself for that, and it's gone now, lost to the mists of time. Don't start to drag this thread there as well.
Hey man... it's political now.
Okay... okay, I'll stop.
Still waiting to hear from BrotherGecko why he thinks why Carson is a "potential dictator". I mean... I guess any President *could* go that route... but, meh... Carson?
Its the way he refers to the media, bible based economics and how he would "deal" with immigration. There are also his mannerisms when he talks. It was funny when I thought of him as ole grandpa Carson, but as I have now paid more attention to him they are just off putting.
Partially its the feeling he gives off but also his policies. For being a man that saved lives he has an odd lack of empathy. He refers to the media as not telling the truth (or rather his truth) and not representing real America (who ever that is). It sounds of a man that would silence media decent and supplement his own propaganda as justification for 'protecting' us. His bible economics is theocratic at minimum which is about as anti-American as you can get. An his immigration ideas are as fethed as it can get.
Its all very 'Putineque' to me.
Now I don't think we would allow him to become a dictator but rather I see him as having the potential if given the room. He has a manner that says I know best for every one with deaf ears to disagreement.
<.< >.>
Okay... if you say so.
Frankly, the criticisms Carson been getting from the media are weak-sauced.
:shrugs:
However, I really don't think he'd be a good President... simply because he'll get drawn into fights that he won't win. Hence why I'm a big proponent of ex-Governors and of Rick Perry. But, all that's left in the meaningful fields are Bush, Cristie and O'Malley... ugh!!!
Jim Webb is around, but he's awfully quiet. Maybe he'll make some noise tomorrow night in Vegas?
BrotherGecko wrote: Did you want to know my opinion and reasoning to just blow it off?
Sure I wanted to know it... I think most of the criticism are a little weak. About the only thing he could be truly ding'ed is how "green" this guy is.
Just like Trump...
But to say Carson will be in danger of being dictatorial is a wee bit hyperbolic. But, with respect to his mannerism... you're not the first person to point that out and I really don't have anything to say other than it doesn't bother me. It's like a nervous tick of some sort.
BrotherGecko wrote: Did you want to know my opinion and reasoning to just blow it off?
Sure I wanted to know it... I think most of the criticism are a little weak. About the only thing he could be truly ding'ed is how "green" this guy is.
Just like Trump...
But to say Carson will be in danger of being dictatorial is a wee bit hyperbolic. But, with respect to his mannerism... you're not the first person to point that out and I really don't have anything to say other than it doesn't bother me. It's like a nervous tick of some sort.
Well its an opinion of mine weighted by observations of him and how I see his policies. I'm not attempting to convince anybody here but I see something in him that I don't see as no big deal.
Given the wider politics of the growing reactionary culture of America (and Europe) and the masses calling for a leader like Putin in America lately. I can see a dictator slipping under the radar.
Still it is only what I think, is what I am observing.
BrotherGecko wrote: Did you want to know my opinion and reasoning to just blow it off?
Sure I wanted to know it... I think most of the criticism are a little weak. About the only thing he could be truly ding'ed is how "green" this guy is.
Just like Trump...
But to say Carson will be in danger of being dictatorial is a wee bit hyperbolic. But, with respect to his mannerism... you're not the first person to point that out and I really don't have anything to say other than it doesn't bother me. It's like a nervous tick of some sort.
Well its an opinion of mine weighted by observations of him and how I see his policies. I'm not attempting to convince anybody here but I see something in him that I don't see as no big deal.
Given the wider politics of the growing reactionary culture of America (and Europe) and the masses calling for a leader like Putin in America lately. I can see a dictator slipping under the radar.
Still it is only what I think, is what I am observing.
It's a criticism that is well founded. Carson's leadership experience is pretty much limited to being head of a surgical team. That is essentially a dictatorship, he has final say on everything. Given his track record he's accomplished some real good things as a surgeon but he was dealing with a team that could really challenge his decisions or force compromises. When you get accustomed to having that kind of authority it's difficult to change over to a more conciliatory style and be open to compromise and working through a legislative body.
That's why I'm wary of any candidate that lacks the experience of being a governor or legislator; they don't understand how govt works. They can come across as appealing idealists but they often strike me as being more akin to wanting to be benevolent dictators.
And, in those five words, Sanders showed why — no matter how much energy there is for him on the liberal left — he isn't getting elected president.
Why? Because Democrat or Republican (or independent), capitalism remains a pretty popular concept — especially when compared to socialism. A 2011 Pew Research Center survey showed that 50 percent of people had a favorable view of capitalism, while 40 percent had an unfavorable one. Of socialism, just three in 10 had a positive opinion, while 61 percent saw it in a negative light.
Wrote Pew in a memo analyzing the results:
Of these terms, socialism is the more politically polarizing — the reaction is almost universally negative among conservatives, while generally positive among liberals. While there are substantial differences in how liberals and conservatives think of capitalism, the gaps are far narrower.
Yes, I am aware that some more recent polling — Internet-based, it's worth noting — suggests that socialism is getting more and more popular, particularly among young people. And that, as a recent New Yorker profile of Sanders makes clear, many of his supporters are drawn to his unwillingness to abandon the term. Here's a key passage:
Sanders has been known as a democratic socialist for decades. This didn’t matter much to Kiley or York, or to most other Sanders supporters I met during the next few weeks; mainly, they were impressed that he hadn’t shed the term. York thought that, because of Sanders and his “social-media-driven fans,” socialism was “getting a bit of a P.R. makeover.” She noted that sites like Reddit and Twitter were circulating videos of “Bernie explaining why he identifies as a socialist, and what it means to him, in a really positive light.” She added, “The word had a retro connection to Communism and was originally thrown at him as a damning label by his opponents. But for his supporters it isn’t a deterrent.”
But even in that Internet survey and even among millennials, the group most inclined to see socialism favorably, capitalism is still preferred by more people. And, people who are drawn to Sanders — at least so far — aren't even a majority of Democrats, much less the entire country.
The simple political fact is that if Sanders did ever manage to win the Democratic presidential nomination — a long shot but far from a no shot at this point — Republicans would simply clip Sanders's answer to Todd above and put it in a 30-second TV ad. That would, almost certainly, be the end of Sanders's viability in a general election.
Americans might be increasingly aware of the economic inequality in the country and increasingly suspicious of so-called vulture capitalism — all of which has helped fuel Sanders's rise. But we are not electing someone who is an avowed socialist to the nation's top political job. Just ain't happening.
Query for everyone: Can an avowed Socialist be President?
Nein says this guy:
How did you move from "Why Bernie Sanders isn't going to be President, in just five words." to "An avowed socialist cannot be President."? The latter claim was not even hinted at in the article you cited.
But, to answer your question, yes: an avowed socialist can be President of the United States.
So Sanders associates himself as democratic first and then socialist and that is bad because he doesn't associate himself as capitalist first and democratic never?
Now I know full well how the average American has no idea what actually is socialism or for that matter what is actually capitalist either. What they do know is the evil Soviets were communist and that means socialist ( apparently )and that capitalism defeated them, according to public education.
All of the people running have a chance to become president. It just takes a little luck in some cases. The GOP's crop this year actually works in Sander's favor. Some one like me is looking to do damage control with their vote. So if Sanders ends up the least likely to burn my country to the ground then so be it he gets my vote. If the GOP goes with a crazy person because they can stand to lose again then I will walk away from them.
I suspect there are a fair few American votes that have a similar stance at this point.
Why are we polling the country as a whole on their opinion of socialism? The number that matters is what percentage of likely democrat voters would stay home or vote republican instead of voting for a democrat who said "I'm a socialist". The fact that 99.999999% of far-right conservatives would never vote for a socialist doesn't matter at all because those people aren't voting democrat no matter who is running.
Bernie has a chance if he can just get his message out to more people, I think, and educate the uninformed about what he stands for. Sure, a lot of people would say they won't vote for a Socialist, but a lot (not all) of what Bernie wants to do actually does fall under the category of Good Ideas, and that can change minds.
Also, did anyone see that Ben and Jerry's came up with an idea for a Bernie Sanders ice cream? It has a giant chocolate chip on top to represent the "1 percent" and you eat it by whacking the chip and mixing the pieces in with the rest of the ice cream. Someone else suggested making it mint flavored so you can "feel the Bern".
Socialist had become a scary word in this country, despite most people not really knowing what it means. I mean, we are a socialist country for heaven's sake. It's just that most people seem to think communist for some reason.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Socialist had become a scary word in this country, despite most people not really knowing what it means. I mean, we are a socialist country for heaven's sake. It's just that most people seem to think communist for some reason.
Our country was established on a foundation of negative rights, that's the opposite of positive right dependent socialism. We have some govt programs that are based on socialist principles but we're not a socialist country. We would have to undergo far more changes in our government and economy to be the kind of real socialist country found in other parts o fthe world.
Sanders, like all presidential candidates likes to make promises and put out policies as if the only thing required to put them into practice is winning the presidential election. The POTUS has far less legislative power than the candidates would have the public believe. There's very little in Sander's campaign (or any other candidate's) that can be done with unilateral executive action, pretty much all of it requires Congress to support the agenda with new legislation. Barring some massive changes in the Congressional races in 2016 and 2018 there's little reason to expect Congress to buy in and rubber stand candidates' policies that are being promoted at their rallies. This is true for Sanders, Clinton, Trump, whomever is currently second behind Trump, etc.
What candidate currently running is going to not face entrenched diametric opposition from the other party and probably even some segments of their own party in Congress?
We are a socialist country, specifically a socialist-capitalist mix, just almost every other country on earth. We just happen to lean far more capitalist than most 'western" countries. There are very few fully socialist countries on earth.
I agree completely on the second part though. You have to control everything to make changes on that scale. And you can be sure that the R's will be out in full force if a self-described socialist is on the ticket. And Bernie's plan is extremely overzealous, IMO. The things he wants to implement would probably take far more than 2 terms, and he might not even get that if he was elected.
Co'tor Shas wrote: We are a socialist country, specifically a socialist-capitalist mix, just almost every other country on earth. We just happen to lean far more capitalist than most 'western" countries. There are very few fully socialist countries on earth.
I agree completely on the second part though. You have to control everything to make changes on that scale. And you can be sure that the R's will be out in full force if a self-described socialist is on the ticket. And Bernie's plan is extremely overzealous, IMO. The things he wants to implement would probably take far more than 2 terms, and he might not even get that if he was elected.
I don't want to derail the thread or come across as pedantic so I won't belabor the point after this post but your caveat that you think we're a socialist-capitalist mix that is much less socialist than other western countries that self identify as socialist supports the point I was trying to make that it's erroneous to refer to the US with the generalization that we're a "socialist" country. We have some socialist policies and programs but not to the extent that we could be or should be classified as an out and out socialist country that would fit the definition of a real "socialist country."
It's heartening that you agree with my observation about the pie in the sky campaign promises and policies put forth by presidential candidates. It's depressing and frustrating to see politicians continually show the electorate how they operate in a bubble of unreality where they pander for votes by promising to do things that are literally not possible for somebody in the office they're running for to do. It's a colossal waste of time and a disservice to the people and the country and instead of moving to change it, there's a whole industry devoted to keeping the illusion propped up.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The private email server running in Hillary Rodham Clinton's home basement when she was secretary of state was connected to the Internet in ways that made it more vulnerable to hackers, according to data and documents reviewed by The Associated Press.
Clinton's server, which handled her personal and State Department correspondence, appeared to allow users to connect openly over the Internet to control it remotely, according to detailed records compiled in 2012. Experts said the Microsoft remote desktop service wasn't intended for such use without additional protective measures, and was the subject of U.S. government and industry warnings at the time over attacks from even low-skilled intruders.
Records show that Clinton additionally operated two more devices on her home network in Chappaqua, New York, that also were directly accessible from the Internet. One contained similar remote-control software that also has suffered from security vulnerabilities, known as Virtual Network Computing, and the other appeared to be configured to run websites.
The new details provide the first clues about how Clinton's computer, running Microsoft's server software, was set up and protected when she used it exclusively over four years as secretary of state for all work messages. Clinton's privately paid technology adviser, Bryan Pagliano, has declined to answer questions about his work from congressional investigators, citing the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.
Some emails on Clinton's server were later deemed top secret, and scores of others included confidential or sensitive information. Clinton has said that her server featured "numerous safeguards," but she has yet to explain how well her system was secured and whether, or how frequently, security updates were applied.
Clinton has apologized for running her homebrew server, and President Barack Obama said during a "60 Minutes" interview Sunday it was "a mistake." Obama said national security wasn't endangered, although the FBI still has yet to complete its review of Clinton's server for evidence of hacking.
Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon said late Monday that "this report, like others before it, lacks any evidence of an actual breach, let alone one specifically targeting Hillary Clinton. The Justice Department is conducting a review of the security of the server, and we are cooperating in full."
The AP exclusively reviewed numerous records from an Internet "census" by an anonymous hacker-researcher, who three years ago used unsecured devices to scan hundreds of millions of Internet Protocol addresses for accessible doors, called "ports." Using a computer in Serbia, the hacker scanned Clinton's basement server in Chappaqua at least twice, in August and December 2012. It was unclear whether the hacker was aware the server belonged to Clinton, although it identified itself as providing email services for clintonemail.com. The results are widely available online.
Remote-access software allows users to control another computer from afar. The programs are usually operated through an encrypted connection — called a virtual private network, or VPN. But Clinton's system appeared to accept commands directly from the Internet without such protections.
"That's total amateur hour," said Marc Maiffret, who has founded two cyber security companies. He said permitting remote-access connections directly over the Internet would be the result of someone choosing convenience over security or failing to understand the risks. "Real enterprise-class security, with teams dedicated to these things, would not do this," he said.
The government and security firms have published warnings about allowing this kind of remote access to Clinton's server. The same software was targeted by an infectious Internet worm, known as Morta, which exploited weak passwords to break into servers. The software also was known to be vulnerable to brute-force attacks that tried password combinations until hackers broke in, and in some cases it could be tricked into revealing sensitive details about a server to help hackers formulate attacks.
"An attacker with a low skill level would be able to exploit this vulnerability," said the Homeland Security Department's U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team in 2012, the same year Clinton's server was scanned.
Also in 2012, the State Department had outlawed use of remote-access software for its technology officials to maintain unclassified servers without a waiver. It had banned all instances of remotely connecting to classified servers or servers located overseas.
The findings suggest Clinton's server "violates the most basic network-perimeter security tenets: Don't expose insecure services to the Internet," said Justin Harvey, the chief security officer for Fidelis Cybersecurity.
Clinton's email server at one point also was operating software necessary to publish websites, although it was not believed to have been used for this purpose. Traditional security practices dictate shutting off all a server's unnecessary functions to prevent hackers from exploiting design flaws in them.
In Clinton's case, Internet addresses the AP traced to her home in Chappaqua revealed open ports on three devices, including her email system. Each numbered port is commonly, but not always uniquely, associated with specific features or functions. The AP in March was first to discover Clinton's use of a private email server and trace it to her home.
Mikko Hypponen, the chief research officer at F-Secure, a top global computer security firm, said it was unclear how Clinton's server was configured, but an out-of-the-box installation of remote desktop would have been vulnerable. Those risks — such as giving hackers a chance to run malicious software on her machine — were "clearly serious" and could have allowed snoops to deploy so-called "back doors."
The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, the federal government's guiding agency on computer technology, warned in 2008 that exposed server ports were security risks. It said remote-control programs should only be used in conjunction with encryption tunnels, such as secure VPN connections.
Dear lawd... people lose their fething careers over things like this... no self-respecting IT administrator would be caught dead with configurations like this.
"CNN host Anderson Cooper, who is set to moderate tonight's Democratic debate, was listed as a "notable past member" the Clinton Global Initiative's website along with a number of other big name journalists:
The list includes: CNN’s Anderson Cooper and Christiane Amanpour, Fox’s Greta Van Susteren, NBC’s Matt Lauer and Tom Brokaw, New York Times‘s Thomas Friedman and Nicholas Kristof, Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo, Yahoo’s Katie Couric, The Economist‘s Matthew Bishop, and Financial Times‘ Lionel Barber.
The Clinton Foundation later told Mediaite that none of these journalists were asked to pay the $20,000 membership fee required of members. However, it's safe to say that access to big name journalists was a key selling point for paying Clinton Global Initiative members. In a nutshell, Anderson Cooper helped Hillary Clinton raise money, and now he's presented as an impartial moderator for tonight's debate."
Biden should make an entrance like the WWE: just when Hillary and Bernie are in the middle of an argument, the lights go out, and then the Biden logo appears onscreen and his entrance music plays. THEN he can roll in on a Harley.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Biden should make an entrance like the WWE: just when Hillary and Bernie are in the middle of an argument, the lights go out, and then the Biden logo appears onscreen and his entrance music plays. THEN he can roll in on a Harley.
whembly wrote: We'll see how "impartial" the questions will be.
Will the moderator simulate the same sort of "Fight Club" as it were done in the last two Republican debates?
I'm just hoping that Sanders goes after Clinton...
Then Sander's "Socialism" proclivities are attacked...
Will O'Malley or Jim Webb make some noise? The almost HAVE to come out there swinging...
Then... there's Biden... the "He.Who.Shall.Not.Be.Named" candidate.
I doubt it. I do like how all commenters on CNN were talking about how they were sure it would be a calmer debate-DUDE YOU CREATED THE RULES FOR YOUR FIGHT CLUB DEBATE!
whembly wrote: We'll see how "impartial" the questions will be.
Will the moderator simulate the same sort of "Fight Club" as it were done in the last two Republican debates?
I'm just hoping that Sanders goes after Clinton...
Then Sander's "Socialism" proclivities are attacked...
Will O'Malley or Jim Webb make some noise? The almost HAVE to come out there swinging...
Then... there's Biden... the "He.Who.Shall.Not.Be.Named" candidate.
I doubt it. I do like how all commenters on CNN were talking about how they were sure it would be a calmer debate-DUDE YOU CREATED THE RULES FOR YOUR FIGHT CLUB DEBATE!
Hey... CNN should at the very least, encourage their debate participants to press the Life Alert buttons if they choke up on stage.
Cooper is Bush League at this, and so is CNN. The candidates are begging for substantive questions, and he is interjecting himself way too much. God forbid they tell us what their actual plans are.
Honestly though, I actually think the candidates, when they get to talk, are actually getting TO their policies, rather than the "Real Housewives" circus that was the last R debate.
And Webb is pretty damn weak... he spends probably half his time bitching and moaning about the time he gets to speak
He has still failed to describe how he'd pay for all of it.
You must be watching a different debate than I am, because he's said repeatedly, through a "Wall Street Speculation" tax, as well as other taxes on the ultra-rich.
He has still failed to describe how he'd pay for all of it.
You must be watching a different debate than I am, because he's said repeatedly, through a "Wall Street Speculation" tax, as well as other taxes on the ultra-rich.
That "speculation" tax will never pass.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yay... Bernie is pushing for carbon taxes.
No, it probably won't, but pretending that Sanders did not lay out the funding mechanics behind his proposals simply makes you seem foolish.
It's vaporware... it wouldn't even come close to paying for it.
Why? Because that assumes the behaviors will remain static. It's the same old problem when trying to raise any taxes. Because, people will always seek to minimize their tax liabilities... something that big spenders (both Democrats and Republicans) ignores.
I must say, from knowing nothing about him going into this, I'm liking O'mally. If Biden doesn't step up, I could certainly see him getting the nomination.
It's vaporware... it wouldn't even come close to paying for it.
You're moving the goalposts.
Sanders clearly stated how he would fund his proposals. You might not like what he said, but pretending that he didn't say anything regarding the matter is simply dishonest.
It's the same old problem when trying to raise any taxes. Because, people will always seek to minimize their tax liabilities... something that big spenders (both Democrats and Republicans) ignores.
No, people will generally seek to maximize their day-to-day profit.
And Webb is pretty damn weak... he spends probably half his time bitching and moaning about the time he gets to speak
Well.... he wasn't wrong:
Speaking times:
Clinton: 23 min 42 sec
Sanders: 22 min 27 sec
O'Malley: 13 min 18 sec
Webb: 12 min 55 sec
Chafee: 7 min 32 sec
That being said, IMHO, when Webb wasn't complaining about his time allotment, he did give some pretty good answers.
In regards to the softball "Who is the greatest threat to america", Webb pointed out that it's actually a multi-faceted issue, and highlighted some pretty big "keys" in each issue.
It's vaporware... it wouldn't even come close to paying for it.
You're moving the goalposts.
Sanders clearly stated how he would fund his proposals. You might not like what he said, but pretending that he didn't say anything regarding the matter is simply dishonest.
Now it's you being dishonest.
I'm stating his "plan" isn't as clear. You can sum it up by saying "he's going to tax the rich more". Well... yeah... but, how.
It's the same old problem when trying to raise any taxes. Because, people will always seek to minimize their tax liabilities... something that big spenders (both Democrats and Republicans) ignores.
No, people will generally seek to maximize their day-to-day profit.
Why? Because that assumes the behaviors will remain static.
Have you become more likely to vote for liberals? Democrats?
Wut. You're not making any sense.
He's providing an example of behavior remaining static (your voting preferences) to present the argument that things remaining static is often correctly assumed.
Why? Because that assumes the behaviors will remain static.
Have you become more likely to vote for liberals? Democrats?
Wut. You're not making any sense.
He's providing an example of behavior remaining static (your voting preferences) to present the argument that things remaining static is often correctly assumed.
Ah. Thanks.
It's wrong to think like that with respect to taxation policies.
I mean, just look at the so-called "sin taxes" and what the revenues are "projected" to be used for in states budgets.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In other news...
Hillary says that her biggest enemy is the Republican Party. Yep, let's put her in charge of the IRS. That'll end well...
And pretty much all of the mainstream press and pundits are saying she had a strong night overall. My guess is Biden was watching the whole night with a sinking feeling (too bad, I really wanted him to get in). Watch Clinton get a small bump in the polls in the next week or so until her testimony at the Benghazi hearings turn media and voters attention elsewhere again.
And what was with the weird moment when Webb smiled fondly while remembering killing an enemy in Vietnam?
And what was with the weird moment when Webb smiled fondly while remembering killing an enemy in Vietnam?
It was quite bizarre in an otherwise mediocre performance. I think obviously his word choice was poor, but also.... I would think that even he'd realize that that wasn't really answering the question (perhaps the way I heard the question and the way he heard the question are completely different), as I felt the question was asking about the candidates' "political" enemies, not... well, the enemy he was given when he was actively a Marine.
whembly wrote: She’s the only candidate on that stage who can win both the Democratic primary and the general election.
I don't know, I think Sanders could win, depending on how things go. If he wins the primary I would expect it to be a repeat of the 2008 election, where all the talk of "Hillary voters won't support Obama" turned out to be pretty significantly exaggerated. I think a lot of people who are saying no to him at a safe distance from election day with nothing at stake yet will realize that even a less-than-ideal democrat is a lot more appealing than whatever raving lunatic the republican party nominates. And let's not forget what 2008 showed us about the value of enthusiastic younger voters, a group that Sanders is very popular with.
Ok...so now I'm back to thinking Clinton is inevitable. I doubt Biden runs, and barring the entry of some auto-win figure like Bill Gates (which won't happen) or Colin Powell (also won't happen), I just don't see any significant opponents.
I might have thought Sanders at one point, but he stumbled through many answers, and it seemed clear he was pretty unprepared for attacks against his very long record in politics. If he can't give good answers to Anderson Coopers team,I doubt he would do much better against Team GOP.
The Republicans have no one who can beat Clinton in a debate. In part, this is because any overly hostile attacks against Clinton will fit right into the Republican War on Women narrative. In part, because the crop of GOP candidates is so poor.
At this point, I think it's going to come down to Clinton vs. either Bush or Rubio, with Clinton winning in either case, but I think Rubio would make a better showing than Bush in defeat.
jasper76 wrote: Ok...so now I'm back to thinking Clinton is inevitable. I doubt Biden runs, and barring the entry of some auto-win figure like Bill Gates (which won't happen) or Colin Powell (also won't happen), I just don't see any significant opponents.
Ughhhhhhh, a man can only dream to get some one with integrity in the oval office. Unfortunately he is too moderate for the Republican party and too moderate for the Democratic party. Also he is completely turned off American politics at this point.
Did anyone else think that Lincoln Chafee did a horrible job in that debate? One of his answers to Anderson Cooper on his voting record was just awful.
Blood Hawk wrote: Did anyone else think that Lincoln Chafee did a horrible job in that debate? One of his answers to Anderson Cooper on his voting record was just awful.
But yea Clinton very clearly won the debate.
Yeah, I think Chafee sunk himself with that one....
As for Clinton? I disagree, and from what I've seen, it really depends on where you look to see who "won"... many focus groups and pollster type places say Sanders won, while "mainstream" media claims victory for Clinton. Regardless, I don't think either one really hurt themselves in the debate.
Also, one of the post debate comments about Webb was rather spot on, and sad... a CNN commentator said, "ya know, Webb said a lot of nice things, he sounded great, For a Republican." And I actually agree with it. Webb is much more centrist Republican than he is a Democrat. Unfortunately, he comes from VA where there's pretty much only "Tea party" or "right leaning democrat" as options.
Blood Hawk wrote: Did anyone else think that Lincoln Chafee did a horrible job in that debate? One of his answers to Anderson Cooper on his voting record was just awful.
But yea Clinton very clearly won the debate.
Yeah, I think Chafee sunk himself with that one....
As for Clinton? I disagree, and from what I've seen, it really depends on where you look to see who "won"... many focus groups and pollster type places say Sanders won, while "mainstream" media claims victory for Clinton. Regardless, I don't think either one really hurt themselves in the debate.
Also, one of the post debate comments about Webb was rather spot on, and sad... a CNN commentator said, "ya know, Webb said a lot of nice things, he sounded great, For a Republican." And I actually agree with it. Webb is much more centrist Republican than he is a Democrat. Unfortunately, he comes from VA where there's pretty much only "Tea party" or "right leaning democrat" as options.
Personally watching the whole thing I think Clinton overall won. Sanders kinda stumped a few times in the beginning but mainly I think it is because Clinton's opponents had a real opportunity face to face say take swipes at her over all the scandals and instead Sanders defended her, which I think personally is a win overall for Clinton. Sanders and Clinton both did very well in the debate.
Edit: Also I would say that the democratic debate was loads better than the circus over at the Reagan library.
Blood Hawk wrote: Did anyone else think that Lincoln Chafee did a horrible job in that debate? One of his answers to Anderson Cooper on his voting record was just awful.
But yea Clinton very clearly won the debate.
Yeah, I think Chafee sunk himself with that one....
Agreed. Throw O'Malley in that bucket too...
As for Clinton? I disagree, and from what I've seen, it really depends on where you look to see who "won"... many focus groups and pollster type places say Sanders won, while "mainstream" media claims victory for Clinton. Regardless, I don't think either one really hurt themselves in the debate.
The punditry was having orgasms of the "Clinton Comeback"... which is strange since Clinton was always the front runner.
I think that her comment as Republicans being one of her "enemies" is going to hurt her... ala, Romney's 47% comment.
Also, one of the post debate comments about Webb was rather spot on, and sad... a CNN commentator said, "ya know, Webb said a lot of nice things, he sounded great, For a Republican." And I actually agree with it. Webb is much more centrist Republican than he is a Democrat. Unfortunately, he comes from VA where there's pretty much only "Tea party" or "right leaning democrat" as options.
Webb is an example of how far left the Democratic party is shifting.
Blood Hawk wrote: Personally watching the whole thing I think Clinton overall won. Sanders kinda stumped a few times in the beginning but mainly I think it is because Clinton's opponents had a real opportunity face to face say take swipes at her over all the scandals and instead Sanders defended her, which I think personally is a win overall for Clinton. Sanders and Clinton both did very well in the debate.
I know that CNN at least is calling Sanders' response to "attacks" on his gun control voting a stumble... but I think if you really look at his entire voting history, he never votes blindly. Clearly, if he votes for one piece of gun legislation, and not another, it's because there's something in it he didnt agree with.
Unlike someone else who wants America to believe that daddy dying is an excuse for voting for something terrible, and then tries to say, "well the vote was like 93 to 5" as if that's another good bandaid to what he already done fethed up on.
I can see where Sanders' defense of Clinton over the emails can be seen as a victory for her, but I think ultimately that it is a victory for the Democrat party. They have a sort of unity of purpose that the Republicans don't really seem to have.
I think that her comment as Republicans being one of her "enemies" is going to hurt her... ala, Romney's 47% comment.
Webb is an example of how far left the Democratic party is shifting.
I can see that... My guess would be that Rs will attempt to turn it into a "she hates republicans, so she hates Americans, and wants to put them into FEMA Death Camps" (maybe a bit extreme, then again, maybe not)
Webb is, at the same time, an example of how far right the Republican party is shifting as well.
I can see where Sanders' defense of Clinton over the emails can be seen as a victory for her, but I think ultimately that it is a victory for the Democrat party. They have a sort of unity of purpose that the Republicans don't really seem to have.
Agreed. The republicans are anything but unified at this point.
At this point, Sanders should focus on winning, not 'unity'. Obama mercilessly hammered Clinton's Iraq vote for example. If Sanders really feels he wants to be Pres and is a better choice for D primary voters and the general election voters, using the email scandal as a way to hit his opponent, especially when directly asked about it, should have been a no brainer.
As it was, not sure if it counts as a 'win' for Clinton as much as a lost opportunity for Sanders.
Disagree. WAAC behavior is counter-productive when you're in the pre-GE phase. Any attacks on your fellow candidates during the primary can and will have repercussions later on down the road if one of those candidates ends up winning the primary instead of you. Unless you're 100% certain that you're going to win the primary and go on to the general election (and Sanders the Socialist would be a fool to be that confident), you have to hedge your bets.
The GOP doesn't really seem to understand this, to their own detriment.
If I correctly remember what I read somewhere, historically Sanders has made a point of not attacking his opponents, but instead campaigning solely on his own political record. Not sure the exact details of that, though.
Tannhauser42 wrote: If I correctly remember what I read somewhere, historically Sanders has made a point of not attacking his opponents, but instead campaigning solely on his own political record. Not sure the exact details of that, though.
He has been running the cleanest campaign I have ever seen.
He also won that debate last night, almost 80% but WaPo is trying to spin it as a Hilary Victory as she is their chosen to be crowned one. Bernie was top notch and classy. Yes he seemed to be a little less prepared for some of the attacks on his complex stance on guns and such, but he is less rabid than the others about it. Webb also less freaking out over the gun issues.
Sanders also has an odd trait of integrity for a politician.
The man's a decorated war hero... served under Reagan's administration... Democrat Senator... extremely vocal anti-Bush during Dubya's tenure. In any other election cycle, he'd be a formidable candidate.
CptJake wrote: At this point, Sanders should focus on winning, not 'unity'. Obama mercilessly hammered Clinton's Iraq vote for example. If Sanders really feels he wants to be Pres and is a better choice for D primary voters and the general election voters, using the email scandal as a way to hit his opponent, especially when directly asked about it, should have been a no brainer.
Yeah, but nobody on the left cares about the email "scandal". Attacking Hillary over it doesn't gain him anything, and he's better off saying "I don't care about it either" to show the voters that he's on their side. The only people who would be impressed by an attack over the email "scandal" are already voting republican.
To me, In my observation, it seems the republican party is trying to up eachother saying who is more christian, who is more this and even more insane stuff.
CptJake wrote: At this point, Sanders should focus on winning, not 'unity'. Obama mercilessly hammered Clinton's Iraq vote for example. If Sanders really feels he wants to be Pres and is a better choice for D primary voters and the general election voters, using the email scandal as a way to hit his opponent, especially when directly asked about it, should have been a no brainer.
Yeah, but nobody on the left cares about the email "scandal". Attacking Hillary over it doesn't gain him anything, and he's better off saying "I don't care about it either" to show the voters that he's on their side. The only people who would be impressed by an attack over the email "scandal" are already voting republican.
Eh... only those who support HRC is tired of it.
I live in St. Louis with plenty of family and friends who works for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) department. More than a handful of them are the older generations (baby boomers) who were Clinton supporters (huge Democratic voters in general). Over this email fiasco?
Turns them off. Not sure they wouldn't vote for her, but their enthusiasm is definitely waning.
The millennials simply don't like Clinton... hence, favors Bernie. Not sure if the millennials voters would be motivated to vote for Clinton either.
However, if Clinton can escape the Oct. 22nd Benghazi testimony largely unscathed... she'll have the nomination in the bag.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: To me, In my observation, it seems the republican party is trying to up eachother saying who is more christian, who is more this and even more insane stuff.
Last night, the Democratic candidates tried to out-socialist each other. (except Webb)
Last night, the Democratic candidates tried to out-socialist each other. (except Webb)
Pretty telling...
Again, we must have been watching different debates. When asked by Cooper if anybody would like to chime in on the socialism question directed at Sanders, Clinton response was
"When I think about capitalism, I think about all the small businesses that were started because we have the opportunity and the freedom in our country for people to do that and to make a good living for themselves and their families.
And I don't think we should confuse what we have to do every so often in America, which is save capitalism from itself. And I think what Senator Sanders is saying certainly makes sense in the terms of the inequality that we have.
But we are not Denmark. I love Denmark. We are the United States of America. And it's our job to rein in the excesses of capitalism so that it doesn't run amok and doesn't cause the kind of inequities we're seeing in our economic system."
Yup, sure sounds like a socialist to me. But hey, if you keep saying it, maybe you can make it true
whembly wrote: Eh... only those who support HRC is tired of it.
No, I think a lot of people who don't want Hillary as their top pick are tired of it. I'd much rather have Sanders, but I don't really care about whether or not she followed good security practices or the letter of the law in keeping records. I want to know what she's going to do about the economy, our crumbling infrastructure, etc. And the more I see people attacking her over the email scandal instead of addressing more significant policy issues the more I think they care too much about winning the election and too little about representing my interests.
Love it that Bernie Sanders (who all things considered is not a true socialist) is moving everyone to the left.
It''s a real shame that even the suggestion that countries such as Norway and Sweden might be doing some things better than the US raises so much hackles, even with Clinton, it would seem. Learning from other people's successes is a strength, and not a weakness, in my book. In fact, it might fall under the "common sense" category that most people have learned by the time they hit high school.
whembly wrote: Eh... only those who support HRC is tired of it.
No, I think a lot of people who don't want Hillary as their top pick are tired of it. I'd much rather have Sanders, but I don't really care about whether or not she followed good security practices or the letter of the law in keeping records. I want to know what she's going to do about the economy, our crumbling infrastructure, etc. And the more I see people attacking her over the email scandal instead of addressing more significant policy issues the more I think they care too much about winning the election and too little about representing my interests.
I'm not a Clinton supporter, and I am so friggin tired of this email stuff. No scandal could be more boring than an email scandal. Wake me up if the FBI finds that she was culpable of anything, and I'll take a look. Clinton and Sanders were correct in the debate...let the FBI do their job, and in the mean time, let the candidates talk about their plans for the country, not email security.
I've actually started wondering if any crimes were committed by the Benghazi committee. It seems like we had another instance of powerful politicians in the GOP leveraging taxpayer money and the power of government to destroy political opponents, and I've become curious since Kevin McCarthy's admission that the Benghazi Committee was created with the intent to destroy Clinton's political career whether any criminal and/or ethical investigations are underway to determine just how valid his slipped claim might be.
whembly wrote: Eh... only those who support HRC is tired of it.
Hardly. I don't and have never given a single feth about this "scandal", and I'd take Webb, Sanders or O'malley over Hillary any day of the week as POTUS.
I would very much rather Hillary lose (liking the Bernie is defying my expectations and hanging on to the momentum), and I never once cared about the email scandal. It's fething emails for Christ sake. Unless they contained nuclear launch codes, I truly do not care.
Hey, I flubbed that one... when I was writing that, I was thinking of his tenure as Senator while he was campaigining for President. Obviously not the every year he was in the Senate. Point being, I was being snarky to Tanner as he forgot literally the last guy who did that, who's the sitting President. 
