But what about the many, many other persecuted ethnic groups throughout the world that have no place to go, and be safe. Is the US morally obligated to ensure they have one?
The answer is "Of course not." because the moral argument rings hollow, and is just a nice way of dressing up foreign policy concerns for the voting public; thereby preventing someone like me from effectively saying "If support for Israel becomes materially inconvenient, then it will be withdrawn."
What often escapes many people (regardless of political persuasion) is that an aggressive Israel has the potential to be a much larger threat to US interests than a group like ISIL*. The US can fight ISIL, very few people care if a few thousand Islamic militants die, but what does the US do if Israel launches an airstrike against Iran? The action would almost certainly spur further militant activity, and I can basically guarantee that Israel would turtle and allow its allies to do the heavy lifting regarding much of its future security.
*This is why many political analysts don't like Netanyahu
Jihadin wrote: Believe it was mention on media that Australia has that, mandatory voting.
And have since talked about creating a "breathalizer before voting" law, because drunk voting is that much of a thing after mando voting came out.
I could be wrong on that one, and some of our Aussie friends (if theyre around this thread) can fill us in on the details.
If there is, it isn't being seriously discussed here/hasn't been in the last few years. I mean we have our PM Godwinning parliament question time, so they could well have thrown that out there too, but if they are then no one is really running with it/driving for it. Our system works pretty well from what I can tell, with regards to early voting etc, but then I'm used to our system. If I was used to your system or the UKs or something then I'd probably say the same for them. I do have some bugbears with the preferential system, and people aren't as educated as they should be about how to vote (no, for the thousandth time you don't vote for the senate that way), but otherwise it seems to do a good job.
Hahaha holy gak Ensis is this what you meant? If so you had heard it a bit wrong, but it's still glorious.
Andrew Fraser MP (Image: Daily Telegraph)
Andrew Fraser is no stranger to parliamentary controversy
Politicians in an Australian state could be breathalysed before voting after reports of bad behaviour by MPs.
In the latest incident, New South Wales MP Andrew Fraser resigned from his frontbench role after shoving a female MP after attending a Christmas party.
In September, state police minister Matt Brown resigned after allegedly dancing in his underpants at a drunken party in his parliamentary office.
Several MPs have now backed a proposal to supply breath test kits
On the mandatory voting, Obama is right on a couple of things and wrong on some others. The biggest point he's wrong on is mandatory voting reducing the important of money - if anything you need more money, because the election is going to be fought out over the disaffected centre of politics, who are more likely to be swayed by information (as they don't have their minds made up already).
What mandatory voting does do is take politics away from the fringes, and towards the centre. Instead of candidates and policy being decided by people who are committed to one party or the other, the true believers of team blue and team red, instead you get candidates needing to appeal to the centre. I'd expect wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage would drop away in election season, instead the appeal would be on primarily economic issues - jobs, welfare and taxes, the stuff that people without ideology tend to worry about.
It'll never happen, of course, for lots of reasons, but it's an interesting issue to raise. I wonder if this is a case of shooting for the moon, in the hope that it will get the ball rolling towards a more moderate kind of electoral reform.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: And have since talked about creating a "breathalizer before voting" law, because drunk voting is that much of a thing after mando voting came out.
I could be wrong on that one, and some of our Aussie friends (if theyre around this thread) can fill us in on the details.
What? I don't even know how that could be a thing that someone made up.
EDIT - Oh, it's that thing about MPs being breathalysed, not voters. That's a silly beat up, a way of embarrassing the other side and making a story about some bad behaviour drag out.
You want to learn about bad behaviour by Australian MPs, look up 'WA liberal chair sniffer'. Seriously.
I read this and thought 'way to fight the stereotype, Illinois politician'. Then I learned it was a Republican, and thought well at least that's a bit of a change.
motyak wrote:If there is, it isn't being seriously discussed here/hasn't been in the last few years. I mean we have our PM Godwinning parliament question time, so they could well have thrown that out there too, but if they are then no one is really running with it/driving for it.
.....
Australia MPs 'face breath tests'
Andrew Fraser MP (Image: Daily Telegraph)
Andrew Fraser is no stranger to parliamentary controversy
Politicians in an Australian state could be breathalysed before voting after reports of bad behaviour by MPs.
In the latest incident, New South Wales MP Andrew Fraser resigned from his frontbench role after shoving a female MP after attending a Christmas party.
In September, state police minister Matt Brown resigned after allegedly dancing in his underpants at a drunken party in his parliamentary office.
Several MPs have now backed a proposal to supply breath test kits
Don't look at it as outrageous conduct. Look at it as our esteemed politicians engaged in consistent behaviour. Americans need the comedy channel for this level of antics, we get it broadcast for free by the abc.
sebster wrote:On the mandatory voting, Obama is right on a couple of things and wrong on some others. The biggest point he's wrong on is mandatory voting reducing the important of money - if anything you need more money, because the election is going to be fought out over the disaffected centre of politics, who are more likely to be swayed by information (as they don't have their minds made up already).
I always describe voting here in australia as being forced to choose between a kick in the balls or a punch in the throat. One will hurt more, but the other might kill you. Now if it were up to me, i'd prefer to officially abstain from a process where i have to decide which of the aforementioned is going to be done. The thing is with secret ballots, there's no way to enforce that a legal vote is cast - you can leave the boxes empty, you can put a name of your own choice on the ballot and vote for that. Mandatory voting doesn't guarantee that people will actually cast a vote, it just angers the ones that don't want to.
sebster wrote: On the mandatory voting, Obama is right on a couple of things and wrong on some others. The biggest point he's wrong on is mandatory voting reducing the important of money - if anything you need more money, because the election is going to be fought out over the disaffected centre of politics, who are more likely to be swayed by information (as they don't have their minds made up already).
What mandatory voting does do is take politics away from the fringes, and towards the centre. Instead of candidates and policy being decided by people who are committed to one party or the other, the true believers of team blue and team red, instead you get candidates needing to appeal to the centre. I'd expect wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage would drop away in election season, instead the appeal would be on primarily economic issues - jobs, welfare and taxes, the stuff that people without ideology tend to worry about.
It'll never happen, of course, for lots of reasons, but it's an interesting issue to raise. I wonder if this is a case of shooting for the moon, in the hope that it will get the ball rolling towards a more moderate kind of electoral reform.
I just think it's interesting that it's the left/liberal side (ie, Democrats) is talking about Mandatory Voting as if it's a great idea...
And yet, Voter ID isn't.
Some serious cognitive dissonance there... really.
Isn't it odd that one prominent Democratic politician opines that we need to send folks to camp. All I can hear in my head: <klaxon intercom> CITIZEN: PROCEED TO NEAREST FUN COUNSELOR FOR YOU DAILY ADMINISTERED FUN TIME. ... AND REMEMBER, IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD. ... BE SWELL. <\klaxon intercom>
Ensis Ferrae wrote: And have since talked about creating a "breathalizer before voting" law, because drunk voting is that much of a thing after mando voting came out.
I could be wrong on that one, and some of our Aussie friends (if theyre around this thread) can fill us in on the details.
What? I don't even know how that could be a thing that someone made up.
EDIT - Oh, it's that thing about MPs being breathalysed, not voters. That's a silly beat up, a way of embarrassing the other side and making a story about some bad behaviour drag out.
You want to learn about bad behaviour by Australian MPs, look up 'WA liberal chair sniffer'. Seriously.
I read this and thought 'way to fight the stereotype, Illinois politician'. Then I learned it was a Republican, and thought well at least that's a bit of a change.
Hence my favorite saying: all politicians are crooks. The good ones out there haven't been caught yet.
dogma wrote: But what about the many, many other persecuted ethnic groups throughout the world that have no place to go, and be safe. Is the US morally obligated to ensure they have one?
The answer is "Of course not." because the moral argument rings hollow, and is just a nice way of dressing up foreign policy concerns for the voting public; thereby preventing someone like me from effectively saying "If support for Israel becomes materially inconvenient, then it will be withdrawn."
What often escapes many people (regardless of political persuasion) is that an aggressive Israel has the potential to be a much larger threat to US interests than a group like ISIL*. The US can fight ISIL, very few people care if a few thousand Islamic militants die, but what does the US do if Israel launches an airstrike against Iran? The action would almost certainly spur further militant activity, and I can basically guarantee that Israel would turtle and allow its allies to do the heavy lifting regarding much of its future security.
*This is why many political analysts don't like Netanyahu
There's never been an Israeli conflict in which we sent forces to fight alongside them or on their behalf. I don't see that trend ending of they bomb Iran.
dogma wrote: But what about the many, many other persecuted ethnic groups throughout the world that have no place to go, and be safe. Is the US morally obligated to ensure they have one?
The answer is "Of course not." because the moral argument rings hollow, and is just a nice way of dressing up foreign policy concerns for the voting public; thereby preventing someone like me from effectively saying "If support for Israel becomes materially inconvenient, then it will be withdrawn."
What often escapes many people (regardless of political persuasion) is that an aggressive Israel has the potential to be a much larger threat to US interests than a group like ISIL*. The US can fight ISIL, very few people care if a few thousand Islamic militants die, but what does the US do if Israel launches an airstrike against Iran? The action would almost certainly spur further militant activity, and I can basically guarantee that Israel would turtle and allow its allies to do the heavy lifting regarding much of its future security.
*This is why many political analysts don't like Netanyahu
I try to explain this to people and they always rebut with something about the 6 day war which always leaves me ,that was over 50 years ago,it is time to move on. I personally agree that Israel is the worst ally that the US could have in that area (possibly tied for first place with Iran - though I am feeling very excited about Obamas re-approachment of Iran, i just wish he did it years ago when Iran had a new president trying for the same thing) due to the potential for volatility and complicated political outcomes.
dogma wrote: But what about the many, many other persecuted ethnic groups throughout the world that have no place to go, and be safe. Is the US morally obligated to ensure they have one?
The answer is "Of course not." because the moral argument rings hollow, and is just a nice way of dressing up foreign policy concerns for the voting public; thereby preventing someone like me from effectively saying "If support for Israel becomes materially inconvenient, then it will be withdrawn."
What often escapes many people (regardless of political persuasion) is that an aggressive Israel has the potential to be a much larger threat to US interests than a group like ISIL*. The US can fight ISIL, very few people care if a few thousand Islamic militants die, but what does the US do if Israel launches an airstrike against Iran? The action would almost certainly spur further militant activity, and I can basically guarantee that Israel would turtle and allow its allies to do the heavy lifting regarding much of its future security.
*This is why many political analysts don't like Netanyahu
I try to explain this to people and they always rebut with something about the 6 day war which always leaves me ,that was over 50 years ago,it is time to move on. I personally agree that Israel is the worst ally that the US could have in that area (possibly tied for first place with Iran - though I am feeling very excited about Obamas re-approachment of Iran, i just wish he did it years ago when Iran had a new president trying for the same thing) due to the potential for volatility and complicated political outcomes.
It's about "picking your friends and your battle"... The US, nor any other country, can't be everywhere at once in order to reach that high moral standings.
However, dogma is 100% right... an agressive Israel is NOT in our best interests.
And here's where me & dogma will likely differ... I don't see the Obama administration doing gak about that, as he's seemingly doing his damnedest to piss off Israel.
And here's where me & dogma will likely differ... I don't see the Obama administration doing gak about that, as he's seemingly doing his damnedest to piss off Israel.
We are discussing US policy with respect to Israel, please leave your Obama baggage at the door.
And here's where me & dogma will likely differ... I don't see the Obama administration doing gak about that, as he's seemingly doing his damnedest to piss off Israel.
We are discussing US policy with respect to Israel, please leave your Obama baggage at the door.
wat?
You do know that our current President of the U. S. of A is none other than President Obama.
The President dictates US international policy.
His baggage is totally germane to such discussion.
You mean North American being he renounce Canadian citizenship.
He knows and we know that one has to a natural born citizen born of the land to have a go at running for POTUS.
Edit
Its amusing but he would have built up one Hell of a Tea Party apparatus and I think he's going to throw it behind whoever wins the Republican nomination
Its a trap. Some Democrat going to say something negative about his citizenship and why he cannot run for President.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Well, to be fair, Ted Cruz has to do something. His shenanigans since being elected to the Senate have pretty much guaranteed he'll have a very hard time getting reelected. Sure, his actions might play well with the Tea Partiers, but they piss off just about everyone else, as he's pretty much a walking example of why our government doesn't work.
Jihadin wrote: Some Democrat going to say something negative about his citizenship and why he cannot run for President.
Cruz is a natural born citizen by way of his mother, no one important on the left is going to chase that issue.
Though less important people on the right may send some jabs towards Palin during the primaries, depending on whether or not she decides to involve herself in them.
Jihadin wrote: You mean North American being he renounce Canadian citizenship.
So he has.
As an American, I apologize to to Canada on behalf of one of our citizens for dropping an anchor baby on your soil, and then acting like a jerk about it when he no longer needed socialized medicine.
Jihadin wrote: Some Democrat going to say something negative about his citizenship and why he cannot run for President.
Cruz is a natural born citizen by way of his mother, no one important on the left is going to chase that issue.
Though less important people on the right may send some jabs towards Palin during the primaries, depending on whether or not she decides to involve herself in them.
Little more on that. His mother have to have had filed (IIRC his mother is American)
FS-545, Certification of Birth (issued by the Department of State prior to November 1, 1990)
DS-1350, Certification of Report of Birth (issued by the Department of State prior to December 31, 2010), and
FS-240, Report of a Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen (currently issued by all U.S. embassies and consulates).
Edit
First two is no longer issued now but was issued around the time frame of his birth.
I don't see him getting the nomination. What I do see though is the Republican candidate being so thoroughly savaged by his/her own party that the Democrats don't have much to worry about.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I don't see him getting the nomination. What I do see though is the Republican candidate being so thoroughly savaged by his/her own party that the Democrats don't have much to worry about.
A repeat of 2012? There was no way Obama woukd have been able to win that one without having it handed to him by the GOP primary process.
d-usa wrote: A repeat of 2012? There was no way Obama woukd have been able to win that one without having it handed to him by the GOP primary process.
I don't know about that, but I know that having your opponents do the majority of the heavy lifting does't hurt. The Democrats have better party discipline than the Republicans, they know not to savage their own candidate.
I'm pretty sure almost all senators are or were attorneys, but that doesn't mean they are fit to serve on the supreme court. You want presidential candidate to have executive experience, I wand judical candidate to have judicial experience.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm pretty sure almost all senators are or were attorneys, but that doesn't mean they are fit to serve on the supreme court. You want presidential candidate to have executive experience, I wand judical candidate to have judicial experience.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yeah, who is going to honestly consider him for SC justice. He's s senator, not a judge.
Edit: and I could say the same about are last governor turned president too.
He was AG of Texas for quite a period of time.
OT but I love that poster.
That's better. Just "attoney" doesn't really cut it in my book.
whembly wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm pretty sure almost all senators are or were attorneys, but that doesn't mean they are fit to serve on the supreme court. You want presidential candidate to have executive experience, I wand judical candidate to have judicial experience.
So you have issues with Elena Kegan then?
I... don't know who that is. I'll go look her up.
edit: From an experience standpoint, not really. According to wikipedia, she was a clerk in federal appeals court and SC, and served as solicitor general. It's not "they agree with us and has a law degree" sounding thing that Cruz as SCJ
So just out of interest, who else might be running. I know of Hilary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren for the Democrats. Possibly Chris Christie and Jeb Bush for the Republicans.
If Hillary doesn't run, I'm pretty sure Andrew Cumo (NYs governor) is thinking of running. He definitely has presidential ambissions, although he might not run this time.
O'Malley put out feelers earlier, but apparently that didn't go well. He definitely wants to make the run (rumor is he wanted on Hillary's ticket as VP; fat chance), but I just don't think he has the support.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So just out of interest, who else might be running. I know of Hilary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren for the Democrats. Possibly Chris Christie and Jeb Bush for the Republicans.
It will be Walker/Rubio on the Republican side. Mark my words today.
Team Clinton knows where all the skeletons are so odds are its her. I didn't realize how much i missed the Lani Davis / James Carville scandal response team (NOT!). I miss Bill.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Private emails that Hillary Clinton turned over to a House committee investigating the 2012 attack on a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, show her aides sometimes used their personal email accounts to communicate with her, the New York Times reported on Monday.
But the approximately 300 emails from Clinton, the presumptive presidential candidate, do not prove the former secretary of state ordered a "stand down," stopping U.S. forces from responding to the Benghazi attack or participated in any related cover-up, the newspaper reported, citing four senior government officials.
The Times report is the latest revelation in the saga over Clinton and her use of a personal email address to conduct government business, as well as a private computer server to store that correspondence.
Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill told the Times that Clinton's aides primarily used their work email to correspond with her about government matters, adding that "only the tiniest fraction of the more than 1 million emails they sent or received involved their personal accounts."
According to the Times, at least four Clinton aides occasionally used personal emails to contact her while she was at the State Department, including her foreign policy adviser, Jake Sullivan; chief of staff, Cheryl Mills; senior adviser, Philippe Reines; and her personal aide, Huma Abedin.
A spokesman for the Republican-controlled House Select Committee on Benghazi declined to comment, according to the newspaper.
Clinton has said she gave copies of all work-related emails to the State Department, but Republicans, who see her as their top target in the run-up to the 2016 election, continued to press for more records.
Last week Republicans asked the State Department to hand over numerous documents related to Clinton's use of private email while she was secretary of state and have called on her to hand over her email server to a third party.
Trey Gowdy, the South Carolina Republican who chairs the House committee investigating Benghazi, has said he does not think Clinton has given the committee all emails related to the attack and last week extended the deadline for her to turn them over.
The best thing to do for Hillary would be to turn her server over to an agreed upon mediator who will search the emails and make sure that all work emails are turned over.
d-usa wrote: The best thing to do for Hillary would be to turn her server over to an agreed upon mediator who will search the emails and make sure that all work emails are turned over.
d-usa wrote: The best thing to do for Hillary would be to turn her server over to an agreed upon mediator who will search the emails and make sure that all work emails are turned over.
Any suggestions for a mediator?
I'll do it. I mean, I'm a registered Democrat, so the Dems shuold approve of me, and I hate Hillary, so the Repubs should approve of me, too!
d-usa wrote: The best thing to do for Hillary would be to turn her server over to an agreed upon mediator who will search the emails and make sure that all work emails are turned over.
Any suggestions for a mediator?
Probably Obama. Neither Hillary nor the Republicans like him, so he's perfect .
But honestly, no idea. And it would probably take another 3 years for them to agree on one.
d-usa wrote: The best thing to do for Hillary would be to turn her server over to an agreed upon mediator who will search the emails and make sure that all work emails are turned over.
Any suggestions for a mediator?
Probably Obama. Neither Hillary nor the Republicans like him, so he's perfect .
But honestly, no idea. And it would probably take another 3 years for them to agree on one.
d-usa wrote: The best thing to do for Hillary would be to turn her server over to an agreed upon mediator who will search the emails and make sure that all work emails are turned over.
Any suggestions for a mediator?
Probably Obama. Neither Hillary nor the Republicans like him, so he's perfect .
But honestly, no idea. And it would probably take another 3 years for them to agree on one.
It exists... The Inspector General.
Inspector General announces no issues with what Clinton did--Republicans claim he's acting as a lackey for the administration.
d-usa wrote: The best thing to do for Hillary would be to turn her server over to an agreed upon mediator who will search the emails and make sure that all work emails are turned over.
Any suggestions for a mediator?
Probably Obama. Neither Hillary nor the Republicans like him, so he's perfect .
But honestly, no idea. And it would probably take another 3 years for them to agree on one.
It exists... The Inspector General.
Inspector General announces no issues with what Clinton did--Republicans claim he's acting as a lackey for the administration.
Then there shouldn't be any issues for the IGs to review the actual server.
Ok, American dakka members, what's the lowdown on Ted Cruz, and should I be worried that's he running for president? He's not going to bomb Britain or anything is he?
Tannhauser42 wrote: Well, he is one of those Tea Party people, and since they do draw inspiration from those who did go to war with Britain 200+ years ago, maybe?
I don't know where you got that false information from about a war, but as I type this, I'm looking at my old school text book on history, and it says on the 4th July 1776, Great Britain, in its generosity, granted independence to the colonies. Rebels, led by George Washington, refused to accept independence
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ok, American dakka members, what's the lowdown on Ted Cruz, and should I be worried that's he running for president? He's not going to bomb Britain or anything is he?
He ain't winning. He's big on shrinking the gubmint and is a major hawk foreign policy wise.
I've just caught sight of Ted Cruz on the news and all he did was say Guns, Freedom, Obama Bad and Ronald Reagan. That got him a lot of cheering. Are those the four magic phrases in Republican politics?
If the answer to that is yes, I'm putting forward my interest for the Republican nomination
In all honesty, I feel sorry for Americans, because I've had a look at most of the candidates, both democrat and republican, and I'm thinking I wouldn't want any of them as president.
Really? Why?
Successful governors. Two who have immigrant parents. One who makes Nixon look like a girly man(Clinton). One who could physically eat Nixon (looking at you Christie!). Come on, this election is going to be fun!
Oh yea I already can see the debate between Clinton and Christie. Clinton spends the whole time fumbling her response to her latest "scandal" while Christie yells at the moderator for the audacity of asking him a question.
But all seriousness the issue I already have with 2016 is not so much the candidates but the news coverage of it so far. I may just tune the news out next year when the election gets in full swing, I mean they have been talking about 2016 for what 3 years now?
To be fair, I can't really criticise the quality of potential presidential candidates, because in the UK we'll be electing a new prime minister in a few weeks time, and I'd be reluctant to let Cameron, Clegg, or Miliband, clean my toilet, never mind run the UK.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ok, American dakka members, what's the lowdown on Ted Cruz, and should I be worried that's he running for president?
No. I think it likely you could literally not find a single person on this forum regardless of political inclination that honestly believes that Ted Cruz will win the Republican nomination, let alone the general election.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ok, American dakka members, what's the lowdown on Ted Cruz, and should I be worried that's he running for president?
No. I think it likely you could literally not find a single person on this forum regardless of political inclination that honestly believes that Ted Cruz will win the Republican nomination, let alone the general election.
Win? Hell no. Move the goal posts of the conversation during the primary at the debates and whatnot? Probably.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ok, American dakka members, what's the lowdown on Ted Cruz, and should I be worried that's he running for president?
No. I think it likely you could literally not find a single person on this forum regardless of political inclination that honestly believes that Ted Cruz will win the Republican nomination, let alone the general election.
I agree whole 110% but gawd forbid if the Left attacks his qualifications as an American to run for POTUS. Why I think its a "trap" for Democrats. Illegal Aliens are going to be like one of the top three issue that's going to be brought up.
Hhhhhmmmmm
I predict top three issues be
ISIS (America Security which includes the borders and process of Illegal Aliens to legal status residents; US Military)
Economy (job creations and whatnot)
.................
almost said "Debt clock"
...........
No to ACA because its in place and might as well STREAMLINE IT
Washington (CNN)A veto-proof, bipartisan majority of House lawmakers have signed an open letter to President Barack Obama warning him that any nuclear deal with Iran will effectively require congressional approval for implementation.
A group of bipartisan senators have penned a bill mandating that any deal be reviewed and approved by Congress, but the House letter notes that lawmakers have another way to halt an agreement — by refusing to roll back sanctions.
"Should an agreement with Iran be reached, permanent sanctions relief from congressionally-mandated sanctions would require new legislation. In reviewing such an agreement, Congress must be convinced that its terms foreclose any pathway to a bomb, and only then will Congress be able to consider permanent sanctions relief," they write.
The letter, which was signed by 367 members of the House and released Monday by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, follows a similar one, issued to Iran's leaders and signed by 47 Republican senators, warning that any deal with Iran could be rolled back by a future president.
That letter sparked fierce criticism from Democrats, who said it was inappropriate meddling in delicate diplomatic talks and meant to undermine negotiations, and even some Republicans expressed reservations over the tactic.
The House letter lays out lawmakers' concerns in more diplomatic terms, hitting on the potential time restraints as a key sticking point for a final deal. The emerging deal would lift some restrictions on Iran's nuclear program in a decade, which critics say could allow the country to resume its pursuit of a nuclear bomb at that point.
"A final comprehensive nuclear agreement must constrain Iran's nuclear infrastructure so that Iran has no pathway to a bomb, and that agreement must be long-lasting," the lawmakers write.
"Any inspection and verification regime must allow for short notice access to suspect locations, and verifiable constraints on Iran's nuclear program must last for decades."
Traitors... all of 'em!
For those keeping scores at home, that's 414 of the 535 members of Congress opposing the president’s approach to nuclear negotiations with Iran.
Absolutely. I believe his speech writers have prepared the following statement to be released to the press;
"To those of you who did not sign the letter, I hear you"
Absolutely. I believe his speech writers have prepared the following statement to be released to the press;
"To those of you who did not sign the letter, I hear you"
Hello to everyone in the United Nation. I bring to you this deal I have manage to achieve with Iran concerning their Nuclear Program................
Honestly, I think if a lot of these candidates didn't have a crap ton of baggage, they could be good leaders. Jen is qualified and sensible, Hilary has the experience of knowing what being a president Is all about and is still willing to run, rand is sort of goofy but seems to know his stuff, Christy would probably be good as a palette cleanser and get stuff done. The problem is us. We demand that they appeal to the basic instinct of the far spectrum of the respective political party, and that does no one any good
Jihadin wrote: I agree whole 110% but gawd forbid if the Left attacks his qualifications as an American to run for POTUS.
Well, I'm not a political expert, but it doesn't speak well to his campaign preparation skills that he didn't acquire http://www.Tedcruz.com for one.
Tells you the age range of him and his staff.
Even I do not know where to go to start a domain.........
Guildportal does not count
Also Facebook does not count
Jihadin wrote: If Colin Powell announces he run he would get my vote
I can see the campaign posters now!
i kid, i kid
I want a poster of Stormin Norman Schwarzkopf chomping on a cigar while holding an M1 turret in his hands-blasting away at T-72's.
"When there's trouble in Iraq, Vote for THE BEAR!"
Jihadin wrote: Even I do not know where to go to start a domain.........
In this case, someone else owns it. However, as they have not developed it, he would be able to seize the name by opening an ICANN dispute, which he probably should have done kind of a while ago since it's been registered since 2004.
Obviously not everyone knows how to register a domain, but he really should have a staffer who's job it is to, well, buy the domain, develop a site, and stay on top of it as well as a social media presence.
Sounds like something you might apply for Ouze...........I would so laugh my butt off if you did and get hired. I'm looking at Cruz doing bloopers Bush Jr style
Blood Hawk wrote: I may just tune the news out next year when the election gets in full swing, I mean they have been talking about 2016 for what 3 years now?
That depends on who you consider "they" to be. Journalists working for conservative outlets have been talking about 2016 since 2012, and journalists working for liberal outlets have followed suit; they need the hits.
Jihadin wrote: I agree whole 110% but gawd forbid if the Left attacks his qualifications as an American to run for POTUS.
Well, I'm not a political expert, but it doesn't speak well to his campaign preparation skills that he didn't acquire http://www.Tedcruz.com for one.
Wasn't he already a mouthpiece for Time Warner or some other internet company during the recent Net Neutrality hullabaloo? I'm sure they could secure it for him as a "campaign donation."
This should make Scott Walker the more attractive candidate in conservatives' eyes...
Adam B. Lerner wrote:Supreme Court declines to take up Wisconsin voter ID case
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied a challenge to Wisconsin’s strict voter ID law, upholding a policy championed by the state’s Republican governor, and presidential hopeful, Scott Walker.
The law, which was ardently debated during last year’s Wisconsin gubernatorial election, was passed in 2011 and requires voters to show one of eight forms of identification, including a driver’s license and a military ID card. Identification issued by University of Wisconsin campuses are not accepted, though some other student cards are.
Since its passage, the Wisconsin provision has been the subject of multiple legal challenges centered around whether the state’s black and Hispanic populations make up a disproportionate share of the 300,000 Wisconsinites lacking adequate identification.
In 2014, the law was upheld by a panel arguing that the law is similar to Indiana’s, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2008, but the Supreme Court then blocked the law’s implementation before the 2014 midterm elections.
During a debate after the Supreme Court blocked the law, Walker said, “It doesn’t matter if there’s one, 100, or 1,000” instances of voter fraud. “Amongst us, who would be that one person who would like to have our vote canceled out by a vote that was cast illegally?”
His Democratic challenger, Mary Burke, called Walker’s comments “shocking,” claiming that the law could deny suffrage to thousands of Wisconsinites.
Currently, Texas’ voter ID law awaits a decision from a federal appeals court. That court’s decision could lead to a Supreme Court case that defines a new nationwide precedent on voter ID.
Could also be just positioning by the SCOTUS. Letting Wisconsin stand at this point doesn't do very much as it is too close to the next election there to be implemented. So for the April election it is business as usual there.
Meanwhile the Texas Voter ID law is making the journey through the appeals process and should be up for possible review by SCOTUS before too long. If the justices are expecting to hear the Texas case, and if the Texas case would have enough impact to include the proposed issues in Wisconsin, then they may have decided to leave Wisconsin alone for now in favor of the bigger decision.
Of course they may also spank the Texas challenge as well.
While flipping through the radio this morning some talk show guy on one of the political XM channels mentioned something about Cruz's mother renouncing her US citizenship, but after she gave birth to him. Anyone know if that is accurate.
Not that it really matters, but I am curious. It does potentially open a line of attack/help better define the line Trump is taking.
(I did a quick Google search but all I saw was that she was a US citizen when she gave birth, nothing about after that.)
While flipping through the radio this morning some talk show guy on one of the political XM channels mentioned something about Cruz's mother renouncing her US citizenship, but after she gave birth to him. Anyone know if that is accurate.
Not that it really matters, but I am curious. It does potentially open a line of attack/help better define the line Trump is taking.
(I did a quick Google search but all I saw was that she was a US citizen when she gave birth, nothing about after that.)
Mention earlier documents were can be filed to claim US Citizenship that the mother can filed.
Trump though not a career politician though. I would love to see economic trade deals he would hash out with other countries though. Be a interesting change
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With defense and deficit hawks still eyeing each other warily over the federal budget, House Republican leaders predicted on Tuesday that their fractious caucus would close ranks and support a 10-year balanced-budget plan.
Some Republican lawmakers want more military spending, while others focus on keeping the budget deficit under control. To overcome these differences, leaders will give lawmakers a choice of plans to vote on in the hope that one will pass.
Beginning on Wednesday, the House of Representatives was expected to begin voting on a range of differing budget blueprints, including three from Republicans who now control both chambers of Congress. These call for deep cuts to social safety net programs.
Whatever emerges from the Republicans' votes has little to no chance of actually becoming law, but it will help Republican efforts to show they can work together and govern.
Representative Steve Scalise, the third-ranking House Republican, responsible for securing votes, said the party was "coming together" to support a budget that meets the needs of both camps.
"The budget's always a visionary document, but it's also a unifying document," Scalise told reporters.
Deficit hawks insist that "sequester" statutory spending caps be maintained and that any additional funding for an off-budget war operations account be offset with alternate savings.
More than 70 House Republicans, however, want the Republican budget to meet or exceed the overall defense request made by Democratic President Barack Obama.
The floor strategy for the budget will give Republicans a chance to vote for two versions of House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price's plan. One would add $36 billion to an off-budget war account while requiring an effort to find alternate savings. The other would add $38 billion with no offsets.
Both versions propose to cut domestic spending by $5.5 trillion over 10 years, with deep cuts to social programs.
Other budget alternatives will be put up for votes, including three from Democrats and one from the conservative Republican Study Committee that slashes 10-year spending by $7.1 trillion while shifting more money from domestic programs to the core defense budget.
Representative Mo Brooks, a conservative Republican from Alabama, said he would support Price's budget with $38 billion in war funding even without offsets.
"It doesn't do any good to be financially responsible if you're dead, so I'm going to vote for it to protect national security," Brooks said.
d-usa wrote: How much money does the military actually want?
Probably a wee bit less than what the politicians want for their pork barrel projects. I would be a lot happier if they spent as much on taking care of their veterans as they did their current troops.
While flipping through the radio this morning some talk show guy on one of the political XM channels mentioned something about Cruz's mother renouncing her US citizenship, but after she gave birth to him. Anyone know if that is accurate.
Not that it really matters, but I am curious. It does potentially open a line of attack/help better define the line Trump is taking.
(I did a quick Google search but all I saw was that she was a US citizen when she gave birth, nothing about after that.)
Mention earlier documents were can be filed to claim US Citizenship that the mother can filed.
I get that, just interested in knowing if she did so and then renounced her own US citizenship to fully claim Canadian citizenship.
While flipping through the radio this morning some talk show guy on one of the political XM channels mentioned something about Cruz's mother renouncing her US citizenship, but after she gave birth to him. Anyone know if that is accurate.
Not that it really matters, but I am curious. It does potentially open a line of attack/help better define the line Trump is taking.
(I did a quick Google search but all I saw was that she was a US citizen when she gave birth, nothing about after that.)
Mention earlier documents were can be filed to claim US Citizenship that the mother can filed.
I get that, just interested in knowing if she did so and then renounced her own US citizenship to fully claim Canadian citizenship.
Surely for the purposes of Ted Cruz it should only matter what the citizenship of his parents was at the time of birth.
Ted Cruz is a little bit country and not a bit rock ‘n’ roll.
In an interview Tuesday on “CBS This Morning,” the Texas senator told his TV hosts that he “grew up listening to classic rock” but that that soon changed.
“My music taste changed on 9/11,” Cruz said.
“I actually intellectually find this very curious, but on 9/11, I didn’t like how rock music responded,” he said. “And country music, collectively, the way they responded, it resonated with me.”
Cruz’s comments came during a lightning round of interviews the morning after he announced his candidacy for president in 2016 in a John Lennon-inspired, “Imagine”-themed speech.
Cruz did not mention any specific country music that resonated with him or which rock artists did not respond well to the terror attacks.
“I had an emotional reaction that said, ‘These are my people,’” Cruz said. “So ever since 2001, I listen to country music.”
]WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With defense and deficit hawks still eyeing each other warily over the federal budget, House Republican leaders predicted on Tuesday that their fractious caucus would close ranks and support a 10-year balanced-budget plan.
Some Republican lawmakers want more military spending, while others focus on keeping the budget deficit under control. To overcome these differences, leaders will give lawmakers a choice of plans to vote on in the hope that one will pass.
Beginning on Wednesday, the House of Representatives was expected to begin voting on a range of differing budget blueprints, including three from Republicans who now control both chambers of Congress. These call for deep cuts to social safety net programs.
Whatever emerges from the Republicans' votes has little to no chance of actually becoming law, but it will help Republican efforts to show they can work together and govern.
Representative Steve Scalise, the third-ranking House Republican, responsible for securing votes, said the party was "coming together" to support a budget that meets the needs of both camps.
"The budget's always a visionary document, but it's also a unifying document," Scalise told reporters.
Deficit hawks insist that "sequester" statutory spending caps be maintained and that any additional funding for an off-budget war operations account be offset with alternate savings.
More than 70 House Republicans, however, want the Republican budget to meet or exceed the overall defense request made by Democratic President Barack Obama.
The floor strategy for the budget will give Republicans a chance to vote for two versions of House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price's plan. One would add $36 billion to an off-budget war account while requiring an effort to find alternate savings. The other would add $38 billion with no offsets.
Both versions propose to cut domestic spending by $5.5 trillion over 10 years, with deep cuts to social programs.
Other budget alternatives will be put up for votes, including three from Democrats and one from the conservative Republican Study Committee that slashes 10-year spending by $7.1 trillion while shifting more money from domestic programs to the core defense budget.
Representative Mo Brooks, a conservative Republican from Alabama, said he would support Price's budget with $38 billion in war funding even without offsets.
"It doesn't do any good to be financially responsible if you're dead, so I'm going to vote for it to protect national security," Brooks said.
Ted Cruz is a little bit country and not a bit rock ‘n’ roll.
In an interview Tuesday on “CBS This Morning,” the Texas senator told his TV hosts that he “grew up listening to classic rock” but that that soon changed.
“My music taste changed on 9/11,” Cruz said.
“I actually intellectually find this very curious, but on 9/11, I didn’t like how rock music responded,” he said. “And country music, collectively, the way they responded, it resonated with me.”
Cruz’s comments came during a lightning round of interviews the morning after he announced his candidacy for president in 2016 in a John Lennon-inspired, “Imagine”-themed speech.
Cruz did not mention any specific country music that resonated with him or which rock artists did not respond well to the terror attacks.
“I had an emotional reaction that said, ‘These are my people,’” Cruz said. “So ever since 2001, I listen to country music.”
(CNN)Ted Cruz is going on Obamacare.
The newly announced Republican presidential candidate told CNN's Dana Bash on Tuesday that he will sign up for health care coverage through the Affordable Care Act -- a law he has been on a crusade to kill.
"We'll be getting new health insurance and we'll presumably do it through my job with the Senate, and so we'll be on the federal exchange with millions of others on the federal exchange," Cruz said.
Asked whether he would accept the government contribution available to lawmakers and congressional staffers for their health care coverage through the ACA, Cruz said he will "follow the text of the law."
"I strongly oppose the exemption that President Obama illegally put in place for members of Congress because (Senate Minority Leader) Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats didn't want to be under the same rules as the American people," Cruz said, before repeating: "I believe we should follow the text of the law."
Under the Affordable Care Act, members of Congress and some designated congressional staffers are required to obtain health care coverage through the D.C. Health Link Small Business Market. The Office of Personnel Management's guidelines state that lawmakers and their staff receive a "government contribution" if they get health care coverage through the ACA.
But some lawmakers have declined to accept the contribution, saying they do not want to get special treatment. After the interview, a Cruz spokesperson clarified that he wouldn't take the contribution.
Cruz's admission comes one day after CNN first reported that the senator would no longer have access to health benefits through his wife's employer, Goldman Sachs. Heidi Cruz, a managing director at the firm's Houston office, has gone on unpaid leave for the duration of the senator's presidential campaign and will not have access to the company's benefits during that time.
Cruz's campaign appeared caught by surprise Monday by questions about the senator's health care. Asked how Cruz's family would be covered after his wife lost her Goldman Sachs benefits, Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler repeatedly answered that he didn't know.
It's a deeply ironic development for the Texas conservative firebrand, who vaulted to fame during his few years in the Senate in large part by denouncing President Barack Obama's landmark health care law. He led an effort to defund the law that contributed to the 2013 government shutdown.
Cruz denied that there was anything ironic about him going on Obamacare, saying he was simply following the law.
"I believe we should follow the text of every law, even laws I disagree with," Cruz told CNN. "It's one of the real differences -- if you look at President Obama and the lawlessness, if he disagrees with a law he simply refuses to follow it or claims the authority to unilaterally change."
After the publication of this story, Cruz advisers said there was nothing unusual about the senator signing up for insurance coverage through his employer. They argued that Obamacare has wiped out the individual market, leaving Cruz with few options.
Cruz said he will continue advocating for repealing the law.
"What is problematic about Obamacare is that it is killing millions of jobs in this country and has killed millions of jobs," Cruz said. "It has forced millions of people into part time work. It has caused millions of people to lose their insurance, to lose their doctors and to face skyrocketing insurance premiums. That is unacceptable."
Ted Cruz is a little bit country and not a bit rock ‘n’ roll.
In an interview Tuesday on “CBS This Morning,” the Texas senator told his TV hosts that he “grew up listening to classic rock” but that that soon changed.
“My music taste changed on 9/11,” Cruz said.
“I actually intellectually find this very curious, but on 9/11, I didn’t like how rock music responded,” he said. “And country music, collectively, the way they responded, it resonated with me.”
Cruz’s comments came during a lightning round of interviews the morning after he announced his candidacy for president in 2016 in a John Lennon-inspired, “Imagine”-themed speech.
Cruz did not mention any specific country music that resonated with him or which rock artists did not respond well to the terror attacks.
“I had an emotional reaction that said, ‘These are my people,’” Cruz said. “So ever since 2001, I listen to country music.”
It's an honest reply at the very least.
"Give a Feth-o-meter" is at zero on this one buddy.
(CNN)Ted Cruz is going on Obamacare.
The newly announced Republican presidential candidate told CNN's Dana Bash on Tuesday that he will sign up for health care coverage through the Affordable Care Act -- a law he has been on a crusade to kill.
"We'll be getting new health insurance and we'll presumably do it through my job with the Senate, and so we'll be on the federal exchange with millions of others on the federal exchange," Cruz said.
Asked whether he would accept the government contribution available to lawmakers and congressional staffers for their health care coverage through the ACA, Cruz said he will "follow the text of the law."
"I strongly oppose the exemption that President Obama illegally put in place for members of Congress because (Senate Minority Leader) Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats didn't want to be under the same rules as the American people," Cruz said, before repeating: "I believe we should follow the text of the law."
Under the Affordable Care Act, members of Congress and some designated congressional staffers are required to obtain health care coverage through the D.C. Health Link Small Business Market. The Office of Personnel Management's guidelines state that lawmakers and their staff receive a "government contribution" if they get health care coverage through the ACA.
But some lawmakers have declined to accept the contribution, saying they do not want to get special treatment. After the interview, a Cruz spokesperson clarified that he wouldn't take the contribution.
Cruz's admission comes one day after CNN first reported that the senator would no longer have access to health benefits through his wife's employer, Goldman Sachs. Heidi Cruz, a managing director at the firm's Houston office, has gone on unpaid leave for the duration of the senator's presidential campaign and will not have access to the company's benefits during that time.
Cruz's campaign appeared caught by surprise Monday by questions about the senator's health care. Asked how Cruz's family would be covered after his wife lost her Goldman Sachs benefits, Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler repeatedly answered that he didn't know.
It's a deeply ironic development for the Texas conservative firebrand, who vaulted to fame during his few years in the Senate in large part by denouncing President Barack Obama's landmark health care law. He led an effort to defund the law that contributed to the 2013 government shutdown.
Cruz denied that there was anything ironic about him going on Obamacare, saying he was simply following the law.
"I believe we should follow the text of every law, even laws I disagree with," Cruz told CNN. "It's one of the real differences -- if you look at President Obama and the lawlessness, if he disagrees with a law he simply refuses to follow it or claims the authority to unilaterally change."
After the publication of this story, Cruz advisers said there was nothing unusual about the senator signing up for insurance coverage through his employer. They argued that Obamacare has wiped out the individual market, leaving Cruz with few options.
Cruz said he will continue advocating for repealing the law.
"What is problematic about Obamacare is that it is killing millions of jobs in this country and has killed millions of jobs," Cruz said. "It has forced millions of people into part time work. It has caused millions of people to lose their insurance, to lose their doctors and to face skyrocketing insurance premiums. That is unacceptable."
Grandstanding, much?
Uh... it's grandstanding to follow the fething law?
I'm sure he doesn't like the gun control laws as well... should he break them to because he disagree with it?
What about paying taxes? I'm sure he makes more than the average schmoe... should he commit tax fraud because he thinks taxes are too high?
"Give a Feth-o-meter" is at zero on this one buddy.
I disagree with the idea of "it's an honest reply."
Ted Cruz may be nuts, but he isn't stupid when it comes to saying the right thing to appeal to the right people. He's officially on the campaign trail, everything he does and says is scripted so don't be so naive to think that he's just shooting from the hip here. He's pandering to a specific section of the Republican voter base.
What kind of music a politician likes doesn't register of my "Give-a-feth-meter" either, I brought it up because, a) I thought it was comical and I wanted an excuse to use a line from a SNL episode from 1992 and, b) see above.
(CNN)Ted Cruz is going on Obamacare.
The newly announced Republican presidential candidate told CNN's Dana Bash on Tuesday that he will sign up for health care coverage through the Affordable Care Act -- a law he has been on a crusade to kill.
"We'll be getting new health insurance and we'll presumably do it through my job with the Senate, and so we'll be on the federal exchange with millions of others on the federal exchange," Cruz said.
Asked whether he would accept the government contribution available to lawmakers and congressional staffers for their health care coverage through the ACA, Cruz said he will "follow the text of the law."
"I strongly oppose the exemption that President Obama illegally put in place for members of Congress because (Senate Minority Leader) Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats didn't want to be under the same rules as the American people," Cruz said, before repeating: "I believe we should follow the text of the law."
Under the Affordable Care Act, members of Congress and some designated congressional staffers are required to obtain health care coverage through the D.C. Health Link Small Business Market. The Office of Personnel Management's guidelines state that lawmakers and their staff receive a "government contribution" if they get health care coverage through the ACA.
But some lawmakers have declined to accept the contribution, saying they do not want to get special treatment. After the interview, a Cruz spokesperson clarified that he wouldn't take the contribution.
Cruz's admission comes one day after CNN first reported that the senator would no longer have access to health benefits through his wife's employer, Goldman Sachs. Heidi Cruz, a managing director at the firm's Houston office, has gone on unpaid leave for the duration of the senator's presidential campaign and will not have access to the company's benefits during that time.
Cruz's campaign appeared caught by surprise Monday by questions about the senator's health care. Asked how Cruz's family would be covered after his wife lost her Goldman Sachs benefits, Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler repeatedly answered that he didn't know.
It's a deeply ironic development for the Texas conservative firebrand, who vaulted to fame during his few years in the Senate in large part by denouncing President Barack Obama's landmark health care law. He led an effort to defund the law that contributed to the 2013 government shutdown.
Cruz denied that there was anything ironic about him going on Obamacare, saying he was simply following the law.
"I believe we should follow the text of every law, even laws I disagree with," Cruz told CNN. "It's one of the real differences -- if you look at President Obama and the lawlessness, if he disagrees with a law he simply refuses to follow it or claims the authority to unilaterally change."
After the publication of this story, Cruz advisers said there was nothing unusual about the senator signing up for insurance coverage through his employer. They argued that Obamacare has wiped out the individual market, leaving Cruz with few options.
Cruz said he will continue advocating for repealing the law.
"What is problematic about Obamacare is that it is killing millions of jobs in this country and has killed millions of jobs," Cruz said. "It has forced millions of people into part time work. It has caused millions of people to lose their insurance, to lose their doctors and to face skyrocketing insurance premiums. That is unacceptable."
Grandstanding, much?
Uh... it's grandstanding to follow the fething law?
I'm sure he doesn't like the gun control laws as well... should he break them to because he disagree with it?
What about paying taxes? I'm sure he makes more than the average schmoe... should he commit tax fraud because he thinks taxes are too high?
No, it's grandstanding to even have an interview about it in the first place. And if he so firmly believes in the letter of the law, I'd like to ask him what he thinks of the speed limit.
"Give a Feth-o-meter" is at zero on this one buddy.
I disagree with the idea of "it's an honest reply."
Ted Cruz may be nuts, but he isn't stupid when it comes to saying the right thing to appeal to the right people. He's officially on the campaign trail, everything he does and says is scripted so don't be so naive to think that he's just shooting from the hip here. He's pandering to a specific section of the Republican voter base.
At that time everyone wanted to kick whoever ass that did it. Song portrayed that. Now in today time frame it does not have that big of an impact. The "patriotism" of that point in time is not the same today. Now if you aiming that at soldiers its pretty damn worn the Hell out with me. Along with
Do you Remember
American Soldier
Letter from Home
Driving with PVT Malone
I Drive his Truck
If your reading this
I'm Already There
I won't let go
Arlington
Where were you when the World Stop Turning
those are just some country songs
We can go into rock songs next
Tannhauser42 wrote: No, it's grandstanding to even have an interview about it in the first place. And if he so firmly believes in the letter of the law, I'd like to ask him what he thinks of the speed limit.
Did he schedule the interview solely to talk about his signing up to the ACA? Or did the reporter ask him a question during a more general interview?
What about paying taxes? I'm sure he makes more than the average schmoe... should he commit tax fraud because he thinks taxes are too high?
It's highly likely he is already doing this, along with pretty much every person earning enough money to justify hiring an accountant to send it offshore.
What about paying taxes? I'm sure he makes more than the average schmoe... should he commit tax fraud because he thinks taxes are too high?
It's highly likely he is already doing this, along with pretty much every person earning enough money to justify hiring an accountant to send it offshore.
Which isn't illegal.
EDIT: minimizing tax liabilities isn't illegal and yes, if you have the resource, you'll have an easier time.
Not sure why this is ever a black mark on any presidential candidates.
In fact, this is an argument for revising the tax codes to something simpler... like the Flat-Tax.
No, people are beating up on Cruz not because they fear him as a strong opponent, but because people love laughing at clowns.
Curious Ouze... what exactly did Cruz deserve to be "clownish"?
Suggesting that Iran celebrated the nomination of Hagel as defense secretary?
Then going on to suggest that Hagel, who recieved two Purple Hearts, was anti-military. In that same instance he also did the same to John Kerry, who received the Silver star and bronze star.
What about paying taxes? I'm sure he makes more than the average schmoe... should he commit tax fraud because he thinks taxes are too high?
It's highly likely he is already doing this, along with pretty much every person earning enough money to justify hiring an accountant to send it offshore.
Which isn't illegal.
Tax avoidance? Seems like changing that should be the republicans main aim to reduce the deficit, then.
No, people are beating up on Cruz not because they fear him as a strong opponent, but because people love laughing at clowns.
Curious Ouze... what exactly did Cruz deserve to be "clownish"?
Well, since you asked:
Ted Cruz wrote:"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.
Ted Cruz wrote:I would suggest that almost any American would agree that the core function of NASA is to explore space. I am concerned that Nasa in the current environment has lost its full focus on that core mission.
Ted Cruz wrote:Federal govt has no business sticking its nose in education. We need to repeal every word of Common Core!
Ted Cruz wrote:Climate change, as they have defined it, can never be disproved, because whether it gets hotter or whether it gets colder, whatever happens, they’ll say, well, it’s changing, so it proves our theory.
Ted Cruz wrote:This is an administration that seems bound and determine to violate every single one of our bill of rights. I don’t know that they have yet violated the Third Amendment, but I expect them to start quartering soldiers in peoples’ homes soon.
Ted Cruz wrote:You know, back in the ’70s — I remember the ’70s, we were told there was global cooling. And everyone was told global cooling was a really big problem. … The problem with climate change is there’s never been a day in the history of the world in which the climate is not changing.
Ted Cruz wrote:The Obama economy is a disaster, Obamacare is a train wreck, and the Obama-Clinton foreign policy of leading from behind — the whole world is on fire. The world is on fire. Yes! Your world is on fire.
No, people are beating up on Cruz not because they fear him as a strong opponent, but because people love laughing at clowns.
Curious Ouze... what exactly did Cruz deserve to be "clownish"?
Well, since you asked:
Ted Cruz wrote:"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.
Ted Cruz wrote:I would suggest that almost any American would agree that the core function of NASA is to explore space. I am concerned that Nasa in the current environment has lost its full focus on that core mission.
Whole heartedly agree with him here... In fact, it's woefully funded too.
Ted Cruz wrote:Federal govt has no business sticking its nose in education. We need to repeal every word of Common Core!
Very much agree with him here... except... Common Core policies isn't a federal directive. It's a state thing... unless, I'm missing something.
Ted Cruz wrote:Climate change, as they have defined it, can never be disproved, because whether it gets hotter or whether it gets colder, whatever happens, they’ll say, well, it’s changing, so it proves our theory.
He's not wrong bro.
Ted Cruz wrote:This is an administration that seems bound and determine to violate every single one of our bill of rights. I don’t know that they have yet violated the Third Amendment, but I expect them to start quartering soldiers in peoples’ homes soon.
Okay, that was certainly hyperbolic... I'll give you that one.
Ted Cruz wrote:You know, back in the ’70s — I remember the ’70s, we were told there was global cooling. And everyone was told global cooling was a really big problem. … The problem with climate change is there’s never been a day in the history of the world in which the climate is not changing.
He's right.
Ted Cruz wrote:The Obama economy is a disaster, Obamacare is a train wreck, and the Obama-Clinton foreign policy of leading from behind — the whole world is on fire. The world is on fire. Yes! Your world is on fire.
And?
Again... how is this any different than your run-of-the-mill politicians? That categorize Cruz as "clownish"?
ANd yet Scooty, do you take HRC's answers to her "email-gate" thing from the UN's pressroom? Which as since be proven to be false? Nary a peep? No?
Ted Cruz wrote:"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.
Ted Cruz wrote:I would suggest that almost any American would agree that the core function of NASA is to explore space. I am concerned that Nasa in the current environment has lost its full focus on that core mission.
Whole heartedly agree with him here... In fact, it's woefully funded too.
The funded part, yes, NASA is way underfunded, you'll never get me to deny that. The part of his statement that makes it laughably stupid is the context he said it in. He doesn't think think NASA should use their resources to study our planet (and things about it like, you know... the climate). It's part of NASA's mission and it will always be part of their mission. NASA has lost a lot of their focus and you can blame both Bush and Obama for that.
Ted Cruz wrote:Federal govt has no business sticking its nose in education. We need to repeal every word of Common Core!
Very much agree with him here... except... Common Core policies isn't a federal directive. It's a state thing... unless, I'm missing something.
That's why what he said is stupid. The Federal Government has nothing to do with Common Core but he clearly thinks it does (just like a gak load of other uninformed people out there).
Ted Cruz wrote:Climate change, as they have defined it, can never be disproved, because whether it gets hotter or whether it gets colder, whatever happens, they’ll say, well, it’s changing, so it proves our theory.
He's not wrong bro.
Yes, actually he's very wrong and so are you.
Ted Cruz wrote:This is an administration that seems bound and determine to violate every single one of our bill of rights. I don’t know that they have yet violated the Third Amendment, but I expect them to start quartering soldiers in peoples’ homes soon.
Okay, that was certainly hyperbolic... I'll give you that one.
Hyperbolic? Yes. Stupid? Also yes.
Ted Cruz wrote:You know, back in the ’70s — I remember the ’70s, we were told there was global cooling. And everyone was told global cooling was a really big problem. … The problem with climate change is there’s never been a day in the history of the world in which the climate is not changing.
He's right.
See above.
Ted Cruz wrote:The Obama economy is a disaster, Obamacare is a train wreck, and the Obama-Clinton foreign policy of leading from behind — the whole world is on fire. The world is on fire. Yes! Your world is on fire.
And?
See above.
Again... how is this any different than your run-of-the-mill politicians? That categorize Cruz as "clownish"?
Ted Cruz has is own special brand of near Palin-level stupid.
ANd yet Scooty, do you take HRC's answers to her "email-gate" thing from the UN's pressroom? Which as since be proven to be false? Nary a peep? No?
What does Clinton have to do with how stupid Cruz is? Also, I don't like Clinton and there is no good defense to her email controversy so why are you trying to spin it around on me like I'm this huge Hillary flag-waver? I don't want her to run.
whembly wrote: Scooty... many of things we debate on... we can have disagreements.
But to mark "the other side" as clownish for holding opposing views is...
Childish.
I'm sorry your Hillary "gotcha" failed on me so now you're resorting to accusing me of being childish.
Ted Cruz is a stooge, no matter how you look at it. The problem is you are so fair ingrained the bs hyper-partisan climate of American politics you'll never admit it (at least no publicly) because he's "one of yours." Trust me, Democrats want him to to secure the nomination... he's a fething looney toon that exemplifies everything wrong with politics. He would get steamrolled in a general election.
whembly wrote: Scooty... many of things we debate on... we can have disagreements.
But to mark "the other side" as clownish for holding opposing views is...
Childish.
I'm sorry your Hillary "gotcha" failed on me so now you're resorting to accusing me of being childish.
Ted Cruz is a stooge, no matter how you look at it. The problem is you are so fair ingrained the bs hyper-partisan climate of American politics you'll never admit it (at least no publicly) because he's "one of yours." Trust me, Democrats want him to to secure the nomination... he's a fething looney toon that exemplifies everything wrong with politics. He would get steamrolled in a general election.
I'm willing to debate you point-by-point if you wish...
For what it's worth, I don't believe Cruz is "a good choice"... not because he's a stooge. But, I really believe we don't need ex-Senators to run for President. The current one ain't turning out so well.
Trust me... I don't understand why Democrats are so concerned. There's no GOP candidate that can take on the combined Clinton Machine + favorable media + low information voter using massed media like Facebook/Twittah/etc...
Maybe I've convinced myself prematurely... but, honestly I keep asking myself... can HRC be beaten? I don't see it.
"Low information voter" is one of my favorite phrases; because it implies in this context that if the American people knew what the GOP stood for, they'd look upon them more favorably.
If you think about it. it's sort of funny that the party that professes to most love America the most also whines the most about how they'd win more if only American's weren't so fething stupid.
Ouze wrote: "Low information voter" is one of my favorite phrases; because it implies in this context that if the American people knew what the GOP stood for, they'd look upon them more favorably.
In that context... maybe.
The low information voters are more susceptible to single issue planks... which, Democrats excels at via social media. (with the possible exception to NRA/2nd amendment tropes).
If you think about it. it's sort of funny that the party that professes to most love America the most also whines the most about how they'd win more if only American's weren't so fething stupid.
Ouze wrote: If you think about it. it's sort of funny that the party that professes to most love America the most also whines the most about how they'd win more if only American's weren't so fething stupid.
Also, they love to go on and on about how not great America currently is (and that electing them is the only way to make it great again) but then they accuse the other side of not thinking America is great.
whembly wrote: The low information voters are more susceptible to single issue planks... which, Democrats excels at via social media. (with the possible exception to NRA/2nd amendment tropes).
whembly wrote: There's no GOP candidate that can take on the combined Clinton Machine + favorable media + low information voter using massed media like Facebook/Twittah/etc...
There are plenty of low-information voters on both the Democratic and Republican sides, and they will all happily attack each other; thereby cancelling one another out.
The Clinton machine is overrated, I would be shocked if she could mobilize the youth vote, though it depends on who she runs against (if she runs).
Favorable media is a conservative victim argument, not unlike the one Palin is fond of.
A Town Called Malus wrote: In that same instance he also did the same to John Kerry, who received the Silver star and bronze star.
To be a little fair, Kerry has said things (at least one, but one I still remember, and laugh at to this day) in the public eye that are "less than favorable" to the military.
I am of course referring to his remark during his ill-fated presidential run where he said to the effect of, "graduate high school, go to college and get a good education, or end up stuck in the military"
The strong implication being that you're either graduating college and a success, OR in the military and a complete dummy and failure (which is somewhat endemic of today's school systems as well to a point)
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I am of course referring to his remark during his ill-fated presidential run where he said to the effect of, "graduate high school, go to college and get a good education, or end up stuck in the military"
The strong implication being that you're either graduating college and a success, OR in the military and a complete dummy and failure (which is somewhat endemic of today's school systems as well to a point)
That's how it was taken, but according to man who said it, the line was directed at President Bush being a failure and getting us "stuck in Iraq."
Apparently, the line in his speech was written as: "Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."
What he said, however, was: “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”
Jihadin wrote: Trump though not a career politician though. I would love to see economic trade deals he would hash out with other countries though. Be a interesting change
You mean the guy who the majority of time has been bankrupt? That Trump? He's good at working the mob to build casinoes that bilk investors then fail but thats about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: How much money does the military actually want?
whembly wrote: There's no GOP candidate that can take on the combined Clinton Machine + favorable media + low information voter using massed media like Facebook/Twittah/etc...
There are plenty of low-information voters on both the Democratic and Republican sides, and they will all happily attack each other; thereby cancelling one another out.
That's likely true as well...
The Clinton machine is overrated, I would be shocked if she could mobilize the youth vote, though it depends on who she runs against (if she runs).
But, the youth vote are traditionally a tiny slice of the voting population.
Yeah, Obama needed them for his re-election, but I don't believe HRC needs the youth voters. Unless, you're talking about the young Obama voters (who are 8 years older... are they still in the "youth voter" bucket?)??
Favorable media is a conservative victim argument, not unlike the one Palin is fond of.
Yeah.. that Katie Curic interview with Palin was a straight up fair interview.
Jihadin wrote: Trump though not a career politician though. I would love to see economic trade deals he would hash out with other countries though. Be a interesting change
You mean the guy who the majority of time has been bankrupt? That Trump? He's good at working the mob to build casinoes that bilk investors then fail but thats about it.
Who else can you think of who can comeback from bankruptcy mulitple times without a strand of hair out of place. Can you imagine during trade negotiation if someone on the US side falters during talks him, in a firm authority type of voice goes "Your FIRED"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: How much money does the military actually want?
Not all of it just most of it plus a dollar?
We're at pre- WWII strength active duty wise I believe
Hell we're pink slipping Officers and NCO's in a combat zone
Jihadin wrote: Trump though not a career politician though. I would love to see economic trade deals he would hash out with other countries though. Be a interesting change
You mean the guy who the majority of time has been bankrupt? That Trump? He's good at working the mob to build casinoes that bilk investors then fail but thats about it.
Who else can you think of who can comeback from bankruptcy mulitple times without a strand of hair out of place. Can you imagine during trade negotiation if someone on the US side falters during talks him, in a firm authority type of voice goes "Your FIRED"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: How much money does the military actually want?
Not all of it just most of it plus a dollar?
We're at pre- WWII strength active duty wise I believe
Hell we're pink slipping Officers and NCO's in a combat zone
I think that has a lot more to do with how the military budgets its money more so than how much money they get from Congress. Some of it is also the fault of Congress whose members happily force the military to buy tanks it doesn't need to make sure factories in congressional districts stay open.
Who else can you think of who can comeback from bankruptcy mulitple times without a strand of hair out of place. Can you imagine during trade negotiation if someone on the US side falters during talks him, in a firm authority type of voice goes "Your FIRED"[/color]
In the business world he is a joke who has excellent..."contacts."
I think that has a lot more to do with how the military budgets its money more so than how much money they get from Congress. Some of it is also the fault of Congress whose members happily force the military to buy tanks it doesn't need to make sure factories in congressional districts stay open.
I do think that congress does have a bit of control of the budget as well, which leads to horrible situations like the JSF-35
I am heavily biased here, but I personally think the Abrams is one of the absolute best combat platforms the US has... To take it away, and move more towards the striker vehicles is a travesty.
So yeah, there's quite a bit in there where the money flows through the military, but there's quite often times where the military's hands are tied.
I think that has a lot more to do with how the military budgets its money more so than how much money they get from Congress. Some of it is also the fault of Congress whose members happily force the military to buy tanks it doesn't need to make sure factories in congressional districts stay open.
I do think that congress does have a bit of control of the budget as well, which leads to horrible situations like the JSF-35
I am heavily biased here, but I personally think the Abrams is one of the absolute best combat platforms the US has... To take it away, and move more towards the striker vehicles is a travesty.
So yeah, there's quite a bit in there where the money flows through the military, but there's quite often times where the military's hands are tied.
Same thought here. Though I do not see him getting POW pay for time spent in captivity due to it was his own actions that got him captured. I can see reduction in rank and forfeiture of all pay during that time frame to.
The one NCO killed searching for him when he got "stupid" though seems to be right for jail time. We all know how we hate when someone action gets another soldier harmed or killed.
I think that has a lot more to do with how the military budgets its money more so than how much money they get from Congress. Some of it is also the fault of Congress whose members happily force the military to buy tanks it doesn't need to make sure factories in congressional districts stay open.
I do think that congress does have a bit of control of the budget as well, which leads to horrible situations like the JSF-35
I am heavily biased here, but I personally think the Abrams is one of the absolute best combat platforms the US has... To take it away, and move more towards the striker vehicles is a travesty.
So yeah, there's quite a bit in there where the money flows through the military, but there's quite often times where the military's hands are tied.
Yeah, I remember a few years back when the military wanted a new in air refueling jet thing (the technical term escapes me). The military decided Airbus made the best option and chose them. Boeing whined to congress and guess what happened?
Jihadin wrote: Same thought here. Though I do not see him getting POW pay for time spent in captivity due to it was his own actions that got him captured. I can see reduction in rank and forfeiture of all pay during that time frame to.
The one NCO killed searching for him when he got "stupid" though seems to be right for jail time. We all know how we hate when someone action gets another soldier harmed or killed.
I personally doubt he'll see jail time. He already spend plenty of time in a place much worse for jail, and it would be horrible from a PR standpoint.
Jihadin wrote: Same thought here. Though I do not see him getting POW pay for time spent in captivity due to it was his own actions that got him captured. I can see reduction in rank and forfeiture of all pay during that time frame to.
The one NCO killed searching for him when he got "stupid" though seems to be right for jail time. We all know how we hate when someone action gets another soldier harmed or killed.
I personally doubt he'll see jail time. He already spend plenty of time in a place much worse for jail, and it would be horrible from a PR standpoint.
I don't think good PR is mentioned as a possible mitigating factor when the jury is read their instructions.
Unfortunately, it will be a factor in this case.
As to 'spending plenty of time in a place much worse than jail', it was his choice to go join the Talibs... If it went to a jury or panel the sympathy level would correctly be pretty damned low.
You don't know the power of compassion. People have gotten away with murder, simply because people felt sorry for them. It's a legitimate tactic. I agree that it shouldn't be a factor, but it will be. We are people, not robots after all.
Here's one of the articles, although this might deserve it's own thread rather than here:
Military charges Bergdahl with desertion By Eric Bradner, Barbara Starr and Ed Lavandera, CNN
Updated 4:00 PM ET, Wed March 25, 2015
Washington (CNN)The U.S. military has charged Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl with one count each of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy, officials announced Wednesday afternoon.
Bergdahl left his post in Afghanistan before being captured and held captive for five years. For that, he faces charges that carry a maximum penalty of life in a military prison, and he could also have to forfeit pay and be stripped for his rank, Army Col. Daniel King said as he announced the charges.
Bergdahl now faces a military procedure similar to a grand jury deciding whether charges are appropriate, King said. Then, he could face court martial proceedings.
The decision comes nearly a year after Bergdahl returned to the United States as part of a prisoner exchange and since the Army began a formal investigation into his disappearance from his unit in eastern Afghanistan in June 2009.
The Army concluded its investigation into the circumstances of Bergdahl's capture in December. Until now, it has been in the hands of Gen. Mark Milley, head of U.S. Army Forces Command, who made the decision to charge Bergdahl. Several U.S. military officials CNN has spoken with suggested privately that the process took longer than expected.
Ahead of Wednesday's announcement, officials said Milley only had a few choices. Though the sense had been that Bergdahl must be held accountable for his actions, there had been little appetite for a lengthy term in military confinement given the five years Bergdahl was held by the Taliban.
Bergdahl, who's now 28, was taken by the Haqqani terrorist network. But the circumstances of Bergdahl's departure from his base and how willingly he left have not been clear.
King said he couldn't offer those details on Wednesday, and that they're being treated as evidence for the upcoming proceedings against Bergdahl.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Arizona, called the charges an "important step" on Wednesday.
"This is an important step in the military justice process towards determining the accountability of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl," he said in a statement. "I am confident that the Department of the Army will continue to ensure this process is conducted with the utmost integrity under the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, meanwhile, lambasted the "unevenness" of Obama's swap of five Taliban prisoners for Bergdahl.
"I wouldn't have done this trade for a Medal of Honor winner," he told CNN. "No military member should expect their country to turn over five Taliban commanders to get their release. Nobody should expect that. It's not the nature of his service that drives my thinking it's just the illogical nature of the swap".
Some members of Bergdahl's platoon have criticized him, labeling Bergdahl a deserter.
"I was pissed off then, and I am even more so now with everything going on," former Sgt. Matt Vierkant, a member of Bergdahl's platoon when he went missing on June 30, 2009, told CNN last year. "Bowe Bergdahl deserted during a time of war, and his fellow Americans lost their lives searching for him."
Bergdahl was freed in May when President Barack Obama agreed to swap five Taliban prisoners who had been detained in Guantanamo Bay to secure Bergdahl's freedom, sending those detainees to Qatar.
Obama announced Bergdahl's release to fanfare in the White House Rose Garden, flanked by the Army sergeant's parents, Bob and Jani Bergdahl. His hometown of Hailey, Idaho, had planned a parade to celebrate Bergdahl's homecoming but later canceled that celebration amid security concerns stemming from the unanswered questions surrounding his disappearance and the resulting controversy over his release.
After returning to the United States, Bergdahl had been on active duty at an administrative job at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, Texas. There, the Army assigned Bergdahl a "sponsor" to help him adjust to life in his new post. Upon returning, Bergdahl refused to meet with his parents -- and months later, Army officials had said he was communicating with them but still had not met them face to face.
The five figures the United States exchanged to secure Bergdahl's release were Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa, Mullah Mohammad Fazl, Mullah Norullah Nori, Abdul Haq Wasiq and Mohammad Nabi Omari. They were mostly mid- to high-level officials in the Taliban regime and had been detained early in the war in Afghanistan because of their positions within the Taliban, not because of ties to al Qaeda.
The detainee swap for Bergdahl has become increasingly controversial in recent weeks after a report published by the office of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said one of the 17 intelligence agencies operating under its umbrella had judged that a prisoner released in the exchange had since contacted the Taliban.
I think it was the right thing to get him back, and if it's true he deserted, then it's the right thing to charge him now. I see them as separate issues.
I know the 'power of compassion'. I also may know a bit about how a bunch of combat arms senior NCOs and officers would view deserting to join the enemy they have been fighting the last decade or so.
Yeah.. that Katie Curic interview with Palin was a straight up fair interview.
Ha, well it's a good lesson that you don't get to complain when you deliberately sabotage yourself by not preparing for a softball Q&A, then double-down that being ask what you read is a gotcha.
Bookwrack wrote: Ha, well it's a good lesson that you don't get to complain when you deliberately sabotage yourself by not preparing for a softball Q&A, then double-down that being ask what you read is a gotcha.
In all fairness, being asked what magazines you read is a pretty "gotcha" question that I don't think any politician's ever been asked before, and is clearly gutter journalism by a left-wing hack.
Bookwrack wrote: Ha, well it's a good lesson that you don't get to complain when you deliberately sabotage yourself by not preparing for a softball Q&A, then double-down that being ask what you read is a gotcha.
In all fairness, being asked what magazines you read is a pretty "gotcha" question that I don't think any politician's ever been asked before, and is clearly gutter journalism by a left-wing hack.
Biden still got a pass bro...
In fact, the things Biden have said were so fething looney, he makes Palin Cum Laude of the Political Class™.
Bookwrack wrote: Ha, well it's a good lesson that you don't get to complain when you deliberately sabotage yourself by not preparing for a softball Q&A, then double-down that being ask what you read is a gotcha.
In all fairness, being asked what magazines you read is a pretty "gotcha" question that I don't think any politician's ever been asked before, and is clearly gutter journalism by a left-wing hack.
And that whole "how does living near a foreign country make you experienced in foreign affairs?" thing
Bookwrack wrote: Ha, well it's a good lesson that you don't get to complain when you deliberately sabotage yourself by not preparing for a softball Q&A, then double-down that being ask what you read is a gotcha.
In all fairness, being asked what magazines you read is a pretty "gotcha" question that I don't think any politician's ever been asked before, and is clearly gutter journalism by a left-wing hack.
And that whole "how does living near a foreign country make you experienced in foreign affairs?" thing
No, you're confused. 'I can see Russia from my house' was the SNL line. I actually think that one of Couric's other questions was asking her what she meant by Russia's maritime proximity to Alaska being part of her foreign policy experience.
*edit* the actual exchange was-
Katie Couric: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign-policy experience. What did you mean by that?
Sarah Palin: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land boundary that we have with Canada.
Couric: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials?
Bookwrack wrote: Ha, well it's a good lesson that you don't get to complain when you deliberately sabotage yourself by not preparing for a softball Q&A, then double-down that being ask what you read is a gotcha.
In all fairness, being asked what magazines you read is a pretty "gotcha" question that I don't think any politician's ever been asked before, and is clearly gutter journalism by a left-wing hack.
Biden still got a pass bro...
In fact, the things Biden have said were so fething looney, he makes Palin Cum Laude of the Political Class™.
War on Women™ indeed.
Huh? I have no idea what you're trying to do with that comparison here. Palin's problem is that she always double and tripled down on the stupid when she screwed up. The whole Couric interview would've amounted to nothing if afterwards, instead of trying to invent a reason why it wasn't her fault, she just laughed it off. "I read this, that, and the other thing, but y'know just one of those moments where your brain tries to give you every answer at once and none of them get out."
Ouze wrote: I think it was the right thing to get him back, and if it's true he deserted, then it's the right thing to charge him now. I see them as separate issues.
I agree that he should have been brought back (whether the price was too steep, and whether Congress should have been informed in the manner that they did is another matter entirely), and I also agree that he should face the consequences of his actions.
Bookwrack wrote: Ha, well it's a good lesson that you don't get to complain when you deliberately sabotage yourself by not preparing for a softball Q&A, then double-down that being ask what you read is a gotcha.
In all fairness, being asked what magazines you read is a pretty "gotcha" question that I don't think any politician's ever been asked before, and is clearly gutter journalism by a left-wing hack.
Biden still got a pass bro...
In fact, the things Biden have said were so fething looney, he makes Palin Cum Laude of the Political Class™.
War on Women™ indeed.
I think the main difference in this case is experience. Biden had a lot of experience and most of his stuff seems to be him not thinking about what he is saying, no him just not knowing. Palin, on the other hand, also did not think about what she was saying, but also didn't know anything about what she was saying most of the time. She is an extremist, and had absolutely no experience. She was unfit to be vice-president, much less president. I'd rather another 4 years of Bush then her (and I despised the Bush administration, although Bush himself seems like a pretty nice guy).
Bookwrack wrote: Ha, well it's a good lesson that you don't get to complain when you deliberately sabotage yourself by not preparing for a softball Q&A, then double-down that being ask what you read is a gotcha.
In all fairness, being asked what magazines you read is a pretty "gotcha" question that I don't think any politician's ever been asked before, and is clearly gutter journalism by a left-wing hack.
And that whole "how does living near a foreign country make you experienced in foreign affairs?" thing
psst... that's Tina Fey in SNL spoof.
No, it wasn't.
The comment "I can see Russia from my house" is often misattributed to Mrs. Palin, but that's not what Malus referenced. What Malus wrote is pretty much exactly what happened.
@Co'tor Shas, @Ouze, @Bookwrack: The point wasn't weather Palin was unfit for VP... the point is when one person says something dumb, the media get their pound-o-flesh (Palin), and yet when the current VP says dumb things it's "aw shucks, that's like what my crazy uncle would say *shrugs*", as if it's an endearing quality.
whembly wrote: @Co'tor Shas, @Ouze, @Bookwrack: The point wasn't weather Palin was unfit for VP... the point is when one person says something dumb, the media get their pound-o-flesh (Palin), and yet when the current VP says dumb things it's "aw shucks, that's like what my crazy uncle would say *shrugs*", as if it's an endearing quality.
And someone as experienced as Biden should be held to at least as high a standard. That many flubs chuckled off as 'Well, Joe gonna Joe' just seems silly.
whembly wrote: @Co'tor Shas, @Ouze, @Bookwrack: The point wasn't weather Palin was unfit for VP... the point is when one person says something dumb, the media get their pound-o-flesh (Palin), and yet when the current VP says dumb things it's "aw shucks, that's like what my crazy uncle would say *shrugs*", as if it's an endearing quality.
No.
You ignored my post.
It became an issue with Palin because she chose make it an issue. The Couric interview is a good example. What has Biden done in response to his feth-ups that was embarassing as her trying to play her screw-up in a light weight interview as some sort of attack journalism? Even worse that the source material is so readily available,
We just had Biden do that whatever-the-hell really creepy shoulder rub thing, and everyone was all over that, but he didn't grab a flag and declare that this was his hill to die on, so once the shiney wore off, it went away. It would've played very differently if he'd tried to blame her, or that it was totally taken out of context and not what it looked like at all.
Bookwrack wrote: Ha, well it's a good lesson that you don't get to complain when you deliberately sabotage yourself by not preparing for a softball Q&A, then double-down that being ask what you read is a gotcha.
In all fairness, being asked what magazines you read is a pretty "gotcha" question that I don't think any politician's ever been asked before, and is clearly gutter journalism by a left-wing hack.
And that whole "how does living near a foreign country make you experienced in foreign affairs?" thing
psst... that's Tina Fey in SNL spoof.
No, it wasn't.
Spoiler:
The comment "I can see Russia from my house" is often misattributed to Mrs. Palin, but that's not what Malus referenced. What Malus wrote is pretty much exactly what happened.
*sigh*
Yes. It was.
It all started with that Charilie Gibson ABC interview... then, a few days later, that SNL skit aired.
Malus point was that Palin was trying to push the idea that because being the governor of AK, that gives her some "foreign policy" experience. Even *I* think she pushed it a wee bit too far... but, she didn't deserve the amount of mocking she got for that.
Holy gak, are you claiming she didn't say what I just posted a video of her saying? And "proving" it by posting a snopes link to a point I addressed in my post and made clear was distinct?
It may have also been the presidential candidate in question. Mccain is getting older, and the presidency ages you dramatically. Obama is young, fit, and healthy. Much greater chance of Palin getting the presidency then Biden. And the idea of a Palin presidency scares me.
whembly wrote: @Co'tor Shas, @Ouze, @Bookwrack: The point wasn't weather Palin was unfit for VP... the point is when one person says something dumb, the media get their pound-o-flesh (Palin), and yet when the current VP says dumb things it's "aw shucks, that's like what my crazy uncle would say *shrugs*", as if it's an endearing quality.
No.
You ignored my post.
It became an issue with Palin because she chose make it an issue. The Couric interview is a good example. What has Biden done in response to his feth-ups that was embarassing as her trying to play her screw-up in a light weight interview as some sort of attack journalism? Even worse that the source material is so readily available,
We just had Biden do that whatever-the-hell really creepy shoulder rub thing, and everyone was all over that, but he didn't grab a flag and declare that this was his hill to die on, so once the shiney wore off, it went away. It would've played very differently if he'd tried to blame her, or that it was totally taken out of context and not what it looked like at all.
I didn't ignore your post.
I'm not defending Palin's screw ups. I'm pointing out how differently she was treated compared to Biden.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Holy gak, are you claiming she didn't say what I just posted a video of her saying? And "proving" it by posting a snopes link to a point I addressed in my post and made clear was distinct?
Keep up man!
Lemme break it down...
ABC Charlie Gibson asked her in an interview:
“What insight into Russian actions, particularly during the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of this state give you?”
Palin answered, albeit clumsily:
“They’re our next-door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia, from land, here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.”
Few days later, the Tina Fey SNL skit dropped... and the rest is history.
Fast forward to the Kouric interview, here's what she said:
Couric: “You’ve cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?”
Palin: “That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia…”
Couric: “Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials?”
Palin: “Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of . . . . It’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send out those to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia…”
Granted she left herself to criticism to what I highlighted above... and I'd rather she didn't do that, but as a governor bordering another country, Russia (and Canada) would obviously be on an Alaskan Governor's "radar", more so than a Governor of Missouri.
Anyhoo... we all can have debates on whether she's qualified or not. But, if you keep pushing the meme that she's unqualified because she says dumb stuff... then, how on earth is Biden qualified?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: It may have also been the presidential candidate in question. Mccain is getting older, and the presidency ages you dramatically. Obama is young, fit, and healthy. Much greater chance of Palin getting the presidency then Biden. And the idea of a Palin presidency scares me.
Fair enough. I can see that it's "more of a concern" of a McCain/Pain ticket vs. Obama/Biden ticket, and thus Palin got more scrutiny.
whembly wrote: I'm pointing out how differently she was treated compared to Biden.
No, you're not. Again, the difference between the two was that after Palin made and flub and was called on it, she'd dig her heels in, try and shift blame or somehow justify why she was in the right. She never learned that especially when the national spotlight is on you, laughing it off and doing the water off a duck's back thing makes it go away.
You were mistaken. Now, just like Sarah Palin, ironically, you're dissembling to cover it instead of just admitting it.
That's so meta, I can't even tell if he was doing it deliberately or not.
It's a brilliant example though, any road. if Whembly's first response had been, 'ha-ha, whoops, yeah, I'm so used to people believing 'I can see my house,' that I misread it,' this whole tangent would already be forgotten. Instead.
"On the global warming alarmists, anyone who actually points to the evidence that disproves their apocalyptical claims, they don't engage in reasoned debate," Cruz said in an interview with reporter Jay Root on Tuesday. "What do they do? They scream, 'You're a denier.' They brand you a heretic. Today, the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat-Earthers. It used to be [that] it is accepted scientific wisdom the Earth is flat, and this heretic named Galileo was branded a denier."
"On the global warming alarmists, anyone who actually points to the evidence that disproves their apocalyptical claims, they don't engage in reasoned debate," Cruz said in an interview with reporter Jay Root on Tuesday. "What do they do? They scream, 'You're a denier.' They brand you a heretic. Today, the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat-Earthers. It used to be [that] it is accepted scientific wisdom the Earth is flat, and this heretic named Galileo was branded a denier."
"On the global warming alarmists, anyone who actually points to the evidence that disproves their apocalyptical claims, they don't engage in reasoned debate," Cruz said in an interview with reporter Jay Root on Tuesday. "What do they do? They scream, 'You're a denier.' They brand you a heretic. Today, the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat-Earthers. It used to be [that] it is accepted scientific wisdom the Earth is flat, and this heretic named Galileo was branded a denier."
Yeah, but who's denying whom?
I'm more mocking Cruz for the fact that Galileo had nothing to do with Flat-Earth, which had been shown false literally centuries before he was even born. Galileo was branded because he posited that the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of the galaxy.
"On the global warming alarmists, anyone who actually points to the evidence that disproves their apocalyptical claims, they don't engage in reasoned debate," Cruz said in an interview with reporter Jay Root on Tuesday. "What do they do? They scream, 'You're a denier.' They brand you a heretic. Today, the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat-Earthers. It used to be [that] it is accepted scientific wisdom the Earth is flat, and this heretic named Galileo was branded a denier."
Yeah, but who's denying whom?
I'm more mocking Cruz for the fact that Galileo had nothing to do with Flat-Earth, which had been shown false literally centuries before he was even born. Galileo was branded because he posited that the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of the galaxy.
"On the global warming alarmists, anyone who actually points to the evidence that disproves their apocalyptical claims, they don't engage in reasoned debate," Cruz said in an interview with reporter Jay Root on Tuesday. "What do they do? They scream, 'You're a denier.' They brand you a heretic. Today, the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat-Earthers. It used to be [that] it is accepted scientific wisdom the Earth is flat, and this heretic named Galileo was branded a denier."
Yeah, but who's denying whom?
I'm more mocking Cruz for the fact that Galileo had nothing to do with Flat-Earth, which had been shown false literally centuries before he was even born. Galileo was branded because he posited that the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of the galaxy.
Galileo's dealings with the Inquisition were a pretty complicated affair and were made much worse when he alienated Urban VIII, who was a supporter of his.
Also, this is interesting... in the span of a week, George Zimmerman compared his ideals to that of Anne Frank and Ted Cruz compared himself to Galileo Galilei. What famous person in history will an idiot compare themselves to next?
Well, when a guy is chairman of the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness, and can't even get a few basic bits of science history right, I'd say he earned it.
I'd also so we're pretty hosed, but then again, what subcommittee doesn't have a complete buffoon on it somewhere.
"On the global warming alarmists, anyone who actually points to the evidence that disproves their apocalyptical claims, they don't engage in reasoned debate," Cruz said in an interview with reporter Jay Root on Tuesday. "What do they do? They scream, 'You're a denier.' They brand you a heretic. Today, the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat-Earthers. It used to be [that] it is accepted scientific wisdom the Earth is flat, and this heretic named Galileo was branded a denier."
Yeah, but who's denying whom?
I'm more mocking Cruz for the fact that Galileo had nothing to do with Flat-Earth, which had been shown false literally centuries before he was even born. Galileo was branded because he posited that the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of the galaxy.
Galileo's dealings with the Inquisition were a pretty complicated affair and were made much worse when he alienated Urban VIII, who was a supporter of his.
Really? I must look into this...
Inquisition... is in, TheInquisition?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
streamdragon wrote: Well, when a guy is chairman of the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness, and can't even get a few basic bits of science history right, I'd say he earned it.
I'd also so we're pretty hosed, but then again, what subcommittee doesn't have a complete buffoon on it somewhere.
I dunno... woudn't you think in this case it's an honest mistake?
I mean... the Todd Akin thingy? That's the buffoonery you're looking for...
Also, this is interesting... in the span of a week, George Zimmerman compared himself to Anne Frank and Ted Cruz compared himself to Galileo Galilei. What famous person in history will an idiot compare themselves to next?
Okay... what site did you get this "he compared himself to Anne Frank?"
"On the global warming alarmists, anyone who actually points to the evidence that disproves their apocalyptical claims, they don't engage in reasoned debate," Cruz said in an interview with reporter Jay Root on Tuesday. "What do they do? They scream, 'You're a denier.' They brand you a heretic. Today, the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat-Earthers. It used to be [that] it is accepted scientific wisdom the Earth is flat, and this heretic named Galileo was branded a denier."
Yeah, but who's denying whom?
I'm more mocking Cruz for the fact that Galileo had nothing to do with Flat-Earth, which had been shown false literally centuries before he was even born. Galileo was branded because he posited that the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of the galaxy.
Galileo's dealings with the Inquisition were a pretty complicated affair and were made much worse when he alienated Urban VIII, who was a supporter of his.
Also, this is interesting... in the span of a week, George Zimmerman compared himself to Anne Frank and Ted Cruz compared himself to Galileo Galilei. What famous person in history will an idiot compare themselves to next?
Okay... what site did you get this "he compared himself to Anne Frank?"
Just curious.
*he didn't say that fyi.
I know exactly what he said so your tiny, tiny text is not needed. And yes, saying that Zimmerman compared himself to Anne Frank is reaching a little because he didn't say, "Hy guys, I'm just like Anne Frank!" but still... he feels oppressed by people (especially Barack HUSSEIN Obama) but he still thinks everyone has a good heart. It's subtle but intended.
He described one of his ideals, then following that mentioned that Anne Frank shared that particular ideal. That is quite different than actually comparing himself to Anne Frank.
See? This is why he needs to stay off the media grid, because anything he does will always be taken to extremes.
whembly wrote: He described one of his ideals, then following that mentioned that Anne Frank shared that particular ideal. That is quite different than actually comparing himself to Anne Frank.
See? This is why he needs to stay off the media grid, because anything he does will always be taken to extremes.
You're right, he compared his ideals to that of Anne Frank. I'll go back and edit it for you if it would make you happy, but only because I like you Whembly.
whembly wrote: He described one of his ideals, then following that mentioned that Anne Frank shared that particular ideal. That is quite different than actually comparing himself to Anne Frank.
See? This is why he needs to stay off the media grid, because anything he does will always be taken to extremes.
You're right, he compared his ideals to that of Anne Frank. I'll go back and edit it for you if it would make you happy, but only because I like Whembly.
'Tis cool man.
I'm sure you and I would agree that Zimmerman really need to avoid the spotlight in any form.
But, the youth vote are traditionally a tiny slice of the voting population.
True, but a tiny slice of the population if they're voting in key districts during election overseen by the electoral college system; especially now when most voters are committed to one side of aisle. In this environment the real issues of mobilizing people that you already know will vote for you, as the pool of swing voters has gotten rather small for a variety of reasons; though disenfranchisement is one of the ones most often in polls.
Yeah, Obama needed them for his re-election, but I don't believe HRC needs the youth voters. Unless, you're talking about the young Obama voters (who are 8 years older... are they still in the "youth voter" bucket?)??
I would say Hillary faces an uphill battle with nearly anyone under 30, which I think is a fair assessment of what defines youth voters for the Democrats; largely because of the effect Obama's tactics had on the Party.
Yeah.. that Katie Curic interview with Palin was a straight up fair interview.
It was reasonably fair, but that's not the main reason Palin complains about "The Media". She complains about "The Media" because conservative media personalities have to do so in order to establish themselves as sticking it to the man so that no one notices that they are "the man", and that there are plenty of conservative and relatively unbiased media outlets.
To repeal current tax laws in favor of a Flat Tax law? Of course it wouldn't be simple. That's not what I was implying.
Nor was that what I was talking about. The notion that Flat Taxes are simple is nonsense, as there are just as many complexities involved with such a system as one built around a progressive model. The only thing that would necessarily change is that base rate for certain forms of income would remain constant regardless of income level, which is not exactly a huge move towards simplification.
But, the youth vote are traditionally a tiny slice of the voting population.
True, but a tiny slice of the population if they're voting in key districts during election overseen by the electoral college system; especially now when most voters are committed to one side of aisle. In this environment the real issues of mobilizing people that you already know will vote for you, as the pool of swing voters has gotten rather small for a variety of reasons; though disenfranchisement is one of the ones most often in polls.
Yeah, Obama needed them for his re-election, but I don't believe HRC needs the youth voters. Unless, you're talking about the young Obama voters (who are 8 years older... are they still in the "youth voter" bucket?)??
I would say Hillary faces an uphill battle with nearly anyone under 30, which I think is a fair assessment of what defines youth voters for the Democrats; largely because of the effect Obama's tactics had on the Party.
Huh... I didn't see it like that. Interesting...
I'm not sure if I'm ready to shift from my belief that President HRC is a foregone conclusion... but, you're making too much sense here man. O.o
What are those "Obama's tactics on the Party" that may adversely affect HRC's changes?
Yeah.. that Katie Curic interview with Palin was a straight up fair interview.
It was reasonably fair, but that's not the main reason Palin complains about "The Media". She complains about "The Media" because conservative media personalities have to do so in order to establish themselves as sticking it to the man so that no one notices that they are "the man", and that there are plenty of conservative and relatively unbiased media outlets.
I can walk back my previous statements, a little bit, but I still don't think Palin (or McCain for that matter) got a fair treatment.
McCain/Palin were vetted by the media in all forms... vetted hard.
Obama/Biden did go through a nasty Democratic Primary, but afterwards? It was all unicorn and rainbows as far as the media was concerned.
To repeal current tax laws in favor of a Flat Tax law? Of course it wouldn't be simple. That's not what I was implying.
Nor was that what I was talking about. The notion that Flat Taxes are simple is nonsense, as there are just as many complexities involved with such a system as one built around a progressive model. The only thing that would necessarily change is that base rate for certain forms of income would remain constant regardless of income level, which is not exactly a huge move towards simplification.
The various flat tax proposals were teired bracket system that, when you really think about it, is purely a progressive model. Primarily because deductions are nearly non-existent.
Therefore, if you'd hit that high bracket (35%?)... you're likely paying that rate on all income.
Also, what is "income" has been reclassified as well (where one model was that included investments returns as well).
Even then, you'd have to decide if we change from a Global Tax system to a Territorial Tax system.
The problem is that the tax code is gamed so much, with special interest groups carving out their favored tax policies... I'm not optimistic that we'd see any meaningful change... if ever.
I'm not sure if I'm ready to shift from my belief that President HRC is a foregone conclusion... but, you're making too much sense here man. O.o
Even without the sense I'm talking it is far from a foregone conclusion. It is rare for a single Party in the modern era (Basically after the 22nd Amendment.) to hold the Presidency for 3 full terms.
What are those "Obama's tactics on the Party" that may adversely affect HRC's changes?
A focus on spectacle over substance. Hillary is bad at spectacle, and now likely Democrat voters have been trained to expect it. That being said Republican voters have been trained to expect it too, but the GOP has the "Obama is history's greatest monster!" argument in its pocket; an argument which makes for easy spectacle manufacturing.
Obama/Biden did go through a nasty Democratic Primary, but afterwards? It was all unicorn and rainbows as far as the media was concerned.
Yeah, I'm going to call BS on that. The Obama Administration had to contend with a great deal of criticism from both conservative and liberal media outlets after it took power, though not so much from relatively neutral ones. After all, the role of relatively neutral media outlets is to report facts while being attacked by liberals and conservatives for supposedly being biased.
Ouze wrote: I was the one (at least here) who said he compared himself to Anne Frank and to be honest I need to correct that, I think I saw what I wanted to see.
That's not really what he did, I admit I was wrong.
Ouze wrote: I was the one (at least here) who said he compared himself to Anne Frank and to be honest I need to correct that, I think I saw what I wanted to see.
That's not really what he did, I admit I was wrong.
Now..now... don't be too hard on yourself.
Totally believable it's an honest mistake, that we ALL get snooker'ed from time to time.
I'd still say that Z really needs to stay out of any spotlight. But, that won't happen as I'm sure there's going to be book / movie deals soon.
I'm not sure if I'm ready to shift from my belief that President HRC is a foregone conclusion... but, you're making too much sense here man. O.o
Even without the sense I'm talking it is far from a foregone conclusion. It is rare for a single Party in the modern era (Basically after the 22nd Amendment.) to hold the Presidency for 3 full terms.
I'm aware that it's rare and if anyone who can overcome that challenge... my money is on HRC.
What are those "Obama's tactics on the Party" that may adversely affect HRC's changes?
A focus on spectacle over substance. Hillary is bad at spectacle, and now likely Democrat voters have been trained to expect it. That being said Republican voters have been trained to expect it too, but the GOP has the "Obama is history's greatest monster!" argument in its pocket; an argument which makes for easy spectacle manufacturing.
The distinction is HRC is horrible at campaigning... but, she excels at the 'behind-the-scene' Beltway environment. Her challenge, really, is surviving the primary. After that, she can practically coast towards the WH.
I'd be happy to be wrong, don't misunderstand me... but, I think folks are being waaaaaay too cavalier on a strong HRC campaign.
Obama/Biden did go through a nasty Democratic Primary, but afterwards? It was all unicorn and rainbows as far as the media was concerned.
Yeah, I'm going to call BS on that. The Obama Administration had to contend with a great deal of criticism from both conservative and liberal media outlets after it took power, though not so much from relatively neutral ones. After all, the role of relatively neutral media outlets is to report facts while being attacked by liberals and conservatives for supposedly being biased.
I was being hyperbolic there... but, I'm talking about during the campaign season. Not while they're in office.
I was being hyperbolic there... but, I'm talking about during the campaign season. Not while they're in office.
No, you weren't talking about the campaign season. You specifically stated that Obama/Biden went through a rough campaign season, and that "The Media" did not criticize them after the fact. This is what I was addressing.
Illinois Republican Rep. Aaron Schock, who announced his resignation last week after a series of campaign and office spending scandals, bid farewell to Congress "with sadness and humility." And then he compared his struggle with that of former President Abraham Lincoln's.
On the House floor days before his official final day in office Schock said "every person faces adversity in life" and noted that Lincoln represented the same Illinois seat in the House for one term.
"Few faced as many defeats in his personal business and public life as he did. His continued perseverance in the face of these trials -- never giving up -- is something all of us Americans should be inspired by, especially when going through a valley in life," Schock said.
He touted legislation he was proud to sponsor and projects in his district he believed helped his constituents.
"For those whom I've let down I will work tirelessly to make it up to you," Schock said.
CNN reported last week that FBI and federal prosecutors were investigating the 33-year-old congressman for potentially breaking the law in accounting for his campaign expenses.
Questions about Schock's record-keeping came after a Washington Post profile reported the congressman spent lavishly to decorate his office to resemble a set from the popular PBS show "Downton Abbey." He paid $40,000 back to his office account.
But a string of stories exposed details about the Illinois Republican flying on a private jet owned by a donor to a Chicago Bears game, taking staffers to a Katy Perry concert, bringing a large group of staff to New York using taxpayer funds and failing to disclose he took his photographer on a trip to India.
Schock also highlighted his extensive travels around the world with pictures on social media, which aided reporters who began tracking his travel.
Several news outlets reported a donor helped finance real estate transactions for Schock in his district. He also over-billed the government for mileage reimbursement on a car purchased by his campaign, as first reported by Politico.
In an ironic twist right around the same time Schock spoke for the last time on the House floor the BBC News reported that Downton Abbey would end its run after it completes its six season on television.
In an ironic twist right around the same time Schock spoke for the last time on the House floor the BBC News reported that Downton Abbey would end its run after it completes its six season on television.
Wait! Downton Abbey is ending after season six? This is something far more newsworthy, and shouldn't have been buried at the bottom of the article!
President Barack Obama’s administration has been one rife with scandals. Some pertain directly to himself and his own actions–like the recent immigration executive order that some say unconstitutionally side-stepped Congress–and some to members of his administration, like the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS and the Secret Service’s series of embarrassments.
So in the spirit of March Madness and NCAA bracketology, The Cornell Review presents its very own Obama Administration Scandal Bracketology.
Spoiler:
Here’s mine filled out:
Spoiler:
*swoons*
Let me think about my bracket a bit... but, I totally disagree with the author's.
I don't thin Sandoval will run, he's sitting nice and tight in his gubernatorial position and that spot would be left nice and vacant for challengers if he did; something the GOP probably doesn't want. I think Angle and Rory Reid are more likely contenders.
(Reuters) - Big Wall Street banks are so upset with U.S. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren's call for them to be broken up that some have discussed withholding campaign donations to Senate Democrats in symbolic protest, sources familiar with the discussions said.
Representatives from Citigroup, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, have met to discuss ways to urge Democrats, including Warren and Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, to soften their party's tone toward Wall Street, sources familiar with the discussions said this week.
Bank officials said the idea of withholding donations was not discussed at a meeting of the four banks in Washington but it has been raised in one-on-one conversations between representatives of some of them. However, there was no agreement on coordinating any action, and each bank is making its own decision, they said.
The amount of money at stake, a maximum of $15,000 per bank, means the gesture is symbolic rather than material
Moreover, banks' hostility toward Warren, who is not a presidential candidate, will not have a direct impact on the presumed Democratic front runner in the White House race, Hillary Clinton. That's because their fund-raising groups focus on congressional races rather than the presidential election
Still, political strategists say Clinton could struggle to raise money among Wall Street financiers who worry that Democrats are becoming less business friendly.
The tensions are a sign that the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis - the bank bailouts and the fights over financial reforms to rein in Wall Street - are still a factor in the 2016 elections.
Citigroup has decided to withhold donations for now to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee over concerns that Senate Democrats could give Warren and lawmakers who share her views more power, sources inside the bank told Reuters.
The Massachusetts senator's economic populism and take-no-prisoners approach has won her a strong following among liberals who raised 300,000 signatures for a petition urging her to run for the White House in 2016.
"They can threaten or bully or say whatever they want, but we aren't going to change our game plan," Warren said in a blog post on her website on Friday. "It's up to us to fight back against a financial system that allows those who broke our economy to emerge from a crisis in record-setting shape while ordinary Americans continue to struggle."
JPMORGAN MET DEMOCRATIC OFFICIALS
Citi spokeswoman Molly Meiners declined to comment specifically on the Warren issue, saying the bank's fund-raising political action committee (PAC) "contributes to candidates and parties across the political spectrum that share our desire for pro-business policies that promote economic growth."
JPMorgan representatives have met Democratic Party officials to emphasize the connection between its annual contribution and the need for a friendlier attitude toward the banks, a source familiar with JPMorgan's donations said. In past years, the bank has given its donation in one lump sum but this year has so far donated only a third of the amount, the source said.
Goldman, which already made its $15,000 donation for the year, took part in the Washington meeting between the four banks to talk about anti-big bank rhetoric of some Democratic lawmakers like Warren but has not had any discussions about withholding money, a source close to the bank said.
"We will continue working cooperatively with members of Congress, regulators and the industry to foster constructive discussions around policy questions," said Andrew Williams, a Goldman spokesman.
Bank of America is not coordinating with other banks on when and how much to give, according to a source familiar with the bank's thinking. It has not yet sent in its check.
"Our decision to contribute will be driven more by the fact that many members of both parties understand the important role we play in driving the real economy and serving customers across the country," said a spokesman, Larry Di Rita.
JPMorgan spokesman Andrew Gray said the bank had "always believed in the importance of engaging constructively with our public officials."
Spokesmen for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Warren and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid all declined to comment.
Warren, a former Harvard Law professor who joined the Senate Banking Committee after taking office in 2013, has accused big banks and other financial firms of unfair dealings that harm the middle class and help the rich grow richer.
In a Dec. 12 speech, she mentioned Citi several times as an example of a bank that had grown too large, saying it should have been broken apart by the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.
In January, Warren angered Wall Street when she successfully blocked the nomination of a banker Antonio Weiss to a top post at the Treasury Department. She argued that as a regulator he would likely be too deferential to his former Wall Street colleagues.
I don't thin Sandoval will run, he's sitting nice and tight in his gubernatorial position and that spot would be left nice and vacant for challengers if he did; something the GOP probably doesn't want. I think Angle and Rory Reid are more likely contenders.
My question about the scandals is how many of them are really Obama Administration-specific scandals and how many are just the business-as-usual-in-Washington-scandals that are the result of the political climate that has evolved in D.C. over the decades?
Tannhauser42 wrote: My question about the scandals is how many of them are really Obama Administration-specific scandals and how many are just the business-as-usual-in-Washington-scandals that are the result of the political climate that has evolved in D.C. over the decades?
Scandal worthy tied to Obama admin:
-IRS targeting (Remember, Nixon wanted to use the IRS against his opponents)
-Fast & Furious
-Targetting of James Rosen/Sharyl Aktisson
-US Civilian Drone Strikes
-whem's fav... ends in "azi".
The rest could be argued as the usual Beltway gutter-slime
Scandal worthy tied to Obama admin:
-IRS targeting (Remember, Nixon wanted to use the IRS against his opponents)
-Fast & Furious
-Targetting of James Rosen/Sharyl Aktisson -US Civilian Drone Strikes
-whem's fav... ends in "azi".
The rest could be argued as the usual Beltway gutter-slime
I'd agree those are all generally legitimately concerning, except Mrs. Atkisson - that's all really unproven - and I don't think Benghazi was as serious as you do, but we've already had that debate.
I don't think the jury's out on the depths of the IRS scandal yet, but it belongs on the list until it is.
I'd don't think you're going to have any administration that doesn't do at least some shady gak, but I don't think that's a defense of shady gak either.
While it's not a "scandal" per se, I'm still deeply, deeply disappointed in that handling of Guantanamo Bay and it would be number one on my list of complaints.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Other than Benghazi, I'd say those are all legitimate concerns. Although F&F is more the DoJ(?) being bad at their jobs, then Obamas fault.
Yes, there's a distinction to be made between a scandal that involves a cover-up of malfeasance (like the VA cooking the books on their wait times), and just a well-intentioned operation that simply goes badly. We should still hold people responsible for incompetence obviously, but there's an element in there that distinguishes them, I think.
Tannhauser42 wrote: My question about the scandals is how many of them are really Obama Administration-specific scandals and how many are just the business-as-usual-in-Washington-scandals that are the result of the political climate that has evolved in D.C. over the decades?
Scandal worthy tied to Obama admin:
-IRS targeting (Remember, Nixon wanted to use the IRS against his opponents)
-Fast & Furious
-Targetting of James Rosen/Sharyl Aktisson
-US Civilian Drone Strikes
-whem's fav... ends in "azi".
The rest could be argued as the usual Beltway gutter-slime
I would argue Fast & Furious is something that would have happened regardless of who was President (I guess that's pretty much what I was asking, which scandals would still have happened no matter which party was in the White House). The IRS targeting feels borderline to me: still the kind of thing that would have happened eventually anyway (because Washington), but only happened "now" because of the Obama Administration.
Hillary Clinton wiped “clean” the private server housing emails from her tenure as secretary of state, the chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi said Friday.
“While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, said in a statement.
Clinton was under a subpoena order from the panel for all documents related to the 2012 attacks on the American compound there. But David Kendall, an attorney for Clinton, said the 900 pages of emails previously provided to the panel cover its request.
Kendall also informed the committee that Clinton’s emails from her time at the State Department have been permanently erased.
Gowdy said that Clinton’s response to the subpoena means he and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will now contemplate new legal actions against Clinton.
“After seeking and receiving a two week extension from the Committee, Secretary Clinton failed to provide a single new document to the subpoena issued by the Committee and refused to provide her private server to the Inspector General for the State Department or any other independent arbiter for analysis,” Gowdy said.
Clinton previously said she decided to delete the emails after her lawyers reviewed the server for work-related correspondence. She said the deletion of private emails occurred “at the end” of that review.
In a letter provided to the committee, Kendall said Clinton would not be turning over the server to a third-party for review and that the emails no longer exist on the private server located in her New York home.
“There is no basis to support the proposed third-party review of the server that hosted the hdr22@clintonemail.com account,” Kendall wrote. “To avoid prolonging a discussion that would be academic, I have confirmed with the secretary’s IT support that no emails…..for the time period January 21, 2009 through February 1, 2013 reside on the server or on any back-up systems associated with the server.”
The broad subpoena from Gowdy included any emails relating to Libya, weapons located in the country, the Benghazi attacks and administration statements following the attacks on the compound.
Shortly after the New York Times reported on Clinton’s private email use, she requested that the State Department make public all documents from her time at the agency. The State Department has said it’s working though these documents – which include 55,000 pages – for review.
The agency has also said it will focus on vetting the 300 pages the Benghazi Committee has already received. Kendall said the State Department is “uniquely positioned” to respond to requests for additional documents, a sign from Clinton’s camp that they believe she has fully responded to any standing legal requests.
Kendall added, “Thus, there are no hdr22@clintonemail.com e-mails from Secretary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State on the server for any review, even if such review were appropriate or legally authorized.”
The letter added that requests from a second email, hrod17@clintonemail.com, are not germane as that address was “not an address that existed during Secretary Clinton’s tenure.”
Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the Benghazi panel, said Clinton’s response “confirms” that the former secretary of state has provided all documents related to the Benghazi attacks to the committee.
“This confirms what we all knew—that Secretary Clinton already produced her official records to the State Department, that she did not keep her personal emails, and that the Select Committee has already obtained her emails relating to the attacks in Benghazi,” said Cummings (D-Md.). “It is time for the Committee to stop this political charade and instead make these documents public and schedule Secretary Clinton’s public testimony now.”
The move all but ensures congressional Republicans’ focus on Clinton will intensify. The Benghazi panel has already said it will bring Clinton in to testify at least twice — once privately about her email use while at State and at another public hearing on the Obama administration’s reaction to Benghazi. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has also signaled plans to investigate Clinton’s use of private email.
Gowdy’s subpoenas came after it was reported that Clinton stored her emails on a private server and used a personal email address while at the State Department. Clinton has already made more than 900 pages of emails available to the committee but the panel has requested the entire swath of documents – a request Gowdy has repeatedly said is necessary to conduct a thorough investigation into the 2012 terrorist attacks.
To be fair, nefarious purpose or not, it would be good practice to completely wipe and destroy any private property that remained in private possession which may contain classified material to prevent it from being stolen.
Of course better practice would have been to have the DoS examine and certify that all work emails were backed up and turned over, but of course that would be a worthless certification provided by yet another Obama stooge.
d-usa wrote: To be fair, nefarious purpose or not, it would be good practice to completely wipe and destroy any private property that remained in private possession which may contain classified material to prevent it from being stolen.
Absolutely. But not in the middle of an investigation
d-usa wrote: Of course better practice would have been to have the DoS examine and certify that all work emails were backed up and turned over, but of course that would be a worthless certification provided by yet another Obama stooge.
Strange that the fear of an "Obama stooge" didn't stop the Committee asking that the server be turned over"to the Inspector General for the State Department or any other independent arbiter for analysis,”. Mrs. Clinton refused.
d-usa wrote: To be fair, nefarious purpose or not, it would be good practice to completely wipe and destroy any private property that remained in private possession which may contain classified material to prevent it from being stolen.
Of course better practice would have been to have the DoS examine and certify that all work emails were backed up and turned over, but of course that would be a worthless certification provided by yet another Obama stooge.
If there is even a chance you spilled classified onto a non-Govt system (or even a Gov't system not on the classified network) you screwed up to begin with and are supposed to unplug the 'contaminated' device from all networks and turn it in so a damage assessment and proper cleaning/destruction can be done. And then you are supposed to undergo an investigation as to how/why classified got off the classified network in the first place.
Now, as far as I know, Sec Clinton stated she never had classified on this system. But if she did, and then wiped it without it having gone through the proper process and investigation, she screwed up.
An independent person, such as the IG would have been her best bet, but we both know that it wouldn't have stopped any of the political movements against her based on this.
(But again, "that won't make them happy" is never a valid reason for not doing the right thing)
But we both know, and she should have known, that this was going to never be something that will be dropped by anyone the moment she saved her first email on the server. At that point the critics began to always have an opening, and you can't really do anything against that.
Server exists: "why did she do this, she must be hiding something".
Turns over emails: "these are not all the emails"
Turns over server to independent agency: "they agency is still part of the administration", "she had experts clean the server prior to turning it over", "how do we know this is the only server"
Even if she did absolutely nothing wrong (which is not what I'm arguing) the mere existence of the server is a giant mistake that she will never be able to fully mitigate and people will be able to build arguments about how she might still be hiding stuff for the rest of her political life.
d-usa wrote: Even if she did absolutely nothing wrong (which is not what I'm arguing) the mere existence of the server is a giant mistake that she will never be able to fully mitigate and people will be able to build arguments about how she might still be hiding stuff for the rest of her political life.
Server exists: "why did she do this, she must be hiding something".
Turns over emails: "these are not all the emails"
Wipes server: "she must be hiding something"
Turns over server to independent agency: "they agency is still part of the administration", "she had experts clean the server prior to turning it over", "how do we know this is the only server", "she is hiding something"
Fixed
We can pretend that in the grand scheme of things it would have made a difference if she didn't wipe the server, but it wouldn't have done anything to silence the criticism that she left herself wipe open for.
Server exists: "why did she do this, she must be hiding something".
Turns over emails: "these are not all the emails"
Wipes server: "she must be hiding something"
Turns over server to independent agency: "they agency is still part of the administration", "she had experts clean the server prior to turning it over", "how do we know this is the only server", "she is hiding something"
Fixed
We can pretend that in the grand scheme of things it would have made a difference if she didn't wipe the server, but it wouldn't have done anything to silence the criticism that she left herself wipe open for.
She is in politics, and has been most of her life. She was always going to get criticism, but by taking reasonable steps to mitigate against criticism (turning over the emails, turning the server over to an independent agency) then the cries of her opponents look more hollow and desperate, and less credible. Hilary is a shrewd politician, she would not be in politics for so long otherwise. That she took the path she has is interesting.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: She was always going to get criticism, but by taking reasonable steps to mitigate against criticism (turning over the emails, turning the server over to an independent agency) then the cries of her opponents look more hollow and desperate, and less credible.
I just don't think that handing over the server would have done anything to mitigate the criticism. The same crowd will always cry the same cries and they will just find another way to argue that she is hiding things such as claiming that the server she turned over was tampered with, that it wasn't the right/only server, that the IG is acting on direct orders by Obama to whitewash the problem, etc etc etc.
But again, I do agree 100% that turning over the server to the IG would have been the right thing to do. And I would never argue against the possibility that she could be hiding stuff.
Hilary is a shrewd politician, she would not be in politics for so long otherwise. That she took the path she has is interesting.
d-usa wrote: I just don't think that handing over the server would have done anything to mitigate the criticism. The same crowd will always cry the same cries and they will just find another way to argue that she is hiding things such as claiming that the server she turned over was tampered with, that it wasn't the right/only server, that the IG is acting on direct orders by Obama to whitewash the problem, etc etc etc.
But again, I do agree 100% that turning over the server to the IG would have been the right thing to do. And I would never argue against the possibility that she could be hiding stuff.
And so what if they do? By playing nice it gives you more room for maneuver, establishes good faith, persuades those on the fence, and makes your opponents look desperate. There is everything to gain for Clinton, and little to lose
d-usa wrote: It really feels somewhat amateurish doesn't it.
It really does, and to some that looks like weakness
Nixon recorded everything, the paranoid nut that he was in many ways. My question was, was it mandatory? Is it mandatory now? If not, what makes anybody think that Clinton would have put anything in email format, even if it were on her own server which could be hacked, that could come back to haunt her? Presumably she would have had those conversations via phone.
You know, the biggest problem I have with all this is the fact that it's basically a witch hunt using taxpayer money...Wasting taxpayer money to try to find anything that might possibly stick...
skyth wrote: You know, the biggest problem I have with all this is the fact that it's basically a witch hunt using taxpayer money...Wasting taxpayer money to try to find anything that might possibly stick...
That isn't a recent development... that's been politics for a long time now.
Does Carly have what it takes to pretend she might be the next president for 11 long months?
How well will this boost sales of her new book, out in 6 weeks? Will Mrs. Palin have to come out strongly against her, lest she cut into her share of rube-fleecing? Time will tell.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton emailed her staff on an iPad as well as a BlackBerry while secretary of state, despite her explanation she exclusively used a personal email address on a homebrew server so that she could carry a single device, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
The State Department released a total of four emails between Clinton and her top advisers as part of a Freedom of Information Act request filed in 2013 by the AP, which sought Clinton's correspondence with senior advisers over a four-year period relating to drone strikes overseas and U.S. surveillance programs.
While limited, the emails offer one of the first looks into Clinton's correspondence while secretary of state. The messages came from and were sent to her private email address, hosted on a server at her property in Chappaqua, New York, as opposed to a government-run email account.
They show that Clinton, on at least one occasion, accidentally mingled personal and work matters. In reply to a message sent in September 2011 by adviser Huma Abedin to Clinton's personal email account, which contained an AP story about a drone strike in Pakistan, Clinton mistakenly replied with questions that appear to be about decorations.
"I like the idea of these," she wrote to Abedin. "How high are they? What would the bench be made of? And I'd prefer two shelves or attractive boxes/baskets/ conmtainers (sic) on one. What do you think?"
Abedin replied, "Did you mean to send to me?" To which Clinton wrote, "No-sorry! Also, pls let me know if you got a reply from my ipad. I'm not sure replies go thru."
The other emails between Clinton and her advisers provided by the State Department contained a summary of a 2011 meeting between Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and senior Egyptian officials in Cairo. It was uncensored and did not appear to contain sensitive information. That email was forwarded to Clinton's private account from Abedin's government email address.
In another note, Clinton expressed apparent dismay at leaks of classified U.S. government information to the media. Referencing a CNN story, which described "loose lips" in the Obama administration, she asked two officials if she should comment on the matter as had Leon Panetta, the former Central Intelligence Agency director.
"I think this is both dishonorable and dangerous and want to find way to say it," she wrote.
Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said early Tuesday that the secretary used her iPad from time to time, primarily to read news clippings.
At the United Nations earlier this month, Clinton said she chose a personal account over a government one out of convenience, describing it as a way to carry a single device, rather than one for work emails and another for personal messages.
"Looking back, it would have been probably, you know, smarter to have used two devices," Clinton said. Her office that day released a statement saying she "wanted the simplicity of using one device."
Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, a year before Apple Inc. released the iPad. Clinton at that time could have potentially split her accounts, reverting to an official State.gov email account and BlackBerry for work and leaving her personal email on her iPad.
Clinton has said she exchanged about 60,000 emails in her four years in the Obama administration, about half of which were work-related. She said none contained classified information, and that her private email system did not suffer any security breaches.
The highly unusual practice of a Cabinet-level official physically running her own email server gave Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination should she run as expected, complete control over access to her message archives.
Clinton said she deleted emails — some 30,000 in total — that she described as personal in nature, such as yoga routines, plans for her mother's funeral or her daughter's wedding. It's not clear how Clinton handled emails that mixed personal and official business, such as the exchange with Abedin.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., the chairman of a House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks, said Clinton wiped her email server "clean," permanently deleting all emails from it and has declined to relinquish her server to a third party for an independent review.
Clinton's attorney said she had turned over to the State Department all work-related emails sent or received during her tenure and it would make no sense to turn over her server, since "no emails ... reside on the server or on any backup systems associated with the server."
The emails obtained by AP stem from several public-records requests filed with the State Department, starting in 2010. Most were unfulfilled until this week, when the State Department said it could find only four messages that met the search terms of one such request.
Earlier this month, AP sued the department to force the release of email correspondence and government documents from Clinton's tenure as secretary of state, including those provided by the department this week.
The FOIA requests and federal lawsuit sought materials related to Clinton's public and private calendars; correspondence involving aides likely to play important roles in her expected campaign for president; and Clinton-related emails about the Osama bin Laden raid and controversial U.S. surveillance practices.
(Reuters) - Big Wall Street banks are so upset with U.S. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren's call for them to be broken up that some have discussed withholding campaign donations to Senate Democrats in symbolic protest, sources familiar with the discussions said.
Representatives from Citigroup, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, have met to discuss ways to urge Democrats, including Warren and Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, to soften their party's tone toward Wall Street, sources familiar with the discussions said this week.
Every one of those groups can go frell themselves with a pitchfork sideways with the damage they have done and continue to do to this country. Buncha collaborative psychopaths competing to see who can be the biggest phallus to the American government and the American people. Bank of America, especially, has continually escaped punishment for its shenanigans because it is the stool pigeon that immediately turns on the others at even the slightest hint of federal interest in their activities.
Correction: they forced him to go through with a deal that was already in progress and under contract.
Bank of America: We'll totally buy them and write off the meager losses! Tax profit!
*countrywide drops a huge fart*
Bank of America: Oh, no way, I don't want to do this anymore.
Feds: Sorry dude, you signed, no backsies.
The Journal reported at the time of the Countrywide purchase that regulators didn't push the deal. "There was no encouragement in all this," then-Chief Executive Kenneth Lewis said. "It doesn't mean they're not happy we did it, but there was no pressure at all and no prior discussions."
I mean, he's the one that actually started the deal in the first place. Does he not know what really went on?
edit: frickin WSJ. Apparently you'll give me the full article if I click a google search result, but then won't let me link it.
Edit: Here's a CNN article before the actual crash. Remember, everyone was talking about how awesome a move this was for BofA right up until the bottom fully fell out of Countrywide.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton emailed her staff on an iPad as well as a BlackBerry while secretary of state, despite her explanation she exclusively used a personal email address on a homebrew server so that she could carry a single device, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
The State Department released a total of four emails between Clinton and her top advisers as part of a Freedom of Information Act request filed in 2013 by the AP, which sought Clinton's correspondence with senior advisers over a four-year period relating to drone strikes overseas and U.S. surveillance programs.
While limited, the emails offer one of the first looks into Clinton's correspondence while secretary of state. The messages came from and were sent to her private email address, hosted on a server at her property in Chappaqua, New York, as opposed to a government-run email account.
They show that Clinton, on at least one occasion, accidentally mingled personal and work matters. In reply to a message sent in September 2011 by adviser Huma Abedin to Clinton's personal email account, which contained an AP story about a drone strike in Pakistan, Clinton mistakenly replied with questions that appear to be about decorations.
"I like the idea of these," she wrote to Abedin. "How high are they? What would the bench be made of? And I'd prefer two shelves or attractive boxes/baskets/ conmtainers (sic) on one. What do you think?"
Abedin replied, "Did you mean to send to me?" To which Clinton wrote, "No-sorry! Also, pls let me know if you got a reply from my ipad. I'm not sure replies go thru."
The other emails between Clinton and her advisers provided by the State Department contained a summary of a 2011 meeting between Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and senior Egyptian officials in Cairo. It was uncensored and did not appear to contain sensitive information. That email was forwarded to Clinton's private account from Abedin's government email address.
In another note, Clinton expressed apparent dismay at leaks of classified U.S. government information to the media. Referencing a CNN story, which described "loose lips" in the Obama administration, she asked two officials if she should comment on the matter as had Leon Panetta, the former Central Intelligence Agency director.
"I think this is both dishonorable and dangerous and want to find way to say it," she wrote.
Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said early Tuesday that the secretary used her iPad from time to time, primarily to read news clippings.
At the United Nations earlier this month, Clinton said she chose a personal account over a government one out of convenience, describing it as a way to carry a single device, rather than one for work emails and another for personal messages.
"Looking back, it would have been probably, you know, smarter to have used two devices," Clinton said. Her office that day released a statement saying she "wanted the simplicity of using one device."
Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, a year before Apple Inc. released the iPad. Clinton at that time could have potentially split her accounts, reverting to an official State.gov email account and BlackBerry for work and leaving her personal email on her iPad.
Clinton has said she exchanged about 60,000 emails in her four years in the Obama administration, about half of which were work-related. She said none contained classified information, and that her private email system did not suffer any security breaches.
The highly unusual practice of a Cabinet-level official physically running her own email server gave Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination should she run as expected, complete control over access to her message archives.
Clinton said she deleted emails — some 30,000 in total — that she described as personal in nature, such as yoga routines, plans for her mother's funeral or her daughter's wedding. It's not clear how Clinton handled emails that mixed personal and official business, such as the exchange with Abedin.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., the chairman of a House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks, said Clinton wiped her email server "clean," permanently deleting all emails from it and has declined to relinquish her server to a third party for an independent review.
Clinton's attorney said she had turned over to the State Department all work-related emails sent or received during her tenure and it would make no sense to turn over her server, since "no emails ... reside on the server or on any backup systems associated with the server."
The emails obtained by AP stem from several public-records requests filed with the State Department, starting in 2010. Most were unfulfilled until this week, when the State Department said it could find only four messages that met the search terms of one such request.
Earlier this month, AP sued the department to force the release of email correspondence and government documents from Clinton's tenure as secretary of state, including those provided by the department this week.
The FOIA requests and federal lawsuit sought materials related to Clinton's public and private calendars; correspondence involving aides likely to play important roles in her expected campaign for president; and Clinton-related emails about the Osama bin Laden raid and controversial U.S. surveillance practices.
Okay... work with me here guys...
I'm going to start with a hypothetical with me & my job.
I work as an IT professional for one of the largest Healthcare system in the Midwest.
I have, at my finger tips, access to all patient informations including: -patient hospital visits -insurance information -patient demographic (age, sex, religion, address, phone, email, next of kin, parents name, SSN, license #, etc..) -patient account information access (would you like for me to credit chartes? ) -and them some.
Point being, it's a treasure trove of information for me to "be the bad guy"... anywhere from Identity Theft, Insurance Fraud, Embessalment, etc...
Hence, as a requirement of my job, I not only have to understand the applicable laws (hippa, sarb-ox, etc...) I'm required to use my work email for all work related activites.
If I get caught sending patient information, or even work sensitive materials via my gmail account. I'm boned. Seriously 100% Boned so hard, that losing my job is the least of my worries. I'd be reported to local, state AND federal authorities.
And now... look at the cavalier way HRC handled classified materials and communication meant to be archived for public records...
I thought you point was that she wouldn't be affected by this at all politically? So do you find your job to be to influence one dakka member to be influenced? Not really sure what your angle here is other than to promote your own political ideology an demote those you oppose.
And unless the GOP starts to learn that there is no way to beat the Clinton's with "scandals," they have no shot in ever beating them in an election. They will have to be beat on personality or positions. For fething sake, Bill was getting bjs in the Oval Office and cheating on his wife plus the other twenty or so "scandals" the GOP was scrounging up, and he still walloped a decorated WWII vet with over thirty years in the senate. Granted, Dole did try to run on policy, but he had the personality of his wooden hand and the republican machine behind him only wanted to talk about the scandals anyway.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I thought you point was that she wouldn't be affected by this at all politically? So do you find your job to be to influence one dakka member to be influenced? Not really sure what your angle here is other than to promote your own political ideology an demote those you oppose.
And unless the GOP starts to learn that there is no way to beat the Clinton's with "scandals," they have no shot in ever beating them in an election. They will have to be beat on personality or positions. For fething sake, Bill was getting bjs in the Oval Office and cheating on his wife plus the other twenty or so "scandals" the GOP was scrounging up, and he still walloped a decorated WWII vet with over thirty years in the senate. Granted, Dole did try to run on policy, but he had the personality of his wooden hand and the republican machine behind him only wanted to talk about the scandals anyway.
I don't HRC to win.
But, I'm not quite convinced any GOP candidates can take her on during the election season.
Harry Reid, D-Nev. has no regrets about his 2012 claims that then presidential candidate Mitt Romney paid no taxes for 10 years.
The outgoing Senate Minority Leader even bragged to CNN that the comments, which had been described as McCarthyism, helped keep Romney from winning the election.
"They can call it whatever they want. Romney didn't win did he?" Reid said during a wide-ranging interview.
So, in Reid's world, it is perfectly acceptable to make a defamatory charge against an opponent to damage his campaign.
Reid first made the accusation against the former Massachusetts governor in a 2012 interview with the Huffington Post. At the time, Reid claimed that a Bain Capital investor told him Romney didn't pay taxes for the previous 10 years. This, Reid claimed, was why Romney hadn't released his tax returns.
"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years!" Reid said. "Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain, but obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?"
A few days after the HuffPo interview, Reid made the same charge on the Senate floor, this time claiming as fact that Romney paid no taxes.
"As we know, he has refused to release his tax returns. If a person coming before this body wanted to be a Cabinet officer, he couldn't be if he had the same refusal Mitt Romney does about tax returns," Reid said. "So the word is out that he has not paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove he has paid taxes, because he has not."
Even though Reid made a slanderous statement that Romney had in fact paid not taxes, without mentioning anything about his Bain source or skepticism, he cannot be sued for that particular statement. Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution states that members of Congress shall "be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." The only exceptions to this rule are for treason, felonies and "breach of the peace."
After his floor speech, Reid made the claim again, except this time he again cited his "extremely credible source" for the accusation.
So when Reid directly accused Romney of being a tax dodge, he did so from the safety of the Senate floor. Outside the protection of legislative immunity, Romney was only possibly a tax dodge.
Not only does Reid not think he did anything wrong, he's actually proud that his lies might have helped cost Romney the election.
Note: The Washington Post's fact checker gave Reid "4 Pinocchios" for his claims. PolitiFact gave the claim a "pants on fire" rating.
When you get down to it, what Reid did is no different than me saying:
I think it is very important that we reiterate that there is no proof to the allegation that Reid's recent injuries were caused by the father of one of the children he was molesting. None at all!
Tu quoque (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position. It attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This attempts to dismiss opponent's position based on criticism of the opponent's inconsistency and not the position presented
Tu quoque (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position. It attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This attempts to dismiss opponent's position based on criticism of the opponent's inconsistency and not the position presented
It isn't tu quoque because I'm not defending Reid nor denying that the author has a valid argument, merely pointing out the irony of that statement.
You do not have to defend Reid, you merely have to attempt to point out the inconsistency in the other's position. What you have done is textbook tu quoque.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Bob Menendez, the son of Cuban immigrants who rose to become one of the highest-ranking Hispanic members of Congress, was charged Wednesday with accepting nearly $1 million worth of gifts and campaign contributions from a longtime friend in exchange for a stream of political favors.
Menendez predicted he would be "vindicated" and said "this is not how my career is going to end" in a defiant statement in front of reporters and cheering supporters Wednesday evening.
"I am not going anywhere. I'm angry and ready to fight because today contradicts my public service and my entire life," he said.
A federal grand jury indictment accuses the New Jersey Democrat of using the power of his Senate seat to benefit Dr. Salomon Melgen, a wealthy Florida eye doctor who prosecutors say provided the senator with luxury vacations, airline travel, golf trips and tens of thousands of dollars in contributions to a legal defense fund.
The indictment from a federal grand jury in Newark contains 14 counts — including bribery, conspiracy and false statements — against Menendez and also charges Melgen, a political donor to Menendez and other Democrats.
Menendez is scheduled to appear in federal court in Newark, New Jersey, on Thursday.
The criminal charges cloud the political future of the top Democrat — and former chairman — of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who has played a leading role on Capitol Hill on matters involving Iran's nuclear program and U.S. efforts to improve ties with Cuba. Two people familiar with Menendez's situation who were not authorized to discuss the senator's plans publicly said Menendez would voluntarily and temporarily step aside from his role as top Democrat on the committee.
Melgen's attorney did not immediately return a call seeking comment Wednesday.
The indictment will almost certainly lead to a drawn-out legal fight between Menendez and a team of Justice Department corruption prosecutors who have spent at least two years investigating his ties to Melgen. It will require prosecutors to prove that a close and longtime friendship between the men was used for criminal purposes and is likely to revive legal debate about the constitutional protections afforded to members of Congress for acts they take while in office.
The indictment marks the latest development in a federal investigation that came into public view when federal authorities raided Melgen's medical offices in 2013.
Menendez acknowledged around that time that he had taken several round-trip flights to the Dominican Republic on Melgen's luxury jet that, initially, were not properly reimbursed. But the 68-page document spells out additional gifts, such as a Paris hotel stay and access to a Dominican resort, that were not reported on financial disclosure forms.
In exchange for those and other gifts, prosecutors allege, Menendez sought to smooth approval of the visa application process for several of Melgen's foreign girlfriends, sought to protect a lucrative contract Melgen held to provide cargo screening services to the Dominican Republic and intervened in a Medicare billing dispute on the doctor's behalf worth millions of dollars.
In 2013, in an email exchange one day after Melgen and Menendez had golfed together in Florida, Menendez told his chief counsel to contact U.S. Customs and Border Protection to ask the agency to stop donating shipping container monitoring and surveillance equipment to the Dominican Republic, according to the indictment. Melgen had a contract to provide exclusive cargo screening in Dominican ports, and the CBP plan would have hurt his financial interests, prosecutors say.
Menendez has acknowledged taking actions that could benefit Melgen, among them contacting U.S. health agencies to ask about billing practices and policies. But the lawmaker has said he did nothing wrong and that the interactions he had with the doctor were reflections of a close friendship dating two decades.
"We celebrated holidays together," he told reporters last month amid news reports of a looming indictment. "We have been there for family weddings and sad times like funerals and have given each other birthday, holiday and wedding presents, just as friends do."
Melgen himself came under renewed scrutiny when government data last year showed he had received more in Medicare reimbursements in 2012 than any other doctor in the country.
According to the Senate Historical Office, Menendez is the 12th senator to be indicted and the first since the late Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, was indicted in 2008 on charges of not reporting hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of home renovations. Stevens was convicted but the charges were later dismissed.
Menendez is also the second New Jersey senator to be indicted. Harrison Williams Jr., a Democrat, was indicted in 1980 on corruption charges and convicted of bribery and other counts the following year. Williams resigned before the Senate could vote on whether to expel him.
Menendez, 61, joined the Senate in 2006 after serving more than a decade in the House of Representatives. A lawyer and former mayor of Union City, New Jersey, Menendez also served in the New Jersey General Assembly and state Senate.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You do not have to defend Reid, you merely have to attempt to point out the inconsistency in the other's position. What you have done is textbook tu quoque.
No, it really isn't because I'm not trying to discredit the author's position nor am I saying that they are wrong (which they aren't; Reid lied and has no qualms about it). If I said they were wrong or that Reid was right to say what he said, you'd have an argument here, but I didn't. Merely pointing out that the paper is being hypocritical (which it is) but also agreeing that they are correct isn't an appeal to hypocrisy.
So before you rush to cry "fallacy!" perhaps you should get a better understanding of what you're accusing people of.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You do not have to defend Reid, you merely have to attempt to point out the inconsistency in the other's position. What you have done is textbook tu quoque.
No, it really isn't because I'm not trying to discredit the author's position nor am I saying that they are wrong (which they aren't; Reid lied and has no qualms about it). If I said they were wrong or that Reid was right to say what he said, you'd have an argument here, but I didn't. Merely pointing out that the paper is being hypocritical (which it is) but also agreeing that they are correct isn't an appeal to hypocrisy.
So before you rush to cry "fallacy!" perhaps you should get a better understanding of what you're accusing people of.
The supplied quote appears to disagree with you. Rather than derail the thread further if you want to continue this off-topic discussion I'll be happy to oblige you via PM as I do not intend to continue this discussion in thread.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:Tu quoque (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position. It attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This attempts to dismiss opponent's position based on criticism of the opponent's inconsistency and not the position presented
Dreadclaw69 wrote:You do not have to defend Reid, you merely have to attempt to point out the inconsistency in the other's position. What you have done is textbook tu quoque.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: No, it really isn't because I'm not trying to discredit the author's position nor am I saying that they are wrong.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:The supplied quote appears to disagree with you.
No, it really doesn't, not in plain and clear english. There is an intent element obviously present: "or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's position ", from the quote, in part. Scooty at no point "tried to discredit the position" that Reid was a douche, he simply pointed out the irony of the douche kettle calling the douche pot a douche.
From the link provided; " It attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This attempts to dismiss opponent's position based on criticism of the opponent's inconsistency and not the position presented".
informal — used to say that a person's comment or criticism is surprising or amusing because the same comment or criticism could be made about that person
Michelle Bachmann wrote:With his Iran deal, Barack Obama is for the 300 million souls of the United States what Andreas Lubitz was for the 150 souls on the German Wings flight - a deranged pilot flying his entire nation into the rocks. After the fact, among the smoldering remains of American cities, the shocked survivors will ask, why did he do it?
Michelle Bachmann wrote:With his Iran deal, Barack Obama is for the 300 million souls of the United States what Andreas Lubitz was for the 150 souls on the German Wings flight - a deranged pilot flying his entire nation into the rocks. After the fact, among the smoldering remains of American cities, the shocked survivors will ask, why did he do it?
Michelle Bachmann wrote:With his Iran deal, Barack Obama is for the 300 million souls of the United States what Andreas Lubitz was for the 150 souls on the German Wings flight - a deranged pilot flying his entire nation into the rocks. After the fact, among the smoldering remains of American cities, the shocked survivors will ask, why did he do it?
To paraphrase Robert Downey Jr; you never go full Michelle Bachmann
I've kind of been depressed over politics her in NY. There so so much damn corruption. It's not even something like "Republicans are taking money from corporations" or "Democrats are taking money from unions", it's just strait up corruption from both sides of the isle. And if it's not corruption, it's using their power to protect themselves from political gaffs.
Our assembly speaker just got arrested for corruption, so their is some hope, but it's a pit right now. I think this might be one of the few times in history that Albany is worse than NYC.
Even Cuomo, who fething ran on anti-corruption and clean elections has done jack-gak. He even limited what the Moreland commission could look at to protect himself, and then disbanded it before it found anything useful about anything.
Co'tor Shas wrote: He even limited what the Moreland commission could look at to protect himself, and then disbanded it before it found anything useful about anything.
That right there will kill any national aspiration for Presidency for Cuomo...
Co'tor Shas wrote: He even limited what the Moreland commission could look at to protect himself, and then disbanded it before it found anything useful about anything.
That right there will kill any national aspiration for Presidency for Cuomo...
Sounds like the perfect qualification to run the Most Transparent Administration Ever, Part II
I doubt it, he hasn't actually done anything legally wrong, he's just protecting himself politically. People have been elected after much worse. The SAFE act is probably going to hurt him more.
I kind of wish it was true though. I have no love for Coumo, even my parents, die-hard democrats, don't like him. He's a politician, and does and says whatever he has to to be elected. This does make him quite popular with a lot of the unaffiliated. He tends to lean towards the middle in a lot of economic issues, but liberal on social issues.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Bob Menendez, the son of Cuban immigrants who rose to become one of the highest-ranking Hispanic members of Congress, was charged Wednesday with accepting nearly $1 million worth of gifts and campaign contributions from a longtime friend in exchange for a stream of political favors.
Menendez predicted he would be "vindicated" and said "this is not how my career is going to end" in a defiant statement in front of reporters and cheering supporters Wednesday evening.
"I am not going anywhere. I'm angry and ready to fight because today contradicts my public service and my entire life," he said.
A federal grand jury indictment accuses the New Jersey Democrat of using the power of his Senate seat to benefit Dr. Salomon Melgen, a wealthy Florida eye doctor who prosecutors say provided the senator with luxury vacations, airline travel, golf trips and tens of thousands of dollars in contributions to a legal defense fund.
The indictment from a federal grand jury in Newark contains 14 counts — including bribery, conspiracy and false statements — against Menendez and also charges Melgen, a political donor to Menendez and other Democrats.
Menendez is scheduled to appear in federal court in Newark, New Jersey, on Thursday.
The criminal charges cloud the political future of the top Democrat — and former chairman — of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who has played a leading role on Capitol Hill on matters involving Iran's nuclear program and U.S. efforts to improve ties with Cuba. Two people familiar with Menendez's situation who were not authorized to discuss the senator's plans publicly said Menendez would voluntarily and temporarily step aside from his role as top Democrat on the committee.
Melgen's attorney did not immediately return a call seeking comment Wednesday.
The indictment will almost certainly lead to a drawn-out legal fight between Menendez and a team of Justice Department corruption prosecutors who have spent at least two years investigating his ties to Melgen. It will require prosecutors to prove that a close and longtime friendship between the men was used for criminal purposes and is likely to revive legal debate about the constitutional protections afforded to members of Congress for acts they take while in office.
The indictment marks the latest development in a federal investigation that came into public view when federal authorities raided Melgen's medical offices in 2013.
Menendez acknowledged around that time that he had taken several round-trip flights to the Dominican Republic on Melgen's luxury jet that, initially, were not properly reimbursed. But the 68-page document spells out additional gifts, such as a Paris hotel stay and access to a Dominican resort, that were not reported on financial disclosure forms.
In exchange for those and other gifts, prosecutors allege, Menendez sought to smooth approval of the visa application process for several of Melgen's foreign girlfriends, sought to protect a lucrative contract Melgen held to provide cargo screening services to the Dominican Republic and intervened in a Medicare billing dispute on the doctor's behalf worth millions of dollars.
In 2013, in an email exchange one day after Melgen and Menendez had golfed together in Florida, Menendez told his chief counsel to contact U.S. Customs and Border Protection to ask the agency to stop donating shipping container monitoring and surveillance equipment to the Dominican Republic, according to the indictment. Melgen had a contract to provide exclusive cargo screening in Dominican ports, and the CBP plan would have hurt his financial interests, prosecutors say.
Menendez has acknowledged taking actions that could benefit Melgen, among them contacting U.S. health agencies to ask about billing practices and policies. But the lawmaker has said he did nothing wrong and that the interactions he had with the doctor were reflections of a close friendship dating two decades.
"We celebrated holidays together," he told reporters last month amid news reports of a looming indictment. "We have been there for family weddings and sad times like funerals and have given each other birthday, holiday and wedding presents, just as friends do."
Melgen himself came under renewed scrutiny when government data last year showed he had received more in Medicare reimbursements in 2012 than any other doctor in the country.
According to the Senate Historical Office, Menendez is the 12th senator to be indicted and the first since the late Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, was indicted in 2008 on charges of not reporting hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of home renovations. Stevens was convicted but the charges were later dismissed.
Menendez is also the second New Jersey senator to be indicted. Harrison Williams Jr., a Democrat, was indicted in 1980 on corruption charges and convicted of bribery and other counts the following year. Williams resigned before the Senate could vote on whether to expel him.
Menendez, 61, joined the Senate in 2006 after serving more than a decade in the House of Representatives. A lawyer and former mayor of Union City, New Jersey, Menendez also served in the New Jersey General Assembly and state Senate.
...
Sen. Robert Menendez’s (N.J.) decision to step aside temporarily as ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee following his indictment on Wednesday could jeopardize Congress’s chances of passing Iran legislation.
Menendez has co-authored legislation with Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) that would allow the Senate to weigh in on any nuclear deal with Iran, and a separate bill that would restore and impose tougher sanctions on Iran if it walks away from talks or violates a deal.
The Foreign Relations Committee is set to vote April 14 on the bill he co-authored with Corker calling for Senate review of an Iran deal. If Menendez is out of the picture long-term, it could sap Democratic support for legislation that the White House has already threatened to veto.
...
Corker is trying to get a non veto proof Bill into the pipe line for Congress to have a say whatever agreement we have with Iran. At the moment it seems we have two version. What Iran out and what Kerry put out.
Doesn't Corker though have both parties support? I don't think anyone knows what kind of deal was hammered out being both sides dialogue don't match up.
,that was over 50 years ago,it is time to move on. I personally agree that Israel is the worst ally that the US could have in that area (possibly tied for first place with Iran - though I am feeling very excited about Obamas re-approachment of Iran, i just wish he did it years ago when Iran had a new president trying for the same thing) due to the potential for volatility and complicated political outcomes.
.
