Mike Webb is a right wing candidate for the United States Congress (VA-8). According to his campaign announcement, he is seeking to start a conservative revolution with a hands-on approach and bring “responsiveness and accountability” to Virginia’s Eighth District via an unlikely victory. He said in a press release:
“If we succeed in winning this race as a conservative Republican in the most liberal district in the nation and the most Democratic in the South, that will be a real revolution that will have national implications.”
Webb has set out to prove his hands-on method by personally taking control of his social media accounts in order to “engage in dialogue” with voters and offer a personal touch. Unfortunately for Webb, he may have gotten too personal. While attempting to prove a point about trying to find jobs, which involved him posting a screenshot of a Yahoo! search to look up a conspiracy theory on Facebook, he forgot to close a few tabs.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: This election has it all. Reality stars, the outsider, threats to leave the country, and now we have The American Revolution 2; Electric Boogaloo
"Due to the obvious farce of Democracy that is Our Presidential Election, We have come to the undeniable conclusion that the Will of the People is no longer the driving force of the American Government."
What a horrible start. One does not use the word Farce nor random capitalizations in the opening line of a Declaration of Independence.
"In conclusion, as a true American Patriot and Citizen, I believe the 2016 Presidential Elections have certified the fact that our Democracy is Dead."
"In conclusion?" What is this, a 7th grade book report?
"We have an irrevocable choice before Us, We can either continue to be oppressed and allow Senator Sanders Political Revolution to be quelled, dismissed, and illegally destroyed, or We can rise up and DEMAND Our Country back. Quoting Abraham Lincoln, "Government For the People, By the People, and Of the People shall not perish from this Earth"; however to Our shame, We have allowed it to perish from the once Great Nation that was The United States of America and it is apparent that the Powers that Be will not surrender it back willingly."
Holy run-on sentence, Batman! Democracy is Dead because Colonel Sanders is losing this primary in an open election per the rules as written.
Mike Webb is a right wing candidate for the United States Congress (VA-8). According to his campaign announcement, he is seeking to start a conservative revolution with a hands-on approach and bring “responsiveness and accountability” to Virginia’s Eighth District via an unlikely victory. He said in a press release:
“If we succeed in winning this race as a conservative Republican in the most liberal district in the nation and the most Democratic in the South, that will be a real revolution that will have national implications.”
Webb has set out to prove his hands-on method by personally taking control of his social media accounts in order to “engage in dialogue” with voters and offer a personal touch. Unfortunately for Webb, he may have gotten too personal. While attempting to prove a point about trying to find jobs, which involved him posting a screenshot of a Yahoo! search to look up a conspiracy theory on Facebook, he forgot to close a few tabs.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: This election has it all. Reality stars, the outsider, threats to leave the country, and now we have The American Revolution 2; Electric Boogaloo
"Due to the obvious farce of Democracy that is Our Presidential Election, We have come to the undeniable conclusion that the Will of the People is no longer the driving force of the American Government."
What a horrible start. One does not use the word Farce nor random capitalizations in the opening line of a Declaration of Independence.
"In conclusion, as a true American Patriot and Citizen, I believe the 2016 Presidential Elections have certified the fact that our Democracy is Dead."
"In conclusion?" What is this, a 7th grade book report?
"We have an irrevocable choice before Us, We can either continue to be oppressed and allow Senator Sanders Political Revolution to be quelled, dismissed, and illegally destroyed, or We can rise up and DEMAND Our Country back. Quoting Abraham Lincoln, "Government For the People, By the People, and Of the People shall not perish from this Earth"; however to Our shame, We have allowed it to perish from the once Great Nation that was The United States of America and it is apparent that the Powers that Be will not surrender it back willingly."
Holy run-on sentence, Batman! Democracy is Dead because Colonel Sanders is losing this primary in an open election per the rules as written.
Bwahahaha! That's some serious butt-hurt there.
And no, we ain't going to have another Rebellion.
In other news... remember that case about Obama's Immigration DACA/DAPA rule change?
The Judge mandated the government lawyers to take ethics classes.
Gordon Shumway wrote: It looks like that petition has a whole whopping 500 supporters. Yup, the revolution will not be televised as it got cancelled due to poor ratings.
And 500 people voluntarily added themselves to the FBI/CIA/Big Brother watch list!
The Government knowingly acted contrary to its representations to this Court on over 100,000 occasions. 11 This Court finds that the misrepresentations detailed above: (1) were false; (2) were made in bad faith; and (3) misled both the Court and the Plaintiff States. ... The misconduct in this case was intentional, serious and material. In fact, it is hard to imagine a more serious, more calculated plan of unethical conduct. There were over 100,000 instances of conduct contrary to counsel’s representations; such a sizable omission cannot be classified as immaterial.
To remedy this, the Judge ordered:
Therefore, this Court, in an effort to ensure that all Justice Department attorneys who appear in the courts of the Plaintiff States that have been harmed by this misconduct are aware of and comply with their ethical duties, hereby orders that any attorney employed at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. who appears, or seeks to appear, in a court (state or federal) in any of the 26 Plaintiff States annually attend a legal ethics course. 15 It shall be taught by at least one recognized ethics expert who is unaffiliated with the Justice Department. At a minimum, this course (or courses) shall total at least three hours of ethics training per year. The subject matter shall include a discussion of the ethical codes of conduct (which will include candor to the court and truthfulness to third parties) applicable in that jurisdiction. The format of this continuing education shall be left to the independent expert lecturer. Self-study or online study will not comply with this Order, but attendance at a recognized, independently sponsored program shall suffice.
!!!!!!!!!!!
Here's da Judge's HAMMER:
The Court does not have the power to disbar the counsel in this case, but it does have the power to revoke the pro hac vice status of out-of-state lawyers who act unethically in court. By a separate sealed order that it is simultaneously issuing, that is being done.
Hooboy.... That means those DOJ attorneys who made the material misrepresentations cannot practice law unless admitted to the state bar in that jurisdiction.
That opinion is very sad. Why did the DOJ attorneys do that? Surely they didn't think that lying about dates of action on the record and in writing wouldn't be an issue? This is bad and an light of similar actions regarding the IRS, indicates a pattern of dishonesty under the current administration. While the State Bar should certainly investigate whether their should be additional disciplinary action, it will do little to address the problems at the top. Hopefully AG Lynch will deal with this issue and make it clear that such behavior is utterly unacceptable and start reversing some of Holder's damage.
“At some point, he could be the tax-collector-in-chief. He’d supervise the IRS, making sure all of us live up to our own tax responsibilities,” said Joe Thorndike, a director at Tax Analysts, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group that specializes in tax policy. “People deserve to know . . . how a person like that plays the game.”
SENATOR BOXER Claims Bernie Supporters Made Her Fear for Her Life: “It Was Scary” (VIDEO)
Senator Barbara Boxer was booed off stage as all hell broke loose at the Nevada Democratic Convention last weekend. She also claims that Bernie Sanders supporters were so unhinged that she feared for her life.
CNN reports:
" Earlier Wednesday, California’s other Democratic senator, Barbara Boxer, said Sanders supporters should attempt “to change the primary process, but not to go out there and throw chairs and to put people’s lives in danger because the democratic process as put forward and ratified by the two parties is being carried out.”
Boxer said she felt threatened after outbursts and threats at the Nevada Democratic Convention from supporters of Sanders over the weekend.
“I feared for my safety and I had a lot of security around me,” she told CNN’s Kate Bolduan on “At This Hour.” “I’ve never had anything like this happen.”
After Sanders supporters thought the Nevada Democratic Convention was being shut down prematurely, shouting ensued and there were reports of chairs being thrown. The phone number and address of the chairwoman of the Nevada Democratic Party, Roberta Lange, was posted on social media — prompting a flood of more than 1,000 calls, angry voicemails, text messages and even death threats.
“It was a scary situation,” said Boxer, a Clinton supporter. “It was frightening. I was on the stage. People were six feet away from me. If I didn’t have a lot of security, I don’t know what would have happened.”
Democrats didn’t seem to mind when Bernie supporters showed up and caused trouble like this at Trump rallies. They didn’t mind it when Bernie supporters threw punches at Trump supporters. But, now that it’s happened to them, it’s a matter of national security.
“At some point, he could be the tax-collector-in-chief. He’d supervise the IRS, making sure all of us live up to our own tax responsibilities,” said Joe Thorndike, a director at Tax Analysts, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group that specializes in tax policy. “People deserve to know . . . how a person like that plays the game.”
I agree with this guy I've never heard of.
Here's what I have trouble understanding...
Are you asking for these tax returns to see if he filed a valid tax return?
Or, is it he paid his 'fair share'?
Or, is it to authenticate that he's truly worth as much as he campaigned on...
... or?
Furthermore, let's say that he legitimately filed his taxes and strategically (legally mind you) minimize his tax liabilities.
Does that hurt Trump? Does it matter that he's really worth 1 Billion... rather than the 10 Billion he's claiming?
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Could be using those morally dubious but legal tax haven things.
Not that it would dissuade anyone who supports him.
Well... I don't support him. But, using tax haven isn't morally dubious. It's legal practice.
The Clinton's has offshore accounts too... but, I don't really care about that. I care more about the shady Clinton Foundation itself for apparent quid pro quo.
“At some point, he could be the tax-collector-in-chief. He’d supervise the IRS, making sure all of us live up to our own tax responsibilities,” said Joe Thorndike, a director at Tax Analysts, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group that specializes in tax policy. “People deserve to know . . . how a person like that plays the game.”
I agree with this guy I've never heard of.
Here's what I have trouble understanding...
Are you asking for these tax returns to see if he filed a valid tax return?
Or, is it he paid his 'fair share'?
Or, is it to authenticate that he's truly worth as much as he campaigned on...
... or?
Furthermore, let's say that he legitimately filed his taxes and strategically (legally mind you) minimize his tax liabilities.
Does that hurt Trump? Does it matter that he's really worth 1 Billion... rather than the 10 Billion he's claiming?
He's still fook'n rich.
I'll bet you real money it's because he isn't as rich as he says he is. He's such a thin-skinned posturing blowhard that "only" having 1 billion instead of 10 is a big deal to a someone with a hands/ego ratio that is off the scale like him.
However, I did read an article (I shared it earlier) that the value Trump is claiming for his properties on his income tax varies significantly from what he is saying they are worth for property taxes.
It's legal to use tax havens and write offs to minimize your taxes, there is nothing wrong with that. The main "problem" would be that he is running on a message of stopping the elite class who are using these loopholes to get out of paying taxes because he thinks rich people should be paying their fair share of taxes.
Not that it would hurt him any at all. We are talking about the guy who talks about how evil China is for stealing our jobs and that he will bring those jobs back to America, while at the same time manufacturing all his crap in China. And people didn't care about that either.
“At some point, he could be the tax-collector-in-chief. He’d supervise the IRS, making sure all of us live up to our own tax responsibilities,” said Joe Thorndike, a director at Tax Analysts, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group that specializes in tax policy. “People deserve to know . . . how a person like that plays the game.”
I agree with this guy I've never heard of.
Here's what I have trouble understanding...
Are you asking for these tax returns to see if he filed a valid tax return?
Or, is it he paid his 'fair share'?
Or, is it to authenticate that he's truly worth as much as he campaigned on...
... or?
Furthermore, let's say that he legitimately filed his taxes and strategically (legally mind you) minimize his tax liabilities.
Does that hurt Trump? Does it matter that he's really worth 1 Billion... rather than the 10 Billion he's claiming?
He's still fook'n rich.
In a sense it does matter because for one thing, part of his story is being a super-successful businessman. Actually this is the only bit of his CV that supposedly looks good, apart from being a reality TV star. Though, saying that, Ronald Reagan was a film star, although compared to Trump, Reagan had a fair bit of political experience as Gov of California, etc.
Anyway, not only are there indications that he isn't nearly as successful at business as he claims, but also, if he is worth 1 bill or 10 bill, it's a lot easier and therefore less impressive to scale those heights if you don't pay any tax.
“At some point, he could be the tax-collector-in-chief. He’d supervise the IRS, making sure all of us live up to our own tax responsibilities,” said Joe Thorndike, a director at Tax Analysts, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group that specializes in tax policy. “People deserve to know . . . how a person like that plays the game.”
I agree with this guy I've never heard of.
Here's what I have trouble understanding...
Are you asking for these tax returns to see if he filed a valid tax return?
Or, is it he paid his 'fair share'?
Or, is it to authenticate that he's truly worth as much as he campaigned on...
... or?
Furthermore, let's say that he legitimately filed his taxes and strategically (legally mind you) minimize his tax liabilities.
Does that hurt Trump? Does it matter that he's really worth 1 Billion... rather than the 10 Billion he's claiming?
He's still fook'n rich.
In a sense it does matter because for one thing, part of his story is being a super-successful businessman. Actually this is the only bit of his CV that supposedly looks good, apart from being a reality TV star. Though, saying that, Ronald Reagan was a film star, although compared to Trump, Reagan had a fair bit of political experience as Gov of California, etc.
Anyway, not only are there indications that he isn't nearly as successful at business as he claims, but also, if he is worth 1 bill or 10 bill, it's a lot easier and therefore less impressive to scale those heights if you don't pay any tax.
That's why.
I agree but at this point, based on all of the ridiculous things he has already said, do you think there is anything he could really say or any new revelations that come forth for people who are supporting him to not do so? I guess it comes down to how many of those people haven't really been paying any attention thus far and so have no idea what he has all said.
Core upporters are already committed and we can see some trad Republicans accommodating themselves to the idea that Trump will be a better President than Clinton.
However there still are the swing voters who might be influenced either way.
These jurist need to bitch-slap these government lawyers like that DACA case:
The IRS’s Ugly Business as Usual ‘How much has really changed?’ a judge asks. Answer: not much. The scandal goes on.
Spoiler:
Amid the drama that is today’s presidential race, serious subjects are getting short shrift. No one is happier about this than Barack Obama. And no agency within that president’s administration is more ecstatic than the Internal Revenue Service.
That tax authority’s targeting of conservative nonprofits ranks as one of the worst federal scandals in modern history. It is topped only by the outrage that no one has been held to account. Or perhaps by the news that the targeting continues to this day.
That detail became clear in an extraordinary recent court hearing, in front of a panel of judges for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The paired cases in the hearing were Linchpins of Liberty, et al. v. United States of America, et al. and True the Vote Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service, et al. They involve several conservative nonprofits—there are 41 in Linchpin—that were, as they said, rounded up and “branded” by the IRS. The groups are still suffering harm, and they want justice.
A lower-court judge had blithely accepted the IRS’s claim that the targeting had stopped, that applications for nonprofit status had been approved, and that the matter was therefore moot.
The federal judges hearing the appeal, among them David B. Sentelle and Douglas H. Ginsburg, weren’t so easily rolled. In a series of probing questions the judges ascertained that at least two of the groups that are party to the lawsuit have still not received their nonprofit approvals. The judges determined that those two groups are 501(c)(4) social-welfare groups, which are subject to far less scrutiny than 501(c)(3) charities, yet are still being harassed by the IRS five years later. The judges were told that not only are the groups still on ice, but that their actions are still being “monitored” by the federal government.
As one lawyer for the plaintiffs noted, despite the IRS’s claim that it got rid of its infamous targeting lists, there is “absolutely no showing” that the agency has in fact stopped using the underlying “criteria” that originally “identified and targeted for mistreatment based on political views.”
The hearing also showed the degree to which the IRS has doubled down on its outrageous revisionist history, and its excuses. IRS lawyers again claimed that the whole targeting affair came down to bad “training” and bad “guidance.” They blew off a Government Accountability Office report that last year found the IRS still had procedures that would allow it to unfairly select organizations for examinations based on religious or political viewpoint. The lawyers’ argument: We wouldn’t do such a thing. Again. Trust us.
More incredibly, the IRS team claimed that the fault for some of the scandal rests with the conservative groups, for not pushing back hard enough during the targeting. In response to complaints that the groups had been forced to hand over confidential information (information the IRS now refuses to destroy), one agency lawyer retorted: “They didn’t have to give the information to the IRS if they thought it was inappropriate, they could have said so.” Really.
The government lawyers also smugly noted that some of the targeted conservative groups had blown their chance for nonprofit approval when they turned down the IRS’s “fast track” procedure (an Obama Treasury creation that bestows nonprofit status on groups that agree to give up their political speech rights). The IRS team even excused its continuing harassment of these groups by blaming Congress: The Obama IRS came up with a new rule in 2013 to help “clarify” nonprofit regulations—by essentially outlawing nonprofit speech—but congressional Republicans keep blocking it.
At one point, an incredulous Judge Sentelle noted that the IRS might be more believable if it had ever shown “a bit more contrition.” He said: “The Court would have to be awfully ignorant not to recognize that there has likely been an egregious violation of the First Amendment rights of American citizens by the IRS, and the IRS to this day seems very resistant to acknowledgment of that.”
An IRS lawyer rolled out the defense used by former agency official Lois Lerner that the targeting was just the unfortunate use of “inappropriate” criteria, but Judge Sentelle reminded the lawyer of the IRS’s vindictiveness. He noted that on one occasion the IRS simply shelved the application of an organization that had sued it. The agency “came to Court not having done anything to eliminate” the problem, he said, so “It’s just hard to find the IRS to be an agency we can trust, isn’t it?”
Judge Sentelle said there is a “pretty good case” that “egregious violations of the Constitution” had been committed, and he dared an IRS lawyer to “stand there with a straight face” and say otherwise. Judge Ginsburg, who spent the hearing catching out the IRS’s conflicting statements, at one point simply asked: “How much has really changed?”
Answer: not much. It was good news, then, that the House Judiciary Committee recently announced it will hold two hearings to examine the conduct of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen in this matter. Donald Trump, as the presumptive GOP nominee, could do worse than to use his megaphone to draw attention to the hearings. The IRS scandal needs to remain a story.
AdeptSister wrote: Can someone explain the logic of Trump attacking president Bill Clinton as an abuser of woman? What is the logic of how this relates to HRC?
That she's an enabler?
Or it's a means to deflect attacks on Trump's issues with women?
Texas Republicans are worried about which bathrooms people use, but maybe they should be more concerned with hiring a proofreader.
Due to an apparent grammatical error, the party’s official platform — the Texas GOP’s policy goals for the upcoming election — declares that more than half of the state is gay:
Homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that has been ordained by God in the Bible, recognized by our nations founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.
Several sharp-eyed readers spotted a few problems with that plank in the party’s platform. As the New Civil Rights Movement noted, the use — or misuse — of the comma in the sentence could suggest that homosexuality is “shared by the majority of Texans.”
NPR also pointed out the sentence’s verb problem: Because the word “has” is used instead of “have,” the sentence means homosexuality “has been ordained by God in the Bible, recognized by our nations founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.”
Let’s not even get into that “nations founders” business.
NPR noted that a similar sentence was included in the 2014 platform, but without the errors.
Grammar aside, the document is both transphobic and homophobic. It calls for laws restricting the rights of trans people to use the bathroom of their gender identity, and orders the state to reject the Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. It also opposes women’s rights, denies climate change and demands a right to teach creationism in public schools.
"If she can't protect his victims, how can she protect the US."
"It's her fault he sticks his penis in other women."
"If my rage-boner lasts more than 4 hours I have to see the doctor, so I have to yell at the Clinton's for something to make it go down."
How would she be responsible? He can makes his only decisions. His actions would be his own. How is it her fault? I am trying to figure out how one can think she is responsible for his actions?
By that logic, can she take credit for his presidency? Did she enable his policies?
Edit: This just seems like a terrible path of attack on all levels...
AdeptSister wrote: How would she be responsible? He can makes his only decisions. His actions would be his own. How is it her fault? I am trying to figure out how one can think she is responsible for his actions?
By that logic, can she take credit for his presidency? Did she enable his policies?
Edit: This just seems like a terrible path of attack on all levels...
Primarily it's a deflection imo, as Trump has issues with women as well...
But to get down to it, Hillary Clinton (and Clintonites) were instrumental in destroying any of the women who claimed the Bill raped, groped or sexually harrassed them.
The whiplash is when she says things like this:
Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported. https://t.co/mkD69RHeBL — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 23, 2015
the Signless wrote: First you elect some democrats/republicans and push the country left/rightwards, then some socialists/libertarians who push it further left/right, then after decades of hard work and campaigning you can elect the left/right wing dream team.
It's true that you can move the Overton window with some patience and a large media apparatus but the critical flaw here is that Democrats and Republicans don't view themselves as merely stepping stones but rather fully fleshed ideologies in their own right and have no interest in paving the way for another lot entirely. The Republicans have done it but they're really not happy about losing control since they banked on angling for votes from current Trump supporters in the decades to come. The Democrats are working to suppress their left wing since the whole Sanders situation has really gotten out of hand. The main difference here is that the GOP had a weak set of candidates to feed Trump with whereas Clinton has been setting herself up as next in line for years now by turning the DNC into a Clinton machine.
And anyway, decades of voting for Democrats hasn't exactly given the US more socialist politicians, now has it, and libertarians aren't necessarily happy about the successes of Republicans. I think your line of reasoning here at best needs a lot of work.
No, I'm pretty sure that if I were to use the phrase "true belief" it would be quickly followed by the phrase "intellectually bankrupt". Believing in things makes you dumb, because you get emotionally attached to them.
Politics without values are monstrous and the idea itself is silly because policies ultimately serve a purpose. Whether it's making sure that everyone graduates high school or making sure that rich people don't pay taxes there is something that someone wants to happen. As soon as you genuinely start to think that the purpose of policy is to make numbers go up or down or sideways in the abstract, you lose control and will find yourself unable to explain why people are growing so unhappy. Nobody actually likes a technocrat.
Politics without values are monstrous and the idea itself is silly because policies ultimately serve a purpose.
But values are almost never directly related to political causes, and when they are it is usually a case of "true belief".
How do you use "values" here, exactly? Either we have a misunderstanding here or you think that the civil rights movement, feminism, workers' rights etc etc don't have anything to do with what people value. A core value in the civil rights movement, for example, was having a vote regardless of your ethnicity. A core value in opposing the civil rights movement was that voting rights should hinge on being of a particular race. And so on. Just to illustrate what I mean.
Yes, talking about American politics in the context of the political beliefs of Americans is navel gazing. Anyhow, this is ridiculous. While you are right in your kind of overall point that yes, truly, Democrats and Republicans have more in common than they do with either Nazis or Communists, that's really a point that I don't think anyone who is currently taking the correct amount of medication was struggling with.
So yes, if you want you can carry on about how Clinton's policies are quite small differences from Trump's plans if we put it on a scale with Nazis at one end and Communists at the other. But please don't do it here. Because this thread struggles with focusing on sensible conversation at the best of times.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: So, the long knives are out for Bernie. I was wondering when the Clinton political machine would shift into high gear.
So in your universe, Clinton is the bad guy when Sanders supporters issue death threats. fething wow.
How do you use "values" here, exactly? Either we have a misunderstanding here or you think that the civil rights movement, feminism, workers' rights etc etc don't have anything to do with what people value. A core value in the civil rights movement, for example, was having a vote regardless of your ethnicity. A core value in opposing the civil rights movement was that voting rights should hinge on being of a particular race. And so on. Just to illustrate what I mean.
I wouldn't say that securing voting rights was a core value of the Civil Rights Movement, I would say doing so followed from the core value of helping out black people.
Feminism and worker's rights are very mixed bags. Worker's rights on their own are a State to State question, and getting a feminist from one wave to agree with one from another usually requires a lot of teeth gnashing.
whembly wrote: Well... I don't support him. But, using tax haven isn't morally dubious. It's legal practice.
Sometimes it's legal, but often it isn't. Whether something is tax avoidance or tax evasion is a lot more subjective that most people like to believe. Not that I'm saying Trump is guilty of any tax evasion, because I honestly have no idea.
And the thing is, Trump's typically had little to no tax to pay because he's got government to agree to that very thing. That's how a lot of successful building projects happen - guys like Trump approach state and local governments, and ask them if they want urban renewal and lots of money spent in the area on a big building project. Of course they do, and all it will cost them is a billion or two in tax credits. Trump has been as good as anyone at working those deals. It's the most likely reason his tax is close to nothing.
Anyhow, as to whether that or anything else in Trump's tax return is legal or moral... it really doesn't matter. What matters is how it will play with the general public. If it turns out the Republican candidate is a billionaire who plays close to no tax, well that's absolute gold to anyone wanting to excite the Democratic base.
Similarly, if it turns out Trump is 'only' worth a billion or $500 million, then how does that frame all his brags? If people suddenly see him as trying to overstate himself at every turn, will people start to see past the bluff?
If you think this doesn't worry Trump... well this is the one of a few things in the whole campaign he's tried to hide away, the one possible weakness where he's actually played defence. Compare it to the feud with Megyn Kelly, when called he just went twice as hard. Or on crazy statements on Mexicans - when called he didn't back down, instead he just went twice as hard. But on tax returns he's done everything to hide them - because he knows how they'll play if released.
Well here is a bit of good news for the Clinton camp:
Obama's approval numbers are looking up. Probably a result of the unpopularity of the current presidential soon to be nominees, but it does bode well for Clinton as she is largely running a third term Obama campaign.
Obama's approval numbers are looking up. Probably a result of the unpopularity of the current presidential soon to be nominees, but it does bode well for Clinton as she is largely running a third term Obama campaign.
Part of it is also some of the shenanigans that Congress is pulling. A lot of people disagreed with the Senate's refusal to consider any nominee for the SC, a lot of people didn't like how Boehner's departure played out, etc.
So in your universe, Clinton is the bad guy when Sanders supporters issue death threats. fething wow.
So are you saying Sanders is a bad guy, because someone claiming to be one of his supporters issued a death threat?
Imagine all the fun we can have judging whole organizations based on the actions of 1 person.
In this case you can't even know for certainty if it was sanders supporters or someone hillary paid to make him look bad. Lets believe your main stream media, it's not like they haven't shown hillary favoritism from the beginning right?
It isn't much of a bet that Trump will say awful things about Clinton with his history of saying horrible things about women who aren't even his opponents in something. The question is whether the attacks will be related to politics or just random misogyny.
He already re-tweeted (and then deleted) a thing attacking Hillary for not stopping Bill from cheating. I would bet money on at least some of the attacks being misogynist.
So in your universe, Clinton is the bad guy when Sanders supporters issue death threats. fething wow.
So are you saying Sanders is a bad guy, because someone claiming to be one of his supporters issued a death threat?
Imagine all the fun we can have judging whole organizations based on the actions of 1 person.
In this case you can't even know for certainty if it was sanders supporters or someone hillary paid to make him look bad. Lets believe your main stream media, it's not like they haven't shown hillary favoritism from the beginning right?
Let's see here, suggesting someone implied something totally not supported by what that person actually said. Impling someone is broad brushing when that wasn't implied, and jumping to conspiracy theories when no evidence suggests it. Good job, you are a stereotype of a Sanders supporter (yeah I am broad brushing, but I'm not impling Sanders is at fault. It's just his supporters. And it isn't based on just one action of one supporter. I have Facebook too, thigh I try not to check it often.
sirlynchmob wrote: So are you saying Sanders is a bad guy, because someone claiming to be one of his supporters issued a death threat?
Yeah, that only works if Sanders has been the honest, clean campaigner that well, that his true believers like to pretend he is. Instead he's played a very stupid 'it's all rigged against me' narrative from the start. Any time a delegate count has gone one or two against him he's claimed it's because it's all rigged against poor Bernie, even when it's been a random break produced by a rule that's been in place for a decade or more. And when the vagaries of delegation have given him an extra candidate or two... there's been silence.
Sanders supporters are following his cue. And when that's suddenly gotten as extreme as it has - Sanders issed a statement... to complain that the system is rigged because he isn't the nominee.
People in public politics have a responsibility to lead those who support them. Sanders is ignoring that responsibility, because he's so angry about a system that is 'unfairly' giving the guy with the second most votes the second most number of delegates.
In this case you can't even know for certainty if it was sanders supporters or someone hillary paid to make him look bad.
Okay, cool. Let's just start making things up now. I mean, can we really know for sure it wasn't Trump operatives working as moles within the Clinton camp, who were working as moles within the Sanders camp, who are actually lizard people from Kragnar IV? I mean, we all know how the lamestream media has been silent on lizard people from Kragnar IV this whole campaign.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: Doesn't mean that the candidate is a bad person....obviously.
Or do I really need to explain that?
Sure. and if a candidate did nothing to fuel anger among their supporters and it just happened, and then the candidate acts afterwards to ask his supporters to calm down and do things the proper way, then he would be absolved of all blame.
Do I really need to explain that's the opposite of what Sanders has done?
sirlynchmob wrote: So are you saying Sanders is a bad guy, because someone claiming to be one of his supporters issued a death threat?
Yeah, that only works if Sanders has been the honest, clean campaigner that well, that his true believers like to pretend he is. Instead he's played a very stupid 'it's all rigged against me' narrative from the start. Any time a delegate count has gone one or two against him he's claimed it's because it's all rigged against poor Bernie, even when it's been a random break produced by a rule that's been in place for a decade or more. And when the vagaries of delegation have given him an extra candidate or two... there's been silence.
You do realize how delegates work right? bernie has more of them, he has more votes, hillary has the super delegates. the super delegates can vote however they choose, even going against the candidate the people they're supposed to represent want. The electoral college is a big part of what is wrong with your elections. Because what you think
People in public politics have a responsibility to lead those who support them.
sirlynchmob wrote: So are you saying Sanders is a bad guy, because someone claiming to be one of his supporters issued a death threat?
Yeah, that only works if Sanders has been the honest, clean campaigner that well, that his true believers like to pretend he is. Instead he's played a very stupid 'it's all rigged against me' narrative from the start. Any time a delegate count has gone one or two against him he's claimed it's because it's all rigged against poor Bernie, even when it's been a random break produced by a rule that's been in place for a decade or more. And when the vagaries of delegation have given him an extra candidate or two... there's been silence.
You do realize how delegates work right? bernie has more of them, he has more votes, hillary has the super delegates. the super delegates can vote however they choose, even going against the candidate the people they're supposed to represent want. The electoral college is a big part of what is wrong with your elections. Because what you think
People in public politics have a responsibility to lead those who support them.
is not happening.
I'm not sure where you get your information from but I the real wold nope. No matter how you parse it, no matter how much you wish it, nope. And if you somehow disagree, still nope.
sirlynchmob wrote: So are you saying Sanders is a bad guy, because someone claiming to be one of his supporters issued a death threat?
Yeah, that only works if Sanders has been the honest, clean campaigner that well, that his true believers like to pretend he is. Instead he's played a very stupid 'it's all rigged against me' narrative from the start. Any time a delegate count has gone one or two against him he's claimed it's because it's all rigged against poor Bernie, even when it's been a random break produced by a rule that's been in place for a decade or more. And when the vagaries of delegation have given him an extra candidate or two... there's been silence.
You do realize how delegates work right? bernie has more of them, he has more votes, hillary has the super delegates. the super delegates can vote however they choose, even going against the candidate the people they're supposed to represent want. The electoral college is a big part of what is wrong with your elections. Because what you think
People in public politics have a responsibility to lead those who support them.
is not happening.
I'm not sure where you get your information from but I the real wold nope. No matter how you parse it, no matter how much you wish it, nope. And if you somehow disagree, you are a delusional nut. Still nope.
Also... the Electoral College is not really the problem. Since we're a constitutional republic, a direct vote isn't going to be a thing.
Besides.... don't you think the GOP wished they had Super Delegates now?
motyak wrote: Remember rule 1, even if you don't like what someone is saying find a polite way to disagree with it
It isn't a matter of disagreement. Basic facts still have a role in the post Trump world and should be respected. On the other hand, I understand that calling people names does no good and feeds the septic world view, and for that I publicly apologize, Sirlynchmob.
Yes, talking about American politics in the context of the political beliefs of Americans is navel gazing.
It is when all you're doing is saying that Clinton is a leftist because that is how the Democratic Party defines itself in relation to the Republican Party despite the fact that she refuses to advocate for social-democratic, socialist, communist or anarchist policy. "I'm leftier than the party that is now fielding a fascist candidate" is incredibly weak and is questionable anyway because of Trump's populism. Seriously, the guy who wants to throw the Muslims out of the country is one out of two hopefuls who think that the government should do anything at all about healthcare and Clinton aint the other one.
You think it's sensible to narrow in on the differences between two deeply entrenched capitalist parties but that only blinds you to everyone who isn't served by those ideologies and that is a lot of people. Material conditions are only getting worse. If you think that people are frighteningly angry in 2016 you're not going to enjoy 2020. This wilful lack of perspective of where things can go is going to be the downfall of the Democratic Party. They're content with what they currently are and offer because they belong to an economic group that is still quite well off. If they don't pull their heads out of their asses, the next time they see sunlight it's gonna be from on top of poles.
It is when all you're doing is saying that Clinton is a leftist because that is how the Democratic Party defines itself in relation to the Republican Party despite the fact that she refuses to advocate for social-democratic, socialist, communist or anarchist policy.
Hillary Clinton was one of the driving forces behind the push for universal healthcare in the early 90's, to the point where the plan's unofficial name is "Hillarycare". Indeed, Hillary's leading role with regard to healthcare reform is one of the main reasons she is so despised by conservatives. She was also a significant force behind SCHIP's (Federally backed healthcare for families with children) passage.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Doesn't every generation think that their current times are the worst they have ever been? It doesn't make it true.
Not really.... though from what I usually see, "today's generation" is always the heroic one, the last generation fethed it all up, and the next one is totally lazy and gonna ruin all the hard work the "heroes" did.
The only people that I honestly see claiming that the current times are the worst they've ever been are either Millenial Christians, or they are arguing that a specific thing is the worst it's ever been.
It is when all you're doing is saying that Clinton is a leftist because that is how the Democratic Party defines itself in relation to the Republican Party despite the fact that she refuses to advocate for social-democratic, socialist, communist or anarchist policy.
Hillary Clinton was one of the driving forces behind the push for universal healthcare in the early 90's, to the point where the plan's unofficial name is "Hillarycare". Indeed, Hillary's leading role with regard to healthcare reform is one of the main reasons she is so despised by conservatives. She was also a significant force behind SCHIP's (Federally backed healthcare for families with children) passage.
The irony of "Hillarycare" is that Republicans back then shot it down for being "too expensive".... yet I'd bet that many of them who actually voted in the house/senate are now wishing for a "takes-backsies"
The irony of "Hillarycare" is that Republicans back then shot it down for being "too expensive".... yet I'd bet that many of them who actually voted in the house/senate are now wishing for a "takes-backsies"
The main reason the GOP killed it is that they were afraid of losing the middle class vote. This fear was largely created by Bill Kristol, a man who is wrong pretty much every time he speaks.
sirlynchmob wrote: You do realize how delegates work right? bernie has more of them...
The count in pledged delegates is 1,768 to Clinton and 1,494 to Sanders. You are completely wrong.
I look forward to the complaints that maths has a pro-Clinton bias.
he has more votes
Nope. Clinton has received 12.9 million votes. Sanders has received 9.9 million votes. Some more of that Clinton biased maths will tell you Clinton has 3 million more votes.
People in public politics have a responsibility to lead those who support them.
is not happening.
If anyone in the Sanders camp honestly believed that then they would have recognised quite some time ago that more people have supported Clinton. That wouldn't mean dropping out of the campaign, but it would mean an end to the whining about how unfair it is that the candidate with the second most votes and second most pledged delegates is being put in second place. Instead Sanders whoops up conspiracy nonsense - completely irresponsible leadership.
whembly wrote: Since we're a constitutional republic, a direct vote isn't going to be a thing.
I know this has probably been discussed in the other thread, but being a constitutional republic doesn't prohibit a direct voting.
Are you trying to tell me that being a constitutional republic only means that we have:
A) a constitution
B) don't have a monarch or other hereditary head of state
And it doesn't really mean what people often seem to think it means?
I don't disagree with all that...
But, the Constitution defined the Electoral College system. Sure, we could theoretically change it, but it's not likely ever going to change because it's not really that big of an hot issue.
Rosebuddy wrote: It is when all you're doing is saying that Clinton is a leftist because that is how the Democratic Party defines itself in relation to the Republican Party
No, not in relation to the Republican party. In relation to the political beliefs of Americans. We're like four posts in to this and you're still not getting it - the political beliefs of Americans are not actually the same as you, random guy from Sweden. What you see debated on the US national stage is pretty much a reflection of the mainstream spread of US political opinions. Clinton takes up a position on the left of that.
It's that simple. It's absurd that there's been one post explaining this, but we're now at about 5 posts each, back and forth. Just accept this basic, gain a bit of knowledge of how politics works, and move on. You don't have to abandon your slightly re-heated social anarchism, but you will become a much more interesting, and much more insightful person if you applied your personal political belief while maintaining an understanding of how and why the mainstream of politics is as it is.
dogma wrote: Hillary Clinton was one of the driving forces behind the push for universal healthcare in the early 90's, to the point where the plan's unofficial name is "Hillarycare". Indeed, Hillary's leading role with regard to healthcare reform is one of the main reasons she is so despised by conservatives. She was also a significant force behind SCHIP's (Federally backed healthcare for families with children) passage.
A plan she has abandoned in favour of supporting the watered-down ACA, while rejecting a single-payer system because Republicans and the insurance industry oppose it. Clinton doesn't want to fight for anyone. She just wants to win and will adapt her positions accordingly. This is why there is so much venom against Sanders supporters recently. They're not a big enough group to win outright but they're plentiful enough to prove that the nomination isn't just a formality. She has taken longer to take out Sanders than Trump took to win over all the GOP nominees. That kind of thing really tarnishes the narrative of her has the undisputed, rightful heir to the presidency.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Not really.... though from what I usually see, "today's generation" is always the heroic one, the last generation fethed it all up, and the next one is totally lazy and gonna ruin all the hard work the "heroes" did.
I think it's pretty common for every generation to complain that anyone older than them was irresponsible and fethed everything up, while anyone younger is lazy and will ruin everything that's been built up so far. We do like to tell stories in which us and people like us are the heroes.
The irony of "Hillarycare" is that Republicans back then shot it down for being "too expensive".... yet I'd bet that many of them who actually voted in the house/senate are now wishing for a "takes-backsies"
Oh there's so many ironies. I remember the 2008 primary campaign, when Obama and Clinton both agreed that healthcare reform should stop insurance companies from denying coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Clinton said that would create a death spiral unless there was a requirement to have coverage, Obama said that wasn't acceptable. Lots of people thought Clinton was too far right for wanting that, along with Iraq it helped Obama win the nomination. Of course once he got in to office he quickly recognised that you need an individual mandate or else you'll get the death spiral Clinton was talking about.
A plan she has abandoned in favour of supporting the watered-down ACA, while rejecting a single-payer system because Republicans and the insurance industry oppose it. Clinton doesn't want to fight for anyone. She just wants to win and will adapt her positions accordingly.
Single payer wouldn't work in the US, there are far too many legal barriers in place. But, regardless, it is pretty difficult to push for legislation if you can't get elected.
This is why there is so much venom against Sanders supporters recently.
No, the venom is largely the result of Sanders supporters being salty losers who actively push ridiculous conspiracy theories to explain why Sanders is losing.
That kind of thing really tarnishes the narrative of her has the undisputed, rightful heir to the presidency.
A narrative that was largely pushed by Republicans and Sanders supporters looking to juxtapose their "outsider" status with Hillary's "establishment" status.
Rosebuddy wrote: A plan she has abandoned in favour of supporting the watered-down ACA, while rejecting a single-payer system because Republicans and the insurance industry oppose it. Clinton doesn't want to fight for anyone. She just wants to win and will adapt her positions accordingly.
The term you're looking for is 'politics of the possible'. There is feth all point in aiming for pie in the sky and then spending all your political chips on something that will never happen. This is what both Clintons learned from their first attempt at reform of healthcare.
It's why the last 6 years of Bill Clinton's presidency were a lot more productive than the first 2, even with all the baggage of the Lewinsky thing. Because Clinton had learned to aim for things that can actually happen.
And that, actually, is what real fighting is about. Not just thinking about what would be lovely, but thinking about what can actually be done, and then getting it done.
So here's another simple lesson for you about US politics - universal healthcare ain't happening. But ACA did happen, and now more than 16 million people have insurance who didn't have it, and people with terminal conditions won't be denied treatment because of a 'pre-existing condition'.
They're not a big enough group to win outright but they're plentiful enough to prove that the nomination isn't just a formality. She has taken longer to take out Sanders than Trump took to win over all the GOP nominees.
Trump won sooner because the Republican race, with its loophole primaries and winner take all primaries, naturally favours a more decisive race. Meanwhile the proportional results of the Democratic race favour a long grind. You should read 538, they did some great work on how the races might have played out under the other sides rules - the DNC race would have been long over, and the GOP race would be almost certainly going to a contested convention.
Rosebuddy wrote: It is when all you're doing is saying that Clinton is a leftist because that is how the Democratic Party defines itself in relation to the Republican Party
No, not in relation to the Republican party. In relation to the political beliefs of Americans. We're like four posts in to this and you're still not getting it - the political beliefs of Americans are not actually the same as you, random guy from Sweden. What you see debated on the US national stage is pretty much a reflection of the mainstream spread of US political opinions. Clinton takes up a position on the left of that.
It's that simple. It's absurd that there's been one post explaining this, but we're now at about 5 posts each, back and forth. Just accept this basic, gain a bit of knowledge of how politics works, and move on. You don't have to abandon your slightly re-heated social anarchism, but you will become a much more interesting, and much more insightful person if you applied your personal political belief while maintaining an understanding of how and why the mainstream of politics is as it is.
For more perspective rose... see this from 538(with links galore for your research):
Hillary Clinton Was Liberal. Hillary Clinton Is Liberal.
A bunch of reporters have recently discovered a shocking truth: Hillary Clinton is liberal! (I heard a rumor that Columbo has been helping with the investigation.)
We’ve gotten this raft of “Clinton is liberal” exposés as Clinton has revved up her 2016 campaign, speaking out in support of gay marriage, a pathway to citizenship for immigrants in the U.S. illegally, and criminal justice reform. But what many of these articles miss is that Clinton has always been, by most measures, pretty far to the left. When she’s shifted positions, it has been in concert with the entire Democratic Party.
To see how these different issues fit together to form an overall political ideology, we usually use three metrics: one based on congressional voting record, one based on public statements and one based on fundraising.
Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members — he was not more liberal than Clinton.
Clinton also has a history of very liberal public statements. Clinton rates as a “hard core liberal” per the OnTheIssues.org scale. She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders. And while Obama is also a “hard core liberal,” Clinton again was rated as more liberal than Obama.
Sometimes I wonder whether people are confusing Clinton with her husband. Bill Clinton’s statements have been far more moderate. He has also had a more moderate donor base, according to Adam Bonica’s fundraising scores.
There have been a few issues on which Hillary Clinton has taken more centrist positions. She, of course, voted for the Iraq War (she now says that was a mistake). Clinton has been mostly pro free trade (although she hasn’t said much of anything on the Trans-Pacific Partnership). And she has been against marijuana legalization, and seemingly remains so.
When Clinton hasshifted left, she has usually done so with her party and — on the issues she’s highlighted in the 2016 campaign so far — the country. Some examples:
Gay marriage was something that split Democrats almost right down the middle in 2008, with 50 percent in favor per the Pew Research Center. Just 39 percent of the population overall supported same-sex marriage back then. Clinton flipped her position in early 2013, just about when the polls were showing that 51 percent of Americans and around two-thirds of Democrats were in favor of gay marriage. In late 2007, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that Americans and Democrats were in the same place then on civil unions, which Clinton supported, as they are now on gay marriage. In other words, Clinton’s moved left — along with everyone else.
Immigration is a little trickier because so much depends on how a poll is worded, but most of the polls with neutrally worded questions seem to show support for Clinton’s position. A May 2015 CBS News survey shows 57 percent of Americans favor a pathway to citizenship (an all-time high in that survey), compared with 29 percent who want those here illegally deported and 11 percent who want them to have legal status but not citizenship. Among Democrats, 71 percent want a path to citizenship.
On criminal justice reform, which has drawn considerable national attention recently, Clinton called in late April for rolling back mandatory minimum sentencing laws, a position that has more support than it used to. A 2006 survey from Princeton Survey Research Associates International found that 54 percent of Americans and 55 percent of Democrats thought judges should have leeway in sentencing nonviolent offenders, instead of having to abide by the sentencing laws. In a November 2014 Public Religion Research Institute poll, 77 percent of Americans, including 83 percent of Democrats, wanted mandatory minimum sentences eliminated for nonviolent offenders.
Clinton isn’t tacking to the center;she’s simply staying on the left.
In 2008, while Clinton had trouble with her position on Iraq, Democrats didn’t view her as out of step ideologically overall. In February 2008, just 12 percent of Democrats and people who lean Democratic said Clinton was too conservative (the same as Obama). Likewise, Pew Research Center found the same percentages of Democrats, as well as the same percentages of all Americans, thought Clinton and Obama were liberal in January and April of 2008.
The fact that Clinton was seen as just as liberal as Obama is probably the reason she did as well with liberals in the 2008 primary as she did overall. According to exit polls, Clinton received, on average, 46 percent of the vote from those who identified as liberal and 45 percent from those who identified as very liberal. Overall, she received 48 percent of the vote, according to exit polls.
Clinton got beat on the left on one issue the last time she ran for president: the Iraq War. But unless your name is Jeb Bush, the Iraq War just isn’t as important to a presidential candidacy in 2016 as it was in 2008, when it was the second-most-important issue in the Democratic primary. Clinton beat Obama on the other big issues, including the longtime liberal cause of health care.
Overall, the “liberal Clinton” isn’t a new phenomenon. Given her support for liberal positions in the past and the support that liberals have given her, it shouldn’t be surprising that Clinton is staking out liberal positions to start the 2016 campaign.
dogma wrote: That's only because Sanders refuses to bow out like Cruz did.
To be fair, Cruz dropped out because he re-assessed and figured he's a better chance of winning in 2020 than in taking Trump to a contested convention and winning this year. Meanwhile it's hard to figure out exactly what Sanders is aiming for. He obviously knows he isn't going to have another crack in 2020. Instead I think there's one of two plays happening. The first is that he wants to make the DNC accept a lot of his positions, and he's playing an incredibly hard bargaining game to get that - all the conspiracy stuff that his base is falling for is just part of a very risky bluff strategy. The other option is that Sanders and his team have actually gone flying rodent gak, and think they can actually convince the super-delegates to move away from the candidate with the most votes and the most pledged delegates, and support him because... he's making lots of noise about unfair it is that the party would ignore the voice of the people.
It has to be the former. Sanders has been around politics along time, so he can't possibly be as crazy as that second option makes him out to be. But the former doesn't work that well either - half the stuff Sanders says he wants is already part of the DNC platform (campaign finance reform), and the other stuff is hardly a tough sell (both Clinton and Sanders support a $15 minimum wage, so it won't be hard to get that added).
When 538 lays it out like that, it just seems so obvious that you wonder how or why anyone could think otherwise. Yet here we are, with page after page of people saying all this other nonsense.
sebster wrote: and think they can actually convince the super-delegates to move away from the candidate with the most votes and the most pledged delegates, and support him because... he's making lots of noise about unfair it is that the party would ignore the voice of the people.
There was an editorial on, I think it was HuffPo basically begging for the super-delegates to switch over to Hillary. Their cited evidence was that Obama, like Sanders made a late surge in taking states. They also flipped because of the polls at the time showing that Obama projected to do better against both Republican candidates. The article did concede that the super-delegate flip became largely meaningless because Obama's late surge gained enough delegates that he would have won outright, but Clinton dropped out, presumably "in return for" getting the SecState job.
The main point of that article though, was that the super-delegates should flip to Sanders because, according to their math, Sanders fares better against Trump in every single head to head poll, and by a much more significant margin than Clinton.
While I wish it would happen, I doubt it will. I think that if any super-delegates did so, they'd quickly find themselves decertified and probably blacklisted from party operations.
When 538 lays it out like that, it just seems so obvious that you wonder how or why anyone could think otherwise. Yet here we are, with page after page of people saying all this other nonsense.
That entire piece is mired in the same faulty thinking you employ, that what the establishment pushes as the Overton window is the ultimate reality that all must bow to. I point to their use of the word "liberal" as being synonymous with "leftist" when the only leftist ideology that isn't an outright enemy of liberalism is social democracy and even then the relationship is kinda frosty. You accept at absolute face value a political system that has spent years carefully gerrymandering districts so that as few votes as possible could matter and has made sure that the two allowed parties don't differ on questions of economic power.
"How could anyone think otherwise??" is precisely how the Democratic Party reacts to that people don't like Clinton and to how she hasn't done well in the youth vote. They have no perspective on class interests other than their own and expect obedience from all who are registered Democrats because... how could anyone think otherwise? Obviously Trump will lose because he's so gross and some guy on a TV show watched mainly by liberals totally mauled, savaged and destroyed him by raising an eyebrow and going BUWAAH?? at the suggestion that Mexico pay for a border wall (never mind that establishment groups in alliance with Clinton are led by people who think that Libya should pay the US for getting bombed). Indeed, how could anyone think otherwise? That's a good question for you to ask yourself. If you don't I can't promise you that your introduction to historic materialism is going to be pleasant.
A narrative that was largely pushed by Republicans and Sanders supporters looking to juxtapose their "outsider" status with Hillary's "establishment" status.
That Clinton is establishment is something her campaign portrayed as a strength.
whembly wrote: Since we're a constitutional republic, a direct vote isn't going to be a thing.
I know this has probably been discussed in the other thread, but being a constitutional republic doesn't prohibit a direct voting.
Are you trying to tell me that being a constitutional republic only means that we have:
A) a constitution
B) don't have a monarch or other hereditary head of state
And it doesn't really mean what people often seem to think it means?
I don't disagree with all that...
But, the Constitution defined the Electoral College system. Sure, we could theoretically change it, but it's not likely ever going to change because it's not really that big of an hot issue.
That isn't what you said so stop moving goalposts.
The electoral system is largely byproduct of the Three-Fifths Compromise that gave Southern states a disproportionately large amount of representivie power. James Madison and others recognized that a popular election would be the best system but more difficult to get a consensus during the convention given the likely argument against it by the Southern delegates and those from the small states. But really, the point is that the United States being a "constitutional republic" doesn't mean popular elections aren't a thing (because they are) and just because the elector system is in the Constitution doesn't mean it can't (or won't) be changed since it already has. Plus, the system already has quite strong criticisms against that will most likely be addressed eventually, chiefly that the United States stands alone among the democracies of the world because our leader can be elected without receiving the most number of votes.
That Clinton is establishment is something her campaign portrayed as a strength.
When? She has played up her experience, sure, but so has Sanders. No one in their right mind would try to use "establishment" as a selling point. Hell, it was a knock on her when she ran against Obama.
whembly wrote:Clinton has always been, by most measures, pretty far to the left.
I would be fine with that if it didn't have the "by most measures" because she isn't "by most measures", unless we pretend everything outside the US doesn't exist. I'm not even sure that within the Democratic Party that Clinton is "pretty far to the left" all things considered, but that is arguable.
When 538 lays it out like that, it just seems so obvious that you wonder how or why anyone could think otherwise. Yet here we are, with page after page of people saying all this other nonsense.
That entire piece is mired in the same faulty thinking you employ, that what the establishment pushes as the Overton window is the ultimate reality that all must bow to. I point to their use of the word "liberal" as being synonymous with "leftist" when the only leftist ideology that isn't an outright enemy of liberalism is social democracy and even then the relationship is kinda frosty. You accept at absolute face value a political system that has spent years carefully gerrymandering districts so that as few votes as possible could matter and has made sure that the two allowed parties don't differ on questions of economic power.
One has to wonder what you are trying to get at. Everyone knows that the States have their own political spectrum that is slightly different (read, to the right) of other modern western states. The only ones ignorant of that fact are also likely to ignore the existence of the concept of political spectrum anyways.
None of this makes any more likely the idea of a true left emerging as a legitimate alternative to the existing parties. "The enemy is at home" alone insures that no marxist party will ever thrive in a country as militaristic as the States.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: There was an editorial on, I think it was HuffPo basically begging for the super-delegates to switch over to Hillary. Their cited evidence was that Obama, like Sanders made a late surge in taking states. They also flipped because of the polls at the time showing that Obama projected to do better against both Republican candidates. The article did concede that the super-delegate flip became largely meaningless because Obama's late surge gained enough delegates that he would have won outright, but Clinton dropped out, presumably "in return for" getting the SecState job.
The main point of that article though, was that the super-delegates should flip to Sanders because, according to their math, Sanders fares better against Trump in every single head to head poll, and by a much more significant margin than Clinton.
HuffPo is pretty much total junk, and that article is a pretty good reason why. Obama's argument to the super-delegates was never based on anything as meaningless as polls about hypothetical match ups. They flipped to Obama because he had won the delegate count from the primaries. Obama then made the perfectly simple case that he was the choice of the party’s voters, and the super-delegates should respect that. The super-delegates knew that super-delegates over-riding the choice of the electorate would be disastrous in November, so they respected the primary results and flipped to Obama.
While I wish it would happen, I doubt it will. I think that if any super-delegates did so, they'd quickly find themselves decertified and probably blacklisted from party operations.
Nah, for Sanders to take the lead in total delegates he'd need to flip 381 super-delegates over to him, or 73% of the super-delegates who’ve currently pledged to Clinton. That would represent the Democratic party moving en masse. If that happened there’d be no punishment, because the party isn’t going to punish itself for what it all did.
The reason they’re not flipping is because it makes absolutely no sense for them to flip. They wanted Clinton, and the majority of voters chose Clinton. So why would you over-ride the choice of the voting base, to select the person you didn’t like as much in the first place?
The Super Delegates haven't even voted yet so how does one 'flip' a vote that hasn't happened. As it stands I thought they just were more based on hopes and dreams but didn't really vote until their big meeting where the real fight happens that non-pary members are probably paying for as well.
I don't know all their party specific rules for voting, or partying, so I could easily be wrong.
Rosebuddy wrote: That entire piece is mired in the same faulty thinking you employ, that what the establishment pushes as the Overton window is the ultimate reality that all must bow to.
The Overton window can be moved, and doing so is often good politics, when it’s achieved. But what you’re arguing for is that the Overon window be ignored, which is really stupid.
I point to their use of the word "liberal" as being synonymous with "leftist" when the only leftist ideology that isn't an outright enemy of liberalism is social democracy and even then the relationship is kinda frosty.
You’re attempting to apply a single definition to ‘left’, which is very silly indeed. ‘Left’, like many political terms, in highly dependent on context.
You accept at absolute face value a political system that has spent years carefully gerrymandering districts so that as few votes as possible could matter and has made sure that the two allowed parties don't differ on questions of economic power.
You are being very simplistic. Recognising that something exists is not the same thing accepting it. My approach here is to say ‘these are things that are true, any way forward needs to exist these things are true and find a way around them, or a way to change them’. Your approach is to say ‘these are things that I don’t want to be true, and so I will talk as if they aren’t’.
"How could anyone think otherwise??" is precisely how the Democratic Party reacts to that people don't like Clinton and to how she hasn't done well in the youth vote.
Oh look, a misleading misquote. That’s a sudden new tactic. The point, of course, is that people can, will and should have lots of diverse opinions on lots of things, including political candidates. There is nothing wrong with disliking Clinton, there’s plenty of reasons to do so. But there is something wrong with thinking things that are factually wrong. And disliking Clinton out of a belief that she is from the centre of US politics, or even stupider from the right of US politics, has clear and simple problems with reality.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Plus, the system already has quite strong criticisms against that will most likely be addressed eventually, chiefly that the United States stands alone among the democracies of the world because our leader can be elected without receiving the most number of votes.
Just a nitpick – the US isn’t the only country in the world where that happens. There’s about 30 countries in the world with the Westminster system, and in that system the country is broken in to electorates, each electorate is a standalone race, and the party that wins the most electorates becomes the government and can choose the Prime Minister. Think of it like if the House of Representative chose the President.
Much like the electoral college, in Westminster the party that won the most votes might not win the most electorates. In Australia this happened in 1998, Labor won 51% of the vote, but only 67/147 electorates. , and does happen from time to time, that much like the US electoral college, that a Westminster system can produce results where the party that wins the most votes might not win the most electorates. In Australia this happened in 1998, but quite strangely when the 2000 US election gave the presidency to the guy with less votes, lots of Australians claimed the American system was very silly... they seemed to have forgotten a very similar thing happened in Australia just a couple of years before.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: I would be fine with that if it didn't have the "by most measures" because she isn't "by most measures", unless we pretend everything outside the US doesn't exist.
Sure, the US shouldn't pretend the rest of the world exists when it comes to talking about various policies and systems - it drives me nuts when Americans predict greater healthcare or higher tax rates are unthinkable because they'd destroy the economy... when such things have been in place for generations outside of the US without producing economic stagnation.
But when we want to talk about where US politicians sit on a political axis, the most obvious measure is against other US politicians. That Clinton isn't all that left in comparison to European leaders is true, but then Ted Cruz isn't all that right wing compared to Ghengis Khan, and I just don't think there's any value in those kinds of observations.
I'm not even sure that within the Democratic Party that Clinton is "pretty far to the left" all things considered, but that is arguable.
Her voting record and policy positions make it pretty clear she is well and truly on the left of the Democratic party.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: The Super Delegates haven't even voted yet so how does one 'flip' a vote that hasn't happened. As it stands I thought they just were more based on hopes and dreams but didn't really vote until their big meeting where the real fight happens that non-pary members are probably paying for as well.
I don't know all their party specific rules for voting, or partying, so I could easily be wrong.
Some super-delegates announce who they are supporting. Some do it very early, some do it during the primaries. Flipping a super-delegate means getting them to announce they're changing who they're going to vote for. In 2016 so far 564 of the 714 super-delegates have announced who they are supporting.
A similar number announced their support in 2008, and like this year most of them supported Clinton. But then Obama won the primaries, and the super-delegates flipped to supporting him. Sanders is hoping for something similar, except he hasn't won the primaries, which makes his attempts to flip the super-delegates really very silly.
sebster wrote: Her voting record and policy positions make it pretty clear she is well and truly on the left of the Democratic party.
Which is why I said it was debatable within the party; some in the party see her as moderate and some as leftist.
And yes I know when talking about US politics it is fine to stay with US politics, which is why I didn't, and don't, like the phrase "by most measures" as that isn't limited by that and perpetuates the myth of American politics as politics in general. You can read it differently all you want, but that doesn't keep me from finding it problematic.
sebster wrote: Sanders is hoping for something similar, except he hasn't won the primaries
I'm going to assume you mean that he hasn't won all the primaries as he has actually won primaries.
Ahtman wrote: Which is why I said it was debatable within the party; some in the party see her as moderate and some as leftist.
Which says a lot about how little public perception is driven by meaningful things like voting records and policy positions, and how much its driven by sentiment. It doesn’t say very much about
For what it’s worth, this isn’t only a Clinton thing. Kasich ran as the moderate, but his voting record marks him as very conservative. I guess what is different is that Kasich made a strategic choice to move his position, to differentiate himself from the rest of the Republican field, whereas a lot of people have decided that Clinton is a lot less left wing than she really is, through nothing Clinton has done or tried to do.
I'm not really sure why, either. Perhaps people think she and her husband are the same, and he was much closer to the centre therefore she must be as well.
And yes I know when talking about US politics it is fine to stay with US politics, which is why I didn't, and don't, like the phrase "by most measures" as that isn't limited by that and perpetuates the myth of American politics as politics in general.
Ah, I see your complaint now. Thing is, that 538 article is saying ‘by most measures of US politics’. It gives three measures, and is saying most other measures give similar results to these ones. It isn’t saying anything about how Clinton might compare against the greater world of politics.
I'm going to assume you mean that he hasn't won all the primaries as he has actually won primaries.
I don’t mean each and every primary, I mean the primaries on the whole. Combining them all together, Sanders is down by 3 million votes and 274 delegates.
1) It's 43.4 percent to 43.2 percent, and any person not interested in generating clicks and revenue would tell you that it's a tie.
2) National polls have about as much meaning as a poll of users in the OT section of Dakka Dakka. Unless we suddenly switched to a national popular vote for president, it's pointless to conduct them and even more pointless to even take them into consideration. Just take a look at actual results and you will quickly notice that national results don't match up with actual electoral college results:
Its even more stupid. As a former carney I can guarantee Disney has done extensive studies on its lines and methods to improve them. This shows not only the chief's stupidity, but really shows their mindset. Why did the Chief of Staff or Obama's designated hit man(girl) not immediately call and demanded his resignation?
How this should have gone. Makes stupid statement while testifying. While sitting there gets a call. Chief of Staff: "You're fired get out." VA dork: " You can't fire me. Only the President can fire me." Chief of Staff: "Hold on. Mr. President are you there?" Da Pres:"Let me be clear. You are fired you dickbag."
And having to wait for an appointment won't automatically kill you either, and making wait times your primary metric is just as dangerous as ignoring it completely.
Just look at our waiting room on any given evening and you will find people who are angry because they have to wait 3 hours to be seen for their elbow that has been hurting for 3 months and the guy that came in with COPD and a room air saturation of 80% gets to go straight back to the ER without having to wait at all. And just like you have to triage in the ER, you have to triage all other appointment and consults.
Who get's the earlier MRI appointment, the guy who has chronic back pain or the guy who has progressive weakness in his legs? Who get's the earlier heart cath, the guy with 20% known occlusion and excertional angina or the guy with progressive rest angina? Who gets the earlier PCP appointment, the guy who has already been seen and needs medications adjusted or the guy with no history but a lot of risk factors? Wait times are an important metric, but it's far from being the most important metric. I disagree that satisfaction should be the most important metric, so there is that. Wait times and satisfaction are probably equally important, but the most important metric should be outcomes. Seeing people quicker won't mean anything if outcomes are worse. There is a reason why more and more models are going to outcome based reimbursements, because doing something quick and cheap doesn't mean anything if you are not improving the patient.
What they should be focusing on is fixing that damn Veterans Choice program. I have no clue how anybody thought that anyone could pull that off in 3 months, and I honestly doubt that a private company would be able to build a nationwide health insurance company from scratch to fully functioning in 3 months. It's a good idea, but the way it was passed and implemented was a bandaid on a gaping wound. Fix that program right and you will see improvements.
Frazzled wrote: VA wait times are not measured in hours, but weeks or months.
And waiting weeks won't automatically kill you, so who get's the appointment at 2 weeks vs 3 weeks: the guy with back pain or the guy with progressive leg weakness?
Waiting months: that's what Veterans Choice is for, and see my previous comment about my thoughts on Veterans Choice.
Frazzled wrote: VA wait times are not measured in hours, but weeks or months.
And waiting weeks won't automatically kill you, so who get's the appointment at 2 weeks vs 3 weeks: the guy with back pain or the guy with progressive leg weakness?
Waiting months: that's what Veterans Choice is for, and see my previous comment about my thoughts on Veterans Choice.
D... you have to admit that comparing it to Disney is the worst comparison ever.
It's minimizes the wait times scandal and does give an awful appearance that nothing is being done.
Maybe it's time for the VA could introduce Fastpasses?
Frazzled wrote: VA wait times are not measured in hours, but weeks or months.
And waiting weeks won't automatically kill you, so who get's the appointment at 2 weeks vs 3 weeks: the guy with back pain or the guy with progressive leg weakness?
Waiting months: that's what Veterans Choice is for, and see my previous comment about my thoughts on Veterans Choice.
D... you have to admit that comparing it to Disney is the worst comparison ever.
Oh, I agree fully with you on that. I don't ever think "happiest place on earth" when I pull into the parking lot
Frazzled wrote: VA wait times are not measured in hours, but weeks or months.
And waiting weeks won't automatically kill you, so who get's the appointment at 2 weeks vs 3 weeks: the guy with back pain or the guy with progressive leg weakness?
Waiting months: that's what Veterans Choice is for, and see my previous comment about my thoughts on Veterans Choice.
If they don't keep track of wait times they have no clue how long the waits are. if they are intentionally committing fraud and hiding the wait times or two different lists (as were being done at multiple hospitals) to avoid looking bad at internal audits, then its a serious issue.
Fire him. Fire everyone who works for him, and everyone who worked for them. Give the new crew three months to get this fixed of they are fired. Wash rinse repeat until the problem is solved.
If they don't keep track of wait times they have no clue how long the waits are.
If you ignore the actual headline and read the actual statements, you will find that he didn't say that we shouldn't track wait times. He said that the measure of success shouldn't be based on wait times.
Give the new crew three months to get this fixed of they are fired
That's stupid and you know it, but why propose realistic and constructive options when you can just angrily hit buttons on a keyboard.
But there is no point arguing with Frazzled, you will just get internet tough guy talk followed by "I'm old and my dog is old, we fixed dinosaur healthcare in 3 months or less and we didn't even invent fire yet".
Why is that stupid? Thats called what happens in the Real World (TM)
But there is no point arguing with Frazzled, you will just get internet tough guy talk followed by "I'm old and my dog is old, we fixed dinosaur healthcare in 3 months or less and we didn't even invent fire yet".
I sense hostility for no clear reason.
You are partially right. We did fix health care. If you were sick the hyenadons would catch you. Frazzled Pro-tip, always have sick friend you not care too much about...
Frazzled wrote: Why is that stupid? Thats called what happens in the Real World (TM)
Because switching your contractor every three months when they miss a deadline which is pretty unrealistic is a terrible way to actually make any progress?
You will just continue to piss away money by throwing it at different contractors who are starting over every three months.
d-usa wrote: Useless poll result for two obvious reasons.
1) It's 43.4 percent to 43.2 percent, and any person not interested in generating clicks and revenue would tell you that it's a tie.
2) National polls have about as much meaning as a poll of users in the OT section of Dakka Dakka. Unless we suddenly switched to a national popular vote for president, it's pointless to conduct them and even more pointless to even take them into consideration. Just take a look at actual results and you will quickly notice that national results don't match up with actual electoral college results:
What poll are you referring to? Because the article I posted references RCP's polling average, which looks at more than one, and it's in that that he's pulled ahead.
d-usa wrote: Useless poll result for two obvious reasons.
1) It's 43.4 percent to 43.2 percent, and any person not interested in generating clicks and revenue would tell you that it's a tie.
2) National polls have about as much meaning as a poll of users in the OT section of Dakka Dakka. Unless we suddenly switched to a national popular vote for president, it's pointless to conduct them and even more pointless to even take them into consideration. Just take a look at actual results and you will quickly notice that national results don't match up with actual electoral college results:
What poll are you referring to? Because the article I posted references RCP's polling average, which looks at more than one, and it's in that that he's pulled ahead.
The RCP's polling average:
On the strength of two polls released Sunday, the presumptive Republican nominee holds an advantage of 43.4 percent to 43.2 percent in the Real Clear Politics average.
This is an interesting piece on the Sanders voting base. They make the point that while people have been quick to assume Trump's support must come from anger, the votes for Sanders are assumed to be because his policies have struck a chord with voters. But that isn't really true.
They point out this is shown clearly in the voting numbers for Clinton vs Sanders;
"Mr. Sanders did just nine points better, on average, among liberals than he did among moderates. By comparison, he did 11 points worse among women than among men, 18 points worse among nonwhites than among whites and 28 points worse among those who identified as Democrats than among independents.
It is very hard to point to differences between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders’s proposed policies that could plausibly account for such substantial cleavages. They are reflections of social identities, symbolic commitments and partisan loyalties."
The article then goes on to look at Democratic voters, and how the young differ from the old. It notes a very strange thing, while young voters overwhelming favour Sanders over Clinton, "young Democrats were less likely than older Democrats to support increased government funding of health care, substantially less likely to favor a higher minimum wage and less likely to support expanding government services. Their distinctive liberalism is mostly a matter of adopting campaign labels, not policy preferences."
So they love Sanders, but actually they actually like the issues he champions less than the older voters that Sanders has struggled to capture. This is because Sanders voters are drawn more by the narrative than the policy reality - they love the idea of the revolutionary candidate who's going to tear up Washington, the grumpy old guy who just says it as it is.
This isn't just a Sanders thing - truth is hardly anyone votes based on weighing up policy positions. It's about tribal identity, and proving what sort of person you are. But it is interesting to me how this explanation was immediately used to explain Trump's popularity, 'oh it's just angry white men', but not used with anyone else running in either campaign. Why were Rubio and Kasich more popular among the moderate wing of their party, what they proposed was as radical as anyone else in the Republican race? Why do women and non-white voters favour Clinton over Sanders - there's nothing in her policies to make it so.
And to extend it to what we've seen in the Democratic debate, why were so many people so hostile when I pointed out that Clinton is about as liberal as Sanders - that their voting records are almost exactly the same? How much of politics is projecting is as simple and as irrational as seeing a candidate who presents in a way you find appealing?
Hillary hasn't formally won yet (the convention bounce) nor has she had the opportunity to get the Bernie Bro's back on her wagon.
Yep, right now Clinton is fighting a war on two fronts, one against the right and one against the left. Polling right now is quite meaningless, because Trump's race is over and the party is consolidating around him, meanwhile the Democratic primary is more heated than ever.
This doesn't mean Sanders voters can be assumed to rally around Clinton, of course. I don't think anyone, including Sanders knows exactly what's going to happen there. But the point is that conditions in May will not be the conditions in November. There's a lot of water to pass under the bridge between then and now, not just changing political circumstances but also the potential for any number of events that could impact the race.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Do you usually refer to the average of multiple poll results as 'the poll result'?
The effectiveness of 538 is forecasting the last few elections has shown that polling averages are a much stronger indicator that looking at any single poll.
Anyway, what's important about it isn't that Trump's taken the lead, it's that his unfavorables have started to go down.
Republicans rallying around the flag. It wasn't a certain outcome, but it was always more likely than not, and not seeing it happen wasn't the reason Clinton was the much more likely winner.
Remember, in presidential elections don't look at the Republican votes, look at the Democrats. The question in presidential elections is generally answered by whether the Democrats turned up to vote.
On that front Democrats have one problem, because Clinton is still just a terrible campaigner, she makes Kerry seem exciting. But they also have one strength, because so far the only strategy effectively employed by Trump has been to rally angry white men by complaining about everyone who isn't an angry white man - if he maintains that strategy it is very likely to drive up Democrat numbers.
The effectiveness of 538 is forecasting the last few elections has shown that polling averages are a much stronger indicator that looking at any single poll.
I'm aware. It's why I linked an article discussing Trump pulling ahead in the averages. d usa responded pooh-poohing the poll result, which is why I asked that question, as I thought he hadn't actually read what was linked and failed to understand we were talking about an average, not one single poll.
On that front Democrats have one problem, because Clinton is still just a terrible campaigner, she makes Kerry seem exciting. But they also have one strength, because so far the only strategy effectively employed by Trump has been to rally angry white men by complaining about everyone who isn't an angry white man - if he maintains that strategy it is very likely to drive up Democrat numbers.
Considering that's also the base of support for the Sandernistas, I wouldn't be too sure.
The margin of error on a poll is always a few percent. Even if you aggregate several polls this remains true.
Thus the 43.2 to 43.1 in favour of Trumpo could actually be 4% in favour of Clinton that has got written down by the error factor. (Deduct average 2.5% from Trump's poll, and add 2.5% to Clinton's)
This is why a poll margin of 0.1% is basically meaningless.
Seaward wrote: I'm aware. It's why I linked an article discussing Trump pulling ahead in the averages. d usa responded pooh-poohing the poll result, which is why I asked that question, as I thought he hadn't actually read what was linked and failed to understand we were talking about an average, not one single poll.
Fair enough.
Considering that's also the base of support for the Sandernistas, I wouldn't be too sure.
Very different set of angry white guys though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Seaward, you are intelligent and well educated enough to be aware that the margin of error on a poll is always a few percent.
Thus the 43.2 to 43.1 in favour of Trumpo could actually be 4% in favour of Clinton that has got written down by the error factor. (Deduct average 2.5% from Trump's poll, and add 2.5% to Clinton's)
This is why a poll margin of 0.1% is basically meaningless.
At this point in the campaign we could be seeing results that are outside the margin of error and it would still be meaningless. Because Trump is benefitting from the consolidation of the Republicans behind him, while the Democratic primary is still going. And even once that's happened, then we'll swap over to talking about convention bumps, and then talking about who 'won' the debates, even though the only people paying attention to any of that stuff are political junkies who already know who they're voting for. And then we'll start talking about every other thing that'll happen in the next six months.
Kilkrazy wrote: This is why a poll margin of 0.1% is basically meaningless.
An aggregate upward trend of poll averages across time isn't meaningless. It's certainly not indicative of a likely outcome in November, but it's not without meaning.
whembly wrote: Unless, of course, you believe Trump is trying to get into a poo-fling war with the Clinton campaign. 'Cuz... ya know, Trump excels in flinging poo.
Florida’s 23rd District contest is just one of many that Sanders, and his much-in-demand email list, will be turning their attention toward. “In the days ahead,” the campaign’s fundraising pitch for Canova read, “we’re going to add a dozen or more additional candidates to that list.” The fundraising model of broad-based small donations Sanders has mastered, and the credibility he’s built up among his supporters, can be weaponized to turn a House primary into a contest overnight. All Bernie has to do is point.
He's not acting like it at the moment... which is tragic because it looks like he and his campaign is on to something...
Keep in mind that Bernie is making serious bank, and he's looking to make a near-term impact... not necessarily to laydown some foundation that may take a few years to materialize.
With a lot of the polls focusing on Trump vs Hillary, the numbers that might merit more attention as we get closer to November will be Trump vs Hillary vs Johnson.
d-usa wrote: With a lot of the polls focusing on Trump vs Hillary, the numbers that might merit more attention as we get closer to November will be Trump vs Hillary vs Johnson.
The real question is this... does Johnson syphon off more #NeverTrump or #BernieBros??
'Cuz, I have no bloody clue.
Hypothetical... if neither Clinton nor Trump gets to 270EV... does the Republican Congress really picks Trump, when they can probably control the agenda better with Johnson at the helm?
Hypothetical... if neither Clinton nor Trump gets to 270EV... does the Republican Congress really picks Trump, when they can probably control the agenda better with Johnson at the helm?
It would be an interesting choice for them. Would they go for Johnson whose economic stance aligns very well with Conservatives, even if his social agenda is the exact opposite of what conservatives want?
Hypothetical... if neither Clinton nor Trump gets to 270EV... does the Republican Congress really picks Trump, when they can probably control the agenda better with Johnson at the helm?
It would be an interesting choice for them. Would they go for Johnson whose economic stance aligns very well with Conservatives, even if his social agenda is the exact opposite of what conservatives want?
Possibly... and I'd wager conservatives would be okay with that as the President can't really push a social agenda w/o a compliant Congress. I guess, it depends on if the GOP retains the house next session (Senate is going to Democrats for sure). If the GOP holds the House, then I could see them picking Johnson. If the Democrats holds both houses... then I can see them picking Trump to play the "pox on your house" role.
d-usa wrote: With a lot of the polls focusing on Trump vs Hillary, the numbers that might merit more attention as we get closer to November will be Trump vs Hillary vs Johnson.
The real question is this... does Johnson syphon off more #NeverTrump or #BernieBros??
'Cuz, I have no bloody clue.
Hypothetical... if neither Clinton nor Trump gets to 270EV... does the Republican Congress really picks Trump, when they can probably control the agenda better with Johnson at the helm?
Only if they want to commit political suicide. If they don't choose the one with the highest EC/Popular vote count, there will a shitstorm to end all shitstorms. Espcially if the D's can capture the Senate, or even the House.
A little history of Trump believing, or saying, crazy things:
- Hillary was involved in Vince Foster's suicide
- Obama was born in Kenya
- vaccines cause autism
- thousands of Muslims celebrating 9/11
- Ted Cruz father was involved in JFK's assassination
Automatically Appended Next Post: To go back to the VA wait time problem.
This seems like a good approach, and I'm hoping it works out and spreads:
Struggling with long wait times, the Veterans Affairs Health Care System is trying something new: a partnership with the CVS Pharmacy chain to offer urgent care services to more than 65,000 veterans.
The experiment began Tuesday at the VA's operations in Palo Alto, Calif.
Veterans can visit 14 CVS MinuteClinics in the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento, where the staff will treat them for conditions such as respiratory infections, order lab tests and prescribe medications that can be filled at CVS pharmacies.
The care will be free for veterans, and the VA will reimburse CVS for the treatment and medications. Whether the partnership will spread to other VA locales isn't yet clear.
The collaboration comes amid renewed scrutiny of the nation's troubled VA health system, which has tried without much success to improve long wait times for veterans needing health care.
...
(More at the link)
Interesting bit from 538 on the use of data by the two campaigns. There's been a lot talked about the democrats technological edge pioneered by Howard Dean, and extended by Obama's two campaigns. But Trump seems to have little interest in any of that. I think the lack of experience is showing. From 538;
"John McCain hired only 15 data staffers in 2008, compared with Obama’s 131. To his credit, Mitt Romney increased the number of data hires to 87 in 2012. (Obama had 342)....
...Trump currently employs as few as two staffers dedicated to data, according to reports.... Hillary Clinton set out to assemble a data team three times the size of Obama’s formidable 2012 operation."
Jeb Bush's strategy of a hugely funded super-PAC controlling pretty much all of the campaign spend was going to be revolutionary or never repeated. He flopped, so it'll likely never be repeated. Marco Rubio ignored the ground game and focused on media, he flopped so we won't see that again either. Trump looked to say or do anything to get attention - in a crowded field if you're the only one anyone talks about you're half way to winning. He won the primary despite being Donald Trump, so look to see that strategy repeated in the future, at least in the primaries
But now in the general, the Clinton is doubling down on the data strategy, while Trump is largely ignoring it. In November we'll learn which strategy is called genius and which will never be seen again
whembly wrote: Unless, of course, you believe Trump is trying to get into a poo-fling war with the Clinton campaign. 'Cuz... ya know, Trump excels in flinging poo.
I think it isn't even a case of picking strategies. It's really just a matter of who Trump is, how he operates. A monkey doesn't stop and think about the situation, and then decide whether this time he should approach it by running away or throwing poo. He just acts in the moment. Trump seems the same, his nature is to fling poo, and so he flings poo. That there might be a different or better way to approach this probably wasn't even considered. From there it's really a matter of luck as to whether the circumstances fit his approach. In the crowded Republican field, playing to a Republican base that wasn't just angry but incredibly petty Trump's poo flinging worked great.
Not so sure it's a good strategy for the general.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Hypothetical... if neither Clinton nor Trump gets to 270EV... does the Republican Congress really picks Trump, when they can probably control the agenda better with Johnson at the helm?
Remember in 1992 Perot took close to 20% of the vote but won exactly 0 votes in the electoral college. Having a 10 or 20% spread across all states allows you to play a spoiler role, but to win states you need strong support in specific states. A protest vote built up around Johnson* is probably going to have a similar spread to Perot.
*And remember Johnson hasn't actually been nominated. McAfee is also nominated, and could be the nomination in case Libertarians feel they need someone even crazier than Trump, just to keep the party tradition alive.
I think you make a good distinction between believing and saying. I don't think Trump believes any of those things, because I don't believe Trump actually believes anything. It isn't even a case of lying, more just a complete indifference to truth. If it works for him, he'll say it, whether it's true is someone else's problem.
Man, remember when people were worried that Sarah Palin might be a Vice President...
I think you make a good distinction between believing and saying. I don't think Trump believes any of those things, because I don't believe Trump actually believes anything. It isn't even a case of lying, more just a complete indifference to truth. If it works for him, he'll say it, whether it's true is someone else's problem.
Man, remember when people were worried that Sarah Palin might be a Vice President...
While it's true that we probably can't be sure what he actually believes, but these are pretty mundane as far as conspiracy theories go and I think a surprising number of people believe them so it wouldn't really be a stretch if it turned out he did. I mean, he's been going on about the birtherism stuff for over five years.
And good Lord... Trump isn't smart, but he knows how to talk about stuff. This line about the Vince Foster thing is him at his best:
The Donald wrote:I don't bring [Foster's death] up because I don't know enough to really discuss it. I will say there are people who continue to bring it up because they think it was absolutely a murder. I don't do that because I don't think it's fair.
Of course, he did bring it up. He's really good at bringing stuff up while sounding like he isn't actually bringing it up. He's a salesman through and through.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: While it's true that we probably can't be sure what he actually believes, but these are pretty mundane as far as conspiracy theories go and I think a surprising number of people believe them so it wouldn't really be a stretch if it turned out he did. I mean, he's been going on about the birtherism stuff for over five years.
Trump started with birtherism before the 2012 election, when he was flirting with the idea of running for the nomination. It was pretty clearly a tactical move. And while it didn't help him in 2008, it did raise help raise his position as a player in Republican politics, and give him that grounding for his 2016 run.
And yeah, my point isn't that we don't know what Trump does or doesn't believe - my point is that deep down the guy doesn't believe anything. Everything is in service to the Trump ego. People have noted its very hard to figure out where Trump stands on any issue, this is because the guy actually has no convictions, he will say or do whatever best suits him in that moment.
Your quote from Trump on the Vince Foster nonsense captures this perfectly. Trump is walking away from the accusation even as he's raising it. He even does it by talking about how he doesn't know if its true because he hasn't looked in to it. You can't lie if you don't if something is true or false, and Trump never knows if anything is true or false because he just doesn't give a gak.
d-usa wrote: With a lot of the polls focusing on Trump vs Hillary, the numbers that might merit more attention as we get closer to November will be Trump vs Hillary vs Johnson.
The real question is this... does Johnson syphon off more #NeverTrump or #BernieBros??
'Cuz, I have no bloody clue.
Hypothetical... if neither Clinton nor Trump gets to 270EV... does the Republican Congress really picks Trump, when they can probably control the agenda better with Johnson at the helm?
The support core for both is 18 to 35 year-old angry white males who aren't all that interested in actual public policy, so it probably doesn't matter. (I read an interesting analysis, I forget where, that looked at Bernie supporters' actual position on issues based on exit polling, and it turns out they're to the right of Clinton.)
I've voted for Johnson in a general before, and I'd happily do so again if up to three Supreme Court appointments weren't potentially on the line. Avoiding three more Sotomayors is worth Making America Great Again.
d-usa wrote: With a lot of the polls focusing on Trump vs Hillary, the numbers that might merit more attention as we get closer to November will be Trump vs Hillary vs Johnson.
The real question is this... does Johnson syphon off more #NeverTrump or #BernieBros??
'Cuz, I have no bloody clue.
Hypothetical... if neither Clinton nor Trump gets to 270EV... does the Republican Congress really picks Trump, when they can probably control the agenda better with Johnson at the helm?
The support core for both is 18 to 35 year-old angry white males who aren't all that interested in actual public policy, so it probably doesn't matter. (I read an interesting analysis, I forget where, that looked at Bernie supporters' actual position on issues based on exit polling, and it turns out they're to the right of Clinton.)
I've voted for Johnson in a general before, and I'd happily do so again if up to three Supreme Court appointments weren't potentially on the line. Avoiding three more Sotomayors is worth Making America Great Again.
I would like to read this interesting analysis where Bernie Supporters turn out to secretly be super conservatives.
I am sure it is a well rounded article that sheds light on the Bernie movement as a whole by contacting all of his supporters and questioning them in depth about their political stances.
Seaward wrote: The support core for both is 18 to 35 year-old angry white males who aren't all that interested in actual public policy, so it probably doesn't matter. (I read an interesting analysis, I forget where, that looked at Bernie supporters' actual position on issues based on exit polling, and it turns out they're to the right of Clinton.)
You read my post Well, you read a link I put in my post. Or you read the New York Times.
Anyhow, here's the article; http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/opinion/campaign-stops/do-sanders-supporters-favor-his-policies.html?rref=opinion&_r=0 "However, they were less likely than Mrs. Clinton’s supporters to favor concrete policies that Mr. Sanders has offered as remedies for these ills, including a higher minimum wage, increasing government spending on health care and an expansion of government services financed by higher taxes. It is quite a stretch to view these people as the vanguard of a new, social-democratic-trending Democratic Party."
So yeah, part of it is about falling in love with the idea of being part of a revolutionary movement, rather than any actual policy positions. But thinking those same folk will shift over to Trump to be part of his revolution/abuse comedy routine is still a really big stretch. Many Sanders supporters, particularly young Sanders supporters, may have been drawn in more by the anti-establishment vibe than his policy positions, but that doesn't mean they'll move across to the other anti-establishment guy. There is, after all, a very big difference between getting won over by an outsider saying he'll fight to get the money out of politics, and an outsider who says he'll fight to build a wall between the US and Mexico.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: I would like to read this interesting analysis where Bernie Supporters turn out to secretly be super conservatives.
I am sure it is a well rounded article that sheds light on the Bernie movement as a whole by contacting all of his supporters and questioning them in depth about their political stances.
They're not super-conservative. They're still liberal, just not as liberal as Clinton supporters. Which is interesting when you think about how quickly everyone simply assumed that Sanders strong left wing positions was the reason for this groundswell of support around him. Contrast that to Trump, where from day one we were happy to say his supporters were angry people frustrated by economic decline or racial issues or some other thing like that.
That doesn't mean I'm saying Sanders supporters are the same as Trump supporters, but it is interesting that for some reason for both Trump and Sanders we forgot one simple reality - every moderately successful campaign will attract a lot of different kinds of voters. We never considered that maybe people some portion of Trump supporters like him because they actually want a wall on the Mexican border, and at the same time we never considered that some portion of Sanders supporters might be more attracted to the idea of being part of a movement that's going to change politics forever! than they cared about his actual policy proposals.
No, they are super-conservative considering Clinton herself is a very conservative candidate. Clinton is liberal for the US, but in no way is she liberal in comparison to what other countries consider to be liberal.
Oh sweet, I see you have provided me an article which does not do what was claimed! So a small number of Bernie supporters are considered to be more to the right of Clinton, this does not make all Bernie supporters to the right of Clinton as was claimed.
"I am sure it is a well rounded article that sheds light on the Bernie movement as a whole by contacting all of his supporters and questioning them in depth about their political stances."
Seaward wrote: The support core for both is 18 to 35 year-old angry white males who aren't all that interested in actual public policy, so it probably doesn't matter. (I read an interesting analysis, I forget where, that looked at Bernie supporters' actual position on issues based on exit polling, and it turns out they're to the right of Clinton.)
You read my post Well, you read a link I put in my post. Or you read the New York Times.
Anyhow, here's the article;
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/opinion/campaign-stops/do-sanders-supporters-favor-his-policies.html?rref=opinion&_r=0 "However, they were less likely than Mrs. Clinton’s supporters to favor concrete policies that Mr. Sanders has offered as remedies for these ills, including a higher minimum wage, increasing government spending on health care and an expansion of government services financed by higher taxes. It is quite a stretch to view these people as the vanguard of a new, social-democratic-trending Democratic Party."
Seaward wrote: The support core for both is 18 to 35 year-old angry white males who aren't all that interested in actual public policy, so it probably doesn't matter. (I read an interesting analysis, I forget where, that looked at Bernie supporters' actual position on issues based on exit polling, and it turns out they're to the right of Clinton.)
You read my post Well, you read a link I put in my post. Or you read the New York Times.
Anyhow, here's the article;
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/opinion/campaign-stops/do-sanders-supporters-favor-his-policies.html?rref=opinion&_r=0 "However, they were less likely than Mrs. Clinton’s supporters to favor concrete policies that Mr. Sanders has offered as remedies for these ills, including a higher minimum wage, increasing government spending on health care and an expansion of government services financed by higher taxes. It is quite a stretch to view these people as the vanguard of a new, social-democratic-trending Democratic Party."
Yep, that was it. Thanks.
Honestly, this doesn't surprise me that much. Sanders has a fairly large and vocal support base on Reddit, a website that also largely seems to profess liberalism and left-leaning policies, whilst actually being closer to libertarianism on a lot of things.
Goliath wrote: Honestly, this doesn't surprise me that much. Sanders has a fairly large and vocal support base on Reddit, a website that also largely seems to profess liberalism and left-leaning policies, whilst actually being closer to libertarianism on a lot of things.
They're not really close to anything, politically. Free college and legal (and preferably free, too) weed are their primary policy points, along with an intense but vague sense of getting the gakky end of the stick.
They swung from adoring fiercely small government Ron Paul to adoring Bernie "I'm not a communist, but I am an anti-capitalist who believes in the eventual revolution of the proletariat" Sanders. There's no consistent political ideology that allows that to happen.
I'd say they're more in favor of lost causes than anything.
(I'm talking about the Reddit crowd exclusively, by the way. I fully believe there are leftists who dig Sanders' socialism, just as there are Paulites who dig his brand of cranky libertarianism. They just don't mingle.)
Ah, sorry, when I said that they profess liberalism but aren't I should have clarified that it's largely with social issues.
Reddit comes across as liberal, but it's only really on the surface. Supporting gay marriage, and being anti-Fox News and religion, but feminism is a cancer on society, and actually black people commit more crimes, and my right to bully and harass fat people is critical, and preventing me from doing so is censorship.
So I can completely understand why, considering the demographics that I have seen supporting Bernie, they might not actually support his policies.
Personally I'll stick my hand up as a leftist that supports his socialism and a number of his policies; if he can prompt a slight tempering of how right-wing america is compared to the rest of the world then I'm all for it, I just don't think that he'll be able to win the actual election, considering how much of a dirty word Socialism still seems to be in the US. So I'd much rather Hillary runs and wins the presidency, but Sanders puts up the good fight and makes socialism more palatable for the American public.
The real question to that, then, is whether or not he actually will make it more palatable, because he dodges declaring himself an outright socialist every time it's brought up in favor of calling himself a "democratic socialist," which his camp does its best to make sound like has nothing to do with, you know, socialism. On the other hand, no one's running the really heavy attack ads on him, because they don't need to, so his ideas are getting to go unchallenged.
I'm actually kind of sad he's not going to make it to the general, because I'd really like a good old-fashioned repudiation of socialism and reinforcement of American capitalist values, and we'd for sure get it once he was the nominee.
- Hillary was involved in Vince Foster's suicide
- Obama was born in Kenya
- vaccines cause autism
- thousands of Muslims celebrating 9/11
- Ted Cruz father was involved in JFK's assassination
Wait I thought it was Ted Cruz caused autism. I'm so confused...
I am tired of hearing head to head polling nation-wide. That doesn't even matter. The only question that matters is can Trump actually flip states that were Obama states? Specifically Ohio and Florida. if he can't flip those, then there is no point even talking about head-to-head polling because it is irrelevant.
Seaward wrote: The real question to that, then, is whether or not he actually will make it more palatable, because he dodges declaring himself an outright socialist every time it's brought up in favor of calling himself a "democratic socialist," which his camp does its best to make sound like has nothing to do with, you know, socialism. On the other hand, no one's running the really heavy attack ads on him, because they don't need to, so his ideas are getting to go unchallenged.
I'm actually kind of sad he's not going to make it to the general, because I'd really like a good old-fashioned repudiation of socialism and reinforcement of American capitalist values, and we'd for sure get it once he was the nominee.
It's not dodging the question... he is a democratic socialist. He's been pretty damn clear from pretty much day one what that means. It means keeping our democratic system of electing officials. It means keeping "capitalism" and privately held companies in the economy. It means strengthening the social safety net. It means improving education, both in quality and availability.
That's pretty much it. He's not trying to overthrow the entire system and get a one-party state where the government decides every item that is sold in stores and which factories they want to make it. He's not looking to become "Chairman Sanders," because he's looking to become President Sanders.
Dreadwinter wrote: No, they are super-conservative considering Clinton herself is a very conservative candidate. Clinton is liberal for the US, but in no way is she liberal in comparison to what other countries consider to be liberal.
As I explained to that other guy over about a half dozen posts - who gives a gak what the rest of the world thinks? They could be fascist anarchists, it still doesn't change the fact that they don't vote in American elections.
In terms of American politics, Clinton is well to the left of centre, as Sanders just a little bit further left. Sanders supporters are, interestingly enough, not as far left as Sanders, averaged across the whole.
Oh sweet, I see you have provided me an article which does not do what was claimed! So a small number of Bernie supporters are considered to be more to the right of Clinton, this does not make all Bernie supporters to the right of Clinton as was claimed.
The hell? Where do you get small number from? Do you know how polling works? You seem to be attempting a defence in which you can deny any poll because it did not check with every single person who has declared themselves a Sanders supporter. Well do that, whatever, if you don't want to be a useful part of the conversation that's up to you.
10-31-23
CLINTON FAULTED ON EMAILS BY STATE DEPARTMENT AUDIT
BY MICHAEL BIESECKER AND BRADLEY KLAPPER
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hillary Clinton disregarded State Department cybersecurity guidelines by using a private email account and server, an internal audit found Wednesday. Her staff twice brushed aside specific concerns that she wasn't following federal rules.
The inspector general's review also revealed that hacking attempts forced then-Secretary of State Clinton off email at one point in 2011, though she insists the personal server she used was never breached. Clinton and several of her senior staff declined to be interviewed for the State Department investigation.
Earlier this month, Clinton, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, stressed that she was happy to "talk to anybody, anytime" about the matter and would encourage her staff to do the same.
The 78-page analysis, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, says Clinton ignored clear directives. She never sought approval to conduct government business over private email, and never demonstrated the server or the Blackberry she used while in office "met minimum information security requirements."
Twice in 2010, information management staff at the State Department raised concerns that Clinton's email practices failed to meet federal records-keeping requirements. The staff's director responded that Clinton's personal email system had been reviewed and approved by legal staff, "and that the matter was not to be discussed any further."
The audit found no evidence of a legal staff review or approval. It said any such request would have been denied by senior information officers because of security risks.
The inspector general's inquiry was prompted by revelations of Clinton's email use, a subject that has dogged her presidential campaign.
The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.
The review encompassed the email and information practices of the past five secretaries of state, finding them "slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications, particularly as those risks pertain to its most senior leadership."
But the failings of Clinton, who was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, were singled out as more serious.
"By Secretary Clinton's tenure, the department's guidance was considerably more detailed and more sophisticated," the report concluded. "Secretary Clinton's cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives."
The State Department has released more than 52,000 pages of Clinton's work-related emails, including some that have since been classified. Clinton has withheld thousands of additional emails, saying they were personal.
Critics have questioned whether her server might have made a tempting target for hackers, especially those working with or for foreign intelligence services.
Separately from the State Department audit, the FBI has been investigating whether Clinton's use of the private email server imperiled government secrets. It has recently interviewed Clinton's top aides, including former chief of staff Cheryl Mills and deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin. Clinton is expected to be interviewed.
Clinton has acknowledged in the campaign that the homebrew email setup in her New York home was a mistake. She said she never sent or received anything marked classified at the time, and says hackers never breached the server.
The audit said a Clinton aide had to shut down the server on Jan. 9, 2011, because he believed "someone was trying to hack us." Later that day, he said: "We were attacked again so I shut (the server) down for a few min."
The next day, a senior official told two of Clinton's top aides not to email their boss "anything sensitive," saying she could "explain more in person."
On CBS' "Face the Nation" this month, Clinton said, "I've made it clear that I'm more than ready to talk to anybody, anytime. And I've encouraged all of (my staff) to be very forthcoming."
The audit said three of her closest State Department aides - Mills, Abedin and policy chief Jake Sullivan - declined interview requests.
More info I saw on my twittah:
'We were *attacked* again,' IT person said in 2011 (corrects 'hacked' to 'attacked,' as excerpt noted). https://t.co/F9scT8PaXM
— Ted Bridis (@tbridis) May 25, 2016
"non-Departmental advisor to Clinton who provided technical support to the Clinton email system" must be that Brian Paglino dude who has gotten immunity by the FBI... (edit: read the report in full... that was Jonathan Cooper).
Seaward wrote: The real question to that, then, is whether or not he actually will make it more palatable, because he dodges declaring himself an outright socialist every time it's brought up in favor of calling himself a "democratic socialist," which his camp does its best to make sound like has nothing to do with, you know, socialism. On the other hand, no one's running the really heavy attack ads on him, because they don't need to, so his ideas are getting to go unchallenged.
I'm actually kind of sad he's not going to make it to the general, because I'd really like a good old-fashioned repudiation of socialism and reinforcement of American capitalist values, and we'd for sure get it once he was the nominee.
It's not dodging the question... he is a democratic socialist. He's been pretty damn clear from pretty much day one what that means. It means keeping our democratic system of electing officials. It means keeping "capitalism" and privately held companies in the economy. It means strengthening the social safety net. It means improving education, both in quality and availability.
That's pretty much it. He's not trying to overthrow the entire system and get a one-party state where the government decides every item that is sold in stores and which factories they want to make it. He's not looking to become "Chairman Sanders," because he's looking to become President Sanders.
He has a history of radical, revolutionary, decidedly un-democratic statements. He has declared himself an anti-capitalist before, and has also gone on the record stating that he believes industry should ultimately be removed from private control and put into the hands of the people.
He has vocally supported every violent leftist overthrow he's ever been asked about, from the USSR to the Sandinistas, and he even served as an elector for a party that, in addition to many other sins, voiced "solidarity with Iran" while they were holding our hostages during the 1980 election.
If you believe he didn't believe all those things then and is dedicated to a capitalist society now, that's fine. But don't pretend there's not ample reason for people to believe otherwise. That's just naive.
Dreadwinter wrote: No, they are super-conservative considering Clinton herself is a very conservative candidate. Clinton is liberal for the US, but in no way is she liberal in comparison to what other countries consider to be liberal.
As I explained to that other guy over about a half dozen posts - who gives a gak what the rest of the world thinks? They could be fascist anarchists, it still doesn't change the fact that they don't vote in American elections.
In terms of American politics, Clinton is well to the left of centre, as Sanders just a little bit further left. Sanders supporters are, interestingly enough, not as far left as Sanders, averaged across the whole.
Oh sweet, I see you have provided me an article which does not do what was claimed! So a small number of Bernie supporters are considered to be more to the right of Clinton, this does not make all Bernie supporters to the right of Clinton as was claimed.
The hell? Where do you get small number from? Do you know how polling works? You seem to be attempting a defence in which you can deny any poll because it did not check with every single person who has declared themselves a Sanders supporter. Well do that, whatever, if you don't want to be a useful part of the conversation that's up to you.
I care clearly, you should too considering we are living on a planet with other people and it helps to show what the current political climate is like in the US vs the rest of the world.
You know that exit polling only involves a small number of people, correct? It even has a link to a definition of Exit Polling in the article where it says it is taken from a small portion of voters. Also considering this was only done in a select amount of states, kind of shows that again, it was a small portion.
Seaward has revised his argument as to be about reddit Bernie Supporters which commonly fall under the term Bernie Bros. Which I would agree with, many Bernie Bros dont seem to understand his policies and what they would bring about in the US. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of trying to paint all of his supporters to be Bernie Bros, when in fact it is just a vocal minority. Conservatives have the same issues on their side and I believe it is equally absurd to paint them all as ultra religious zealot wingnuts when that is clearly not the.case.
Be dismissive if you want, but you should probably understand exit polling before doing so.
Dreadwinter wrote: No, they are super-conservative considering Clinton herself is a very conservative candidate. Clinton is liberal for the US, but in no way is she liberal in comparison to what other countries consider to be liberal.
As I explained to that other guy over about a half dozen posts - who gives a gak what the rest of the world thinks? They could be fascist anarchists, it still doesn't change the fact that they don't vote in American elections.
In terms of American politics, Clinton is well to the left of centre, as Sanders just a little bit further left. Sanders supporters are, interestingly enough, not as far left as Sanders, averaged across the whole.
Oh sweet, I see you have provided me an article which does not do what was claimed! So a small number of Bernie supporters are considered to be more to the right of Clinton, this does not make all Bernie supporters to the right of Clinton as was claimed.
The hell? Where do you get small number from? Do you know how polling works? You seem to be attempting a defence in which you can deny any poll because it did not check with every single person who has declared themselves a Sanders supporter. Well do that, whatever, if you don't want to be a useful part of the conversation that's up to you.
I care clearly, you should too considering we are living on a planet with other people and it helps to show what the current political climate is like in the US vs the rest of the world.
You know that exit polling only involves a small number of people, correct? It even has a link to a definition of Exit Polling in the article where it says it is taken from a small portion of voters. Also considering this was only done in a select amount of states, kind of shows that again, it was a small portion.
Seaward has revised his argument as to be about reddit Bernie Supporters which commonly fall under the term Bernie Bros. Which I would agree with, many Bernie Bros dont seem to understand his policies and what they would bring about in the US. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of trying to paint all of his supporters to be Bernie Bros, when in fact it is just a vocal minority. Conservatives have the same issues on their side and I believe it is equally absurd to paint them all as ultra religious zealot wingnuts when that is clearly not the.case.
Be dismissive if you want, but you should probably understand exit polling before doing so.
Exit polls are important and carry weight with predictions and expectations because they reflect the opinions of people who were actually motivated enough to turn out and vote. The people who are turning out to vote in the primary are more likely to turn out and vote in the general than the people who didn't. You can poll anybody who answers the phone when the pollsters call, you can poll people who are likely voters because they have a history of turning out to vote and you can poll the people that have actually voted already.
People who voted < People registered to vote < People who are eligible voters
Just because exit polls have a smaller pool of people to poll doesn't mean they aren't an accurate reflection of the electorate. Local polls are the most meaningful because we vote by state and the state residents that are turning out to vote are the ones that will decide who wins the state and gains the state's electoral votes. What exit polls say about voters in a state like Ohio is very pertinent to the probable outcome in Ohio which is key to enough electoral votes to win the presidency so exit polls of Ohio voters are more important than a national poll of people that includes a larger number of respondents. You shouldn't dismiss exit polls, it showcases the opinions of the people showing up to vote and they're the people that decide who wins.
Seaward wrote: He has a history of radical, revolutionary, decidedly un-democratic statements.
That's rich coming from the guy who supports Donald Trump.
He has declared himself an anti-capitalist before, and has also gone on the record stating that he believes industry should ultimately be removed from private control and put into the hands of the people.
I don't disbelieve you, but could you provide some sources for him supporting that? He supports worker-owned cooperatives and growing unions, but I've been unable to find anything where he says all industry should be taken from private control.
He has vocally supported every violent leftist overthrow he's ever been asked about, from the USSR to the Sandinistas, and he even served as an elector for a party that, in addition to many other sins, voiced "solidarity with Iran" while they were holding our hostages during the 1980 election.
I haven't been able to find him vocally supporting the violence of the USSR other than that one time he went there, which I've already explained to Whembly why that isn't what your derposphere thinks it was. If you have some information or quotes that back up your claim, feel free to share them with the class. As far as supporting the Sandinistas, yeah... He's never been coy about that. Of course, our government was arming the Contras at the same time, which I guess is totally cool because they were violent right-wing counter-revolutionaries. He did serve as an elector for the Socialist Workers Party during the Iranian hostage situation, but I haven't been able to find anything that shows he personally called for solidarity with the Iranian revolutionaries, so if it's out there, please share it with everyone.
If you believe he didn't believe all those things then and is dedicated to a capitalist society now, that's fine. But don't pretend there's not ample reason for people to believe otherwise. That's just naive.
It's naive to think that people's opinions don't change over the course of their lives and everyone who ever had an opinion will always have that opinion.
In various times throughout my youth, I believe in God, I fully supported the death penalty, I was against gay marriage, and I was against women in combat. Now, years later and many miles traveled since, I believe the total opposite of all of those things.
Trump's an idiot and a buffoon. I'd love to not have to vote for him this cycle, but that would require the Democrats to a) guarantee not to throw up anti-2nd Amendment/anti-capitalist/anti-individual liberty justice nominations, and b) guarantee not to continue doing their best to reduce defense readiness and capability. Neither of those things will happen.
But at least I'm perfectly willing to admit the massive flaws in the Republicans' nominee this year.
I don't disbelieve you, but could you provide some sources for him supporting that? He supports worker-owned cooperatives and growing unions, but I've been unable to find anything where he says all industry should be taken from private control.
Politico wrote:And Sanders has long been unabashed about his socialist beliefs. “Nobody should earn more than $1 million,” he told the Burlington Free Press in 1974.
“I believe that, in the long run, major industries in this state and nation should be publicly owned and controlled by the workers themselves,” he wrote in 1976.
I suppose we then have to quibble about what he meant by 'major' industries.
I haven't been able to find him vocally supporting the violence of the USSR other than that one time he went there, which I've already explained to Whembly why that isn't what your derposphere thinks it was. If you have some information or quotes that back up your claim, feel free to share them with the class. As far as supporting the Sandinistas, yeah... He's never been coy about that. Of course, our government was arming the Contras at the same time, which I guess is totally cool because they were violent right-wing counter-revolutionaries. He did serve as an elector for the Socialist Workers Party during the Iranian hostage situation, but I haven't been able to find anything that shows he personally called for solidarity with the Iranian revolutionaries, so if it's out there, please share it with everyone.
I mean...let's be real, dude. He flew down as a guest of Ortega specifically to attend anti-American rallies, and reportedly joined in on the ""Yankees must die" chant.
As far as the Socialist Workers Party platform...sure, I suppose it's possible he didn't actually believe in their platform. I'd personally probably not throw my lot in with a fringe third party spouting anti-American rhetoric during a national crisis if I didn't believe said anti-American rhetoric, but hell, Bernie's belief that he can win the nomination shows us his mental calculus isn't exactly the average person's.
I'd be careful throwing around "derposphere," by the way; you're backing a candidate who thinks cervical cancer is caused by sexual repression and that children should be encouraged to touch each other's genitals. And that's before we even get into his weird rape fantasy essays.
In various times throughout my youth, I believe in God, I fully supported the death penalty, I was against gay marriage, and I was against women in combat. Now, years later and many miles traveled since, I believe the total opposite of all of those things.
Cool. If you were talking about the "people's revolution" as a youth and still making the occasional slip and mentioning the "people's revolution" on the campaign trail in your '80s, I'm a lot more skeptical that your beliefs have changed.
Seaward wrote: Trump's an idiot and a buffoon. I'd love to not have to vote for him this cycle, but that would require the Democrats to a) guarantee not to throw up anti-2nd Amendment/anti-capitalist/anti-individual liberty justice nominations, and b) guarantee not to continue doing their best to reduce defense readiness and capability. Neither of those things will happen.
But at least I'm perfectly willing to admit the massive flaws in the Republicans' nominee this year.
You actually think Trump wouldn't just decide to nominate whomever he wants to the Supreme Court? You're a fool if you think otherwise.
Politico wrote:And Sanders has long been unabashed about his socialist beliefs. “Nobody should earn more than $1 million,” he told the Burlington Free Press in 1974.
“I believe that, in the long run, major industries in this state and nation should be publicly owned and controlled by the workers themselves,” he wrote in 1976.
I suppose we then have to quibble about what he meant by 'major' industries.
Okay, so you found something he said forty years ago and you think that he hasn't changed his mind since then. That's obviously a problem to you, but you'll be willing vote for the guy that supported Obama's call for stricter gun control after Newtown four years ago because you think he won't try to feth with our gun rights?
I mean...let's be real, dude. He flew down as a guest of Ortega specifically to attend anti-American rallies, and reportedly joined in on the ""Yankees must die" chant.
As far as the Socialist Workers Party platform...sure, I suppose it's possible he didn't actually believe in their platform. I'd personally probably not throw my lot in with a fringe third party spouting anti-American rhetoric during a national crisis if I didn't believe said anti-American rhetoric, but hell, Bernie's belief that he can win the nomination shows us his mental calculus isn't exactly the average person's.
You're right, he did fly to Nicaragua and if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, I would expect him to have his feet held to fire over it. In the same breath, the United States still actively supported the Contras despite the fact that it was illegal to do so. I actually think he's a reasonably smart guy but I wouldn't vote for him. The primary system is gakky, but he isn't losing because it's rigged against him, he's losing because he's not a good candidate.
I'd be careful throwing around "derposphere," by the way; you're backing a candidate who thinks cervical cancer is caused by sexual repression and that children should be encouraged to touch each other's genitals. And that's before we even get into his weird rape fantasy essays.
Backing which candidate? Sanders? Please show me where I have ever stated support for Sanders. You have the same problem as Whembly, where you think that when someone disagrees with you or debunks your bs, that means they like the opposite of what you like. Here's some shocking news for you, I voted for Marco Rubio in Virginia's primary. I don't support Sanders or Clinton or Trump, I just have a low tolerance for sweeping, baseless generalizations.
Cool. If you were talking about the "people's revolution" as a youth and still making the occasional slip and mentioning the "people's revolution" on the campaign trail in your '80s, I'm a lot more skeptical that your beliefs have changed.
Sure, you're entitled to believe whatever you want, just admit that you're doing it solely because your biased against left wing politicians. Trump changes what he believes on a fething daily basis so there is no way to know what he actually thinks. That's a pretty serious issue for a major party candidate.
Trump's an idiot and a buffoon. I'd love to not have to vote for him this cycle, but that would require the Democrats to a) guarantee not to throw up anti-2nd Amendment/anti-capitalist/anti-individual liberty justice nominations, and b) guarantee not to continue doing their best to reduce defense readiness and capability. Neither of those things will happen.
Funny, I don't see Trump with his thin skin not putting in anti-individual liberty measures. Heck, one position he recently supported was trying to make it easier to sue the press for libel because they don't bow to him.
Plus, Trump would very much reduce defense readiness and capability. Giving out nukes and suggesting using them...That's really someone who cares about defense...
Seaward wrote: Cool. If you were talking about the "people's revolution" as a youth and still making the occasional slip and mentioning the "people's revolution" on the campaign trail in your '80s, I'm a lot more skeptical that your beliefs have changed.
Sure, you're entitled to believe whatever you want, just admit that you're doing it solely because your biased against left wing politicians. Trump changes what he believes on a fething daily basis so there is no way to know what he actually thinks. That's a pretty serious issue for a major party candidate.
Are you implying that HRC doesn't change her positions often?
Trump's being a politician for 5 minutes, so of course it's interesting to see him windmill all over the place.
Now HRC? She's a different breed.
She was to the right of Obama with respect to 2nd Amendment, and now she wants to overturn Heller...
She flip-flopped on Gay Marriage...
SHe was a hardliner against illegal immigration before she's for open border...
She's all over the map.
So, if you're going to ding Trump for political "expediencies"... then HRC's long list of switching positsions (and back!) is fair game too.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: You actually think Trump wouldn't just decide to nominate whomever he wants to the Supreme Court? You're a fool if you think otherwise.
I think there's less risk of him nominating another Sotomayor than there is with Clinton.
Okay, so you found something he said forty years ago and you think that he hasn't changed his mind since then.
Largely because there's been no indication that he has.
That's obviously a problem to you,
And, I suspect, the balance of Americans. "Socialist" still ranks somewhere down with "pond scum" in terms of what the American public at large is willing to elect. I think even a hypothetical atheist polled higher.
See above. He's less likely to fall into the "shoulder thing that goes up?" camp than Clinton. She won't be speaking to the NRA at any point during this cycle.
Incidentally, I'd suggest actually reading the speech of Obama's he endorsed. For a guy who has a low tolerance for sweeping, baseless generalizations...well.
You're right, he did fly to Nicaragua and if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, I would expect him to have his feet held to fire over it. In the same breath, the United States still actively supported the Contras despite the fact that it was illegal to do so.
Oh, dear. You're arguing the legality? That's not what I'm arguing. Supporting anti-communist groups is better than supporting communist ones.
Here's some shocking news for you, I voted for Marco Rubio in Virginia's primary.
That is incredibly shocking, yeah, given your love for spitting fire about "reactionaries" and your support for unions and plenty of other lefty causes.
I don't support Sanders or Clinton or Trump, I just have a low tolerance for sweeping, baseless generalizations.
I'm going to have to take your word on that in lieu of evidence.
Sure, you're entitled to believe whatever you want, just admit that you're doing it solely because your biased against left wing politicians.
I'm a conservative libertarian. Of course I'm biased against left-wing politicians. Why on earth would you think I would have any trouble 'admitting' an intense distaste for left-wing politics and the people who support them?
Trump changes what he believes on a fething daily basis so there is no way to know what he actually thinks. That's a pretty serious issue for a major party candidate.
Dreadwinter wrote: I care clearly, you should too considering we are living on a planet with other people and it helps to show what the current political climate is like in the US vs the rest of the world.
You're being deliberately obtuse. Obviously the rest of the world matters. You might not have noticed but the rest of the world is where I live.
But on the very specific question of who America will be choosing to be their president, then the political opinions of the rest of the world do not matter - what matters is where each candidate sits relative to the American voting population.
You know that exit polling only involves a small number of people, correct? It even has a link to a definition of Exit Polling in the article where it says it is taken from a small portion of voters. Also considering this was only done in a select amount of states, kind of shows that again, it was a small portion.
Okay, yeah, you are doing the 'polling doesn't matter because they don't poll everyone thing'. This basically removes you from sensible conversation.
Seaward wrote: See above. He's less likely to fall into the "shoulder thing that goes up?" camp than Clinton.
Trump's entire campaign has been "shoulder thing that goes up."
She won't be speaking to the NRA at any point during this cycle.
Good. First off, feth the NRA. Second off, I don't want to listen to her speak anyway.
Incidentally, I'd suggest actually reading the speech of Obama's he endorsed. For a guy who has a low tolerance for sweeping, baseless generalizations...well.
Even though I did read it, I didn't need to because I watched the President deliver the speech when it happened. Oh, and I remember the right wing outrage that followed his remarks and the baseless fear that he was going to use EOs to take our AR-15s away and all that nonsense. But here were, four years later and I still have a safe full of "scary" assault weapons and the outrage at what Obama said is forgotten and it doesn't matter that Trump agreed because reasons.
That is incredibly shocking, yeah, given your love for spitting fire about "reactionaries" and your support for unions and plenty of other lefty causes.
Plenty of other "lefty causes?" Like what, exactly? I'm a union member because I'd make half as much money doing what I do if I weren't (and I wouldn't have received training anywhere near as good). My union has a PAC and I hate it because they shouldn't be allowed to have it and all they do is give money away to politicians to pay us lip service. I generally support my union and others, so long as they play by the rules and keep things fair. By the way, you must not know many union members because most of the ones I know are so conservative they make you and Whembly look like Bernie fething Sanders.
I'm going to have to take your word on that in lieu of evidence.
Thanks, I guess.
I'm a conservative libertarian. Of course I'm biased against left-wing politicians. Why on earth would you think I would have any trouble 'admitting' an intense distaste for left-wing politics and the people who support them?
I don't, I'm just making it a point to bring it up because when people are unabashedly biased, it can be hard for them to see through that haze. I'm generally liberal, but I'll give anyone a fair shake because I'm not beholden to a political party or ideology, that and I know how to compromise.
sorry to say but i'm voting for Trump, not because I believe in him or think he will be a decent president, but because I look at all the loonies in the protests doing so much damage and destruction trying to stop him, i'm thinking his supporters are more calmer then the Democrat supporters are.
The 9 biggest revelations in the State IG report on Clinton's emails
The 83-page document provided fresh details about whether the private server was authorized and concerns about hacking attacks.
The State Department's inspector general report on Wednesday offered little absolution for Hillary Clinton or several of her top aides who refused to cooperate with the investigation into the former secretary of state's exclusive use of a private email server.
The 83-page document, which was given to lawmakers and leaked to the press, noted systemic problems with records at the State Department, but zeroed in on Clinton, concluding that she had violated federal rules with her private email server.
In addition to creating another headache for a campaign already struggling to fend off a spirited fight from Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders as it looks toward a general election battle with Donald Trump, the report provided fresh details about whether the private server was authorized and concerns about hacking attacks.
Here are 9 of the biggest revelations in the report:
1. Clinton's email setup was never approved by State security agencies Even though department policy mandated throughout Clinton's tenure at Foggy Bottom that day-to-day operations should be conducted via authorized means, the IG report found no evidence that the secretary of state "requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server."
According to interviews with officials in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the Bureau of Information Resource Management, Clinton would have had to "to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs."
But those officials said they approved no such setup because of department rules and the inherent security risks.
The report said those departments "did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business."
2. Clinton never sought assistance to set up her email system to transmit certain sensitive information
The department's policy also mandated that employees use approved and secure devices to transmit information known as SBU—"sensitive but unclassified"—outside State's OpenNet network, and that if they did so on a regular basis to non-department addresses, they should reach out to the Bureau of Information Resource Management.
"However, OIG found no evidence that Secretary Clinton ever contacted IRM to request such a solution, despite the fact that emails exchanged on her personal account regularly contained information marked as SBU," the report states.
3. The arrangement made staffers nervous—and management told them to keep quiet
The IG report noted that two Information Resources Management staffers had communicated their concerns with their departmental boss in late 2010.
"In one meeting, one staff member raised concerns that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements," the report noted.
The staff member recalled that the director said Clinton's personal system had already been reviewed and approved by legal staff "and that the matter was not to be discussed any further," according to the report's language.
"As previously noted, OIG found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary Clinton’s personal system," the next line of the report reads.
The other staff member who raised concerns said the director stated that the department's mission is to "support the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again."
4. Clinton's chief of staff suggested setting up a separate computer
Speaking with senior officials in the Office of the Secretary and its Executive Secretariat, as well as with Patrick F. Kennedy, the department's under secretary for management, Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills in January 2009 suggested that a separate stand-alone computer might be set up for the secretary of state "to enable her to check her emails from her desk."
That discussion came as Clinton expressed her desire to take her BlackBerry in secure areas. Kennedy called it a "great idea" and "the best solution," although the IG report found that no such arrangement was ever made.
5. Clinton worried about 'the personal being accessible'
The report's next bullet point recalls a November 2010 conversation between Clinton and top aide Huma Abedin, her deputy chief of staff for operations. According to the report, the email discussion centered around emails from Clinton's account not being able to be received by State employees. Abedin suggested, "we should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam.”
Clinton responded: "“Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”
The former secretary of state declined the OIG's request for an interview, while Abedin did not respond, according to the report.
6. Abedin rejected the idea for Clinton to use two devices
State Department officials in August 2011 discussed providing Clinton with an agency-issued BlackBerry to replace her "malfunctioning" personal BlackBerry because "her personal email server is down." Then-Executive Secretary Stephen D. Mull suggested that he would provide Clinton two devices—“one with an operating State Department email account (which would mask her identity, but which would also be subject to FOIA requests), and another which would just have phone and internet capability.”
Abedin shot down the proposal because it “doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.” The IG did not find any evidence that Clinton received a new device or address after the discussion.
7. Clinton's email system needed troubleshooting
According to emails the OIG said it reviewed from between "2010 through at least October 2012," messages between State Department staff and two individuals who provided technical support for Clinton's email server showed operational issues. "For example, in December 2010, the Senior Advisor worked with S/ES-IRM and IRM staff to resolve issues affecting the ability of emails transmitted through the clintonemail.com domain used by Secretary Clinton to reach Department email addresses using the state.gov domain," the report states.
Staffers with the office handling information technology for the Office of the Secretary met with a Clinton top technology staffer to resolve the situation. "The issue was ultimately resolved and, on December 21, 2010, S/ES-IRM staff sent senior S/ES staffers an email describing the issue and summarizing the activities undertaken to resolve it," the report stated.
The unnamed Clinton technology staffer also met with staffers in Cyber Threat Analysis Division on another occasion, the report said. The third interaction occurred in late October 2012 when Hurricane Sandy wreaked havoc on the New York City area. An email exchange between Abedin and another member of Clinton's staff "revealed that the server located in Secretary Clinton’s New York residence was down."
The Clinton technology staffer then met with Office of Information Resources Management staffers to see whether State could provide support. According to the report, S/ES-IRM staff said they told the Clinton aide they could not because the server was private.
8. The server was briefly shut down over hacking concerns
The report noted that on Jan. 9, 2011, a non-State technical adviser retained by former President Bill Clinton informed Abedin that he had shut down the server because he thought there was "someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to."
The same person wrote Abedin later the same day, stating, “We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min.”
"On January 10, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations emailed the Chief of Staff and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Planning and instructed them not to email the Secretary 'anything sensitive' and stated that she could 'explain more in person," the report stated, with Abedin being the person who sent the email.
9. Clinton and her staffers worried about being hacked but didn't report to security personnel
On May 13, 2011, the IG report states that "two of Secretary Clinton’s immediate staff discussed via email the Secretary’s concern that someone was 'hacking into her email' after she received an email with a suspicious link."
Hours after that discussion, an email William Burns, the then-Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, appeared in Clinton's inbox, carrying a link to a suspect URL and nothing else in the message.
“Is this really from you? I was worried about opening it!” Clinton responded hours later.
The IG report referenced pre-existing department policy requiring employees to report suspicious incidents to Information Resources Management officials when it comes to their attention, including that it is also "required when a user suspects compromise of, among other things, a personally owned device containing personally identifiable information."
"However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department," the report states.
So... when the issue was raised as a concern by staff tasked with Information Resource Management (IRM), HRC's crew within the State Department:
1) lied through their teeth and
2) told them to shut up. Not just shut up but NEVER.SPEAK.IT.AGAIN.
This country is so boned.
(note: man, politico really doesn't like the Clintons... makes me think they're staffed largely by Bernie Bros )
Good. First off, feth the NRA. Second off, I don't want to listen to her speak anyway.
I'm starting to wonder if you're intentionally missing the point.
Even though I did read it, I didn't need to because I watched the President deliver the speech when it happened. Oh, and I remember the right wing outrage that followed his remarks and the baseless fear that he was going to use EOs to take our AR-15s away and all that nonsense. But here were, four years later and I still have a safe full of "scary" assault weapons and the outrage at what Obama said is forgotten and it doesn't matter that Trump agreed because reasons.
I think it's more because he didn't actually propose anything in the speech referenced.
Plenty of other "lefty causes?" Like what, exactly?
It's weird to try and claim you're not a supporter of lefty causes when you immediately go on to say...
I'm generally liberal
So you're liberal, you're just surprised other people picked up on it? Or you're surprised that other people would be surprised a self-proclaimed liberal would vote for an economic and social conservative? I'm not sure where your confusion's coming from.
Dreadwinter wrote: I care clearly, you should too considering we are living on a planet with other people and it helps to show what the current political climate is like in the US vs the rest of the world.
You're being deliberately obtuse. Obviously the rest of the world matters. You might not have noticed but the rest of the world is where I live.
But on the very specific question of who America will be choosing to be their president, then the political opinions of the rest of the world do not matter - what matters is where each candidate sits relative to the American voting population.
You know that exit polling only involves a small number of people, correct? It even has a link to a definition of Exit Polling in the article where it says it is taken from a small portion of voters. Also considering this was only done in a select amount of states, kind of shows that again, it was a small portion.
Okay, yeah, you are doing the 'polling doesn't matter because they don't poll everyone thing'. This basically removes you from sensible conversation.
I'm sorry, are we not currently in an election cycle where polls and experts have said numerous times that Trump will fail or lose momentum? I get that you are holding on to these things because a lot of times they can be accurate, but clearly not all the time. I believe even your expertise has been proven wrong in this cycle many times. What it comes down to is polling a small number of people and assuming everybody else feels the same way is not accurate. Sometimes exit polls call it right, some times they are wrong, it is far from an exact science. Treating it like it is would be foolish as, based on Trump's rise in the Republican party and the shock being expressed by most people, voters are very unpredictable.
Again, stop being dismissive just because somebody disagrees with you.
Sorry Trump is going to win the election, you know why ? people see the anti-Trump protesters on TV destroying property and doing damage all the while waving a foreign nations flag, that is about as unamerican as it gets, its not a peaceful protest but an unruly mob waving a foreign flag, me I'm voting for the team that is not promoting that behavior.
Whatever Seaward calls himself, he's recognised that it makes sense to vote for whoever your party nominates because one of the biggest differences the president will make is with supreme court nominations. That's something most Republicans, even the ones who call themselves conservative libertarians, have figured out. It's something way too many Democrats fail to realise.
It's a large part of the reason that despite having a much bigger base of support, Democrats continue to lose the important long term fights.
Asterios wrote: Sorry Trump is going to win the election, you know why ? people see the anti-Trump protesters on TV destroying property and doing damage all the while waving a foreign nations flag, that is about as unamerican as it gets, its not a peaceful protest but an unruly mob waving a foreign flag, me I'm voting for the team that is not promoting that behavior.
Fun fact - when you elect a president then it is that elected person who takes office, and not their supporters (noisy or otherwise).
Your post just sounds like a particularly vague kind of tribal voting.
sebster wrote: Whatever Seaward calls himself, he's recognised that it makes sense to vote for whoever your party nominates because one of the biggest differences the president will make is with supreme court nominations. That's something most Republicans, even the ones who call themselves conservative libertarians, have figured out. It's something way too many Democrats fail to realise.
It's a large part of the reason that despite having a much bigger base of support, Democrats continue to lose the important long term fights.
Asterios wrote: Sorry Trump is going to win the election, you know why ? people see the anti-Trump protesters on TV destroying property and doing damage all the while waving a foreign nations flag, that is about as unamerican as it gets, its not a peaceful protest but an unruly mob waving a foreign flag, me I'm voting for the team that is not promoting that behavior.
Fun fact - when you elect a president then it is that elected person who takes office, and not their supporters (noisy or otherwise).
Your post just sounds like a particularly vague kind of tribal voting.
True, but I worry what will happen if Sanders or Clinton get into office more then I worry about Trump since I see his Presidency as a lame duck Presidency.
Dreadwinter wrote: I'm sorry, are we not currently in an election cycle where polls and experts have said numerous times that Trump will fail or lose momentum? I get that you are holding on to these things because a lot of times they can be accurate, but clearly not all the time.
Polls right now are not determinate because it isn't November. We still have primaries to finish, conventions to hold, debates to argue over, and possibly also some actual real things like economic or global events. Things will change.
That has nothing to do with whether polls are accurate or not. Obviously not every poll is perfect, and they should always be treated with a grain of salt. But to ignore them completely, especially when there's no hint they're wrong, but just because the information runs contrary to what you'd like to think, well that's an exercise in not thinking.
That's how Karl Rove ended up looking like a total idiot on TV, because he ignored polls that told him what he didn't want to hear, and instead went looking for any indicator, no matter how weak, that things weren't as they are. Don't be like Rove - when information is presented then recognise it whether or not it fits with what you'd like to believe.
I believe even your expertise has been proven wrong in this cycle many times.
I'm not sure if I'm more puzzled about the claim that I've been proven wrong, or the claim that I have any kind of expertise. All I do is read the handful of sources as other people here on dakka, the only reason I bat slightly higher in my assessments than some others is because I try to remove what I'd like to be true from the data is telling me.
What it comes down to is polling a small number of people and assuming everybody else feels the same way is not accurate.
It isn't 100%, but it's pretty good, and it's the only real information gathering technique we have, outside of just making up crap that we'd like to be true.
Again, stop being dismissive just because somebody disagrees with you.
No, not because you disagree, but because the justification for your disagreement is very bad. If you ignore polls then you basically ignore the only means we have for understanding what people think, and that means removing yourself from the conversation.
Plenty of other "lefty causes?" Like what, exactly?
It's weird to try and claim you're not a supporter of lefty causes when you immediately go on to say...
I'm generally liberal
So you're liberal, you're just surprised other people picked up on it? Or you're surprised that other people would be surprised a self-proclaimed liberal would vote for an economic and social conservative? I'm not sure where your confusion's coming from.
I'm not sure what you mean by "support liberal causes." I don't go out and protest, I don't sign petitions, I don't #whatever, and I don't donate to political parties or candidates. The only political petition I've ever signed was to allow the Libertarian Party a spot on the ballot even though I don't support them; it was just the right thing to do and it's only fair.
I have this amazing ability to look past my own beliefs and vote for someone I think would do the best job if given the chance. I judge each candidate separately instead of instinctively punching all the ballots with the D or R next to them because that's "what your supposed to do." I guess you could say I'm a political unicorn.... or you know, a moderate.
Asterios wrote: True, but I worry what will happen if Sanders or Clinton get into office more then I worry about Trump since I see his Presidency as a lame duck Presidency.
That's true, Trump will be extremely limited in getting any kind of legislation through. But then he hasn't actually got a legislative agenda so...
But there's also control over executive, in this political environment that's really the major source of power for presidents, outside of Supreme Court nominations. The idea of Trump being given large influence over major US insitutions like the Dept of Justice or the EPA should worry everyone who understands how important steady, stable insitutions are.
Dreadwinter wrote: I'm sorry, are we not currently in an election cycle where polls and experts have said numerous times that Trump will fail or lose momentum? I get that you are holding on to these things because a lot of times they can be accurate, but clearly not all the time.
Polls right now are not determinate because it isn't November. We still have primaries to finish, conventions to hold, debates to argue over, and possibly also some actual real things like economic or global events. Things will change.
That has nothing to do with whether polls are accurate or not. Obviously not every poll is perfect, and they should always be treated with a grain of salt. But to ignore them completely, especially when there's no hint they're wrong, but just because the information runs contrary to what you'd like to think, well that's an exercise in not thinking.
That's how Karl Rove ended up looking like a total idiot on TV, because he ignored polls that told him what he didn't want to hear, and instead went looking for any indicator, no matter how weak, that things weren't as they are. Don't be like Rove - when information is presented then recognise it whether or not it fits with what you'd like to believe.
I believe even your expertise has been proven wrong in this cycle many times.
I'm not sure if I'm more puzzled about the claim that I've been proven wrong, or the claim that I have any kind of expertise. All I do is read the handful of sources as other people here on dakka, the only reason I bat slightly higher in my assessments than some others is because I try to remove what I'd like to be true from the data is telling me.
What it comes down to is polling a small number of people and assuming everybody else feels the same way is not accurate.
It isn't 100%, but it's pretty good, and it's the only real information gathering technique we have, outside of just making up crap that we'd like to be true.
Again, stop being dismissive just because somebody disagrees with you.
No, not because you disagree, but because the justification for your disagreement is very bad. If you ignore polls then you basically ignore the only means we have for understanding what people think, and that means removing yourself from the conversation.
So, I should take polls with a huge grain of salt but trust them because it is the only information gathering technique we have? But they are not accurate, but since they are all we have they should not be dismissed? That is absurdity.
Karl Rove is not even remotely the same in this situation. I am saying that exit polls do not represent what a candidates entire voting base thinks. Why you ask? Because I know that it is false because of the people I know who voted for him. But exit polls say that is the way it is, so I guess I am wrong and I really feel that way to? Come on, don't be that guy. That isn't an argument you can back up.
So let me ask you, do you believe that what a few people answer in exit polls that only cover a small number of states is enough to broad stroke an entire voting block of people that covers the entire US?
Dreadwinter wrote: So, I should take polls with a huge grain of salt but trust them because it is the only information gathering technique we have? But they are not accurate, but since they are all we have they should not be dismissed? That is absurdity.
It's too far out from the election for polls to be able to accurately predict who will win. Depending on the fallout from the conventions, the upcoming Dem vs. Rep debates, October surprises, etc., the polling will become more accurate as we get closer to November. Polls at this point are useful in monitoring how well party/candidate strategies are paying off as the election cycle goes forward.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, I should take polls with a huge grain of salt but trust them because it is the only information gathering technique we have? But they are not accurate, but since they are all we have they should not be dismissed? That is absurdity.
Taking exit polls with a grain of salt is one thing, that's probably fairly reasonable. But you aren't looking to just apply a grain of salt, that would mean arguing that while this information exists, it isn't necessarily the complete story. Instead you're looking to dismiss the survey entirely, just ignore its existence.
Applying a grain of salt can be reasonable, especially if you can provide other information that shows an opposing or more complex situation. But just ignoring the survey, as you've attempted, is head in the sand stuff.
Karl Rove is not even remotely the same in this situation. I am saying that exit polls do not represent what a candidates entire voting base thinks. Why you ask? Because I know that it is false because of the people I know who voted for him.
The people you know - that's a sample! That you can talk to people you know who've voted for Sanders and intuitively expand that out to all Sanders voters, but then reject that same process when a sample gives an answer you don't like shows the basic fault in your argument.
The difference, of course, is that exit polls are properly constructed samples, which look to control for demographic and other factors to give a reasonable view of the whole group. Whereas just talking to people you know is a really crappy sample, full of selection bias.
So let me ask you, do you believe that what a few people answer in exit polls that only cover a small number of states is enough to broad stroke an entire voting block of people that covers the entire US?
It isn't a complete, absolute story. But it is informative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: It's too far out from the election for polls to be able to accurately predict who will win. Depending on the fallout from the conventions, the upcoming Dem vs. Rep debates, October surprises, etc., the polling will become more accurate as we get closer to November. Polls at this point are useful in monitoring how well party/candidate strategies are paying off as the election cycle goes forward.
You're right on the value of polling to predict the final election outcome, however that wasn't what was being discussed. We were discussing the value of exit polling in finding out why people chose one candidate or another.
sebster wrote: You're right on the value of polling to predict the final election outcome, however that wasn't what was being discussed. We were discussing the value of exit polling in finding out why people chose one candidate or another.
Apparently it's been pretty reliable in the past at predicting a winner before the State actually begins tabulating votes. As for the why, I suppose that depends on the questions the people doing the polls ask and how accurately they track the answers.
Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have seemingly agreed in principle to give the world the debate it's been waiting for.
Appearing on ABC's "Jimmy Kimmel Live" in a show that aired Wednesday night, Trump said he would be willing to debate Sanders if proceeds from such an event went to charity.
Within minutes of the statement airing, Sanders had agreed to the idea.
"Game on. I look forward to debating Donald Trump in California before the June 7 primary," he tweeted early Thursday morning.
As of very early Thursday morning, the campaigns had made no formal announcements about reaching any specific agreement for an event. However, Sanders is scheduled to appear on Kimmel's late-night talk show Thursday night.
I'm a little worried about this taking place before the Democrat convention. If Bernie has a poor showing against Trump, it could help solidify Hillary's support and make Bernie a non-factor. Being someone who detests Hillary, I'd rather than not happen.
Also, it appears that Trump has hit the magic number to secure the Republican nomination.
It takes 1,237 delegates to win the Republican nomination. Trump has reached 1,238. With 303 delegates at stake in five state primaries on June 7, Trump will easily pad his total, avoiding a contested convention in Cleveland.
Kilkrazy wrote: Of course Bernie might make Trumpo look like a loudmouth bullying weasel clown.
Um... Bernie doesn't need to do that... everyone knows Trump is a "loudmouth bullying weasel clown".
Since Trump has openly encouraged Sanders to go 3rd-party... raising Bernie's stature like might make that option more attractive. You know this will be bigtime TV rating...
So while Trump agreeing to a debate with Sanders while Hillary ducks one will hurt her... what remains to be seen is whether the BernieBros give Trump any credit for this, and votes "not-Hillary" in the General. Not likely... but, what's the harm for trying?
Nah, if it happens, which i seriously doubt as Trump is a pretty awful debater and will likely say he was just joking, the Sanders supporters will see just how much Sanders despises Trump. If anything, it will only help Clinton solidify his supporters later.
Appearing on ABC's "Jimmy Kimmel Live" in a show that aired Wednesday night, Trump said he would be willing to debate Sanders if proceeds from such an event went to charity.
This needsto happen!
Not this doesn't need to happen..... I seem to recall that el Trump has done a number of "charity" events and whatnot, for various veterans groups..... now, some of those groups are among the protesters outside his events, outside his tower, and probably taking him to court over non-payment of the agreed deals.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Not this doesn't need to happen..... I seem to recall that el Trump has done a number of "charity" events and whatnot, for various veterans groups..... now, some of those groups are among the protesters outside his events, outside his tower, and probably taking him to court over non-payment of the agreed deals.
That sounds like something that should be easy to cite.
Appearing on ABC's "Jimmy Kimmel Live" in a show that aired Wednesday night, Trump said he would be willing to debate Sanders if proceeds from such an event went to charity.
This needsto happen!
Not this doesn't need to happen..... I seem to recall that el Trump has done a number of "charity" events and whatnot, for various veterans groups..... now, some of those groups are among the protesters outside his events, outside his tower, and probably taking him to court over non-payment of the agreed deals.
O.o
Who wouldn't want a debate between a Socialist-Old-Fogey vs. a Capitalistic-Old-Fogey?!??!
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Not this doesn't need to happen..... I seem to recall that el Trump has done a number of "charity" events and whatnot, for various veterans groups..... now, some of those groups are among the protesters outside his events, outside his tower, and probably taking him to court over non-payment of the agreed deals.
That sounds like something that should be easy to cite.
Damn! The first time he has a good idea (on his own end) and he chickens out of it. Seriously though he could of gone a long way to sabotage Clinton by directly courting Sanders voters and thier percieved (real or not) marginalization. All he would of had to do is debate Sanders and refrain from using ad hominem as a form of debate. Sure he would of been crushed by Sanders but when has something like that ever hurt Trump? Its not like Repubicans are going to choose somebody else in November.
I guess he could offer angry grandpa a job in his administration lol. That would really blow people's collective minds.
Then again I favor multiple party administrations, espeically either the VP or the Secretary of the State being from another party.
I think both Sanders and Trump are pulling heavily from people who are torqued off with the "business as usual, status quo” establishment in DC.
Sure, they are on opposite sides of the line, but they have a bit in common. If Trump can convince Sanders followers that he’s going to shake things up in Washington, he might be able to draw them away from Hillary.
BrotherGecko wrote: Damn! The first time he has a good idea (on his own end) and he chickens out of it. Seriously though he could of gone a long way to sabotage Clinton by directly courting Sanders voters and thier percieved (real or not) marginalization. All he would of had to do is debate Sanders and refrain from using ad hominem as a form of debate. Sure he would of been crushed by Sanders but when has something like that ever hurt Trump? Its not like Repubicans are going to choose somebody else in November.
I guess he could offer angry grandpa a job in his administration lol. That would really blow people's collective minds.
Then again I favor multiple party administrations, espeically either the VP or the Secretary of the State being from another party.
Is Trumpo capable of refraining from ad hominem attacks?
Kilkrazy wrote: Of course Bernie might make Trumpo look like a loudmouth bullying weasel clown.
Um... Bernie doesn't need to do that... everyone knows Trump is a "loudmouth bullying weasel clown".
Since Trump has openly encouraged Sanders to go 3rd-party... raising Bernie's stature like might make that option more attractive. You know this will be bigtime TV rating...
So while Trump agreeing to a debate with Sanders while Hillary ducks one will hurt her... what remains to be seen is whether the BernieBros give Trump any credit for this, and votes "not-Hillary" in the General. Not likely... but, what's the harm for trying?
of course Trump wants Sander's to go independent, it would split the Democrat vote down the middle almost.
Welcome to Presidential Survivor alliances are made, enemies are made, who will win ?
This isn't a right-wing conspiracy—the FBI will unravel it all
Running for president this year, after her abortive 2008 effort against Barack Obama, has not worked out quite as planned for Hillary Clinton. This was supposed to be her year, at long last. After enduring a quarter-century on the national stage—including tough years by the side of her gifted but scandal-prone husband—2016 finally lined up as Ms. Clinton’s best shot at moving back into the White House, this time with her in the Oval Office.
That outcome is looking less likely by the day. First, Hillary can’t manage to finish off Senator Bernie Sanders, despite his far-left politics that until recently resided quietly on the fringe of the Democratic party. They are fringe no more, and Bernie’s sincerity and authenticity offer an appealing contrast to the often awkward and stilted Ms. Clinton. This summer’s Democratic convention in Philadelphia, where Mr. Sanders will show up with legions of adoring fans who display a passion altogether lacking in the ranks of Team Clinton, promises to be quite a show—maybe even a madhouse.
Then there’s the troubling matter of EmailGate, the long-running scandal that this column has covered in great detail. That Ms. Clinton and her senior staff misused email during her tenure as secretary of state has long been crystal-clear. Refusing to use government email for government work was a violation of policy, while Team Clinton’s routing of said emails through a private server, then putting classified information on it—including above top secret information from the Intelligence Community—looks like a violation of several federal laws.
Early denials from the Clinton camp tried to make the entire matter go away, insisting there was no “there” there. Once that folded in the face of massive evidence that something indeed had gone very awry with Secretary Clinton’s emails at Foggy Bottom, the excuses shifted to ones familiar to those who experienced the 1990s. Everybody does it. It’s not really a big deal. Above all, this is politically motivated. These false accusations are the machinations of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Such dodges held water for months among Hillary fans, aided by parts of the mainstream media which, long accustomed to running interference for the Clintons, continued to do so, attempting to muddy waters that to those familiar with laws and regulations on the handling of classified materials are actually decidedly clear.
That all fell apart yesterday with the release of the long-anticipated State Department Inspector General’s special report on how Foggy Bottom handles email records and cybersecurity. A shoe has dropped for Team Clinton—a very big shoe—and there will be no going back now.
The Office of the Inspector General at State, as in all federal departments, exists to ferret out internal fraud, waste and illegalities. However, State had no real IG boss from 2009 to 2013, with an acting director heading up the office. Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton were in any hurry to find a permanent director for State’s IG shop. Now we know why.
The State IG report, weighing in at over 80 pages, is crammed full of bureaucratese yet paints an indelible and detailed portrait of things going very wrong at Foggy Bottom—especially under Hillary Clinton. It can charitably be termed scathing, and it leaves no doubt that Team Clinton has lied flagrantly to the public about EmailGate for more than a year.
That the State Department’s IT systems were a mess for years was hardly a secret, and the IG report makes painfully clear that State has had a difficult time transitioning into the electronic age. Several recent secretaries of state used email in a manner that would be judged inadequate, and perhaps improper, by today’s standards, including Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, who served under President George W. Bush.
That said, only Hillary Clinton simply refused to use government email for government work—she repeatedly denied requests from State security and IT to use state.gov email—and she systematically dodged federal regulations on electronic communications and records preservation by setting up her private email server of bathroom infamy. Damningly, while several former secretaries of state cooperated with the IG in this important investigation, Ms. Clinton refused to.
As secretary of state, Ms. Clinton attempted a novel experiment of trying to avoid using any information systems that create records that can be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The IG report includes painful details, including how she flatly refused to use state.gov email for anything, ever, citing privacy grounds. State IT was concerned because Ms. Clinton’s work emails—all being sent via her clintonmail.com address—were winding up in the spam folders of State officials. Important information was not getting where it needed to go. She needed to use official email for official business. Except she refused.
What was so important, so sensitive that Hillary had to dodge FOIA altogether? Clearly protecting her private life—whatever that might be—was valued more highly by Ms. Clinton than actually heading the Department of State.
Then we have the repeating warnings from State officials about the incredibly vulnerable nature of her ramshackle private email system from any cybersecurity perspective. These, too, were blown off by Ms. Clinton and her staff, despite several hacking efforts that staffers were aware of. Guccifer, the Romanian hacker who illegally accessed Ms. Clinton’s email during her tour at Foggy Bottom, has just pleaded guilty, and there can be little doubt that hackers more adept than he penetrated Hillary’s communications.
Any foreign intelligence service worth its salt would have had no trouble accessing Ms. Clinton’s emails, particularly when they were unencrypted, as this column has explained in detail. Yet Hillary was more worried about the American public finding out about what she was up to via FOIA than what foreign spy services and hackers might see in her email.
What she was seeking to hide so ardently remains one of the big unanswered questions in EmailGate. Hints may be found in the recent announcement that Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, the former head of the Democratic National Committee and a longtime Clinton intimate, is under FBI investigation for financial misdeeds, specifically dirty money coming from China. In fact, Mr. McAulliffe invited one of his Beijing benefactors over to Ms. Clinton’s house in 2013. Not long after, Chinese investors donated $2 million to the Clinton Foundation.
That an illegal pay-for-play-scheme, with donations to the Clinton Foundation being rewarded by political favors from Hillary Clinton—who when she was secretary of state had an enormous ability to grant favors to foreign bidders—existed at the heart of EmailGate has been widely suspected, and we know the FBI is investigating this case as political corruption, not just for mishandling of classified information. That certainly would be something Ms. Clinton would not have wanted the public to find out about via FOIA.
As is their wont, Hillary’s loyal defenders are denouncing the State IG report as yet another “nothingburger,” adding with customary conspiratorial flair: “there are some real questions about the impartiality of the IG.” In this take, we are supposed to believe that the head of State’s IG office, appointed by President Obama, is a clandestine GOP operative.
Such escapism masquerading as hot takes won’t work anymore. Even The Washington Post, hardly a member of the VRWC, has conceded that EmailGate is a certifiably big deal, and “badly complicates Clinton’s past explanations about the server.” Its editors went further, issuing a blistering statement castigating Ms. Clinton’s “inexcusable, willful disregard of the rules.” They minced no words: “Ms. Clinton had plenty of warnings to use official government communications methods, so as to make sure that her records were properly preserved and to minimize cybersecurity risks. She ignored them.”
Although Post editors were at pains to state that Ms. Clinton had not broken any laws with her gross negligence at Foggy Bottom, the issue remains open. The FBI is investigating that complex matter now. As this column has previously reported, Hillary’s “unclassified” emails included above top secret information about undercover CIA operatives serving overseas as well as extremely sensitive NSA reports about Sudan—all information from special access programs that’s supposed to be tightly guarded.
What sort of impact those compromises will have on the investigation into EmailGate remains to be seen. We won’t know until the FBI submits its findings to the Department of Justice, probably this summer, with a recommendation to prosecute (or not). The key figure in this whole matter is Patrick Kennedy, a longtime Clinton protégé and State’s undersecretary for management (hence his nickname, “M”), who oversaw the department’s IT and security offices. Mr. Kennedy is widely believed to have enabled Hillary’s irregularities—and apparent illegalities—with email and ran internal interference for her when questions became loud and frequent. The FBI will want to unravel this all.
Hints are now emerging that Ms. Clinton’s neglect of basic security may have damaged more than her political reputation. A new report suggests several U.S. counterterrorism operations went awry thanks to Hillary’s slipshod communications security. This serious accusation is unsubstantiated yet plausible, given how easy it would have been for foreign spies to access Ms. Clinton’s email—as well as how much classified information she and her staff routinely put in “unclassified” emails. Counterintelligence officers will be investigating EmailGate for years, searching for clues about clandestine operations that went wrong, possibly due to Hillary’s IT misdeeds at Foggy Bottom.
For now, Team Clinton has plenty of problems to deal with. Their proffered excuses—that everybody does it, it’s no big deal, it’s just a fake scandal ginned up by the VRWC—have been blown apart by the State Department itself. If Hillary wants to be our next president, she needs to come up with better answers to what she was doing with her email—and why.
So far, Bernie Sanders has treated EmailGate with kid gloves, refusing to go after Ms. Clinton with gusto on the issue. Donald Trump will show no such reticence. What the State IG has revealed plays directly into Mr. Trump’s #CrookedHillary narrative. Large swathes of the public have never liked the Clintonian view that rules are for little people—not Bill and Hillary or their friends. Ms. Clinton’s misconduct as our nation’s top diplomat, including compromising our national security in order to hide her private deals, raises serious questions about her fitness as commander-in-chief. We can be sure The Donald will ask them.
Again Whembly, we know you have a hard on for anything remotely smelling of Clinton conspiracies, but could you please put the long stories in spoilers.
On topic, what is new in this news story that didn't come out yesterday that didn't seem to have tanked her run?
Gordon Shumway wrote: Again Whembly, we know you have a hard on for anything remotely smelling of Clinton conspiracies, but could you please put the long stories in spoilers.
Uh... it was already spoilered. o.O
On topic, what is new in this news story that didn't come out yesterday that didn't seem to have tanked her run?
Edit: thanks!
That IG report completely destroys whatever excuse there is for HRC...
A) She claimed she turned over all work related emails and merely destroyed her "yoga routines" and "Chelse's Wedding Plans." That's straight up a lie. The IG found work emails she did not turn over that were found by other means.
Hillary did not turn over her emails as the law requires, nor did she maintain them, as the law requires. Thus, she at least broke the Federal Record Act laws...
B) She compromised national security recklessly. Her and her staff's very own emails document two "attacks" on her unsecure server. Not to mention all the various TOP SECRET emails on her unsecured server. The very *act* of having it on her server is, itself, illegal.
C) Interestingly, of her 26 aides, only five answered the IG's investigative questions... Among those refusing to answer questions are Jake Sullivan, Cheryl Mills, Human Abedin, and of course HRC herself.
In sum - Her private email account and server broke the rules, which those rules were created to comply to specific laws.
This report simply states the belief that HRC and her staff broke federal laws.
I think our streams were crossed with the spoilers.
Fair enough. But what is new that didn't come out yesterday? Were you not paying attention to yesterday? Have you not been reading the 10,000+ emails released constantly since July or so of last year?
Whembly, I have to hand it to you though even though you don't have a dog in the fight, you are still grabbing the bone, you junkyard dog, you. Silly goose.
Which federal laws were those and why are they not being prosecuted (here is where you can't have it both ways and say Obama administration). See the thing is the rules are not laws (at least the ones in the dos) and if they were, each head of each Dept gets to decide the bylaws in each Dept. (When not overseen by congress or the pres.). to put it another way "anything that was released by our Dept. Has been deemed non secretive by the head of our dept." Which was Clinton. where she could get into trouble, legally, is from outside emails being sent and forwarded by her. I agree it still doesn't look good, but November is a long way away with lots of Trump in the meantime.
On a related note, I heard on a conservative talkshow the other day that the Clinton camp might have some horribly damaging dirt on Trump and are just waiting until the convention is past to release it. Evidently, Ryan knows about it and is why he is hedging his endorseMent. What in the world could that be that hasn't been already mentioned? It can't be the fact he raped his own wife, that is pretty old news.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Which federal laws were those and why are they not being prosecuted (here is where you can't have it both ways and say Obama administration). See the thing is the rules are not laws (at least the ones in the dos) and if they were, each head of each Dept gets to decide the bylaws in each Dept. (When not overseen by congress or the pres.). to put it another way "anything that was released by our Dept. Has been deemed non secretive by the head of our dept." Which was Clinton. where she could get into trouble, legally, is from outside emails being sent and forwarded by her. I agree it still doesn't look good, but November is a long way away with lots of Trump in the meantime.
More than 1500 instances of email where classified that were transmitted through HRC’s secret server and then retained on said server. Each of those instances are a violation of 18 USC 793 and 18 USC 1924, with both statutes declaring violations to be felonies.
And these were BORN classified... none if this BS spin that they were 'retro-actively' classified.
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
That's the federal law in question with respect to retetion... It covers all federal agencies. Each individual agency, must then implement rules and policies for all employees so that they're in accordance with the law. The IG reports states that these rules have been violated, which is another way stating that the law was broken.
EDIT: Even Andrea Mitchell (!) is calling BS to some of the spin:
On a related note, I heard on a conservative talkshow the other day that the Clinton camp might have some horribly damaging dirt on Trump and are just waiting until the convention is past to release it. Evidently, Ryan knows about it and is why he is hedging his endorseMent. What in the world could that be that hasn't been already mentioned? It can't be the fact he raped his own wife, that is pretty old news.
And to put in the daily parlance (trump speak) whatabouit? Without an actual indictment (notice the soft spoken language of legalese of the actual report), and until an actual FBI indictment happens, nothing will come of it (I'm not saying it it shouldn't). I just don't see the legs of it in our political climate, it's too minutiae. (Have you seen the legs on trumps wife) Too beltway. (Have you seen the legs on trumps daughter) Too boring (sad, but true). Chelsey might be a nice girl...what do her legs look like? Did you see that a deaf person won some sort of dancing competition? My brain hurts with the mundanity of life right now. Time to paint space marines! And vote! Vote! VOTE, what are those Property Brothers building?
Breotan wrote: Apparently it's been pretty reliable in the past at predicting a winner before the State actually begins tabulating votes. As for the why, I suppose that depends on the questions the people doing the polls ask and how accurately they track the answers.
Sure, exit polls have been a fairly strong indicator, not perfect but good. But they're also good at lots of stuff outside of figuring out who's going to win on the day. Such as finding out what sort of people are voting for each candidate, and why they're voting for them.
Nevelon wrote: Sure, they are on opposite sides of the line, but they have a bit in common. If Trump can convince Sanders followers that he’s going to shake things up in Washington, he might be able to draw them away from Hillary.
I think this line about 'shaking things up in Washington' is so stupid it really makes me worry.
First up, I don't think there's ever been a point in US political history where at least a couple of major candidates in the primaries weren't promising to shake up Washington. Running on an outsider message is a big part of the political orthodoxy.
But second and more importantly - it doesn't fething mean anything. "I'm gonna change stuff" doesn't actually mean a damn thing. What matters is what you're going to change, and how you're going to change it.
I mean I know you're convinced the email thing is the most awful scandal ever, and you know what, I'm not even going to bother debating that. You believe what you want to believe.
My question is on your conviction that this actually has some kind of electoral impact. For it to matter it needs to be a matter of interest to people who weren't already committed Clinton haters. So just ask yourself, how many people do you know who like Clinton, but are passing around stories like this? How many times in political conversation does the email scandal come up, among people who don't already hate Clinton?
That should give you a pretty good indication of how much this, like Benghazi, has any real impact on the voting public.
I mean I know you're convinced the email thing is the most awful scandal ever, and you know what, I'm not even going to bother debating that. You believe what you want to believe.
My question is on your conviction that this actually has some kind of electoral impact. For it to matter it needs to be a matter of interest to people who weren't already committed Clinton haters. So just ask yourself, how many people do you know who like Clinton, but are passing around stories like this? How many times in political conversation does the email scandal come up, among people who don't already hate Clinton?
Yes, it's a big deal... especially when the FBI recommends indictments. It's not something that'll be ignored and for sure, the GOP will hammer it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: And to put in the daily parlance (trump speak) whatabouit? Without an actual indictment (notice the soft spoken language of legalese of the actual report), and until an actual FBI indictment happens, nothing will come of it (I'm not saying it it shouldn't). I just don't see the legs of it in our political climate, it's too minutiae. (Have you seen the legs on trumps wife) Too beltway. (Have you seen the legs on trumps daughter) Too boring (sad, but true). Chelsey might be a nice girl...what do her legs look like? Did you see that a deaf person won some sort of dancing competition? My brain hurts with the mundanity of life right now. Time to paint space marines! And vote! Vote! VOTE, what are those Property Brothers building?
whatabouit?
Seriously?!?!?
Just think about this... information were compromised by her. Those information provide cover and/or blackmail materials for our adversaries.
Does she got pretty hair? If not I don't care much. The FBI has not made their recommendation yet (let's not get our undies in too much of a bundle). And yeah. Seriously. Me and you have been the only people to comment in the thread in the last twelve or so hours. Not that we are a real demographic or anything, but nobody really cares. Nobody will care about anything for another three months. Then everybody will care. And we won't want them to.
Maybe non voting Australian guy wil come along and talk some sense.
Maybe uber liberal guy who doesn't want to be so described will come along with his input.
Maybe uber conservative guy who thinks he will vote for trump but has no idea what Trump stands for will come along.
But ultimately it's just you and me Whem, and my vote cancels yours. We vote against each other until the sun sets low. We tie. And then we rejoice naked on a hilltop of diases and daffodils. It will be Beautiful and we can rejoice and sing "trump ta li la Clinton, trump ti la do dae" and then we...wait politics, yeah. Ok then. Um. Go person who has my best interest at heart! Go McGovern! (Cause really, that guy did, I knew him after he was a political figure, and he did care).
whembly wrote: Yes, it's a big deal... especially when the FBI recommends indictments. It's not something that'll be ignored and for sure, the GOP will hammer it.
If the FBI recommends indictment.
And you didn't answer my question. I didn't ask if the GOP was going to make a big deal out of this - of course they're going to do that. Even when the investigations turn up nothing (PP, Benghazi) the GOP just holds more investigations. It's pretty much what they do these days.
Anyhow, you didn't answer the question I actually asked. Have you seen any interest in the issue from people who didn't already hate Clinton? That should tell you how much this issue is impacting the presidential race.
Of course, if there's an indictment everything changes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: But ultimately it's just you and me Whem, and my vote cancels yours. We vote against each other until the sun sets low. We tie. And then we rejoice naked on a hilltop of diases and daffodils. It will be Beautiful and we can rejoice and sing "trump ta li la Clinton, trump ti la do dae" and then we...wait politics, yeah. Ok then. Um. Go person who has my best interest at heart! Go McGovern! (Cause really, that guy did, I knew him after he was a political figure, and he did care).
Well just saw a sanders commercial where he says the rich should pay their fair share, and I keep thinking the Rich are paying more of the taxs collected.
Asterios wrote: Well just saw a sanders commercial where he says the rich should pay their fair share, and I keep thinking the Rich are paying more of the taxs collected.
You are correct that the rich pay more tax, because of course they do, they have more money. But paying more doesn't mean you pay a fair amount of tax... because if a system allocates one person many millions of dollars, and another person just a few thousand, it isn't fair that they both 20% of their income. The first person is obviously benefiting a lot more from the system than the second person.
Exactly how much is fair is, of course, a complex and very subjective question, that could be a very interesting conversation. Unfortunately no-one ever tries to have that conversation, and that's why both Sanders' ad and your response are so terrible. You both talk past the actual point, Sanders merely assumes he is correct, that fair is some number more than what is paid, and you assume that fair is any amount more than an event amount per person.
Who is Rich? Should I thank the guy for putting my daughter through college or shiv him for screwing me over my entire life? Such difficult decisions. I will have my daughter shank him with her diploma.
Asterios wrote: Well just saw a sanders commercial where he says the rich should pay their fair share, and I keep thinking the Rich are paying more of the taxs collected.
You are correct that the rich pay more tax, because of course they do, they have more money. But paying more doesn't mean you pay a fair amount of tax... because if a system allocates one person many millions of dollars, and another person just a few thousand, it isn't fair that they both 20% of their income. The first person is obviously benefiting a lot more from the system than the second person.
Exactly how much is fair is, of course, a complex and very subjective question, that could be a very interesting conversation. Unfortunately no-one ever tries to have that conversation, and that's why both Sanders' ad and your response are so terrible. You both talk past the actual point, Sanders merely assumes he is correct, that fair is some number more than what is paid, and you assume that fair is any amount more than an event amount per person.
"The system"? Are you referring to the economy or what? Might just be one of those things were different locales and nationalities have different terminology/slang but I've never heard it explained like that. We don't have a system that just doles out money like we're all playing slot machines in a casino.
We have the discussion about "fair" tax rates all the time. It always boils down to the fact that "fair" is a subjective idea that varies with each individual. Some people think some tax brackets should have higher rates but nobody wants their own taxes to go up. Some people want the govt to do/spend more but everybody always pays the smallest amount of taxes they legally can. Everyone is free to pay more taxes to the govt but I've never seen an example of a rich person, especially a rich politician that voluntarily pays a higher rate because doing so is more "fair."
Campaign ads aren't meant to prompt meaningful policy discussions they're meant to motivate party bases, reinforce party differences (real or imagined) and get the electorate worked up over partisan wedge issues in the hope of increasing turnout and that's just the ads that aren't outright mud slinging negative ads.
Asterios wrote: Well just saw a sanders commercial where he says the rich should pay their fair share, and I keep thinking the Rich are paying more of the taxs collected.
You are correct that the rich pay more tax, because of course they do, they have more money. But paying more doesn't mean you pay a fair amount of tax... because if a system allocates one person many millions of dollars, and another person just a few thousand, it isn't fair that they both 20% of their income. The first person is obviously benefiting a lot more from the system than the second person.
Exactly how much is fair is, of course, a complex and very subjective question, that could be a very interesting conversation. Unfortunately no-one ever tries to have that conversation, and that's why both Sanders' ad and your response are so terrible. You both talk past the actual point, Sanders merely assumes he is correct, that fair is some number more than what is paid, and you assume that fair is any amount more than an event amount per person.
"The system"? Are you referring to the economy or what? Might just be one of those things were different locales and nationalities have different terminology/slang but I've never heard it explained like that. We don't have a system that just doles out money like we're all playing slot machines in a casino.
"The system" as in society in general. Rich people benefit a lot more from a stable society than poor people, because without a stable society the poor people would put the rich people's heads on poles and take their stuff. There's also the part where roads, schools, plumbing, the fire department and so on give these rich people the possibility to get rich in the first place. The myth of the self-made man is just that: a myth. As I believe some dude once said: You didn't build that. As evident from the response to that quote, though, that was not what a lot of people wanted to hear...
Asterios wrote: Well just saw a sanders commercial where he says the rich should pay their fair share, and I keep thinking the Rich are paying more of the taxs collected.
You are correct that the rich pay more tax, because of course they do, they have more money. But paying more doesn't mean you pay a fair amount of tax... because if a system allocates one person many millions of dollars, and another person just a few thousand, it isn't fair that they both 20% of their income. The first person is obviously benefiting a lot more from the system than the second person.
Exactly how much is fair is, of course, a complex and very subjective question, that could be a very interesting conversation. Unfortunately no-one ever tries to have that conversation, and that's why both Sanders' ad and your response are so terrible. You both talk past the actual point, Sanders merely assumes he is correct, that fair is some number more than what is paid, and you assume that fair is any amount more than an event amount per person.
"The system"? Are you referring to the economy or what? Might just be one of those things were different locales and nationalities have different terminology/slang but I've never heard it explained like that. We don't have a system that just doles out money like we're all playing slot machines in a casino.
"The system" as in society in general. Rich people benefit a lot more from a stable society than poor people, because without a stable society the poor people would put the rich people's heads on poles and take their stuff. There's also the part where roads, schools, plumbing, the fire department and so on give these rich people the possibility to get rich in the first place. The myth of the self-made man is just that: a myth. As I believe some dude once said: You didn't build that. As evident from the response to that quote, though, that was not what a lot of people wanted to hear...
In a society where rich people's heads are being put on poles, poor people's eventually end up there beside them, unless you wish to ignore the recent events in the Middle East, Africa, and Mexico.
Asterios wrote: Well just saw a sanders commercial where he says the rich should pay their fair share, and I keep thinking the Rich are paying more of the taxs collected.
You are correct that the rich pay more tax, because of course they do, they have more money. But paying more doesn't mean you pay a fair amount of tax... because if a system allocates one person many millions of dollars, and another person just a few thousand, it isn't fair that they both 20% of their income. The first person is obviously benefiting a lot more from the system than the second person.
Exactly how much is fair is, of course, a complex and very subjective question, that could be a very interesting conversation. Unfortunately no-one ever tries to have that conversation, and that's why both Sanders' ad and your response are so terrible. You both talk past the actual point, Sanders merely assumes he is correct, that fair is some number more than what is paid, and you assume that fair is any amount more than an event amount per person.
"The system"? Are you referring to the economy or what? Might just be one of those things were different locales and nationalities have different terminology/slang but I've never heard it explained like that. We don't have a system that just doles out money like we're all playing slot machines in a casino.
"The system" as in society in general. Rich people benefit a lot more from a stable society than poor people, because without a stable society the poor people would put the rich people's heads on poles and take their stuff. There's also the part where roads, schools, plumbing, the fire department and so on give these rich people the possibility to get rich in the first place. The myth of the self-made man is just that: a myth. As I believe some dude once said: You didn't build that. As evident from the response to that quote, though, that was not what a lot of people wanted to hear...
So you think that poor people are bloodthirsty homicidal lynch mobs that are only held in check by "society" and would otherwise murder a whole bunch of people who have more stuff than they do? That's an odd perception of them. I've been poor and it's never made me feel murderous.
"Rich" people aren't the only ones that benefit from civil society and infrastructure. Infrastructure is built by the government, the government is funded by taxes, in our progressive income tax system "rich" people pay the most income tax that funds the government. So "poor" people should be mad at "rich" people for funding government projects that benefit society? Or is it that "rich" people shouldn't benefit from civil society and a stable economy created by a government funded by their taxes?
Those millionaires in NYC can send as much money as they want to the IRS or NY state. Anyone can choose to pay more in taxes. All you have to do is write a bigger check for your tax return. If they want to pay more taxes there is literally nothing stopping them from doing so. They can also encourage they state and federal representatives to propose and vote for new tax laws.
Asterios wrote: Well just saw a sanders commercial where he says the rich should pay their fair share, and I keep thinking the Rich are paying more of the taxs collected.
You are correct that the rich pay more tax, because of course they do, they have more money. But paying more doesn't mean you pay a fair amount of tax... because if a system allocates one person many millions of dollars, and another person just a few thousand, it isn't fair that they both 20% of their income. The first person is obviously benefiting a lot more from the system than the second person.
Exactly how much is fair is, of course, a complex and very subjective question, that could be a very interesting conversation. Unfortunately no-one ever tries to have that conversation, and that's why both Sanders' ad and your response are so terrible. You both talk past the actual point, Sanders merely assumes he is correct, that fair is some number more than what is paid, and you assume that fair is any amount more than an event amount per person.
"The system"? Are you referring to the economy or what? Might just be one of those things were different locales and nationalities have different terminology/slang but I've never heard it explained like that. We don't have a system that just doles out money like we're all playing slot machines in a casino.
"The system" as in society in general. Rich people benefit a lot more from a stable society than poor people, because without a stable society the poor people would put the rich people's heads on poles and take their stuff. There's also the part where roads, schools, plumbing, the fire department and so on give these rich people the possibility to get rich in the first place. The myth of the self-made man is just that: a myth. As I believe some dude once said: You didn't build that. As evident from the response to that quote, though, that was not what a lot of people wanted to hear...
So you think that poor people are bloodthirsty homicidal lynch mobs that are only held in check by "society" and would otherwise murder a whole bunch of people who have more stuff than they do? That's an odd perception of them. I've been poor and it's never made me feel murderous.
"Rich" people aren't the only ones that benefit from civil society and infrastructure. Infrastructure is built by the government, the government is funded by taxes, in our progressive income tax system "rich" people pay the most income tax that funds the government. So "poor" people should be mad at "rich" people for funding government projects that benefit society? Or is it that "rich" people shouldn't benefit from civil society and a stable economy created by a government funded by their taxes?
Exalted. The whole,"You didn't build this", is one of the most loaded, asnine phrases I have heard. Sure, there are those who are born into wealth that just lounge about, but I know far more well off people who started by risking everything to make their business work. They would work consistent long days that carried them well into the night, keep things running off credit cards along with having everything they owned mortgaged to the hilt. This is why that whole statement met with such derision from these people.
Asterios wrote: Well just saw a sanders commercial where he says the rich should pay their fair share, and I keep thinking the Rich are paying more of the taxs collected.
You are correct that the rich pay more tax, because of course they do, they have more money. But paying more doesn't mean you pay a fair amount of tax... because if a system allocates one person many millions of dollars, and another person just a few thousand, it isn't fair that they both 20% of their income. The first person is obviously benefiting a lot more from the system than the second person.
Exactly how much is fair is, of course, a complex and very subjective question, that could be a very interesting conversation. Unfortunately no-one ever tries to have that conversation, and that's why both Sanders' ad and your response are so terrible. You both talk past the actual point, Sanders merely assumes he is correct, that fair is some number more than what is paid, and you assume that fair is any amount more than an event amount per person.
"The system"? Are you referring to the economy or what? Might just be one of those things were different locales and nationalities have different terminology/slang but I've never heard it explained like that. We don't have a system that just doles out money like we're all playing slot machines in a casino.
"The system" as in society in general. Rich people benefit a lot more from a stable society than poor people, because without a stable society the poor people would put the rich people's heads on poles and take their stuff. There's also the part where roads, schools, plumbing, the fire department and so on give these rich people the possibility to get rich in the first place. The myth of the self-made man is just that: a myth. As I believe some dude once said: You didn't build that. As evident from the response to that quote, though, that was not what a lot of people wanted to hear...
So you think that poor people are bloodthirsty homicidal lynch mobs that are only held in check by "society" and would otherwise murder a whole bunch of people who have more stuff than they do? That's an odd perception of them. I've been poor and it's never made me feel murderous.
"Rich" people aren't the only ones that benefit from civil society and infrastructure. Infrastructure is built by the government, the government is funded by taxes, in our progressive income tax system "rich" people pay the most income tax that funds the government. So "poor" people should be mad at "rich" people for funding government projects that benefit society? Or is it that "rich" people shouldn't benefit from civil society and a stable economy created by a government funded by their taxes?
This really isn't a hard concept to understand: if you have 1 million, you stand to lose more from the state collapsing than if you have nothing. You are thus gaining more from society than someone that is poor, and should thus contribute more.
Exalted. The whole,"You didn't build this", is one of the most loaded, asnine phrases I have heard. Sure, there are those who are born into wealth that just lounge about, but I know far more well off people who started by risking everything to make their business work. They would work consistent long days that carried them well into the night, keep things running off credit cards along with having everything they owned mortgaged to the hilt. This is why that whole statement met with such derision from these people.
Well, they had homes to mortgage and the credit ratings and history to get those credit cards. So that is already some huge advantages over lots of other people. It is much easier to "risk it all" for your business when you actually have stuff to put on the line.
I look at it this way, its a messed up society when the top 1% of people are paying about 70-90% of the taxes, and probably use a miniscule fraction of where those taxes go to, while those who use and abuse the system, use the most of the tax money and yet pay nothing, this idea of government cannot survive, our unemployment is thru the roof and government (especially here in California) is making it tougher for jobs to exist, already a few states have made laws to raise minimum wage up to $15 an hour, and already companies are closing down or employees are being replaced by Robots/Computers, so while all the minimum wage workers or those just above minimum wage were screaming they can't survive on $10 an hour, how will they now survive on $0 an hour? this country in its current stance is headed for a meltdown just like Russia and will not do very good.
Asterios wrote: Well just saw a sanders commercial where he says the rich should pay their fair share, and I keep thinking the Rich are paying more of the taxs collected.
You are correct that the rich pay more tax, because of course they do, they have more money. But paying more doesn't mean you pay a fair amount of tax... because if a system allocates one person many millions of dollars, and another person just a few thousand, it isn't fair that they both 20% of their income. The first person is obviously benefiting a lot more from the system than the second person.
Exactly how much is fair is, of course, a complex and very subjective question, that could be a very interesting conversation. Unfortunately no-one ever tries to have that conversation, and that's why both Sanders' ad and your response are so terrible. You both talk past the actual point, Sanders merely assumes he is correct, that fair is some number more than what is paid, and you assume that fair is any amount more than an event amount per person.
"The system"? Are you referring to the economy or what? Might just be one of those things were different locales and nationalities have different terminology/slang but I've never heard it explained like that. We don't have a system that just doles out money like we're all playing slot machines in a casino.
"The system" as in society in general. Rich people benefit a lot more from a stable society than poor people, because without a stable society the poor people would put the rich people's heads on poles and take their stuff. There's also the part where roads, schools, plumbing, the fire department and so on give these rich people the possibility to get rich in the first place. The myth of the self-made man is just that: a myth. As I believe some dude once said: You didn't build that. As evident from the response to that quote, though, that was not what a lot of people wanted to hear...
So you think that poor people are bloodthirsty homicidal lynch mobs that are only held in check by "society" and would otherwise murder a whole bunch of people who have more stuff than they do? That's an odd perception of them. I've been poor and it's never made me feel murderous.
"Rich" people aren't the only ones that benefit from civil society and infrastructure. Infrastructure is built by the government, the government is funded by taxes, in our progressive income tax system "rich" people pay the most income tax that funds the government. So "poor" people should be mad at "rich" people for funding government projects that benefit society? Or is it that "rich" people shouldn't benefit from civil society and a stable economy created by a government funded by their taxes?
This really isn't a hard concept to understand: if you have 1 million, you stand to lose more from the state collapsing than if you have nothing. You are thus gaining more from society than someone that is poor, and should thus contribute more.
You claimed that "the system" is the only thing keeping murderous "poor" people from going all French Revolution on the "rich" people, murdering them and taking their stuff. I disputed your hyperbolic characterization of poor people being homicidal. You now seem to be misconstruing my post as one that argues against a progressive income tax. I'm not sure what your point is anymore.
Exalted. The whole,"You didn't build this", is one of the most loaded, asnine phrases I have heard. Sure, there are those who are born into wealth that just lounge about, but I know far more well off people who started by risking everything to make their business work. They would work consistent long days that carried them well into the night, keep things running off credit cards along with having everything they owned mortgaged to the hilt. This is why that whole statement met with such derision from these people.
Well, they had homes to mortgage and the credit ratings and history to get those credit cards. So that is already some huge advantages over lots of other people. It is much easier to "risk it all" for your business when you actually have stuff to put on the line.
You control your own credit rating with your own spending habits. It's not like credit scores are just handed out to people with random values. Income levels don't dictate good or bad credit scores.
Western society has always struggled to get the wealthy to pay their fair share. It goes back to British kings, for crying out loud. Long story short- it is easier to force compliance on those with fewer resources to resist. In the US, the wealthy have created the whole "job creators" narrative to try to insulate themselves and whine about taxation, despite top level taxation being at a historic low and wealth concentration approaching historic highs. In other words the very top have more than ever and yet pay less in taxes. You would think with stagnant and declining wages, the average citizen would be very upset, but a big enough group buys into the crony capitalist story to keep it going. The fact that these people naively believe that we have anything even remotely resembling free markets and yet point to major market failures where there has been government involvement to buttress their argument would be laughable if it weren't so sad. Of course government is involved in major business issues- business pays loads of money to make sure that happens! They just want the protections and bail outs though, not the oversight and limits.
Part of the problem is the legal fiction of corporations as people and the free flow of money and influence into the political process. It undermines the whole concept of individual democracy and substitutes a bizarre collectivism for the wealthy. What it ignores is that those at the top are very few actual people and not the primary drivers of economic activity. Rather, they are largely the beneficiaries of it. While one can point to individual exceptions who innovate something new that does create wealth, by and large most just sit atop existing systems and are more or less interchangeable. Heck, get rid of them all and it would make much less of a difference than if you eliminated half of the people under them. It's why ensuring that generated wealth flows back into the systems for further improvement and expansion is so important. Otherwise you just end up with a quasi-feudal wealth extraction and collection system.
Efficient tax systems should adequately cover necessary government functions as well as encourage sound economic practices. Arguably current US tax systems focus too much on income and encourage hoarding at high levels. Encouraging more fair systems is in the best interests of everyone over the long term as it encourages greater overall growth and stability.
As to societal revolution, it is always messy. But when it starts people are usually so upset and miserable, even death becomes a limited deterrent, so pointing out that "the poor die too" is kind of a nonpoint. Such revolutions are bloody and rarely make things more equitable as it is easy for military strongmen to take advantage of the chaos. It doesn't change the fact that if things grow too desperate, people tend to revolt. Such actors are primarily motivated by immediate concerns. Agitating for change or deposal of current authorities is not the same as a call for violent revolution. Though the former may become the latter.
Asterios wrote: I look at it this way, its a messed up society when the top 1% of people are paying about 70-90% of the taxes, and probably use a miniscule fraction of where those taxes go to, while those who use and abuse the system, use the most of the tax money and yet pay nothing, this idea of government cannot survive, our unemployment is thru the roof and government (especially here in California) is making it tougher for jobs to exist, already a few states have made laws to raise minimum wage up to $15 an hour, and already companies are closing down or employees are being replaced by Robots/Computers, so while all the minimum wage workers or those just above minimum wage were screaming they can't survive on $10 an hour, how will they now survive on $0 an hour? this country in its current stance is headed for a meltdown just like Russia and will not do very good.
There are numerous issues to deal with in our present economic circumstances. Having a progressive income tax and a minimum wage don't inherently prohibit a strong economy or high employment but when they are politicized and handled as social programs rather than economic ones they can become problematic. Especially when politicians don't take into account all of the market forces at work like globalization, automation and technological progress. We have a lot of domestic labor policies that are overly protectionist and counter productive because they end up incentivizing the very things that we want less of and penalizing the things we want more of. Unfortunately that's an issue that isn't going to be solved anytime soon given our current political climate.
but what is an efficient tax system? like the European VAT tax system? sorry it sounds nice but if brought to the US it would screw over the poor more then anything and help the rich.
so that brings us back to what is a good tax system? charge the rich a higher percentage of taxs? then why bother being rich if most of your money you cannot keep? why bother building businesses that hire lots of employees if you don't get to keep the money you made? most people here in the US deride the rich, but they should be thanking god for them since it is the rich that employs them and keeps the money flowing and penalizing the rich with higher taxs and such is only going to hurt the low income people.
jmurph wrote: Western society has always struggled to get the wealthy to pay their fair share. It goes back to British kings, for crying out loud. Long story short- it is easier to force compliance on those with fewer resources to resist. In the US, the wealthy have created the whole "job creators" narrative to try to insulate themselves and whine about taxation, despite top level taxation being at a historic low and wealth concentration approaching historic highs. In other words the very top have more than ever and yet pay less in taxes. You would think with stagnant and declining wages, the average citizen would be very upset, but a big enough group buys into the crony capitalist story to keep it going. The fact that these people naively believe that we have anything even remotely resembling free markets and yet point to major market failures where there has been government involvement to buttress their argument would be laughable if it weren't so sad. Of course government is involved in major business issues- business pays loads of money to make sure that happens! They just want the protections and bail outs though, not the oversight and limits.
Part of the problem is the legal fiction of corporations as people and the free flow of money and influence into the political process. It undermines the whole concept of individual democracy and substitutes a bizarre collectivism for the wealthy. What it ignores is that those at the top are very few actual people and not the primary drivers of economic activity. Rather, they are largely the beneficiaries of it. While one can point to individual exceptions who innovate something new that does create wealth, by and large most just sit atop existing systems and are more or less interchangeable. Heck, get rid of them all and it would make much less of a difference than if you eliminated half of the people under them. It's why ensuring that generated wealth flows back into the systems for further improvement and expansion is so important. Otherwise you just end up with a quasi-feudal wealth extraction and collection system.
Efficient tax systems should adequately cover necessary government functions as well as encourage sound economic practices. Arguably current US tax systems focus too much on income and encourage hoarding at high levels. Encouraging more fair systems is in the best interests of everyone over the long term as it encourages greater overall growth and stability.
As to societal revolution, it is always messy. But when it starts people are usually so upset and miserable, even death becomes a limited deterrent, so pointing out that "the poor die too" is kind of a nonpoint. Such revolutions are bloody and rarely make things more equitable as it is easy for military strongmen to take advantage of the chaos. It doesn't change the fact that if things grow too desperate, people tend to revolt. Such actors are primarily motivated by immediate concerns. Agitating for change or deposal of current authorities is not the same as a call for violent revolution. Though the former may become the latter.
Even the "poor" people in the US enjoy a standard of living that prevents the risk/reward equation of violent revolution balanced in favor of continuing to sit on the couch watching reality television. Things would have to get apocalyptically worse than they are now for nominally sane normal people to believe that murdering hedge fund managers or blowing up Wall St would improve their standard of living.
whembly wrote: Yes, it's a big deal... especially when the FBI recommends indictments. It's not something that'll be ignored and for sure, the GOP will hammer it.
If the FBI recommends indictment.
And you didn't answer my question. I didn't ask if the GOP was going to make a big deal out of this - of course they're going to do that. Even when the investigations turn up nothing (PP, Benghazi) the GOP just holds more investigations. It's pretty much what they do these days.
Anyhow, you didn't answer the question I actually asked. Have you seen any interest in the issue from people who didn't already hate Clinton? That should tell you how much this issue is impacting the presidential race.
Of course, if there's an indictment everything changes.
No... the OIG report changed the conversation, as the media enmass can't ignore/spin this.
The real big whammy is when the FBI recommends indictment. Only the DoJ can actually indict, but we know it's a political creature and I've firmly stated that Obama's DoJ won't indict. When that happens, the FBI/DoJ *will* suffer a fallout. It remains to be seen how that'll manifest and how it impacts the General Election.
It certainly adds into Trump's meme of 'Crooked Hillary'.
So, to answer to your question: Yes. I've seen that while most don't believe Trump would ever be a "Good President", they simply abhor the idea of HRC in the WH. These folks are traditional Democrat voters mind you. (I'm still not voting for Trump anyways as I'm on Calvinball mode).
Even those traditionally-favorable Clinton news site are reporting this: ANDREA MITCHELL!!
Asterios wrote: but what is an efficient tax system? like the European VAT tax system? sorry it sounds nice but if brought to the US it would screw over the poor more then anything and help the rich.
so that brings us back to what is a good tax system? charge the rich a higher percentage of taxs? then why bother being rich if most of your money you cannot keep? why bother building businesses that hire lots of employees if you don't get to keep the money you made? most people here in the US deride the rich, but they should be thanking god for them since it is the rich that employs them and keeps the money flowing and penalizing the rich with higher taxs and such is only going to hurt the low income people.
You can have an effective progressive income tax the government just needs to set the rates and brackets in reasonable and informed manner. It's an economic issue not a matter of social engineering or politicking. The very wealthy can pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than low income earners without feeling any pain. There's a big difference between paying 5% an 20% but people earning millions of dollars annually aren't going to be negatively impacted by paying 20% whereas people earning tens of thousands of dollars would be. The problem is when politicians use taxes as a political football. Politicians promise more govt spending and then promise to make those other people, the "rich" people, pay for it when basic math shows that the govt already spends far more than it could collect in taxes no matter where the rates are set. Taxes aren't about "fairness" and they should never be punitive, they are a means for govt to collect funds to pay for essential services that benefit society as a whole. That's it.
Asterios wrote: but what is an efficient tax system? like the European VAT tax system? sorry it sounds nice but if brought to the US it would screw over the poor more then anything and help the rich.
so that brings us back to what is a good tax system? charge the rich a higher percentage of taxs? then why bother being rich if most of your money you cannot keep? why bother building businesses that hire lots of employees if you don't get to keep the money you made? most people here in the US deride the rich, but they should be thanking god for them since it is the rich that employs them and keeps the money flowing and penalizing the rich with higher taxs and such is only going to hurt the low income people.
You can have an effective progressive income tax the government just needs to set the rates and brackets in reasonable and informed manner. It's an economic issue not a matter of social engineering or politicking. The very wealthy can pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than low income earners without feeling any pain. There's a big difference between paying 5% an 20% but people earning millions of dollars annually aren't going to be negatively impacted by paying 20% whereas people earning tens of thousands of dollars would be. The problem is when politicians use taxes as a political football. Politicians promise more govt spending and then promise to make those other people, the "rich" people, pay for it when basic math shows that the govt already spends far more than it could collect in taxes no matter where the rates are set. Taxes aren't about "fairness" and they should never be punitive, they are a means for govt to collect funds to pay for essential services that benefit society as a whole. That's it.
Additionally, we need to reign in crony capitalism and address the tax code so that the tax payers can't mitigate their tax liabilties via deductions and such.
Asterios wrote: but what is an efficient tax system? like the European VAT tax system? sorry it sounds nice but if brought to the US it would screw over the poor more then anything and help the rich.
so that brings us back to what is a good tax system? charge the rich a higher percentage of taxs? then why bother being rich if most of your money you cannot keep? why bother building businesses that hire lots of employees if you don't get to keep the money you made? most people here in the US deride the rich, but they should be thanking god for them since it is the rich that employs them and keeps the money flowing and penalizing the rich with higher taxs and such is only going to hurt the low income people.
You can have an effective progressive income tax the government just needs to set the rates and brackets in reasonable and informed manner. It's an economic issue not a matter of social engineering or politicking. The very wealthy can pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than low income earners without feeling any pain. There's a big difference between paying 5% an 20% but people earning millions of dollars annually aren't going to be negatively impacted by paying 20% whereas people earning tens of thousands of dollars would be. The problem is when politicians use taxes as a political football. Politicians promise more govt spending and then promise to make those other people, the "rich" people, pay for it when basic math shows that the govt already spends far more than it could collect in taxes no matter where the rates are set. Taxes aren't about "fairness" and they should never be punitive, they are a means for govt to collect funds to pay for essential services that benefit society as a whole. That's it.
yes but what about the small business owner, who now has to pay his employees more money then he/she makes themselves? I have a friend who has had a McDonald's franchise for over 30 years, he is going to have to close it down why? because it is not worth running it because he estimates he will be making less then $8 an hour himself thanks to the "Government" telling him he has to pay unskilled laborers a skilled wage, i'm already seeing the effects of minimum wage raising to $10 an hour this year with small businesses and franchises closing up because there is no benefit to owning them, the American dream is falling to the way side to make way for a socialist state, this is why it will be a cold day in hell when I will vote for Sander in the election.
The democrat party used to be for the poor and the middle class, now its all about no one, they are only hurting those they say they represent, already our Social Security system is dying, all those Americans who are now currently giving into Social Security for their retirement will not be able to collect it when they are old enough too, is this fair?
Asterios wrote: but what is an efficient tax system? like the European VAT tax system? sorry it sounds nice but if brought to the US it would screw over the poor more then anything and help the rich.
so that brings us back to what is a good tax system? charge the rich a higher percentage of taxs? then why bother being rich if most of your money you cannot keep? why bother building businesses that hire lots of employees if you don't get to keep the money you made? most people here in the US deride the rich, but they should be thanking god for them since it is the rich that employs them and keeps the money flowing and penalizing the rich with higher taxs and such is only going to hurt the low income people.
You can have an effective progressive income tax the government just needs to set the rates and brackets in reasonable and informed manner. It's an economic issue not a matter of social engineering or politicking. The very wealthy can pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than low income earners without feeling any pain. There's a big difference between paying 5% an 20% but people earning millions of dollars annually aren't going to be negatively impacted by paying 20% whereas people earning tens of thousands of dollars would be. The problem is when politicians use taxes as a political football. Politicians promise more govt spending and then promise to make those other people, the "rich" people, pay for it when basic math shows that the govt already spends far more than it could collect in taxes no matter where the rates are set. Taxes aren't about "fairness" and they should never be punitive, they are a means for govt to collect funds to pay for essential services that benefit society as a whole. That's it.
Additionally, we need to reign in crony capitalism and address the tax code so that the tax payers can't mitigate their tax liabilties via deductions and such.
Yes. The whole reason we have deductions is to lower the effective rates because the rates are set too high in order to score political points and help politicians win elections. Set high rates to show how the "rich" are being forced to pay their fair share, then allow a whole host of deductions and modifiers to lower the higher rate to placate the people that would have had to pay it to avoid upsetting the voters and donors in those brackets. We even created the Earned Income Tax Credit to replace deductions but then decided to just use both simultaneously instead. That'swhat happens when political pandering usurps the basic math of how much do we need to collect to fund the government's essential responsibilities?
Asterios wrote: but what is an efficient tax system? like the European VAT tax system? sorry it sounds nice but if brought to the US it would screw over the poor more then anything and help the rich.
so that brings us back to what is a good tax system? charge the rich a higher percentage of taxs? then why bother being rich if most of your money you cannot keep? why bother building businesses that hire lots of employees if you don't get to keep the money you made? most people here in the US deride the rich, but they should be thanking god for them since it is the rich that employs them and keeps the money flowing and penalizing the rich with higher taxs and such is only going to hurt the low income people.
You can have an effective progressive income tax the government just needs to set the rates and brackets in reasonable and informed manner. It's an economic issue not a matter of social engineering or politicking. The very wealthy can pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than low income earners without feeling any pain. There's a big difference between paying 5% an 20% but people earning millions of dollars annually aren't going to be negatively impacted by paying 20% whereas people earning tens of thousands of dollars would be. The problem is when politicians use taxes as a political football. Politicians promise more govt spending and then promise to make those other people, the "rich" people, pay for it when basic math shows that the govt already spends far more than it could collect in taxes no matter where the rates are set. Taxes aren't about "fairness" and they should never be punitive, they are a means for govt to collect funds to pay for essential services that benefit society as a whole. That's it.
yes but what about the small business owner, who now has to pay his employees more money then he/she makes themselves? I have a friend who has had a McDonald's franchise for over 30 years, he is going to have to close it down why? because it is not worth running it because he estimates he will be making less then $8 an hour himself thanks to the "Government" telling him he has to pay unskilled laborers a skilled wage, i'm already seeing the effects of minimum wage raising to $10 an hour this year with small businesses and franchises closing up because there is no benefit to owning them, the American dream is falling to the way side to make way for a socialist state, this is why it will be a cold day in hell when I will vote for Sander in the election.
The democrat party used to be for the poor and the middle class, now its all about no one, they are only hurting those they say they represent, already our Social Security system is dying, all those Americans who are now currently giving into Social Security for their retirement will not be able to collect it when they are old enough too, is this fair?
That all relates to what I stated about the government making bad protectionist policies that incentivize what we don't want and disincentivize what we do. A general economic rule is that the more you make something cost the less of it you'll have, yet the govt keeps increasing the cost of legal domestic labor in response to high unemployment, low wages and widespread use of illegal labor. It's a counter productive solution. But it plays well on tv and in speeches so politicians embrace it even though it hurts their constiuents.
Asterios wrote: I look at it this way, its a messed up society when the top 1% of people are paying about 70-90% of the taxes, and probably use a miniscule fraction of where those taxes go to, while those who use and abuse the system, use the most of the tax money and yet pay nothing, this idea of government cannot survive, our unemployment is thru the roof and government (especially here in California) is making it tougher for jobs to exist, already a few states have made laws to raise minimum wage up to $15 an hour, and already companies are closing down or employees are being replaced by Robots/Computers, so while all the minimum wage workers or those just above minimum wage were screaming they can't survive on $10 an hour, how will they now survive on $0 an hour? this country in its current stance is headed for a meltdown just like Russia and will not do very good.
The problem, realistically, is on the business side of it.
I saw a thing the other day talking about Eisenhower's tax policies, and what happened. He had an effective 90% tax rate on businesses in the country. And we fething flourished. See, what happened was, companies seek to lower their tax liabilitiy, so what many places did, was improve and expand facilities incurring costs which were completely tax deductible. In that way the economy was boosted, companies did well, and American people did well.
Since then, we've had a conga line of "Trickle downers" in office, and we've seen wage stagnation, astronomical tuition increases, businesses aren't *really* improving on anything, except where absolutely required (such as for safety, and even then a few of my friends work in industrial environments that have had the same safety violation for 10 years running... so clearly there are instances where even required work isnt done), we're seeing massive amounts of out-sourcing of jobs, and all the while it is us plebs who are expected to foot the bill for everything.
Prestor Jon wrote: That all relates to what I stated about the government making bad protectionist policies that incentivize what we don't want and disincentivize what we do. A general economic rule is that the more you make something cost the less of it you'll have, yet the govt keeps increasing the cost of legal domestic labor in response to high unemployment, low wages and widespread use of illegal labor. It's a counter productive solution. But it plays well on tv and in speeches so politicians embrace it even though it hurts their constiuents.
which comes to my point if the poor and middle class realized what the Democrats were essentially doing to them they would be voting for Trump in hope of a change, i'm on the poor end of the spectrum me and my wife survive on about $1.5K a month this includes our mortgage, food and what not, we don't own a car and only have one cell phone, we don't live like kings but we survive, and yet there are people who say they cannot survive with a whole lot more then this. and I have seen the lie that is the democrat party and all the BS that comes with it, I am essentially out of work because of democrats, this is why I'm voting Trump this year. why? you ask, because he cannot do worse then the Democrats who set a very low bar.
The problem, realistically, is on the business side of it.
I saw a thing the other day talking about Eisenhower's tax policies, and what happened. He had an effective 90% tax rate on businesses in the country. And we fething flourished. See, what happened was, companies seek to lower their tax liabilitiy, so what many places did, was improve and expand facilities incurring costs which were completely tax deductible. In that way the economy was boosted, companies did well, and American people did well.
Since then, we've had a conga line of "Trickle downers" in office, and we've seen wage stagnation, astronomical tuition increases, businesses aren't *really* improving on anything, except where absolutely required (such as for safety, and even then a few of my friends work in industrial environments that have had the same safety violation for 10 years running... so clearly there are instances where even required work isnt done), we're seeing massive amounts of out-sourcing of jobs, and all the while it is us plebs who are expected to foot the bill for everything.
I would love to see the facts about this cause the only thing that boomed the American economy during Eisenhower's term was the Korean war.
I would love to see the facts about this cause the only thing that boomed the American economy during Eisenhower's term was the Korean war.
You're kidding right??? The decades of the 1950s and 1960s were the most economically prosperous for the US in our history, and that didn't lead directly to a crash of the proportions of the 1929 crash. It was during the 50s and 60s that a household could literally be the nuclear ideal family on one blue-collar income.
I would love to see the facts about this cause the only thing that boomed the American economy during Eisenhower's term was the Korean war.
You're kidding right??? The decades of the 1950s and 1960s were the most economically prosperous for the US in our history, and that didn't lead directly to a crash of the proportions of the 1929 crash. It was during the 50s and 60s that a household could literally be the nuclear ideal family on one blue-collar income.
Well just checked it wasn't business tax rates but income tax rates that were as high as 91% and even the poor had to pay taxs too. but I digress the income tax bracket for the rich was as high as 91% during Eisenhower's administration but it was higher before that.
you have to remember that during the 50's and 60's the minimum wage went from .40 to $1.60 an hour things were cheaper, there wasn't many things to buy like these days, so yes, the American dream could exist, but these days we have new gadgets and doohickey's and the 50's, 60's model could not exist now. (heck you could buy a nice house for like $2K)
I would love to see the facts about this cause the only thing that boomed the American economy during Eisenhower's term was the Korean war.
You're kidding right??? The decades of the 1950s and 1960s were the most economically prosperous for the US in our history, and that didn't lead directly to a crash of the proportions of the 1929 crash. It was during the 50s and 60s that a household could literally be the nuclear ideal family on one blue-collar income.
Well us bombing the crap out of all of the industrial areas in Europe and Asia certainly didn't hurt our manufacturing boom. We created a vacuum and filled it so we prospered. When the rest of the world finished recovering from WWII and our growth started stalling we had to lower those tax rates because businesses like GM were shrinking.
Prestor Jon wrote: That all relates to what I stated about the government making bad protectionist policies that incentivize what we don't want and disincentivize what we do. A general economic rule is that the more you make something cost the less of it you'll have, yet the govt keeps increasing the cost of legal domestic labor in response to high unemployment, low wages and widespread use of illegal labor. It's a counter productive solution. But it plays well on tv and in speeches so politicians embrace it even though it hurts their constiuents.
which comes to my point if the poor and middle class realized what the Democrats were essentially doing to them they would be voting for Trump in hope of a change, i'm on the poor end of the spectrum me and my wife survive on about $1.5K a month this includes our mortgage, food and what not, we don't own a car and only have one cell phone, we don't live like kings but we survive, and yet there are people who say they cannot survive with a whole lot more then this. and I have seen the lie that is the democrat party and all the BS that comes with it, I am essentially out of work because of democrats, this is why I'm voting Trump this year. why? you ask, because he cannot do worse then the Democrats who set a very low bar.
Trump's immigration rants have shown him to either be willfully ignorant or wilfully lying about how our domestic labor policies impact illegal immigration and illegal labor.
Prestor Jon wrote: That all relates to what I stated about the government making bad protectionist policies that incentivize what we don't want and disincentivize what we do. A general economic rule is that the more you make something cost the less of it you'll have, yet the govt keeps increasing the cost of legal domestic labor in response to high unemployment, low wages and widespread use of illegal labor. It's a counter productive solution. But it plays well on tv and in speeches so politicians embrace it even though it hurts their constiuents.
which comes to my point if the poor and middle class realized what the Democrats were essentially doing to them they would be voting for Trump in hope of a change, i'm on the poor end of the spectrum me and my wife survive on about $1.5K a month this includes our mortgage, food and what not, we don't own a car and only have one cell phone, we don't live like kings but we survive, and yet there are people who say they cannot survive with a whole lot more then this. and I have seen the lie that is the democrat party and all the BS that comes with it, I am essentially out of work because of democrats, this is why I'm voting Trump this year. why? you ask, because he cannot do worse then the Democrats who set a very low bar.
Trump's immigration rants have shown him to either be willfully ignorant or wilfully lying about how our domestic labor policies impact illegal immigration and illegal labor.
Trumps desires to build a wall are just that, desires, you and I both know congress will not allow it, but it is because of his anti-immigration rants both parties do not like him. republicans want the cheap labor and democrats want the votes, this is why immigration will never be dealt with properly.
But Trump is right though, we have a major security gap in our southern border, awww hell all our borders, and if we do not plug them up it is only a matter of time till some terrorist smuggles in a nuclear bomb or infects illegal immigrants with a deadly virus trying to destroy us. but by then it will be too late.
Trumps desires to build a wall are just that, desires, you and I both know congress will not allow it, but it is because of his anti-immigration rants both parties do not like him. republicans want the cheap labor and democrats want the votes, this is why immigration will never be dealt with properly.
Ya know, once upon a time it could have been dealt with "properly"
Trumps desires to build a wall are just that, desires, you and I both know congress will not allow it, but it is because of his anti-immigration rants both parties do not like him. republicans want the cheap labor and democrats want the votes, this is why immigration will never be dealt with properly.
Ya know, once upon a time it could have been dealt with "properly"
meh my philosophy is make Mexico part of the US and invade Canada, solves our border issues right there
but seriously the issue is this country does not uphold the laws it created, those laws were not created willy nilly, they were created with purpose and design. and because of those laws being ignored this country is not doing so well.
Prestor Jon wrote: That all relates to what I stated about the government making bad protectionist policies that incentivize what we don't want and disincentivize what we do. A general economic rule is that the more you make something cost the less of it you'll have, yet the govt keeps increasing the cost of legal domestic labor in response to high unemployment, low wages and widespread use of illegal labor. It's a counter productive solution. But it plays well on tv and in speeches so politicians embrace it even though it hurts their constiuents.
which comes to my point if the poor and middle class realized what the Democrats were essentially doing to them they would be voting for Trump in hope of a change, i'm on the poor end of the spectrum me and my wife survive on about $1.5K a month this includes our mortgage, food and what not, we don't own a car and only have one cell phone, we don't live like kings but we survive, and yet there are people who say they cannot survive with a whole lot more then this. and I have seen the lie that is the democrat party and all the BS that comes with it, I am essentially out of work because of democrats, this is why I'm voting Trump this year. why? you ask, because he cannot do worse then the Democrats who set a very low bar.
Trump's immigration rants have shown him to either be willfully ignorant or wilfully lying about how our domestic labor policies impact illegal immigration and illegal labor.
Trumps desires to build a wall are just that, desires, you and I both know congress will not allow it, but it is because of his anti-immigration rants both parties do not like him. republicans want the cheap labor and democrats want the votes, this is why immigration will never be dealt with properly.
But Trump is right though, we have a major security gap in our southern border, awww hell all our borders, and if we do not plug them up it is only a matter of time till some terrorist smuggles in a nuclear bomb or infects illegal immigrants with a deadly virus trying to destroy us. but by then it will be too late.
Even if Trump got the wall built it wouldn't fix the illegal immigration and labor problem. The wall does nothing to all the incentives that encourage people to immigrant illegally and for everyone to profit from illegal labor. Trump knows that, at least he should, and he still touts his wall building plan because it's just empty pandering to win votes because Trump lies just like every other politician.
Prestor Jon wrote: That all relates to what I stated about the government making bad protectionist policies that incentivize what we don't want and disincentivize what we do. A general economic rule is that the more you make something cost the less of it you'll have, yet the govt keeps increasing the cost of legal domestic labor in response to high unemployment, low wages and widespread use of illegal labor. It's a counter productive solution. But it plays well on tv and in speeches so politicians embrace it even though it hurts their constiuents.
which comes to my point if the poor and middle class realized what the Democrats were essentially doing to them they would be voting for Trump in hope of a change, i'm on the poor end of the spectrum me and my wife survive on about $1.5K a month this includes our mortgage, food and what not, we don't own a car and only have one cell phone, we don't live like kings but we survive, and yet there are people who say they cannot survive with a whole lot more then this. and I have seen the lie that is the democrat party and all the BS that comes with it, I am essentially out of work because of democrats, this is why I'm voting Trump this year. why? you ask, because he cannot do worse then the Democrats who set a very low bar.
Trump's immigration rants have shown him to either be willfully ignorant or wilfully lying about how our domestic labor policies impact illegal immigration and illegal labor.
Trumps desires to build a wall are just that, desires, you and I both know congress will not allow it, but it is because of his anti-immigration rants both parties do not like him. republicans want the cheap labor and democrats want the votes, this is why immigration will never be dealt with properly.
But Trump is right though, we have a major security gap in our southern border, awww hell all our borders, and if we do not plug them up it is only a matter of time till some terrorist smuggles in a nuclear bomb or infects illegal immigrants with a deadly virus trying to destroy us. but by then it will be too late.
setting aside the overexaggerated WMD threat, there's no way to "secure" US borders so tight that bad things getting through by small cell or lone wolf actors would be implausible. There's just too much traffic and too many miles of border, unless we want to drastically increase the federal budget to militarize the border and maintain several million militarized border guards over thousands of miles of borders for a vague and theoretical threat.
There's also very little being done to address the internal drivers of illegal immigration and cross border illegal trade, nobody wants to put a stop to migrant labor or crack down on cheap illegal industrial workers or decriminalize drugs to cease the need for foreign importation.
Prestor Jon wrote: That all relates to what I stated about the government making bad protectionist policies that incentivize what we don't want and disincentivize what we do. A general economic rule is that the more you make something cost the less of it you'll have, yet the govt keeps increasing the cost of legal domestic labor in response to high unemployment, low wages and widespread use of illegal labor. It's a counter productive solution. But it plays well on tv and in speeches so politicians embrace it even though it hurts their constiuents.
which comes to my point if the poor and middle class realized what the Democrats were essentially doing to them they would be voting for Trump in hope of a change, i'm on the poor end of the spectrum me and my wife survive on about $1.5K a month this includes our mortgage, food and what not, we don't own a car and only have one cell phone, we don't live like kings but we survive, and yet there are people who say they cannot survive with a whole lot more then this. and I have seen the lie that is the democrat party and all the BS that comes with it, I am essentially out of work because of democrats, this is why I'm voting Trump this year. why? you ask, because he cannot do worse then the Democrats who set a very low bar.
Trump's immigration rants have shown him to either be willfully ignorant or wilfully lying about how our domestic labor policies impact illegal immigration and illegal labor.
Trumps desires to build a wall are just that, desires, you and I both know congress will not allow it, but it is because of his anti-immigration rants both parties do not like him. republicans want the cheap labor and democrats want the votes, this is why immigration will never be dealt with properly.
But Trump is right though, we have a major security gap in our southern border, awww hell all our borders, and if we do not plug them up it is only a matter of time till some terrorist smuggles in a nuclear bomb or infects illegal immigrants with a deadly virus trying to destroy us. but by then it will be too late.
Even if Trump got the wall built it wouldn't fix the illegal immigration and labor problem. The wall does nothing to all the incentives that encourage people to immigrant illegally and for everyone to profit from illegal labor. Trump knows that, at least he should, and he still touts his wall building plan because it's just empty pandering to win votes because Trump lies just like every other politician.
hence my solution, illegals come here not because its better, but because they make more money which they send home(this hurts our economy more then anything, heck the Government should put a high tax on money transfers over country borders, that is where the real money is) and because things are so messed up in mexico, they can survive pretty damn well on a couple bucks an hour, but if the US made Mexico part of it, then that would reduce our southern border drastically and give no incentive for illegals to come to the US from Mexico, if anything they would be moving south of border to live cheaper, as to invading Canada, well what can I say, its Canada.
as to the threat of a nuclear bomb or a virus coming thru the illegal train from down south its a very real threat, but do you think the government will mention it? no because it would cause a major threat to their cheap labor and free votes. All it would take is for a few groups of Illegals entering this country to be given tainted bottles of water with a very nasty virus with a 1-2 week (at most) incubation period (which is very easy with todays technology) and it could be spread all across the US and stretch our infrastructure beyond holding.
The only way to stop illegal immigration is to make our own country such a Gak-hole that no one wants to come here anyway. Anything short of that is a waste of time.
Do any of us really want to go that far?
instead, we need to focus on how we are going to use these incoming resources to build our country and make it stronger.
Easy E wrote: The only way to stop illegal immigration is to make our own country such a Gak-hole that no one wants to come here anyway. Anything short of that is a waste of time.
Do any of us really want to go that far?
instead, we need to focus on how we are going to use these incoming resources to build our country and make it stronger.
Oh we are already going down that path, with "Actual" unemployment on the rise and more and more businesses shuttering their doors, its just a matter of time till this country implodes.
But on the other hand Trump might be onto something, building a wall would put people to work give jobs and so forth.
The US has economic problems and is experiencing major social changes, but we're still wayyy ahead of most of the rest of the planet and almost all of US history. The economic issues the US faces are not unique either. We're not on the brink of an implosion anymore than we were in 2008, 2001, the early 90's, the 80's S&L collapze, 70's stagflation, 30's depression, etc.
Vaktathi wrote: The US has economic problems and is experiencing major social changes, but we're still wayyy ahead of most of the rest of the planet and almost all of US history. The economic issues the US faces are not unique either. We're not on the brink of an implosion anymore than we were in 2008, 2001, the early 90's, the 80's S&L collapze, 70's stagflation, 30's depression, etc.
I disagree our "Actual" unemployment rate is exceedingly high and expected to get higher, this country is running out of jobs and the unskilled demanding higher wages is forceing companies to look at other avenues, already Carl's Jr, Wendy's and Mcdonalds and so forth plan on placing robotic/computerized units in their establishments and thereby removing jobs from the market, already a Chinese business has replaced 50K jobs with Robotics, we are not far behind doing that, yes this country is ready to implode.
Yes, we have major labor and economic equality issues. Big ones. No argument there.
However, the US has been through far worse. We have nothing near the labor and wealth gaps we did say, pre WW1 or during the 30's. Other nations currently have the same issues, only worse, and have had them for much longer, and they arent imploding or collapsing. If Japan, France, Italy, Spain, and ither such nations havent imploded, the US wont.
The US will *change*, nobody can argue that. But implosion? Collapse? Unlikely.
Vaktathi wrote: Yes, we have major labor and economic equality issues. Big ones. No argument there.
However, the US has been through far worse. We have nothing near the labor and wealth gaps we did say, pre WW1 or during the 30's. Other nations currently have the same issues, only worse, and have had them for much longer, and they arent imploding or collapsing. If Japan, France, Italy, Spain, and ither such nations havent imploded, the US wont.
The US will *change*, nobody can argue that. But implosion? Collapse? Unlikely.
have you seen what is going on in France and Greece lately? also think our definitions of implosion differ greatly, I did not say a total collapse, but at our core we are eating ourselves up and this country cannot survive the way it has been going, look at our Social Security system, as it stands it will be gone in 10-15 years, those who are putting into it now will get nothing when they retire since there will be nothing, the government debt is at its highest it has ever been, in the 30's? we had no national debt to speak of, the reason why this country hasn't gone into another depression is because the government spends more money then we could ever hope to cover. if a normal household was ran the way the government is, we would be on the streets now.
Even the "poor" people in the US enjoy a standard of living that prevents the risk/reward equation of violent revolution balanced in favor of continuing to sit on the couch watching reality television. Things would have to get apocalyptically worse than they are now for nominally sane normal people to believe that murdering hedge fund managers or blowing up Wall St would improve their standard of living.
No doubt. Usually revolution occurs when things get so bad that basic needs aren't being met (food shortages, lack of sanitation, lack of public safety, etc.). Of course, were things to get to that level, history indicates that some Wall Streeters may end their own lives (see the Great Depression)! But that doesn't make for as good rhetoric, I guess, even if does indicate how wide reaching such conditions can become.
Or we could just lose sanity altogether and make it all a reality show....
Even the "poor" people in the US enjoy a standard of living that prevents the risk/reward equation of violent revolution balanced in favor of continuing to sit on the couch watching reality television. Things would have to get apocalyptically worse than they are now for nominally sane normal people to believe that murdering hedge fund managers or blowing up Wall St would improve their standard of living.
No doubt. Usually revolution occurs when things get so bad that basic needs aren't being met (food shortages, lack of sanitation, lack of public safety, etc.). Of course, were things to get to that level, history indicates that some Wall Streeters may end their own lives (see the Great Depression)! But that doesn't make for as good rhetoric, I guess, even if does indicate how wide reaching such conditions can become.
Or we could just lose sanity altogether and make it all a reality show....
Wallstreeters jumping out of windows committing suicide during the depression is a myth plain and simple, as to lack of public safety if you go by the Black lives matter movement all police forces would be removed.
I guess we may have different definitions of implode then. Yes, there are going to have to be big changes and our current trajectory is unsustainable, but at no point in US history have we been on any singular stable trajectory, but rather a state of flux in various states of dynamic motion.
So, yes I would agree that we hve major and unsustainable issues that will require change. I'm also not thrilled ir confident in our likely general election candidates to address these issues. I guess we're primarily disagreeing on the concept of what an "implosion" would mean
Vaktathi wrote: I guess we may have different definitions of implode then. Yes, there are going to have to be big changes and our current trajectory is unsustainable, but at no point in US history have we been on any singular stable trajectory, but rather a state of flux in various states of dynamic motion.
So, yes I would agree that we hve major and unsustainable issues that will require change. I'm also not thrilled ir confident in our likely general election candidates to address these issues. I guess we're primarily disagreeing on the concept of what an "implosion" would mean
funny thing is did some checking and our outstanding national debt in 1930 was lower then in previous years, if anything our national debt was like 16 Billion at the time, when a few years prior it was like 24 billion.
National debt was low in 1930, but debt is only one aspect of health and debt can be a useful tool. They also raised taxes to lower that debt (which exacerbated problems everywhere else). The US also was a much smaller player with a much smaller military and services/obligations and population and ambitions than today. The unemployment rate and income/wealth gaps were *way* worse back then than now. I'd much rather be line assembly worker today than in 1930 if given the choice (though 1970 over either )
Vaktathi wrote: National debt was low in 1930, but debt is only one aspect of health and debt can be a useful tool. They also raised taxes to lower that debt (which exacerbated problems everywhere else). The US also was a much smaller player with a much smaller military and services/obligations and population and ambitions than today. The unemployment rate and income/wealth gaps were *way* worse back then than now. I'd much rather be line assembly worker today than in 1930 if given the choice (though 1970 over either )
actually the unemployment rate in 1930 was 8.7% chew on that for awhile.
Exalted. The whole,"You didn't build this", is one of the most loaded, asnine phrases I have heard. Sure, there are those who are born into wealth that just lounge about, but I know far more well off people who started by risking everything to make their business work. They would work consistent long days that carried them well into the night, keep things running off credit cards along with having everything they owned mortgaged to the hilt. This is why that whole statement met with such derision from these people.
Well, they had homes to mortgage and the credit ratings and history to get those credit cards. So that is already some huge advantages over lots of other people. It is much easier to "risk it all" for your business when you actually have stuff to put on the line.
Homes and cards they had worked their asses off to get. You seem to think if someone loses their house, it's no big deal.
Vaktathi wrote: National debt was low in 1930, but debt is only one aspect of health and debt can be a useful tool. They also raised taxes to lower that debt (which exacerbated problems everywhere else). The US also was a much smaller player with a much smaller military and services/obligations and population and ambitions than today. The unemployment rate and income/wealth gaps were *way* worse back then than now. I'd much rather be line assembly worker today than in 1930 if given the choice (though 1970 over either )
actually the unemployment rate in 1930 was 8.7% chew on that for awhile.
up from around 4% in 1928 and would be almost 30% on 1932.
jmurph wrote: Western society has always struggled to get the wealthy to pay their fair share. It goes back to British kings, for crying out loud. Long story short- it is easier to force compliance on those with fewer resources to resist. In the US, the wealthy have created the whole "job creators" narrative to try to insulate themselves and whine about taxation, despite top level taxation being at a historic low and wealth concentration approaching historic highs. In other words the very top have more than ever and yet pay less in taxes. You would think with stagnant and declining wages, the average citizen would be very upset, but a big enough group buys into the crony capitalist story to keep it going. The fact that these people naively believe that we have anything even remotely resembling free markets and yet point to major market failures where there has been government involvement to buttress their argument would be laughable if it weren't so sad. Of course government is involved in major business issues- business pays loads of money to make sure that happens! They just want the protections and bail outs though, not the oversight and limits.
Part of the problem is the legal fiction of corporations as people and the free flow of money and influence into the political process. It undermines the whole concept of individual democracy and substitutes a bizarre collectivism for the wealthy. What it ignores is that those at the top are very few actual people and not the primary drivers of economic activity. Rather, they are largely the beneficiaries of it. While one can point to individual exceptions who innovate something new that does create wealth, by and large most just sit atop existing systems and are more or less interchangeable. Heck, get rid of them all and it would make much less of a difference than if you eliminated half of the people under them. It's why ensuring that generated wealth flows back into the systems for further improvement and expansion is so important. Otherwise you just end up with a quasi-feudal wealth extraction and collection system.
Efficient tax systems should adequately cover necessary government functions as well as encourage sound economic practices. Arguably current US tax systems focus too much on income and encourage hoarding at high levels. Encouraging more fair systems is in the best interests of everyone over the long term as it encourages greater overall growth and stability.
As to societal revolution, it is always messy. But when it starts people are usually so upset and miserable, even death becomes a limited deterrent, so pointing out that "the poor die too" is kind of a nonpoint. Such revolutions are bloody and rarely make things more equitable as it is easy for military strongmen to take advantage of the chaos. It doesn't change the fact that if things grow too desperate, people tend to revolt. Such actors are primarily motivated by immediate concerns. Agitating for change or deposal of current authorities is not the same as a call for violent revolution. Though the former may become the latter.
The top earners pay most of taxes already and the bottom 40% don't pay taxes at all. What do you mean by the term fair share? Everyone pays tax?
Vaktathi wrote: National debt was low in 1930, but debt is only one aspect of health and debt can be a useful tool. They also raised taxes to lower that debt (which exacerbated problems everywhere else). The US also was a much smaller player with a much smaller military and services/obligations and population and ambitions than today. The unemployment rate and income/wealth gaps were *way* worse back then than now. I'd much rather be line assembly worker today than in 1930 if given the choice (though 1970 over either )
actually the unemployment rate in 1930 was 8.7% chew on that for awhile.
up from around 4% in 1928 and would be almost 30% on 1932.
A Navy sailor entered a guilty plea Friday in a classified information mishandling case that critics charge illustrates a double standard between the treatment of low-ranking government employees and top officials like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and ex-CIA Director David Petraeus.
Prosecutors allege that Petty Officer First Class Kristian Saucier used a cellphone camera to take photos in the classified engine room of the nuclear submarine where he worked as a mechanic, the USS Alexandria, then destroyed a laptop, camera and memory card after learning he was under investigation.
Last July, Saucier was indicted on one felony count of unlawful retention of national defense information and another felony count of obstruction of justice. He pleaded guilty Friday to the classified information charge, which is part of the Espionage Act, a prosecution spokesman confirmed. No charge of espionage was filed and no public suggestion has been made that he ever planned to disclose the photos to anyone outside the Navy.
The sailor now faces a maximum possible sentence of up to ten years in prison, but faced up to 30 years if found guilty on both charges. Federal guidelines discussed in court Friday appear to call for a sentence of about five to six-and-a-half years, although the defense has signaled it will seek a lighter sentence.
Saucier’s friends, conservative commentators and others say the stiff charges leveled against Saucier were out of whack with more lenient treatment given to senior officials who face allegations of mishandling classified information, like Clinton.
“I just don’t think it’s fair,” said Gene Pitcher, a retired Navy sailor who served with Saucier aboard the Alexandria. “In reality, what she did is so much worse than what Kris did. ... I think it’s just a blatant double standard.”
Clinton has not been charged with any crime, but the FBI has been investigating how information that intelligence agencies consider classified wound up on the private server that hosted her only email account during the four years she served as secretary of state. Some news reports have said charges are unlikely.
“Felony charges appear to be reserved for people of the lowest ranks. Everyone else who does it either doesn’t get charged or gets charged with a misdemeanor,” said Edward MacMahon, a Virginia defense attorney not involved in the Saucier case.
To some, the comparison to Clinton’s case may appear strained. Clinton has said none of the information on her server was marked classified at the time. In many cases, it was marked as unclassified when sent to her by people in the State Department more familiar with the issues involved.
By contrast, sailors are trained early on that the engine compartment of a nuclear sub is a restricted area and that much information relating to the sub’s nuclear reactors is classified.
Still, it’s far from obvious that the information Saucier took photos of is more sensitive than information found in Clinton’s account. Court filings say the photos were clear enough that they reveal classified details about the submarine that could be of use to foreign governments, such as the vessel’s maximum speed.
However, the Navy says the photos are classified “confidential,” which is the lowest tier of protection for classified information and is designated for information that could cause some damage to national security but not “serious” or “exceptionally grave” damage.
Intelligence agencies claim that Clinton’s account contained 65 messages with information considered “Secret” and 22 classified at the “Top Secret” level. Some messages contained data under an even more restrictive “special access program” designation.
Clinton and her campaign have disputed those findings, calling them a result of “overclassification” and urging that the messages be released in full.
However, Clinton’s critics and some former intelligence officials said she should have recognized the sensitivity of the information. They’ve also noted that about 32,000 messages on Clinton’s server were erased after her lawyers deemed them personal.
“The DOJ is willing to prosecute a former sailor to the full extent of the law for violating the law on classified material, in a situation where there was no purposeful unsecured transmission of classified material,” conservative blogger Ed Morrissey wrote last year. “Will they pursue Hillary Clinton and her team, at the other end of the power spectrum from the rank-and-file, for deliberate unsecured transmission of improperly marked classified nat-sec intelligence? Will they pursue the same kind of obstruction of justice charges for Hillary’s wiping of her server as they are for Saucier’s destruction of his laptop?”
Jury selection in Saucier’s case took place earlier this month in U.S. District Court in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and opening arguments were scheduled to take place Tuesday, just after the Memorial Day holiday. The change of plea hearing Friday morning was not publicly noticed on the court's docket.
Judge Stefan Underhill set sentencing in the case for August 19. Both sides agreed that sentencing guidelines call for a sentence of 63 to 78 months, but the judge will also calculate the guidelines range and can give a sentence outside the range. Plea documents indicate that the defense plans to ask for a more lenient sentence on the basis that Saucier's conduct was "aberrant."
A defense attorney for Saucier did not respond to messages seeking comment for this story.
The investigation into Saucier kicked off in a rather unusual way in 2012 when a supervisor at a dump in Hampton, Connecticut, found a cellphone “on top of a pile of trash approximately three to four feet into the middle of a dumpster at the transfer station,” a court filing read. The supervisor showed the images to a retired Navy friend who turned over the device to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.
Pitcher acknowledges that his friend violated Navy rules if he took the photos as prosecutors allege, but he says such infractions by submariners were not uncommon and were almost always dealt with through what the military calls “nonjudicial punishment” or Captain’s Mast. Those involved were demoted and docked some pay, but didn’t face a felony record or the prospect of years behind bars, the retired sailor said.
“Two guys in our boat were caught taking photos in the engine room on the nuclear side of things. Basically, all that happened to them was they … lost a rank,” Pitcher said. “I’ve seen quite a few cases like this and never seen any handled like Kris’.”
One factor that may have led investigators and prosecutors to handle Saucier’s case more aggressively is the way he responded when confronted about the photos. Court filings say he initially denied he took the pictures. Prosecutors say he later smashed his laptop, camera and memory card and threw them in the woods.
On top of that, Saucier had a handgun not registered to him in his home, prosecutors allege. After the FBI and NCIS showed up to question him, he allegedly cleaned it with bleach and stashed it under the dishwasher.
“They love the obstruction charges,” MacMahon said. “What they look for is something that’s aggravating.”
The defense attorney noted that CIA Director David Petraeus was accused of lying to the FBI when first confronted about keeping top secret notebooks at home and sharing them with his lover.
Many lawyers believe that fact may have tipped the case against Petraeus from something that might have cost him his job to one that resulted in criminal prosecution.
Still, Petraeus was never charged with obstruction of justice. Before any charges were filed, his attorney reached a deal with prosecutors in which the retired general pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information.
A former military investigator who handled classified information cases said the military tends to treat such violations more seriously than civilian government agencies do and there are some valid reasons for that.
“It is exceedingly common for people in the military to be held accountable for classified information violations, much more so than in the civilian government or contractor world,” said Bill Leonard, former director of the government’s Information Security Oversight Office. “My sense is that’s just a reflection of the military’s emphasis on good order and discipline. ... It really does make a difference to the guy or gal next to you if [sensitive] information is compromised. That’s a very real consequence.”
Since Saucier is still in the Navy, it’s unclear why he was charged in federal civilian court rather than sent to a court-martial. One possibility is that investigators may have considered charging others in civilian life with conspiring with the Navy sailor, but that has not happened.
Former Navy sailors said Saucier’s case also overlaps with a period during which the Navy was trying to strike a balance involving the boredom of submarine life during deployments as long as six months and the increasing popularity of smartphones, video-game players and similar devices.
While photography was always banned in engine rooms and taking a camera there would have been highly suspicious, ubiquitous phones with cameras have added new complexity to the situation, the sailors said.
With his friend set to plead guilty, Pitcher said he’s still convinced that Saucier is being treated more harshly than others in government of low or high rank.
“A lot of people were doing what Kris was doing,” Pitcher said. “Clearly, to an educated observer, this is not fair treatment in comparison to other highly visible cases.”
If high government official don't follow the laws...
Right, but thats talking a decade later after a national transformation and the US ending up the big winner of the largest conflict in human history, having ended up with tremendous amounts of wealth transferred in from that conflict and the preceding WW1 (and the financial center of the world moving from London to New York). The ultimate point I was making when referencing the 30's however was that the US has been through far worse than what we're facing now and didnt go all to hell.
I did some number crunching regarding tax brackets and came to the conclusion that I am not smart enough or qualified to write a tax plan. (And I am a professional number cruncher.)
That said, any tax brackets would probably have to be progressive within the tax brackets themselves, not just overall. Tax brackets are exceptionally craptacular for the lower end of the bracket. If our theoretical brackets are [X-$44k] = 5% and [45K-Y] = 10%, the guy making 44k pays $2200 in taxes and keeps $41,800 while the guy making $45k pays $4500 and keeps $40,500. If I made $44k per year and my boss offered me a raise, it would be stupid to accept anything less than $46,500 as otherwise I'd be making less money than before (and actually, only getting an extra $50/year with the $2500 raise). Pretty much wherever you drew the lines would make the bottom amounts worthless.
I will be honest and admit that I am not well informed regarding Bernie's politics, but this points out one problem with the "tax the rich" rhetoric. It is essentially meaningless without knowing where the lines would be drawn.
dethork wrote: I did some number crunching regarding tax brackets and came to the conclusion that I am not smart enough or qualified to write a tax plan. (And I am a professional number cruncher.)
That said, any tax brackets would probably have to be progressive within the tax brackets themselves, not just overall. Tax brackets are exceptionally craptacular for the lower end of the bracket. If our theoretical brackets are [X-$44k] = 5% and [45K-Y] = 10%, the guy making 44k pays $2200 in taxes and keeps $41,800 while the guy making $45k pays $4500 and keeps $40,500. If I made $44k per year and my boss offered me a raise, it would be stupid to accept anything less than $46,500 as otherwise I'd be making less money than before (and actually, only getting an extra $50/year with the $2500 raise). Pretty much wherever you drew the lines would make the bottom amounts worthless.
I will be honest and admit that I am not well informed regarding Bernie's politics, but this points out one problem with the "tax the rich" rhetoric. It is essentially meaningless without knowing where the lines would be drawn.
I'd advocate for a tier'ed flat tax system.
Classify income as all "new money", not simply from your employment wages.
No deduction, credits or any other "social engineering".
ie:
0$ to poverty level: 0%
poverty level to $50k: 5%
$50k to $75k: 7.5%
$75k to $100k: 10%
$100k to $200k: 15%
$200k to $500k: 20%
$500k +: 25%
Just pulled those numbers out of my nether region, but you get the idea.
Vaktathi wrote: Right, but thats talking a decade later after a national transformation and the US ending up the big winner of the largest conflict in human history, having ended up with tremendous amounts of wealth transferred in from that conflict and the preceding WW1 (and the financial center of the world moving from London to New York). The ultimate point I was making when referencing the 30's however was that the US has been through far worse than what we're facing now and didnt go all to hell.
you still miss the bigger picture, the US now is spending much more then they collect then the national debt was in the 30's.
dethork wrote: I did some number crunching regarding tax brackets and came to the conclusion that I am not smart enough or qualified to write a tax plan. (And I am a professional number cruncher.)
That said, any tax brackets would probably have to be progressive within the tax brackets themselves, not just overall. Tax brackets are exceptionally craptacular for the lower end of the bracket. If our theoretical brackets are [X-$44k] = 5% and [45K-Y] = 10%, the guy making 44k pays $2200 in taxes and keeps $41,800 while the guy making $45k pays $4500 and keeps $40,500. If I made $44k per year and my boss offered me a raise, it would be stupid to accept anything less than $46,500 as otherwise I'd be making less money than before (and actually, only getting an extra $50/year with the $2500 raise). Pretty much wherever you drew the lines would make the bottom amounts worthless.
I will be honest and admit that I am not well informed regarding Bernie's politics, but this points out one problem with the "tax the rich" rhetoric. It is essentially meaningless without knowing where the lines would be drawn.
I'd advocate for a tier'ed flat tax system.
Classify income as all "new money", not simply from your employment wages.
No deduction, credits or any other "social engineering".
ie:
0$ to poverty level: 0%
poverty level to $50k: 5%
$50k to $75k: 7.5%
$75k to $100k: 10%
$100k to $200k: 15%
$200k to $500k: 20%
$500k +: 25%
Just pulled those numbers out of my nether region, but you get the idea.
actually thats what it is about right now. problem is you remove deductions and such it will hurt the middle class much more then the rich, the middle class survives on deductions as it is.
dethork wrote: I did some number crunching regarding tax brackets and came to the conclusion that I am not smart enough or qualified to write a tax plan. (And I am a professional number cruncher.)
That said, any tax brackets would probably have to be progressive within the tax brackets themselves, not just overall. Tax brackets are exceptionally craptacular for the lower end of the bracket. If our theoretical brackets are [X-$44k] = 5% and [45K-Y] = 10%, the guy making 44k pays $2200 in taxes and keeps $41,800 while the guy making $45k pays $4500 and keeps $40,500. If I made $44k per year and my boss offered me a raise, it would be stupid to accept anything less than $46,500 as otherwise I'd be making less money than before (and actually, only getting an extra $50/year with the $2500 raise). Pretty much wherever you drew the lines would make the bottom amounts worthless.
I will be honest and admit that I am not well informed regarding Bernie's politics, but this points out one problem with the "tax the rich" rhetoric. It is essentially meaningless without knowing where the lines would be drawn.
I'd advocate for a tier'ed flat tax system.
Classify income as all "new money", not simply from your employment wages.
No deduction, credits or any other "social engineering".
ie:
0$ to poverty level: 0%
poverty level to $50k: 5%
$50k to $75k: 7.5%
$75k to $100k: 10%
$100k to $200k: 15%
$200k to $500k: 20%
$500k +: 25%
Just pulled those numbers out of my nether region, but you get the idea.
That's essentially what I did while crunching numbers (though I was a bit less friendly with the percentages, lol) right down to basing beginning taxes on the poverty line.
To illustrate the problems with the lower ends of the brackets, lets take the poverty threshold which is about $12,000. Someone making $12k per year will pay $600 in taxes @ 5% and thus really makes $11,400. Thus the taxes have literally impoverished him.
I would propose having both a minimum wage and a living wage. The minimum wage is pretty much as it is now - the company's obligation to pay X amount or the owner can just do the work himself. But, it would in no way try to be a living wage. The living wage would be essentially a guaranteed income (Basic Income). Let's say Poverty Threshold + 10%. No one in the Serene Republic of Dethorkia will be impoverished. Any difference between income and the living wage would be made up for by the government. The government would then compare the company's profits and if it exceeded X% they would be given a commensurate corporate tax rate.
To keep this brief I have not discussed "professional layabouts" or the top earners in the company.
If anyone thinks my financial planning sucks, please note that I have already admitted to not being smart enough to write a comprehensive tax plan. These are brainstorming ideas. I promise by the time I run in the 2032 Elections I will have something better.
dethork wrote: I did some number crunching regarding tax brackets and came to the conclusion that I am not smart enough or qualified to write a tax plan. (And I am a professional number cruncher.)
That said, any tax brackets would probably have to be progressive within the tax brackets themselves, not just overall. Tax brackets are exceptionally craptacular for the lower end of the bracket. If our theoretical brackets are [X-$44k] = 5% and [45K-Y] = 10%, the guy making 44k pays $2200 in taxes and keeps $41,800 while the guy making $45k pays $4500 and keeps $40,500. If I made $44k per year and my boss offered me a raise, it would be stupid to accept anything less than $46,500 as otherwise I'd be making less money than before (and actually, only getting an extra $50/year with the $2500 raise). Pretty much wherever you drew the lines would make the bottom amounts worthless.
I will be honest and admit that I am not well informed regarding Bernie's politics, but this points out one problem with the "tax the rich" rhetoric. It is essentially meaningless without knowing where the lines would be drawn.
I'd advocate for a tier'ed flat tax system.
Classify income as all "new money", not simply from your employment wages.
No deduction, credits or any other "social engineering".
ie:
0$ to poverty level: 0%
poverty level to $50k: 5%
$50k to $75k: 7.5%
$75k to $100k: 10%
$100k to $200k: 15%
$200k to $500k: 20%
$500k +: 25%
Just pulled those numbers out of my nether region, but you get the idea.
That's essentially what I did while crunching numbers (though I was a bit less friendly with the percentages, lol) right down to basing beginning taxes on the poverty line.
To illustrate the problems with the lower ends of the brackets, lets take the poverty threshold which is about $12,000. Someone making $12k per year will pay $600 in taxes @ 5% and thus really makes $11,400. Thus the taxes have literally impoverished him.
I would propose having both a minimum wage and a living wage. The minimum wage is pretty much as it is now - the company's obligation to pay X amount or the owner can just do the work himself. But, it would in no way try to be a living wage. The living wage would be essentially a guaranteed income (Basic Income). Let's say Poverty Threshold + 10%. No one in the Serene Republic of Dethorkia will be impoverished. Any difference between income and the living wage would be made up for by the government. The government would then compare the company's profits and if it exceeded X% they would be given a commensurate corporate tax rate.
To keep this brief I have not discussed "professional layabouts" or the top earners in the company.
If anyone thinks my financial planning sucks, please note that I have already admitted to not being smart enough to write a comprehensive tax plan. These are brainstorming ideas. I promise by the time I run in the 2032 Elections I will have something better.
That hypothetical I posted: You'd only get taxed 5% of the $ earned after the poverty demarcation. So if it's $12k, and a person made $12,100... then that person is only taxed $100 at 5%.
You only taxed at whatever band you've received. So, it'd be like you earned $150,000... then your tax liabilities would be:
0$ to poverty level: 0% First $12k is ZERO.
poverty level to $50k: 5% next chunk $38k is $1900.
$50k to $75k: 7.5% Next chunk $25k is $1875.
$75k to $100k: 10% Next chunk $25k is $2500.
$100k to $200k: 15% Next chunk $50k is $7500.
Totalling tax liability of $13,775 of your $150k income, which works out to be ~10.8 percent tax (not include state/local taxes).
dethork wrote: I did some number crunching regarding tax brackets and came to the conclusion that I am not smart enough or qualified to write a tax plan. (And I am a professional number cruncher.)
That said, any tax brackets would probably have to be progressive within the tax brackets themselves, not just overall. Tax brackets are exceptionally craptacular for the lower end of the bracket. If our theoretical brackets are [X-$44k] = 5% and [45K-Y] = 10%, the guy making 44k pays $2200 in taxes and keeps $41,800 while the guy making $45k pays $4500 and keeps $40,500. If I made $44k per year and my boss offered me a raise, it would be stupid to accept anything less than $46,500 as otherwise I'd be making less money than before (and actually, only getting an extra $50/year with the $2500 raise). Pretty much wherever you drew the lines would make the bottom amounts worthless.
I will be honest and admit that I am not well informed regarding Bernie's politics, but this points out one problem with the "tax the rich" rhetoric. It is essentially meaningless without knowing where the lines would be drawn.
I'd advocate for a tier'ed flat tax system.
Classify income as all "new money", not simply from your employment wages.
No deduction, credits or any other "social engineering".
ie:
0$ to poverty level: 0%
poverty level to $50k: 5%
$50k to $75k: 7.5%
$75k to $100k: 10%
$100k to $200k: 15%
$200k to $500k: 20%
$500k +: 25%
Just pulled those numbers out of my nether region, but you get the idea.
That's essentially what I did while crunching numbers (though I was a bit less friendly with the percentages, lol) right down to basing beginning taxes on the poverty line.
To illustrate the problems with the lower ends of the brackets, lets take the poverty threshold which is about $12,000. Someone making $12k per year will pay $600 in taxes @ 5% and thus really makes $11,400. Thus the taxes have literally impoverished him.
I would propose having both a minimum wage and a living wage. The minimum wage is pretty much as it is now - the company's obligation to pay X amount or the owner can just do the work himself. But, it would in no way try to be a living wage. The living wage would be essentially a guaranteed income (Basic Income). Let's say Poverty Threshold + 10%. No one in the Serene Republic of Dethorkia will be impoverished. Any difference between income and the living wage would be made up for by the government. The government would then compare the company's profits and if it exceeded X% they would be given a commensurate corporate tax rate.
To keep this brief I have not discussed "professional layabouts" or the top earners in the company.
If anyone thinks my financial planning sucks, please note that I have already admitted to not being smart enough to write a comprehensive tax plan. These are brainstorming ideas. I promise by the time I run in the 2032 Elections I will have something better.
That hypothetical I posted: You'd only get taxed 5% of the $ earned after the poverty demarcation. So if it's $12k, and a person made $12,100... then that person is only taxed $100 at 5%.
At least, that's how I'd do it if I had the powah. (rates themselves would adjust based on government revenue needs, but it's this *mechanic* I'm trying to convey).
Well... the income bands/rate would need some work: Persons in Household--------2014 Federal Poverty Level threshold 100% FPL 1------------------------------------$11,670 2------------------------------------$15,730 3------------------------------------$19,790 4------------------------------------$23,850
At least, that's how I'd do it if I had the powah. (rates themselves would adjust based on government revenue needs, but it's this *mechanic* I'm trying to convey).
Well... the income bands/rate would need some work: Persons in Household--------2014 Federal Poverty Level threshold 100% FPL
1------------------------------------$11,670
2------------------------------------$15,730
3------------------------------------$19,790
4------------------------------------$23,850
2016 POVERTY GUIDELINES FOR THE 48 CONTIGUOUS STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PERSONS IN FAMILY/HOUSEHOLD POVERTY GUIDELINE
For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $4,160 for each additional person.
1 $11,880
2 16,020
3 20,160
4 24,300
5 28,440
6 32,580
7 36,730
8 40,890
This is would I'd call "the liberals are eating their own...":
https://amp.twimg.com/v/9b7924d2-a1c1-41de-a3fe-7391efb13eec
Lifelong Democrats Say Hillary's Campaign/Credibility are at a New Low
Chuck Todd "She could not get confirmed as Attorney General right now" Mika Brzezinski said "she is straight out lying right now" and has been all along Even Andrea Mitchell says she's indefensible
Easy E wrote: The only way to stop illegal immigration is to make our own country such a Gak-hole that no one wants to come here anyway. Anything short of that is a waste of time.
Do any of us really want to go that far?
instead, we need to focus on how we are going to use these incoming resources to build our country and make it stronger.
Oh we are already going down that path, with "Actual" unemployment on the rise and more and more businesses shuttering their doors, its just a matter of time till this country implodes.
But on the other hand Trump might be onto something, building a wall would put people to work give jobs and so forth.
I try and be an optimist, but nothing good ever happens!
Easy E wrote: The only way to stop illegal immigration is to make our own country such a Gak-hole that no one wants to come here anyway. Anything short of that is a waste of time.
Do any of us really want to go that far?
instead, we need to focus on how we are going to use these incoming resources to build our country and make it stronger.
Oh we are already going down that path, with "Actual" unemployment on the rise and more and more businesses shuttering their doors, its just a matter of time till this country implodes.
But on the other hand Trump might be onto something, building a wall would put people to work give jobs and so forth.
I try and be an optimist, but nothing good ever happens!
I'm being optimistic too the wall would bring much needed jobs and so forth.
Easy E wrote: The only way to stop illegal immigration is to make our own country such a Gak-hole that no one wants to come here anyway. Anything short of that is a waste of time.
Do any of us really want to go that far?
instead, we need to focus on how we are going to use these incoming resources to build our country and make it stronger.
Oh we are already going down that path, with "Actual" unemployment on the rise and more and more businesses shuttering their doors, its just a matter of time till this country implodes.
But on the other hand Trump might be onto something, building a wall would put people to work give jobs and so forth.
I try and be an optimist, but nothing good ever happens!
I'm being optimistic too the wall would bring much needed jobs and so forth.
Easy E wrote: The only way to stop illegal immigration is to make our own country such a Gak-hole that no one wants to come here anyway. Anything short of that is a waste of time.
Do any of us really want to go that far?
instead, we need to focus on how we are going to use these incoming resources to build our country and make it stronger.
Oh we are already going down that path, with "Actual" unemployment on the rise and more and more businesses shuttering their doors, its just a matter of time till this country implodes.
But on the other hand Trump might be onto something, building a wall would put people to work give jobs and so forth.
I try and be an optimist, but nothing good ever happens!
I'm being optimistic too the wall would bring much needed jobs and so forth.
Easy E wrote: The only way to stop illegal immigration is to make our own country such a Gak-hole that no one wants to come here anyway. Anything short of that is a waste of time.
Do any of us really want to go that far?
instead, we need to focus on how we are going to use these incoming resources to build our country and make it stronger.
Oh we are already going down that path, with "Actual" unemployment on the rise and more and more businesses shuttering their doors, its just a matter of time till this country implodes.
But on the other hand Trump might be onto something, building a wall would put people to work give jobs and so forth.
I try and be an optimist, but nothing good ever happens!
I'm being optimistic too the wall would bring much needed jobs and so forth.
The wall's not going to be built.
if presented as much needed jobs, you would be surprised what can get done.
Easy E wrote: The only way to stop illegal immigration is to make our own country such a Gak-hole that no one wants to come here anyway. Anything short of that is a waste of time.
Do any of us really want to go that far?
instead, we need to focus on how we are going to use these incoming resources to build our country and make it stronger.
Oh we are already going down that path, with "Actual" unemployment on the rise and more and more businesses shuttering their doors, its just a matter of time till this country implodes.
But on the other hand Trump might be onto something, building a wall would put people to work give jobs and so forth.
I try and be an optimist, but nothing good ever happens!
I'm being optimistic too the wall would bring much needed jobs and so forth.
The wall's not going to be built.
if presented as much needed jobs, you would be surprised what can get done.
American economy floats on illegal labour. I very much doubt the wall will be built.
Easy E wrote: The only way to stop illegal immigration is to make our own country such a Gak-hole that no one wants to come here anyway. Anything short of that is a waste of time.
Do any of us really want to go that far?
instead, we need to focus on how we are going to use these incoming resources to build our country and make it stronger.
Oh we are already going down that path, with "Actual" unemployment on the rise and more and more businesses shuttering their doors, its just a matter of time till this country implodes.
But on the other hand Trump might be onto something, building a wall would put people to work give jobs and so forth.
I try and be an optimist, but nothing good ever happens!
I'm being optimistic too the wall would bring much needed jobs and so forth.
The wall's not going to be built.
if presented as much needed jobs, you would be surprised what can get done.
American economy floats on illegal labour. I very much doubt the wall will be built.
and I repeat you have no idea how much jobs are very much needed.
Easy E wrote: The only way to stop illegal immigration is to make our own country such a Gak-hole that no one wants to come here anyway. Anything short of that is a waste of time.
Do any of us really want to go that far?
instead, we need to focus on how we are going to use these incoming resources to build our country and make it stronger.
Oh we are already going down that path, with "Actual" unemployment on the rise and more and more businesses shuttering their doors, its just a matter of time till this country implodes.
But on the other hand Trump might be onto something, building a wall would put people to work give jobs and so forth.
I try and be an optimist, but nothing good ever happens!
I'm being optimistic too the wall would bring much needed jobs and so forth.
The wall's not going to be built.
if presented as much needed jobs, you would be surprised what can get done.
American economy floats on illegal labour. I very much doubt the wall will be built.
dethork wrote: I did some number crunching regarding tax brackets and came to the conclusion that I am not smart enough or qualified to write a tax plan. (And I am a professional number cruncher.)
That said, any tax brackets would probably have to be progressive within the tax brackets themselves, not just overall. Tax brackets are exceptionally craptacular for the lower end of the bracket. If our theoretical brackets are [X-$44k] = 5% and [45K-Y] = 10%, the guy making 44k pays $2200 in taxes and keeps $41,800 while the guy making $45k pays $4500 and keeps $40,500. If I made $44k per year and my boss offered me a raise, it would be stupid to accept anything less than $46,500 as otherwise I'd be making less money than before (and actually, only getting an extra $50/year with the $2500 raise). Pretty much wherever you drew the lines would make the bottom amounts worthless.
I will be honest and admit that I am not well informed regarding Bernie's politics, but this points out one problem with the "tax the rich" rhetoric. It is essentially meaningless without knowing where the lines would be drawn.
The problem is that taxes don't work like that. They work in a bracket system where you pay X% on a portion of your money. What you are looking for is effective tax rate, and the way that brackets work it means that people never make less by making more because of taxes. Because that would be stupid.
and I repeat you have no idea how much jobs are very much needed.
There are an abundance of roads, bridges, damns, and other critical infrastructure that is in desperate need of repairs. All of which are a much higher priority than a wall, and all of which are routinely ignored.
and I repeat you have no idea how much jobs are very much needed.
There are an abundance of roads, bridges, damns, and other critical infrastructure that is in desperate need of repairs. All of which are a much higher priority than a wall, and all of which are routinely ignored.
problem is all of those are State Repairs, too which the Federal Government does give them the money to do, what the States do with that money is another thing, like in California the Federal Government gave the state a crud load of a money for a Bullet Train that may never be done.
and I repeat you have no idea how much jobs are very much needed.
There are an abundance of roads, bridges, damns, and other critical infrastructure that is in desperate need of repairs. All of which are a much higher priority than a wall, and all of which are routinely ignored.
Absolutely, if this was about a national works program (something I would actually support in this instance), than our crumbling infrastructure is ripe for repair. Not only that, but we could invest in more than just the usual infrastructure, but cable and fiber to push tech-based business, and other things like that.
and I repeat you have no idea how much jobs are very much needed.
There are an abundance of roads, bridges, damns, and other critical infrastructure that is in desperate need of repairs. All of which are a much higher priority than a wall, and all of which are routinely ignored.
Absolutely, if this was about a national works program (something I would actually support in this instance), than our crumbling infrastructure is ripe for repair. Not only that, but we could invest in more than just the usual infrastructure, but cable and fiber to push tech-based business, and other things like that.
Exactly, I've been thinking for some time now that the Works Progress Administration is past due for a comeback. But, is that too much of a Socialist idea for people to handle these days?
Easy E wrote: The only way to stop illegal immigration is to make our own country such a Gak-hole that no one wants to come here anyway. Anything short of that is a waste of time.
Do any of us really want to go that far?
instead, we need to focus on how we are going to use these incoming resources to build our country and make it stronger.
Oh we are already going down that path, with "Actual" unemployment on the rise and more and more businesses shuttering their doors, its just a matter of time till this country implodes.
But on the other hand Trump might be onto something, building a wall would put people to work give jobs and so forth.
I try and be an optimist, but nothing good ever happens!
I'm being optimistic too the wall would bring much needed jobs and so forth.
The wall's not going to be built.
if presented as much needed jobs, you would be surprised what can get done.
American economy floats on illegal labour. I very much doubt the wall will be built.
No. It does not.
Perhaps a better statement would be that our economy floats on cheap labor?
and I repeat you have no idea how much jobs are very much needed.
There are an abundance of roads, bridges, damns, and other critical infrastructure that is in desperate need of repairs. All of which are a much higher priority than a wall, and all of which are routinely ignored.
Absolutely, if this was about a national works program (something I would actually support in this instance), than our crumbling infrastructure is ripe for repair. Not only that, but we could invest in more than just the usual infrastructure, but cable and fiber to push tech-based business, and other things like that.
Exactly, I've been thinking for some time now that the Works Progress Administration is past due for a comeback. But, is that too much of a Socialist idea for people to handle these days?
Easy E wrote: The only way to stop illegal immigration is to make our own country such a Gak-hole that no one wants to come here anyway. Anything short of that is a waste of time.
Do any of us really want to go that far?
instead, we need to focus on how we are going to use these incoming resources to build our country and make it stronger.
Oh we are already going down that path, with "Actual" unemployment on the rise and more and more businesses shuttering their doors, its just a matter of time till this country implodes.
But on the other hand Trump might be onto something, building a wall would put people to work give jobs and so forth.
I try and be an optimist, but nothing good ever happens!
I'm being optimistic too the wall would bring much needed jobs and so forth.
The wall's not going to be built.
if presented as much needed jobs, you would be surprised what can get done.
American economy floats on illegal labour. I very much doubt the wall will be built.
No. It does not.
Perhaps a better statement would be that our economy floats on cheap labor?
Problem is none of those programs would be allowed to exist since the Unions would have no say in them and the Unions have to have a say in everything since they are the ones who pushed the minimum wage raise.
and I repeat you have no idea how much jobs are very much needed.
There are an abundance of roads, bridges, damns, and other critical infrastructure that is in desperate need of repairs. All of which are a much higher priority than a wall, and all of which are routinely ignored.
Absolutely, if this was about a national works program (something I would actually support in this instance), than our crumbling infrastructure is ripe for repair. Not only that, but we could invest in more than just the usual infrastructure, but cable and fiber to push tech-based business, and other things like that.
Infrastructure projects could provide an economic boost but they're not going to do much for the job market. The majority of unemployed people aren't construction workers and skilled heavy equipment operators. It's not all those recent college graduates looking for work are capable or willing to go do manual labor building bridges. Plus, it's not the 1930s anymore we don't need nearly as much manpower to construct public works and much of the work requires skilled labor.
Jerram wrote: Because people who disagree with him are acting like brownshirts,, kind of a wonderful irony given the hyperbole used to describe him.
I am concerned about what the mood will be like in America when the gutter scrap between Trump and Clinton kicks off. There was a lot of bitterness in certain quarters when Obama got elected, so I expect the atmosphere to be as equally as bad.
Jerram wrote: Because people who disagree with him are acting like brownshirts,, kind of a wonderful irony given the hyperbole used to describe him.
yeah I've noticed those rioting against Trump are acting the way they say he and his followers are, headlines don't read Trump supporters destroy property, or Trump supporters attack someone, its the ones against Trump doing these things. and seriously their message is lost amongst the violence they are committing, and the one thing that leaned me for voting for Trump is watching those rioters burn American Flags while waving Mexican Flags, that is so un-American it is not funny.
and I repeat you have no idea how much jobs are very much needed.
There are an abundance of roads, bridges, damns, and other critical infrastructure that is in desperate need of repairs. All of which are a much higher priority than a wall, and all of which are routinely ignored.
Absolutely, if this was about a national works program (something I would actually support in this instance), than our crumbling infrastructure is ripe for repair. Not only that, but we could invest in more than just the usual infrastructure, but cable and fiber to push tech-based business, and other things like that.
Infrastructure projects could provide an economic boost but they're not going to do much for the job market. The majority of unemployed people aren't construction workers and skilled heavy equipment operators. It's not all those recent college graduates looking for work are capable or willing to go do manual labor building bridges. Plus, it's not the 1930s anymore we don't need nearly as much manpower to construct public works and much of the work requires skilled labor.
His post is a counter-point to the appeal that we should build the wall "because we need jobs".
There are a plethora of trade projects that could be done now that would expand the job market, without having to build a giant wall.
and I repeat you have no idea how much jobs are very much needed.
There are an abundance of roads, bridges, damns, and other critical infrastructure that is in desperate need of repairs. All of which are a much higher priority than a wall, and all of which are routinely ignored.
Absolutely, if this was about a national works program (something I would actually support in this instance), than our crumbling infrastructure is ripe for repair. Not only that, but we could invest in more than just the usual infrastructure, but cable and fiber to push tech-based business, and other things like that.
Infrastructure projects could provide an economic boost but they're not going to do much for the job market. The majority of unemployed people aren't construction workers and skilled heavy equipment operators. It's not all those recent college graduates looking for work are capable or willing to go do manual labor building bridges. Plus, it's not the 1930s anymore we don't need nearly as much manpower to construct public works and much of the work requires skilled labor.
His post is a counter-point to the appeal that we should build the wall "because we need jobs".
There are a plethora of trade projects that could be done now that would expand the job market, without having to build a giant wall.
Trade jobs, not unskilled labor jobs, we need more unskilled labor jobs since we are about to lose thousands if not millions soon.
Jerram wrote: Because people who disagree with him are acting like brownshirts,, kind of a wonderful irony given the hyperbole used to describe him.
yeah I've noticed those rioting against Trump are acting the way they say he and his followers are, headlines don't read Trump supporters destroy property, or Trump supporters attack someone, its the ones against Trump doing these things. and seriously their message is lost amongst the violence they are committing, and the one thing that leaned me for voting for Trump is watching those rioters burn American Flags while waving Mexican Flags, that is so un-American it is not funny.
Why don't you understand their message is "tolerance" of anyone who agrees with them?
Jerram wrote: Because people who disagree with him are acting like brownshirts,, kind of a wonderful irony given the hyperbole used to describe him.
yeah I've noticed those rioting against Trump are acting the way they say he and his followers are, headlines don't read Trump supporters destroy property, or Trump supporters attack someone, its the ones against Trump doing these things. and seriously their message is lost amongst the violence they are committing, and the one thing that leaned me for voting for Trump is watching those rioters burn American Flags while waving Mexican Flags, that is so un-American it is not funny.
Why don't you understand their message is "tolerance" of anyone who agrees with them?
Asterios wrote: Trade jobs, not unskilled labor jobs, we need more unskilled labor jobs since we are about to lose thousands if not millions soon.
I'm almost afraid to ask but, how are we about to lose thousands, if not "millions" of unskilled laborers?
with minimum wage going up to $15 an hour small businesses and franchises cannot survive, then top it off with several fast food franchises starting to bring in computerized/robotic workers that is even more jobs lost, and with several large companies going out of business (sports authority, Kmart/sears, etc.) all of which hire unskilled labor and those jobs will be gone.
But it isn't. Some states are doing it, but most aren't.
I agree that $15 is way to high for a federal minimum, though. It should be $10, and states/townships would be able to raise it if necessary for their situation.
The same has been said every time minimum wage has been raised, and it never happens. Minimum wage are at a historic low, and labor has never been cheaper in the recent past. We shouldn't have any unemployment at all if that argument is right.
d-usa wrote: The same has been said every time minimum wage has been raised, and it never happens. Minimum wage are at a historic low, and labor has never been cheaper in the recent past. We shouldn't have any unemployment at all if that argument is right.
actually it is happening right now, several businesses are closing Sears is on the edge of bankruptcy with their plans to sell off Kenmore,Craftsman, etc. Wendy's and Carl's Jr. are already replacing workers in stores with Robotic/computer screens, hell even a company in China just replaced 50,000 workers with Robotics. but on the home front, here in my own town we have entire shopping centers that are at 20% capacity now, with the bulk of the stores sitting empty.
Sears has been going bankrupt for years and it has nothing to do with wages. The market simply doesn't favor large department stores like it used to. Comparative to Walmart, Lowes, and other more modern chain stores, Sears is dying under the weight of its own infrastructure.
Workers in menial jobs getting replaced by machines was inevitable, and if China is doing it despite still being a very cheap labor market comparative to the US, it should be obvious that low wages don't stave off the inevitability of expanding automation.
None of the things you bring up have anything to do with the minimum wage, and a low minimum wage won't stop them from happening.
I think the general labor woes are a direct consequence of stagnated wages. People want $15 an hour minimum wage but it's symptomatic of the larger problem. The most common argument against it is really that more skilled labor would have their earnings relative to minimum wage earners diminished. Everyone short of high earners have seen wages flattened or diminished over the last 30 years. Traditionally middle class jobs do not afford the standard of living they used to and it forces individuals to take on debt or work longer. With fewer Americans having the money to spend on goods and services it drives the prices of these things up and puts greater pressure on middle income earners. It's severe enough that it has forced some to work past retirement age which has contributed to woes of younger workers. Younger Americans are struck with a one-two punch of having taken on more debt for higher education amid a greater likelihood of unemployment or underpaying employment; this stifles the economy as they delay the normal process of settling down and family building as older workers fail to vacate higher paying positions.
Capitalism works best when there is an understanding that there is an inherent ethical imperative to enrich all stake holders and not just shareholders.
That has happened as long as there have been small businesses and doesn't create a direct line between them closing and a rise in the minimum wage.
Asterios wrote: Sears is on the edge of bankruptcy with their plans to sell off Kenmore,Craftsman, etc.
Sears has had issues for decades now and isn't the beginning of the end of anything. Lots of business go down after awhile and some don't. Nothing about them having problems screams that it is only because, or even somewhat because, of a possible change to minimum wage.
Asterios wrote: Wendy's and Carl's Jr. are already replacing workers in stores with Robotic/computer screens, hell even a company in China just replaced 50,000 workers with Robotics.
If one thinks this wasn't going to happen all along one hasn't paid much attention to the past.
Asterios wrote: but on the home front, here in my own town we have entire shopping centers that are at 20% capacity now, with the bulk of the stores sitting empty.
Which is more of a sign that people have changed sociologically in there shopping habits. It isn't as if shopping centers have been with humans since the beginning of time, but are a product much like anything and come from a certain mind frame from a time and a place. That time is moving on.
That has happened as long as there have been small businesses and doesn't create a direct line between them closing and a rise in the minimum wage.
Wrong I personally know of 4 friends who are shutting down their businesses since they see no reason for their employees to make more money then they do, that will be over 300 jobs right there, this has been because of medical, paid sick leave and now minimum wage increase was the straw that broke the camels back.
as it goes just around me I've seen over a dozen businesses shut down in the past month, more then any month prior to that.
Asterios wrote: Sears is on the edge of bankruptcy with their plans to sell off Kenmore,Craftsman, etc.
Sears has had issues for decades now and isn't the beginning of the end of anything. Lots of business go down after awhile and some don't. Nothing about them having problems screams that it is only because, or even somewhat because, of a possible change to minimum wage.
all said and done Sears would not sell off craftsman and Kenmore since without those brands they are no longer a business.
Asterios wrote: Wendy's and Carl's Jr. are already replacing workers in stores with Robotic/computer screens, hell even a company in China just replaced 50,000 workers with Robotics.
If one thinks this wasn't going to happen all along one hasn't paid much attention to the past.
it was done very little in the past since it was expensive to maintain such things, but with minimum wage going to $15, its now cheaper to do so.
Asterios wrote: but on the home front, here in my own town we have entire shopping centers that are at 20% capacity now, with the bulk of the stores sitting empty.
Which is more of a sign that people have changed sociologically in there shopping habits. It isn't as if shopping centers have been with humans since the beginning of time, but are a product much like anything and come from a certain mind frame from a time and a place. That time is moving on.
Trade and barter and selling have been around since one man met another.
Asterios wrote: Trade and barter and selling have been around since one man met another.
Indeed, one of the first manmade structures, Stonehenge, is actually the skeletal reinforcements for a glass-clad mega mall. The ravages of time have plundered the Frogurts, P.F Changs, Foot Lockers and Orange Julius which were the first comforts of early man, and would be lost to us if not for their crude cave paintings.
All snark aside, this is the part where a rational man must point out that you're being intentionally obtuse. Yes, mankind has always bartered, but he didn't do it in a shopping mall until 1952. Despite the odd fantasy you seem to be trying to see that high wages are killing malls, they have been dying for decades since people don't go to malls anymore.
Asterios wrote: Trade and barter and selling have been around since one man met another.
Indeed, one of the first manmade structures, Stonehenge, is actually the skeletal reinforcements for a glass-clad mega mall. The ravages of time have plundered the Frogurts, P.F Changs, Foot Lockers and Orange Julius which were the first comforts of early man, and would be lost to us if not for their crude cave paintings.
All snark aside, this is the part where a rational man must point out that you're being intentionally obtuse. Yes, mankind has always bartered, but he didn't do it in a shopping mall until 1952. Despite the odd fantasy you seem to be trying to see that high wages are killing malls, they have been dying for decades since people don't go to malls anymore.
before shopping malls there were markets where sellers and traders gathered to sell, so who is being obtuse?
Asterios wrote: before shopping malls there were markets where sellers and traders gathered to sell, so who is being obtuse?
Now you're moving the goalposts. I'm not playing intellectual Calvinball with you. You made an argument, a bad one - that malls are dying because of high wages - , and when pointed out that it was bad, you're trying to shift it somewhere else. Much as peoples shopping habits changed to accomodate giant mega malls, they slowly changed to them falling out of favor.
Sears has been in trouble since around 1992. Much like shopping malls, the problems you're attributing to high wages simply have nothing to do with high wages. Wages are historically low when you peg to inflation. This is not really a matter of opinion any more than the sun rising in the east.
Asterios wrote: before shopping malls there were markets where sellers and traders gathered to sell, so who is being obtuse?
Now you're moving the goalposts. I'm not playing intellectual Calvinball with you. You made an argument, a bad one - that malls are dying because of high wages - , and when pointed out that it was bad, you're trying to shift it somewhere else. Much as peoples shopping habits changed to accomodate giant mega malls, they slowly changed to them falling out of favor.
Sears has been in trouble since around 1992. Much like shopping malls, the problems you're attributing to high wages simply have nothing to do with high wages. Wages are historically low when you peg to inflation. This is not really a matter of opinion any more than the sun rising in the east.
where did I say malls? I'm talking shopping centers where people gather have a stall(store) and sell goods, this has been going on forever, and only difference between them and malls is malls are enclosed, and even that is not new. http://historylink101.com/2/Rome/roman-shopping.htm
furthermore my point is most businesses to stay afloat will have to let go/fire whatever a couple of employees, you get like 500,000 small businesses out of the millions of small businesses and franchises and you are looking at millions of people being unemployed.
Furthermore before Minimum wage has never leaped so high so fast, right now in California minimum wage will be increasing $1 a year, not a few cents, not .50 cents but $1 a year for 5 more years, (it went from $9 to $10 this year, next year to $11 and keep going till 2021 when it will be $15 an hour), you do the math and figure out how long that model will work for small businesses and such.
fixed of they are fired. Wash rinse repeat until the problem is solved.
