whembly wrote: Hermain Cain was leading the poll at this point in '12.
Polls are useful now (ie, anyone polling <5% ought to think about dropping out)... but, I think it's a mistake to put too much weight on these polls at the moment.
whembly wrote: Hermain Cain was leading the poll at this point in '12.
Polls are useful now (ie, anyone polling <5% ought to think about dropping out)... but, I think it's a mistake to put too much weight on these polls at the moment.
whembly wrote: Hermain Cain was leading the poll at this point in '12.
Polls are useful now (ie, anyone polling <5% ought to think about dropping out)... but, I think it's a mistake to put too much weight on these polls at the moment.
whembly wrote: Hermain Cain was leading the poll at this point in '12.
Polls are useful now (ie, anyone polling <5% ought to think about dropping out)... but, I think it's a mistake to put too much weight on these polls at the moment.
I'll tell you what man... Teh Trumpo™ is doing a damned good job of uniting just about everyone against him.
Except for the largest share of the GOP . They seem to be united for him at the moment
??? when has he ever surpassed 50+ % of the current polls??
He said largest share, not majority. According to most polls throughout the period, he has attracted the largest share.
My bad.
I still say that most of "Trumps voters" isn't exactly supporting Trump because he's "Trump". It's more of a way to make the establishment "sweat a little".
whembly wrote: Hermain Cain was leading the poll at this point in '12.
Polls are useful now (ie, anyone polling <5% ought to think about dropping out)... but, I think it's a mistake to put too much weight on these polls at the moment.
I'll tell you what man... Teh Trumpo™ is doing a damned good job of uniting just about everyone against him.
Except for the largest share of the GOP . They seem to be united for him at the moment
??? when has he ever surpassed 50+ % of the current polls??
He said largest share, not majority. According to most polls throughout the period, he has attracted the largest share.
My bad.
I still say that most of "Trumps voters" isn't exactly supporting Trump because he's "Trump". It's more of a way to make the establishment "sweat a little".
I think you are giving him and the people who poll for him too much credit. I would guess a large amount of his support haven't given it much thought (thinking cannot be their specialty), nor will they be likely to vote come election time. He will get beaten in Iowa likely by Cruz, and then his support will dry up since he will no longer look like a "winner". I think you are right to peg it an election between Cruz and Rubio, but the longer he stays in, the more your girlfriend looks better by comparison.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I think you are giving him and the people who poll for him too much credit. I would guess a large amount of his support haven't given it much thought (thinking cannot be their specialty), nor will they be likely to vote come election time. He will get beaten in Iowa likely by Cruz, and then his support will dry up since he will no longer look like a "winner". I think you are right to peg it an election between Cruz and Rubio, but the longer he stays in, the more your girlfriend looks better by comparison.
The problem with that line of thought is that pretty much every reputable polling company doesn't just pick random folks off the street, but samples likely voters: Usually registered Republicans (in this case) who have voted in past primaries.
Frazzled wrote: Or a plant by the HRC campaign, and he's digging the publicity.
Listen, Alex Jones. I'm willing to say it's possible for a campaign to put up a fake candidate. There are rumors it's happened during primaries a few years ago. That being said, anyone that seriously believes that Donald Trump is a Democratic plant is frankly, willingly closing their eyes to just how deeply screwed up their party has become. He's made noises about running for President since before Bill Clinton was president. He actually ran for president once already, in 2000. In all of these many, many political offices he has run for, or has threatened to run for, he has put on a show of it until either he would have had to disclose his financials (it would hurt the brand to reveal he has often been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy), until a serious candidate actually showed up, or until it stopped being fun. This is a guy who likes running for office for the lulz, and he usually quits once it becomes a hassle. This is the first election where everything lined up for him: his financials are in pretty good shape, his "opposition" is an unbelievably weak B-squad of has-beens and never-was-es, there's apparently a huge mass of useful idiots willing to endorse anyone who's "not politically correct", and he has nothing else really going on, so why not?
To go at it at another angle, it's like believing the government is capable of covering up the truth behind 9/11 while also being wholly incapable of running the TSA; it's just not possible. The Hillary Clinton campaign isn't some Machiavellian masterpiece of political excellence, she's a terrible campaigner whose only real success this time - despite many, many self-inflicted wounds - is that she has no significant competition at all. That's it, that's all.
If even a halfway competent junior senator had ran, she'd be done by now, just like last time when she snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Instead she lucked out and got this generation's Dennis Kucinich, a bunch of guys with name recognition somewhere south of yours, and even THEN, the Democratic National Committee has been spending all their time trying to make sure no one roughs her up by putting the Democratic debates on the equivalent of late-night cable access during the Super Bowl.
That Donald Trump... happened, for lack of a better word, is simply dumb luck for the Clinton campaign, emphasis on the dumb. The problem with the idea he might be a plant is it abdicates one's responsibility to consider what the party you largely support now consists of.
Frazzled wrote: Or a plant by the HRC campaign, and he's digging the publicity.
Listen, Alex Jones. I'm willing to say it's possible for a campaign to put up a fake candidate. There are rumors it's happened during primaries a few years ago. That being said, anyone that seriously believes that Donald Trump is a Democratic plant is frankly, willingly closing their eyes to just how deeply screwed up their party has become. He's made noises about running for President since before Bill Clinton was president. He actually ran for president once already, in 2000. In all of these many, many political offices he has run for, or has threatened to run for, he has put on a show of it until either he would have had to disclose his financials (it would hurt the brand to reveal he has often been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy), until a serious candidate actually showed up, or until it stopped being fun. This is a guy who likes running for office for the lulz, and he usually quits once it becomes a hassle. This is the first election where everything lined up for him: his financials are in pretty good shape, his "opposition" is an unbelievably weak B-squad of has-beens and never-was-es, there's apparently a huge mass of useful idiots willing to endorse anyone who's "not politically correct", and he has nothing else really going on, so why not?
To go at it at another angle, it's like believing the government is capable of covering up the truth behind 9/11 while also being wholly incapable of running the TSA; it's just not possible. The Hillary Clinton campaign isn't some Machiavellian masterpiece of political excellence, she's a terrible campaigner whose only real success this time - despite many, many self-inflicted wounds - is that she has no significant competition at all. That's it, that's all.
If even a halfway competent junior senator had ran, she'd be done by now, just like last time when she snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Instead she lucked out and got this generation's Dennis Kucinich, a bunch of guys with name recognition somewhere south of yours, and even THEN, the Democratic National Committee has been spending all their time trying to make sure no one roughs her up by putting the Democratic debates on the equivalent of late-night cable access during the Super Bowl.
That Donald Trump... happened, for lack of a better word, is simply dumb luck for the Clinton campaign, emphasis on the dumb. The problem with the idea he might be a plant is it abdicates one's responsibility to consider what the party you largely support now consists of.
Frazzled wrote: Or a plant by the HRC campaign, and he's digging the publicity.
Listen, Alex Jones. I'm willing to say it's possible for a campaign to put up a fake candidate. There are rumors it's happened during primaries a few years ago. That being said, anyone that seriously believes that Donald Trump is a Democratic plant is frankly, willingly closing their eyes to just how deeply screwed up their party has become. He's made noises about running for President since before Bill Clinton was president. He actually ran for president once already, in 2000. In all of these many, many political offices he has run for, or has threatened to run for, he has put on a show of it until either he would have had to disclose his financials (it would hurt the brand to reveal he has often been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy), until a serious candidate actually showed up, or until it stopped being fun. This is a guy who likes running for office for the lulz, and he usually quits once it becomes a hassle. This is the first election where everything lined up for him: his financials are in pretty good shape, his "opposition" is an unbelievably weak B-squad of has-beens and never-was-es, there's apparently a huge mass of useful idiots willing to endorse anyone who's "not politically correct", and he has nothing else really going on, so why not?
To go at it at another angle, it's like believing the government is capable of covering up the truth behind 9/11 while also being wholly incapable of running the TSA; it's just not possible. The Hillary Clinton campaign isn't some Machiavellian masterpiece of political excellence, she's a terrible campaigner whose only real success this time - despite many, many self-inflicted wounds - is that she has no significant competition at all. That's it, that's all.
If even a halfway competent junior senator had ran, she'd be done by now, just like last time when she snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Instead she lucked out and got this generation's Dennis Kucinich, a bunch of guys with name recognition somewhere south of yours, and even THEN, the Democratic National Committee has been spending all their time trying to make sure no one roughs her up by putting the Democratic debates on the equivalent of late-night cable access during the Super Bowl.
That Donald Trump... happened, for lack of a better word, is simply dumb luck for the Clinton campaign, emphasis on the dumb. The problem with the idea he might be a plant is it abdicates one's responsibility to consider what the party you largely support now consists of.
I'm with you on everything here except about how horrible Clinton is as a campaigner. She ran damn close to Obama (who would likely figure out how to win a third time if he could) in 2008, and no other non incumbent candidate has ever had the lead she holds in the primary she holds now at this time in the election cycle. I'm thinking your opinion of her as a campaigner is colored by your opinion of her. She has no opposition at the moment. Look back to 2008. She was pretty effective once she started realizing she actually needed to (don't forget Edwards was still untainted). When she unleashes the dogs of war against whoever the GOP eventually settles on, it won't be pretty.
"Listen, Alex Jones" -wo and here I thought we were friends. You best back off son, or I will have to seek satisfaction on the field of battle. Red whippy sticks and GW dice at Dawn...SIR!
Hey... is it any more reasonable than saying that Obama was funded in part by Gun manufacturers? Seeing how these companies stocks are surging during his tenure?
"Places in London are so radicalised that police are afraid to go there."
- Donald Trump
""We would not normally dignify such comments with a response, however on this occasion we think it's important to state to Londoners that Mr Trump could not be more wrong.
"Any candidate for the presidential election in the United States of America is welcome to receive a briefing from the Met Police on the reality of policing London.""
- The Metropolitan (London) Police
"The only reason that I wouldn't go to some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump."
- Boris Johnston, the mayor of London.
I have no real political opinion about things but when this guy...
Is effectively calling someone out. One has to wonder...
whembly wrote: Hey... is it any more reasonable than saying that Obama was funded in part by Gun manufacturers? Seeing how these companies stocks are surging during his tenure?
Da Boss wrote: I keep thinking "Holy crap, did I just hear him say what I think he said?!?" and then I think "Man, that is about as crazy as it can possibly get."
Then like 4 days later he tops it. And he's been doing that consistently, since before the summer.
It is friggin' unbelievable. Mainstream Republicans must be furious?
Are there any old guard left that haven't been run off by the Tea Party?
Da Boss wrote: I keep thinking "Holy crap, did I just hear him say what I think he said?!?" and then I think "Man, that is about as crazy as it can possibly get."
Then like 4 days later he tops it. And he's been doing that consistently, since before the summer.
It is friggin' unbelievable. Mainstream Republicans must be furious?
And the media are lapping it up.
They cannot stop talking about Trump, which just feeds into the most important thing for any candidate - exposure.
I think he has found a significant groundswell amongst people who are sick of the same old machine politicians and he is doing anything he can to separate himself from them.
If I was in the US and confronted with the option of any other bland republican I would go for Trump. If in the presidential run off, Hillary Clinton vs Trump, It would be Trump because more of the same that Obama has provided would really put the US in the toilet.
BrotherGecko wrote: If this is just his strategy as a negotiator he might be the worst out there.
This. If Trump were a police negotiator his opening line to a hostage taker would probably be along the lines of "Okay, we're going to assault in 5 minutes unless you kill yourself now".
Not too far from the truth, I guess. We're talking about a guy who managed to lose oodles of investor money (in a casino project?), then just told them thay should be happy THEY DIDN*T LOSE MORE! A guy who borrowed money from Deutsche Bank, failed to pay - and when the bank asked nicely he slapped them a lawsuit for damaging his reputation over a few measly millions. Trump doesn't negotiate, he screams insanity at you until you say "yeah, whatever" and let him carry on with his business.
So based on his overall poling numbers ~20% of Republican primary voters would ditch the GOP and follow Trump?
I think that's an acceptable loss and it would probably be a good thing for the GOP to get rid of them if it allows them to become a more normal party in the future.
d-usa wrote: So based on his overall poling numbers ~20% of Republican primary voters would ditch the GOP and follow Trump?
I think that's an acceptable loss and it would probably be a good thing for the GOP to get rid of them if it allows them to become a more normal party in the future.
Pretty much. The Constitution is for all, and no one should be deprived of their rights arbitrarily. Trump is looking more and more like a caricature every day.
So based on his overall poling numbers ~20% of Republican primary voters would ditch the GOP and follow Trump?
I think that's an acceptable loss and it would probably be a good thing for the GOP to get rid of them if it allows them to become a more normal party in the future.
A loss of 20% would be devistating for a party right now, particularly the GOP who will be having struggles with the demographics in the next few decades. I agree, it's probably good in the very long term to realign the parties, the Dems still need the GOP. Sorta like Sony needs Microsoft.
If the GOP cut those 20% and pulled just a smidgen to the center they would probably gain enough supporters to not have to gerrymander to win electorate votes
Except 20% of primary voters is actually a lot smaller group than 20% of Republicans.
That's why the GOP has been in trouble the last few cycles: the primary process means that they are having to turn crazy to gain the votes of a small group of people only to turn around and try to gain the votes of the actual Republicand and moderates after the primary is over.
That's the whole "we gotta rally the base" problem. The base would vote for anyone that isn't the Democrat, but if you don't pander to the few whole alienating the many you never get the nomination.
Getting rid of the few may be the best thing they could hope for.
d-usa wrote: Except 20% of primary voters is actually a lot smaller group than 20% of Republicans.
That's why the GOP has been in trouble the last few cycles: the primary process means that they are having to turn crazy to gain the votes of a small group of people only to turn around and try to gain the votes of the actual Republicand and moderates after the primary is over.
That's the whole "we gotta rally the base" problem. The base would vote for anyone that isn't the Democrat, but if you don't pander to the few whole alienating the many you never get the nomination.
Getting rid of the few may be the best thing they could hope for.
And the party just rearranged the calendar to try to mitigate a lot of what you are describing. At some point the party leaders have to say, we can't handle our crazy folks that we created any longer. Then what though? New parties are hard to establish (possibly impossible with the way they have gerrymandered states) . It will likely take a trump card to kill a party.
d-usa wrote: Except 20% of primary voters is actually a lot smaller group than 20% of Republicans.
That's why the GOP has been in trouble the last few cycles: the primary process means that they are having to turn crazy to gain the votes of a small group of people only to turn around and try to gain the votes of the actual Republicand and moderates after the primary is over.
That's the whole "we gotta rally the base" problem. The base would vote for anyone that isn't the Democrat, but if you don't pander to the few whole alienating the many you never get the nomination.
Getting rid of the few may be the best thing they could hope for.
No. The primary process has a moderating influence on GOP candidates and weeds out fringe candidates. The majority of delegates at the Republican convention will be from "blue" states that Obama carried. It is highly unlikely that they'll vote for Trump or that primary voters in their states will vote for Trump.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Obama (who would likely figure out how to win a third time if he could) i
I'm a problem solver, here ya go:
Not sure if you are disputing my point or if you are disputing Obama could get reelected or if you are disputing Groucho could get elected in this country. Or are you saying he is one in the same? i guess irony doesn't need a point in the age of trump.
Not sure if you are disputing my point or if you are disputing Obama could get reelected or if you are disputing Groucho could get elected in this country. Or are you saying he is one in the same? i guess irony doesn't need a point in the age of trump.
Lol, it was an admittedly weak tongue in cheek attempt to show how Obama could get a 3rd term
One of the Middle East’s largest retailers, Landmark Group, has stopped selling Trump-branded products, following the Republican presidential candidate’s controversial call to ban Muslims from the United States.
The Dubai-based firm signed a deal in February this year to sell items from the Trump Home collection to customers in the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia through its Lifestyle outlets.
However, the group said on Tuesday it would now remove all products from its shelves.
“As one of the most popular home decor brands in the Middle East, Lifestyle values and respects the sentiments of all its customers,” Lifestyle CEO Sachin Mundhwa said, in a statement sent to Arabian Business.
“In light of the recent statements made by the presidential candidate in the US media, we have suspended sale of all products from the Trump Home décor range.”
Trump’s call to ban Muslims from entering the US was the most dramatic response yet by a candidate to last week’s shooting spree by two Muslims who the FBI said had been radicalised. His comments were widely condemned by representatives from both sides of America’s political spectrum.
Trump also has a partnership with Dubai’s Al Tayer Group, which opened two Trump Home by Dorya galleries in the UAE in June. The firm called the billionaire real estate mogul’s recent comments “unfortunate” but did not indicate that it would be withdrawing from the partnership.
“The statement Mr Trump made on the campaign trail is unfortunate. Given his diverse business interests in the region, we hope that he will reconsider his stand,” the firm said, in a statement send to Arabian Business.
However, the firm which Trump has perhaps his most significant ties in the region – Damac Properties – refused to criticise the comments.
“We would like to stress that our agreement is with the Trump Organisation as one of the premium golf course operators in the world and as such we would not comment further on Mr. Trump’s personal or political agenda, nor comment on the internal American political debate scene," Damac senior vice president Niall McLoughlin said.
Damac is working with Trump to build two golf courses in Dubai.
d-usa wrote: Except 20% of primary voters is actually a lot smaller group than 20% of Republicans.
That's why the GOP has been in trouble the last few cycles: the primary process means that they are having to turn crazy to gain the votes of a small group of people only to turn around and try to gain the votes of the actual Republicand and moderates after the primary is over.
That's the whole "we gotta rally the base" problem. The base would vote for anyone that isn't the Democrat, but if you don't pander to the few whole alienating the many you never get the nomination.
Getting rid of the few may be the best thing they could hope for.
Primary voters always have the hardcores. Thats why the news still occasionally talks about the Socialist who's running second to HRC on the Democratic side.
Another Vox article, written by Zack Beauchamp and also published yesterday, calls attention to a poll by the Public Religion Research Institute that asked respondents if they agreed with the statement “The values of Islam are at odds with American values and way of life.”
Vox’s headline announces the results for Republicans, 76% of whom agree. But the view is shared by a majority of all respondents (56%) and independents (57%) and a substantial minority of Democrats (43%). Blacks and Hispanics are evenly divided, and majorities of every Christian subpopulation, including black Protestants, agree.
Our own view of the question is complicated. Certainly Islam and the American way of life are compatible inasmuch as America is capable of welcoming Muslims who are not Islamic supremacists. On the other hand, it’s always struck us that categorical statements to the effect that Islam is “a religion of peace” are far more hortatory than empirical—which is to say that there is a gap between Islam as it actually exists and Islam as President Bush or President Obama would like it to be. How wide that gap is, and how dangerous, we do not know.
Double-edged sword. He has successfully captured the imagination of those Americans who live in fear, but this latest salvo against decency probably disqualified him for the presidency amongst the national mainstream.
Frazzled wrote: "Listen, Alex Jones"
-wo and here I thought we were friends. You best back off son, or I will have to seek satisfaction on the field of battle. Red whippy sticks and GW dice at Dawn...SIR!
In retrospect, calling someone Alex Jones even when obviously in jest are still fighting words, and I'd expect to have my face slapped for that in real life - so I apologize.
Frazzled wrote: "Listen, Alex Jones"
-wo and here I thought we were friends. You best back off son, or I will have to seek satisfaction on the field of battle. Red whippy sticks and GW dice at Dawn...SIR!
In retrospect, calling someone Alex Jones even when obviously in jest are still fighting words, and I'd expect to have my face slapped for that in real life - so I apologize.
Excellent. I will celebrate our new fouhnd peace by the eating of Peace Enchiladas with Peace Rice and Peace Beans.
His shaming of Congress over the expired Zadroga Act was as painful as it was funny to watch. There are a lot of things that are shameful about our government, but turning our collective backs on the first responders who are now ill from working in the aftermath of 9/11 is just unforgivable.
His shaming of Congress over the expired Zadroga Act was as painful as it was funny to watch. There are a lot of things that are shameful about our government, but turning our collective backs on the first responders who are now ill from working in the aftermath of 9/11 is just unforgivable.
Happy to say that all three of my Congress people are backing this. Cummings, Cardin and Mikulski.
A spokesman for Robert Gordon university said:
“In 2010 Robert Gordon University awarded an honorary DBA to Mr Donald Trump, in recognition of his achievements as an entrepreneur and businessman.
In the course of the current US election campaign, Mr Trump has made a number of statements that are wholly incompatible with the ethos and values of the university. The university has therefore decided to revoke its award of the honorary degree.”
"A Scottish government spokeswoman said Mr Trump's "recent remarks have shown he is no longer fit to be a business ambassador for Scotland"."
Jimmy Carter wrote:Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.
Carter orders 50,000 Iranian students in US to report to immigration office with view to deporting those in violation of their visas. On 27 December 1979, US appeals court allows deportation of Iranian students found in violation. (CRS 1981, 38, 71)
Compel wrote: That's the kinda thing that happens when country's cut off diplomatic ties...
Kinda not seeing how it's relevant.
Because it shows where we have stopped immigration of certain people when we believed it to not be in our national interest.
We suspended our diplomatic ties with Syria, I guess you will be okay with us refusing to allow any Syrians in, and kicking out the non-US citizen Syrians that are here on visas, right?
Compel wrote: That's the kinda thing that happens when country's cut off diplomatic ties...
Kinda not seeing how it's relevant.
Because it shows where we have stopped immigration of certain people when we believed it to not be in our national interest.
We suspended our diplomatic ties with Syria, I guess you will be okay with us refusing to allow any Syrians in, and kicking out the non-US citizen Syrians that are here on visas, right?
Except that that directive did not disallow Iranian refugees from entry to the US. So, try again.
That would be a diplomatic choice as a nation - I'm somewhat curious about the numbers of Syrian citizens in the USA who aren't refugees and do have visas actually. I imagine the USA still has ties via a third party country to allow various visits. I'm not exactly learned on political stuff.
Replacing 'Syrians' with "everyone of a particular religion, including those who are born in America, may actually serve the American Government, police, firefighters and Armed Forces..." And it becomes a little less of a diplomatic thing and a lot close to Godwin's Law. (Or even America's own history, George Takei supposedly has some good articles recently about that - referring to his own life, but I've not found them).
Compel wrote: That's the kinda thing that happens when country's cut off diplomatic ties...
Kinda not seeing how it's relevant.
Because it shows where we have stopped immigration of certain people when we believed it to not be in our national interest.
We suspended our diplomatic ties with Syria, I guess you will be okay with us refusing to allow any Syrians in, and kicking out the non-US citizen Syrians that are here on visas, right?
Except that that directive did not disallow Iranian refugees from entry to the US. So, try again.
From what I understood... it stopped all Iranian immigration for a bit. I know this because my co-worker immigrated here before that, and had issues getting his sisters here for awhile (they eventually made it in early 80's). Crazy time...
The point is this... let's dispense with the idea that it's illegal or unethical that a country does this. The US owes nothing to non-citizens trying to immigrate. Nothing.
However, I will add that making a blanket "no muslim" banning is an asinine policy.
You take the brakes off of our intelligence agencies to do their vetting. That means, "profiling" and other techniques should be used.
House easily passes curbs to visa waiver program ... An overwhelming majority of House lawmakers voted Tuesday to tighten restrictions on individuals entering the U.S without visas from ally nations — the chamber’s strongest border control move yet after Islamic terrorists killed 130 people in Paris.
Passing the measure may give Republican leaders more space to maneuver on a must-pass government spending bill. Many conservatives want to add provisions to the omnibus that would bar Syrian and Iraqi refugees from entering the U.S. until tighter vetting restrictions are in place.
But GOP leaders hope that Tuesday’s stand-alone visa measure will satiate the Republican appetite for action on the Syrian issue. The bill would stop individuals from traveling to the U.S. from certain countries without a visa if they’ve previously traveled to countries like Iraq or Syria that are known terrorism hotbeds. ...
You say "take the brakes off our intelligence agencies" like you're implying they are currently prohibited from doing their jobs.
Got anything to back that up?
Also, Jake, I'm sure you're smart enough to know the difference between cutting diplomatic ties with a country and decide ding any people of a certain religion, no matter where they're from, are barred from entering the country. This also isn't an immigration issue; people come to this country to visit family, take vacations, study in our schools, and do business. Also, Trump made it clear that this idiotic ban would also apply to citizens, which sounds pretty illegal and unconstitutional to me.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: You say "take the brakes off our intelligence agencies" like you're implying they are currently prohibited from doing their jobs.
Got anything to back that up?
Also, Jake, I'm sure you're smart enough to know the difference between cutting diplomatic ties with a country and decide ding any people of a certain religion, no matter where they're from, are barred from entering the country. This also isn't an immigration issue; people come to this country to visit family, take vacations, study in our schools, and do business. Also, Trump made it clear that this idiotic ban would also apply to citizens, which sounds pretty illegal and unconstitutional to me.
Trump allegedly backtracked the 'includes citizen' thing one of his staffers said (heard it on the the Progress channel's Michelangelo Signorile show this afternoon while picking up my daughter from school).
And it is an immigration issue. I've already stated I think it is a dumb idea, but it is not unconstitutional (heck, even Signorile admits as much and he is as far from a Trump fan as you can get). Tashfeen Malik is a very recent example of someone who went through some vetting to get her visa to come home with Farook. It looks like even as they went through that process they were radicalized and planned some attack. Folks read this/hear it on the news, and a lot agree with Trump. Hell, he is not even close to the only R candidate who came up with a similar idea, he just stated his bluntly. Rand Paul put up a bill to restrict immigration and even visit visas from Muslim nations in July after the Chattanooga attack. Most if not all of the R candidates want to at a minimum block Syrian refugees from entrance.
We, as a nation, HAVE blocked immigration from certain groups more than once (remember the link I posted earlier to the Chinese Exclusion Act as one example).
As I understand it, taking all the rhetoric out of it, Trump's current position is 'block entrance of non-citizen Muslims into the US until congress can figure out legislation and programs to ensure we are not letting in bad guys'. With the very recent example you will have a hard time explaining why that does not make sense to a lot of folks, both D and R working class.
The Public Religion Research Institute 2015 American Values Survey found that 56 percent of Americans said the values of Islam are at odds with American beliefs and way of life. Almost six in 10 white Americans feel that way, as compared to 48 percent of blacks and 46 percent of Hispanics. The highest percentage of those that agree with the statements are white evangelical Protestants, 73 percent of whom said Islam is incompatible with the U.S. way of life, though a majority of every Christian religious group said they feel the same.
People's feeling on the matter are strongly influenced by their political leanings, the poll shows. Three-quarters of Republicans (76 percent) and 77 percent of Tea Party members think Islam is at odds with the American way of life. While the poll shows support among other political groups is smaller, it's still considerable: 57 percent of independents and 43 percent of Democrats agree that Islam is incompatible with life in the U.S.
And it is an immigration issue. I've already stated I think it is a dumb idea, but it is not unconstitutional...
I'm no constitutional or legal scholar, but it seems to me that specifically banning people of a particular religion from entering the country violates that whole "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part of the first amendment. At least come up with some other reason to bar people from entering.
And the issue at hand is not about immigration, that is purely a red herring and a dodge to avoid the real issue. The real issue is the political fearmongering and hatemongering that is being used to turn us against each other in a second coming of McCarthyism. "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party...I mean, Islamic faith?"
Edit: With numbers like the following BEFORE the San Bernardino attack, Trump's position may not be as much of a death sentence as folks assume
Of course not. Lots of people in the US dislike Muslims and most of them are conservative, Republican, or some combination thereof. Trump's position is yet another attempt to tap into the silent majority of people who angrily yell at their media devices, but don't actually vote.
Atheists like to say that prayer does not work. Well, the "religious right" along with fundies and evangelicals of all stripes have been praying for God to smite Trump down. The atheists laughed at them. Then this appears to have happened.
From what I understood... it stopped all Iranian immigration for a bit.
Is this a thing now? Confusing entry and immigration?
It stopped visas for non-immigrants as well, including students as has already been pointed out. It also sent home existing Iranians here on visas.
Except it is written there, right in the text you quoted at the beginning, that it does not block visas for entry to the US on humanitarian grounds:
...except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons
I'm pretty sure running from a crazy cult who want you to submit to them or die is a compelling humanitarian reason, not to mention that it is proven that ISIS will kill those who do not subjugate themselves to its will.
Enter Donald Trump. People who are unhappy with the things Trump is saying need to understand that he’s only getting so much traction because he’s filling a void. If the responsible people would talk about these issues, and take action, Trump wouldn’t take up so much space.
And there’s a lesson for our ruling class there: Calling Trump a fascist is a bit much but movements like fascism and communism get their start because the mechanisms of liberal democracy seem weak and ineffectual and dishonest. If you don’t want Trump — or, perhaps, some post-Trump figure who really is a fascist — to dominate things, you need to stop being weak and ineffectual and dishonest.
Right now, after years of Obama hope-and-change, a majority of Americans (56%) think Islam is incompatible with American values. That’s true even for 43% of Democrats.
In that sort of environment, where people feel unsafe and where the powers-that-be seem to be, well, weak and ineffectual and dishonest, the appeal of someone who doesn’t seem weak and ineffectual grows stronger.
Likewise, it’s a bit hard to take people seriously about Trump’s threat to civil liberties when President Obama was just endorsing an unconstitutional gun ban, when his attorney general was threatening to prosecute people for anti-Muslim speech (a threat later walked back, thankfully) and when universities and political leaders around the country are making clear their belief that free speech is obsolete.
He concludes:
If you wish to hold fascism, or even just Trumpism, at bay, then we need elites who are trustworthy, who can be counted on to protect the country, and who respect the Constitution even when it gets in the way of doing something they want to do. By failing to live up to these standards, they have chosen their "Destructor." Let’s hope that they haven’t chosen ours, as well.
A lot of Americans on this thread are understandably annoyed at Trump for making their nation look like a bunch of idiots in the eyes of the world,
But you guys should be proud of the fact that you have a democratic system, and a constitution, that allows idiots like Trump to spout gibberish on an industrial scale.
although from what I've seen there's something of a lack of actual details/story.
yet.
would that finish him here then ?
Assuming true, it'll definitely hurt him in the primaries but, as long as he doesn't run on a socially conservative platform, I don't think it would do too much damage in the general.
That title should immediately scream "my opinion is completely disengenuous and everything that follows will be hogwash complaining about 'dirty liberals' and how it's all their fault that Donald Trump exists and is making my side of partisan politics look ridiculous, but I'll make sure to complain about Obama because he's bad too."
Read the article. Totally called it
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: [Assuming true, it'll definitely hurt him in the primaries but, as long as he doesn't run on a socially conservative platform, I don't think it would do too much damage in the general.
I tend to find that affairs don't actually result in much political damage period. There's the initial outrage and then everyone forgets about it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A lot of Americans on this thread are understandably annoyed at Trump for making their nation look like a bunch of idiots in the eyes of the world,
But you guys should be proud of the fact that you have a democratic system, and a constitution, that allows idiots like Trump to spout gibberish on an industrial scale.
Naw, Trump is the political equivalent of the media only talking to the dumbest, most redneck person at the scene of an event.
"I done seen him jump off of that there bridge! He was like, "weeee" and he done jumped off and...and I can't look no more before he hit that there pavement."
"I told beezus over yonder to hold my beer and I had to run over and take a picture.".
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A lot of Americans on this thread are understandably annoyed at Trump for making their nation look like a bunch of idiots in the eyes of the world,
But you guys should be proud of the fact that you have a democratic system, and a constitution, that allows idiots like Trump to spout gibberish on an industrial scale.
Naw, Trump is the political equivalent of the media only talking to the dumbest, most redneck person at the scene of an event.
"I done seen him jump off of that there bridge! He was like, "weeee" and he done jumped off and...and I can't look no more before he hit that there pavement."
"I told beezus over yonder to hold my beer and I had to run over and take a picture.".
Exactly. He is the ratings gift that keeps on giving. Any pretense that news is about news has gone out the window with Trump.
What's the alternative? A bunch of fairly mundane politicians, some of whom are almost as crazy as Trump (looking at you Carson), or who are completely uninspiring and could almost be written off as realistic contenders from the beginning.
Trump gets attention sure because he's a loon, but there are loons everywhere for everything. This particular loon gets so much attention precisely because there's little else to pay attention too.
LordofHats wrote: What's the alternative? A bunch of fairly mundane politicians, some of whom are almost as crazy as Trump (looking at you Carson), or who are completely uninspiring and could almost be written off as realistic contenders from the beginning.
Trump gets attention sure because he's a loon, but there are loons everywhere for everything. This particular loon gets so much attention precisely because there's little else to pay attention too.
I honestly think that Bush would be in the spotlight now were it not for Trump and his antics. I'm not a giant fan of yet another Bush as President but he's been the least objectionable candidate in my mind and he's less full of the crazy. He's a slimy politician but at least he's your garden variety slimy politician not an outright nutso.
LordofHats wrote: What's the alternative? A bunch of fairly mundane politicians, some of whom are almost as crazy as Trump (looking at you Carson), or who are completely uninspiring and could almost be written off as realistic contenders from the beginning.
Trump gets attention sure because he's a loon, but there are loons everywhere for everything. This particular loon gets so much attention precisely because there's little else to pay attention too.
I honestly think that Bush would be in the spotlight now were it not for Trump and his antics. I'm not a giant fan of yet another Bush as President but he's been the least objectionable candidate in my mind and he's less full of the crazy. He's a slimy politician but at least he's your garden variety slimy politician not an outright nutso.
Folks are sick of 'slimy politicians'. And rightfully so. Bush was doomed from the get go.
To this day, I still think Bush will win the nomination. When ballets get punched, I think many of the people who live in fear of terrorism and currently say they support Trump will cling to the perceived strength of the Bush's when the rubber hits the road.
I could be wrong, of course, but Republicans almost always nominate the establishment candidate. I once thought Rubio could compete but almost every conservative I know say they like him, but he's just too young.
Breotan wrote: I don't know, jasper76. I'm vibing a lot more support for Cruz or Rubio at the moment. I think a lot of people are tired of Bush/Clinton.
And honestly, Cruz scares me nearly as much as Trump does. That guy should NEVER get anywhere near the Oval Office, except as a photo op.
Breotan wrote: I don't know, jasper76. I'm vibing a lot more support for Cruz or Rubio at the moment. I think a lot of people are tired of Bush/Clinton.
My take: many people have not felt prosperous since Bill Clinton, and many people have not felt safe since George Bush, and there's a good chance these will weigh out in how people vote. Prosperity and safety will likely trump the desire to have someone "uncorrupted" by politics, and in I suspext a lack of government experiance as displayed by Trump and especially Carson will be a detriment in the long run rather than the advantage it is holding, which is really only with a minority of Republican voters.
In other words, I think the majority of Americans in both parties realize that an administration with little to no governing experience has little chance of improving the economy or national security. People like Bush and perhaps Rubio will become more attractive the closer people get to actually voting
Right now, the best thing for the GOP brand would be for a bunch of candidates to drop out so the voters can coalesce behind an establishment candidate. Otherwise, were still going to remain impressed by the 25-30% Trump is getting when compared to his rivals, which are sharing the majority 75% amongst them.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm sure China would love to have trump as the US president..
On a more serious note, on reflection, they probably would. I've said before that the USA faces huge challenges this century, and that they need a modern day FDR or Lincoln to lead the way. Sadly, they'll probably elect a modern day James Buchanan.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm sure China would love to have trump as the US president..
On a more serious note, on reflection, they probably would. I've said before that the USA faces huge challenges this century, and that they need a modern day FDR or Lincoln to lead the way. Sadly, they'll probably elect a modern day James Buchanan.
It's possible that leaders are defined by their times. I can't imagine Lincoln would be as celebrated a character if there were no Civil War, nor do I think FDR would have been incredibly noteworthy if it weren't for the Great Depression and World War II.
Right now, people are mostly afraid of poverty, global warming, terrorism, and nuclear prolifeeration, so I imagine history will judge administrations by their success or failure in dealing with these particular challenges.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Unfortunately, it seems time and time again that the people willing to run for office, are the ones that shouldn't be running for office.
I always think that it is an interesting paradox that we often complain that people running for president are narcissistic, but it seems that you have to be narcissistic to think "you know who would do a great job running this country? I would".
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm sure China would love to have trump as the US president..
On one hand, we lose a valuable market to export our products and some businesses will see a plunge.
On the other hand, the total collapse of the US economy after Trump tries to play hard and confront us about our supposed currency manipulation will allow our expansion into the South Pacific to go largely unchecked (we're looking at you Taiwan).
jasper76 wrote: In other words, I think the majority of Americans in both parties realize that an administration with little to no governing experience has little chance of improving the economy or national security. People like Bush and perhaps Rubio will become more attractive the closer people get to actually voting
Experience? But wasn't that one of the things it became clear Jeb Bush lacks? Florida did well despite Bush, not thanks to him. Though it does say one good thing about him - he doesn't go messing about with stuff that doesn't need to be messed with. ;-)
although from what I've seen there's something of a lack of actual details/story.
yet.
would that finish him here then ?
I doubt it. Unless the mistress is a dude or a prostitute, extramarital affairs usually aren't a death sentence in American politics. And sometimes, not even if it was a dude, or a prostitute.
That title should immediately scream "my opinion is completely disengenuous and everything that follows will be hogwash complaining about 'dirty liberals' and how it's all their fault that Donald Trump exists and is making my side of partisan politics look ridiculous, but I'll make sure to complain about Obama because he's bad too."
Read the article. Totally called it.
The best part about it is that this is an article that somehow blames liberals for poor choices in the GOP primary because of weakness, somehow (because liberals are always weak) and yet can't seem to make the connect about what it says about a party that somehow has it's electoral choices decided by a minority percentage of the opposing party. Hilarious, in a way - whatever lets you sleep at night i guess. The party of personal responsibility, everyone! Point and laugh.
This is comedy gold: Donald Trump has declared war on Scotland!
As a result of Trump's comments against Muslims, the Scottish government has dropped Trump as a trade ambassador (he built a golf course in Scotland) and Scotland's universities have withdrawn the honorary degrees they awarded him.
Trump is not a happy bunny.
Still, if America wants to make a big deal out of this, we're ready to repel invaders! Bring it on!
although from what I've seen there's something of a lack of actual details/story.
yet.
would that finish him here then ?
I doubt it. Unless the mistress is a dude or a prostitute, extramarital affairs usually aren't a death sentence in American politics. And sometimes, not even if it was a dude, or a prostitute.
As a result of Trump's comments against Muslims, the Scottish government has dropped Trump as a trade ambassador (he built a golf course in Scotland) and Scotland's universities have withdrawn the honorary degrees they awarded him.
Trump is not a happy bunny.
Still, if America wants to make a big deal out of this, we're ready to repel invaders! Bring it on!
You Brits are always so smug behind your Haggis Defense Line.
As a result of Trump's comments against Muslims, the Scottish government has dropped Trump as a trade ambassador (he built a golf course in Scotland) and Scotland's universities have withdrawn the honorary degrees they awarded him.
Trump is not a happy bunny.
Still, if America wants to make a big deal out of this, we're ready to repel invaders! Bring it on!
You Brits are always so smug behind your Haggis Defense Line.
You'd better believe it, Frazz! Do you think a weiner dog is a match for a Highland Terrier?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
notprop wrote: Trump does look like he is wearing a Haggis on his head most of the time so perhaps he has plans of his own.
Haggis proliferation will be the bane of the modern age - MAH.
Mutually Assured Haggis!
No surprise to see an Englishman badmouth Haggis
Automatically Appended Next Post: Anyway, back OT.
When do we find out who'll be the Republican candidate for 1600? Does the voting end next Spring?
A few more months of this circus will drive me mad.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: When do we find out who'll be the Republican candidate for 1600? Does the voting end next Spring?
Hard to say. It's still nearly 2 months until the Iowa caucuses, and almost 3 until New Hampshire, so you're certainly going to have to wait at least that long just to have the field winnowed down a bit. There may be a brokered convention if no one reached critical mass.
As a result of Trump's comments against Muslims, the Scottish government has dropped Trump as a trade ambassador (he built a golf course in Scotland) and Scotland's universities have withdrawn the honorary degrees they awarded him.
Trump is not a happy bunny.
Still, if America wants to make a big deal out of this, we're ready to repel invaders! Bring it on!
You Brits are always so smug behind your Haggis Defense Line.
You'd better believe it, Frazz! Do you think a weiner dog is a match for a Highland Terrier?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
notprop wrote: Trump does look like he is wearing a Haggis on his head most of the time so perhaps he has plans of his own.
Haggis proliferation will be the bane of the modern age - MAH.
Mutually Assured Haggis!
No surprise to see an Englishman badmouth Haggis ....
The English like our Haggis the way we like our Nukes, kept safely far away in Scotland's back yard but close enough to keep the dern Yankies at bay!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: When do we find out who'll be the Republican candidate for 1600? Does the voting end next Spring?
Hard to say. It's still nearly 2 months until the Iowa caucuses, and almost 3 until New Hampshire, so you're certainly going to have to wait at least that long just to have the field winnowed down a bit. There may be a brokered convention if no one reached critical mass.
If it looks like Trump is going to win, and heaven forbid that happens, could the Republicans gang up to 'oust' him, or would that tear the party in half, and seriously annoy Trump's supporters?
Because as bad as Trump is, it would be very undemocratic if he were ousted, after winning fair and square.
Is there a legal mechanism to do this? The newspapers are talking about this possibility.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: When do we find out who'll be the Republican candidate for 1600? Does the voting end next Spring?
Hard to say. It's still nearly 2 months until the Iowa caucuses, and almost 3 until New Hampshire, so you're certainly going to have to wait at least that long just to have the field winnowed down a bit. There may be a brokered convention if no one reached critical mass.
If it looks like Trump is going to win, and heaven forbid that happens, could the Republicans gang up to 'oust' him, or would that tear the party in half, and seriously annoy Trump's supporters?
Because as bad as Trump is, it would be very undemocratic if he were ousted, after winning fair and square.
Is there a legal mechanism to do this? The newspapers are talking about this possibility.
The party can do whatever it wants. They could write a rule at the convention that says "nobody with the last name Trump can garner delegates" if they want. I doubt they would, because that would likely spell a third party run. They already have some obscure rules that would likely not let him win, like one about needing to win eight states with greater than 50% of the electoral vote.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: When do we find out who'll be the Republican candidate for 1600? Does the voting end next Spring?
Hard to say. It's still nearly 2 months until the Iowa caucuses, and almost 3 until New Hampshire, so you're certainly going to have to wait at least that long just to have the field winnowed down a bit. There may be a brokered convention if no one reached critical mass.
A "brokered convention" would be a political junkie dream scenario!
Holy ballz man... it'll be fugly, yet awesome.
But, if that does happen, lots of hurt fee-fees would keep the typical GOP voters from the polls...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If it looks like Trump is going to win, and heaven forbid that happens, could the Republicans gang up to 'oust' him, or would that tear the party in half, and seriously annoy Trump's supporters?
Because as bad as Trump is, it would be very undemocratic if he were ousted, after winning fair and square.
Is there a legal mechanism to do this? The newspapers are talking about this possibility.
Yes, the RNC could legally force Trump out if they so desired. That is, I think, a strong possibility of what might happen at a brokered convention. On the other hand, they must know that if they do that, it's going to seriously hurt them both with all of those non-establishment GOP voters who will be disillusioned, and with the very likely - inevitable, really - possibility that Donald Trump would run as an independent. If he did so, it would severely split the vote on the GOP side. The funny thing is that the GOP establishment is super concerned that Trump isn't electable that they aren't really considering that none of the other GOP candidates are particularly electable, either - in my opinion they might as well stick with Trump (who will cost them this race) then poison the well with their own base which might have repercussions that can't be predicted - the unknown unknowns,
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Because as bad as Trump is, it would be very undemocratic if he were ousted, after winning fair and square
The primary process is not intended to be a democratic process: without getting into all the vagaries of delegates and such, you generally must be a member of that party to participate. The general election is the democratic process, but the primaries could be done by reading tea leaves if they so desired - "they" being the RNC, representing the party.
Well, thanks for the replies. I need to read up a bit more about American politics, but there's too much good American history to read about, which is kind of distracting.
EDIT. Last time I got involved with American politics, I sat through 3 hours of the Senate oversight committee on the Iran deal
Given the choice between the committee and having teeth extracted with being numbed first, I'd take the teeth extraction every time...
exit polls like this one have historically asked voters in Iowa and New Hampshire when they made their final decision on how to vote. These exit polls find that voters take their sweet time. In Iowa, on average, only 35 percent of voters had come to a final decision before the final month of the campaign. And in New Hampshire, only 29 percent had. (Why is the fraction lower in New Hampshire than in Iowa? Probably because voters there are waiting for the Iowa results before locking in their choice. In fact, about half of New Hampshire voters make up their minds in the final week of the campaign.)
ELECTION 1 MONTH OUT 1 WEEK TO 1 MONTH OUT FINAL WEEK
2004 Democrats 30% 27% 42%
2008 Republicans 28 31 40
2008 Democrats 49 24 27
2012 Republicans 32 21 46
Iowa Average 35 26 39
SHARE OF N.H. VOTERS WHO DECIDED
ELECTION 1 MONTH OUT 1 WEEK TO 1 MONTH OUT FINAL WEEK
2004 Democrats 26% 19% 54%
2008 Republicans 29 22 50
2008 Democrats 34 17 48
2012 Republicans 28 26 46
New Hampshire Average 29 21 50
By comparison, voters decide much earlier in general elections. In Ohio in 2012, for example, 76 percent of voters had settled on Mitt Romney or Barack Obama by the end of September. This is why it’s common to see last-minute surges or busts in nomination races (think Rick Santorum or Howard Dean), but not in general elections.
If even by New Year’s Day (a month before the Iowa caucuses, which are scheduled for Feb. 1) only about one-third of Iowa voters will have come to their final decision, the percentage must be even lower now — perhaps something like 20 percent of voters are locked in. When you see an Iowa poll, you should keep in mind that the real situation looks something more like this:
The numbers below reflect what you get if you take the Real Clear Politics average, put 80 percent of voters in the undecided category and scale everyone down accordingly
CANDIDATE SUPPORT IN IOWA
Undecided 80% Donald Trump 5%
Ben Carson 4%
Ted Cruz 3%
Marco Rubio 2%
Jeb Bush 1%
Carly Fiorina 1%
Mike Huckabee 1%
Chris Christie 1%
So, could Trump win? We confront two stubborn facts: first, that nobody remotely like Trump has won a major-party nomination in the modern era. (There are better precedents for candidates like Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz, who might loosely be compared to George McGovern and Barry Goldwater). And second, as is always a problem in analysis of presidential campaigns, we don’t have all that many data points, so unprecedented events can occur with some regularity. For my money, that adds up to Trump’s chances being higher than 0 but (considerably) less than 20 percent. Your mileage may vary. But you probably shouldn’t rely solely on the polls to make your case; it’s still too soon for that.
There are two types of Machiavellians in politics, Selfish Machiavellians and Kind Machiavellians. The Selfish ones are the ones we usually think of — the nakedly ambitious people who are always strategizing, sometimes ruthlessly, for their own personal advantage. The Kind Machiavellians realize that it’s smart to get along with people, so they pick their friendships strategically, feigning affection toward those who might be useful.
In Washington and maybe in life, there are many more Kind Machiavellians than Selfish ones. But Ted Cruz has always stood out for being nakedly ambitious for himself.
He was always drawn to establishment institutions: Princeton, Harvard Law. His personal drive to gain elite posts was noted, even by the standards of such places. He learned tennis to get a clerkship with Justice William Rehnquist. According to The Boston Globe, a female law student who was giving him a ride was shocked when he quickly asked her about her I.Q. and SAT scores.
He joined the Republican establishment while young, working for George W. Bush, though he was marginalized when administration jobs were handed out, reportedly because his ambition was off-putting. Yet Cruz is intelligent, and knows that sometimes you have to switch tactics in order to climb. Over the past few years, Cruz has become a team player. In fact, he’s become a central member of the conservative establishment.
A little history lesson is in order. During the 1970s conservatives self-consciously built establishment institutions to counter the liberal establishment. But with the election of Ronald Reagan, the conservative establishment split into two. There was the regular conservative establishment, filled with mainstream conservatives who wanted to use the inside levers of power that Republicans now controlled.
But there was also a conservative counter-establishment. This was populated with people like Paul Weyrich, Richard Viguerie, Brent Bozell and others who were temperamentally incapable of governance. Many of these Old Right people broke with Reagan because he wasn’t ideologically pure on this or that policy matter.
Today the conservative community still has at least two establishments, or three if you want to throw in the young Reform Conservatives. The mainstream establishment tends to side with party leaders like Paul Ryan and whoever the presidential nominee is. The Old Right Counter Conservative Establishment has grown in recent years. For example, the Heritage Foundation, which used to be more or less conservative establishment, has gone more Counter Establishment.
The difference is the establishment wants to use the levers of power to practically pass reforms. The Counter Establishment believes that Washington is pervasively corrupt and is implacably hostile to the G.O.P. leadership.
Since he came to Washington, Ted Cruz has meticulously aligned himself with the rising and rich conservative Counter Establishment. He’s called his party leader a liar on the Senate floor. In another recent floor speech he accused every Republican but him and Mike Lee of selling out their principles for money. His efforts to shut down the government did enormous harm to the Republican Party and to the country, but they cemented his relationship with the members of the Counter Establishment. Crucially, those battles enabled him to amass the email lists that are a large part of his donor base.
His campaign is uniting the Counter Establishment. According to some excellent reporting in the National Journal, he was rapturously received by members of the Council for National Policy, an important Counter Establishment gathering. He’s been endorsed by the old guard, Viguerie and Bozell.
he Counter Establishment is now nearly as financially flush and institutionally entrenched as the mainstream establishment. Cruz has been able to tap into it to raise gobs of money. In the third quarter, Cruz raised $12.2 million, about twice what rival Marco Rubio raised over the same period. His super PACs raised $31 million in the few weeks of his campaign, largely from hedge fund manager Robert Mercer. He’s had fund-raisers hosted by Joseph Konzelmann, a managing director at Goldman Sachs.
He’s won over the Counter Establishment and even some of the regular establishment by being tactical in his policy positions, shifting his views most notoriously on trade promotion authority and foreign policy generally. He savages Republicans habitually but initially refused to criticize Donald Trump. As Eliana Johnson of National Review put it, the paradox of Cruz is that “The man who boasts of his ideological purity is perhaps the most obviously tactical candidate.”
Cruz is riding the shift in the conservative activist establishment, the way groups like the Club for Growth now provide a power base for someone who wants to run against the G.O.P. leadership.
A friend once joked that the journalist has the ultimate power: The power to choose who he wants to be co-opted by. Ted Cruz is surging as the figurehead of the rich and interlocked Counter Establishment. And he gets to do it while pretending that he is antiestablishment. That’s a nice trick. Even a Machiavellian one.
Neat trick indeed... and I like that term "Counter Establishment".
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: When do we find out who'll be the Republican candidate for 1600? Does the voting end next Spring?
Hard to say. It's still nearly 2 months until the Iowa caucuses, and almost 3 until New Hampshire, so you're certainly going to have to wait at least that long just to have the field winnowed down a bit. There may be a brokered convention if no one reached critical mass.
A "brokered convention" would be a political junkie dream scenario!
Holy ballz man... it'll be fugly, yet awesome.
But, if that does happen, lots of hurt fee-fees would keep the typical GOP voters from the polls...
HAIL MADAME PRESIDENT CLINTON!
<cue the Star Wars Imperial march>
A brokered convention would make for some interesting tv but it wouldn't favor Trump.
In reality, the GOP nominating contest will be decided by an intricate, state-by-state slog for the 2,472 delegates at stake between February and June. And thanks to the Republican National Committee’s allocation rules, the votes of “Blue Zone” Republicans — the more moderate GOP primary voters who live in Democratic-leaning states and congressional districts — could weigh more than those of more conservative voters who live in deeply red zones. Put another way: The Republican voters who will have little to no sway in the general election could have some of the most sway in the primary.
As The New York Times’ Nate Cohn astutely observed in January, Republicans in blue states hold surprising power in the GOP presidential primary process even though they are “all but extinct in Washington, since their candidates lose general elections to Democrats.” This explains why Republicans have selected relatively moderate presidential nominees while the party’s members in Congress have continued to veer right.
The key to this pattern: “Blue-state Republicans are less religious, more moderate and less rural than their red-state counterparts,” Cohn concluded after crunching Pew Research survey data. By Cohn’s math, Republicans in states that Obama won in 2012 were 15 percentage points likelier to support Romney in the 2012 primary and 9 points likelier to support McCain in 2008 than their red-state compatriots. Romney and McCain’s advantage in blue states made it “all but impossible for their more conservative challengers to win the nomination,” Cohn wrote.
But their real mojo lurks in the delegate chase. The electorate that nominates GOP presidential candidates is much bluer than the ones that nominate other GOP officials, a distinction that is almost impossible to overstate. Look at where the Republican Party lives: Only 11 of 54 GOP senators and 26 of 247 GOP representatives hail from Obama-won locales, but there are 1,247 delegates at stake in Obama-won states, compared with just 1,166 in Romney states.
What’s more, an imbalance lies in a nuance of the RNC’s delegate allocation. Although it can be a byzantine process, here are the basics: The RNC allows state parties some leeway in how to award delegates to candidates. In a few states, including Florida, Ohio and Arizona, the primary winner wins all the state’s delegates. In most others, delegates are allocated either proportionally to votes or by the winner in each congressional district.
A total of 832 delegates (about 34 percent of all 2,472 delegates) spanning 23 states will be awarded based on results at the congressional district level. Here’s the catch: According to the RNC’s allotment rules, three delegates are at stake in each district, regardless of the partisan lopsidedness of the seat. This creates a “rotten boroughs” phenomenon in which Blue Zone Republicans’ votes can be disproportionately valuable.
For example, three delegates are up for grabs in New York’s heavily Latino, Bronx-based 15th District, which cast just 5,315 votes for Romney in 2012. But there are also three delegates at stake in Alabama’s 6th District, which covers Birmingham’s whitest suburbs and gave Romney 233,803 votes. In other words, a GOP primary vote cast in the bluest part of the Bronx could be worth 43 times more than a vote cast in the reddest part of Alabama.
The RNC partially compensates for this imbalance in the way it awards delegates on a statewide basis. Republicans award “bonus” delegates to states with lots of GOP officeholders and states with the best GOP performance in the last election. For example, despite both states having nine congressional districts, Tennessee will send 58 delegates to the Cleveland convention while Massachusetts will send 42.
But the bigger boon to Rubio, Bush and other moderates is that the opinions of GOP voters in places like Massachusetts count at all in this process — in an era when the Bay State sends zero Republicans to Congress. It’s a huge factor that many pundits tend to overlook, and it’s why the temperament and qualities that the broader party looks for in a nominee differ so much from those of the loudest and most ideological Freedom Caucus types in Washington.
It’s not that national polls are skewed in favor of conservative, red-meat Republicans. It’s that the Republican Party’s delegate geography rewards their moderate rivals.
Probably don't want to give her ideas, because if she were to license and use the Imperial march in her campaign, she would get even more votes.
Hell, if she used the imperial march, I would vote for her(not on that alone). I. On the fence as it is. If she has the self awareness to take it tongue in cheek, more power to her. I had my mother in law walk into my wedding to that song. The clueless applause was more than worth it.
Probably don't want to give her ideas, because if she were to license and use the Imperial march in her campaign, she would get even more votes.
Hell, if she used the imperial march, I would vote for her(not on that alone). I. On the fence as it is. If she has the self awareness to take it tongue in cheek, more power to her. I had my mother in law walk into my wedding to that song. The clueless applause was more than worth it.
Hell, all she needs to do is recreate the scene where the Emperor arrives on the Death Star with her in the Emperor's role and she'll lock down the geek vote.
Hehe, I just now had a mental image of that scene being done as her walking into the Oval Office to the Imperial March and Obama kneeling before her.
Anyway, Carson breaking off on his just makes him entirely irrelevant. Trump still has the power and influence to remain relevant if he breaks off on his own. Nice to see I called it correctly back when he signed that "pledge" to support whomever the Republican party chooses. I said back then he would find some excuse to break off on his own.
That is actually quite interesting, at least to me anyway... Of course, it gives me "warm fuzzies" knowing that just such a thing could/would sink Trump and Cruz all in one go
It will be interesting to see how this develops. It's been obvious since the beginning that Cruz planned to pick up Trump's endorsement and supporters when the time came for Trump to fall, but that scenario may be less and less likely.
The FBI has taken possession of Bryan Pagliano's computer system.
The State Department has told Senate investigators it cannot find backup copies of emails sent by Bryan Pagliano, the top Hillary Clinton IT staffer who maintained her email server but has asserted his Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer questions on the matter.
State officials told the Senate Judiciary Committee in a recent closed-door meeting that they could not locate what’s known as a “.pst file” for Pagliano’s work during Clinton’s tenure, which would have included copies of the tech expert’s emails, according to a letter Chairman Chuck Grassley sent to Secretary of State John Kerry that was obtained by POLITICO.
The department also told the committee the FBI has taken possession of Pagliano’s government computer system, where traces of the messages are most likely to be found, according to the letter.
Grassley, an Iowa Republican, has been considering whether to grant Pagliano immunity in exchange for testimony on who approved Clinton's private email setup and whether anyone raised any objections to the system. The controversy over her decision to bypass a government email address, which would have made her messages easier for reporters and the public to obtain, has dogged the presidential hopeful for much of the year, though it has subsided in recent weeks.
Pagliano — who worked for Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, then followed her to the State Department — has refused to discuss Clinton's email arrangement or his role in it, invoking his right against self-incrimination before the House Benghazi Committee earlier this fall.
Clinton had personally paid Pagliano to maintain her home-made server, which is also currently in the FBI’s possession. The agency has been investigating whether classified material was ever put at risk because she used her own server instead of the standard State email system. The State Department has designated about 1,000 of her emails as classified documents, which would never have been allowed on such a private system. Clinton’s representatives maintain that the emails were not classified at the time they were sent.
Pagliano’s lawyer could not be reached for comment.
Grassley had requested Pagliano’s emails to help inform his decision whether to grant Pagliano immunity.
“Given that the committee is unable to obtain [Pagliano’s] testimony at this time, I am seeking copies of his official State Department emails relevant to the Committee’s inquiry before proceeding to consider whether it might be appropriate to grant him immunity and compel his testimony,” Grassley's letter states. It notes that such emails are a “top priority” in a list of several outstanding Clinton-related inquiries the panel has sent to the department.
The State Department said that while it has located a backup for emails Pagliano sent after Clinton left State, officials cannot find the file for the backup covering work he did while she was still there.
“The Department has located a .pst from Mr. Pagliano’s recent work at the Department as a contractor, but the files are from after Secretary Clinton left the State Department. We have not yet located a .pst that covers the time period of Secretary Clinton’s tenure,” said Alec Gerlach, a State Department spokesman. “We are continuing to search for Mr. Pagliano’s emails which the Department may have otherwise retained. We will, of course, share emails responsive to Senator Grassley’s requests if we locate them.”
State, like many federal agencies, did not have a systematic email archiving system for years. When the server issue first arose in the spring, State acknowledged that it did not automatically archive the email traffic of senior employees — relying on them to make their own backups, or “.pst,” if needed. Under current rules, federal employees are responsible for ensuring their official emails are saved.
State has not asked Pagliano whether he has any official emails in his possession, as it has with other top Clinton staffers who used personal email for work. It is unclear if Pagliano’s Fifth Amendment rights would protect him from turning over such messages.
Grassley encouraged State to continue searching for Pagliano’s emails by looking at the back-up email files of other State employees he may have emailed about the Clinton server. He letter seeks “a full and detailed written explanation of why it failed to maintain an archive, copy, or backup of Mr. Pagliano’s email file,” among other requests related to the IT staffer's emails.
While State hasn't been able to meet Grassley’s requests so far, his letter did offer some rare praise for the department, commending Kerry and State for what Grassley called a “recent increase in cooperation and focus on the committee’s request.” The letter says Judiciary has prioritized 22 requests for information and received seven “fully complete responses” and nine “partially complete responses.”
And State, which has been bombarded by inquiries about Clinton's email setup, seems to appreciate the recognition: “As Senator Grassley noted, the State Department has been working very closely with his staff to get him the requested information and documents, and we are making progress,” Gerlach added.
Grassley had been blocking the confirmation of about 20 of State’s Foreign Service nominees because the department hadn’t fulfilled various document requests, including those for another probe he’s conducting on the dual-employment status of top Clinton adviser Huma Abedin. Abedin advised Clinton while she was also working for a consulting company; Grassley has been asking for information about the arrangement since 2013.
Given State’s recent responsiveness, however, he recently dropped the 20 holds but maintained a block on two more high-level nominees: Brian James Egan to be a State legal adviser and David Malcolm Robinson to be assistant secretary for conflict and stabilization operations and coordinator for reconstruction and stabilization. In November, Grassley also added a third hold on another top-level Obama State Department nominee, Thomas Shannon Jr., to be undersecretary of state for political affairs.
Grassley in his recent letter, however, hinted that if State continues working with his committee at the current pace, he could be amenable to releasing his holds.
“Assuming the committee receives the additional items promised by your staff in yesterday’s meeting, I intend to take action to recognize this progress before Senators leave town for the holiday break,” he said, nodding specifically to any copies of Pagliano emails they could discover by searching other employee’s emails.
Give him immunity Grassley... otherwise, if the FBI finds something... the we can say...
Kanluwen wrote: You do understand that someone can invoke their fifth amendment rights without actually being involved in anything, right?
Do you really think Whembly et al. cares about such minutiae? This person was involved with Hillary Clinton, who is obviously guilty of everything ever accused of her so clearly this guy is too.
Kanluwen wrote: You do understand that someone can invoke their fifth amendment rights without actually being involved in anything, right?
Do you really think Whembly et al. cares about such minutiae? This person was involved with Hillary Clinton, who is obviously guilty of everything ever accused of her so clearly this guy is too.
Um... he was allegedly the admin over her private email server.
He's pretty dang important to this investigation... no?
The fact that the STATES DEPT, couldn't retrieve his correspondence from his official god damned account is galling. If the Feds asked for this in the private sector... that's jail time there man.
I wouldn't say anything either, even if I was innocent. Fact is he'll get ripped by republican-leaning media regardless of what he says, if the stays quiet its less interesting and they'll move on to other 'stories' faster.
Also...
If the Feds asked for this from someone who wasn't wealthy in the private sector... that's jail time there man.
Of course you're not assuming anything...you're just implying that he's a lackey for a presidential candidate you dislike and claiming that people are misunderstanding you when called to task for it.
So, you didn't state that Pagliano would be obstructing justice by refusing to testify? If that's the case, who exactly are you accusing of obstructing justice? The Department of State? If so you would have a difficult time building a case, as you would need to demonstrate that State knowingly lied about its inability to locate a .pst covering Pagliano's time working at State under Clinton. Granted, it's doubtful that the GOP is particularly concerned with the legal merit of any such accusation.
He's pretty dang important to this investigation... no?
Debatable. It's unlikely that Pagliano spent much of his time reading the content of emails on the server, and even less likely that he would be able to recall any such details years after the fact. Ultimately, if compelled to testify, he would be wise to make "I cannot recall." a personal mantra.
The fact that the STATES DEPT, couldn't retrieve his correspondence from his official god damned account is galling. If the Feds asked for this in the private sector... that's jail time there man.
Not necessarily. Absent some specific statute governing record keeping a private sector entity is under no obligation to maintain a log of correspondence. Of course Federal agencies differ in that they are legally obligated to maintain records, but it has to be noted that at the time Clinton was Secretary of State they were given a fair bit of leeway regarding what constitutes a record and how long non-records will be maintained. Indeed, it wasn't until nearly 2 years after Clinton stepped down, well past the 90-day post-office clearing mark some have given for State Department email accounts, that Federal agencies were required to forward emails to the Archivist of the United States for status determination. Given this, it is questionable as to whether or not any form of criminal allegation would stick.
Seven weeks from the caucuses, Ted Cruz is crushing it in Iowa.
The anti-establishment congressional agitator has made a rapid ascent into the lead in the GOP presidential race here, with a 21 percentage-point leap that smashes records for upsurges in recent Iowa caucuses history.
Donald Trump, now 10 points below Cruz, was in a pique about not being front-runner even before the Iowa Poll results were announced Saturday evening. He wasted no time in tearing into Cruz — and the poll — during an Iowa stop Friday night.
Ben Carson, another "Washington outsider" candidate, has plunged 15 points from his perch at the front of the pack in October. He's now in third place.
"Big shakeup," said J. Ann Selzer, pollster for The Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll. "This is a sudden move into a commanding position for Cruz."
Cruz, a Texas U.S. senator famous for defying party leaders and using government shutdown tactics to hold up funding for the Obamacare health care law and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, was the favorite of 10 percent of likely Republican caucusgoers in the last Iowa Poll in October. He's now at 31 percent.
Carson's zenith was 28 percent in the poll two months ago. Trump's highest support was 23 percent back in August, when he led the field by 5 points.
And there are signs Cruz may not have peaked in Iowa yet. Another 20 percent of likely caucusgoers say he's their current second choice for president. Cruz hits 51 percent support when first- and second-choice interest is combined, again leading the field.
With Cruz's popularity and his debate proficiency, "it's certainly possible that he could win Iowa big — very big," said Frank Luntz, a Nevada-based GOP focus group guru who follows the Iowa race closely.
But Trump, who has earned a reputation for upending pundits' predictions, still has healthy backing, at 21 percent, 2 percentage points higher than in the last poll.
And the New York real estate entrepreneur has won the confidence of likely caucusgoers in several key areas. In a four-way head-to-head match-up with Cruz, Carson and Marco Rubio, half of likely caucusgoers believe Trump would be best at managing the economy and think he'd do the most to solve the illegal immigration problem. Forty-nine percent believe Trump "knows the most about how to get things done," while only 22 percent say that of Cruz.
Carson, a mellow-voiced religious conservative who spent his career at the bedside of children who needed brain surgery, has dropped to 13 percent. Poll respondents interviewed by the Register said they want a president who will be tough on terrorism, and they have a trouble seeing Carson in this role.
Two establishment candidates' positions in the race remain largely unchanged.
Rubio, a Florida U.S. senator who has framed himself as someone who can deliver "a new American century," is in fourth place with 10 percent. He was in fourth with 9 percent in October.
And former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who presents himself as the steady hand who can best keep the nation safe from terrorism and improve the economy, remains in fifth (he was tied in fifth with Kentucky U.S. Sen. Rand Paul in October). Bush sits at 6 percent, up 1 point.
Three Republicans are tied at 3 percent: Paul, a watchdog for government overreach; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a torchbearer for Christian conservative morals; and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a self-proclaimed messenger of hard truths.
This poll result will play a role in determining whether Paul is on the main stage for the Las Vegas debate Tuesday night, or if he’ll be with the underdogs in the undercard debate.
The rest of the field is at 2 percent or less, including Carly Fiorina, a public office rookie who leans on her experience as a technology company CEO, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who stresses his longtime government experience and competence.
The Iowa Poll of 400 likely Republican caucusgoers was conducted Dec. 7-10 by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.
Just as some top Republicans in Iowa and across the country were starting to say Trump might win not only Iowa but also the GOP nomination, he finds himself losing by 10 points here.
"Iowa's 11th commandment is thou shalt be nice," said Jamie Johnson, an Iowa political operative who was senior director for former presidential candidate Rick Perry's campaign. "Donald Trump has violated this commandment one too many times. Now he is paying the price."
The poll shows the Iowa electorate has started to define Trump a little more clearly. He has hammered home the impression that he'd be a get-it-done problem-solver on the federal deficit, on dealing with the aggressive president of Russia, and on combating Islamic terrorism.
But he scores poorly on temperament to be president, ability to work effectively with Congress, and on values.
Those are areas where Cruz is viewed as best, the poll finds.
Since the October poll, Cruz got strong reviews in two debates, stepped up his visits to Iowa and was validated by an endorsement from U.S. Rep. Steve King, a kingmaker in conservative circles.
Cruz is now leading with two critical blocs in the Republican caucus electorate: evangelical conservatives (45 percent) and tea party conservatives (39 percent).
Iowa presents a "take and hold" scenario for Cruz: He's taken it; now he needs to hold it, with about 50 days to go before the first-in-the-nation vote on Feb. 1.
While other GOP presidential hopefuls have clashed with the Trump Nation head-on, Cruz's decision to stay out of Trump's way is proving to be a favorable strategy in Iowa. He's the backup choice for 49 percent of Trump supporters. And Cruz has sky-high image numbers. The percentage of likely caucusgoers who have a positive view of Cruz is now 73 percent, up 12 points from October, including 43 percent who have a very favorable impression.
On Friday, amid chatter about the race narrowing to a two-person affair, Cruz tweeted that he wasn't going to reward the establishment by engaging in a "cage match" with Trump.
But Trump, now that his political soulmate poses a threat, had no such qualms. At an event at the Iowa State Fairgrounds Friday night, Trump lit into Cruz for the first time, claiming the Texan is beholden to Big Oil and trying to plant seeds of doubt about whether a Cuban can be an evangelical Christian. Cruz's father, a conservative preacher who has spent 25 days on the Iowa campaign trail for his son, emigrated from Cuba.
In telephone interviews with the Register, Iowa Poll participants were strongly supportive of Cruz.
"I've always liked him because I feel like he stands up for what he believes in, even if the polls aren't showing that it's popular," said Cruz backer Bridget Campbell, a 42-year-old Shenandoah Republican who works from home doing health care information management. "If he believes in it, he will stand up."
Hannah Kern, 21, who works on her family's farm in rural Traer, said her mind is firmly made up to caucus for Cruz. She heard his father, Rafael Cruz, talk about his son at a home-schoolers' event near Kalona, and saw Ted Cruz in person for the first time at his religious liberty rally in August in Des Moines, where he handed out booklets on the U.S. Constitution.
"The most important thing is someone who knows what our Constitution is," Kern said.
Retired welder Larry Flanders, who lives in Russell, said he likes both Trump and Cruz, but has now settled on Cruz.
"What put the frosting on the cake is when he backed up Trump on what Trump said" about various topics such as immigration and fighting ISIS, Flanders said. Plus, Cruz knows the inner workings of Congress and is familiar with "how bad the White House is."
"Either one of them can get it across, but Trump's pretty blunt," Flanders said. "Cruz can tell you off and not hurt your feelings."
21-point jump is huge
Just how stunning is Republican Ted Cruz's rise to the top?
No one else has made such an impressive leap in five caucus cycles, Iowa Poll records show.
In the Dec. 7-10 Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll, the Texas U.S. senator has vaulted 21 percentage points since the last poll, in October.
The leggiest upward leap in the 2012 Iowa race was Republican Mitt Romney's 8-point move from 16 percent to 24 percent in the final poll before the vote.
The biggest collapse: Republican Newt Gingrich, who lost 13 points (dropping from 25 percent to 12 percent) in that same final poll.
During the 2008 race, Republican Mike Huckabee surged 17 points between an October poll and a late November poll, moving into a lead he did not relinquish.
In 2004, Democrat John Edwards jumped from 5 percent to 22 percent, also a 17-point leap, in the final poll before the vote. And Democrat John Kerry rose 10 points, from 15 percent to 25 percent.
— Jennifer Jacobs
No rush to vow loyalty
The vast majority of likely Iowa Republicans caucusgoers aren't willing yet to pledge fidelity, in writing, to any candidate.
At campaign events, aides routinely circulate among Iowans, asking them to put in writing that they promise to caucus for their candidate.
But 95 percent of likely caucusgoers say they haven't signed a pledge card this cycle, the Dec. 7-10 Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics survey shows. Just 4 percent have put a pen to paper.
One percent say they've signed a pledge, then reneged and aligned with a rival.
About a quarter of likely caucusgoers have gone to a candidate event, including 9 percent who have been to two or three, and 9 percent who have been to one.
— Jennifer Jacobs
About those backup choices
Among those who say Ted Cruz is their first choice for president, 27 percent say they would never support Donald Trump.
And 21 percent of Trump voters say they'd never support Cruz, the Dec. 7-10 Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll shows.
Advantage Cruz.
Among Trump supporters, a strong number say Cruz is their second choice (49 percent).
Ben Carson's second-choice votes go mostly to Cruz (35 percent), with Trump getting 17 percent.
Carson and Trump are nearly tied for Cruz supporters' second choice, 26 percent and 25 percent respectively.
Advantage Cruz.
It's rare, but there are some likely GOP caucusgoers split between establishment and anti-establishment candidates.
For example, Jeb Bush gets 8 percent of Carson backers' second-choice votes, 4 percent of Cruz's, and 3 percent of Trump's.
— Jennifer Jacobs
About the poll
The Iowa Poll, conducted Dec. 7-10 for The Des Moines Register and Bloomberg Politics by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines, is based on telephone interviews with 400 registered Iowa voters who say they definitely or probably will attend the 2016 Republican caucuses and 404 registered voters who say they definitely or probably will attend the 2016 Democratic caucuses.
Interviewers contacted 2,635 randomly selected active voters from the Iowa secretary of state’s voter registration list by telephone. Responses were adjusted by age, sex, and congressional district to reflect all active voters in the voter registration list.
Questions based on the subsamples of 404 likely Democratic caucus attendees or 400 likely Republican caucus attendees each have a maximum margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points. This means that if this survey were repeated using the same questions and the same methodology, 19 times out of 20, the findings would not vary from the percentages shown here by more than plus or minus 4.9 percentage points. Results based on smaller samples of respondents — such as by gender or age — have a larger margin of error.
Coulda fooled me by your vigorous defense of anything related to the Clintons.
Are we back to the point where stating that a given argument is a poor one tacitly indicates that a particular, entirely separate, argument is a good one? Because that's not a good point to be at.
Coulda fooled me by your vigorous defense of anything related to the Clintons.
Are we back to the point where stating that a given argument is a poor one tacitly indicates that a particular, entirely separate, argument is a good one? Because that's not a good point to be at.
States Department: Hey... we can't find any correspondence on Clinton's IT admin during her tenure.
Congress/FBI: Hey... IT dude, we wanna talk to you.
IT dude: I plead the 5th.
I said:
whembly wrote: So... Hillary's IT staffer ain't talk'n to no one: **** posted article from politico ****
Then I said after that article (notice the yellow highlights):
Give him immunity Grassley... otherwise, if the FBI finds something... then we can say...
(•_•) < ) )╯Obstruction / \
\(•_•) ( ( > Of / \
(•_•) < ) )> Justice / \
That's what I said.
But you, Kan, and Scooty want to dogpile me by posting inane retorts.
Here's the poll itself. Only 400 likely Republican caucus attendees, so I wouldn't be too worried if I were Trump.
Honestly, what I find most interesting about the poll is that Trump crushed Cruz on several of the issue questions. This was most notable everything related to the economy but also terrorism, and immigration.
States Department: Hey... we can't find any correspondence on Clinton's IT admin during her tenure.
Congress/FBI: Hey... IT dude, we wanna talk to you.
IT dude: I plead the 5th.
Yes, I know the sequence of events. His decision to plead the 5th was a wise one, as Pagliano could easily have incriminated himself by unknowingly providing false testimony due to a poor recollection of seemingly minor events which happened years in the past. From his perspective, assuming he wants to limit his own liability, it makes sense to take advantage of every protection available to him; especially given the hostility of his interlocutors.
But you, Kan, and Scooty want to dogpile me by posting inane retorts.
When your initial post is primarily composed of bad ACSII art you really have no room to refer to anyone else's comments as inane. If nothing else you failed to make clear the argument you were making, and it did indeed appear that you might be claiming that Pagliano could be subject to prosecution for obstruction of justice due to pleading the Fifth. When called on this, rather than clarifying your point, you became defensive and lashed out. I even, politely, asked you if your original post was in reference to the Department of State, as opposed to Pagliano; a question which you've met with the above remark.
Anyway, I'll ask again: Who would you hypothetically accuse of obstruction of justice?
whembly wrote: Then I said after that article (notice the yellow highlights):
You're still wrong. Pleading the 5th is not obstruction of justice even if the police find something despite your refusal to cooperate. It isn't obstruction of justice unless you're actively interfering with the investigation, not merely sitting there silently and not helping with it.
And really, I don't see why this is at all controversial. "Don't talk to the police" is a good rule to follow. Even if you aren't currently a suspect you might become one, and even completely innocent people can get themselves into trouble by talking. The only thing you should ever say in any investigation is "speak to my lawyer". And being on the D end of the political scale instead of the R end doesn't change this.
whembly wrote: Then I said after that article (notice the yellow highlights):
You're still wrong. Pleading the 5th is not obstruction of justice even if the police find something despite your refusal to cooperate. It isn't obstruction of justice unless you're actively interfering with the investigation, not merely sitting there silently and not helping with it.
And really, I don't see why this is at all controversial. "Don't talk to the police" is a good rule to follow. Even if you aren't currently a suspect you might become one, and even completely innocent people can get themselves into trouble by talking. The only thing you should ever say in any investigation is "speak to my lawyer". And being on the D end of the political scale instead of the R end doesn't change this.
I actually agree with that...
When I said, *if* the FBI finds something illegal, most likely it'll be under obstruction of justice. That has no bearing on whether or not he plead the fifth.
When the feds come knocking on your door... you ALWAYS don't answer gak and get a lawyer.
whembly wrote:Coulda fooled me by your vigorous defense of anything related to the Clintons.
Sigh... there it is again.
Have you forgotten the probably dozens of times that I've said I don't like Hillary Clinton or are you just going to ignore that so you can complain that you're being picked on? If you think the dude is guilty of whatever you think he's guilty of, that fine... I really don't give a feth because I'm not going to change your mind; literally everyone on Dakka knows you have a raging hate-boner for Hillary Clinton. However, when you when you say dumb gak like, "Oh, I assume nothing" and then list a bunch of things you assume, you lose what credibility you had to start with.
whembly wrote:But you, Kan, and Scooty want to dogpile me by posting inane retorts.
Well, I guess that answers my first question. Carry on.
whembly wrote: So are you choosing to ignore that sentence right before that cutesy ascii pic?
Because, what you just did there is pull specific parts of my posts and responded in a manner of what you believe in the worst of me.
No, what I did was ask you to clarify your argument while pointing out that you have no room to refer the comments of others as "inane". I don't really care if you acknowledge the latter, but it is bewildering that you steadfastly refuse to do the former.
And, for the record, your statement about the FBI does not help to answer my question.
whembly wrote: So are you choosing to ignore that sentence right before that cutesy ascii pic?
Because, what you just did there is pull specific parts of my posts and responded in a manner of what you believe in the worst of me.
No, what I did was ask you to clarify your argument while pointing out that you have no room to refer the comments of others as "inane". I don't really care if you acknowledge the latter, but it is bewildering that you steadfastly refuse to do the former.
And, for the record, your statement about the FBI does not help to answer my question.
Again... I refer to you my highlighted portion in my previous post that you chose to leave out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: Obama broke a promise? That... makes him no different than any other president. What's your argument?
Sure... it's an American pastime to call out their president's BS. Unless, you think Obama deserve special treatment...
When I said, *if* the FBI finds something illegal, most likely it'll be under obstruction of justice. That has no bearing on whether or not he plead the fifth.
Well, steadfastly refused to do so until now. The above makes a lot more sense than your first post, though I now see what you were trying to say. The text of your original post reads as though you were claiming Pagliano should be charged with obstruction of justice, if the FBI finds something implicating him, because he plead the fifth.
Again... I refer to you my highlighted portion in my previous post that you chose to leave out.
The problem is that you replaced a bunch of important words with ellipses. The pseudo-sentence "Give him immunity Grassley...otherwise, if the FBI find something...then we can say..." is really unclear, particularly given that an obstruction of justice charge would rely on Pagliano doing something unusual with respect to Department of State policy of the time. Moreover, the phrase "then we can say" seems to indicate anything the FBI might find would lead to an obstruction of justice charge, something which could only occur if an action Pagliano has already taken* render it necessary.
*In this case, given available information, invoking his 5th Amendment Rights.
When I said, *if* the FBI finds something illegal, most likely it'll be under obstruction of justice. That has no bearing on whether or not he plead the fifth.
Well, steadfastly refused to do so until now. The above makes a lot more sense than your first post, though I now see what you were trying to say. The text of your original post reads as though you were claiming Pagliano should be charged with obstruction of justice, if the FBI finds something implicating him, because he plead the fifth.
Right.
Pagliano went to his lawyer first... then, under instructions by his lawyer informed the FBI/Congress-critters that he'll invoke his 5th amendment rights in any questioning over HRC's email saga.
To be honest, Paglinao did exactly what he's supposed to do... hence why Grassely's potential immunity offer should be considered. Pagliano is most likely *the guy* who knows who authorized HRC's private email server (which we now know was against policy).
I work in the IT industry and it boggles my mind that it's accepted that an institution like our own Federal Goverment (the friggin STATES Dept) "can't find" email correspondences on official accounts. It's either sheer incompetent or someone *literally* had to purposely scrub such information if you had the appropriate admin-privileges. Which is why I brought up potential obstruction of justice charges.
To be honest, Paglinao did exactly what he's supposed to do... hence why Grassely's potential immunity offer should be considered. Pagliano is most likely *the guy* who knows who authorized HRC's private email server (which we now know was against policy).
The existence of the email server was not against policy, in fact it was explicitly allowed. It was advised that Federal officials should only use their official accounts, so that their communications could be reviewed, but it was not required.
What we know to be against policy is the use of a private device to receive classified information...at least assuming the information was classified at the time.
I work in the IT industry and it boggles my mind that it's accepted that an institution like our own Federal Goverment (the friggin STATES Dept) "can't find" email correspondences on official accounts. It's either sheer incompetent or someone *literally* had to purposely scrub such information if you had the appropriate admin-privileges. Which is why I brought up potential obstruction of justice charges.
It probably isn't the result of incompetence. It also probably isn't the result of malfeasance. It is probably the result of Congress taking forever to properly regulate, through legislation, how emails are dealt with.
It is when you obsessively keep trying to beat the same dead horse over and over and over and over and over and...
And over and over and over
Like seriously. This wasn't much of a scandal when it started. That it still has the attention of Congressional Republicans says infinitely more about them than it ever will about Hillary Clinton. Everyone already knows she's sleazy (come on she's married to a guy who hangs out with a convicted child molester). There's hardly a need to invent scandals prove it.
I work in the IT industry and it boggles my mind that it's accepted that an institution like our own Federal Goverment (the friggin STATES Dept) "can't find" email correspondences on official accounts. It's either sheer incompetent or someone *literally* had to purposely scrub such information if you had the appropriate admin-privileges. Which is why I brought up potential obstruction of justice charges.
Honestly, as a federal employee who just had to deal with my own agency's IT guys a couple weeks ago, I would go with incompetent until proven otherwise.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Obama broke a promise? That... makes him no different than any other president. What's your argument?
Sure... it's an American pastime to call out their president's BS. Unless, you think Obama deserve special treatment...
This is a fair point.
And along those lines, do we have any fact-checks or other events for politicians that aren't in the clown car of republican primaries? They dominate the news lately but surely there is some fresh BS from other people we can talk about. Talking about Whembly beating the dead horse on the email scandal is almost beating a dead horse at this point.
Now, if only someone would make a similar law about Darth Vader...but who am I to talk? My mother in law will be entering my wedding ceremony to the "Imperial March" when I get married in the spring.
Now, if only someone would make a similar law about Darth Vader...but who am I to talk? My mother in law will be entering my wedding ceremony to the "Imperial March" when I get married in the spring.
The CNN article that that one links to is also interesting, notably;
In Paxton's checklist of the foundational traits of fascism there is a big one that Trump does not share, which is "the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will when they are devoted to the group's success."
There is no hint that Trump wishes to engage in or to foment violence against the enemies, such as immigrants, he has identified as undermining the American way of life. One is therefore left with the conclusion that Trump is a proto-fascist, rather than an actual fascist.
Spoilered for those on the left that will surely ignore this anyway...
Spoiler:
As first reported by Time magazine, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics alleging that Clinton gave Neptune Minerals "special access to the State Department Based upon the company’s rElationships with Secretary Clinton’s family members and donors to the Clinton FoundatioN."
The complaint comes two weeks after emails released by the State Department show that Clinton, now the Democratic presidential front-runner, ordered a senior State Department official to look into the request from Marc Mezvinsky.
Mezvinsky, a partner in a New York hedGe fund and the Husband of Clinton's dAughter Chelsea, had received an email in May 2012 from investor Harry Siklas asking if he could help set up contacts with Clinton or other State Department officials.
That August, Clinton relayed a copy of the investor's email to MeZvinsky to Thomas Nides, then a deputy secretary of state and now vice chairman at Morgan Stanley, a major New York financial services firm. "Could you have someone follow up on this request which was forwarded to me?" Clinton asked Nides. He replied: "I'll get on it."
whitedragon wrote: that Hillary Clinton has participated in some wrong doing.
You say it like there have been arguments to suggest she hasn't, did I miss something somewhere? Because the best view on her I recall from this thread is "the lesser of two evils".
whitedragon wrote: that Hillary Clinton has participated in some wrong doing.
You say it like there have been arguments to suggest she hasn't, did I miss something somewhere? Because the best view on her I recall from this thread is "the lesser of two evils".
Between Sanders? Nah... I think I'd actually prefer HRC over Sanders.
Against the Republicans?
Anyone not-Trump is preferable for me over HRC.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: It was like that last election cycle too. We need arnold Schwarzenegger as president. The presenator maybe
I work in the IT industry and it boggles my mind that it's accepted that an institution like our own Federal Goverment (the friggin STATES Dept) "can't find" email correspondences on official accounts. It's either sheer incompetent or someone *literally* had to purposely scrub such information if you had the appropriate admin-privileges. Which is why I brought up potential obstruction of justice charges.
Honestly, as a federal employee who just had to deal with my own agency's IT guys a couple weeks ago, I would go with incompetent until proven otherwise.
Nah... they're lying their asses off.
Exchange Servers don't store email on .PST files. The servers (note, plural) have a dedicated database that stores email messages on the server. Then, there would be scores, if not hundreds of backup tapes (or SAN for data replication galore) that contain every.email.that.transited the Exchange servers.
A .PST file exists on a laptop or desktop computer if the employee copies emails from the server to their local computer. Those might "go missing" but that isn't the master copy of the email database.
That's how it works.
So, when DoS peeps say "I can't find it". They're lying their asses off and hope that enough people, who doesn't understand how email/Exchange works, moves on.
A .PST file exists on a laptop or desktop computer if the employee copies emails from the server to their local computer. Those might "go missing" but that isn't the master copy of the email database.
I believe DoS is trying to find a .pst for the explicit reason that no master copy exists. I am also entirely certain why you can't accept this possibility.
A .PST file exists on a laptop or desktop computer if the employee copies emails from the server to their local computer. Those might "go missing" but that isn't the master copy of the email database.
I believe DoS is trying to find a .pst for the explicit reason that no master copy exists. I am also entirely certain why you can't accept this possibility.
And I'm telling you... that's not how it works.
Unless you're willing to accept the possibility that the DoS won't be able to find anyone's email prior to 2012.
A .PST file exists on a laptop or desktop computer if the employee copies emails from the server to their local computer. Those might "go missing" but that isn't the master copy of the email database.
I believe DoS is trying to find a .pst for the explicit reason that no master copy exists. I am also entirely certain why you can't accept this possibility.
And I'm telling you... that's not how it works.
Unless you're willing to accept the possibility that the DoS won't be able to find anyone's email prior to 2012.
I can't speak for the DoS, but the DoD Records Management program does label suspenses on just about every time of document, hard copy or electronic, and they can be (and most likely are) deleted/shredded/etc after a certain point.
I've spent many an hour at the shredder getting rid of 2 year old weather forecasts.
A .PST file exists on a laptop or desktop computer if the employee copies emails from the server to their local computer. Those might "go missing" but that isn't the master copy of the email database.
I believe DoS is trying to find a .pst for the explicit reason that no master copy exists. I am also entirely certain why you can't accept this possibility.
And I'm telling you... that's not how it works.
Unless you're willing to accept the possibility that the DoS won't be able to find anyone's email prior to 2012.
I can't speak for the DoS, but the DoD Records Management program does label suspenses on just about every time of document, hard copy or electronic, and they can be (and most likely are) deleted/shredded/etc after a certain point.
I've spent many an hour at the shredder getting rid of 2 year old weather forecasts.
Other members have explained similar things to him to no avail.
Email communications are distinct from document management.
I can't fathom an agency like DoS wouldn't use basic email retention policy (stuff that comes right out of the box) to secure/archive/backup all department communications. Seems to me that keeping records of such communications would be a wee bit important for our nation's diplomacy department.... no?
whembly wrote: Email communications are distinct from document management.
I can't fathom an agency like DoS wouldn't use basic email retention policy (stuff that comes right out of the box) to secure/archive/backup all department communications. Seems to me that keeping records of such communications would be a wee bit important for our nation's diplomacy department.... no?
No... our email communications fall under the same Record Management program.
whembly wrote: Email communications are distinct from document management.
I can't fathom an agency like DoS wouldn't use basic email retention policy (stuff that comes right out of the box) to secure/archive/backup all department communications. Seems to me that keeping records of such communications would be a wee bit important for our nation's diplomacy department.... no?
No... our email communications fall under the same Record Management program.
Okay. I'll add that government management of this is distinctly... odd.
Anecdote time: In my employment, I can personally retrieve the very first email/calendar appointment with ease. All they way back in 2001.
whembly wrote: Email communications are distinct from document management.
I can't fathom an agency like DoS wouldn't use basic email retention policy (stuff that comes right out of the box) to secure/archive/backup all department communications. Seems to me that keeping records of such communications would be a wee bit important for our nation's diplomacy department.... no?
No... our email communications fall under the same Record Management program.
Okay. I'll add that government management of this is distinctly... odd.
Anecdote time: In my employment, I can personally retrieve the very first email/calendar appointment with ease. All they way back in 2001.
*shrug*
Again, I can't speak for the DoS's policy regarding how they handle their records. I'm just providing my knowledge of my Departments methods.
whembly wrote: Email communications are distinct from document management.
I can't fathom an agency like DoS wouldn't use basic email retention policy (stuff that comes right out of the box) to secure/archive/backup all department communications. Seems to me that keeping records of such communications would be a wee bit important for our nation's diplomacy department.... no?
No... our email communications fall under the same Record Management program.
Okay. I'll add that government management of this is distinctly... odd.
Anecdote time: In my employment, I can personally retrieve the very first email/calendar appointment with ease. All they way back in 2001.
*shrug*
I think that while you can do that, I know when I was in the army, I definitely could not pull up my own sent emails and whatnot, once I deleted them, they were gone from me forever.
It may also be good to note that DoS may not view emails as being in the same "recordable" category as the DoD does, unless email has replaced the old "Memorandum of Conversation" and other official documents that floated around pre-email (seriously, I just used a number of memos for a research paper... if a DoSer had a conversation with a foreigner at lunch, it had to be recorded in a memo)
EXCLUSIVE: An intelligence community review has re-affirmed that two classified emails were indeed “top secret” when they hit Hillary Clinton’s unsecured personal server despite a challenge to that designation by the State Department, according to two sources familiar with the review.
The sources described the dispute over whether the two emails were classified at the highest level as a “settled matter.”
The agencies that owned and originated that intelligence – the CIA and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency or NGA – reviewed the emails to determine how they should be properly stored, as the State Department took issue with their highly classified nature. The subject matter of the messages is widely reported to be the movement of North Korean missiles and a drone strike. A top secret designation requires the highest level of security, and can include the use of an approved safe.
The sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, told Fox News that while the emails were indeed “top secret” when they hit Clinton’s server, one of them remains “top secret” to this day -- and must be handled at the highest security level. The second email is still considered classified but at the lower “secret” level because more information is publicly available about the event.
A .PST file exists on a laptop or desktop computer if the employee copies emails from the server to their local computer. Those might "go missing" but that isn't the master copy of the email database.
I believe DoS is trying to find a .pst for the explicit reason that no master copy exists. I am also entirely certain why you can't accept this possibility.
And I'm telling you... that's not how it works.
Unless you're willing to accept the possibility that the DoS won't be able to find anyone's email prior to 2012.
I can't speak for the DoS, but the DoD Records Management program does label suspenses on just about every time of document, hard copy or electronic, and they can be (and most likely are) deleted/shredded/etc after a certain point.
I've spent many an hour at the shredder getting rid of 2 year old weather forecasts.
Other members have explained similar things to him to no avail.
I've worked for several different fairly large companies, and it really runs the gamut: One company I supported could have easily produced any email from a decade ago even if the corporate HQ with all servers present exploded, whereas another company I supported - a large one, currently with a 7 billion dollar market cap - kept everything on individuals hard drives, in PST's, and left nothing older than about 90 days on the exchange end and only a few more months than that on tape. They only had a single exchange person and she spent all her time screwing around telecom stuff. You lost your laptop, you probably lost a ton of data that could not be recovered. A lot of organizations think IT is a waste of money, and so run it horribly so it does just that.
I explained that personally at least once in this thread, as someone who has supported Exchange for 15 years - that not every organization follows the same standards, you can't assume what you know about how your company it is how another one does. However, the horse simply isn't thirsty no matter how many rivers you point out.
whembly wrote: Email communications are distinct from document management.
I can't fathom an agency like DoS wouldn't use basic email retention policy (stuff that comes right out of the box) to secure/archive/backup all department communications. Seems to me that keeping records of such communications would be a wee bit important for our nation's diplomacy department.... no?
No... our email communications fall under the same Record Management program.
Okay. I'll add that government management of this is distinctly... odd.
Anecdote time: In my employment, I can personally retrieve the very first email/calendar appointment with ease. All they way back in 2001.
*shrug*
Again, I can't speak for the DoS's policy regarding how they handle their records. I'm just providing my knowledge of my Departments methods.
Records retention is very dependent on the type of information however. I'm used to much longer windows. I remember our IT guys having to do a topic search for a time period that covered 7ish years in the past.
A .PST file exists on a laptop or desktop computer if the employee copies emails from the server to their local computer. Those might "go missing" but that isn't the master copy of the email database.
I believe DoS is trying to find a .pst for the explicit reason that no master copy exists. I am also entirely certain why you can't accept this possibility.
And I'm telling you... that's not how it works.
Unless you're willing to accept the possibility that the DoS won't be able to find anyone's email prior to 2012.
I can't speak for the DoS, but the DoD Records Management program does label suspenses on just about every time of document, hard copy or electronic, and they can be (and most likely are) deleted/shredded/etc after a certain point.
I've spent many an hour at the shredder getting rid of 2 year old weather forecasts.
Other members have explained similar things to him to no avail.
I've worked for several different fairly large companies, and it really runs the gamut: One company I supported could have easily produced any email from a decade ago even if the corporate HQ with all servers present exploded, whereas another company I supported - a large one, currently with a 7 billion dollar market cap - kept everything on individuals hard drives, in PST's, and left nothing older than about 90 days on the exchange end and only a few more months than that on tape. They only had a single exchange person and she spent all her time screwing around telecom stuff. You lost your laptop, you probably lost a ton of data that could not be recovered. A lot of organizations think IT is a waste of money, and so run it horribly so it does just that.
I explained that personally at least once in this thread, as someone who has supported Exchange for 15 years - that not every organization follows the same standards, you can't assume what you know about how your company it is how another one does. However, the horse simply isn't thirsty no matter how many rivers you point out.
I get that... really I do.
Think about the role the Department of State is entrusted to perform.
It's absolute, basic function, is to keep effective communications between all parties (internally and externally). Ie, Diplomacy.
Right?
Regardless... until we determine what that policy is, we're all spitballing. (would we even be able to determine that, or would that be considered operational secret?).
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: anyone watching the GOP debate tonight?
@Compel: This is the best debate amongst them so far. All the social conservative bs is out the window and they're debating more meatyy stuff like ISIS, surveillance, military strategy, foreign policy, etc.
@anyone: Carson is like a fish out of water. He reminds me of a kid trying to talk at the grown up table about stuff he's just learned about. And he thinks his surgical background has prepare him to be commander in chief.
My gut instinct would be that a lot of these candidates would be worthwhile spending an evening or three sitting down and just reading wikipedia / brief guide's of these countries and things involved.
By themselves, no aides, no "suggesitons" from political activists. Just education, research and knowledge.
Distinctly different that email retention policies.
When I said "hard copies" I meant "backup tapes", sorry for any confusion. The company I work for is nearly paperless, so tape is about as close to a hard copy as we get.
But my point still stands: six months after an email hits our server the tape copy is gone.
It's more complicated in Healthcare or Financial industries (I'm sure other industries are required).
Insurance. Oh my God, insurance. One of my first jobs was converting old home and auto claims into electronic records while refiling original documents and pictures. When I applied for the job I wondered why I needed to prove that I could lift and carry 40 pounds, then I saw the records room.
But the most important thing is that this job was entrusted to people that had only just earned the privilege to drive.
whembly wrote: Email communications are distinct from document management.
I can't fathom an agency like DoS wouldn't use basic email retention policy (stuff that comes right out of the box) to secure/archive/backup all department communications. Seems to me that keeping records of such communications would be a wee bit important for our nation's diplomacy department.... no?
No... our email communications fall under the same Record Management program.
Okay. I'll add that government management of this is distinctly... odd.
Anecdote time: In my employment, I can personally retrieve the very first email/calendar appointment with ease. All they way back in 2001.
*shrug*
Again, I can't speak for the DoS's policy regarding how they handle their records. I'm just providing my knowledge of my Departments methods.
Records retention is very dependent on the type of information however. I'm used to much longer windows. I remember our IT guys having to do a topic search for a time period that covered 7ish years in the past.
It also depends on the regulation. Some businesses are required by the government to retain files for long periods of time.
whembly wrote: Um... anyone wanna tell Trump that the internet doesn't work like that?
What you just saw there... yea, every IT dude/gal has that reaction...
I didn't watch the debate, as I didn't want to hurt myself with too many facepalms, so what happened?
Behold;
Donald Trump wrote:ISIS is recruiting through the Internet. ISIS is using the Internet better than we are using the Internet and it was our idea. ... I don't want them using our Internet.
whembly wrote: Um... anyone wanna tell Trump that the internet doesn't work like that?
What you just saw there... yea, every IT dude/gal has that reaction...
I didn't watch the debate, as I didn't want to hurt myself with too many facepalms, so what happened?
The same people who flat out told Obama, "no boots on the ground in Syria" are lambasting him for "not doing enough" and that air strikes just aren't going to cut it. Oddly, none of them have any recommendations for a "fix" other than blocking refugees and rounding up all of the Muslim citizenry for ID and processing; all of which doesn't do anything to fight Isis.
I think public office should be the same as jury duty; people randomly called up to serve a year in DC and paid their actual current wages for the "honor". Hey, it's a dirty, disgusting job but if we make it so lucrative to run for and gain office, we can't be upset when it only attracts shady, slimeballs.
The pay for public office jobs is not great, it is the POWER that can be turned into financial gain that is the issue. Congress critters don't make enough via salary to be millionaires, yet most see their personal wealth increase vastly as they stay in office.
Even POTUS does not make that much compared to a CEO of a big company, but when you get a six figure fee for a speech once you are out of office...
The salaries are not lucrative, it is the power and gains from abuse of that power that are lucrative.
whembly wrote: Um... anyone wanna tell Trump that the internet doesn't work like that?
What you just saw there... yea, every IT dude/gal has that reaction...
I didn't watch the debate, as I didn't want to hurt myself with too many facepalms, so what happened?
Kasich kept trying to push his "unify, unite, together" message unsuccessfully.
Fiorina reminded us that she was a CEO at a tech company, and she knows all the people in the tech world, and she's angry, and she's a woman. If by some longshot miracle she gets elected, I'm turning my TV off for years. I've reached my Fiorina quota for a lifetime.
Carson basically imploded on national security. He just doesn't know anything, but was trying to pretend like he does. He also thinks his experience in surgery has magically prepared him to lead the world's strongest military, and he's not afraid to carpet bomb innocent civilians.
Trump - took a hardline position on all the crazy positions he's taken in the media. He did vow not to run as an Independent.
Rubio - probably did well, but took attacks all night from Cruz and Paul. Looked better in previous debates.
Cruz - did much better than in the previous debates. You might even think that he was not running on a religious mumbo-jumbo platform if this debate were in isolation. He's clearly most comfortable and effective talking about national security...he's a hawk, if that's your thing.
Bush - just dug into Trump with very good barbs and one-liners (my favorite was "he's the Chaos Candidate, and he'd be the Chaos President"). Not sure any of it helped him so much as it helped everyone except Trump.
Christie - did very well for himself running on national security. Doubled-down on domestic surveillance.
Paul - won the debate hands down, but as usual, noone seemed to notice but me.
At this point, I agree with Whembley - Kasich, Fiorina, and especially Carson need to drop out. It's almost for the good of the country type thing at this point, so the normal Republican voters can settle on their consensus candidate. We really can't have someone like Trump in the White House. He's on the record as saying we should kill the families of terrorists, thus ripping the Geneva Convention to shreds, and opening up the families of our service men and women to danger (this might not mean so much to indiscriminate lunatics like ISIS, but it might mean a whole lot if we ever get into war against an actual world power that would otherwise respect the Geneva Convention).
Incidentally, it was the best GOP debate so far this cycle. It's amazing the difference really, when manufactured issues like gay marriage and Kim Davis and abortion and science denial are taken off the table. I think the Republican Party would do well to start shifting away from these issues. Young people don't care about them or are offended by the GOP platform on them, and they are seriously keeping moderate people from considering the GOP who might do so if it weren't for all the social conservative and anti-science baggage.
CptJake wrote: The pay for public office jobs is not great, it is the POWER that can be turned into financial gain that is the issue. Congress critters don't make enough via salary to be millionaires, yet most see their personal wealth increase vastly as they stay in office.
Even POTUS does not make that much compared to a CEO of a big company, but when you get a six figure fee for a speech once you are out of office...
The salaries are not lucrative, it is the power and gains from abuse of that power that are lucrative.
It depends upon what you're comparing the salary to. For 90% of Americans the minimum of $174,000 and an expense account (average 1.2 million for House and 3.2 million for Senate for travel, office, and personnel expenses) is a big chunk of change. Serve 5 or more years and you'll get a pension at 62 this means a one-term senator will get about $16k/year for life when they retire for just serving one term. They're also eligible for social security and can participate in the federal employee healthcare system instead of medicare. While they're in office, they have to contribute 1% of their salary into the "thrift savings plan" and the government kicks in 5%.
That's on the books money.
I do pretty well but nowhere near $174k. Median income in the US is $50,500/year with no expense account for travel costs. Average income for someone with a Doctorate degree is $80k. Less than 1/2 of 1% of workers in the US earn the minimum, starting salary of a person in congress. Public service. Compare that to the $24k I made as a Social Worker in 08 as a public employee with a Master's Degree.
whembly wrote: Um... anyone wanna tell Trump that the internet doesn't work like that?
What you just saw there... yea, every IT dude/gal has that reaction...
I didn't watch the debate, as I didn't want to hurt myself with too many facepalms, so what happened?
The same people who flat out told Obama, "no boots on the ground in Syria" are lambasting him for "not doing enough" and that air strikes just aren't going to cut it. Oddly, none of them have any recommendations for a "fix" other than blocking refugees and rounding up all of the Muslim citizenry for ID and processing; all of which doesn't do anything to fight Isis.
I think public office should be the same as jury duty; people randomly called up to serve a year in DC and paid their actual current wages for the "honor". Hey, it's a dirty, disgusting job but if we make it so lucrative to run for and gain office, we can't be upset when it only attracts shady, slimeballs.
I kind of agree with this. a draft for public office.
Then, rich people could buy surrogates to avoid their service!
CptJake wrote: The pay for public office jobs is not great, it is the POWER that can be turned into financial gain that is the issue. Congress critters don't make enough via salary to be millionaires, yet most see their personal wealth increase vastly as they stay in office.
Even POTUS does not make that much compared to a CEO of a big company, but when you get a six figure fee for a speech once you are out of office...
The salaries are not lucrative, it is the power and gains from abuse of that power that are lucrative.
It depends upon what you're comparing the salary to. For 90% of Americans the minimum of $174,000 and an expense account (average 1.2 million for House and 3.2 million for Senate for travel, office, and personnel expenses) is a big chunk of change. Serve 5 or more years and you'll get a pension at 62 this means a one-term senator will get about $16k/year for life when they retire for just serving one term. They're also eligible for social security and can participate in the federal employee healthcare system instead of medicare. While they're in office, they have to contribute 1% of their salary into the "thrift savings plan" and the government kicks in 5%.
That's on the books money.
I do pretty well but nowhere near $174k. Median income in the US is $50,500/year with no expense account for travel costs. Average income for someone with a Doctorate degree is $80k. Less than 1/2 of 1% of workers in the US earn the minimum, starting salary of a person in congress. Public service. Compare that to the $24k I made as a Social Worker in 08 as a public employee with a Master's Degree.
Office space and staff costs in DC are expensive. Having to maintain staff and offices in your district as well adds cost. For most business, those are considered business costs and not wrapped into a salary. Median income is also irrelevant, as is Doctorate holder pay. I never said these guys are not paid decently, I said their salary is not the issue. The influence and their ability to turn that influence into $$$ is the issue.
Your 24 K is also a silly comparison. For the congress critters you wanted to add in their operating budget (staff/travel/etc). You didn't add in what ever costs your organization had to rent the office space you used and so on. And I suspect you couldn't drive the types of decisions the congress critters do.
CptJake wrote: The pay for public office jobs is not great, it is the POWER that can be turned into financial gain that is the issue. Congress critters don't make enough via salary to be millionaires, yet most see their personal wealth increase vastly as they stay in office.
Even POTUS does not make that much compared to a CEO of a big company, but when you get a six figure fee for a speech once you are out of office...
The salaries are not lucrative, it is the power and gains from abuse of that power that are lucrative.
It depends upon what you're comparing the salary to. For 90% of Americans the minimum of $174,000 and an expense account (average 1.2 million for House and 3.2 million for Senate for travel, office, and personnel expenses) is a big chunk of change. Serve 5 or more years and you'll get a pension at 62 this means a one-term senator will get about $16k/year for life when they retire for just serving one term. They're also eligible for social security and can participate in the federal employee healthcare system instead of medicare. While they're in office, they have to contribute 1% of their salary into the "thrift savings plan" and the government kicks in 5%.
That's on the books money.
I do pretty well but nowhere near $174k. Median income in the US is $50,500/year with no expense account for travel costs. Average income for someone with a Doctorate degree is $80k. Less than 1/2 of 1% of workers in the US earn the minimum, starting salary of a person in congress. Public service. Compare that to the $24k I made as a Social Worker in 08 as a public employee with a Master's Degree.
Office space and staff costs in DC are expensive. Having to maintain staff and offices in your district as well adds cost. For most business, those are considered business costs and not wrapped into a salary. Median income is also irrelevant, as is Doctorate holder pay. I never said these guys are not paid decently, I said their salary is not the issue. The influence and their ability to turn that influence into $$$ is the issue.
Your 24 K is also a silly comparison. For the congress critters you wanted to add in their operating budget (staff/travel/etc). You didn't add in what ever costs your organization had to rent the office space you used and so on. And I suspect you couldn't drive the types of decisions the congress critters do.
Nope. I separated their salaries and operational expenses for a reason and that's to illustrate that they are in fact paid very, very well compared to the bulk of their constituency. I would hazard a guess that quite a few of them make more than anyone else in their congressional district.
Let's look at average salaries in my neck of the woods:
Mean Salary Oklahoma:
Administrative Law Judge $91,030
Chemical Engineer $95,670
General / Operations Manager $98,640
Attorney / Lawyer $112,520
$174k per year makes my representatives the highest paid, outside of the petroleum industry, in my state. There are literally only 4220 people in the state of Oklahoma that make more than they do and they're all in the healthcare industry.
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_ok.htm
By paying them as much as we have, we've created a class of people who have no idea what their constituency goes through on a monthly basis and we're seeing the results in the asinine comments that they make about welfare, education, and a host of other topics. When you can afford to fly first class every time that you travel, you don't know how much leg room is in coach.
$174k per year makes my representatives the highest paid, outside of the petroleum industry, in my state. There are literally only 4220 people in the state of Oklahoma that make more than they do and they're all in the healthcare industry.
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_ok.htm
I see they didn't count anyone named Kevin Durant, or with the last name Stoops there and neither of them work in the healthcare industry
$174k per year makes my representatives the highest paid, outside of the petroleum industry, in my state. There are literally only 4220 people in the state of Oklahoma that make more than they do and they're all in the healthcare industry.
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_ok.htm
I see they didn't count anyone named Kevin Durant, or with the last name Stoops there and neither of them work in the healthcare industry
Yeah, different animal. They only cover real employment not millions to play a game.
CptJake wrote: Having to maintain staff and offices in your district as well adds cost.
Why are you assuming that staff are paid? Have you not heard of the unpaid intern?
Of course there are unpaid interns, and that has zero fething bearing on my point, because each congress critter has a paid staff and is allocated funds to pay them.
Of course there are unpaid interns, and that has zero fething bearing on my point, because each congress critter has a paid staff and is allocated funds to pay them.
It only has no bearing if you ignore the importance of political interns.
While senators make $174,000, staff assistants and legislative correspondents — by far the most common positions in the Senate — have median pay of $30,000 and $35,000, respectively, significantly less than Senate janitors and a fairly low salary for college graduates in a city as expensive as Washington.
Of course there are unpaid interns, and that has zero fething bearing on my point, because each congress critter has a paid staff and is allocated funds to pay them.
It only has no bearing if you ignore the importance of political interns.
While senators make $174,000, staff assistants and legislative correspondents — by far the most common positions in the Senate — have median pay of $30,000 and $35,000, respectively, significantly less than Senate janitors and a fairly low salary for college graduates in a city as expensive as Washington.
Yes I read it, and it has no bearing on my point. And the importance of interns has no bearing on my point. My point is the congress critters are allocated funds to pay staff. That accounts for a big chunk of the number used in the post I replied to.
What point are you trying to make and how is it relevant to mine?
Or are you just being your normal argumentative self because it is who you are, even if it is not relevant?
What point are you trying to make and how is it relevant to mine?
My point is that much of Congressional staff is unpaid and, as such, the personnel allowance isn't important. Indeed, it works against what can easily be characterized as exploitation.
whembly wrote: Not sure I fully understand why Google is being targeted by anti-trust activities...
I mean... if you break up Google's search engine from it's advertising business (and others), I'm not sure how you can do that.
This isn't like Microsoft's dominance of Internet Explorer in the early Window years.
The European Union (EU) thinks that Google is stifling competition and dangerously encroaching on people's liberties with its data gathering, which is ironic, considering some of the anti-democratic activities the EU has ben conducting these past years.
Whembley, consider yourself lucky that you're free from EU jurisdiction.
Europe is generally more hawkish when it comes to Anti-Trust than the US (our laws on the matter are so littered with exemptions, exceptions, or ignored/rewritten with such frequency they are mostly useless here).
That aside, I agree. I'm not really sure what the case against Google is here. They dominate the search engine market? That's all it seems to be about, Is there more to it than that?
It's not like Google has any real competition. Much like Microsoft in the 90's, their market dominance has been driven more by the ineptitude of their competitors than anything else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The European Union (EU) thinks that Google is stifling competition and dangerously encroaching on people's liberties with its data gathering, which is ironic, considering some of the anti-democratic activities the EU has ben conducting these past years.
That makes a bit more sense, but feels like it's a matter of consumer rights/privacy rights, not anti-trust legislation.
LordofHats wrote: Europe is generally more hawkish when it comes to Anti-Trust than the US (our laws on the matter are so littered with exemptions, exceptions, or ignored/rewritten with such frequency they are mostly useless here).
That aside, I agree. I'm not really sure what the case against Google is here. They dominate the search engine market? That's all it seems to be about, Is there more to it than that?
It's not like Google has any real competition. Much like Microsoft in the 90's, their market dominance has been driven more by the ineptitude of their competitors than anything else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The European Union (EU) thinks that Google is stifling competition and dangerously encroaching on people's liberties with its data gathering, which is ironic, considering some of the anti-democratic activities the EU has ben conducting these past years.
That makes a bit more sense, but feels like it's a matter of consumer rights/privacy rights, not anti-trust legislation.
This is just my opinion, but the general feeling in EUHQ in Brussels, is that Google is getting too big for its boots, and needs a reminder of who is boss...and something about civil liberties being abused through Google's data gathering
I happily admit that the growing size of corporations and conglomerates concerns me, and I don't really have issue with making them justify rolling as one business. The US had some pretty dark times in the late 19th, early 20th century when we allowed business' and their owners to run rampant and unchecked. TO make it worse, we made money speech and corporations people, and that's just a winning combination /sarcasm
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The European Union (EU) thinks that Google is stifling competition and dangerously encroaching on people's liberties with its data gathering, which is ironic, considering some of the anti-democratic activities the EU has ben conducting these past years.
That makes a bit more sense, but feels like it's a matter of consumer rights/privacy rights, not anti-trust legislation.
This... I can see it as consumer rights/privacy rights thing...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: TO make it worse, we made money speech and corporations people, and that's just a winning combination /sarcasm
Funding deal hits backlash over increase in foreign worker visas
The $1.1 trillion omnibus funding bill includes language that would dramatically increase the number of visas available for foreign workers, setting off alarm bells among conservatives and labor unions.
Congressional leaders quietly slipped the provision into the 2,009-page funding bill, with rank-and-file lawmakers only discovering it Wednesday morning. The move immediately sparked protests from across the political spectrum.
The provision could more than triple the number of H-2B visas for foreign workers seeking jobs at hotels, theme parks, ski resorts, golf courses, landscaping businesses, restaurants and bars. The move is intended to boost the supply of non-agricultural seasonal workers.
“These foreign workers are brought in exclusively to fill blue collar non-farm jobs in hotels, restaurants, construction, truck driving, and many other occupations sought by millions of Americans,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), an outspoken critic of President Obama’s immigration policies, in a statement.
“The GOP-led Congress is about to deliver Obama a four-fold increase to one of the most controversial foreign worker programs. The result? Higher unemployment and lower wages for Americans,” he said.
Sessions estimates the number of H-2B visas will soar from 66,000 to 250,000 because of the language in the omnibus. He took to the Senate floor Wednesday afternoon to protest the maneuver.
Chris Chmielenski, a spokesman for NumbersUSA, a group that advocates for less immigration, criticized Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) for allowing the provision into the omnibus after pledging to look out for American workers in his first speech to the House after taking the gavel.
Ryan called on Congress to look after working-class families after he won election to the Speaker’s office in October.
i“If there were ever a time for us to step up, this would be that time. America does not feel strong anymore because the working people of America do not feel strong anymore,” he told colleagues on the House floor. “I’m talking about the people who mind the store and grow the food and walk the beat and pay the taxes and raise the family.”
Chmielenski said those same working families would be hurt by the visa rider.
“H-2B visas are for low-skilled foreign workers who typically compete with people who have a high school diploma or less and these are the people who are struggling the most,” he said.
“These are the people that Ryan seemed to be referencing in his speech, and yet he sneaks in a provision in the omnibus that’s going to quadruple the number of low-skilled foreign worker visas,” he added.
NumbersUSA plans to mobilize its grassroots activist network in an effort to get the language removed from the spending package.
Conservative Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said in October that Ryan promised the House Republican Conference before being elected that he would not bring a comprehensive immigration reform bill to the floor while Obama was still in the Oval Office.
A House GOP aide said the visa provision was written by the Judiciary Committee, and that the Speaker was not involved.
The aide added that Ryan did not pledge that he wouldn’t touch any programs related to immigration, only to keep major legislation, such as the 2013 Senate bill that included a pathway to citizenship, from moving. The language in the omnibus falls well short of that.
The policy rider comes at a sensitive time for Republicans, with their leading candidates for president engaging in a fierce debate over immigration.
At the presidential debate in Las Vegas Tuesday evening, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) slammed rival Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) for co-authoring a comprehensive reform bill in 2013 that would have given a path to citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants.
Rubio shot back by arguing that Cruz at the time supported dramatic increases in the number of visas for foreign workers. He claimed Cruz supported a 500 percent increase in the number of H-1B visas for skilled workers and doubling the number of green cards.
But the uproar over the visa provision isn’t confined to conservatives.
The AFL-CIO and the International Labor Recruitment Working Group, powerhouses in the labor movement, also took aim at the visa provision, warning it would lead to exploitation of foreign workers and Americans losing jobs.
“The language basically rolls back protections for low-wage workers and guest workers and American workers in this industry while lowering the protections for workers,” said Joleen Rivera, a legislative representative at the AFL-CIO.
She said that only 66,000 foreign seasonal workers are allowed into the United States per year but predicted the number could swell to 200,000 because of the language in the omnibus.
Rivera said it would also water down workers’ protections in dangerous industries such as forestry and seafood harvesting.
“We’re extremely disappointed that these measures are in the bill,” she said.
Labor groups say the language should go through regular procedural order instead of being thrown into a catchall bill.
“The House language would lead to the admission of almost 200,000 additional low-wage guest workers and would eliminate protections that keep workers from being brought in and idled without work or pay for long periods of time,” the International Labor Recruitment Working Group said in a statement.
The group said the language would prevent U.S. workers from getting “first dibs” on jobs and deny U.S. workers the rights to the rights to the same wages.
LordofHats wrote: The US had some pretty dark times in the late 19th, early 20th century when we allowed business' and their owners to run rampant and unchecked.
In an eerie example of "those who do not know there history are doomed to repeat it" a large number of trends seen in that time period can no be seen in multinational corporations today. We are quite literally reliving the economic past on a larger scale, but at least the upside is we know there is a decent resolution that is relatively reasonable. Then in another century we'll repeat the cycle.
[edit] Speaking of... the above article Whembly posted reeks of corporate bribery, sorry, 'lobbying'. A measure that could never gain traction if it was discussed openly is .ninja'd into a larger package by a small group of unidentified individuals, and who wins if it goes through? The greedy who just can't afford to let their workers be getting a piece of those multi-million dollar paychecks.
LordofHats wrote: The US had some pretty dark times in the late 19th, early 20th century when we allowed business' and their owners to run rampant and unchecked.
In an eerie example of "those who do not know there history are doomed to repeat it" a large number of trends seen in that time period can no be seen in multinational corporations today. We are quite literally reliving the economic past on a larger scale, but at least the upside is we know there is a decent resolution that is relatively reasonable. Then in another century we'll repeat the cycle.
[edit] Speaking of... the above article Whembly posted reeks of corporate bribery, sorry, 'lobbying'. A measure that could never gain traction if it was discussed openly is .ninja'd into a larger package by a small group of unidentified individuals, and who wins if it goes through? The greedy who just can't afford to let their workers be getting a piece of those multi-million dollar paychecks.
The corporatism and crony capitalism of today has a lot more to do with using govt regulation to stifle competition and innovation than with controlling labor costs. Technology has been consistently reducing the amount of workers need to produce goods and services for centuries and will continue to do so without needing any legislative help.
And to whembly, I think McCutcheon v. the FECis a more apt case for Lordofhat's metaphor about making money into people/constiuents. It's a case that for some reason doesn't get the publicity of Citizens United but its effect is much worse for our republic.
LordofHats wrote: The US had some pretty dark times in the late 19th, early 20th century when we allowed business' and their owners to run rampant and unchecked.
In an eerie example of "those who do not know there history are doomed to repeat it" a large number of trends seen in that time period can no be seen in multinational corporations today. We are quite literally reliving the economic past on a larger scale, but at least the upside is we know there is a decent resolution that is relatively reasonable. Then in another century we'll repeat the cycle.
[edit] Speaking of... the above article Whembly posted reeks of corporate bribery, sorry, 'lobbying'. A measure that could never gain traction if it was discussed openly is .ninja'd into a larger package by a small group of unidentified individuals, and who wins if it goes through? The greedy who just can't afford to let their workers be getting a piece of those multi-million dollar paychecks.
The corporatism and crony capitalism of today has a lot more to do with using govt regulation to stifle competition and innovation than with controlling labor costs. Technology has been consistently reducing the amount of workers need to produce goods and services for centuries and will continue to do so without needing any legislative help.
And to whembly, I think McCutcheon v. the FECis a more apt case for Lordofhat's metaphor about making money into people/constiuents. It's a case that for some reason doesn't get the publicity of Citizens United but its effect is much worse for our republic.
yeah... that's another biggie.
I just like bringing up Citizens because the government attorney actually argued that the government can ban books.
...
Alito’s question was simple: Could the government ban political books that contained express advocacy if an incorporated entity was involved?
After much ducking, weaving, bobbing, and a few desperate clicks of his heels while shouting “there’s no place like home, there’s no place like home,” Stewart gave the answer that 100 years of campaign finance “reform” had forced him into: Yes. The government did have the power to ban books.
...
LordofHats wrote: The US had some pretty dark times in the late 19th, early 20th century when we allowed business' and their owners to run rampant and unchecked.
In an eerie example of "those who do not know there history are doomed to repeat it" a large number of trends seen in that time period can no be seen in multinational corporations today. We are quite literally reliving the economic past on a larger scale, but at least the upside is we know there is a decent resolution that is relatively reasonable. Then in another century we'll repeat the cycle.
[edit] Speaking of... the above article Whembly posted reeks of corporate bribery, sorry, 'lobbying'. A measure that could never gain traction if it was discussed openly is .ninja'd into a larger package by a small group of unidentified individuals, and who wins if it goes through? The greedy who just can't afford to let their workers be getting a piece of those multi-million dollar paychecks.
The corporatism and crony capitalism of today has a lot more to do with using govt regulation to stifle competition and innovation than with controlling labor costs. Technology has been consistently reducing the amount of workers need to produce goods and services for centuries and will continue to do so without needing any legislative help.
Even if there are differences (there always are; that's why its an analogy and not a clone), it is the same reasons causing the same problem, and it is producing the same results. I am pretty sure there are more similarities than differences when it comes to us re-living that particular section of history.
Speaking of out dated ideals. I learned that in MI an employer can make an employee work however many hours they feel necessary. Which explains why half my family is telling me they have to work 7 days a week right now.
I had thought the US had a maximum number of hours employers could mandate employees had to work. Turns out it could be as many as they want if you don't want to be fired.
BrotherGecko wrote: Speaking of out dated ideals. I learned that in MI an employer can make an employee work however many hours they feel necessary. Which explains why half my family is telling me they have to work 7 days a week right now.
I had thought the US had a maximum number of hours employers could mandate employees had to work. Turns out it could be as many as they want if you don't want to be fired.
As long as they are getting overtime (in MI I think that is 1.5 regular pay) the employer is probably legally sound.
BrotherGecko wrote: Speaking of out dated ideals. I learned that in MI an employer can make an employee work however many hours they feel necessary. Which explains why half my family is telling me they have to work 7 days a week right now.
I had thought the US had a maximum number of hours employers could mandate employees had to work. Turns out it could be as many as they want if you don't want to be fired.
Yup. When it comes to employee rights the US is pretty bad when compared to other 1st world countries.
BrotherGecko wrote: Speaking of out dated ideals. I learned that in MI an employer can make an employee work however many hours they feel necessary. Which explains why half my family is telling me they have to work 7 days a week right now.
I had thought the US had a maximum number of hours employers could mandate employees had to work. Turns out it could be as many as they want if you don't want to be fired.
As long as they are getting overtime (in MI I think that is 1.5 regular pay) the employer is probably legally sound.
With overtime it does become legal. Yet still feels like a big f-u to workers rights.
BrotherGecko wrote: Speaking of out dated ideals. I learned that in MI an employer can make an employee work however many hours they feel necessary. Which explains why half my family is telling me they have to work 7 days a week right now.
I had thought the US had a maximum number of hours employers could mandate employees had to work. Turns out it could be as many as they want if you don't want to be fired.
As long as they are getting overtime (in MI I think that is 1.5 regular pay) the employer is probably legally sound.
With overtime it does become legal. Yet still feels like a big f-u to workers rights.
Not sure why, the work has to get done. This time of year many businesses need to expand hours worked to keep up with demand for their product/service. The workers there tend to know this and expect it. Many love the overtime. It is a lot worse on salaried employees who don't get overtime but still see an increase in hours needing to be worked.
Worker in my mind doesn't mean fixed annual income. Then again, I was always on the short end of the stick, having to pick up all the slack employees senior to me felt like not picking up. It did make for sweet cheques, though.
What is a standard work week, in the US? In hours? They say the standard is supposed to be 35 here, but I've rarely had so few hours in a week, usually clocking in around 45.
Just a quick catch up: Watched that 5th Rep Debate, and I have to say the thing that was more frightening and sad at the same time was not the crazy the polis were spewing out that go against the Constitution/Geneva Conventions/human rights etc, it was the audience response with loud ovations, whistles and cheers. That debate reminded me more of Germany of the 1930s like the Nuremburg Rallies than it did a democratic culture.
Saturday will be the Democratic debate, see how that goes, but even when Bernie does another great Job the corporate run media machine will tout Hilary over all.
Corporatocracy has killed democracy and propped up it's dead body with puppet strings to fool the rest that we still have democracy.
BrotherGecko wrote: Speaking of out dated ideals. I learned that in MI an employer can make an employee work however many hours they feel necessary. Which explains why half my family is telling me they have to work 7 days a week right now.
I had thought the US had a maximum number of hours employers could mandate employees had to work. Turns out it could be as many as they want if you don't want to be fired.
As long as they are getting overtime (in MI I think that is 1.5 regular pay) the employer is probably legally sound.
With overtime it does become legal. Yet still feels like a big f-u to workers rights.
Not sure why, the work has to get done. This time of year many businesses need to expand hours worked to keep up with demand for their product/service. The workers there tend to know this and expect it. Many love the overtime. It is a lot worse on salaried employees who don't get overtime but still see an increase in hours needing to be worked.
Its the part where they can mandate it with the threat of firing if the employee doesn't wish to over 40 hours in a week. A business should not be able to choose to save money for itself at the expense of its employees. If work needs to be done, hire more workers or don't operate beyond your means.
If the law said an employee can not work more than 40 hours in a week without employee consent then I would see no issue. The fact that indefinite hours could be assigned without repercussions to the employer reminds me of something I would expect from a sweat shop economy.
BrotherGecko wrote: Speaking of out dated ideals. I learned that in MI an employer can make an employee work however many hours they feel necessary. Which explains why half my family is telling me they have to work 7 days a week right now.
I had thought the US had a maximum number of hours employers could mandate employees had to work. Turns out it could be as many as they want if you don't want to be fired.
As long as they are getting overtime (in MI I think that is 1.5 regular pay) the employer is probably legally sound.
With overtime it does become legal. Yet still feels like a big f-u to workers rights.
Not sure why, the work has to get done. This time of year many businesses need to expand hours worked to keep up with demand for their product/service. The workers there tend to know this and expect it. Many love the overtime. It is a lot worse on salaried employees who don't get overtime but still see an increase in hours needing to be worked.
Its the part where they can mandate it with the threat of firing if the employee doesn't wish to over 40 hours in a week. A business should not be able to choose to save money for itself at the expense of its employees. If work needs to be done, hire more workers or don't operate beyond your means.
If the law said an employee can not work more than 40 hours in a week without employee consent then I would see no issue. The fact that indefinite hours could be assigned without repercussions to the employer reminds me of something I would expect from a sweat shop economy.
I despise loose laws that can be easily abused.
Having worked retail and food service jobs earlier in life I whole heartedly agree that having bad bosses schedule you for more hours with no consideration for your personal responsibilities totally sucks. That said the employers are required to pay time and a half for overtime so it's not like it saves them labor costs. Salaried workers get screwed like that but that's always been the case unfortunately.
My wife is salaried and is expected to work nearly 80 hours a week. She has been down two employees for years, but somehow they never get replaced since the work gets done anyway.
I know for a fact that local governments have banned books. The Catcher in the Rye springs to mind, so does Flowers for Algernon. Both of which happened after Gitlow.
I know for a fact that local governments have banned books. The Catcher in the Rye springs to mind, so does Flowers for Algernon. Both of which happened after Gitlow.
I thought Catcher in the Rye was banned locally... like at school.
Even so, if taken to court, I expect 1st Amendment challenges.
I thought Catcher in the Rye was banned locally... like at school.
Yes, that is what I said. The point was that, local, US government have banned books.
A school banning books because of it's mature nature is not the same thing as the Federal government banning books/movies/"whichever media" on a political candidate.
A SC Justice directly asked "Could the government ban political books that contained express advocacy if an incorporated entity was involved? "
Even so, if taken to court, I expect 1st Amendment challenges.
There would be challenges, but it is questionable as to whether or not the cases would get to Federal Court.
I disagree. There's a difference in desire to overturn a schoolboard ban over books like Catcher in the Rye, vs a book critical over a current candidate.
BrotherGecko wrote: Speaking of out dated ideals. I learned that in MI an employer can make an employee work however many hours they feel necessary. Which explains why half my family is telling me they have to work 7 days a week right now.
I had thought the US had a maximum number of hours employers could mandate employees had to work. Turns out it could be as many as they want if you don't want to be fired.
As long as they are getting overtime (in MI I think that is 1.5 regular pay) the employer is probably legally sound.
With overtime it does become legal. Yet still feels like a big f-u to workers rights.
Not sure why, the work has to get done. This time of year many businesses need to expand hours worked to keep up with demand for their product/service. The workers there tend to know this and expect it. Many love the overtime. It is a lot worse on salaried employees who don't get overtime but still see an increase in hours needing to be worked.
Its the part where they can mandate it with the threat of firing if the employee doesn't wish to over 40 hours in a week. A business should not be able to choose to save money for itself at the expense of its employees. If work needs to be done, hire more workers or don't operate beyond your means.
If the law said an employee can not work more than 40 hours in a week without employee consent then I would see no issue. The fact that indefinite hours could be assigned without repercussions to the employer reminds me of something I would expect from a sweat shop economy.
I despise loose laws that can be easily abused.
I'm a salaried employee so I don't even receive overtime for the 50+ hours I work each week. If I were to ever refuse to work more than my contractual 40 hours, my employer could legally fire me.
In response, the DNC has suspended the Sanders campaign from the party’s voter file — a move that could cripple the senator just weeks before the start of the primary. The Sanders campaign staffer who accessed the data has been fired.
The Democratic National Committee has suspended Bernie Sanders’ access to the party’s 50-state voter file in response to a software glitch that allowed the Sanders campaign to access Hillary Clinton’s internal voter data.
The DNC move effectively freezes Sanders’ field organizing program six weeks from the first caucuses and primaries.
The breach occurred on Wednesday, a DNC official confirmed, through the NGP VAN, the leading technology company that allows campaigns to identify voters, as well as monitor their preferences and leanings, in what’s called the 50-state voter file. For a “brief window” — about 30 minutes, an official said — a bug in the software exposed the campaigns’ internal “voter ID” data.
During that period, the Sanders campaign discovered the breach, accessed the Clinton campaign’s data, then called the vendor to point out the flaw, according to the official. The DNC has since cut off Sanders’s access to the voter file — until his campaign officials can “prove” they’ve deleted the Clinton data.
“The DNC places a high priority on maintaining the security of our system and protecting the data on it,” said the committee’s communications director, Luis Miranda. “We are working with our campaigns and the vendor to have full clarity on the extent of the breach, ensure that this isolated incident does not happen again, and to enable our campaigns to continue engaging voters on the issues that matter most to them and their families.”
The period in which proprietary voter file data was available to all campaigns did not affect the overall integrity of the data itself, according to the DNC. No private data was leaked outside the NGP system. The DNC official also stressed that the breach was the fault of the vendor NGP VAN, not the DNC. Still, the DNC is ultimately considered responsible for the security of the NGP VAN.
The Sanders campaign also laid the blame at the feet of NGP VAN. “Sadly, the vendor who runs the DNC’s voter file program continues to make serious errors,” Michael Briggs, Sanders’s top communications aide, told BuzzFeed News.
“On more than one occasion, the vendor has dropped the firewall between the data of different Democratic campaigns. Our campaign months ago alerted the DNC to the fact that campaign data was being made available to other campaigns,” said Briggs. “At that time our campaign did not run to the media, relying instead on assurances from the vendor.”
The Sanders aide who accessed the Clinton campaign data has been fired, Briggs said.
The incident could pose a devastating setback for Sanders so close to the start of the Democratic primary: Until access is restored to the NGP VAN, the candidate’s organizers will have to perform the basic functions of the field program — phone banks, voter contact, visibility — without an electronic system centralizing their efforts.
“After discussion with the DNC it became clear that one of our staffers accessed some modeling data from another campaign,” Briggs said. “That behavior is unacceptable and that staffer was immediately fired.”
Miranda said that the party has directed the NGP VAN to “conduct a thorough analysis to identify any users who accessed the data, what actions they took in the system, and to report on the findings to the Party and any affected campaign.”
The organization will also begin a review process with every Democratic campaign and NGP VAN user, said Miranda, to “ensure they understand and abide by the rules governing the use of the system.”
So... I guess the Clinton campaigned got Watergated™?
But hey... why should Bernie be held to a different standard than hackers, Russian or Chinese intelligence service data miners, international terrorists or anyone else??
In response, the DNC has suspended the Sanders campaign from the party’s voter file — a move that could cripple the senator just weeks before the start of the primary. The Sanders campaign staffer who accessed the data has been fired.
The Democratic National Committee has suspended Bernie Sanders’ access to the party’s 50-state voter file in response to a software glitch that allowed the Sanders campaign to access Hillary Clinton’s internal voter data.
The DNC move effectively freezes Sanders’ field organizing program six weeks from the first caucuses and primaries.
The breach occurred on Wednesday, a DNC official confirmed, through the NGP VAN, the leading technology company that allows campaigns to identify voters, as well as monitor their preferences and leanings, in what’s called the 50-state voter file. For a “brief window” — about 30 minutes, an official said — a bug in the software exposed the campaigns’ internal “voter ID” data.
During that period, the Sanders campaign discovered the breach, accessed the Clinton campaign’s data, then called the vendor to point out the flaw, according to the official. The DNC has since cut off Sanders’s access to the voter file — until his campaign officials can “prove” they’ve deleted the Clinton data.
“The DNC places a high priority on maintaining the security of our system and protecting the data on it,” said the committee’s communications director, Luis Miranda. “We are working with our campaigns and the vendor to have full clarity on the extent of the breach, ensure that this isolated incident does not happen again, and to enable our campaigns to continue engaging voters on the issues that matter most to them and their families.”
The period in which proprietary voter file data was available to all campaigns did not affect the overall integrity of the data itself, according to the DNC. No private data was leaked outside the NGP system. The DNC official also stressed that the breach was the fault of the vendor NGP VAN, not the DNC. Still, the DNC is ultimately considered responsible for the security of the NGP VAN.
The Sanders campaign also laid the blame at the feet of NGP VAN. “Sadly, the vendor who runs the DNC’s voter file program continues to make serious errors,” Michael Briggs, Sanders’s top communications aide, told BuzzFeed News.
“On more than one occasion, the vendor has dropped the firewall between the data of different Democratic campaigns. Our campaign months ago alerted the DNC to the fact that campaign data was being made available to other campaigns,” said Briggs. “At that time our campaign did not run to the media, relying instead on assurances from the vendor.”
The Sanders aide who accessed the Clinton campaign data has been fired, Briggs said.
The incident could pose a devastating setback for Sanders so close to the start of the Democratic primary: Until access is restored to the NGP VAN, the candidate’s organizers will have to perform the basic functions of the field program — phone banks, voter contact, visibility — without an electronic system centralizing their efforts.
“After discussion with the DNC it became clear that one of our staffers accessed some modeling data from another campaign,” Briggs said. “That behavior is unacceptable and that staffer was immediately fired.”
Miranda said that the party has directed the NGP VAN to “conduct a thorough analysis to identify any users who accessed the data, what actions they took in the system, and to report on the findings to the Party and any affected campaign.”
The organization will also begin a review process with every Democratic campaign and NGP VAN user, said Miranda, to “ensure they understand and abide by the rules governing the use of the system.”
So... I guess the Clinton campaigned got Watergated™?
But hey... why should Bernie be held to a different standard than hackers, Russian or Chinese intelligence service data miners, international terrorists or anyone else??
Well, because they did not hack anything and they turned themselves in when they realized what was going on. But hey, I only read the article.
A school banning books because of it's mature nature is not the same thing as the Federal government banning books/movies/"whichever media" on a political candidate.
The concept of "mature" very quickly becomes political. Sex education is the obvious example, but there are others.
I disagree. There's a difference in desire to overturn a schoolboard ban over books like Catcher in the Rye, vs a book critical over a current candidate.
What about a book that sponsors a position held by a current candidate? Like Catcher?
I disagree. There's a difference in desire to overturn a schoolboard ban over books like Catcher in the Rye, vs a book critical over a current candidate.
What about a book that sponsors a position held by a current candidate? Like Catcher?
No... banning books that's part of political discourse is a bad idea.
Jihadin wrote: Anyone know if Trump launch Commercial campaign ads yet or is he riding on all the free press coverage.....
He has, but the circulation is limited. They're all on radio, and only in GOP primary states. Not a bad strategy, really, as it is cheap and focuses on his target demographic.
Washington (CNN)Bernie Sanders' campaign on Friday threatened to take the Democratic National Committee to federal court if the party organization doesn't restore access to a crucial voter database.
The internal warfare exploded after the DNC cut off Sanders from the database and said the Vermont senator's presidential campaign exploited a software error to improperly access confidential voter information collected by Hillary Clinton's team.
The revelation poses a setback for Sanders, who is mounting a liberal challenge to the former secretary of state. The DNC database is a goldmine of information about voters and being blocked from it could complicate Sanders' outreach efforts. The timing is also challenging, just weeks before Clinton and Sanders are slated to compete in the Iowa caucuses.
And coming the day before a Democratic debate, the developments fueled a long-held belief in the Sanders camp and among his allies that the DNC has stacked the deck in favor of Clinton.
At a press conference in Washington on Friday, Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver accused the DNC of trying to sabotage the campaign and he vowed to fight the DNC in federal court if the campaign's access to the data is not quickly restored.
'Inappropriate overreaction'
"The DNC, in an inappropriate overreaction, has denied us access to our own data," Weaver said. "In other words, the leadership of the Democratic National Committee is actively trying to undermine our campaign ... If they hold our data hostage, we will be in federal court this afternoon seeking immediate relief."
He added, "The DNC is clearly acting in a heavy-handed way, in an unprecendented way. I would like to see another instance where a presidential campaign had their data -- their own data -- withheld under similar circumstances."
The Sanders campaign is planning to seek an injunction against the DNC Friday afternoon, claiming irreparable harm and seeking immediate access to the voter file system, a campaign aide said, adding there was no expectation the DNC would grant access before the close of business Friday.
The database breach was first reported by The Washington Post. Clinton's campaign issued a statement Friday afternoon calling for the Sanders campaign and the DNC to "work expeditiously to ensure that our data is not in the Sanders campaign's account and that the Sanders campaign only have access to their own data."
Weaver said the problem with the database's security dated back to October.
"We were very concerned that large amounts of our own data was being downloaded and we contacted the DNC to remedy the situation," he said. "We talked to them and we were assured that this was going to be taken care of. But apparently they are not competent in terms of maintaining the security of their data between the campaigns."
The DNC, however, had a very different story.
Shortly after Weaver's press conference, DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said suspending the Sanders' campaign's access was the only way to ensure the voter file was properly safeguarded.
'Protect' voter file
"That is the only way that we can make sure that we can protect our significant asset that is the voter file and its integrity," Wasserman Schultz said on CNN.
She said "multiple staffers" from the Sanders campaign downloaded information that they did not have the right to collect.
"They not only viewed it, but they exported it and they downloaded it," Wasserman Schultz told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "We don't know the depth of what they actually viewed and downloaded. We have to make sure that they did not manipulate the information."
She added, "That is just like if you walked into someone's home when the door was unlocked and took things that don't belong to you in order to use them for your own benefit. That's inappropriate. Unacceptable."
The DNC also sent out a strongly worded message from Wasserman Schultz to its members accusing the Sanders campaign of improper conduct.
"Over the course of approximately 45 minutes, staffers of the Bernie Sanders campaign inappropriately accessed voter targeting data belonging to the Hillary Clinton campaign," Wasserman Schultz said in the message.
"Once the DNC became aware that the Sanders campaign had inappropriately and systematically accessed Clinton campaign data, and in doing so violated the agreement that all the presidential campaigns have signed with the DNC, as the agreement provides, we directed NGP VAN [the vendor that supplies access to the database] to suspend the Sanders campaign's access to the system until the DNC is provided with a full accounting of whether or not this information was used and the way in which it was disposed," she added.
Fired Sanders staffer
Josh Uretsky, Sanders' national data director who was fired Thursday by the campaign for accessing the database, told CNN Friday that he was not trying to look at Clinton's data and denied that voter file information had been downloaded.
"We knew there was a security breach in the data, and we were just trying to understand it and what was happening," Uretsky said.
He said that none of the data the Sanders campaign accessed on Wednesday "left the system that day" and denied that he or his staff "downloaded any individual level voter file data."
Uretsky said he and his team downloaded only phone numbers but did so to alert the DNC and NGP VAN that the Sanders campaign was aware the campaigns' voter info in the DNC database wasn't being properly protected.
"We knew that what we were doing was being recorded," he told CNN. "We didn't try to be sneaky at all. They can argue that we shouldn't have done it but we did not in any way try to deceive them. We created the records of it having been done and we did not make any attempt to use it for strategic purposes."
Ethan Roeder, Barack Obama's data director in 2008 and 2012, said the biggest problem created by being barred from the database is the fact that Sanders' volunteers will not be able to use the voter file to make calls and knock on doors for at least the next few days.
"I think the pain is compounded each additional day that they don't have access to the file," Roeder said. "It definitely has an impact on their operations. Especially as close as we are to caucuses and primaries, it becomes a serious problem."
NGP VAN, the database vendor, issued a statement Friday saying the DNC had instructed the company to remove the Sanders campaign's access to the database.
"We are confident at this point that no campaigns have access to or have retained any voter file data of any other clients; with one possible exception, one of the presidential campaigns," the company said, adding that it was investigating the breach and would report back to the DNC.
Sanders supporters react
Sanders supporters and liberal groups have reacted to the news of Sanders' campaign being punished by questioning the neutrality of the DNC, hinting that the body is in the tank for Clinton.
"The Democratic National Committee's decision to attack the campaign that figured out the problem, rather than go after the vendor that made the mistake, is profoundly damaging to the party's Democratic process," said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America, a liberal group that endorsed Sanders this week.
"DNC leaders should immediately reverse this disturbing decision before the committee does even more to bring its neutrality in the race for President into question," he added.
Weaver, the Sanders campaign manager, said of the DNC, "In this case, it looks like they are trying to help the Clinton campaign."
"We are taking on the establishment and I'm sure there are people within the Democratic establishment who are not happy about the overwhelming success that Bernie Sanders is having all across this country," he added. "But we are determined to win this campaign and we're going to win this campaign by talking about the issues that are important to the American people. To do that we are going to need our data, which has been stolen by the DNC."
They're playing that anti-establishment card pretty hard now... eh?
Looks like it, but not at all surprising really. Its a good card to play these days, and there is a decent degree of legitimacy to that stance beyond mindless hate/fear mongering.
This is the statement from the original article that I find most interesting:
The Sanders campaign also laid the blame at the feet of NGP VAN. “Sadly, the vendor who runs the DNC’s voter file program continues to make serious errors,” Michael Briggs, Sanders’s top communications aide, told BuzzFeed News.
“On more than one occasion, the vendor has dropped the firewall between the data of different Democratic campaigns. Our campaign months ago alerted the DNC to the fact that campaign data was being made available to other campaigns,” said Briggs. “At that time our campaign did not run to the media, relying instead on assurances from the vendor.”
So, they had already identified and reported the problem previously (possibly having their own data accessed from the sound of it), but now it's news? They've already done the right thing in firing the staffer responsible, but I do look forward to seeing the results of any investigation into who accessed what over the time period when these firewall problems were happening. It will be interesting to see the real truth of the matter (if we ever see it, as the DNC does have a vested interest in keeping Hillary's campaign strong).
Has there been an official statement from Bernie himself, yet?
Tannhauser42 wrote: This is the statement from the original article that I find most interesting:
The Sanders campaign also laid the blame at the feet of NGP VAN. “Sadly, the vendor who runs the DNC’s voter file program continues to make serious errors,” Michael Briggs, Sanders’s top communications aide, told BuzzFeed News.
“On more than one occasion, the vendor has dropped the firewall between the data of different Democratic campaigns. Our campaign months ago alerted the DNC to the fact that campaign data was being made available to other campaigns,” said Briggs. “At that time our campaign did not run to the media, relying instead on assurances from the vendor.”
So, they had already identified and reported the problem previously (possibly having their own data accessed from the sound of it), but now it's news? They've already done the right thing in firing the staffer responsible, but I do look forward to seeing the results of any investigation into who accessed what over the time period when these firewall problems were happening. It will be interesting to see the real truth of the matter (if we ever see it, as the DNC does have a vested interest in keeping Hillary's campaign strong).
Has there been an official statement from Bernie himself, yet?
Heh... Someone call Webster for a new entry for "irony".
The Clintons are mad that their data was compromised... but, was A-OK with conducting Dept of States communications on a "homebrewed" server stored in one of HRC's house.
As for Sanders... what did he do wrong? Bernie didn’t steal anything. The concept of property doesn’t exist in his worldview. All things are owned communally by society as a whole and stewardship of all material wealth is exercised by the state on behalf of society. He was just redistributing data which Hillary didn’t actually own. Right?
According to one article I read (may be this one... dunno, haven't read this particular one) the number who'd support bombing Agrabah jumps to 45% when looking at only people who say they'll vote for Trump, or are Trump supporters.
According to one article I read (may be this one... dunno, haven't read this particular one) the number who'd support bombing Agrabah jumps to 45% when looking at only people who say they'll vote for Trump, or are Trump supporters.
As for Sanders... what did he do wrong? Bernie didn’t steal anything. The concept of property doesn’t exist in his worldview. All things are owned communally by society as a whole and stewardship of all material wealth is exercised by the state on behalf of society. He was just redistributing data which Hillary didn’t actually own. Right?
It's funny you say that, when the RNC's response to this was that they already share all the voter data (rather than blocking it off from the candidates), so I guess that makes the RNC more socialist than the DNC?
Trump got my vote already. I like the "smack talk" he's doing. We all know there's no hope in Hell the US is going to turn into the 4th Reich like some people believe. I do believe he's going to press the limits on what he can and cannot get away with. I believe Sanders will do the same. I also think a good majority of the US pop is tired of career politicians and same ole same ole BS Congress is doing. Though I have hope Ryan might make a difference.
Sure, "same old Congress BS" usually includes the typical "politicans (and The Doctor) lies."
But why would anyone, anyone, vote for someone who would talk such complete and utter BS to their own country of the absolute fiction of:
"They have sections in Paris that are radicalised, where the police refuse to go there. They're petrified. The police refuse to go in there.
"We have places in London and other places that are so radicalised that the police are afraid for their own lives."
How could anyone, anyone think that kind of man, the person who could just talk so complete and absolutely total tripe, think they're suitable to run a country.
Hell the MP's rarely go down to the Rakkasans area at Ft Campbell because those guys are F'ing crazy
I know sections in Fayetteville outside Ft Bragg the the LEO will take their time getting to because its a bad area
I know places in Baltimore the LEO will only go in if back up was behind them and in visual range.
DC area's are pretty bad to and IIRC body armor is mandatory to wear if in area.
I know Germany has some real bad areas the Police avoid unless required to go to. Mainly Turks area
There's off limits area in London for US Service members
There's Off Limits areas in Paris for US Service members
There are areas around the world that are like that.
While we were deployed in Vegas there were some places on the strip itself that were banned for service personnel - were these hotbeds of islamic fundamentalism too? Service people are normally banned from places because the base commander can live without the headache of the clean up, not because they fear for their staff's lives.
Trump claimed the whole of Birmingham was a no-go zone. I think I heard that particularly epic lie whilst I was in Selfridges in the Bull Ring.
Oddly, rather than people realising he's making stuff up and that's not a good attribute to have in a leader, instead they think he might be making stuff up, but at least he's talking tough about that stuff he just fabricated.
Unbelievable Geoff!
I mentioned some area in the US that LEO take extra caution going into
I mention some areas in Germany their LEO are leery of going into (Turks because a Turk will freaking cut you if they get pissed)
I am not getting into a debate of who has tougher LEO's because they all go into a bad area if they have to or required to but in some areas its easy time and some areas the Risk Matrix goes red. If you can't track what I am saying then I can't help you
Henry is seems you only deployed to "Vegas" Ever done a PCS tour overseas? I've lived in Germany, UK, South Korea, and numerous bases in the US
I've spent time in Thailand, Poland, Romania, Italy...to many to list. There are areas in all countries that LEO goes in a heighten alert and/or throw on body armor.
Perception I am getting that every area is peace loving and quiet area's that LEO's can stroll through and hand out littering tickets in your respective countries. There is not Risk Assessment involved or a heighten degree of alertness. What a utopia. I be bored out my mind.
As for making stuff up. I guess Trump is the only GUILTY one eh.
He's extremely guilty. As far as I can tell, his strategy is to just say whatever outrageous thing comes into his head to get people riled up, and then bill himself as the candidate who tells it like it is and will be tough on whatever issue you care to name. These are not qualities I'd endorse in the office of the President. I'd give him maybe three meetings with foreign heads of state before he called someone a loser and tried to give them a bill for walling off their embassy.
Except there are no areas in london where radicalised islam in so ingrained that the police are afraid to go there. Which is what Trump claimed.
Are there areas where the police are more cautious? Yes. What kind of areas are those? Ones with high poverty, just like everywhere else in the world, regardless of the religion being practiced by the people in that area. Now, in some instances that poverty may coincide with a high muslim population but that is just a coincidence.
Nobody has turned this into a contest about who has the tougher police. Nobody mentioned that at all, until you did Jihadin.
Trump is complete moron whose every campaign utterance is basically a verbal form of diarrhea with zero basis in this physical universe. If you want somebody to pour diarrhea into your ears then go right ahead, but don't get offended when people call you on it for not being a smart thing to do.
Jihadin, nobody is having a "my cop is tougher than your cop" competition. Countries police based on their specific circumstances.
As to deployments, I've been a lot of places. Vegas two times we're some of the more entertaining/drunken ones. I'm not sure what you read into my comment that made you believe that was the only place I'd ever been detached. I wasn't using it as evidence that things are never bad. I was using it to rebut your argument that places being off limits in London for US service personnel was supportive of Trump's position. It's not, you made a bad argument.
As far as making stuff up goes, most politicians and media actually don't make stuff up. They word things in a very weasely manner that requires you squint your mind to justify what they are saying, but for the most part they try to stay on the correct side of truth.
Trump just makes crap up because he knows his talk tough stance attracts people who are more interested in how he is saying his lies rather than the content.
Seems like this was a pretty interesting deal. Actual dealing and compromising by both parties, neither got everything they wanted, both made concessions, and the parties actually worked together.
Seems like this was a pretty interesting deal. Actual dealing and compromising by both parties, neither got everything they wanted, both made concessions, and the parties actually worked together.
Which is exactly what the GOP base doesn't want them to do right now.
The Democrats were playing a little loose with facts in the most recent debate but there was nothing huge, certainly nothing that would sink a campaign.
If it makes you feel better to look at someone who so frequently and reflexively lies and shrug and say "well, they all do it", then go ahead and do so but that really doesn't line up well with reality. If you can't distinguish between Trump's 60% False/Pants on Fire is in line with Hillary Clinton's 12%, or Barack Obama's 14%, or Marco Rubio's 17%, or Jeb Bush's 9%, or Bernie Sander's 14%, or so on and so forth... I mean, that's more than a little ridiculous. What do you think it says that Trump thinks about you that he can just lie, and you'll eat it up? Do you think he respects your intelligence?
Also, "they did it too" isn't an excuse grown-ups should accept for dishonesty.
Jihadin wrote: I stated way at the beginning of this goat rope of a rodeo I am voting for Trump because he entertains me.
I agree that ordinary people in most countries are sick and tired of career politicians, but I doubt if America wants to be a laughing stock on the world stage - and that's exactly what Trump is doing to your nation.
Jihadin wrote: I stated way at the beginning of this goat rope of a rodeo I am voting for Trump because he entertains me.
I agree that ordinary people in most countries are sick and tired of career politicians, but I doubt if America wants to be a laughing stock on the world stage - and that's exactly what Trump is doing to your nation.
You have more faith in the American electorate than I do.
I think Trump being nominated would be a blessing for whoever the Democratic nominee is, but I can't be fully sure because to be honest I'm shocked at the level of support he gets for his garbage ideas.
Jihadin wrote: I stated way at the beginning of this goat rope of a rodeo I am voting for Trump because he entertains me.
I agree that ordinary people in most countries are sick and tired of career politicians, but I doubt if America wants to be a laughing stock on the world stage - and that's exactly what Trump is doing to your nation.
While I think Trump would be a disaster, as an American, I really don't care about what the rest of the world thinks. Remember, the rest of the world gave Obama a Nobel Peace Prize... Anyways, yeah. I'm not to worried about what Joe Blow from around the world thinks about our leadership.
Jihadin wrote: I stated way at the beginning of this goat rope of a rodeo I am voting for Trump because he entertains me.
I agree that ordinary people in most countries are sick and tired of career politicians, but I doubt if America wants to be a laughing stock on the world stage - and that's exactly what Trump is doing to your nation.
While I think Trump would be a disaster, as an American, I really don't care about what the rest of the world thinks. Remember, the rest of the world gave Obama a Nobel Peace Prize... Anyways, yeah. I'm not to worried about what Joe Blow from around the world thinks about our leadership.
Ah yeah, I forgot they had that worldwide vote on who would be getting that Nobel Peace Prize.
Jihadin wrote: I stated way at the beginning of this goat rope of a rodeo I am voting for Trump because he entertains me.
I agree that ordinary people in most countries are sick and tired of career politicians, but I doubt if America wants to be a laughing stock on the world stage - and that's exactly what Trump is doing to your nation.
While I think Trump would be a disaster, as an American, I really don't care about what the rest of the world thinks. Remember, the rest of the world gave Obama a Nobel Peace Prize... Anyways, yeah. I'm not to worried about what Joe Blow from around the world thinks about our leadership.
Ah yeah, I forgot they had that worldwide vote on who would be getting that Nobel Peace Prize.
Wait a sec.....
I'm not going to speak for djones... but, my sense he meant was that when the rest of the world roundly applauded when Obama was pre-emptively awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
We shouldn't be beholden to what non-Americans want as our President.
Besides me posting the ongoing corruption/malfeasance of Hillary Clinton... here's a couple interesting reads on the GOP candidates: In defence of Donald Trump
The principal news about Donald Trump’s candidacy for the U.S. Republican presidential nomination is not the sometimes controversial things that he says, but the increasingly hysterical responses to him from the traditionally respectable political quarters that he discomforts. In this shrill political atmosphere, he is not the chief offender to civil standards of political discourse. Roger Cohen wrote in The New York Times last week, and he was reprinted in the National Post on Wednesday, that Trump was reminiscent of Hitler, that there were serious comparisons between Weimar Germany (1919-1933) and the contemporary United States, and that American politics is being Europeanized. By this, Cohen meant succumbing to the charms of France’s Front National, fascism, and, quite explicitly, Nazism. Unfortunately, this theme was taken up in a National Post editorial and letters on Thursday, Dec.17. The editorial represented Donald Trump as “manifestly a mean-spirited, egomaniacal buffoon unfit to govern.” In The Globe and Mail the same day, Trump was lampooned by the urbane John Doyle as a practitioner of Dr. Joseph Goebbels’ Big Lie.
I wrote about the Trump candidacy in my column in the National Review Online (New York) last week and it was widely reposted, including by Donald himself. He is not my preferred candidate but I denounced the Cohen piece, as well as the comparison of Trump with Senator Joseph R. McCarthy by Max Boot, a distinguished guerrilla war and Middle East expert. Now that the Cohen comments have migrated to Canada, I say that that column, and reflections like it, including these local echoes, are ignorant, false, and grossly misleading. There is no comparison to be drawn between any of these individuals, except in contrasts, and the outrages committed by this sort of Trump-accuser are far more egregious than even Donald’s clumsiest sallies.
As Donald Trump tweeted when he posted my National Review piece, we are friends, and I know him to be a generous, honourable and decent man, and a loyal friend (he volunteered to testify on my behalf in my trial in Chicago in 2007, when he certainly had other things to do. He distinguished himself in a difficult time for me far beyond many exalted “friends” and worthies in this country.) He is a very successful developer of highest quality buildings and has been a successful television personality. His attraction to voters is not based on appeals to violence, or incitements to racial or sectarian hate and he does not espouse an illiberal society or American aggression in the world, or any undemocratic alterations of the American political system. Cohen imagines that German hyper-inflation came at the end and not the beginning of the Weimar Republic, and equates the negative consequences of the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with the German defeat in the First World War, in which all responsibility for that war was pinned on Germany and it lost a lot of territory, all its overseas empire, and took seven million casualties. “Afghanistan and Iraq have been the graveyards of glory,” and (Hitler) “was an outsider given to theatrics and pageantry. He seduced the nation of Beethoven. He took the world down with him.” (Beethoven was a German and Hitler was an Austrian but this is beside the point.) The attempted comparisons are a travesty and an outrage.
Canadians have a little more excuse for their frenzy and the National Post editorial correctly blamed traditional candidates and media for not focusing seriously on the issues Trump has emphasized rather sensationally. The United States has a much more complicated sociology than Canada, including the legacies of slavery, massive illegal immigration, and the responsibilities and mistakes of a great world power for over a century. Foreigners generally like weak U.S. presidents like Obama, other than when they need strong presidents to defend them, like most of those between Franklin Roosevelt and the senior Bush. And foreigners always overreact to the polemical excesses of U.S. presidential candidates. Much the same as the Trump nonsense was widely spoken of Goldwater and Reagan. Goldwater was innocuous and Reagan is now a candidate for Mount Rushmore. In the circumstances, the comments about Trump of Justin Trudeau, Rona Ambrose, and others, while relatively inoffensive, are not really relevant.
Donald Trump has made the points, albeit in a way that invites misunderstanding, that 11 million illegal entrants from Mexico are not the socioeconomic cream of that nationality and that it is impossible to screen out terrorists among a large intake of immigrants from the Middle East. He has said that while many of the illegal Mexican migrants are doubtless good people, they came illegally and include many who have raised the crime rate and the welfare costs of the United States. He has been accused of calling them all rapists and this is a grotesque misstatement of what he said. He said that no Muslims should be admitted to the United States until they can be screened securely. He should have been more careful how he expressed these views, but to use these statements as the basis for likening him to someone who destroyed German democracy, murdered 12 million unoffending people in death camps (half of them Jews), and unleashed war across Europe, North Africa, and the Atlantic, is a monstrous abuse of the right of fair comment.
As for Max Boot, Senator McCarthy accused Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower and General George C. Marshall, of being Communist dupes, and incited pathological fears that the U.S. government was a vast infestation of Soviet agents and traitors, and that communists arose as if infected by a virus, all over America, and had to be exterminated like termites. Where Max Boot imagines Donald Trump fits into any such nightmare escapes my comprehension. The French National Front is a Poujadist petit bourgeois party that is alarmed about Islamic terror in a country that has suffered a lot of it and where 10 per cent of the population is Muslim. The party leader, Marine Le Pen, expelled her own father from membership because he is a Holocaust minimizer.
What Donald actually advocates is the deportation of 351,000 illegal immigrants convicted of crimes and now imprisoned; the end of illegal immigration by building an Israeli-like wall along the Mexican border; an (as yet unspecified) screening process to justify the deportation of some of the illegals and the normalization of the others; and although he advocates the suspension already mentioned of Muslim immigration (not the Christians who are almost half of the refugees), he at least acknowledges that the United States is partly responsible for the political chaos that generated this humanitarian tragedy in the first place. He wants only a small increase in defence spending, reallocated to more effective anti-terrorism; and universal health care through health savings accounts and by smashing the insurance cartel. He is for the gradual legalization of most drugs; is a militant anti-polluter, but correctly (on present evidence) regards climate change and cap-and-trade as hoaxes. He wants to leave education (and same-sex marriage) to the states and to give them the money now wasted in the federal Department of Education. He would ban only late-term abortions, and not when there were overriding circumstances. He would reform the corrupt shambles of campaign financing by abolishing super-PACs and soft money, and lift limits on individual contributions to political candidates. He is a moderate protectionist opposite cheap labour countries, and advocates marginal income tax reductions and the reconstitution of the bloated national debt as a sinking fund to be gradually reduced by spending restraint, implicitly involving an imprecise level of entitlement-reform.
Trump opposes foreign intervention in areas where the U.S. has no natural interest, including Ukraine and Syria, but wants a redefinition of the national security interest of the country, and wants to protect that interest, unlike Obama, but not over-extend it, unlike George W. Bush. This is not a radical program. He is fed up with those mealy-mouthed politicians and commentators who nibble around issues and show more concern for the sensibilities of Islam than the security of America, and who ignored every major issue that has arisen for decades — abortion, illegal immigration, wealth disparity, the corruption of campaign financing, and he is not wrong.
Donald Trump is paying for his own campaign, is not dependent on special interests or a sleazy, opinionated gaggle of Hollywood fund-raising philistines or a jaded electoral machine. He may not be the answer, but he is not a kook or a menace. Nor is he quite the phenomenon he seems; the United States has often had previously unelected people as presidential candidates, usually famous soldiers such as Washington, Jackson, W.H. Harrisons, Taylor, Grant, and Eisenhower (and unsuccessful nominees Cass, Scott, Fremont, McClellan, Hancock, and some non-military nominees also — Horace Greeley, Alton Parker, Wendell Willkie, and Herbert Hoover). Prominent military officers and other non-politicians ran a total of 30 times in the 43 presidential elections from 1788 to 1956.
The United States has had 20 years of incompetent government from presidents and Congresses of both parties, which are responsible for an immense and easily avoidable world-wide economic crisis, two absurd and tragic wars, the humiliation of the country with mindless interventionism, self-erasing “red lines,” a cave-in to a nuclear Iran, and a doubling of the national debt of 233 years of American history in eight years. It is little wonder that Americans are thinking of someone not complicit in any of this. America’s previous rise from colonial obscurity to world pre-eminence in three life-times (1783-1991) was without the slightest precedent or parallel in the history of the world. The people are right to be mad as hell. Canada has been more sensibly governed than the United States these last 20 years and is more equable.
Las Vegas — Ted Cruz can see himself on a collision course with Marco Rubio, barreling toward a head-to-head battle with his fellow senator for the Republican nomination — that is, if Rubio can deliver on his end of the deal. In a wide-ranging interview here Thursday, Cruz predicted that the GOP race will boil down to the familiar dynamic of an establishment favorite squaring off against a conservative challenger after they claim victories in New Hampshire and Iowa, respectively. “I believe I will be that conservative candidate,” Cruz says. “I don’t know who the moderate candidate will be.” The Texas senator says he has consolidated the conservative “lane” of the race — thanks to the exits of Scott Walker, Rick Perry, and Bobby Jindal as well as to the fade of Ben Carson — and is confident he will win Iowa and become one of the two finalists. “I don’t believe we have peaked,” he says when asked about surging to the top of several Iowa polls this week, and about the potential danger in taking the lead there seven weeks from the caucuses.
Cruz’s confidence owes to his campaign, an Obama-style grassroots-heavy operation that prioritizes direct voter contact and ground organization. So certain of his operational superiority has the senator become that he dons his strategist cap gleefully and discusses the most granular details of his polling enterprise and outreach program. Moreover, he mocks the approach taken by Rubio’s campaign, which is famously allergic to process stories and defiantly dependent on media buys. At one point Cruz suggests that his rival is “hiding from the grassroots” and running for president “from a TV studio.” And yet Cruz clearly believes Rubio is best positioned to consolidate the other lane of the race. Wearing a mustard-colored flannel shirt and sipping from a paper cup of coffee, Cruz, riding in the middle row of a rented Ford Expedition, repeatedly notes the party leadership’s affection for his colleague from Florida. “The establishment is enthusiastically unifying behind Marco Rubio,” he says. The only thing standing in the way of their matchup, Cruz adds, is Rubio’s performance in New Hampshire. “Marco is perceived by many to be the most formidable candidate in the moderate lane. But he has serious competition in the moderate lane,” Cruz says. “Look, the winner of the moderate lane has to win New Hampshire. And right now there are a number of moderates who are competing vigorously for New Hampshire, and at this point it is not clear to me who will win.”
The truth is, Cruz’s team has come to view several of the so-called moderates whose campaigns depend on New Hampshire — Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich — as critical allies in the fight against Rubio. Cruz is desperate for one of them, or some combination of them, to prevent Rubio from winning the establishment-friendly state and solidifying his status as the center-right favorite early in the primary season. Without a win in New Hampshire, Cruz and his team say, it’s impossible to see Rubio clearing the moderate lane of his rivals as the race moves to South Carolina, Nevada, and the Super Tuesday states. A fragmented center-right vote helps Cruz not only by lowering his vote share necessary to win, they argue, but also by delaying the emergence of an establishment favorite around whom the GOP’s power brokers can rally. But Cruz says he doesn’t fear a binary battle against Rubio or anyone else; to the contrary, the Texas senator says his party’s rightward shift in recent years gives him a built-in advantage against any opponents who align themselves with the establishment.
“Historically, conservatives have outnumbered moderates in the Republican party two to one. That has changed. Barack Obama has radicalized the American people. Today in the Republican party conservatives outnumber moderates three to one,” Cruz says. He continues: “Seventy-seven percent of Republican primary voters identify as conservative, 52 percent as very conservative. If we go head to head, one strong conservative versus one strong moderate, it’s game over, especially given that in past elections the moderate has always had all the money and the conservative has been broke. In this situation, the fact that has the Washington establishment perhaps most terrified is this: Of the 17 Republican candidates who started, the campaign with the most money in the bank is our campaign.”
Cruz scoffs at the suggestion that a one-on-one duel with Rubio would, thanks to their shared roots in the tea-party movement, rob him of the “bold colors” contrast he seeks. With Rubio in recent months ramping up his outreach to the Right, a number of prominent conservatives have said a Cruz–Rubio battle would represent a “win-win” for their movement — a sentiment that poses a grave threat to Cruz’s operational theory and one that he aggressively rejects.
Asked whether he worries that Rubio could steal conservative votes from him, Cruz quickly replies, “Not remotely.” The reason? “Marco and I have made markedly different decisions” since arriving in Washington, Cruz says. “Whether it’s amnesty, which is the clearest distinction, or whether it is defending marriage, or whether it is defending religious liberty, or whether it is standing up to cronyism and corporate welfare, or whether it is supporting American workers against President Obama’s TPP, Marco and I have made very different decisions. In every instance he has made the decision to go with Wall Street and K Street. And in every instance I have made the decision to go with the working men and women of this country.” In reality, however, Cruz and Rubio are nearly indistinguishable on most of these matters. (Both were early supporters of giving the president Trade Promotion Authority; Rubio voted for it, whereas Cruz did an about-face and voted no.) It’s immigration that, as Cruz says, offers “the clearest distinction” — one that was on display at Tuesday night’s debate, with Rubio acknowledging his continued support for an eventual path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and Cruz, in his starkest language to date, saying, “I have never supported legalization, and I do not intend to support legalization.”
The hedging in his phraseology offered an opening to Cruz’s critics — it was Washington speak, they said, coming from someone who rails against it — and his statement of blanket opposition runs counter to statements he made in 2013 supporting a path to legal status. “He clearly left the door open to returning to his previous position, which was to give legal status to illegals that are here,” Rubio spokesman Alex Conant said of Cruz after Tuesday’s debate. Cruz reiterated to reporters Thursday morning, prior to a rally here, that his amendment and statements pushing legalization in 2013 were cloak-and-dagger politics meant to derail Rubio’s bill. Later, in the car, he emphasizes that his use of “intend” should not be misunderstood. “I said, ‘I’ve never supported legalization and I don’t intend to support legalization,’” Cruz says. He pauses, and shakes his head. “I don’t support it now. I will not support it in the future. I’m happy to say it any way people like; the answer is no.”
He seems to appreciate the risk of Rubio’s “muddying the waters” to minimize the differences in their records. Cruz used noticeably strong language when addressing the issue Thursday morning. He told reporters that Obama and his congressional allies wanted to turn “illegal aliens” into “undocumented Democrats” with the 2013 immigration bill Rubio championed — two phrases that many Republicans fear could be radioactive to Hispanic voters. Cruz’s national spokesman, Rick Tyler, said later he’d never heard the candidate say “undocumented Democrats” before. Cruz, insisting that he had used it often, argued that, rather than repel Hispanics with such talk, he would be the party’s strongest candidate in terms of winning back a demographic that has abandoned the Republican party in the last two national elections.
“In 2012, I was very proud to receive the support of 40 percent of the Hispanic voters in Texas at the same time Mitt Romney was getting clobbered nationally with Hispanic voters, at 27 percent,” Cruz says. “Hispanic voters in America don’t support illegal immigration, despite what many in the media say. It is many Hispanic voters in America who are losing their jobs, who are seeing their wages driven down. . . . And to be clear, when I ran for Senate in Texas, I was unequivocally opposed to amnesty then, and I’m unequivocally opposed to amnesty now.” Cruz promises that if nominated he will win “markedly more of the Hispanic vote in 2016” than Romney did in 2012. He refuses to offer a percentage but acknowledges what many Washington Republicans believe — that 40 percent is the baseline for them to stand a chance in the general election — is accurate. Not surprisingly, however, he disagrees with them on how to get there. “I think the establishment Republicans who are pitching the theory that Republicans must embrace amnesty in order to win Hispanic votes — and in order to have a chance at winning the election — are engaged in fiction writing and fraud on a massive level,” Cruz says. “The data do not support that preposterous theory.”
The conventional wisdom in Republican circles, of course, is that Rubio would be the party’s most electable candidate next November, owing in no small part to his moderate stance and tone on immigration. But Cruz says that nominating Rubio to run against Hillary Clinton in 2016 would ensure a repeat of Romney’s defeat in 2012, when the record of the former Massachusetts governor on health care rendered him unable to draw contrasts with Obama on an issue of visceral importance to the base. “That same Republican-party establishment who thought it was a great idea to nominate a candidate who had designed and implemented a program just like Obamacare now thinks it’s a terrific idea to nominate a candidate who agrees with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on amnesty,” Cruz says. “If we do that — if the Republican nominee shares the very same views on amnesty for 12 million people that Hillary Clinton does — millions of working men and women will stay home, we will lose, and Hillary Clinton becomes the next president.”
. They seem to be united for him at the moment
and neither of them work in the healthcare industry 
