FYI: unless you guys lives in Germany for 8 years years your daughter does not have German citizenship AFAIK. Citizenship laws were updated in 200(?)
She was born in 2009... at least then, at the office where we got her birth certificate, they told us that that was all she needed to claim citizenship. That said, it could very well have changed at some point after she was born.
Yeah, unless there is something specific in the force agreement between the US and Germany she only has German citizenship is either one of you lived lawfully in Germany for at least 8 years unless one of you had dual citizenship. There may be something in the agreement, but I would be honesty surprised if the agreement made it easier for another nations military to have German children.
Heck, I have German citizenship and even for me it's a pain in the rear to get a German passport for my daughter
FYI: unless you guys lives in Germany for 8 years years your daughter does not have German citizenship AFAIK. Citizenship laws were updated in 200(?)
She was born in 2009... at least then, at the office where we got her birth certificate, they told us that that was all she needed to claim citizenship. That said, it could very well have changed at some point after she was born.
Yeah, unless there is something specific in the force agreement between the US and Germany she only has German citizenship is either one of you lived lawfully in Germany for at least 8 years unless one of you had dual citizenship. There may be something in the agreement, but I would be honesty surprised if the agreement made it easier for another nations military to have German children.
Heck, I have German citizenship and even for me it's a pain in the rear to get a German passport for my daughter
Lol, that I don't doubt, but what I'm saying is that the birth certificate office I was referring to, was the German one in downtown Wiesbaden. Though I would imagine that getting into university or claiming any kind of benefits of being German would be a royal pain for her, unless she did decide to stay there forever.
Separate political rights for some citizens doesn't strike me as a good idea. If someone's popular enough to get enough votes to be elected president, why should that person not be allowed to be president?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Separate political rights for some citizens doesn't strike me as a good idea. If someone's popular enough to get enough votes to be elected president, why should that person not be allowed to be president?
And we'd finally have President Schwarzenegger in the world, brining about the prophecy of Demolition Man!
Seaward wrote: The thing is, Bernie really needed a convincing win in Iowa to have any chance, because momentum is the only thing that could possibly get him the nom. It's his third best state demographically speaking - the other two being New Hampshire and obviously Vermont. He's polling well behind Hillary in any state where the Democratic primary isn't decided exclusively by well-off white far left liberals.
He's going to lose Iowa, easily win New Hampshire, and then absolutely crater.
No disagreement there. My point was that Clinton didn’t manage a solid win, as a strong performing candidate should be expected to. Really any strong performing candidate should be expected to deliver a strong win over a guy who’s only really known because he’s politics are a long way from the political centre.
Can anyone imagine Obama struggling over the line against Sanders?
She’ll win the nomination, and probably go on to win to general, because holy crap look at what’s out there. But if Obama was running against Sanders and then Trump/Cruz/Rubio/Whoever, we’d already be talking about 2020.
Dreadwinter wrote: I disagree. This is huge for Bernie, win or lose. Right now everybody who has been saying "He has no chance" for months, are being proven wrong. All of the pessimistic people who said they were not going to vote because he has no chance, are being shown there is a chance.
Wha? He scored a narrow loss, effectively a tie, in one of the states most favourable states for him relative to Clinton. That’s quite an achievement for a left wing candidate going up against a powerful establishment figure, and it shows there is still a place for genuinely left wing policy in US political discourse, but to try and turn that in to a narrative about going on to win? That’s make no sense.
“Look, we only just lost in one of the state’s best suited to us! Let’s take that all the way to Washington!”
whembly wrote: I don't think you realized that an "out and out" socialist tied 'Da Queen. That's the real story...
Not when you actually know what a democratic socialist is.
A) "socialism" still has that "evil" connotation here in the US... ignore that at your peril.
B) this is the guy who decried about the number of deodorants one could buy...
And, if you actually read the entire argument, it's a valid point. We have 9999999999999 different brands of something where there's little functional difference and tons of money spent on marketing to try to beat the competition for the same fixed number of customers. If you slash the number of brands and eliminate the need to spend tons of money on advertising why one virtually-identical product is better than the other those companies could easily dump their marketing budget into charity donations without losing any profit.
And, if you actually read the entire argument, it's a valid point. We have 9999999999999 different brands of something where there's little functional difference and tons of money spent on marketing to try to beat the competition for the same fixed number of customers. If you slash the number of brands and eliminate the need to spend tons of money on advertising why one virtually-identical product is better than the other those companies could easily dump their marketing budget into charity donations without losing any profit.
It's a false premise as you're ignoring the amount of jobs across multi-dicipline that provides those "9999999999999 different brands".
No force on earth comes close to driving down poverty than free markets and capitalism.
And, if you actually read the entire argument, it's a valid point. We have 9999999999999 different brands of something where there's little functional difference and tons of money spent on marketing to try to beat the competition for the same fixed number of customers. If you slash the number of brands and eliminate the need to spend tons of money on advertising why one virtually-identical product is better than the other those companies could easily dump their marketing budget into charity donations without losing any profit.
Errm, not really.
If that happened you'd just see all but one of the deodorant companies stop selling deodorant, or you'd have a different company selling each type.
Seaward wrote: The thing is, Bernie really needed a convincing win in Iowa to have any chance, because momentum is the only thing that could possibly get him the nom. It's his third best state demographically speaking - the other two being New Hampshire and obviously Vermont. He's polling well behind Hillary in any state where the Democratic primary isn't decided exclusively by well-off white far left liberals.
He's going to lose Iowa, easily win New Hampshire, and then absolutely crater.
No disagreement there. My point was that Clinton didn’t manage a solid win, as a strong performing candidate should be expected to. Really any strong performing candidate should be expected to deliver a strong win over a guy who’s only really known because he’s politics are a long way from the political centre.
Can anyone imagine Obama struggling over the line against Sanders?
She’ll win the nomination, and probably go on to win to general, because holy crap look at what’s out there. But if Obama was running against Sanders and then Trump/Cruz/Rubio/Whoever, we’d already be talking about 2020.
Dreadwinter wrote: I disagree. This is huge for Bernie, win or lose. Right now everybody who has been saying "He has no chance" for months, are being proven wrong. All of the pessimistic people who said they were not going to vote because he has no chance, are being shown there is a chance.
Wha? He scored a narrow loss, effectively a tie, in one of the states most favourable states for him relative to Clinton. That’s quite an achievement for a left wing candidate going up against a powerful establishment figure, and it shows there is still a place for genuinely left wing policy in US political discourse, but to try and turn that in to a narrative about going on to win? That’s make no sense.
“Look, we only just lost in one of the state’s best suited to us! Let’s take that all the way to Washington!”
Agreed, Clinton didn't secure a solid enough lead to make it a win worth noting about.
Sanders on the other hand did exceed expectations by coming in a hair-splitting second.
Between the two, Sanders came out of this better than Clinton. He showed that there is a place for him and people who want what he sells.
whembly wrote: I don't think you realized that an "out and out" socialist tied 'Da Queen. That's the real story...
You talking to me? My point was that Clinton had failed to come out clearly ahead of a socialist. Which probably says something about how little scare factor actual socialist politics has on the left*, but the bigger point is how meh Clinton continues to be.
That's maybe a product of having what is basically a fundamentally honest, and therefore very boring set of campaign promises. 'The reforms began during the Obama administration are good, progressive reforms and I'm looking to build on that with a range of new, practical goals' isn't quite the same attention grabber as Sanders' 'I want single payer and we'll have if you all just agree with me to ignore how politically and financially unachievable that is'.
*Which is interesting, considering how often it is used a scary word by the right, and how often mainstream leftwingers run away from things that might be called socialism.
Dreadwinter wrote: Sure Sebs, sure. Not once has a person involved in the presidential race used early momentum to push them to victory.
You're not understanding. Momentum is hugely important. Had Sanders won by 0.2% instead of lost by that margin, then he could have claimed an underdog win and maybe built some momentum that might have meant something. Instead he lost by that margin. While a margin that fine doesn't affect delegates, it does affect the narrative. Instead of 'Sanders wins in upset' we get 'Sanders does surprisingly well but still loses in one of the states that suits him best'.
Trying to claim that second story as the kind of momentum that'll help build overcome the issues he has in most states past New Hampshire is very fanciful.
The tie that had caused Hilary to be given the Iowa Caucus by .2% margin (such a close race there, but more to come). Shows folks are not so afraid of some things anymore.
Heck, the US has used for years a mix of Capitalism and Socialism, and we still pretty much use a bunch of things since our tax dollars are used for the following 75 things you hardly think of, and many like using a bunch of "socialistic" things.
whembly wrote: I don't think you realized that an "out and out" socialist tied 'Da Queen. That's the real story...
You talking to me? My point was that Clinton had failed to come out clearly ahead of a socialist. Which probably says something about how little scare factor actual socialist politics has on the left*, but the bigger point is how meh Clinton continues to be.
That's maybe a product of having what is basically a fundamentally honest, and therefore very boring set of campaign promises. 'The reforms began during the Obama administration are good, progressive reforms and I'm looking to build on that with a range of new, practical goals' isn't quite the same attention grabber as Sanders' 'I want single payer and we'll have if you all just agree with me to ignore how politically and financially unachievable that is'.
*Which is interesting, considering how often it is used a scary word by the right, and how often mainstream leftwingers run away from things that might be called socialism.
Dreadwinter wrote: Sure Sebs, sure. Not once has a person involved in the presidential race used early momentum to push them to victory.
You're not understanding. Momentum is hugely important. Had Sanders won by 0.2% instead of lost by that margin, then he could have claimed an underdog win and maybe built some momentum that might have meant something. Instead he lost by that margin. While a margin that fine doesn't affect delegates, it does affect the narrative. Instead of 'Sanders wins in upset' we get 'Sanders does surprisingly well but still loses in one of the states that suits him best'.
Trying to claim that second story as the kind of momentum that'll help build overcome the issues he has in most states past New Hampshire is very fanciful.
You're not understanding. The whole Sander's movement has been downplayed since the beginning by virtually everybody. Nobody thought he would ever do this well. Many people have been saying that he stands absolutely no chance and he will be destroyed.
He has just proven them very wrong. Saying "He may have barely lost, but he still lost" is not really an argument when the narrative that has been displayed by most of the media has been "he doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell".
And let's not forget that with proportional delegates Hillary's "win" is really just a tie. They both got essentially the same number of votes for the nomination, and the difference is entirely a handful of (literal) coin flips which could have gone either way.
Peregrine wrote: And let's not forget that with proportional delegates Hillary's "win" is really just a tie. They both got essentially the same number of votes for the nomination, and the difference is entirely a handful of (literal) coin flips which could have gone either way.
If you have a situation where there are that many coin flips, would it not make sense to just split them down the middle and decide the remainder with a coin flip, rather than leaving 6 different delegates up to chance?
CptJake wrote: Looks like Rand Paul is out of the race. I suspect Cruz will pick up his 7 followers.
I thought libertarians didn't like evangelicals.
Cruz is running on being the Constitutional Guy though, that was a big part of Rand's message. He backed off the Libertarian stuff a bit, especially compared to his daddy.
Except Cruz is only a "Constitutional Guy" when it comes to the parts he likes. I'm still not sure he is even aware of the existence of the first amendment.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Except Cruz is only a "Constitutional Guy" when it comes to the parts he likes. I'm still not sure he is even aware of the existence of the first amendment.
It's fairly standard evangelical behavior really.... He ignores the parts of the constitution he doesn't like just as well as the parts of the bible he doesnt like.
And really, I'm just pointing out that a number of "Christians" ignore many parts of the bible here. I'm not really saying he's ignoring many of those same sections. AFAIK, he's only been married once
Tannhauser42 wrote: Except Cruz is only a "Constitutional Guy" when it comes to the parts he likes. I'm still not sure he is even aware of the existence of the first amendment.
What's your evidence that he's ignoring it for things he doesn't like?
Tannhauser42 wrote: Except Cruz is only a "Constitutional Guy" when it comes to the parts he likes. I'm still not sure he is even aware of the existence of the first amendment.
What's your evidence that he's ignoring it for things he doesn't like?
Tannhauser42 wrote: Except Cruz is only a "Constitutional Guy" when it comes to the parts he likes. I'm still not sure he is even aware of the existence of the first amendment.
What's your evidence that he's ignoring it for things he doesn't like?
Sat what you like about the Bush family --- and I think most people have the years so let's not get too bogged down here with the "greatest hits" or whatever -- but they've normally been effective campaigners one way or another when they've ran. Bush Sr. 2nd term aside perhaps.
I think most people thought he'd do better than he has been doing.
Yeah, the Jeb Bush campaign has been pretty dismal, but personally I am taking tons of joy in Martin O'Malley's crash and burn.
He was the big fish in a small pond when he was the Democratic mayor of a heavily Democratic city, then the governor of a mostly(at the time) Democratic state. Now that he's out amongst the other big fish where elections are fierce competitions and not coronation parties, he's floundering and its awesome to watch. I loved Larry Hogan destroying O'Malleys chosen successor in the Maryland Governor's elections. The Democrats took an ass whooping nationwide, but losing Maryland to a Republican governor by such a large margin was quite a shock.
He'll probably be end up being Hillary's Vice President though.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Except Cruz is only a "Constitutional Guy" when it comes to the parts he likes. I'm still not sure he is even aware of the existence of the first amendment.
What's your evidence that he's ignoring it for things he doesn't like?
My second sentence answers your question.
Just remember that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Except Cruz is only a "Constitutional Guy" when it comes to the parts he likes. I'm still not sure he is even aware of the existence of the first amendment.
What's your evidence that he's ignoring it for things he doesn't like?
My second sentence answers your question.
Just remember that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
So neither of you can elaborate on the idea that Cruz may not be aware of the first amendment? Cool.
Wouldn't be easier to simply say, "Cruz suck", instead of making something up?
whembly wrote: So neither of you can elaborate on the idea that Cruz may not be aware of the first amendment? Cool.
Sure, Whembly, whatever you want to believe. I'm simply telling Tann that absolutely nothing he would put forward as evidence against Cruz would change your mind, because I'm well aware of your complicated history with facts.
Wouldn't be easier to simply say, "Cruz suck", instead of making something up?
whembly wrote: So neither of you can elaborate on the idea that Cruz may not be aware of the first amendment? Cool.
Sure, Whembly, whatever you want to believe. I'm simply telling Tann that absolutely nothing he would put forward as evidence against Cruz would change your mind, because I'm well aware of your complicated history with facts.
Wouldn't be easier to simply say, "Cruz suck", instead of making something up?
whembly wrote: So neither of you can elaborate on the idea that Cruz may not be aware of the first amendment? Cool.
Sure, Whembly, whatever you want to believe. I'm simply telling Tann that absolutely nothing he would put forward as evidence against Cruz would change your mind, because I'm well aware of your complicated history with facts.
Wouldn't be easier to simply say, "Cruz suck", instead of making something up?
whembly wrote: So ignoring my question and accuse me of stuff.
If the shoe fits...
This is called "deflection".
Deflecting what, exactly? I made no claim about whether or not Cruz is as constitutional as he says he is. I know I've said this to you many, many times before: stop making up arguments.
whembly wrote: So ignoring my question and accuse me of stuff.
If the shoe fits...
This is called "deflection".
Deflecting what, exactly? I made no claim about whether or not Cruz is as constitutional as he says he is. I know I've said this to you many, many times before: stop making up arguments.
How 'bout this... let Tannhauser42 speak for himself.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Except Cruz is only a "Constitutional Guy" when it comes to the parts he likes. I'm still not sure he is even aware of the existence of the first amendment.
What's your evidence that he's ignoring it for things he doesn't like?
My second sentence answers your question.
Just remember that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
So neither of you can elaborate on the idea that Cruz may not be aware of the first amendment? Cool.
Gee, I'm so sorry I could not immediately respond to your query. I work during the day, and can only view and post from my phone during breaks. Anyway, that "Christian first" picture pretty much sums it up. The separation of church and state is simply an inconvenience for Cruz. Maybe you would enjoy living in the totalitarian theocracy that is Cruz's wet dream, but I wouldn't.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Except Cruz is only a "Constitutional Guy" when it comes to the parts he likes. I'm still not sure he is even aware of the existence of the first amendment.
What's your evidence that he's ignoring it for things he doesn't like?
My second sentence answers your question.
Just remember that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
So neither of you can elaborate on the idea that Cruz may not be aware of the first amendment? Cool.
Gee, I'm so sorry I could not immediately respond to your query. I work during the day, and can only view and post from my phone during breaks.
Sorry... blame scooty.
Anyway, that "Christian first" picture pretty much sums it up. The separation of church and state is simply an inconvenience for Cruz. Maybe you would enjoy living in the totalitarian theocracy that is Cruz's wet dream, but I wouldn't.
meh... I feel like most politician does this. Is there something specific in his prior actions that supports that?
Wasn't this one of those "issues" JFK had being a catholic?
Gee, I'm so sorry I could not immediately respond to your query. I work during the day, and can only view and post from my phone during breaks. Anyway, that "Christian first" picture pretty much sums it up. The separation of church and state is simply an inconvenience for Cruz. Maybe you would enjoy living in the totalitarian theocracy that is Cruz's wet dream, but I wouldn't.
To be fair I don't think most Republicans want it either. Problem with politics, especially popular politics, is that they often hinge on no one thinking anything through and just saying whatever will get votes and then everyone listening saying they agree while also not thinking anything through. Saying "we are a Christian nation and our laws should be Christian laws" sounds really nice on the face of it to a typical Christian. But then I just pull up these here wikilinkythings and maybe someone might get the idea that having enshrined religion as law and/or deeply regulated by the government is a really stupid idea that historically has a pretty high disaster rate.
Of course the immediate response to all that it "Catholics aren't real Christians and feth the Arabs and the Chinese!" (no seriously that is the response I've gotten when trying to explain this to people I know).
Was listening to NPR yesterday and during the time I was in the car, they kept talking about Clinton and Iowa.
They just couldn't get over the fact that more people, especially women, were not siding with Hillary during the caucuses so they could be a part of this historical occasion.
Never mind if a woman disagrees with her or don't approve of her, they should just jump on the band wagon, because history.
whembly wrote: So neither of you can elaborate on the idea that Cruz may not be aware of the first amendment? Cool.
Sure, Whembly, whatever you want to believe. I'm simply telling Tann that absolutely nothing he would put forward as evidence against Cruz would change your mind, because I'm well aware of your complicated history with facts.
Wouldn't be easier to simply say, "Cruz suck", instead of making something up?
Anyway, that "Christian first" picture pretty much sums it up. The separation of church and state is simply an inconvenience for Cruz. Maybe you would enjoy living in the totalitarian theocracy that is Cruz's wet dream, but I wouldn't.
meh... I feel like most politician does this. Is there something specific in his prior actions that supports that?
Wasn't this one of those "issues" JFK had being a catholic?
Ted Cruz Is A 'Natural Born Citizen,' Board Of Election Finds
"Further discussion on this issue is unnecessary."
On the same day he won the Republican Iowa caucus, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas got a favorable decision from the Illinois Board of Elections, which ruled that he met the citizenship criteria to appear on the state's primary ballot.
Two objectors, Lawrence Joyce and William Graham, had challenged Cruz's presidential bid with the board, contending that his name should not appear on the March 15 ballot because his candidacy did not comply with Article II of the Constitution.
Adopting the recommendations of a hearing officer who considered the matter last week, the board of elections on Monday rejected both objections, ruled Cruz eligible and ordered that his name be certified for the election.
"The Candidate is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth," the board said, reasoning that Cruz met the criteria because he "did not have to take any steps or go through a naturalization process at some point after birth."
Both objections, which on their face seemed to carry little weight, had forced lawyers for Cruz to formally respond and offer appropriate counterarguments.
In response to the filings, Cruz's lawyers relied on Supreme Court precedent, legal history and articles from noted constitutional scholars to defend the view that he is in fact "natural born" within the meaning of the Constitution.
The lawyers also pointed to the valid candidacies of two former Republican hopefuls, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former Michigan Gov. George Romney, as examples of presidential runs that received the blessing of Congress, courts and other means to proceed, despite the fact that both men were born abroad and raised eligibility questions.
These and other sources of authority, the lawyers said, "all command the same conclusion" that Cruz complies with the "natural born" requirement.
Agenda minutes for the Illinois Board of Elections -- which include its determinations in the two challenges to Cruz's eligibility plus a separate one Graham filed against Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) -- can be found here.
Reached by phone on Tuesday, Joyce -- who is listed as an attorney in Illinois but doesn't actively practice law -- told The Huffington Post he's not planning an appeal of the board's determination due to lack of resources. He said, however, that he hopes "somebody else takes up the cause" against Cruz.
A deafening birther debate over whether Cruz satisfied the constitutional standard for the presidency emerged in the months leading up to Monday's Iowa caucus -- fueled in large part by attacks from fellow Republican candidate Donald Trump, who wouldn't let up mere days before voting began.
As if addressing the magnate directly, the Illinois Board of Elections was conclusive in its findings: "Further discussion on this issue is unnecessary."
But a New Hampshire ballot commission in January was a little more tentative.
In rejecting a similar challenge to Cruz's eligibility to appear on the ballot for the state primary, which is scheduled for next week, the commission recognized that a suitable court should settle the matter -- "so that all election officials and the American people know once and for all the definition of 'natural born citizen.'"
That, the commission said, "would be helpful in avoiding uncertainty."
whembly wrote: So neither of you can elaborate on the idea that Cruz may not be aware of the first amendment? Cool.
Sure, Whembly, whatever you want to believe. I'm simply telling Tann that absolutely nothing he would put forward as evidence against Cruz would change your mind, because I'm well aware of your complicated history with facts.
Wouldn't be easier to simply say, "Cruz suck", instead of making something up?
Anyway, that "Christian first" picture pretty much sums it up. The separation of church and state is simply an inconvenience for Cruz. Maybe you would enjoy living in the totalitarian theocracy that is Cruz's wet dream, but I wouldn't.
meh... I feel like most politician does this. Is there something specific in his prior actions that supports that?
Wasn't this one of those "issues" JFK had being a catholic?
Thank you for proving my original point. Also, would you be comfortable with Keith Ellison or André Carson saying they're "Muslim first, American second..." or Dianne Feinstein or Barbra Boxer saying they're "Jewish first, American second...?"
meh... I feel like most politician does this. Is there something specific in his prior actions that supports that?
His obsession with "religious liberty."
Wasn't this one of those "issues" JFK had being a catholic?
It's something he was accused of by his opponents, primarily evangelicals like Ted Cruz. Of course, you seem to be forgetting that Kennedy, in one of his most famous speeches, had this to say on the matter:
John F. Kennedy wrote:I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
[...]
For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President.
I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic.
I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views -- in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
Also, would you be comfortable with Keith Ellison or André Carson saying they're "Muslim first, American second..." or Dianne Feinstein or Barbra Boxer saying they're "Jewish first, American second...?"
I said ambivalent... in those cases, that would be the same. I wished we would say "American" first, rather than Religion or race first.
meh... I feel like most politician does this. Is there something specific in his prior actions that supports that?
His obsession with "religious liberty."
K... that's fair enough. I'll welcome such debate.
Wasn't this one of those "issues" JFK had being a catholic?
It's something he was accused of by his opponents, primarily evangelicals like Ted Cruz. Of course, you seem to be forgetting that Kennedy, in one of his most famous speeches, had this to say on the matter:
John F. Kennedy wrote:I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
[...]
For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President.
I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic.
I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views -- in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
I'm not forgetting anything... and yet, you seem to believe that Cruz would be incapable of doing what JFK did.
Man, that Kennedy speech almost sounds like he accusing Ted Cruz of something from beyond the grave as opposed to defending himself. @Whembly, watch the Cruz Iowa victory speech after that Kennedy speech to see where people are coming from here.
Ok problem 1 right out the gate. Rubio equates atheism and non-theism with "believing in nothing.". Wrong. He later says we are a tiny minority. Wrong again.
As for his discussion of his faith.."If there is no creator, where did our rights come from?"
A: Human beings, dummy.
Everything else sounded like typical vampiric wislisting. "I want to live forever". "I want to meet my creator."
Probably a bit better than what I'd expect as an answer from a Republiclan politician.
JFK's speech really did feel good and I did really feel like, "yes, an American President should believe that."
On the other hand, Rubio's speech there... Like I said, I don't know. I certainly can't exactly disagree with anything he said there (how many would?). And if you're going to have the leader of the USA be very motivated by religious founded beliefs, then the beliefs stated there are not exactly a bad set of beliefs to adhere to.
On the other hand, that "Pastor-In-Chief" comment does seem to be a bit on the nose.
As for me? To give a bit of context on my own beliefs with Religion.
I said ambivalent... in those cases, that would be the same. I wished we would say "American" first, rather than Religion or race first.
You say that now and there is no way that it's the truth, especially if a Democrat said it. Furthermore, your attempt to bring up something some Marines say as if that equivalent proves you either agree with Cruz or you don't understand why what he said is wrong.
K... that's fair enough. I'll welcome such debate.
There's nothing to debate and frankly, debating with you is rather pointless as we can clearly see.
I'm not forgetting anything... and yet, you seem to believe that Cruz would be incapable of doing what JFK did.
You are forgetting because you brought up JFK as if he made a claim like Cruz did, which he never did. And no, Cruz would never say that because he's already said the exact opposite and always has; he wants a theocracy based on his version of Christianity.
Listen to him talk or you know, look at the picture with the quote I provided earlier. If you want to play dumb, go ahead. I'm not playing that game with you.
whembly wrote: How do ya'll fee about Rubio's response to an atheist question?
Insulting and moronic and everything wrong with the Republican Party.
whembly wrote: How do ya'll fee about Rubio's response to an atheist question?
Not gonna watch it, but I can tell you that I don't care.
I'm an atheist. I'd prefer that the president not be a staunch theocrat, but honestly, it's really, really low on my list. Separation of church and state is one of the more established principles of the Constitution, and the court's done a decent job of policing it. Even when it's fethed up, who cares if a reference to God winds up on the currency or in the pledge? I'm in business development, I say gak I don't personally believe all the time.
whembly wrote: How do ya'll fee about Rubio's response to an atheist question?
Not gonna watch it, but I can tell you that I don't care.
I'm an atheist. I'd prefer that the president not be a staunch theocrat, but honestly, it's really, really low on my list. Separation of church and state is one of the more established principles of the Constitution, and the court's done a decent job of policing it. Even when it's fethed up, who cares if a reference to God winds up on the currency or in the pledge? I'm in business development, I say gak I don't personally believe all the time.
You should watch it, you are throwing your vote at him. I find it alarming that you do not think we should hold our President to a higher standard. If he doesn't understand the constitution and how how the separation of church and state works, he is not qualified.
Listen to him talk or you know, look at the picture with the quote I provided earlier. If you want to play dumb, go ahead. I'm not playing that game with you.
So it's just your opinion... nothing fact based?
Got it.
whembly wrote: How do ya'll fee about Rubio's response to an atheist question?
Insulting and moronic and everything wrong with the Republican Party.
Listen to him talk or you know, look at the picture with the quote I provided earlier. If you want to play dumb, go ahead. I'm not playing that game with you.
So it's just your opinion... nothing fact based?
Got it.
whembly wrote: How do ya'll fee about Rubio's response to an atheist question?
Insulting and moronic and everything wrong with the Republican Party.
K. I disagree.
No Whembly, actually listen to him talk. Watch his Iowa accemptence speech. As far as the Rubio quote: if God gave us these rights, what about the people who live in countries who don't have these rights? God hates or disregards them? Nope. The constitution gives these rights, even if it says "God given". Read some of the debate that went into that phrase. The pols weren't above pandering at the time either (see above). It was always self aware politics. The problem I have is some pols today miss the self awareness.
Well, Trump is back to trumping and is now accusing Cruz of illegally stealing the election and wants new elections to be held or to have the Iowa results nullified.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Guys, just imagine the outrage if any of these candidates launched their political careers in the living rooms of known pastors or the congregations of actual churches!
No Whembly, actually listen to him talk. Watch his Iowa accemptence speech.
I have... it was a rambling standard acceptance speech.
As far as the Rubio quote: if God gave us these rights, what about the people who live in countries who don't have these rights? God hates or disregards them? Nope. The constitution gives these rights, even if it says "God given". Read some of the debate that went into that phrase. The pols weren't above pandering at the time either (see above). It was always self aware politics. The problem I have is some pols today miss the self awareness.
So?
Does your rights as defined by our laws mean any less if someone believed they came from God?
jasper76 wrote: Whembley, do you think there was anything particular in Rubio's answer that should make atheists view him as an attractive candidate?
That these candidates aren't going to push religion nor devices a "theocratic" administration.
Perhaps if you ignore their Senate records, their campaign speeches, their debate performances, and their websites, and looked at this clip in a vacuum, you might be led to believe that they will not try and politically impose Christianity on the populous.
jasper76 wrote: Whembley, do you think there was anything particular in Rubio's answer that should make atheists view him as an attractive candidate?
That these candidates aren't going to push religion nor devices a "theocratic" administration.
Perhaps if you ignore their Senate records, their campaign speeches, their debate performances, and their websites, and looked at this clip in a vacuum, you might be led to believe that they will not try and politically impose Christianity on the populous.
I feel like this is a mirror to whether or not Sanders would impose Socialism.
n 1936 Senator Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip, a charismatic and power-hungry politician, wins the election as President of the United States on a populist platform, promising to restore the country to prosperity and greatness, and promising each citizen $5,000 a year. Portraying himself as a champion of traditional American values, Windrip easily defeats his opponents, Senator Walt Trowbridge and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Though having previously foreshadowed some authoritarian measures in order to reorganize the United States government, Windrip rapidly outlaws dissent, incarcerates political enemies in concentration camps, and trains and arms a paramilitary force called the Minute Men, who terrorize citizens and enforce the policies of Windrip and his "corporatist" regime. One of his first acts as president is to eliminate the influence of the United States Congress, which draws the ire of many citizens as well as the legislators themselves. The Minute Men respond to protests against Windrip's decisions harshly, attacking demonstrators with bayonets. In addition to these actions, Windrip's administration, known as the "Corpo" government, curtails women's and minority rights, and eliminates individual states by subdividing the country into administrative sectors. The government of these sectors is managed by "Corpo" authorities, usually prominent businessmen or Minute Men officers. Those accused of crimes against the government appear before kangaroo courts presided over by "military judges". Despite these dictatorial (and "quasi-draconian") measures, a majority of Americans approve of them, seeing them as necessary but painful steps to restore American power. Others, those less enthusiastic about the prospect of corporatism, reassure themselves that fascism cannot "happen here", hence the novel's title.
Open opponents of Windrip, led by Senator Trowbridge, form an organization called the New Underground, helping dissidents escape to Canada in manners reminiscent of the Underground Railroad and distributing anti-Windrip propaganda. One recruit to the New Underground is Doremus Jessup, the novel's protagonist, a traditional liberal and an opponent of both Corpoism and communist theories, which Windrip's administration suppresses. Jessup's participation in the organization results in the publication of a periodical called The Vermont Vigilance, in which he writes editorials decrying Windrip's abuses of power. Shad Ledue, the local district commissioner and Jessup's former hired man, resents his old employer and eventually discovers his actions, having him sent to a concentration camp. Ledue subsequently terrorizes Jessup's family and particularly his daughter Sissy, whom he unsuccessfully attempts to seduce. Sissy does, however, discover evidence of corrupt dealings on the part of Ledue, which she exposes to Francis Tasbrough, a one-time friend of Jessup and Ledue's superior in the administrative hierarchy. Tasbrough has Ledue imprisoned in the same camp as Jessup, where inmates he had sent there organize his murder. Jessup escapes, after a relatively brief incarceration, when his friends bribe one of the camp guards. He flees to Canada, where he rejoins the New Underground. He later serves the organization as a spy in the Northeastern United States, passing along information and urging locals to resist Windrip.
In time, Windrip's hold on power weakens as the economic prosperity he promised does not materialize and increased numbers of disillusioned Americans, including Vice President Perley Beecroft, fleeing to both Canada and Mexico. He also angers his Secretary of State, Lee Sarason, who had served earlier as his chief political operative and adviser. Sarason and Windrip's other lieutenants, including General Dewey Haik, seize power and exile the president to France. Sarason succeeds Windrip, but his extravagant and relatively weak rule creates a power vacuum in which Haik and others vie for power. In a bloody putsch, Haik leads a party of military supporters into the White House, kills Sarason and his associates, and proclaims himself president. The two coups cause a slow erosion of Corpo power, and Haik's government desperately tries to arouse patriotism by launching an unjustified invasion of Mexico. After slandering Mexico in state-run newspapers, Haik orders a mass conscription of young American men for the invasion of that country, infuriating many who had until then been staunch Corpo loyalists. Riots and rebellions break out across the country, with many realizing that the Corpos have misled them.
General Emmanuel [see forum posting rules], among Haik's senior officers, defects to the opposition with a large portion of his army, giving strength to the resistance movement. Though Haik remains in control of much of the country, civil war soon breaks out as the resistance tries to consolidate its grasp on the Midwest. The novel ends after the beginning of the conflict, with Jessup working as an agent for the New Underground in Corpo-occupied portions of southern Minnesota.
whembly wrote: Does your rights as defined by our laws mean any less if someone believed they came from God?
I would be deeply, deeply concerned with such a stance in light of at least presidential candidate (Huckabee) believing that an elected official has the right to deny a citizen their equal protection rights because that elected official's religious beliefs trumps them. I don't think the idea that such a candidate (if elected) might issue executive orders in that direction to be outlandish.
I'd be especially concerned if the current GOP frontrunner, sort of, was also supporting that public official.
jasper76 wrote: Whembley, do you think there was anything particular in Rubio's answer that should make atheists view him as an attractive candidate?
That these candidates aren't going to push religion nor devices a "theocratic" administration.
Perhaps if you ignore their Senate records, their campaign speeches, their debate performances, and their websites, and looked at this clip in a vacuum, you might be led to believe that they will not try and politically impose Christianity on the populous.
I feel like this is a mirror to whether or not Sanders would impose Socialism.
Can you impose socialism on a socialist state? In any case, rest assured if Sanders gets elected, he will will vigorously attempt to expand our socialist institutions, and he says so in no unclear terms. Sanders is a known commodity here, it's not like he's trying to muddy up his positions.
whembly wrote: So it's just your opinion... nothing fact based?
Got it.
I see you have chosen to play dumb. Glad we got that settled.
K. I disagree.
Of course you don't and that is not at all surprising. He's your favorite candidate (now), he could spoon feed you bs all day and you happily sit and take it as long as he's a Republican. You're the target audience for these people.
whembly wrote: Does your rights as defined by our laws mean any less if someone believed they came from God?
I would be deeply, deeply concerned with such a stance in light of at least presidential candidate (Huckabee) believing that an elected official has the right to deny a citizen their equal protection rights because that elected official's religious beliefs trumps them. I don't think the idea that such a candidate (if elected) might issue executive orders in that direction to be outlandish.
I'd be especially concerned if the current GOP frontrunner, sort of, was also supporting that public official.
Sure... fair enough.
I think it boils down to what characteristics are "disqualifying" characteristics in your perferred candidate.
whembly wrote: Does your rights as defined by our laws mean any less if someone believed they came from God?
I would be deeply, deeply concerned with such a stance in light of at least presidential candidate (Huckabee) believing that an elected official has the right to deny a citizen their equal protection rights because that elected official's religious beliefs trumps them. I don't think the idea that such a candidate (if elected) might issue executive orders in that direction to be outlandish.
I'd be especially concerned if the current GOP frontrunner, sort of, was also supporting that public official.
Sure... fair enough.
I think it boils down to what characteristics are "disqualifying" characteristics in your perferred candidate.
:shrugs:
Which for you is whether or not they have an (R) next to their name on the ballot, which is why any debate about it is inherently worthless.
whembly wrote: Does your rights as defined by our laws mean any less if someone believed they came from God?
I would be deeply, deeply concerned with such a stance in light of at least presidential candidate (Huckabee) believing that an elected official has the right to deny a citizen their equal protection rights because that elected official's religious beliefs trumps them. I don't think the idea that such a candidate (if elected) might issue executive orders in that direction to be outlandish.
I'd be especially concerned if the current GOP frontrunner, sort of, was also supporting that public official.
Sure... fair enough.
I think it boils down to what characteristics are "disqualifying" characteristics in your perferred candidate.
:shrugs:
You, being somebody who is so for the U.S. Constitution, should find a religious platform as a "disqualifying" characteristic. You are all over the place with your beliefs.
No Whembly, actually listen to him talk. Watch his Iowa accemptence speech.
I have... it was a rambling standard acceptance speech.
As far as the Rubio quote: if God gave us these rights, what about the people who live in countries who don't have these rights? God hates or disregards them? Nope. The constitution gives these rights, even if it says "God given". Read some of the debate that went into that phrase. The pols weren't above pandering at the time either (see above). It was always self aware politics. The problem I have is some pols today miss the self awareness.
So?
Does your rights as defined by our laws mean any less if someone believed they came from God?
I'll bite. Yes, they do. God, can do what ever he/she/it wants with no repercussions or input in what humans want. If God wants to turn us into salt because God is having a bad day, God turns us into salt. Humans have to live by the rules and laws of their environment. Ever read any of the Old Testament? Trump or Cryz on a good day. Rubio is more of a New Testament guy. Fine. He still believes God can do what he wants (it's God). The real world doesn't quite work lik that. Sadly, presidents have to live in the real world and use real world techniques to accomplish their goals. They cannot rely on God for their salt. The reason we are not destroying Isis quickly isn't because a few Iowans aren't praying hard enough.
Basically, I would trust a human more to do an expected behavior more than I would trust a God to. And since we live with humans who rule us, let's pick the right ones (thank "God" we get a choice).
My problem with Rubio in that clip is he has no sense of history or any sense of reality. Both qualities I sort of look for In a leader.
Can you impose socialism on a socialist state? In any case, rest assured if Sanders gets elected, he will will vigorously attempt to expand our socialist institutions, and he says so in no unclear terms. Sanders is a known commodity here, it's not like he's trying to muddy up his positions.
Furthermore, there is not a constitutional amendment forbidding the government from promoting socialism.
CptJake wrote: Looks like Rand Paul is out of the race. I suspect Cruz will pick up his 7 followers.
I thought libertarians didn't like evangelicals.
I'm going over to Rubio.
You know, I bet a good chunk of the Ron/Rand Paul "Liberty voters" types may stay home from this point forward. They really don't have a candidate to vote for. Everyone left is a hawk of one degree or another, and its not like there's a big civil liberties voice left. I also think alot of these voters are turned off by religiosity in politics.
jasper76 wrote: Whembley, do you think there was anything particular in Rubio's answer that should make atheists view him as an attractive candidate?
That these candidates aren't going to push religion nor devices a "theocratic" administration.
Perhaps if you ignore their Senate records, their campaign speeches, their debate performances, and their websites, and looked at this clip in a vacuum, you might be led to believe that they will not try and politically impose Christianity on the populous.
I feel like this is a mirror to whether or not Sanders would impose Socialism.
Can you impose socialism on a socialist state?
As President? Not really... as you'd need Congress to pass laws/budgets to achieve that.
In any case, rest assured if Sanders gets elected, he will will vigorously attempt to expand our socialist institutions, and he says so in no unclear terms. Sanders is a known commodity here, it's not like he's trying to muddy up his positions.
You're right about that... as Bernie's brand of socialism is more of an egalitarian political economy that will take care of these social problems by itself... It's a viewpoint that I disagree with and it's surprising to me that Bernie is that popular amongst the Democratic constituents.
I think Sander's popularity, especially with the young, has a whole lot to do with the bailout of the bank bailouts. I mean, there's a huge swath of the populous who grew up watching the federal government bail out these ginormous institutions while their parents and neighbors got squat.
It has a lot to do with growing up in a recession and watching our middle class shrink and be destroyed over time. Watching these big job making corporations take jobs away and ship them overseas.
Basically Sanders voters are tired of the hypocrisy. "If we lower the taxes they will save us!" has yet to work.
jasper76 wrote: I think Sander's popularity, especially with the young, has a whole lot to do with the bailout of the bank bailouts. I mean, there's a huge swath of the populous who grew up watching the federal government bail out these ginormous institutions while their parents and neighbors got squat.
That's an interesting thought process... as many in the center of right/righties were opposed to the Wall Street / GM / "Too Big to Fail" bailouts.
<--- this guy wantedWall Street / GM to file bankruptcy...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: It has a lot to do with growing up in a recession and watching our middle class shrink and be destroyed over time. Watching these big job making corporations take jobs away and ship them overseas.
Basically Sanders voters are tired of the hypocrisy. "If we lower the taxes they will save us!" has yet to work.
Hmmm... so Sanders is that "insurgent candidate" of the Democrats, just as Cruz/Rubio/Carson/Trump are the "insurgent candidate" in the GOP field.
Gordon Shumway wrote: As far as the Rubio quote: if God gave us these rights, what about the people who live in countries who don't have these rights? God hates or disregards them? Nope. The constitution gives these rights, even if it says "God given". Read some of the debate that went into that phrase. The pols weren't above pandering at the time either (see above). It was always self aware politics. The problem I have is some pols today miss the self awareness.
Rather than posting the YouTube video for the umpteenth time in this thread, I'll instead post the relevant part of the transcript of George Carlin's "You Have No Rights" bit and how they're "God given":
Spoiler:
Personally, folks, I believe that if your rights came from God, he would have given you the right to have some food every day, and he would have given you the right to a roof over your head, God would have been looking out for you. [applause] God would have been looking out for you. [applause] You know that? He wouldn’t have been worrying about making sure you have a gun so you can get drunk on Sunday night and kill your girlfriend’s parents.
But let’s say it’s true, let’s say God gave us these rights. Why would he give us a certain number of rights? The Bill of Rights of this country has ten stipulations, okay? Ten rights. And apparently God was doing sloppy work that week because we had to amend the Bill of Rights an additional seventeen times. So God forgot a couple of things. Like… slavery! Just fething slipped his mind. [laughing] But let’s say, let’s say God gave us the original ten. He gave the British thirteen, the British Bill of Rights has thirteen stipulations. The Germans have twenty-nine, the Belgians have twenty-five, the Swedish have only six, and some people in the world have no rights at all. What kind of a fething goddamn god-given deal is that? No rights at all? Why would God give different people in different countries different numbers of different rights? Boredom? Amusement? Bad arithmetic? Do we find out at long last after all this time that God is weak in math skills? Doesn’t sound like divine planning to me. Sounds more like human planning. Sounds more like one group trying to control another group. In other words, business as usual in America.
jasper76 wrote: I think Sander's popularity, especially with the young, has a whole lot to do with the bailout of the bank bailouts. I mean, there's a huge swath of the populous who grew up watching the federal government bail out these ginormous institutions while their parents and neighbors got squat.
That's an interesting thought process... as many in the center of right/righties were opposed to the Wall Street / GM / "Too Big to Fail" bailouts.
<--- this guy wantedWall Street / GM to file bankruptcy...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: It has a lot to do with growing up in a recession and watching our middle class shrink and be destroyed over time. Watching these big job making corporations take jobs away and ship them overseas.
Basically Sanders voters are tired of the hypocrisy. "If we lower the taxes they will save us!" has yet to work.
Hmmm... so Sanders is that "insurgent candidate" of the Democrats, just as Cruz/Rubio/Carson/Trump are the "insurgent candidate" in the GOP field.
Um, no. 3/4 of the people you listed are "religious zealot candidates" and the other is a plant by HRC.
... and it's surprising to me that Bernie is that popular amongst the Democratic constituents.
Whhaaaaatttt? Are you saying you would prefer us to vote Hillary instead?
Flip a coin?
Hey... maybe HRC would not only be the first Female president... but, also the first president incarcerated in the WEST White House (aka Florence ADX).
... and it's surprising to me that Bernie is that popular amongst the Democratic constituents.
Whhaaaaatttt? Are you saying you would prefer us to vote Hillary instead?
Flip a coin?
Hey... maybe HRC would not only be the first Female president... but, also the first president incarcerated in the WEST White House (aka Florence ADX).
Yeah its too bad it wasn't around for Reagan, it would of been the perfect home for him
jasper76 wrote: I think Sander's popularity, especially with the young, has a whole lot to do with the bailout of the bank bailouts. I mean, there's a huge swath of the populous who grew up watching the federal government bail out these ginormous institutions while their parents and neighbors got squat.
That's an interesting thought process... as many in the center of right/righties were opposed to the Wall Street / GM / "Too Big to Fail" bailouts.
<--- this guy wantedWall Street / GM to file bankruptcy...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: It has a lot to do with growing up in a recession and watching our middle class shrink and be destroyed over time. Watching these big job making corporations take jobs away and ship them overseas.
Basically Sanders voters are tired of the hypocrisy. "If we lower the taxes they will save us!" has yet to work.
Hmmm... so Sanders is that "insurgent candidate" of the Democrats, just as Cruz/Rubio/Carson/Trump are the "insurgent candidate" in the GOP field.
Um, no. 3/4 of the people you listed are "religious zealot candidates" and the other is a plant by HRC.
And one Democratic candidate is a commie loving socialist... the other should be in Federal Prison.
Dreadwinter wrote: You're not understanding. The whole Sander's movement has been downplayed since the beginning by virtually everybody. Nobody thought he would ever do this well. Many people have been saying that he stands absolutely no chance and he will be destroyed.
He has just proven them very wrong. Saying "He may have barely lost, but he still lost" is not really an argument when the narrative that has been displayed by most of the media has been "he doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell".
Not when he still doesn’t stand a snowballs chance of winning.
I’ll explain it in a fun way, because maybe then you’ll get it. Imagine I said I was going to jump over a house in a single bound. A quick run up and then as high a jump as I could manage. People would say I can’t do that. And then I wait until there’s almost perfect conditions and I jump, and I get almost 8 feet above the ground.
That’d be a great effort, almost a world record. People might be surprised how well I did. But it would change nothing about the sheer impossibility of actually jumping over the house.
And after all this time someone is still mistaking being entitled to your own opinion with being entitled to your own facts...
Sanders isn't a socialist? o.O
As to HRC, please note the word "should". Nothing is going to happen to her and AG Loretta has to be the one to formally indict. If she doesn't, the worst thing that would happen is that some high profile FBI / IC folks me resign in protest. Remains to be seen how that'll shake out....
Dreadwinter wrote: You're not understanding. The whole Sander's movement has been downplayed since the beginning by virtually everybody. Nobody thought he would ever do this well. Many people have been saying that he stands absolutely no chance and he will be destroyed.
He has just proven them very wrong. Saying "He may have barely lost, but he still lost" is not really an argument when the narrative that has been displayed by most of the media has been "he doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell".
Not when he still doesn’t stand a snowballs chance of winning.
I’ll explain it in a fun way, because maybe then you’ll get it. Imagine I said I was going to jump over a house in a single bound. A quick run up and then as high a jump as I could manage. People would say I can’t do that. And then I wait until there’s almost perfect conditions and I jump, and I get almost 8 feet above the ground.
That’d be a great effort, almost a world record. People might be surprised how well I did. But it would change nothing about the sheer impossibility of actually jumping over the house.
That's.... a great way to describe that.
I think Sander's ceiling will be his win in NH next monday. But that won't matter has HRC has got the super-delegates locked down.
shasolenzabi wrote: I will laugh when Bernie wins the primary and then the General. this thread will erupt.
Undoubtedly...
One thing I am enjoying, on the facebook side of things, are the recent spate of Sanders vs. Hilary "posters" where they compare each candidate's stance on various "issues".... such as the WWE, Black Sabbath, etc.
shasolenzabi wrote: I will laugh when Bernie wins the primary and then the General. this thread will erupt.
Nah, then Sebster is going to have to jump a house and that is impossible! So that means Bernie winning the election is impossible!
Whembly, you know Democratic Socialist and Socialist are different right? Pretty sure we have had to explain this to you before. But you keep going off and using those buzz words to try to make a point like the evil media you hate so much.
Dreadwinter wrote: Sebster, I am not sure you know what you are talking about.
Okay, whatever. Go on 538, and start looking at the state by state poll aggregate. Look past New Hampshire, and find me a state where Sanders is getting more than about a third of the vote.
Anyhow, this happens each election cycle. People get whooped up by their candidate, and assume because they really like someone, then everyone must really like them. They ignore the numbers because they're just not telling the story of how excited they personally are. Do you remember Rove’s 2012 meltdown? Don’t be Rove.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I think Sander's ceiling will be his win in NH next monday. But that won't matter has HRC has got the super-delegates locked down.
It doesn't matter because past New Hampshire there's like two other states where Sanders is polling an even or winning score.
Dreadwinter wrote: Sebster, I am not sure you know what you are talking about.
Okay, whatever. Go on 538, and start looking at the state by state poll aggregate. Look past New Hampshire, and find me a state where Sanders is polling past 30%.
Anyhow, this happens each election cycle. People get whooped up by their candidate, and assume because they really like someone, then everyone must really like them. They ignore the numbers because they're just not telling the story of how excited they personally are. Do you remember Rove’s 2012 meltdown? Don’t be Rove.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I think Sander's ceiling will be his win in NH next monday. But that won't matter has HRC has got the super-delegates locked down.
It doesn't matter because past New Hampshire there's like two other states where Sanders is polling north of 30%.
Obama won Iowa. Which was my point to you originally - the difference in the narrative between 'we won' and 'we lost but by less than we were expected to'.
And so just in terms of narrative Sanders is already behind Obama’s 2008. Then we look at the fundamentals, Obama’s positioning relative to Sanders and his appeal across demographics, and we realise that he was set to turn a good Iowa result in to wins in lots of other states, something that's a much bigger stretch for Sanders, who's appeal is much more limited. And then we remember that even with all that, Clinton won the vote count in 2008, she’d just screwed up securing delegates, something she hasn’t done this time.
So get all excited that you’re all primed to jump over the house. In the end all that’ll mean is that everyone forgot you actually jumped 8 foot, almost a world record.
Obama won Iowa. Which was my point to you originally - the difference in the narrative between 'we won' and 'we lost but by less than we were expected to'.
And so just in terms of narrative Sanders is already behind Obama’s 2008. Then we look at the fundamentals, Obama’s positioning relative to Sanders and his appeal across demographics, and we realise that he was set to turn a good Iowa result in to wins in lots of other states, something that's a much bigger stretch for Sanders, who's appeal is much more limited. And then we remember that even with all that, Clinton won the vote count in 2008, she’d just screwed up securing delegates, something she hasn’t done this time.
So get all excited that you’re all primed to jump over the house. In the end all that’ll mean is that everyone forgot you actually jumped 8 foot, almost a world record.
Sanders has been behind in the narrative this entire time. Not sure how you are not getting this. He has been regarded as the black sheep from the beginning. The fact that he was able to pull this close to her and only lose in delegates because of a coin toss is way better than expected. Even more so when the party he is running for has been against him the entire time. Buuuuut, nah he lost. Even though he got delegates from it. You are acting like his whole campaign is going to fall apart and that is hilarious to me.
I am excited to see you jump over a house though. I will even let you use one of those little princess houses you get for your kids if you want.
Sanders has been behind in the narrative this entire time. Not sure how you are not getting this. He has been regarded as the black sheep from the beginning. The fact that he was able to pull this close to her and only lose in delegates because of a coin toss is way better than expected. Even more so when the party he is running for has been against him the entire time. Buuuuut, nah he lost. Even though he got delegates from it. You are acting like his whole campaign is going to fall apart and that is hilarious to me.
I am excited to see you jump over a house though. I will even let you use one of those little princess houses you get for your kids if you want.
Probably the only thing Sanders' hasn't been behind in, is fundraising.... Many media outlets ran stories about his campaign "shattering" Obama's fundraising efforts during his 08 campaign. And keep in mind, Sanders is setting these monetary records without the use of Super PACs or other sources of large, one time donations. As he's said often himself, the average donation is $29.
That should tell you that, while he may not have polled "well" in Iowa (let's not forget that 6 delegates came down to a coin toss, and somehow Clinton won all 6 of them), he clearly has popular support around the country.
Shhh, no man. The polls are the only thing that matter! Especially since they only cover certain demographics of people and are not really a good representation of the masses. Especially in those who had never previously voted in the 18-25 bracket.
He isn't a 'commie loving socialist', which was the original claim. Saying someone is reckless with their words doesn't mean the opposite is true, just that they are foolhardy when they speak.
Things have been shifting to Sanders' way, he has the 18-44 voters, he is getting shifts of endorsements from folks who have switched from Hillary to him, he has Minorities out there shifting to him, women, and older folks as well.
As for the Republicans, well it is getting downright nasty between the top runners.
In the end I think Sander's has the popular support, but since Hillary has the higher ups and Super-delegates I don't think it will matter much. In primaries being liked by your party management is probably more important.
Good luck with renegotiating your contract with Fox News, sir!
Surely -- even though his whole campaign is effectively stillborn -- he should be forced to carry on through the whole term, even though this will cause suffering and expense, because to do otherwise would be going against gods' will .
Of course it might not have been a legitimate campaign -- political bodies have ways of shutting that down.
jasper76 wrote: You know, I bet a good chunk of the Ron/Rand Paul "Liberty voters" types may stay home from this point forward. They really don't have a candidate to vote for. Everyone left is a hawk of one degree or another, and its not like there's a big civil liberties voice left. I also think alot of these voters are turned off by religiosity in politics.
Maybe. I don't know if there is an average Rand voter, though. I was for him despite him being a dove, not because of it, for example.
The loss of the only civil liberties candidate on either side is what really sucks, but we all knew it was going to happen. The big thing now is getting the most electable Republican to the top of the pile and getting him through the general so we don't wind up with any more "wise Latinas" elevated to the Supreme Court.
jasper76 wrote: You know, I bet a good chunk of the Ron/Rand Paul "Liberty voters" types may stay home from this point forward. They really don't have a candidate to vote for. Everyone left is a hawk of one degree or another, and its not like there's a big civil liberties voice left. I also think alot of these voters are turned off by religiosity in politics.
Maybe. I don't know if there is an average Rand voter, though. I was for him despite him being a dove, not because of it, for example.
The loss of the only civil liberties candidate on either side is what really sucks, but we all knew it was going to happen. The big thing now is getting the most electable Republican to the top of the pile and getting him through the general so we don't wind up with any more "wise Latinas" elevated to the Supreme Court.
"Wise Latina" dig aside, if you want an electable candidate, you all better start congealing around Rubio or Christie, because Cruz is many things, but palatable to the left is not among them.
"Wise Latina" dig aside, if you want an electable candidate, you all better start congealing around Rubio or Christie, because Cruz is many things, but palatable to the left is not among them.
No one on the left will vote for Rubio or Christie anyway. Why should the right cater to the left when picking candidates? Picking McCain and Romney didn't work too well for them.
The Republicans don't need a candidate the left will vote for, they only need one that doesn't piss the left off so much they turn out to vote in enough numbers. That's something the Democrats don't have to worry about doing the the far right, anymore. I suspect the Republicans haven't figured that out or know it but don't know what to do about it. My guess is they thought another Bush would be the answer, as George W. Bush knew how to demotivate the left and energize his base quite well plus get the independent vote. Jeb clearly doesn't have that skill. He's way too thoughtful when he speaks.
McCain lost because...Palin. But my God she was a hoot.
Romney failed because...Romney. He pissed off the left enough to get them out to vote. He didn't do it as well as Palin did, but he certainly did work hard for Obama.
If the Republicans pick Cruz, he'll be crushed in a general election. Unless Clinton or Sanders goes off the rails or really screws up somehow. Considering I'm writing this after Clinton's screw ups already, that's really saying something about how bad I think Cruz is as a choice to the general voting public. He's worse for the Republicans than a socialist on the Democratic tickets for the other side.
My guess is Rubio vs. Clinton when the primaries are done. If I'm wrong, it's up in the air then with Trump vs. Sanders or Trump vs. Clinton or Cruz vs. Clinton. Admittedly, those would be way more entertaining to watch! If the USA is going to go down the toilet I'd rather enjoy the ride a bit...
jasper76 wrote: Do UK candidates come to the US for this kind of thing? (honestly dont know)
In the grand scheme of things, the UK isn't that important anymore to the USA. Hell, judging by the EU negotiations, the UK isn't that important in Europe anymore, but that's another story.
In my experience, most Americans that I've met, don't know or don't care about UK politics (unless they lived there for a well) but they do like the UK.
In all honesty, if a British candidate went to the USA for an endorsement, I doubt if it would hold much water back home.
shasolenzabi wrote: I will laugh when Bernie wins the primary and then the General. this thread will erupt.
Undoubtedly...
One thing I am enjoying, on the facebook side of things, are the recent spate of Sanders vs. Hilary "posters" where they compare each candidate's stance on various "issues".... such as the WWE, Black Sabbath, etc.
Whembly, you know Democratic Socialist and Socialist are different right? Pretty sure we have had to explain this to you before. But you keep going off and using those buzz words to try to make a point like the evil media you hate so much.
I know the difference and I still oppose Democratic Socialism in principle. So, when I say "socialism", I mean in an abstract way by pointing out the tendencies. Not the full bore Karl Max Central Planning socialism flavor (which won't ever happen in the US).
jasper76 wrote: Do UK candidates come to the US for this kind of thing? (honestly dont know)
In the grand scheme of things, the UK isn't that important anymore to the USA. Hell, judging by the EU negotiations, the UK isn't that important in Europe anymore, but that's another story.
In my experience, most Americans that I've met, don't know or don't care about UK politics (unless they lived there for a well) but they do like the UK.
In all honesty, if a British candidate went to the USA for an endorsement, I doubt if it would hold much water back home.
On average, Americans tend to care more about the royal family of Britain than it's politics. Like seriously, the royal family makes magazine covers all the time.
On average, Americans tend to care more about the royal family of Britain than it's politics. Like seriously, the royal family makes magazine covers all the time.
That's kind of been a near constant truth for most things not politically related.... The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Iron Maiden, Bieber... All of them dominate(d) magazines for years
On average, Americans tend to care more about the royal family of Britain than it's politics. Like seriously, the royal family makes magazine covers all the time.
That's kind of been a near constant truth for most things not politically related.... The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Iron Maiden, Bieber... All of them dominate(d) magazines for years
You did not just mention Bieber in the same line as The Beatles, Led Zep and Maiden
You did not just mention Bieber in the same line as The Beatles, Led Zep and Maiden
Lol.... if black people get to blame ALL white people for slavery, then all of us Americans get to blame you Brits for whatever gak Canadian pops out of the woods
CptJake wrote: No one on the left will vote for Rubio or Christie anyway. Why should the right cater to the left when picking candidates? Picking McCain and Romney didn't work too well for them.
That strategy makes a lot of sense in a world where all voters fall into a totally rigid binary choice of black and white, and there are absolutely no swing or moderate voters that participate in general elections, and the absolute only problems with McCain and Romney were that they just weren't conservative enough.
You did not just mention Bieber in the same line as The Beatles, Led Zep and Maiden
Lol.... if black people get to blame ALL white people for slavery, then all of us Americans get to blame you Brits for whatever gak Canadian pops out of the woods
by that horrid logic you can blame all the gak america does on the brits as well. If they had never drove out the puritans we wouldn't be in this mess
You did not just mention Bieber in the same line as The Beatles, Led Zep and Maiden
Lol.... if black people get to blame ALL white people for slavery, then all of us Americans get to blame you Brits for whatever gak Canadian pops out of the woods
by that horrid logic you can blame all the gak america does on the brits as well. If they had never drove out the puritans we wouldn't be in this mess
See that brits posting in this thread??? NASCAR is your fault!!!
Anyhow... on topic, I just looked to see when my state's primary is.... and it's in fething May. I kinda have to wonder how relevant it will be by that point in the race.
I liked Rand but he is a non-factor sadly, and I really don't like Hillary so my choices aren't all that great. If my choices end up being Cruz and Clinton I will really be in a bad place, voting wise.
That is only slightly less bad, but still is awful and says how terrible things are at the moment, politically.
I would have voted for McCain until Palin was tossed in and she was a poison pill to his campaign. Really, I think she won the election for President Obama.
Ahtman wrote: I liked Rand but he is a non-factor sadly, and I really don't like Hillary so my choices aren't all that great. If my choices end up being Cruz and Clinton I will really be in a bad place, voting wise.
That is only slightly less bad, but still is awful and says how terrible things are at the moment, politically.
Heh...
Here's the thing... Rubio is very much a conservative. Here's his views on marijuana:
Spoiler:
-Medical marijuana could be OK, but not recreational use. (Aug 2015)
-No responsible way to recreationally use marijuana. (May 2015)
-Legalizing would be a mistake; reduce sentences carefully. (Apr 2015)
-There is no responsible way to recreationally use marijuana. (May 2014)
Pretty much the standard GOP stance...
Cruz? Check it:
Spoiler:
-Let's see what happens in Colorado with legalization. (Nov 2015)
-Lower minimums and mandatory sentencing for drugs. (Apr 2015)
-2014: federal enforcement; 2015: let states experiment. (Mar 2015)
-I disagree with states legalizing pot, but it's their right. (Feb 2015)
-Let states be laboratories of democracy on marijuana. (Feb 2015)
-I foolishly smoked pot when young, but never since. (Feb 2015)
I really, really liked Cruz's approach here as he seems to be more pro-States rights than Rubio.
The point is, each candidate are different enough to stand out from each other beyond their party membership.
I would have voted for McCain until Palin was tossed in and she was a poison pill to his campaign. Really, I think she won the election for President Obama.
No one was going to beat Obama, so I think it's a bit much to lay McCain's failed bid on Palin.
The establishment Right has always been able to coerce the base long enough to get the establishment candidate on the ticket.
With that line of thinking, I can see why JEB! isn;t bailing yet. however, he will have to do something to beat back Rubio. As Whembly pointed out the former "Tea Party" candidate Rubio is now the closest thing to the establishment candidate we have now.
Think about that for a moment. Does this meant eh Tea Party won the war for the Republican Parties soul?
Rubio can't seriously be considered a Tea Party guy anymore. His platform includes a big blank check for the DoD.
I tend to agree with whembley on McCain. I think McCain and Romney both did as well as any GOP candidate could have hoped to do at the time after 8 years of Bush, and demographics have only become more unkind for the next GOP candidate, especially since Trump has alienated the crucial Latino vote, and the party has done nothing to improve its standing on women's issues.
Once again the world is laughing at Iowa. Late-night comedians and social media mavens are having a field day with jokes about missing caucusgoers and coin flips.
That’s fine. We can take ribbing over our quirky process. But what we can’t stomach is even the whiff of impropriety or error.
What happened Monday night at the Democratic caucuses was a debacle, period. Democracy, particularly at the local party level, can be slow, messy and obscure. But the refusal to undergo scrutiny or allow for an appeal reeks of autocracy.
The Iowa Democratic Party must act quickly to assure the accuracy of the caucus results, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
First of all, the results were too close not to do a complete audit of results. Two-tenths of 1 percent separated Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. A caucus should not be confused with an election, but it’s worth noting that much larger margins trigger automatic recounts in other states.
Second, too many questions have been raised. Too many accounts have arisen of inconsistent counts, untrained and overwhelmed volunteers, confused voters, cramped precinct locations, a lack of voter registration forms and other problems. Too many of us, including members of the Register editorial board who were observing caucuses, saw opportunities for error amid Monday night’s chaos.
The Sanders campaign is rechecking results on its own, going precinct by precinct, and is already finding inconsistencies, said Rania Batrice, a Sanders spokeswoman. The campaign seeks the math sheets or other paperwork that precinct chairs filled out and were supposed to return to the state party. They want to compare those documents to the results entered into a Microsoft app and sent to the party.
“Let’s compare notes. Let’s see if they match,” Batrice said Wednesday.
Dr. Andy McGuire, chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic Party, dug in her heels and said no. She said the three campaigns had representatives in a room in the hours after the caucuses and went over the discrepancies.
McGuire knows what’s at stake. Her actions only confirm the suspicions, wild as they might be, of Sanders supporters. Their candidate, after all, is opposed by the party establishment — and wasn’t even a Democrat a few months ago.
So her path forward is clear: Work with all the campaigns to audit results. Break silly party tradition and release the raw vote totals. Provide a list of each precinct coin flip and its outcome, as well as other information sought by the Register. Be transparent.
And then call for a blue ribbon commission to study how to improve the caucuses, as the Republican Party of Iowa did after its own fiasco in 2012. Monday’s mess showed that it’s time for the Democrats to change, too.
The caucuses have become something they were never intended to be. It’s as if RAGBRAI tried to morph into the Tour de France. It wasn’t built for the speed or the significance.
The current process grew out of efforts to find a more democratic way to choose delegates to conventions, after the grassroots saw how Democratic powerbrokers controlled the nominating process in 1968. But the caucuses have become as antiquated and opaque as the smoke-filled rooms of yore.
Democrats should ask themselves: What do we want the Iowa caucus to be? How can we preserve its uniqueness while bringing more order? Does it become more like a straw poll or primary? How do we strike the balance between tradition and transparency?
We have time to consider these questions. First, however, we need answers to what happened Monday night. The future of the first-in-the-nation caucuses demands it.
Does anyone find it interesting that Clinton won all 6 coin toss?
whembly wrote: Or, you can simply dig your heals and be like:
Coming from the person who has become so obstinate in repeating talking points and beats dead horses so regularly they have become something of a running joke politically I hope you see the hypocrisy of accusing others of having their heels (not heals) "dug in".
whembly wrote: Or, you can simply dig your heals and be like:
Coming from the person who has become so obstinate in repeating talking points and beats dead horses so regularly they have become something of a running joke politically I hope you see the hypocrisy of accusing others of having their heels (not heals) "dug in".
Shkreli, the former chief executive of Turing Pharmaceuticals, who gained notoriety for jacking up a little-known drug's price, was excused from a House hearing on drug prices after he refused to answer any questions -- other than how to pronounce his name correctly, or to confirm that, yes, he was listening.
After minutes of refusal to answer questions, during which Shkreli fidgeted, looked away and appeared to smirk at times, he gave his parting remarks on Twitter:
Hard to accept that these imbeciles represent the people in our government.
— Martin Shkreli (@MartinShkreli) February 4, 2016
Five minutes were set aside for opening remarks that could shed light on Shkreli's controversial decision to raise the price of Daraprim, a drug for a rare but severe infection that afflicts people with compromised immune systems. But Shkreli declined to make any. Instead, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, began asking him questions about patients affected by the price and remarks he had made previously. Shkreli gave the same composed answer to each question:
"On the advice of counsel, I invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and respectfully decline to answer your question," Shkreli said. Repeatedly.
[Why is this ‘bro’ smiling? The many smirks of Martin Shkreli.]
Shkreli didn't come willingly to Thursday's hearing. He was compelled by a subpoena that he threatened to ignore and that his lawyers argued against vehemently.
Wearing a slim-cut black jacket, Shkreli sat at the end of a row of witnesses called before the committee with hands folded, fidgeting a bit and smiling uncomfortably at times -- tics his attorney, Benjamin Brafman, called the "nervous energy" of the 32-year-old former hedge fund manager, not meant to show disrespect to any member of Congress.
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) described Turing as a "Ponzi scheme" in his opening remarks, saying the research and development that Turing has claimed it is doing to justify its high prices is simply research on which new drugs it could acquire to raise their prices.
Shkreli smirked.
"It's not funny, Mr. Shkreli. People are dying," Cummings said.
'Pharma Bro' Martin Shkreli told drug price increases 'not funny'
Play Video0:49
During a hearing on drug pricing Feb. 4, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) told controversial hedge fund manager Martin Shkreli that steep drug price rises are "not funny" because "people are dying." (AP)
One of the few questions he did answer, asked by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), was whether the congressman had pronounced Shkreli's last name correctly.
When Gowdy told Shkreli he could answer questions without incriminating himself, since they would not bear on the securities fraud charges being brought against him in a separate matter, he said, "I intend to follow the advice of my counsel, not yours."
Eventually, Shkreli was excused, trailed by a media scrum.
Your attempt to subvert my constitutional right to the 5th amendment are disgusting & insulting to all Americans @OversightDems @RepCummings
— Martin Shkreli (@MartinShkreli) January 21, 2016
The hearing focused on two companies that drove up the price of drugs they didn't invent -- by more than 5,000 percent in the case of Daraprim. After Shkreli's departure, the rest of the witnesses testified. Among them was Turing's current chief commercial officer, Nancy Retzlaff. Howard Schiller, the interim chief executive of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, another company that has been accused of operating more like a hedge fund than a drug company, appeared. Janet Woodcock, the director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration, and Mark Merritt, the president of the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, a trade group that represents pharmacy benefit companies, was also present.
[How pharma bro Martin Shkreli described his own drug price hike: 'Almost all of it is profit.']
Turing and Valeant both turned over tens of thousands of pages of documents. Some highlights were presented in two memos released earlier this week. Although there are fascinating details taken from internal emails that draw back the curtain on the tactics of drug pricing, the main finding thus far is simple: Both companies strove to maximize profits.
There are still thousands of pages of documents for the committee to mine for clues about how to prevent a practice that has been called "price gouging." But at least so far, the evidence appears to echo the revelations of a previous Senate investigation of an $84,000 hepatitis C drug. That company, Gilead, also sought to maximize profits, even as its price affected patients' access to the drug.
Not to be snarky, but a report showing that a for-profit company sought to maximize profits is exactly what you'd expect. No?
— Charles Ornstein (@charlesornstein) December 1, 2015
High drug prices hit a nerve with the public and with politicians, but so far, congressional hearings have generated lots of buzz and few solutions.
Surely the odds of winning six coin flips in a row would be .5 to the power of six, not taking into account that the coin could balance and turn out neither heads nor tails?
Ahtman wrote: I liked Rand but he is a non-factor sadly, and I really don't like Hillary so my choices aren't all that great. If my choices end up being Cruz and Clinton I will really be in a bad place, voting wise.
I tend to agree with whembley on McCain. I think McCain and Romney both did as well as any GOP candidate could have hoped to do at the time after 8 years of Bush, and demographics have only become more unkind for the next GOP candidate, especially since Trump has alienated the crucial Latino vote, and the party has done nothing to improve its standing on women's issues.
After the Bush years, it would have taken a miracle for the GOP to get the White House, no matter how good a man McCain is. However, they could have made a much better showing without Palin, and by giving her that platform and fame, the years since have only encourage the kind of crazy she represents.
The problem now, however, is that while Rubio may be the best choice if the GOP actually wants to win the election, they absolutely MUST avoid the same mistake they made in 2008: if Cruz were to be on the ticket as VP, the GOP is guaranteed to lose again. Just like I was willing to vote McCain but changed because of Palin, I could see the possibility of voting Rubio, but never with Cruz attached.
You did not just mention Bieber in the same line as The Beatles, Led Zep and Maiden
Lol.... if black people get to blame ALL white people for slavery, then all of us Americans get to blame you Brits for whatever gak Canadian pops out of the woods
by that horrid logic you can blame all the gak america does on the brits as well. If they had never drove out the puritans we wouldn't be in this mess
Well I'm sorry that we didn't believe in religious persecution as strongly as the puritans wanted
By this I naturally mean, could Rubio choose the Governator as his VP??
I don't think there's anything forbidding the Governator to be his VP... but, if Rubio dies while in office... Arnie couldn't become President, which will fall to... The Speaker of House.
By this I naturally mean, could Rubio choose the Governator as his VP??
I don't think there's anything forbidding the Governator to be his VP... but, if Rubio dies while in office... Arnie couldn't become President, which will fall to... The Speaker of House.
Which is:
Spoiler:
President Paul Ryan!
Well, I'd like to see people try to stop the Vice-Prezinator from ascending to his rightful place.
Ahtman wrote: I liked Rand but he is a non-factor sadly, and I really don't like Hillary so my choices aren't all that great. If my choices end up being Cruz and Clinton I will really be in a bad place, voting wise.
helpful hint, there are more than 2 parties.
Of course there are but since the discussion was about the two parties in the Iowa caucus it just makes sense to refer to those.
Dreadwinter wrote: The fact that he was able to pull this close to her and only lose in delegates because of a coin toss is way better than expected. Even more so when the party he is running for has been against him the entire time. Buuuuut, nah he lost. Even though he got delegates from it. You are acting like his whole campaign is going to fall apart and that is hilarious to me.
Alright, whatever. You’re not reading, you don’t care, and it doesn’t really matter anyway. So I’ll just sum up my point as briefly as I can, so it’s here as a nice clean record, instead of buried amidst point and counter point with a guy who is uninterested in any political reality discussion beyond ‘feel the bern’.
Sanders has done brilliantly to stay this close to Clinton for this long.
Arguably this is less a case of Sanders doing very well, as it is Clinton not doing very well.
Either way, Clinton dodged a bullet in Iowa. While the difference in delegates was zero, the difference in narrative between a narrow loss and a narrow defeat is huge. And given the tiny number of delegates in Iowa, the narrative is actually the only thing that really matters.
However, even if Sanders had won and benefitted from a strong momentum narrative in to future primaries, it’s pretty hard to figure out how he’d turn that in to winning the nomination. Unless he suddenly built a healthy share of the vote in minorities, or managed to turn his strength in white voters into a total dominance, it’s impossible to see how he’d win the vote in most states.
Sanders stood in the primary in order to direct the political debate towards equality and other issues close to his heart. Sanders has achieved this, and shown there is still a base of democratic voters who want real left wing policy advanced by the democrats.
If Sanders keeps to his initial goal, it’s possible his campaign run here might be something to build on in future years. Probably not for himself, but as the basis for developing organisations that will energise and mobilise that base of voters.
However, if he shoots for the moon, and considers only winning the nomination, then the final narrative might be that you can’t win the nomination from left, only from the centre.
By this I naturally mean, could Rubio choose the Governator as his VP??
I don't think there's anything forbidding the Governator to be his VP... but, if Rubio dies while in office... Arnie couldn't become President, which will fall to... The Speaker of House.
Which is:
Spoiler:
President Paul Ryan!
I did look to see of the natural born citizen requirement was just for being elected (potentially allowing the Governator to move up to the top spot), and then I learned that the 12th amendment requires the VP to meet the same qualifications as the president. No Governator in the White House. :(
By this I naturally mean, could Rubio choose the Governator as his VP??
I don't think there's anything forbidding the Governator to be his VP... but, if Rubio dies while in office... Arnie couldn't become President, which will fall to... The Speaker of House.
Which is:
Spoiler:
President Paul Ryan!
I did look to see of the natural born citizen requirement was just for being elected (potentially allowing the Governator to move up to the top spot), and then I learned that the 12th amendment requires the VP to meet the same qualifications as the president. No Governator in the White House. :(
Dreadwinter wrote: The fact that he was able to pull this close to her and only lose in delegates because of a coin toss is way better than expected. Even more so when the party he is running for has been against him the entire time. Buuuuut, nah he lost. Even though he got delegates from it. You are acting like his whole campaign is going to fall apart and that is hilarious to me.
Alright, whatever. You’re not reading, you don’t care, and it doesn’t really matter anyway. So I’ll just sum up my point as briefly as I can, so it’s here as a nice clean record, instead of buried amidst point and counter point with a guy who is uninterested in any political reality discussion beyond ‘feel the bern’.
Sanders has done brilliantly to stay this close to Clinton for this long.
Arguably this is less a case of Sanders doing very well, as it is Clinton not doing very well.
Either way, Clinton dodged a bullet in Iowa. While the difference in delegates was zero, the difference in narrative between a narrow loss and a narrow defeat is huge. And given the tiny number of delegates in Iowa, the narrative is actually the only thing that really matters.
However, even if Sanders had won and benefitted from a strong momentum narrative in to future primaries, it’s pretty hard to figure out how he’d turn that in to winning the nomination. Unless he suddenly built a healthy share of the vote in minorities, or managed to turn his strength in white voters into a total dominance, it’s impossible to see how he’d win the vote in most states.
Sanders stood in the primary in order to direct the political debate towards equality and other issues close to his heart. Sanders has achieved this, and shown there is still a base of democratic voters who want real left wing policy advanced by the democrats.
If Sanders keeps to his initial goal, it’s possible his campaign run here might be something to build on in future years. Probably not for himself, but as the basis for developing organisations that will energise and mobilise that base of voters.
However, if he shoots for the moon, and considers only winning the nomination, then the final narrative might be that you can’t win the nomination from left, only from the centre.
Okay, you are accusing me of not reading but I posted you a link where he just stole a major endorsement in the Carolinas from Hillary and it is an endorsement from a minority leader. Please, read what I linked.
Dreadwinter wrote: Okay, you are accusing me of not reading but I posted you a link where he just stole a major endorsement in the Carolinas from Hillary and it is an endorsement from a minority leader. Please, read what I linked.
I read it, I giggled and moved on. Here's the 538 list of endorsements, those with a 1 are house of reps, those with a 5 are senators, and those with a 10 are governors.
Dreadwinter wrote: With that 14% approval rating congress has right now, I bet those endorsements really help. hahaha
You were talking about how important it was that a single endorsement flipped. So I gave you the list of congressmen and governors who've given endorsements. And then when you saw how overwhelmingly one sided that list is, you start coming up with reasons why endorsements don't count.
Dreadwinter wrote: With that 14% approval rating congress has right now, I bet those endorsements really help. hahaha
You were talking about how important it was that a single endorsement flipped.
I gave an example of an endorsement flipping and then you gave me a list of endorsements of a specific type that shows heavily in your arguments favor, but you did not provide a complete list of endorsements.
There is a pattern forming with your arguments, I believe it is called "dishonesty".
I mean, the endorsement that I gave you wasn't even a congressman or a governor. But somehow you think that only Congressman and Governors apply here. Either you are intentionally trying to win the argument with dishonesty or you have no clue what you are talking about. Which one?
Also, wait. We are only counting Congress and Governor endorsements? What about all the other endorsements? Unions? Things like that?
In the primary process, Governors and members of Congress are not just endorsements, they are actually delegates. So while Unions can endorse people, and have their endorsement be an influence when people consider who they vote for, the super-delegates actually vote for the people they endorse.
The Iowa Delegate total was:
23 delegates for Clinton
21 delegates for Sanders
The current endorsements/votes from super-delegates is:
357 super-delegates for Clinton
13 super-delegates for Sanders
Dreadwinter wrote: I gave an example of an endorsement flipping and then you gave me a list of endorsements of a specific type that shows heavily in your arguments favor, but you did not provide a complete list of endorsements.
I went to a site I go to fairly often, because I knew that among a lot of other things it tracks the formal endorsement count. So I copied that list and gave it to you, to show that talk about single endorsement is quite silly, when the total endorsement count is so one sided.
And now you’re calling me dishonest because the list was only the formal endorsements, and for reasons you’ve recently invented in your head we really need to know about every single person connected to the Democratic party who might endorse anyone at all. In fact, not just people connected to the Democratic party, because you listed a lawyer who worked on a high profile case. So I guess until we get a list with every single person who's ever been in a news story, then any kind of list would be 'dishonest'.
So really, I think its best we call it on this stupid little back and forth. It’s going nowhere, you just get pissier with every point I make about Sanders' position.
But the thing is, what I love about elections, same reason I got drawn in to business and finance, is that for all the talk and bs, at the end of the day there are cold hard numbers to show who was actually talking some sense. So I guess we’ll see when the numbers are in.
Dreadwinter wrote: I gave an example of an endorsement flipping and then you gave me a list of endorsements of a specific type that shows heavily in your arguments favor, but you did not provide a complete list of endorsements.
I went to a site I go to fairly often, because I knew that among a lot of other things it tracks the formal endorsement count. So I copied that list and gave it to you, to show that talk about single endorsement is quite silly, when the total endorsement count is so one sided.
And now you’re calling me dishonest because the list was only the formal endorsements, and for reasons you’ve recently invented in your head we really need to know about every single person connected to the Democratic party who might endorse anyone at all. In fact, not just people connected to the Democratic party, because you listed a lawyer who worked on a high profile case. So I guess until we get a list with every single person who's ever been in a news story, then any kind of list would be 'dishonest'.
So really, I think its best we call it on this stupid little back and forth. It’s going nowhere, you just get pissier with every point I make about Sanders' position.
But the thing is, what I love about elections, same reason I got drawn in to business and finance, is that for all the talk and bs, at the end of the day there are cold hard numbers to show who was actually talking some sense. So I guess we’ll see when the numbers are in.
You are dismissing an endorsement that effects how voters are going to view a candidate based on the amount of super-delegates a person has right now. Which is honestly quite silly, considering a person like that can influence quite a few people in states and push them to vote for a candidate. You also linked me a bunch of endorsements by super-delegates that are not locked in. They can change(as they have in the past, with Hillary of all people!) and switch sides. On top of that, there are still 210 additional super delegates that have not chosen a candidate. We are still at the point of the process where endorsements matter as they can sway how people vote in a given area and how many delegates a candidate can earn in the state. Just because that person endorsing them is not a super delegate, does not make the endorsement meaningless as you have been claiming.
We will see when the numbers are in but if you are going with cold hard numbers and facts, you should probably remember history and how Hillary lost a lot of the people who pledged to her towards the end of the primary. But, we will see when the numbers are in.
Dreadwinter wrote: Just because that person endorsing them is not a super delegate, does not make the endorsement meaningless as you have been claiming.
So we'll agree to end this debate now that's long past interesting or fun, but I'll still call you on bullshitting. I didn't say endorsements were meaningless, you made that up. fething don't do that.
Dreadwinter wrote: Just because that person endorsing them is not a super delegate, does not make the endorsement meaningless as you have been claiming.
So we'll agree to end this debate now that's long past interesting or fun, but I'll still call you on bullshitting. I didn't say endorsements were meaningless, you made that up. fething don't do that.
You laughed off an endorsement I posted for what reason then? You also claimed I did not read what you had previously written. fething don't do that.
Why don't you two both just step back from your keyboards, have a breath, and stop with the he said/he said/snarky repetition of how the other one said something/etc etc. Just leave it, go back to being politely engaged with this topic.
Dreadwinter wrote: You laughed off an endorsement I posted for what reason then? You also claimed I did not read what you had previously written. fething don't do that.
I laughed it off because you were posting one endorsement. One.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
motyak wrote: Why don't you two both just step back from your keyboards, have a breath, and stop with the he said/he said/snarky repetition of how the other one said something/etc etc. Just leave it, go back to being politely engaged with this topic.
I’ve been trying to end this for about four posts now. But if someone puts words in your mouth, you have to correct them.
But yes, it is time to call this. Nothing has been achieved, nothing will be achieved.
By this I naturally mean, could Rubio choose the Governator as his VP??
No.
12th amendment, last sentence:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
President Barack Obama is about to unveil an ambitious plan for a “21st century clean transportation system.” And he hopes to fund it with a tax on oil.
Obama aides told POLITICO that when he releases his final budget request next week, the president will propose more than $300 billion worth of investments over the next decade in mass transit, high-speed rail, self-driving cars, and other transportation approaches designed to reduce carbon emissions and congestion. To pay for it all, Obama will call for a $10 “fee” on every barrel of oil, a surcharge that would be paid by oil companies but would presumably be passed along to consumers.
There is no real chance that the Republican-controlled Congress will embrace Obama’s grand vision of climate-friendly mobility in an election year—especially after passing a long-stalled bipartisan highway bill just last year—and his aides acknowledge it’s mostly an effort to jump-start a conversation about the future of transportation. But by raising the specter of new taxes on fossil fuels, it could create a political quandary for Democrats. The fee could add as much as 25 cents a gallon to the cost of gasoline, and even with petroleum prices at historic lows, the proposal could be particularly awkward for Hillary Clinton, who has embraced most of Obama’s policies but has also vowed to oppose any tax hikes on families earning less than $250,000 a year.
During Obama’s first year in office, he was so concerned about the politics of taxes that he scuttled a Democratic transportation bill just to avoid a debate over a gasoline-tax hike. Now in his last year in office, he seems to be actively courting a similar debate. A White House memo outlining his plan suggested that its $10-a-barrel fee would not only be necessary to pay for his sustainable transportation dreams, but would do some good on its own by increasing fossil-fuel prices and creating “a clear incentive for private-sector innovation to reduce our reliance on oil and invest in clean-energy technologies that will power our future.”
Two senior administration officials authorized to discuss the plan described it as a sharp departure from unsustainable asphalt-driven Washington policies that date back to President Eisenhower’s creation of the interstate highway system, as well as an aspirational next step for a climate-conscious president who has already ratcheted up fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks, doled out unprecedented green energy subsidies, cracked down on carbon pollution from power plants, and pushed through a global climate deal in Paris. They said that transportation accounts for 30 percent of U.S. emissions, and that Obama’s plan would boost spending on green transportation infrastructure by about 50 percent. They also argued that the U.S. transportation system, long the envy of the world, has become an economic drag that imposes $160 billion in hidden taxes on businesses and commuters while stranding Americans in traffic for 7 billion hours every year.
Former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell, who was briefed about the plan in his role as co-chair of the pro-infrastructure group Building America’s Future, called it the boldest transportation blueprint since Eisenhower envisioned the interstates.
“Since then we’ve just been bumping along, doing short-term fixes, and I give them a lot of credit for laying out this kind of long-term investment,” said Rendell, a Democrat who has been a frequent Obama critic. “I also give them credit for having the guts to say how they would pay for it all. That’s very unusual in this area.”
The biggest chunk of Obama’s proposed new spending, about $20 billion a year—roughly equivalent to the EPA and Interior Department budgets combined—would go to “enhanced transportation options,” especially alternatives to driving and flying. That would include subways, buses, light rail, freight rail modernization projects, and a major expansion of the high-speed rail initiative that Obama launched in his 2009 stimulus bill. It would also include a 150 percent increase for a more popular stimulus program known as TIGER, which provides competitive grants for multi-modal transportation projects with measurable economic and environmental benefits.
Obama’s plan will also include about $10 billion a year to encourage local, regional and state governments to plan and build smarter infrastructure projects, including incentives to reduce carbon emissions through land-use planning, public transit, electric-vehicle charging, and other strategies. There would be a Climate Smart Fund to reward states that make greener choices with existing federal dollars, as well as competitive grant programs to promote region-wide planning, more livable cities, and infrastructure projects with greater resilience to climate impacts.
Finally, Obama will call for more than $2 billion in annual investments in clean transportation research and development, including efforts to deploy self-driving cars, charging stations for electric vehicles, greener airplanes, and other climate-friendly technologies. The thinking is that traditional transportation bills—including the five-year, $305 billion FAST Act that Obama signed in December after 36 consecutive short-term patches—basically pour federal dollars into band-aids for a decrepit system. The White House memo envisions a new approach that would develop a “more integrated, sophisticated and sustainable transportation sector,” financing forward-looking projects like rapid bus lines under development in Indianapolis and Richmond, or a massive transit expansion in Denver.
“We’re still living in a vision that was great for its time, but not for this time,” one senior administration official said. “This is a new vision. We’re realistic about the near-term prospects in Congress, but we think this can change the debate.”
Those near-term prospects are basically nil; Obama’s entire budget request is expected to be dead on arrival on GOP-controlled Capitol Hill. And Obama’s call for a barrel fee reminiscent of the gasoline taxes and carbon taxes that are anathema to so many Republicans would be especially dead on arrival, even though it would be phased in over five years, and would include relief for low-income families and Northeastern households that transition away from heating oil. Most politicians love infrastructure spending, but most politicians, especially Republican politicians, do not love raising taxes to pay for that spending. The FAST Act, for example, was mostly paid for with budgetary gimmicks, to the extent it was paid for at all. The Obama plan also floats the notion of using revenues from corporate tax reform to help pay the tab, but the headline proposal is the $10-a-barrel fee.
Even Rendell, a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton, declined to speculate whether she would embrace Obama’s plan. But he noted that Ronald Reagan—“a very wise man”—supported gas tax hikes. Eventually, he said, America will have to decide whether it wants to drag its transportation system into the 21st century.
“Obviously, it’s tough sledding this year,” he said. “But this is a great blueprint to hand the next administration, no matter whose administration it is.”
Any way you cut it, this is nothing less than a tax on middle and low-income families, who pays a disproportionate share of their income on energy. This will be fodder for the General Election...
d-usa wrote: TIL that oil companies hate the poor and the middle class.
No, d-usa, it's Games Workshop that hates the poor and middle class. I know because my monthly gasoline costs combined are less than a single Celestant-Prime.
Well, it's not just the poor, per se. He pretty much hates all Americans, along our freedoms, white culture, and Jesus. Not in that order.
Snark aside, it's a not-serious-plan as putting a "fee" on a commodity like that will *not* come out of those companies coffers. It'll be passed down to the consumers.
No it won't, but only because it won't pass. My opposition to this is less because of what it does, and more because I wish legislators wouldn't work on things they know perfectly fething well won't go anywhere, like trying to repeal the ACA or what have you, over and over again so they can make some stupid point that we all already know.
Going on to the specific proposal, there are some elements of it that bother me more than others. 25 cents per gallon seems a bit excessive, and self-driving cars are something I'm not sure the government should be developing - I'm pretty sure that the market already is there for such a thing to the point private development is proceeding apace. I'd really prefer government backed development to be into things that are both really useful to society as well as being hard to fund otherwise, such as relatively unprofitable flu vaccines.
Ouze wrote: No it won't, but only because it won't pass. My opposition to this is less because of what it does, and more because I wish legislators wouldn't work on things they know perfectly fething well won't go anywhere, like trying to repeal the ACA or what have you, over and over again so they can make some stupid point that we all already know.
Going on to the specific proposal, there are some elements of it that bother me more than others. 25 cents per gallon seems a bit excessive, and self-driving cars are something I'm not sure the government should be developing - I'm pretty sure that the market already is there for such a thing to the point private development is proceeding apace. I'd really prefer government backed development to be into things that are both really useful to society as well as being hard to fund otherwise, such as relatively unprofitable flu vaccines.
Good points.
I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure the government does help fund the flu vaccines (or at the very least, offers more protection to those companies).
With respect to energy, I'd actually be okay if the Feds funded initiatives to build more nuke plants and upgrade the powergrid infrastructure. But, alas... there's no political will there or opportunities for political grafts.
I wouldn't have a problem with nuclear energy, it's use the byproduct I'm not a fan of. If we could somehow just shoot it off into space, I would be all for it. Until a rocket blew up and scattered radioactive waste all over Florida...wait, I'm all for it.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I wouldn't have a problem with nuclear energy, it's use the byproduct I'm not a fan of. If we could somehow just shoot it off into space, I would be all for it. Until a rocket blew up and scattered radioactive waste all over Florida...wait, I'm all for it.
That's why you "string" stage 2 and 3 reactors alongside the existing ones, or build more of those... I don't know if they're actually called that... but basically you take the reactors we got now, They produce X tons of waste per year. Ship that waste off to reactor "2". it makes Nuke-u-lear power, creating X pounds of waste per year. That waste is shipped off to reactor "3" where it is made into nuke energy, and creates an estimated 55 gal. drum of waste per year.
I think having to store or "do something" with a single 55 gallon drum is much more economical than what we currently do.
Honestly, I don't. Granted, I'm in school currently, surrounded by these kids on a near daily basis. Personally, I prefer to look at things the optimistic way: if they are actually involved NOW, at 18-24 age ranges, when it's been historically true that 18-35 y/o typically aren't very involved, that should lead to more future involvement, and I can remain hopeful and optimistic that even if my preferred candidate, Sanders, doesn't get elected, that the change he's been preaching about will still come because the political will is still there.
Ouze wrote: No it won't, but only because it won't pass. My opposition to this is less because of what it does, and more because I wish legislators wouldn't work on things they know perfectly fething well won't go anywhere, like trying to repeal the ACA or what have you, over and over again so they can make some stupid point that we all already know.
Going on to the specific proposal, there are some elements of it that bother me more than others. 25 cents per gallon seems a bit excessive, and self-driving cars are something I'm not sure the government should be developing - I'm pretty sure that the market already is there for such a thing to the point private development is proceeding apace. I'd really prefer government backed development to be into things that are both really useful to society as well as being hard to fund otherwise, such as relatively unprofitable flu vaccines.
One thing of note is that the tax would only be on imported oil, something that is left out of some of the stories that I am seeing.
Honestly, I don't. Granted, I'm in school currently, surrounded by these kids on a near daily basis. Personally, I prefer to look at things the optimistic way: if they are actually involved NOW, at 18-24 age ranges, when it's been historically true that 18-35 y/o typically aren't very involved, that should lead to more future involvement, and I can remain hopeful and optimistic that even if my preferred candidate, Sanders, doesn't get elected, that the change he's been preaching about will still come because the political will is still there.
Fair point. My generation's utter refusal to actually get involved with the political process despite bitching about it incessantly annoys me as well.
I remember when California voted on decriminalizing marijuana for recreational use. There was a huge hubbub about it on social media and pretty much everyone under the age of 40 seemed to be for it- but when it came time to vote the only ones who actually went out and voted on the proposition were old people (the proposition didn't go through).
I guess the youngsters were too high to make it out to the ballet.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I wouldn't have a problem with nuclear energy, it's use the byproduct I'm not a fan of. If we could somehow just shoot it off into space, I would be all for it. Until a rocket blew up and scattered radioactive waste all over Florida...wait, I'm all for it.
What do you think is unsafe about burying it under thousands of feet of rock and concrete? In the middle of the desert I might add.
As you mentioned, shooting it into the sun is fairly risky in terms of what an accident would cause.
Transporting it in massively obscenely strong containers that get buried thousands of feet in the earth is about as safe as you could possibly be.
The Hillary Clinton email issue is developing into a real whodunit, complete with Clintonesque legal semantics. “I never sent or received any material marked classified,” she said with respect to the discovery of classified information on her private, unclassified email server. That surface denial nearly rivals Bill Clinton’s classic: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
But this is no laughing matter.
There is nothing trivial about a secretary of state having top-secret information on an unsecured computer in her home. That appears to have been the case, based on the State Department’s announcement last week that 22 emails, across seven email chains, containing top-secret information were on Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
At issue is whether the information in the emails was classified when it was sent to her unsecured server. It was, after all, the State Department, upon review of the content by intelligence agencies, that upgraded the emails to top-secret and ordered them withheld from the public.
Now, it may well be that some of Clinton’s political opponents are out to derail her presidential campaign and are using the email controversy to do so. Or it could be the case, as Clinton’s supporters claim, that intergovernmental infighting over what is and isn’t classified is driving this investigation.
The important nonpolitical question: Did the nation’s top diplomat or her State Department staff improperly handle extremely sensitive, top-secret information and do so in a manner in which the information could be compromised?
State Department rules are quite clear.
Top-secret information must not be placed on any unclassified systems. It must be accounted for and controlled. And no copy of a top-secret document can be made without the permission of the office or agency in which it originated.
In addition, any State Department employee who causes the compromise of top-secret information or makes a copy of a top-secret document or any portion of it without the originator’s permission is subject to administrative action.
There are also limited ways in which top-secret information can be transmitted. Sending top-secret information via a private, unsecured email server is not one of them. Transmitting top-secret information with the classification removed is also forbidden.
That makes it critical to establish whether Clinton’s private server contained information that was classified at the time it was sent or received.
Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said , “She was at worst a passive recipient of unwitting information that subsequently became deemed as classified.” In other words, Clinton is an innocent victim of bureaucratic infighting. If so, how did it happen?
That’s what makes this a Washington whodunit.
Someone inside the State Department transmitted the information to Clinton’s personal email account through a private server. That employee — or employees, as the case may be — knows or should know whether the material was drawn from, was based on or included top-secret information.
Given that the information on the server has been upgraded to top-secret, another fear arises: Have unauthorized individuals, even foreign governments, gained access to highly classified information, to the detriment of the United States?
It’s not as though clandestine attempts to penetrate government agencies have not been made.
In fall 2014, the State Department shut down and shored up its unclassified email system after detecting a possible hacker attack. A hacker also attacked the White House’s unclassified computer system around the same time.
Last year, Iranian hackers broke into the email and social media accounts of State Department officials who focused on Iran and the Middle East, according to the New York Times.
In July, The Post reported that hackers who attacked the Office of Personnel Management got the personnel and security files of at least 22 million people, including federal employees and contractors, as well as their families and friends.
The U.S. Postal Service was hacked in 2014. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s computer system was compromised the same year.
The nongovernment personal accounts of CIA Director John Brennan and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson reportedly have been hacked.
It’s chilling to think of what a breach of Clinton’s email account might mean to national security.
Presidential election year or not, the Clinton email issue must be resolved. Just a thought: As a precaution, the manager in the White House dugout might consider telling the bullpen to start warming up Joe Biden.
So... a Joe Biden/Liz Warren would be a stronger ticket... eh?
Now, it may well be that some of Clinton’s political opponents are out to derail her presidential campaign and are using the email controversy to do so. Or it could be the case, as Clinton’s supporters claim, that intergovernmental infighting over what is and isn’t classified is driving this investigation.
At this point, it might not matter if Hillary straight up knifed some guy. Sure, the right wing media would howl and screech about it like they do about every BM she takes or booger she flicks. Everyone else will just roll their eyes and dismiss it as the Republicans crying wolf.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: At this point, it might not matter if Hillary straight up knifed some guy. Sure, the right wing media would howl and screech about it like they do about every BM she takes or booger she flicks. Everyone else will just roll their eyes and dismiss it as the Republicans crying wolf.
That's sort of my ribbing at Whembly's personal crusade. His constant posting about emails is sort of doing the exact opposite of what I think he is trying to accomplish. It's why the Clinton's are never really liked, but are immune to controversy at the same time.
It doesn't really help that their transgressions tend to be exploded beyond reason. Like Bill was the first politician (or even president) to have an affair. Like Hillary is the first public official to run afoul of security screw ups. In the grand scheme of things, these are fairly typical offenses, but only the Clintons have people demanding their heads on pikes for them.
There is nothing trivial about a secretary of state having top-secret information on an unsecured computer in her home.
It is completely trivial. That's why no one cares.
The problem isn't whether or not it's trivial. The problem is this narrow, laser-focus on Hillary and Hillary alone throughout all of this. The general mismanagement of classified information (from classifying material incorrectly, to labeling it incorrectly, to sending it unsecured, etc.) at all levels within the State Department (and you know it really doesn't stop there, political complacency and technology illiteracy is commonplace throughout DC, especially since half of Congress is probably old enough to remember using typewriters). Think about this: why aren't all the people who knowingly sent the classified stuff to Hillary's email making the headlines? Why aren't they getting all the public shame? After all, they're the ones that "leaked" it.
Tannhauser42 wrote: The problem isn't whether or not it's trivial. The problem is this narrow, laser-focus on Hillary and Hillary alone throughout all of this. The general mismanagement of classified information (from classifying material incorrectly, to labeling it incorrectly, to sending it unsecured, etc.) at all levels within the State Department (and you know it really doesn't stop there, political complacency and technology illiteracy is commonplace throughout DC, especially since half of Congress is probably old enough to remember using typewriters). Think about this: why aren't all the people who knowingly sent the classified stuff to Hillary's email making the headlines? Why aren't they getting all the public shame? After all, they're the ones that "leaked" it.
If this is his honest belief, he should drop out and be done with it.
Jeb Bush wrote:“I could drop my pants,” he said in an interview. “Moon the whole crowd. Everybody would be aghast, except the press guys would never notice.”
...
In summary, Hillary Clinton's server is the scandal. It's possible that Rice's aides and Sec. Powell may have acted improperly (though the email rules were set forth after Powell left office). They may have been sloppy with a small number of low-level classified information on an ad hoc basis. The rules and laws pertaining to the US government's data security must be followed. By everyone. But Clinton mishandled hundreds upon hundreds of classified emails, which held state secrets at the highest classification levels. In fact, just this week, the State Department deemed another seven Clinton emails too sensitive to release in any form, even with redactions, bringing that total to 29. Intelligence officials who've seen some of the documents in question say they betray operational intelligence, the leakage of which puts covert missions and lives at risk. A former NSA official has intelligence community sources who say Clinton's emails included the true identities of CIA operatives and assets, including foreign nationals working for the agency. Unlike Powell and Rice, Mrs. Clinton exhibited ongoing gross negligence by exposing reams of sensitive and classified intelligence to foreign governments. She ignored her sworn duty to safeguard secrets, "marked and unmarked," and declined to alter her behavior after she was admonished of an explicit vulnerability pertaining to personal email use. And unlike Powell and Rice, Hillary has consistently lied about this scandal. Her smug assertion that the (twice expanded) FBI investigation won't go anywhere amounts to waving a red flag in front of career investigators and intelligence officials, who are reportedly fuming over her irresponsible, and likely criminal, conduct. Remember, the probe reportedly entails more than just her email misconduct, Gen. David Petraeus was charged for classified intelligence spillage that was far more limited and contained, and a former US Attorney General says there's already sufficient evidence to justify an indictment. Clinton seems confident that her political power and privilege will shield her from accountability in the end, sending a less-than-subtle message to the Justice Department, which has already been influenced by two public White House statements...
Honestly, I feel like Manning and Snowden face much harsher penalties than they deserve. Patreas got off relatively lightly, didn't he? I forget what his sentence was.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Honestly, I feel like Manning and Snowden face much harsher penalties than they deserve. Patreas got off relatively lightly, didn't he? I forget what his sentence was.
Manning is in prison now for 35 years.
Snowdow is in exile.
Patreous plead down and lost his clearance and paid a fine.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Honestly, I feel like Manning and Snowden face much harsher penalties than they deserve.
Manning got what was coming. Snowden ran into the problem that we don't have good whistle blower laws in the US (no where does really...), and even if we did, the government would probably find some way to exempt itself from them because no one likes a tattletale, even if the tattletale did the right thing.
Patreas got off relatively lightly, didn't he? I forget what his sentence was.
Well, again, that issue itself was fairly trivial. He had to resign because of a whole mountain of improper conduct, but initially none of that really amounted to much of anything. Then political opponents decided to score points by holding up one piece of digital paper and screaming to the heavens that the law had been broken... And nothing much really happened, because "oh no once again government officials have mishandled documents/information" is kind of a trivial thing on a case by case basis. Guy plead to the charge, paid some money, and walked away.
Probably nothing would have come of it if it hadn't been proceeded by a mountain of affairs being revealed among military/defense officials, some stalker, and general widespread embarrassment.
The very physical server itself *is* the smoking gun.
So the classified emails that you post every week are completely irrelevant?
Either getting them is wrong, and as such every other Republican SoS made the same mistake, or getting them isn't a big deal and you just keep on posting them for no reason at all.
But people can't even decide what the damn scandal is here and what the actual problem is.
But again, that is just the typical problem with the way the GOP has dealt with all things Clinton.
In the 90s it went like this: There was a shady business deal --> we must launch a special totally non-partisan investigation to get to the bottom of this --> we didn't find out anything wrong with the business deal, but did you hear Bill is sleeping around? --> hey guys, the President lied about getting blown in office --> this dress has a cum-stain on it! --> IMPEACH HIM!!!!!
Now we have: There was something shady about Benghazi --> we must launch multiple totally non-partisan investigations to get to the bottom of this --> none of our multiple investigations found anything wrong with Benghazi, but did you hear HIllary had a private email server? --> hey guys, there are emails that are now classified on it! --> oh, other guys had classified emails on their private email as well? Okay, ignore the email, THERE IS A PRIVATE SERVER!!! --> Can we pre-impeach her? Pretty please?
The very physical server itself *is* the smoking gun.
So the classified emails that you post every week are completely irrelevant?
Either getting them is wrong, and as such every other Republican SoS made the same mistake, or getting them isn't a big deal and you just keep on posting them for no reason at all.
But people can't even decide what the damn scandal is here and what the actual problem is.
But again, that is just the typical problem with the way the GOP has dealt with all things Clinton.
In the 90s it went like this: There was a shady business deal --> we must launch a special totally non-partisan investigation to get to the bottom of this --> we didn't find out anything wrong with the business deal, but did you hear Bill is sleeping around? --> hey guys, the President lied about getting blown in office --> this dress has a cum-stain on it! --> IMPEACH HIM!!!!!
Now we have: There was something shady about Benghazi --> we must launch multiple totally non-partisan investigations to get to the bottom of this --> none of our multiple investigations found anything wrong with Benghazi, but did you hear HIllary had a private email server? --> hey guys, there are emails that are now classified on it! --> oh, other guys had classified emails on their private email as well? Okay, ignore the email, THERE IS A PRIVATE SERVER!!! --> Can we pre-impeach her? Pretty please?
And that is really why nobody cares.
No. The problem is, there's one set of law for us Plebes (like Manning/Snowden), and another for the connected (like Hillary and to certain extent Patreous).
whembly wrote: Lordy... people dies whenever "mishandled documents/information" happens.
Take it to Hollywood. They'll eat that up. Meanwhile the real world knows that everything under the fething sun gets classified, no matter how unimportant it is, and no one is dead because of Hillary's inbox.
'Tis why the Other Intelligence Agencies are throwing major hissy fits over this.
They're throwing a fit about it because they're the intelligence agencies. They're the governmental equivalent of a spoiled rich kid who got a pony at 5, a Ferrari at 10, and their own yacht at 16. They throw fits about everything, demand that no one ever ask what they're doing and why, and violate their own mandates on a whim. I could care less about their childish tantrums. They're upset because they want absolute control of the intelligence machine, Congress is upset because they want absolute control of the intelligence machine, and Hillary just did something that both sides get to use as a proxy war for their own little squabbling. This has nothing to do with Hillary at this point, except in so far as the GOP likes throwing this out as a matter of scoring points. The real battle is between Congress and the defense intelligence machine of this country over who gets to control what, and that has nothing to really do with Hillary.
Meanwhile, its still trivial, and no one cares except you and some reporters with nothing better to do with their time.
No. The problem is, there's one set of law for us Plebes (like Manning/Snowden), and another for the connected (like Hillary and to certain extent Patreous).
*Thats* the problem.
I look forward when you use your never ending quest for justice to actually back up your words.
The way you just waved away the fact that Rice and Powell also broke the laws shows that you don't give a crap. It's not about *us* vs *them*, it never has been, it never will be. It's about *Hillary/Obama/Their Team* vs *your team*.
d-usa wrote: Either getting them is wrong, and as such every other Republican SoS made the same mistake, or getting them isn't a big deal and you just keep on posting them for no reason at all.
I know that Colin Powell said that the documents he received were classified 10 years after he initially received them. Through a State Department server. Without his request to strip them of classification. But that would require you to admit that you aren't comparing apples to apples. Almost that it's about *Bush/Trump/Their Team* vs *your team*.
Condi said she didn't use email for those documents, so who does that leave?
I know that Colin Powell said that the documents he received were classified 10 years after he initially received them.
So you are using the Hillary defense? Because Hillary says stuff wasn't classified when she initially received them and State is classifying stuff now.
Almost that it's about *Bush/Trump/Their Team* vs *your team*.
Hey. Team gakky arguments might not play a good game, and they might not even play that particularly well, but they have spirit damn it and that's what really counts!
Hey. Team gakky arguments might not play a good game, and they might not even play that particularly well, but they have spirit damn it and that's what really counts!
I'm sorry, I will attempt to recognize the effort...
And I need to remember why I have some people on ignore
d-usa wrote: So you are using the Hillary defense? Because Hillary says stuff wasn't classified when she initially received them and State is classifying stuff now.
whembly wrote: If Hillary was "Manning"... she'd be frogmarched in prison in short order.
And therein lies the crux of the situation. Hillary will likely never be held accountable for anything she has done in her life. Even Nixon had the decency to resign.
Not realizing that one or two emails you received had a secret piece of info, completely believable and even for us plebes not likely to lead to serious punishment (even for the sender if he didn't realize what he was doing).
Not realizing that 100's of emails including SAP and SCI information were classified, sorry but believing this is true requires such willful ignorance its mind boggling especially given the mail from her directing subordinates to remove markings and send unsecure.
Trying to equate the two situations is pure balderdash.
whembly wrote: If Hillary was "Manning"... she'd be frogmarched in prison in short order.
And therein lies the crux of the situation. Hillary will likely never be held accountable for anything she has done in her life. Even Nixon had the decency to resign.
What crime is she accused or convicted of? Here's the deal, unless you want to bring a case (don't try it, she's got lots of money and good lawyers) or anybody in the govt. does, there is literally nothing. You can bitch and moan all you want, got a case? Bring the case forward. I'm sure you could find a super pac to fund your efforts. the GOP has been dying for the last ten years to kill this person in any way imaginable. She is still kicking. Either she hasn't broken the law, or the law she broke is more difficult to find than lots of lawyers have figured out, or you are just being an ear sore. Show me the actual law or statute she broke, or shut the hell up, because it's pretty stupid at this point when you compare this piddly crap to the ridiculous of the GOP nominees. Donald Freaking Trump is your leading nominee. Or Ted Cruz. Or Marco Rubio. Do you honestly think any of those people are above setting up an email account behind the board?
How is putting "Hillary Powell Rice" into Google digging deeper?
I saw that article, and it doesn't exonerate Colin Powell or Condi Rice (or even try to do so), you just have a hate-on for Hillary Clinton.
Guy Benson wrote:She ignored her sworn duty to safeguard secrets, "marked and unmarked," and declined to alter her behavior after she was admonished of an explicit vulnerability pertaining to personal email use. And unlike Powell and Rice, Hillary has consistently lied about this scandal. Her smug assertion that the (twice expanded) FBI investigation won't go anywhere amounts to waving a red flag in front of career investigators and intelligence officials, who are reportedly fuming over her irresponsible, and likely criminal, conduct.
Yep, Guy Benson hates Hillary as much as Whembly does.
No. The problem is, there's one set of law for us Plebes (like Manning/Snowden), and another for the connected (like Hillary and to certain extent Patreous).
*Thats* the problem.
The solution is "Don't be a pleb."
Isn't that what US, conservative ideology posits as the end goal for people?
So...are the Republicans so desperate that they can only think to charge Hillary about one thing to tell people not to vote for her?
Didn't you have a debate between Republican candidates yesterday? Does that mean that they said absolutely nothing about their actual program? You know, what they may bring for actual solutions to make sure the country will be safe? Other than totally stupid and unrealistic declarations?
When someone is trying to charge the other at all cost, it usually shows they have nothing to say about themselves. And I find it's quite a big problem if you want to become President in charge of nearly a whole continent.
It's pretty much part of the conservative playbook that different from me==bad person. That is what they run on for the most part...That 'others' are bad people so you need to elect me.
Republicans are for helping the Rich get richer and de-regulating to the point all our water will be toxic, our air visible, and we are ruled by some religious theocracy (Still as yet to be defined which of the thousands of denominations will rule all)
No. The problem is, there's one set of law for us Plebes (like Manning/Snowden), and another for the connected (like Hillary and to certain extent Patreous).
*Thats* the problem.
The solution is "Don't be a pleb."
Isn't that what US, conservative ideology posits as the end goal for people?
Had an amusing chat with a coworker just now about the GOP debates last night. I was wondering why Rick Santorum ran again this year, and he floating a phrase that really, really deserves to be introduced here:
You have the guys that rise and fall, you know? The Jeb Bushes, the Donald Trumps, the John McCains and the Howard Deans and the Herman Cains, who have at least a moment where they look like they can go all the way. Then you have the trough leeches - these are the guys who just run for office every few years. They know they have no chance, but they need to run so they can fundraise and book tour enough to not have to work for the next 3 years or so. They're like those sucker fish in an aquarium - they know they'll never swim up to the top, and are happy just to stay at the bottom, eating poop. Rick Santorum is a classic trough leech, just eating poop.
Ouze wrote: Had an amusing chat with a coworker just now about the GOP debates last night. I was wondering why Rick Santorum ran again this year, and he floating a phrase that really, really deserves to be introduced here:
You have the guys that rise and fall, you know? The Jeb Bushes, the Donald Trumps, the John McCains and the Howard Deans and the Herman Cains, who have at least a moment where they look like they can go all the way. Then you have the trough leeches - these are the guys who just run for office every few years. They know they have no chance, but they need to run so they can fundraise and book tour enough to not have to work for the next 3 years or so. They're like those sucker fish in an aquarium - they know they'll never swim up to the top, and are happy just to stay at the bottom, eating poop. Rick Santorum is a classic trough leech, just eating poop.
Yup... and looks like Carson is on that same school...
Clinton is just as bad. Asking women to vote for Clinton because she's a woman, is a terrible idea for running a political campaign.
You keep saying that, but why? I don't know where you are getting this at all. Hillary Clinton's campaign has built almost nothing on her gender.
Clinton is running on "If you look into the future, you will see me looking back at you from the Oval Office. Which list of mine do you want to be on when the day comes?"
I don't know if it is her, herself, as it so much the outlining people spreading that message.
I have heard pundits scoff when a woman says they are voting for Sanders. They act like women should be voting for Clinton because, hey, they are both women after all.
The short of the article:
Hillary Clinton’s older feminist supporters have a message for young women who are not backing her candidacy: Shame on you.
While I have respect for Steinem and Albirght, feminism does not equate to blind genital allegiance.
Like I said, Clinton may not be directly saying this kind of stuff, but the outlining people are.
A president should be elected based on many things not just gender alone. I do believe Clinton has been more critiqued than a lot of other candidates, she should be elected if she is a better fit.
I will vote Clinton if Sanders does not get the nomination.
Is voting for a woman because she is a woman really that much worse than voting for anybody else that you don't know anything about simply because they have a D or R next to their name?
d-usa wrote: Is voting for a woman because she is a woman really that much worse than voting for anybody else that you don't know anything about simply because they have a D or R next to their name?
No, it's not. It's like voting for insert religion here because you are of that same religion.
That's why we need to educate ourselves on the candidates. Find out where they stand, and see if you are OK with their negatives despite their positives. Don't vote blindly, vote smart and well informed.
d-usa wrote: Is voting for a woman because she is a woman really that much worse than voting for anybody else that you don't know anything about simply because they have a D or R next to their name?
Really, it's about the same as those voters who voted Obama in in 08 because he was black (and believe me, I know a number of people who did exactly that).
I would suppose that voting for someone based on the D or R by their name could be slightly "better" because at least from a nominal sense, you'd be voting the party that better aligns with your personal beliefs?
Really, it's about the same as those voters who voted Obama in in 08 because he was black (and believe me, I know a number of people who did exactly that).
Should we also mention the people who didn't vote Obama specifically because he is black or wouldn't vote for Hillary because she's a woman? Granted, most of such people wouldn't vote a Democrat anyway.
And most people who would vote for them on account of being black or a woman would vote Democrat anyway, if they voted at all. So I guess that entire line of discussions is just kind of pointless outside of having a laugh at how stupid people not 'me' are?
BTW, I think that wanting to break class ceilings is completely legitimate motivation for voting a person. Obama presidency was historical, and I'm sure it was highly inspirational to many minority kids who realised that they too could become a president. And while women are not a minority, they're still many ways treated like one. So if someone's motivation for voting Hillary is that they want to see a woman president, I'm not going to tell them that they're wrong.
Crimson wrote: BTW, I think that wanting to break class ceilings is completely legitimate motivation for voting a person. Obama presidency was historical, and I'm sure it was highly inspirational to many minority kids who realised that they too could become a president. And while women are not a minority, they're still many ways treated like one. So if someone's motivation for voting Hillary is that they want to see a woman president, I'm not going to tell them that they're wrong.
Exactly and I should have clarified that better. But I still feel it is not a wise thing to do based on that alone.
But shaming someone of the same gender/race for not supporting candidates of same gender/race is not cool.
So there are now allegations that Sanders was shorted deligates in Iowa. According to the article below, some are confused about the process and other outright irate, claiming the delegates awarded did not match the results of the vote.
Was it by error? Or by intent? Or were the delegates awarded accurately after all? If not, will they reapportion the delegates after final totals?
I only put one part of the article into quotes, that part relating to Knoxville No. 3.
Jennifer Jacobs wrote:Iowans claim instances when Sanders was shorted delegates
Several caucusgoers told the Register they thought Sanders had been shorted county delegates, including in Knoxville No. 3.
A total of 110 people were present for the final vote, and the count was 58 people for Sanders and 52 people for Clinton — which amounted to five county delegates for Sanders and four for Clinton, said Lonnie McCombs, a 59-year-old Knoxville Democrat who is retired from careers in the military and in manufacturing.
“That’s how it was recorded,” said McCombs, a Sanders backer.
But when the Knoxville Journal Express newspaper posted the Democratic Party’s official results, it showed Knoxville No. 3 results as Clinton with five county delegates and Sanders with four.
“It cost Bernie a (county) delegate,” said McCombs, who took to Facebook to report his concerns.
Steve Eck, who was Clinton’s precinct captain for Knoxville No. 3, confirmed: “Somebody transposed those numbers.”
Eck, a 61-year-old nurse anesthesiologist, said the problem was reported to party officials.
Any way you cut it, this is nothing less than a tax on middle and low-income families, who pays a disproportionate share of their income on energy. This will be fodder for the General Election...
You're right that a program like this can be a tough sell, but other than that... hoo boy.
I'm getting really, really bored with this faux concern over middle class pockets that only appears when a environmental tariff is suggested. Its an impact that's so easily controlled with adjustments to tax rates and transfer payments. But you'd never hear that because special interests are trying to tank programs like this.
So yes, a scare campaign is easy and good politics, but anyone who wants decent policy selection should be contemptuous of any kind of scare campaign.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I'm also in favor of more nuclear energy but it's definitely a difficult sell, as far as NIMBY's go.
What's often missed is that investment in nuclear has a whole set of risks that make it unattractivd, despite its decent price per unit.
A nuclear station is a massive investment, unlike say solar where single stations can be a couple of panels. If a solar investment turns out to be non-viable then you're out 5 thousand. A nuclear plant doesn't work out and you've blown 500 hundred million.
The other risk is lead in time. You can have solar installed in a day, while nuclear can be years in development. In an uncertain, rapidly changing energy market those years can make investors can project even when the numbers look great on paper.
I'm not saying solar is better, its cost per unit is nothing like nuclear, and it can't produce the steady baseload nuclear can. I'm just pointing out there's bigger reasons than nimby that nuclear investment has stagnated in recent years.
d-usa wrote: Is voting for a woman because she is a woman really that much worse than voting for anybody else that you don't know anything about simply because they have a D or R next to their name?
No, it's not. It's like voting for insert religion here because you are of that same religion.
But, according to Albright, "...there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other...”
Fox News posited, in essence, if Albright's unilateral support of women would include Carly Fiorina, the other woman running this election.
The quote isn't "There is a special place in hell for women who don't support other women..." The assumption here is that Carly Fiorna is helping other women, which Albright would probably disagree with.
Crimson wrote: BTW, I think that wanting to break class ceilings is completely legitimate motivation for voting a person. Obama presidency was historical, and I'm sure it was highly inspirational to many minority kids who realised that they too could become a president. And while women are not a minority, they're still many ways treated like one. So if someone's motivation for voting Hillary is that they want to see a woman president, I'm not going to tell them that they're wrong.
The real question is, would she also warrant a Nobel Prize simply for getting elected, or was that a one-time thing?
So, some say Rubio ended up having his resurgence destroyed by Christie in the last R debate. Will Rubio's gaffe have any lasting impact at this point? Thoughts?
The real question is, would she also warrant a Nobel Prize simply for getting elected, or was that a one-time thing?
Well, that was just bs. Really damaged the prestige of the prize.
It isn't like Pres. Obama asked for it or nominated himself. People still want to be bitchy about it but they are looking at the wrong people, but I suppose any port in a storm.
The real question is, would she also warrant a Nobel Prize simply for getting elected, or was that a one-time thing?
Well, that was just bs. Really damaged the prestige of the prize.
It isn't like Pres. Obama asked for it or nominated himself. People still want to be bitchy about it but they are looking at the wrong people, but I suppose any port in a storm.
It's not his fault... but you can't deny that it was used as a bully pulpit for awhile afterwards.
It lost it's significance since his handling over Iraq/Afganistan/Droning/etc..
It isn't like Pres. Obama asked for it or nominated himself. People still want to be bitchy about it but they are looking at the wrong people, but I suppose any port in a storm.
whembly wrote: (like Hillary and to certain extent Patreous).
And even then, quite a big gap between those two.
Agreed. Hillary's situation is far worse.
Seems so. But I meant, Petraeus has been held accountable and his career is effectively over. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is widely regarded as the leading presidential candidate ...
A friend recently told me an old Russian saying about the law: "It's like a spider web. Small flies get stuck. But the big flies buzz right through."
The facts are a little more established with Petraeus, though. No one, not even him, denies knowingly mishandling classified data by handing it over to his mistress.
Breotan wrote: [Fox News posited, in essence, if Albright's unilateral support of women would include Carly Fiorina, the other woman running this election.
In an election which hews so strongly anti-establishment, it's curious that Carly Fiorina isn't doing better. After all, she's a Washington outsider and will remain so for the rest of her life.
Frazzled wrote: Hillary Clinton won't get 50% of the population. She couldn't win a primary in her own party.
Mark it here first. If Clinton runs as the Democratic candidate, unless the Republicans run a baffoon she will lose.
on a more important note, I'd like to throw my hat into the ring.
Wiener Party 2016 candidates:
Frazzled/TBone
"A bone in every bowl!"
Fraz was on point for the Republicans lack of chances due to their own choices right back on page one
Clinton still has massive Super Delegate counts on her side. If she does lose, I think the DNC will try to put a not-Sanders candidate up.
I secretly hope and pray that Sanders wins the majority of delegates but Clinton gets nominated due to the Super Delegates. There is nothing quite as wonderful as a tainted candidate on the opposing side.
Ouze wrote: The facts are a little more established with Petraeus, though. No one, not even him, denies knowingly mishandling classified data by handing it over to his mistress.
I saw a fairly recent article in the last week or so, in which Colin Powell has come out in "support" of Hillary over the email scandal. I put the support in quotes because he is pretty much calling this a witch hunt, and calls on the fact that apparently some of the classified emails, were retroactively classified. Which means that a decent number of emails were completely A-OK for her to handle the way she did, because they weren't actually Secret or TS or anything.
I think what I'd be interested in, in regards to Powell's point of retroactivity, is the when question. As in, when were the emails made classified? Because, if they were made such after the investigations started.....
I figure Sanders wins easily, but if Clinton can keep it below double digits, she will be doing well there. On the GOP side:
Trump, but below current predictions.
Kasich, ekes out second place due to Rubio's poor debate.
Third is a crap shoot to me. It might be Rubio, or Cruz. Heck, even Christie might pull it out here.
If Rubio does come in third and below expectations, the race is up fro grabs again. If he does place a strong second, the nomination will be within sight for him due to the media bounce he will likely get. Cruz still has a shot in SC, but it will be an uphill battle for him.
(CNN)Michael Bloomberg says he is considering running for president of the United States, a move that would dramatically shake up an already chaotic 2016 race.
In an interview with Financial Times, the media mogul and former New York City mayor said he was "looking at all the options" when asked about a possible bid.
"I'm listening to what candidates are saying and what the primary voters appear to be doing," Bloomberg said, adding that he would need to add his name on ballots by early March in order to stage a serious campaign.
The billionaire also issued his most damning indictment of the current campaigns to date.
"I find the level of discourse and discussion distressingly banal and an outrage and an insult to the voters," Bloomberg told the Financial Times, adding that the public deserved "a lot better."
Bloomberg's interview, which marks the first time the billionaire has confirmed that he is eyeing a presidential bid, took place in London and focused primarily on financial sustainability, a source with knowledge of the interview told CNN.
It wasn't until the end of the interview that the reporter, Oliver Ralph, asked the former mayor if he was considering running for president.
"What Bloomberg told (the Financial Times) is what he's been saying privately for weeks," the source said.
The New York Times reported last month that he was considering a plan to run as an independent because he was troubled by Donald Trump's success on the Republican side, and Hillary Clinton's inability to staunch Bernie Sanders' growth on the Democratic side.
Both Trump and Sanders currently have wide leads over their respective rivals in New Hampshire, which holds the first-in-the-nation primary on Tuesday. Trump and Sanders also had strong second-place showings in the Iowa caucuses last week.
Republican debate: CNN's Reality Check
Bloomberg would run as a moderate promising to bring compromise and business savvy to an election characterized by highly charged disputes and political partisanship.
Bloomberg is seen as a pragmatist and fiscal conservative who has taken liberal positions on issues like gun control and the environment.
Donald Trump: I'd beat Bloomberg'
With a $39 billion fortune, Bloomberg is expected to self-fund his campaign and would likely spend north of $1 billion to do it.
If Trump or Cruz is nominated for GOP candidate...
That's when I can see Bloomberg jumps in...
However, that's bad news for Hillary/Sanders, then Democratic nominee, as Bloomberg will pull more Democrat votes than GOP...
Ouze wrote: The facts are a little more established with Petraeus, though. No one, not even him, denies knowingly mishandling classified data by handing it over to his mistress.
I saw a fairly recent article in the last week or so, in which Colin Powell has come out in "support" of Hillary over the email scandal. I put the support in quotes because he is pretty much calling this a witch hunt, and calls on the fact that apparently some of the classified emails, were retroactively classified. Which means that a decent number of emails were completely A-OK for her to handle the way she did, because they weren't actually Secret or TS or anything.
I think what I'd be interested in, in regards to Powell's point of retroactivity, is the when question. As in, when were the emails made classified? Because, if they were made such after the investigations started.....
Source? I'm interested in seeing that, as Powell (and Rice) were pretty tight-lipped when this story broke out.
Note: "retroactively classified" is a red herring. Dept of States can only retroactively classify documents that were under the DoS' perview. They don't have that ability for classified documents that were "born" from other intelligence department. She had satellite information (from NGA) and TS-SAP (presumably CIA) on her homebrew server. Those were always classified and only the agencies where those information were "born" can declassify them...
Which side of the fence would Bloomberg run on though??
Also... isn't he viewed as a "dirty, gun-grabbing commie liberal" ?? in most right leaning circles (and many other circles aside from the right as well)
Also... isn't he viewed as a "dirty, gun-grabbing commie liberal" ?? in most right leaning circles (and many other circles aside from the right as well)
He would have to run as Independent (ala, Perot?).
Note: "retroactively classified" is a red herring. Dept of States can only retroactively classify documents that were under the DoS' perview. They don't have that ability for classified documents that were "born" from other intelligence department. She had satellite information (from NGA) and TS-SAP (presumably CIA) on her homebrew server. Those were always classified and only the agencies where those information were "born" can declassify them...
The article I had read was unclear about what exactly was retroactively classified... There are indeed satellite maps that could be unclassified, but later on classified due to operations/decisions made.
I'm well aware of who has control and ability to classify/declassify things. It could be entirely possible that information received from another agency was FOUO when sent to her, but later on classified to Secret or higher. And yeah, that classification wouldn't change the fact that it once was on unclassified systems outside the agency, but outside agencies would still need to treat that information as such. It's not quite a breach of classified, but it certainly is a pain in the arse.
Note: "retroactively classified" is a red herring. Dept of States can only retroactively classify documents that were under the DoS' perview. They don't have that ability for classified documents that were "born" from other intelligence department. She had satellite information (from NGA) and TS-SAP (presumably CIA) on her homebrew server. Those were always classified and only the agencies where those information were "born" can declassify them...
The article I had read was unclear about what exactly was retroactively classified... There are indeed satellite maps that could be unclassified, but later on classified due to operations/decisions made.
I'm well aware of who has control and ability to classify/declassify things. It could be entirely possible that information received from another agency was FOUO when sent to her, but later on classified to Secret or higher. And yeah, that classification wouldn't change the fact that it once was on unclassified systems outside the agency, but outside agencies would still need to treat that information as such. It's not quite a breach of classified, but it certainly is a pain in the arse.
That's what the DoS and the Clintonites are trying to spin.
There were no, "hey, it wasn't classified from the getgo and it should, so let's do it now to be kosher".
She had classified information, even TS-SAP, that were never, EVERdeclassified. Here's a good starting point, with information/links galore to be better informed on this subject.
whembly wrote: (like Hillary and to certain extent Patreous).
And even then, quite a big gap between those two.
Agreed. Hillary's situation is far worse.
Seems so. But I meant, Petraeus has been held accountable and his career is effectively over. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is widely regarded as the leading presidential candidate ...
A friend recently told me an old Russian saying about the law: "It's like a spider web. Small flies get stuck. But the big flies buzz right through."
Hence my question:
Should we turn a blind eye on whether we have two sets of laws?
One for the highly connect? And...
One for everyone else?
I mean, didn't dakka have a massive thread on that "Afluenza" kid?
Crimson wrote: Well, that was just bs. Really damaged the prestige of the prize.
I’ve gone through this a lot of times before, but… no, it really didn’t damage the prestige of the prize. The Peace Prize has always been more about encouraging ongoing peace efforts than rewarding people after the fact. And that’s a reasonable approach – in terms of doing good in the world it makes more sense to use the media attention and prestige of the prize to drive towards a final peaceful resolution, than to come in years after the fact when there’s nothing left to achieve.
And the award is also handed to people who’ve done horrible things, but are now trying to do something for peace. It isn’t about saints, but about people doing something really good right now.
All of that means that the award has been handed out to guys like Yassar Arafat. Obama is hardly even the worst US recipient, Henry Kissinger got the award.
So yeah, when the peace prize gave the award to Obama, it had already given it to some seriously gakky people. Whatever the prize’s reputation, it wasn’t changed by giving it to a president before he'd done anything significant for peace or human rights, even when he turned out to do very little for peace or human rights beyond not being Bush.
whembly wrote: It's not his fault... but you can't deny that it was used as a bully pulpit for awhile afterwards.
I can not only deny it, I can state that claim is fairly ridiculous. Throughout the entire peace prize process, Obama talked it down as much as he could. For the simple reason that he, along with almost everyone who wasn’t on the nobel committee, knew the award was pretty silly. Did he ever mention the award once, outside of being directly asked about. And how would he use it as part of a bully pulpit strategy anyway - turn to some combative congressman and shout ‘you should do what I say because not only am I the president, I’m also a nobel prize winner’.
All I need to know is not once did Obama use willing the Peace Prize as part of his campaign in 2012. Really that should have been the final word on the matter.
whembly wrote: It's not his fault... but you can't deny that it was used as a bully pulpit for awhile afterwards.
I can not only deny it, I can state that claim is fairly ridiculous. Throughout the entire peace prize process, Obama talked it down as much as he could. For the simple reason that he, along with almost everyone who wasn’t on the nobel committee, knew the award was pretty silly. Did he ever mention the award once, outside of being directly asked about. And how would he use it as part of a bully pulpit strategy anyway - turn to some combative congressman and shout ‘you should do what I say because not only am I the president, I’m also a nobel prize winner’.
Not sure why I used that word... I was thinking of 'accolades', which has roundly been viewed as unearned.
But, for a short time, it was used as a badge of honor. I remember this distinctly as most of the chattering class just responded with the equivalent of "eye-rollings". Now? It's barely mentioned.
To be fair... I believe he did donate the prize money itself, so there's one good thing you can say about it.
whembly wrote: Yeah... still not an advocate of a "theocracy" here.
Of course, which is why I said this:
I realize none of this will actually matter or even begin to change your mind, but whatever.
But thank you for proving me right.
That's the terminology that I'd argue that isn't applicable here...
However, if you think the people he associates with is germane to what you think Cruz would factor into his world view... by all means.
No, I take what he says as indication as what his world view is, something you clearly ignore. He keeps disturbing company, no doubt, and proudly brags about their endorsements.
Just like I indicted Obama for his chummy relationships with folks like Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright (not that you'd care).
Right, because after all this time you believe I'm just some ignorant Obama fanboy despite the fact that I have repeatedly told you that isn't true. I realize that it doesn't matter as you've consistently shown you can care more about what you believe to be true than what is actually true and that's what makes you the perfect right-wing news consumer and voter.
I'm still a Rubio fanboi... if you don't like Cruz, then you'd really REALLY hate Rubio as he's even further right to Cruz.
No, they're pretty much one and same and you'll be a Ted Cruz fanboy in due time I'm sure, just like you were hyping up Fiorina before you moved on to the next person in line.
whembly wrote: Yeah... still not an advocate of a "theocracy" here.
Of course, which is why I said this:
I realize none of this will actually matter or even begin to change your mind, but whatever.
But thank you for proving me right.
Hey... if you wanted an echo chamber, hang out at your favorite website "Right Wing Watch".
That's the terminology that I'd argue that isn't applicable here...
However, if you think the people he associates with is germane to what you think Cruz would factor into his world view... by all means.
No, I take what he says as indication as what his world view is, something you clearly ignore. He keeps disturbing company, no doubt, and proudly brags about their endorsements.
k. You'll notice that he's trying to convey that he's taking on the Reagan strategy in mobilizing the evangelical votes. (I don't think it'd work though).
Just like I indicted Obama for his chummy relationships with folks like Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright (not that you'd care).
Right, because after all this time you believe I'm just some ignorant Obama fanboy despite the fact that I have repeatedly told you that isn't true. I realize that it doesn't matter as you've consistently shown you can care more about what you believe to be true than what is actually true and that's what makes you the perfect right-wing news consumer and voter.
You seem to be mistaken of the concepts of 'opinions' vs. 'hard facts'. Don't conflate the two.
See? That indigent response there about you not being an Obama fanboy really puts you in the 'she doth protest too much'. Hence why I don't believe you.
I'm still a Rubio fanboi... if you don't like Cruz, then you'd really REALLY hate Rubio as he's even further right to Cruz.
No, they're pretty much one and same and you'll be a Ted Cruz fanboy in due time I'm sure, just like you were hyping up Fiorina before you moved on to the next person in line.
Rubio is an ultra-hawk foreign policy wise. Cruz is NOT.
But to your point? Hillary vs Cruz? You bet you fething ass I'd be voting for Cruz... not that it really matters as Hillary is pretty much unstoppable after New Hamshire.
whembly wrote: Hey... if you wanted an echo chamber, hang out at your favorite website "Right Wing Watch".
You clearly didn't read the article written by a conservative political commentator that I linked. Both of those things were the top results from searching "ted cruz theocracy" in Google.
k. You'll notice that he's trying to convey that he's taking on the Reagan strategy in mobilizing the evangelical votes. (I don't think it'd work though).
Sure, Whembly, that's it exactly...
You seem to be mistaken of the concepts of 'opinions' vs. 'hard facts'. Don't conflate the two.
Says the right-wing talking point regurgitation machine who uses those two thing interchangeably.
See? That indigent response there about you not being an Obama fanboy really puts you in the 'she doth protest too much'. Hence why I don't believe you.
Whembly, you can believe what you want all day long, but just remember that it still won't make it true. I frankly don't really care whether you believe me or not, because like all hyper-partisan clowns, your opinion doesn't really matter.
Rubio is an ultra-hawk foreign policy wise. Cruz is NOT.
Rubio is more hawkish now (and recently so), but Cruz will be if he finds that it suits him, but they're both poster boys for chickenhawks everywhere.
But to your point? Hillary vs Cruz? You bet you fething ass I'd be voting for Cruz... not that it really matters as Hillary is pretty much unstoppable after New Hamshire.
Of course, you'll vote for anyone with an (R) next to their name. It's all you know how to do.
whembly wrote: But, for a short time, it was used as a badge of honor. I remember this distinctly as most of the chattering class just responded with the equivalent of "eye-rollings". Now? It's barely mentioned.
No, it wasn’t used as a badge of honour, certainly not by Obama. He did the absolute bare minimum needed to avoid appearing ungrateful or rude to the committee giving him the award. But he never raised it himself in any way to advance any of his policies. As LordofHats points out he never used it as part of his 2012 re-election.
The only time it ever gets mentioned is by Republicans having a whinge about…. Obama something something Nobel something something.
whembly wrote: Hey... if you wanted an echo chamber, hang out at your favorite website "Right Wing Watch".
You clearly didn't read the article written by a conservative political commentator that I linked. Both of those things were the top results from searching "ted cruz theocracy" in Google.
Have. Thanks.
He comes off as someone who's, ermahgawd, he believes in God so he's going to install a Theocracy here!!!
k. You'll notice that he's trying to convey that he's taking on the Reagan strategy in mobilizing the evangelical votes. (I don't think it'd work though).
Sure, Whembly, that's it exactly...
You seem to be mistaken of the concepts of 'opinions' vs. 'hard facts'. Don't conflate the two.
Says the right-wing talking point regurgitation machine who uses those two thing interchangeably.
See? That indigent response there about you not being an Obama fanboy really puts you in the 'she doth protest too much'. Hence why I don't believe you.
Whembly, you can believe what you want all day long, but just remember that it still won't make it true. I frankly don't really care whether you believe me or not, because like all hyper-partisan clowns, your opinion doesn't really matter.
k.
Rubio is an ultra-hawk foreign policy wise. Cruz is NOT.
Rubio is more hawkish now (and recently so), but Cruz will be if he finds that it suits him, but they're both poster boys for chickenhawks everywhere.
k.
But to your point? Hillary vs Cruz? You bet you fething ass I'd be voting for Cruz... not that it really matters as Hillary is pretty much unstoppable after New Hamshire.
Of course, you'll vote for anyone with an (R) next to their name. It's all you know how to do.
You have no idea what "I'd do", but go ahead believe whatever you will.
Oh look Michigan republicans are ignoring the lead in the water crisis and instead going after gay people. Then again are we really surprised that they are?
Despite the Supreme Court rendering anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional in 2003, Michigan is one of more than a dozen states that still has a sodomy ban on the books. It also has one of the worst – not only does it ban anal and oral sex for gay couples, it also bans the acts between straight partners, and even equates them to bestiality.
A new package of bills designed to keep pets out of the hands of animal abusers includes an update to the text of the ban, but leaves the restriction on consensual sex between humans intact.
Republican Senator Rick Jones’ SB 219 updates the ban to read: “A person who commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal is guilty of a felony.”
It’s that “with mankind,” that’s with issue, and technically leaves straight and gay couples practicing anal and oral sex at risk of a prison sentence of up to 15 years – or even up to life if the offender is a “sexually delinquent person.” Obviously, that’s all wildly unconstitutional.
whembly wrote: He comes off as someone who's, ermahgawd, he believes in God so he's going to install a Theocracy here!!!
That's why you're impossible to reason with. The man goes on record saying he wants to run the country on his version of Christianity and you sit there and roundly deny it.
Ustrello wrote: Oh look Michigan republicans are ignoring the lead in the water crisis and instead going after gay people. Then again are we really surprised that they are?
Despite the Supreme Court rendering anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional in 2003, Michigan is one of more than a dozen states that still has a sodomy ban on the books. It also has one of the worst – not only does it ban anal and oral sex for gay couples, it also bans the acts between straight partners, and even equates them to bestiality.
A new package of bills designed to keep pets out of the hands of animal abusers includes an update to the text of the ban, but leaves the restriction on consensual sex between humans intact.
Republican Senator Rick Jones’ SB 219 updates the ban to read: “A person who commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal is guilty of a felony.”
It’s that “with mankind,” that’s with issue, and technically leaves straight and gay couples practicing anal and oral sex at risk of a prison sentence of up to 15 years – or even up to life if the offender is a “sexually delinquent person.” Obviously, that’s all wildly unconstitutional.
One of the problems I've always had with the idea of these kinds of laws is, how the bloody fething hell are they to be enforced? Are they gonna send a DHS "agent" to every house to monitor activity? Do residents need to install security cameras in all rooms of their housing where sexual activity may take place?
Ustrello wrote: Oh look Michigan republicans are ignoring the lead in the water crisis and instead going after gay people. Then again are we really surprised that they are?
Despite the Supreme Court rendering anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional in 2003, Michigan is one of more than a dozen states that still has a sodomy ban on the books. It also has one of the worst – not only does it ban anal and oral sex for gay couples, it also bans the acts between straight partners, and even equates them to bestiality.
A new package of bills designed to keep pets out of the hands of animal abusers includes an update to the text of the ban, but leaves the restriction on consensual sex between humans intact.
Republican Senator Rick Jones’ SB 219 updates the ban to read: “A person who commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal is guilty of a felony.”
It’s that “with mankind,” that’s with issue, and technically leaves straight and gay couples practicing anal and oral sex at risk of a prison sentence of up to 15 years – or even up to life if the offender is a “sexually delinquent person.” Obviously, that’s all wildly unconstitutional.
One of the problems I've always had with the idea of these kinds of laws is, how the bloody fething hell are they to be enforced? Are they gonna send a DHS "agent" to every house to monitor activity? Do residents need to install security cameras in all rooms of their housing where sexual activity may take place?
*knocking at the door* Ya'll gays better not be having gay sex in there unless you want to go to jail.
those don't go together...
.
