Rand Paul throwing his hat in the ring for the White House. Probably no surprise to Americans on this site, but the bit where he says he wants to defeat Washington made me laugh. His idea of winning seems to be moving to Washington for four years, and taking all that taxpayer money to fight other things funded by the tax payer
Anyway, what's the lowdown on Rand Paul? Genuine contender, or Louis Tully trying to be a Ghostbuster?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Rand Paul throwing his hat in the ring for the White House. Probably no surprise to Americans on this site, but the bit where he says he wants to defeat Washington made me laugh. His idea of winning seems to be moving to Washington for four years, and taking all that taxpayer money to fight other things funded by the tax payer
Anyway, what's the lowdown on Rand Paul? Genuine contender, or Louis Tully trying to be a Ghostbuster?
We don't really know at this point.
He's a savvy politician... but, the biggest knock on Paul is that he also caters (or at least subliminally) to his Dad's (Ron Paul) fan-base.
Plus, he wants to empower Congress the ability to audit the Federal Reserve... which, would be a disaster imo.
I don't think Paul is a serious contender, but he will try to push the debates and Republican positions towards a more libertarian right, forcing the eventual candidate to take more conservative positions than they would have in order to win the primary.
CptJake wrote: I don't think Paul is a serious contender, but he will try to push the debates and Republican positions towards a more libertarian right, forcing the eventual candidate to take more conservative positions than they would have in order to win the primary.
And the further to the right they go, the easier it is for Hilary Clinton?
Anyway, British TV will soon be getting bombarded with American presidential news, so I'd better start reading up about the main contenders. I can't speak for everybody on this site, but I love politics, and sitting up all night watching the presidential election, whilst high on diet coca cola, is a highlight for me every four years
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Rand Paul throwing his hat in the ring for the White House. Probably no surprise to Americans on this site, but the bit where he says he wants to defeat Washington made me laugh. His idea of winning seems to be moving to Washington for four years, and taking all that taxpayer money to fight other things funded by the tax payer
Anyway, what's the lowdown on Rand Paul? Genuine contender, or Louis Tully trying to be a Ghostbuster?
We don't really know at this point.
He's a savvy politician... but, the biggest knock on Paul is that he also caters (or at least subliminally) to his Dad's (Ron Paul) fan-base.
Plus, he wants to empower Congress the ability to audit the Federal Reserve... which, would be a disaster imo.
Wasn't that the original plan years ago anyway? Congress auditing the federal reserve. Being a student of American history, I'm pretty sure that the founders wanted Congress to be the most important branch, not the executive.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Rand Paul throwing his hat in the ring for the White House. Probably no surprise to Americans on this site, but the bit where he says he wants to defeat Washington made me laugh. His idea of winning seems to be moving to Washington for four years, and taking all that taxpayer money to fight other things funded by the tax payer
Anyway, what's the lowdown on Rand Paul? Genuine contender, or Louis Tully trying to be a Ghostbuster?
It's pretty much a requirement for every candidate for any political position to rail against "Washington Insiders" during their campaign, despite the reality that every last one of them is a Washington insider, or immediately turns into one after getting elected.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Rand Paul throwing his hat in the ring for the White House. Probably no surprise to Americans on this site, but the bit where he says he wants to defeat Washington made me laugh. His idea of winning seems to be moving to Washington for four years, and taking all that taxpayer money to fight other things funded by the tax payer
Anyway, what's the lowdown on Rand Paul? Genuine contender, or Louis Tully trying to be a Ghostbuster?
he has no chance. He was an isolationist in a party that wants to fight everybody, and then flipped. He was a libertarian on social issues in a party that isn't, and then flipped.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Rand Paul throwing his hat in the ring for the White House. Probably no surprise to Americans on this site, but the bit where he says he wants to defeat Washington made me laugh. His idea of winning seems to be moving to Washington for four years, and taking all that taxpayer money to fight other things funded by the tax payer
Anyway, what's the lowdown on Rand Paul? Genuine contender, or Louis Tully trying to be a Ghostbuster?
It's pretty much a requirement for every candidate for any political position to rail against "Washington Insiders" during their campaign, despite the reality that every last one of them is a Washington insider, or immediately turns into one after getting elected.
Yeah, I remember the golden days of the tea party when they were sending people to Congress and promising to fight the system...where are they now? Up to their necks in 5 star hotels, trips abroad, and generous pensions.
There's an old British saying: Guy Fawkes was the most honest man to enter Parliament - he wanted to blow the place up. You don't seem to get that level of honesty any more.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Rand Paul throwing his hat in the ring for the White House. Probably no surprise to Americans on this site, but the bit where he says he wants to defeat Washington made me laugh. His idea of winning seems to be moving to Washington for four years, and taking all that taxpayer money to fight other things funded by the tax payer
Anyway, what's the lowdown on Rand Paul? Genuine contender, or Louis Tully trying to be a Ghostbuster?
he has no chance.
He was an isolationist in a party that wants to fight everybody, and then flipped.
He was a libertarian on social issues in a party that isn't, and then flipped.
Who in your view is the best candidate? We're not going to get another Mitt Romney clone, are we? God, he was dull. Say what you want about Bob Dole, at the least the guy could crack a joke.
Who in your view is the best candidate? We're not going to get another Mitt Romney clone, are we? God, he was dull. Say what you want about Bob Dole, at the least the guy could crack a joke.
Who in your view is the best candidate? We're not going to get another Mitt Romney clone, are we? God, he was dull. Say what you want about Bob Dole, at the least the guy could crack a joke.
The Best Candidate™?
I'm partial to Scott Walker.
Now... who's going to win?
Hillary R Clinton of course.
You may or may not know this, whembly, but here in the UK, we're right in the middle of an election to pick a new prime minister, and quite frankly, the three main candidates are awful. I wouldn't trust any of them to organise a funeral in a graveyard.
I look at these American presidential candidates, and they are just as bad.
Where did it all go wrong for western civilization?
Who in your view is the best candidate? We're not going to get another Mitt Romney clone, are we? God, he was dull. Say what you want about Bob Dole, at the least the guy could crack a joke.
The Best Candidate™?
I'm partial to Scott Walker.
Now... who's going to win?
Hillary R Clinton of course.
But...but...if Hillary wins, doesn't that mean she is the best candidate? It's not like the American People could be wrong.
But...but...if Hillary wins, doesn't that mean she is the best candidate? It's not like the American People could be wrong.
That all depends greatly on the individual person's political leaning. I don't think that Scott Walker is the best candidate... but then, of all the "Front runners" of all parties being put forward in the media to this point in the discussion... It really is like deciding whether to eat a gak sandwich or poop soup.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Who in your view is the best candidate? We're not going to get another Mitt Romney clone, are we? God, he was dull. Say what you want about Bob Dole, at the least the guy could crack a joke.
I suspect Jeb Bush is the only current contender who can get through a primary season. We'll go through a bunch of motions of anyone-but-Jeb, just as we did with Mitt, but those motions will be briefer and less pointed than they were for Mitt because the party leadership realizes how badly they hurt Mitt last season.
Ultimately Jeb is the best contender out of that field. I don't think he'll be able to beat Hillary, but who knows, the election is a long way off and a lot can happen. Besides, it would be sort of neat to have the first Hispanic president, right?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Who in your view is the best candidate? We're not going to get another Mitt Romney clone, are we? God, he was dull. Say what you want about Bob Dole, at the least the guy could crack a joke.
I suspect Jeb Bush is the only current contender who can get through a primary season. We'll go through a bunch of motions of anyone-but-Jeb, just as we did with Mitt, but those motions will be briefer and less pointed than they were for Mitt because the party leadership realizes how badly they hurt Mitt last season.
Ultimately Jeb is the best contender out of that field. I don't think he'll be able to beat Hillary, but who knows, the election is a long way off and a lot can happen. Besides, it would be sort of neat to have the first Hispanic president, right?
Heh...
But, for the love of gawd, please no Jeb. Ugh!
One of the thing Rand Paul is appealing to me is that he's rather adamant that we need Justice Reform and Incarceration Reform. He hates... hates, the for-profit-model prison systems.
Jeb Bush would be a nail in the coffin of American democracy if he ever became president. I say this not because I think he'd make a bad president (he can't do much worse than the previous candidates) but because to have 3 people from the same family holding the highest office in the USA, would destroy the founding principals of American democracy.
I've always understood the USA of being diametrically opposed to the UK i.e. not having a 'royal' family like Bush, or the Kennedys.
Power seems to be focused in the hands of an elite, and that's bad for democracy.
I suspect Jeb Bush is the only current contender who can get through a primary season.
I think Rand Paul could push the Tea Party voters in the Primary towards Scott Walker, assuming Walker runs, and that together they could create a Primary Walker win. If Walker doesn't run it is basically Jeb's Primary to lose, and he is the most electable candidate in the General so the GOP leadership will probably back him; it is basically a "must win" for the GOP.
Hillary Clinton's private email server was a spy magnet for the Russian, Chinese, Iranian and other intelligence services, say current and former intelligence officials.
As secretary of state, Clinton routed all her government-related email through the server, based in her house in Chappaqua, New York. She reportedly hired a Cablevision (NYSE:CVC) subsidiary to run the server, with antivirus protection from Intel's (NASDAQ:INTC) McAfee. And she registered her domain name, clintonmail.com, through Network Solutions.
Intelligence professionals fear that the use of the privately installed server, free of certified government defenses against foreign interception, has been a boon to foreign cyberspies.
"By using her own private server with email — which we now know was wholly unencrypted for the first three months of Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state — she left this easily interceptable by any decent 21st century SIGINT service," said John Schindler, a former National Security Agency counterintelligence officer. SIGINT is shorthand for signals intelligence, or electronic spying.
"The name Clinton right on the email handle meant this was not a difficult find," Schindler said. "We should assume Russians, Chinese and others were seeing this."
'Epic' Counterintelligence Disaster
"In all, this is a counterintelligence disaster of truly epic proportions, not to mention that, since Clinton admitted she did not use higher-classification email systems at all" — systems like SIPR and JWICS, Schindler said — "we have to assume some bleed-over into her unsecured private email too, which makes this even worse."
SIPR is the Secret Internet Protocol Router network that the Department of Defense runs to ensure secret communications for the U.S. military, other agencies and certain allies. JWICS is the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System for top-secret government communication. Both provide secure communications for the State Department and secretary of state. Clinton's private server was not protected by the Department of Homeland Security's Einstein intrusion detection system, which relies on NSA systems, for official State Department emails.
"She may have deleted 30,000 e-mails before turning her files over to the State Department, but that doesn't mean that the Russians and the Chinese don't have them," said Michelle Van Cleave, former U.S. National Counterintelligence Executive.
Others say that the potential damage to U.S. national security is so grave that the FBI should seize the server and conduct a forensic analysis to determine the extent of foreign penetration. That analysis would be part of what is called a damage assessment, which is routine after any suspected security breach.
FBI Forensic Analysis
However, the FBI might not find anything now, according to Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of a House investigative panel, who says that Clinton had the server wiped clean. Still, the forensic analysis by trained personnel could yield valuable clues about foreign spies gaining access to America's most fiercely guarded secrets. Gowdy has called on Clinton to appear before his committee for what he called a "transcribed interview regarding her use of private email and a personal server for official State Department business."
Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., a former prosecutor, said that the FBI should conduct a forensic analysis of any attempted foreign penetrations, to determine which foreign intelligence services might have hacked into Clinton's email server.
"Denying a legitimate request by the Bureau to examine her computer would certainly suggest that America's security is not Clinton's highest priority," Buck said.
"The FBI investigated a sitting CIA director for intentionally disclosing classified information. The Bureau can certainly investigate whether a former secretary of state unintentionally disclosed classified information," Buck said. "The motive may be different, but the potential damage to national security is similar."
Why Clinton hasn't offered to turn over the server to the FBI, or why the FBI has not seized it to assess the damage to national security, is unclear. A Clinton spokesperson declined to comment.
In a question-and-answer sheet provided to reporters, Clinton did not address the issue. The FBI won't say whether or not it made a request or took possession of the server. The Bureau does not have the device, according to a highly placed FBI source. That source is not cleared to speak to the press and could not speak on the record.
The lure of reading a secretary of state's emails would exert a pull on any foreign spy, intelligence officials say.
Where, on a scale of one to 10, would any sitting secretary of state rank as a target of foreign spies? "10, of course," said Van Cleave. "That being the case, all of her e-mails would have been potentially of interest to any number of foreign parties."
"A target like this would be at least a 10, maybe 10-plus if the enemy knew the email address and server," said Robert W. Stephan, a former counterintelligence analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency who also served 19 years in the CIA. "If a foreign intelligence service determines that it is indeed the secretary of state's private communications/e-mail/server and even given the security measures that were set up, it would still be a top target for some sophisticated services," Stephan said. "Obviously Chinese, Russian, and Cuban, and possibly Iranians and North Koreans."
That statement presumes that the server was strongly protected against outside penetration, which does not seem to be the case. News reports indicate that the server's security configurations were done improperly, protecting Clinton's personal privacy and not national security, and that, even if everything was done by the book, that type of server and software package remains vulnerable to a good hacker.
"A 16-year-old can break into a server, and certainly a government sophisticated enough to break into the Sony (NYSE:SNE) system can break into Hillary Clinton's system," said Rep. Buck. "That's a no-brainer."
How would adversary spy services exploit this intelligence? "The positions, the interests, the communications between the secretary of state and her staff are of great interest to any foreign intelligence service, whether hostile or friendly," said Paul Joyal, former director of security of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
"The American secretary of state using an open, unprotected server? That's an invitation to a party," said a veteran intelligence officer who asked for anonymity because he still holds active clearances. "All of her private musings. There's no secretary of state who doesn't communicate with classified information. How the hell could she do her job without it?"
Gateway To Government Systems?
"From a counterintelligence perspective, (for) anyone with any responsibility for intelligence, counterintelligence and security, this thing is a monumental disaster," the longtime senior intelligence officer said. "It's a disaster for U.S. policy. It's a huge boon for the former KGB and the Iranians."
Some experts are concerned that foreign spies could have penetrated the server as a gateway to breaking into other government systems, including classified communications.
"The real question is, what if any intelligence collection was being done on a private server somewhere?" Joyal said. "The only way to know is for the proper federal authorities to impound the server and do a forensic analysis."
"It would be possible for a hostile service to use the server as a platform to deliver other malware to other targets of their choosing, based on their knowledge of whom the former secretary and president were communicating with," Joyal said.
'Vast Deception Potential'
Foreign spies could use their access to Clinton's server to warp or distort information that government officials rely on. "If they're getting into her server, they're not just extracting stuff," said a senior former Defense Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity. "They're going to do things that could be planted from other sources."
"The denial and deception potential here is vast," said John Schindler, referring to intelligence tradecraft in which a spy service denies or conceals information, and seeks to deceive other countries. "Not to mention that any shady games played" by the Obama Administration "would be known to Moscow and Beijing — but not to the American public."
"It could affect a number of people within the U.S. government and, for that matter, people around the world," Joyal said. "It would behoove the federal government to conduct a forensic analysis of the server itself."
Until such a forensic analysis is done, he said, authorities simply will not know the answer.
"This should not be politicized," said Joyal. "It should be done with hard-nosed national security interests driving the forensic analysis."
There is also the outside chance that Clinton has been feeding false information on a massive scale to Russia or China, part of a disinformation campaign. Spies have been known to feed false intel to the other side.
But, seeing as we know that NSA and GCHQ have been spying on most of the known world anyway, they probably know what intel, if any, Clinton accidently gave to Russia or China. I don't think this is a big deal.
US foreign policy has been such a mess since Iraq, that any sane person wouldn't believe a word they read coming from the White House or Clinton's emails.
As President Tug Benson said in Hot shots part 2, I don't need the enemy to prove I'm incompetent, I could tell them that.
Hahaha wow that hack job of an article is hilarious.
OH MY GOD! SO MANY THINGS COULD HAVE HAPPENED! OH MY GOD! WE HAVE NO PROOF, WE HAVE NO REAL REASON TO BELIEVE THEY SUCCEEDED! SKY IS FALLING! SERVER IS HACKED! CLINTON IS A LIZARD PERSON!
Jihadin wrote: You all need to back away from Whembly article that he posted.....your just feeding into his Glee moment
Thanks dude... now I can't get that crap out of my head.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: Sounds like a witch hunt, double points given that the source is IBD.
Maybe...
But, if her server was simply a "homebrew", outside of the current IT best practice and the IS Department's own policies, then this IBD* article does have merits.
OH MY GOD! SO MANY THINGS COULD HAVE HAPPENED! OH MY GOD! WE HAVE NO PROOF, WE HAVE NO REAL REASON TO BELIEVE THEY SUCCEEDED! SKY IS FALLING! SERVER IS HACKED! CLINTON IS A LIZARD PERSON!
Lemme help the other Dakkaroos here and translate steamdragon's response here:
streamdragon ***translated*** wrote:Dammit weebly, we need to sweep this under the rug!
Clinton released all relevant documents. Because she said so... and also, shut up!
OH MY GOD! SO MANY THINGS COULD HAVE HAPPENED! OH MY GOD! WE HAVE NO PROOF, WE HAVE NO REAL REASON TO BELIEVE THEY SUCCEEDED! SKY IS FALLING! SERVER IS HACKED!
Lemme help the other Dakkaroos here and translate steamdragon's response here:
streamdragon ***translated*** wrote:Dammit weebly, we need to sweep this under the rug!
Clinton released all relevant documents. Because she said so... and also, shut up!
My post wasn't suggesting things be swept under a rug, I've said before in this thread she should have been using a government system. My point was that your article makes no definitive claims. It is the written form of someone running around waving their hands shouting that the sky is falling. Of course Hilary's server would be a rich target. EVERY government server is a rich target. Heck, Congress's own site was once replaced with a dude stuffing a chicken, and I don't mean thanksgiving style. "OH MY GOODNESS SHE COULD HAVE VULNERABILITIES!" Well, yeah, EVERY system has vulnerabilities. Unless I'm missing something, there isn't a single definitive accusation of "this happened!"; it's all "this could have happened, or this could have happened, or this could have happened!". It's essentially scare mongering; pointing out all the things that COULD have happened, without any actual proof that anything DID happen or was even attempted. It's a hack job, through and through. Bottom line is, as far as we know, no laws were broken. This has been stated time and time again.
As for "she said so!", I don't know how many investigations you've been in (I do lit support for a living), but 99% of the time, that is EXACTLY what we get. Those other 1% are times we can prove something definitively enough to get a court order to seize and copy hardware like her server. In this case, they knew who she was sending email to. If they want to prove malfeasance, they can look through what other people received, compare it to what she gave the investigators, and if anything is missing, go to a judge. Until then "oh my god she won't give them the server, even though she doesn't have to, so she must be hiding something!" is nothing other than political mud slinging masquerading as actual investigative integrity.
Edit: we do totally have to sweep one thing under the rug though. I SAID TOO MUCH!
There's no "Smoking Gun". Only thing so far is she somewhat damaged her integrity. I rather have her run then the other female who seems way to far to the left......I think the one that claimed Native American heritage....Elizabeth Warren I think
Yeah, she seems extreme, but extreme democrat, not actually of a radical persuasion. She doesn't really seem the type I would want, as she doesn't seem like she would work with the right at all, meaning more partisan gridlock. At this point my preferred type of candidate to win would be a true moderate, with no alligence to any party, but that's never going to happen in this environment.
But, if her server was simply a "homebrew", outside of the current IT best practice and the IS Department's own policies, then this IBD article does have merits.
I'm sure the Clinton family has some rather hefty server security, potentially better than that of Executive Branch, so I'm willing to give her the benefit of doubt.
But, if her server was simply a "homebrew", outside of the current IT best practice and the IS Department's own policies, then this IBD article does have merits.
I'm sure the Clinton family has some rather hefty server security, potentially better than that of Executive Branch, so I'm willing to give her the benefit of doubt.
I call BS on that. Her actions makes no sense whatsoever, other than wanting to control who has access to her emails. That is *the* problem.
I call BS on that. Her actions makes no sense whatsoever, other than wanting to control who has access to her emails. That is *the* problem.
Why is that a problem? Don't all people want to control access to their emails?
Absolutely, 100%, hell-fething-no!
There are NO good reasons for this... absolutely none. She's the Head of the States department, not campaigning on her own time, building her future Presidential career.
If it wasn't HRC, and another person did that... that person would be fired on the spot.
It's utter and complete BS that HRC did this... and I know some IT professional at the States Dept sounded the alarm, but was "squelched" for political reasons.
whembly wrote: One of the thing Rand Paul is appealing to me is that he's rather adamant that we need Justice Reform and Incarceration Reform. He hates... hates, the for-profit-model prison systems.
So all people don't want to control access to their emails? I know some people aren't sufficiently savvy to do it correctly, but I suspect that they want to.
She's the Head of the States department, not campaigning on her own time, building her future Presidential career.
Those aren't mutually exclusive. Welcome to politics.
I also bet Trey Gowdy has a private email server, likely including messages dealing with Congressional business, should the "American People" be allowed access to that?
There are laws, rules and regulations for a reason.
Why does she get to go unscathed?
Well, sure, you can. The problem is your employer will submit your W2s, so if what you say doesn't match what they say...
I didn't make the rules for Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs). I just work with them for a living. And I agree that there are laws, rules and regulations for a reason. But it's been said, several times from several sources, that she didn't break any of the rules. That's why she gets to go "unscathed".
You guys are lucky - at least your elections are interesting. We've still got 4 weeks to go until voting day in the UK, and I'm losing the will to live.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You guys are lucky - at least your elections are interesting. We've still got 4 weeks to go until voting day in the UK, and I'm losing the will to live.
Hey, we did have the picture of Nigel Farage standing next to the "Caution: Slippery" sign!
Had to go and have a lie down after that one!
Also, don't forget we have our own tough politicians here:
Indianapolis may go down in history as the Gettysburg of the culture wars, the place where forces flying the flags of modernism, diversity and individual rights outflanked the would-be upholders of traditional values, forced them into a tactical retreat — and maybe even set them on the road to long-term defeat.
Not since Pickett’s Charge has a group of Americans misjudged their strategic situation more completely than did Gov. Mike Pence and his fellow Republican backers of Indiana’s religious freedom restoration law. They thought they could define conscientious objection to same-sex marriage as the moral high ground, then seize it; they thought wrong.
This made a certain amount of sense. Vigorous capitalist growth depends on savings and investment. To the extent they encouraged Americans to seek their ultimate reward in the afterlife, rather than pursue pleasure in the here and now, old-fashioned religiously based social and moral values promoted a pro-capitalist long-term perspective.
In many ways, though, the free market undermines traditional values. Growth depends on consumption, too, especially so in the postwar U.S. economy. Delayed gratification is bad for sales; a vast corporate marketing apparatus has grown up to discourage it, along with a vast consumer-finance industry.
Sociologist Daniel Bell identified these “cultural contradictions of capitalism” more than 40 years ago. “The breakup of the traditional bourgeois value system,” he wrote, “was brought about by the bourgeois economic system — by the free market, to be precise.”
From this perspective, the gay rights revolution reflects not only expanding notions of justice and equality but also long decades in which the economy, with its “spirit of perpetual innovation,” as Bell called it, conditioned Americans to expect that traditional limitations, of all kinds, could, and should, be overcome.
To be sure, traditionalism retains a powerful residual hold on the American mind, and even staged a comeback of sorts after the turbulent 1960s, the period that prompted Bell’s reflections. In 2004, “moral values” were voters’ top priority, according to exit polls. Not coincidentally, both anti-gay-marriage state ballot questions and Republican President George W. Bush prevailed.
In hindsight, though, that was a high-water mark. Last year, the CNN/ORC poll found that 55 percent of Americans say government should “not favor any set of values,” while only 41 percent want it to “promote traditional values.” The numbers were exactly the reverse 10 years earlier.
Gallup’s May 2014 Values and Belief poll revealed that self-described social-issue conservatives outnumber self-described liberals by only four points, the smallest conservative edge in the 14 years Gallup has been asking that question.
Hence Wal-Mart repudiated a proposed law in Arkansas similar to the one in Indiana, so as to curry favor with a national customer base that’s not only increasingly sympathetic to gay marriage — but also increasingly liberal on many social issues. It’s good business for Honey Maid to run ads during the NCAA men’s basketball tournament depicting two gay men raising children. Slogan: “We serve everyone.”
Where this leaves the GOP in 2016 is anyone’s guess. It could follow an avatar of the old-time conservative religion like Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum, and reap a disaster like Pence’s.
Rand Paul’s advice to his party — embrace gay rights, legal marijuana, freer immigration and the like — has the virtue of consistency. It implies a better fit between the party’s free-market economic message and its social platform.
But even if Paul could win the GOP nomination, which he probably can’t, general election voters don’t necessarily want the radical shrinkage of government he has favored.
Paul claims his call for criminal justice reform will help the GOP win black votes. But why would African Americans vote for him over a Democrat who also advocates a big federal role in job creation and civil rights enforcement?
In different ways, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and Marco Rubio are trying to recalibrate center-right ideology. They advocate reforming government as opposed to hacking away at it a la Paul — while modulating their social-issue pronouncements.
An approach like that produced surprising 2014 wins for GOP gubernatorial candidates in blue states such as Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland. Whether it will play nationally in a presidential year, with a larger, more Democratic, electorate, is a different question.
Having straddled Bell’s cultural contradictions for so long, the Republican Party seems poorly equipped to overcome them now. Its leaders formed their beliefs, made their careers and established their records at a time when the political benefits of moral traditionalism still exceeded the costs. That time is coming to an end.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You guys are lucky - at least your elections are interesting. We've still got 4 weeks to go until voting day in the UK, and I'm losing the will to live.
Hey, we did have the picture of Nigel Farage standing next to the "Caution: Slippery" sign!
Had to go and have a lie down after that one!
Also, don't forget we have our own tough politicians here:
That was a total embarrassment and turned my face red. I feel sorry for labour members after seeing that!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Question for American members: why aren't the Republican party standing up for individual rights?
I've said this before, but I've always seen the Republicans as champions of individual liberty. So why aren't they defending people's right to marry who they want? Why is America, the land of freedom, not allowing people the right to ingest whatever drugs they want? Yeah, I know about those 2 states allowing marijuana, but why aren't the Republicans championing this nationwide?
I've said this before, but I've always seen the Republicans as champions of individual liberty. So why aren't they defending people's right to marry who they want? Why is America, the land of freedom, not allowing people the right to ingest whatever drugs they want? Yeah, I know about those 2 states allowing marijuana, but why aren't the Republicans championing this nationwide?
It's all very strange...
Thats the libertarian side of the party. The conservative side of the party is not concerned with that, so long as they are the ones doing the ordering about. In that manner they've become very much like the hard left Democrats.
In the end, the wings of both parties want to tell you what to do, just over different things.
I've said this before, but I've always seen the Republicans as champions of individual liberty. So why aren't they defending people's right to marry who they want? Why is America, the land of freedom, not allowing people the right to ingest whatever drugs they want? Yeah, I know about those 2 states allowing marijuana, but why aren't the Republicans championing this nationwide?
It's all very strange...
Thats the libertarian side of the party. The conservative side of the party is not concerned with that, so long as they are the ones doing the ordering about. In that manner they've become very much like the hard left Democrats.
In the end, the wings of both parties want to tell you what to do, just over different things.
Frazz, your country is probably the most liberal country the world has ever seen. It trusts its citizens to walk around with lethal firearms, and yet, it won't even trust them to marry who they want or to inject whatever drugs they want. So long as nobody is getting hurt, I don't see a problem.
I will forever be confused when looking at the USA
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Because the religious right is a reliable voter group. They have been waning, so we may see a change in the future.
It's hard to believe that somebody like Goldwater was probably the last libertarian the Republicans had. Very strange.
Frazz, your country is probably the most liberal country the world has ever seen. It trusts its citizens to walk around with lethal firearms, and yet, it won't even trust them to marry who they want or to inject whatever drugs they want. So long as nobody is getting hurt, I don't see a problem.
I will forever be confused when looking at the USA
We need the guns to protect ourselves from the villainous gay junkies.....or something...
Frazz, your country is probably the most liberal country the world has ever seen. It trusts its citizens to walk around with lethal firearms, and yet, it won't even trust them to marry who they want or to inject whatever drugs they want. So long as nobody is getting hurt, I don't see a problem.
I will forever be confused when looking at the USA
We need the guns to protect ourselves from the villainous gay junkies.....or something...
Gun full zones help keep back the relentless tide of zombie Californians flooding out of that state. vast herds have been spotted in Utah, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, and central Texas. I fear the etnrie West Coast may have fallen to the zombie California menace.
In actuality (no not about the zombies those are completely real) studies of younger Republican demographics are far more socially accepting.
Frazz, your country is probably the most liberal country the world has ever seen. It trusts its citizens to walk around with lethal firearms, and yet, it won't even trust them to marry who they want or to inject whatever drugs they want. So long as nobody is getting hurt, I don't see a problem.
I will forever be confused when looking at the USA
Remember who it was that originally crossed the Atlantic to found the colonies that would become the US. When the Catholic Church and the Church of England were having their schism over who deserved to wear the bigger pointy hat, there was a group of people who looked at the two groups murdering each other and though to themselves "THOSE DUDES AREN'T HARDCORE ENOUGH". Those guys put on their buckled shoes, their dresses up to their eyeballs, and set sail to find a new place to be complete miserable in.
Puritanism: that haunting fear that someone, somewhere, just might be happy.
Frazz, your country is probably the most liberal country the world has ever seen. It trusts its citizens to walk around with lethal firearms, and yet, it won't even trust them to marry who they want or to inject whatever drugs they want. So long as nobody is getting hurt, I don't see a problem.
I will forever be confused when looking at the USA
Remember who it was that originally crossed the Atlantic to found the colonies that would become the US. When the Catholic Church and the Church of England were having their schism over who deserved to wear the bigger pointy hat, there was a group of people who looked at the two groups murdering each other and though to themselves "THOSE DUDES AREN'T HARDCORE ENOUGH". Those guys put on their buckled shoes, their dresses up to their eyeballs, and set sail to find a new place to be complete miserable in.
Puritanism: that haunting fear that someone, somewhere, just might be happy.
Typical America - any excuse to blame Britain
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Honestly, the US is this weird mix of extreme liberalism and extreme conservatism. It's always been a dynamic country, and probably always will be.
What I wanted to say.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: So, our only two official Presidential candidates are Ted Cruz and Rand Paul?
Clinton this Sunday.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I've been keeping an eye American events these past couple of days, and I don't mean the golf
Anyway, this is what caught my eye.
1) The annual NRA convention in Tennessee. Al Jazeera did a feature so I looked further with previews and last year's highlights. . Wow. I knew you guys loved your gunpowder, but this is hardcore. Bars of soap shaped like guns, guns made out of chocolate, guns left right and centre. One guy was so weighed down with guns, he could barely walk
The sad part was, though, there were still some people who are convinced Obama and the UN are going to take away their weapons...
2) US-Cuba talks. How much of an influence will this have on the 2016 race?
and a final question. If Hilary Clinton makes a run for the white house, are people voting for Hilary, or do they think they're actually getting Bill back at 1600 Pennsylvania?
and a final question. If Hilary Clinton makes a run for the white house, are people voting for Hilary, or do they think they're actually getting Bill back at 1600 Pennsylvania?
There will be some combination of both, and a lot of folks Making A Historical Vote for The First Woman President! who couldn't tell you what she stands for/against. And some who vote for her because she has a D after her name.
All of those will also be reasons folks vote against her...
and a final question. If Hilary Clinton makes a run for the white house, are people voting for Hilary, or do they think they're actually getting Bill back at 1600 Pennsylvania?
There will be some combination of both, and a lot of folks Making A Historical Vote for The First Woman President! who couldn't tell you what she stands for/against. And some who vote for her because she has a D after her name.
All of those will also be reasons folks vote against her...
I miss the 1990s. X files on the TV, Bill in the White House, rubbish clothes, and decent music. And I was younger...a lot younger! It was peaceful back then. The Commies had been defeated, Al Qaeda was a town in Iraq, and a man knew where he stood. Changed days...
Nah, not blaming Britain. It's been a couple centuries since then, but it still is the root of our "nipple bad, murder totally okay" mentality. Like most things, we've just made it bigger and better.
I've said this before, but I've always seen the Republicans as champions of individual liberty. So why aren't they defending people's right to marry who they want? Why is America, the land of freedom, not allowing people the right to ingest whatever drugs they want? Yeah, I know about those 2 states allowing marijuana, but why aren't the Republicans championing this nationwide?
It's all very strange...
That's because the current GOP leaderships are cowards.... simply stated.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Honestly, the US is this weird mix of extreme liberalism and extreme conservatism. It's always been a dynamic country, and probably always will be.
That's certainly true... but, if we're talking about actual political parties, one of the best description I've heard is this:
We have a tea-party movement (and other "groups" like NRA), a raucous / rivalrous gang of independent groups, precisely because GOP leaders cannot exercise the sort of control over their coalition that Democrats do over theirs. Left-leaning PACs and independent groups are a supplement to the Democrats’ machine; right-leaning groups are an alternative to the Republicans’ machine.
I've said this before, but I've always seen the Republicans as champions of individual liberty. So why aren't they defending people's right to marry who they want? Why is America, the land of freedom, not allowing people the right to ingest whatever drugs they want? Yeah, I know about those 2 states allowing marijuana, but why aren't the Republicans championing this nationwide?
It's all very strange...
That's because the current GOP leaderships are cowards.... simply stated.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Honestly, the US is this weird mix of extreme liberalism and extreme conservatism. It's always been a dynamic country, and probably always will be.
That's certainly true... but, if we're talking about actual political parties, one of the best description I've heard is this:
We have a tea-party movement (and other "groups" like NRA), a raucous / rivalrous gang of independent groups, precisely because GOP leaders cannot exercise the sort of control over their coalition that Democrats do over theirs. Left-leaning PACs and independent groups are a supplement to the Democrats’ machine; right-leaning groups are an alternative to the Republicans’ machine.
Here's a question for you, or for anybody else who can answer.
If Hilary becomes President, what do we call Bill? First Husband, First Man, First master, First Dude, First Duke, First Mr President
Honestly, I've searching the web all day looking for an answer to this, and most people are stumped.
That's certainly true... but, if we're talking about actual political parties, one of the best description I've heard is this:
We have a tea-party movement (and other "groups" like NRA), a raucous / rivalrous gang of independent groups, precisely because GOP leaders cannot exercise the sort of control over their coalition that Democrats do over theirs. Left-leaning PACs and independent groups are a supplement to the Democrats’ machine; right-leaning groups are an alternative to the Republicans’ machine.
Why is the NRA characterized as a "group", and not just a group? It has a formal list of members who have to pay membership fees. Its loose affiliation with the GOP is not distinct from the loose affiliation of any left-leaning group has with the Democratic Party, of which there are many.
That quote seems like a really lame excuse for why the GOP is in trouble.
That's certainly true... but, if we're talking about actual political parties, one of the best description I've heard is this:
We have a tea-party movement (and other "groups" like NRA), a raucous / rivalrous gang of independent groups, precisely because GOP leaders cannot exercise the sort of control over their coalition that Democrats do over theirs. Left-leaning PACs and independent groups are a supplement to the Democrats’ machine; right-leaning groups are an alternative to the Republicans’ machine.
Why is the NRA characterized as a "group", and not just a group? It has a formal list of members who have to pay membership fees. Its loose affiliation with the GOP is not distinct from the loose affiliation of any left-leaning group has with the Democratic Party, of which there are many.
That quote seems like a really lame excuse for why the GOP is in trouble.
That got your panties bunched up? O.o
This is a distinction... you either missed it or willfully ignore it.
Are there any typical Democrat-leaning groups that vexes the Democratic Leadership?
On the style issue, I suspect the correct answer is "First Gentlemen", although the custom is usually to use the former title for a ex-president (i.e President Bush instead of Mr. Bush).
I disagree with that custom, because in my mind it then becomes akin to a title of nobility, which the US does not bequeath. That custom will become especially difficult, thankfully, if Hillary wins since you can't have to Presidents Clinton.
Ouze wrote: On the style issue, I suspect the correct answer is "First Gentlemen", although the custom is usually to use the former title for a ex-president (i.e President Bush instead of Mr. Bush).
I disagree with that custom, because in my mind it then becomes akin to a title of nobility, which the US does not bequeath. That custom will become especially difficult, thankfully, if Hillary wins since you can't have to Presidents Clinton.
The custom of referring to a Former President as "President So-and-So" is really only practiced by the media. The "proper" address is "The Honorable _______" when making public introductions and in written correspondence and "Mr. ______" when addressing them in conversation. Using "President ______" and "Mr. President" are only proper when addressing the current head of state.
As an ex-President, he gets Secret Service protection for life, and if he becomes First Gentleman, that's even more Secret Service.
As the spouse of a former President Hillary is also entitled to protection, though who is entitled to protection (and for how long) is a bit of a contentious matter.
dogma wrote: As the spouse of a former President Hillary is also entitled to protection, though who is entitled to protection (and for how long) is a bit of a contentious matter.
IMO anyone who serves as US President deserves Secret Service protection for life. I am not fond of the legislation that ended that post-Clinton. I think it's an office that necessarily makes a lot of enemies and the protection isn't particularly expensive - ($4 million or so/yr for all previous presidents in 2012)... kind of a weird place to cheap out.
dogma wrote: As the spouse of a former President Hillary is also entitled to protection, though who is entitled to protection (and for how long) is a bit of a contentious matter.
IMO anyone who serves as US President deserves Secret Service protection for life. I am not fond of the legislation that ended that post-Clinton. I think it's an office that necessarily makes a lot of enemies and the protection isn't particularly expensive - ($4 million or so/yr for all previous presidents in 2012)... kind of a weird place to cheap out.
Why?
They all make a damned fine pension, and make a gak ton giving speeches and for other things. They can afford to pay for whatever level of security they feel they need. Why should the taxpayers be forced to pay for something these private citizens can afford on their own?
CptJake wrote: Why should the taxpayers be forced to pay for something these private citizens can afford on their own?
Should the US also eliminate health benefits for veterans that can easily pay for their own? The protection is provided as an acknowledgment of service to the US.
dogma wrote: As the spouse of a former President Hillary is also entitled to protection, though who is entitled to protection (and for how long) is a bit of a contentious matter.
IMO anyone who serves as US President deserves Secret Service protection for life. I am not fond of the legislation that ended that post-Clinton. I think it's an office that necessarily makes a lot of enemies and the protection isn't particularly expensive - ($4 million or so/yr for all previous presidents in 2012)... kind of a weird place to cheap out.
Why?
They all make a damned fine pension, and make a gak ton giving speeches and for other things. They can afford to pay for whatever level of security they feel they need. Why should the taxpayers be forced to pay for something these private citizens can afford on their own?
You realize the combined amount of tax money you pay that supports the Former Presidents Act (pension, staff/office, insurance, and Secret Service protection) is like fractions of a penny, right? Here is a frame of reference for you: NASA has a budget of around $18,000,000,000... out of all the federal tax money you paid last year, you were on the hook for less than $9.00 of that $18 billion.
I think after having one of the most (if not the most) difficult jobs in the world, shelling out a couple of million from our bottomless coffers is the least we could do to acknowledge what they've done the United States.
I've said this before, but I've always seen the Republicans as champions of individual liberty. So why aren't they defending people's right to marry who they want? Why is America, the land of freedom, not allowing people the right to ingest whatever drugs they want? Yeah, I know about those 2 states allowing marijuana, but why aren't the Republicans championing this nationwide?
It's all very strange...
That's because the current GOP leaderships are cowards.... simply stated.
That's part of it, because they want to please all the subgroups. Another part is that the Republican Party likes to present itself as the champion of conservative family values. So, despite the whole states rights thing, drugs and LGBT rights are still outside the whole family values thing. So, basically, "we believe in your individual rights, so long as they are rights we agree with." Not really any different from the Democrats in that particular mentality, it's just that the irony is stronger with the Republicans for it.
Kind of like how the Republicans also say they are for smaller government...except for the parts of the government they like (military, homeland security, etc.). Those parts they want bigger. Just like how the Democrats would like to expand other parts while shrinking other parts.
CptJake wrote: Why should the taxpayers be forced to pay for something these private citizens can afford on their own?
Should the US also eliminate health benefits for veterans that can easily pay for their own? The protection is provided as an acknowledgment of service to the US.
Most vets I know (including me) who can afford their own health care, buy their own health care anyway to avoid the VA, so the tax payers are not shelling out for it. I would be willing to bet no vets that are multi-millionaires (like all the ex-presidents are) are using the VA hospital.
But that really is besides the point. Part of the benefit package used to attract folks to join the armed services is the health care. I very, VERY seriously doubt we need to offer 'Security For Life!' as part of a benefit package to get folks to run for president.
And the 'small amount' folks bring up is also beside the point. I could care less how tiny a fraction of the bloated federal spending it is, it is a fraction we should't be paying. These cats can surround themselves with ex-SEALs/SF/FBI/Secret Service types all day every day if they feel the need on their own dime.
You realize the combined amount of tax money you pay that supports the Former Presidents Act (pension, staff/office, insurance, and Secret Service protection) is like fractions of a penny, right? Here is a frame of reference for you: NASA has a budget of around $18,000,000,000... out of all the federal tax money you paid last year, you were on the hook for less than $9.00 of that $18 billion.
I think after having one of the most (if not the most) difficult jobs in the world, shelling out a couple of million from our bottomless coffers is the least we could do to acknowledge what they've done the United States.
All these guys cash in big time on having been the president.
Look at the net worth of the living ex-presidents:
Most vets I know (including me) who can afford their own health care, buy their own health care anyway to avoid the VA, so the tax payers are not shelling out for it. I would be willing to bet no vets that are multi-millionaires (like all the ex-presidents are) are using the VA hospital.
I'm sure they aren't, but they have the option to do so; that's the point. This is not dissimilar to the situation regarding Secret Service protection for former Presidents and their families. Eligible people don't have to accept Secret Service protection, and often refuse or supplement it, but it is available to them.
Part of the benefit package used to attract folks to join the armed services is the health care.
Do you know anyone who joined the military for the healthcare? I know quite a few current and former US soldiers, but I can't think of one who would say they joined up because of the VA benefits. Further, speaking from my own (admittedly dated) experiences with recruiters, healthcare was rarely mentioned and when it was the pitch amounted to "If you get hurt, we'll cover you." not "If you join, you'll have healthcare for life.".
And the 'small amount' folks bring up is also beside the point. I could care less how tiny a fraction of the bloated federal spending it is, it is a fraction we should't be paying.
So you're not on board with paying to protect a person who had access to to the highest order or US national secrets, and didn't suddenly forget them after leaving office?
CptJake wrote: And the 'small amount' folks bring up is also beside the point. I could care less how tiny a fraction of the bloated federal spending it is, it is a fraction we should't be paying. These cats can surround themselves with ex-SEALs/SF/FBI/Secret Service types all day every day if they feel the need on their own dime.
The "bloated federal spending" is the biggest crock of gak you could have trotted out in defense of the preposterous that former Presidents don't deserve security after leaving the most high-profile and powerful position in the world. You're only argument is that we shouldn't spend the money to do it, even though it is a staggeringly insignificant amount of money in the grand scheme of things. Is there something I'm missing in your argument or is that it?
All these guys cash in big time on having been the president.
Look at the net worth of the living ex-presidents:
So basically you're jealous that they make more money than you and because of the nature of their position, are afforded the consideration of the government they ran?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Just out of interest are former heads of state in other countries also provided with taxpayer funded security for the rest of their days?
Without any evidence, I would say it probably pretty common in Western governments. I doubt we are hardly unique in that regard.
it's an old article, but it does mention security cost in there so Australia has the same system. The article is worth it for the picture of John Howard alone. I swear the man looks like a hobbit. Peter Jackson sign him up for the next movie!
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Just out of interest are former heads of state in other countries also provided with taxpayer funded security for the rest of their days?
What do you mean by "heads of state", and what sort of countries are you talking about?
Polish prince challenges Nigel Farage to 18th Century-style duel
A Polish prince has challenged Ukip leader Nigel Farage to a sword fight, claiming he has "had enough" of what he describes as "discrimination" against his countrymen and women.
In a video message posted to YouTube, Yanek Zylinski - whose father Andrzej Zylinski was a military officer led a successful charge against the Nazis in 1939 - accused Farage of blaming eastern European migrants for the country's problems.
"I have had enough of discrimination against Polish people in this country. The most idiotic example I have heard must be Mr Nigel Farage blaming migrants for traffic jams on the M40."
Holding his father's sword, Zylinksi told Farage "enough is enough" and challenged him to an 18th Century-style duel in London.
"I'd like us to meet in Hyde Park one morning with our swords and resolve this matter in a way that an 18th Century Polish aristocrat and an English gentleman would traditionally do. Are you up for it, Mr Farage?"
Alternatively, he offered a "duel of words" if Farage's sword was "a little bit rusty". Ukip were not immediately available for comment on the challenge. Last updated Mon 13 Apr 2015
I've been reading a lot of newspaper coverage over Hilary Clinton's decision to run for the White House, and it can be summed up by the following:
America: vote for me because I'm a woman and we've never had a female President before...
I've nothing against women getting the top job, but what a depressing, dull vision for the USA. I feel sorry for the American people, and myself, because we'll be bombarded with this for the next two years!!
Where's the ideas? Where's the vision? America will have an epic fight on its hands this century against China (and I don't mean military), so who's going to take America forward? Who's going to react to new challenges?
I've been re-reading John Adams Vs Thomas Jefferson and their battle for America, and I must admit, those guys must be spinning in their graves at the intellectual poverty of ideas and vision in the USA.
Is there a specific reason why Iowa has become so important in the elections, or is it just one of those things has has happened and now just carries on ?
I -- sort of -- understand that their caucuses are a bit different and/or happen a bit earlier, is there a reason for this ?
Polish prince challenges Nigel Farage to 18th Century-style duel
A Polish prince has challenged Ukip leader Nigel Farage to a sword fight, claiming he has "had enough" of what he describes as "discrimination" against his countrymen and women.
In a video message posted to YouTube, Yanek Zylinski - whose father Andrzej Zylinski was a military officer led a successful charge against the Nazis in 1939 - accused Farage of blaming eastern European migrants for the country's problems.
"I have had enough of discrimination against Polish people in this country. The most idiotic example I have heard must be Mr Nigel Farage blaming migrants for traffic jams on the M40."
Holding his father's sword, Zylinksi told Farage "enough is enough" and challenged him to an 18th Century-style duel in London.
"I'd like us to meet in Hyde Park one morning with our swords and resolve this matter in a way that an 18th Century Polish aristocrat and an English gentleman would traditionally do.
Are you up for it, Mr Farage?"
Alternatively, he offered a "duel of words" if Farage's sword was "a little bit rusty".
Ukip were not immediately available for comment on the challenge.
Last updated Mon 13 Apr 2015
Careful he probably knows sabre fencing. Don't with that guy.
As this is the UK, it should be red whippy sticks...at Dawn!
reds8n wrote: Is there a specific reason why Iowa has become so important in the elections, or is it just one of those things has has happened and now just carries on ?
I -- sort of -- understand that their caucuses are a bit different and/or happen a bit earlier, is there a reason for this ?
I'm pretty sure Iowa holds the first caucus of election season. They're also a weird purple state; they have a fairly conservative state government, yet they were the first state to legalize gay marriage, outlawed slavery well before the civil war and just generally lean towards personal civil rights. They're just a weird bunch and being the first caucus getting the early "win" is seen as important.
Didn't a couple of senators have it out with pistols or something back in the day Fraz? I mean it isn't as cool as swords, but it is the next best thing
motyak wrote: Didn't a couple of senators have it out with pistols or something back in the day Fraz? I mean it isn't as cool as swords, but it is the next best thing
It was Alexander Hamilton Vs Aaron Burr. Hamilton was mortally wounded.
reds8n wrote: Is there a specific reason why Iowa has become so important in the elections, or is it just one of those things has has happened and now just carries on ?
I -- sort of -- understand that their caucuses are a bit different and/or happen a bit earlier, is there a reason for this ?
I'm pretty sure Iowa holds the first caucus of election season. They're also a weird purple state; they have a fairly conservative state government, yet they were the first state to legalize gay marriage, outlawed slavery well before the civil war and just generally lean towards personal civil rights. They're just a weird bunch and being the first caucus getting the early "win" is seen as important.
Is there any specific reason why they're always the first to hold the caucus though ? Assume it's just part of the tradition/process now but presumably there'd be nothing to stop somewhere else from "trumping" them and going before them right ?
A bit surprised that , if perhaps only once or twice, nowhere has done this before, especially in places where a candidate would be considered a shoo-in.
reds8n wrote: Is there a specific reason why Iowa has become so important in the elections, or is it just one of those things has has happened and now just carries on ?
I -- sort of -- understand that their caucuses are a bit different and/or happen a bit earlier, is there a reason for this ?
I'm pretty sure Iowa holds the first caucus of election season. They're also a weird purple state; they have a fairly conservative state government, yet they were the first state to legalize gay marriage, outlawed slavery well before the civil war and just generally lean towards personal civil rights. They're just a weird bunch and being the first caucus getting the early "win" is seen as important.
Is there any specific reason why they're always the first to hold the caucus though ? Assume it's just part of the tradition/process now but presumably there'd be nothing to stop somewhere else from "trumping" them and going before them right ?
A bit surprised that , if perhaps only once or twice, nowhere has done this before, especially in places where a candidate would be considered a shoo-in.
Its a law in those states to be first-no seriously. All that advertising and campaiging is big business and they make good money off of it.
Frazzled wrote: We're busy trying to contain all the sparkly vampires in California.
With what? We aren't allowed to open carry wooden stakes or crossbows, good holy water is hard to find and all this pollution is blocking out the sun so they can walk around during the day!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I've been reading a lot of newspaper coverage over Hilary Clinton's decision to run for the White House, and it can be summed up by the following:
America: vote for me because I'm a woman and we've never had a female President before...
I've nothing against women getting the top job, but what a depressing, dull vision for the USA. I feel sorry for the American people, and myself, because we'll be bombarded with this for the next two years!!
Where's the ideas? Where's the vision? America will have an epic fight on its hands this century against China (and I don't mean military), so who's going to take America forward? Who's going to react to new challenges?
I've been re-reading John Adams Vs Thomas Jefferson and their battle for America, and I must admit, those guys must be spinning in their graves at the intellectual poverty of ideas and vision in the USA.
I know... right? She's the Inevitable Candidate™ since 2008. But, she ran into Obama.
Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Wednesday to continue her quest for the Democratic nomination, arguing she would be the stronger nominee because she appeals to a wider coalition of voters — including whites who have not supported Barack Obama in recent contests.
“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”
“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.
Indeed, a pattern has emerged some time ago. Boy, did we dodge a bullet.
“[W]orking, hard-working Americans, white Americans”. She really said that. Wow.
Congratulations, Hillary Clinton, you win the prize for the first Democratic Bigot Eruption since I’ve been keeping track of this. Even professional haters like Pat Buchanan and his ilk aren’t so balls-out about racism. You’ve been getting your ass handed to you and especially among black voters. This shows me once again that we – who are apparently lazy and shiftless non-Americans based on your definition – have yet again been a leading indicator.
There was maybe a slight chance Barack Obama might have been pushed to pick you as his running mate, but we can’t have someone spouting Klan-style talking points on the ticket. Heck, there’s a good shot with language like that you won’t win back your senate seat in 2012. I mean, a lot of those apparently lazy and shiftless non-American blacks helped you to win and they’d just as soon vote for someone else in the primary or the Republican in the election rather than someone echoing Bull Connor’s language.
“Working, hard working Americans, white Americans”, indeed.
UPDATE: Thanks for the link Americablog, and to make clear what I consider Clinton’s Klan-style talking point is her assertion that the hard working Americans are white Americans. That’s what I take offense to, and I don’t think you have to be black to feel that way.
The Democratic supporters accuses Hillary in a racist Klanspeako in 2008...
I don't think she's racist... but, she's very prone to these sorts of "speakoes"... and she's a horribad campaigner.
I don't think she's racist... but, she's very prone to these sorts of "speakoes"... and she's a horribad campaigner.
She is a bad campaigner, but that video doesn't seem like a gaffe to me. The associated article seems like a sensationalist journalist latching onto something in order to generate hits and otherwise gain attention.
Can I just go on the record now and say: Hi there. I'm a liberal Democrat and I nominate anyone on the Democratic ticket other than Hillary Clinton for president.
Because I feel that needs to happen. Contrary to what a lot of conservatives want to believe, we aren't all in love with Hillary over here on the left.
squidhills wrote: Can I just go on the record now and say: Hi there. I'm a liberal Democrat and I nominate anyone on the Democratic ticket other than Hillary Clinton for president.
Because I feel that needs to happen. Contrary to what a lot of conservatives want to believe, we aren't all in love with Hillary over here on the left.
Who's your ideal candidate for the Democratic party?
I'm partial to Gov. Richardson... but, he has too many skeleton his closet.
Honestly, I'm probably going to vote green or not at all. Unless the republican candidate is really bad. Kind of depressing, my first time voting in a presidential election and it's going to probably be Hilliary vs. some super-conservative the way things are going. Neither of which I want to be president. I'm a social liberal, but I'm not a democrat, so I'm not wholly opposed to a republican president, but they would have to be at least a social moderate. And, despite the fact that running a moderate would probably win them the Whitehouse, there is no way the republican primary is going to get a moderate candidate.
Honestly, I'm probably going to vote green or not at all. Unless the republican candidate is really bad. Kind of depressing, my first time voting in a presidential election and it's going to probably be Hilliary vs. some super-conservative the way things are going. Neither of which I want to be president. I'm a social liberal, but I'm not a democrat, so I'm not wholly opposed to a republican president, but they would have to be at least a social moderate. And, despite the fact that running a moderate would probably win them the Whitehouse, there is no way the republican primary is going to get a moderate candidate.
I think we're in for a return to the 1990s - Clinton Vs Bush. And because there's talk of the X-files coming back, we could all be having a weird feeling of deja vu
Honestly, I'm probably going to vote green or not at all. Unless the republican candidate is really bad. Kind of depressing, my first time voting in a presidential election and it's going to probably be Hilliary vs. some super-conservative the way things are going. Neither of which I want to be president. I'm a social liberal, but I'm not a democrat, so I'm not wholly opposed to a republican president, but they would have to be at least a social moderate. And, despite the fact that running a moderate would probably win them the Whitehouse, there is no way the republican primary is going to get a moderate candidate.
I think we're in for a return to the 1990s - Clinton Vs Bush. And because there's talk of the X-files coming back, we could all be having a weird feeling of deja vu
Whats interesting is that, since that time, both parties have shifted their bases dramatically and shifted from moderate domination to the fanatics taking over. I just don't see the enthusiasm for H Clinton as I saw for Obama. I could see her losing because the weather is bad on election day....
But yeah, she may not be ready either for the office.
Anyway, having a Democrat in the WH will not help the US if the Republicans keep the House & Senate.
Why not. The US has operated well with divided government for centuries. Legislation that is forced to include at least minimally acceptable terms from both parties has secured such things as the Voting Rights Act, the Great Society, Clinton's welfare reform, and beat Da Kommies! You forget when robo FDR was firing away with his multi combi bazooka/50 calls, it was a young Nixon that was behind him, loading those rounds and calling in B52 strikes.
As Stalin once said: "We would have never defeated the Hitlerites if we didn't have Coca Cola and strategic MERV strikes on their moon base."
I don't really think the R's are going to keep the senate. The R's were mostly running anti-Obama/ACA, so they will probably have to run on actual issues, which (sadly) many people aren't really as interested in. And the D's tend to do better on presidential election years anyway. No idea about the house though.
Fair points. I've been utterly disappointed in the Senate since they retook it. Despite Reid stepping down there have still been almost no heavy votes. Its like they forgot their job is to promote and at least vote on good legislation.
Who's your ideal candidate for the Democratic party?
I'd say Joe Biden, if for no other reason than he'd make verbal gaffes that would give late night comedians material for decades, but if I was going to actually answer that question seriously and think about who I want running the country, I would have to say: I don't actually know.
I'd like for the Democratic primary to be an event that showcases some alternative candidates, so that I can learn about who else is out there and what they are about and get a sense of how they will govern... but with Hillary officially tossing her hat into the ring, I have this chilling suspicion that anybody worthwhile won't bother running against the Clinton juggernaut.
squidhills wrote:Contrary to what a lot of conservatives want to believe, we aren't all in love with Hillary over here on the left.
Well, the problem is that in the US, we only have a right wing, and an extreme right wing. There is no truly liberal party.
reds8n wrote:Is there a specific reason why Iowa has become so important in the elections, or is it just one of those things has has happened and now just carries on ?
Note that other states have tried to move it earlier, and been punished by the parties for it. It's just the status quo at this point. As someone who lives in Iowa, I assure you it's incredible irritating - nonstop robocalls and phones books worth of junk mail.
streamdragon wrote:I'm pretty sure Iowa holds the first caucus of election season. They're also a weird purple state; they have a fairly conservative state government, yet they were the first state to legalize gay marriage, outlawed slavery well before the civil war and just generally lean towards personal civil rights. They're just a weird bunch and being the first caucus getting the early "win" is seen as important.
Iowa has a very weird character, politically. I'm not the Emperor of Iowa so I'm speaking on a personal level here but in my experience the most important thing to an Iowan is to be left alone to do what you want, much like a very conservative grandmother who is privately horrified by their queer grandson but will get into a fistfight in church over anyone who insults the gays. Dammit, she may not approve of Johnny, but if Johnny wants to sin in that bedroom, well, Johnny's the captain of his own soul, so to speak.
Jihadin wrote: Oh my. Unforeseen backlash on Obama nuke deal with Iran since sanctions (some) have been lifted Putin/FDR/USSR is selling Iran SA300 systems.
reds8n wrote:Is there a specific reason why Iowa has become so important in the elections, or is it just one of those things has has happened and now just carries on ?
Note that other states have tried to move it earlier, and been punished by the parties for it. It's just the status quo at this point. As someone who lives in Iowa, I assure you it's incredible irritating - nonstop robocalls and phones books worth of junk mail.
streamdragon wrote:I'm pretty sure Iowa holds the first caucus of election season. They're also a weird purple state; they have a fairly conservative state government, yet they were the first state to legalize gay marriage, outlawed slavery well before the civil war and just generally lean towards personal civil rights. They're just a weird bunch and being the first caucus getting the early "win" is seen as important.
Iowa has a very weird character, politically. I'm not the Emperor of Iowa so I'm speaking on a personal level here but in my experience the most important thing to an Iowan is to be left alone to do what you want, much like a very conservative grandmother who is privately horrified by their queer grandson but will get into a fistfight in church over anyone who insults the gays. Dammit, she may not approve of Johnny, but if Johnny wants to sin in that bedroom, well, Johnny's the captain of his own soul, so to speak.
Iowa has a very weird character, politically. I'm not the Emperor of Iowa so I'm speaking on a personal level here but in my experience the most important thing to an Iowan is to be left alone to do what you want, much like a very conservative grandmother who is privately horrified by their queer grandson but will get into a fistfight in church over anyone who insults the gays. Dammit, she may not approve of Johnny, but if Johnny wants to sin in that bedroom, well, Johnny's the captain of his own soul, so to speak.
That was a pretty awesome read, thanks! How is the weather in Iowa? Pretty sure there's plenty of farmland, but ya know, retirement planning and all that...
squidhills wrote:Contrary to what a lot of conservatives want to believe, we aren't all in love with Hillary over here on the left.
Well, the problem is that in the US, we only have a right wing, and an extreme right wing. There is no truly liberal party.
wat?
You serious?
I'd agree with Ouze, sure you have your outliers over there but on the whole US politics has a right wing bent to it. Other countries are a lot more liberal.
squidhills wrote:Contrary to what a lot of conservatives want to believe, we aren't all in love with Hillary over here on the left.
Well, the problem is that in the US, we only have a right wing, and an extreme right wing. There is no truly liberal party.
wat?
You serious?
I'd agree with Ouze, sure you have your outliers over there but on the whole US politics has a right wing bent to it. Other countries are a lot more liberal.
He's saying that there's no leftist/liberal party here...
The Obamas, Clintons, Bidens, Warrens, Reid, Pelosi of the world would LOVE if the US was ran like the other liberal countries.
I think he was just pointing out that the "left" is far more centrist.
To illustrate, in Australia our Liberal party (which used to be a lot more liberal) is our right wing. Our right wing. We have the Labor party which is still a greatly union based organisation. I'm thinking that your centre is kinda to my countries right - in that regard I think what Ouze said is right.
The Obamas, Clintons, Bidens, Warrens, Reid, Pelosi of the world would LOVE if the US was ran like the other liberal countries.
Obama would probably like a truly liberal (and viable), party as would Pelosi and Warren...I'm not sure about the Clintons and Biden though. As much as conservatives like to pretend that they're persecuted, the American political landscape definitely leans to the right. Indeed, that's a large part of why activism has been traditionally associated with the left.
streamdragon wrote: That was a pretty awesome read, thanks! How is the weather in Iowa? Pretty sure there's plenty of farmland, but ya know, retirement planning and all that...
Winters are usually bitterly cold, and the rest of the year, the pollen is insufferable I'd like to move at some point.
squidhills wrote:Contrary to what a lot of conservatives want to believe, we aren't all in love with Hillary over here on the left.
Well, the problem is that in the US, we only have a right wing, and an extreme right wing. There is no truly liberal party.
wat?
You serious?
I'd agree with Ouze, sure you have your outliers over there but on the whole US politics has a right wing bent to it. Other countries are a lot more liberal.
He's saying that there's no leftist/liberal party here...
The Obamas, Clintons, Bidens, Warrens, Reid, Pelosi of the world would LOVE if the US was ran like the other liberal countries.
They simply haven't been successful... yet.
I think what most Americans forget is that if you take, lets say, for example, President Obama and put him on the political spectrum, he is still very, very, VERY far right (to be specific, the president is marked as Authoritarian right and people like Mitt Romney and Santorum are almost identical). So its so laughable when I say millions of Americans, call him a socialist, or even worse... a communist, Obama is NOT EVEN CLOSE, he actually would probably very much dislike *Real socialists. It just keeps reinforcing the fact the Americans are blind to almost everything about General politics outside 'American Politics'. Its just joke really.
I think what most Americans forget is that if you take, lets say, for example, President Obama and put him on the political spectrum, he is still very, very, VERY far right (to be specific, the president is marked as Authoritarian right and people like Mitt Romney and Santorum are almost identical). So its so laughable when I say millions of Americans, call him a socialist, or even worse... a communist, Obama is NOT EVEN CLOSE, he actually would probably very much dislike *Real socialists. It just keeps reinforcing the fact the Americans are blind to almost everything about General politics outside 'American Politics'. Its just joke really.
And at the same time, people call Reagan a Conservative, when in reality, he was a Classical Liberal. Santorum could be considered an actual conservative, yet the "Ultra-Conservative" superhero, Reagan, simply isn't
squidhills wrote:Contrary to what a lot of conservatives want to believe, we aren't all in love with Hillary over here on the left.
Well, the problem is that in the US, we only have a right wing, and an extreme right wing. There is no truly liberal party.
wat?
You serious?
I'd agree with Ouze, sure you have your outliers over there but on the whole US politics has a right wing bent to it. Other countries are a lot more liberal.
And others are far more conservative. As an example: Asia, where you have classical Fascistic systems in control in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and authoritarian regimes in Burma, Thailand (yes I am using old names I'm old), S Korea, Singapore, Malaysia etc.
The Obamas, Clintons, Bidens, Warrens, Reid, Pelosi of the world would LOVE if the US was ran like the other liberal countries.
Obama would probably like a truly liberal (and viable), party as would Pelosi and Warren...I'm not sure about the Clintons and Biden though. As much as conservatives like to pretend that they're persecuted, the American political landscape definitely leans to the right. Indeed, that's a large part of why activism has been traditionally associated with the left.
Thats breaking though. The Democratic Party has substantially shifted left since the Clinton era. Inversely the Republican Party has shifted right.
Kennedy would be considered a conservative Republican now, as would Bill Clinton. inversely I've heard Rubio, Cornyn, and even Saint Reagan as lefties...
And others are far more conservative. As an example: Asia, where you have classical Fascistic systems in control in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and authoritarian regimes in Burma, Thailand (yes I am using old names I'm old), S Korea, Singapore, Malaysia etc.
Kennedy would be considered a conservative Republican now, as would Bill Clinton. inversely I've heard Rubio, Cornyn, and even Saint Reagan as lefties...
I hear what your saying Frazz but in a western democracy style govt, the US stands squarely to the right. Using your example I can say that Australia isn't a socialist government as it isn't as left as communist Russia.
Saint Reagan is a lefty? Goddarn, that's heresy! I say we dig him up and shoot him some, that'll learn that filthy pinko.
Do_I_not_like that - probably would have supported the theatre industry a lot more.
And others are far more conservative. As an example: Asia, where you have classical Fascistic systems in control in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and authoritarian regimes in Burma, Thailand (yes I am using old names I'm old), S Korea, Singapore, Malaysia etc.
Kennedy would be considered a conservative Republican now, as would Bill Clinton. inversely I've heard Rubio, Cornyn, and even Saint Reagan as lefties...
I hear what your saying Frazz but in a western democracy style govt, the US stands squarely to the right. Using your example I can say that Australia isn't a socialist government as it isn't as left as communist Russia.
Saint Reagan is a lefty? Goddarn, that's heresy! I say we dig him up and shoot him some, that'll learn that filthy pinko.
Do_I_not_like that - probably would have supported the theatre industry a lot more.
I'm pretty sure Reagan was cremated. You might end up shooting a pile of ash
Thats breaking though. The Democratic Party has substantially shifted left since the Clinton era. Inversely the Republican Party has shifted right.
The Democrats' campaigning has shifted left*, but very little of the legislation associated with that campaigning actually gets passed (or even presented) in a form agreeing with it. This is largely because many Democrat voters actually lean right on a number of issues.
And others are far more conservative. As an example: Asia, where you have classical Fascistic systems in control in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and authoritarian regimes in Burma, Thailand (yes I am using old names I'm old), S Korea, Singapore, Malaysia etc.
Kennedy would be considered a conservative Republican now, as would Bill Clinton. inversely I've heard Rubio, Cornyn, and even Saint Reagan as lefties...
I hear what your saying Frazz but in a western democracy style govt, the US stands squarely to the right. Using your example I can say that Australia isn't a socialist government as it isn't as left as communist Russia.
Saint Reagan is a lefty? Goddarn, that's heresy! I say we dig him up and shoot him some, that'll learn that filthy pinko.
Do_I_not_like that - probably would have supported the theatre industry a lot more.
WEst Europe is only a part of Europe. It would be interesting to see what the politics are like in the old Warsaw Pact countries. I should look into that more.
But yea its all perspective. If you're a right winger nobody to the left of Cruz is a "libtard "sheep" (I mentioned Cornyn-look up Cornyn's record). Inversely to a leftwinger anyone to the right of Sanders is a Nazi.
Republicans Are Making Foreign Policy The Obamacare Of The 2016 Election
In 2012, Republicans unanimously made a vow. If their party captured the White House, they would repeal President Obama's signature achievement, the Affordable Care Act.
In 2016, they've added something else: the reversal of Obama's signature foreign policy achievements, his outreach to hostile nations.
In his second term, Obama has been working to restore diplomatic relations with Cuba for the first time in more than half a century. His administration has also been negotiating a deal to limit Iran's nuclear program.
A number of GOP presidential contenders have vowed a U-turn on both policies, no matter what may happen between now and the next Inauguration Day.
That's why Obama's foreign policy may shape up to be the Obamacare of 2016. Republicans pledge to erase the president's acts as soon as a Republican is again sitting behind the Oval Office desk.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., is among those calling for a reversal. Rubio spoke with NPR on Monday, the day he announced his presidential campaign. Rubio, who is Cuban-American, made the announcement at Miami's Freedom Tower, where Cuban exiles fleeing Fidel Castro's regime once came to receive federal support. Rubio is a fierce critic of Cuba's government and of warming U.S. relations with it.
Would Rubio really re-break diplomatic relations with Cuba if elected?
"Absolutely," he says. He says he wants "free and fair elections" in Cuba and that U.S. policy can provide "major leverage."
This was largely the approach that U.S. presidents took for generations — until December 2014, when Obama said that more than half a century of waiting was long enough.
Rubio is just as definite on Iran.
The U.S., other world powers and Iran have negotiated a framework agreement under which Iran would accept limits on its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of global economic sanctions.
Rubio contends that what one president gives, the next may take away. "What [Obama] is banking on," Rubio says, "is that he is going to use a national security waiver to lift the sanctions," a move that allows the president to act without a vote in Congress. "We would simply re-impose the sanctions."
Rubio says he would make this move even if other world powers and the United Nations failed to follow suit, though he admits his move "wouldn't be as effective" that way.
Such a move could lead to a new confrontation with Iran. Rubio says he hopes to avoid war and (as with Cuba) buy time until the regime changes.
The prospect of such dramatic foreign policy reversals raises many questions. The simplest is this: Could a President Rubio (or Walker, or Cruz, or ...) really do these things?
Strictly speaking, yes.
A president can break diplomatic relations with Cuba, even if they've just been restored.
Supporters of Obama's Cuba policy, however, expect a different dynamic. The U.S. opening to Cuba may in time bring economic opportunities. American entrepreneurs won't be clamoring to rupture ties again: They will be clamoring to modify the longstanding economic embargo against Cuba that blocks U.S. business deals.
In theory, a president could also tear up an agreement made by his predecessor. George W. Bush did this in 2001, withdrawing from a climate treaty signed by Bill Clinton.
But when Republicans first floated the idea of walking away from the Iran deal — a notion mentioned in an open letter to Iran signed by 47 Republican senators — Iran's foreign minister insisted an agreement would be binding on the United States, withdrawal from it would be a "blatant violation of international law."
Obama is just as scornful. In an interview this month, we asked him about GOP contender Scott Walker, who had promised to break the Iran deal on "Day 1." Obama replied that this was a "foolish" idea, which would undermine the presidency and suggested that Walker would agree "after he's taken some time to bone up on foreign policy."
Republicans are boning up. Most elections don't turn on foreign policy, and by 2016, this one may not either. But there's plenty of discussion of it.
Republicans are running against the retiring president's foreign policy legacy. That means they also get one more chance — one last chance — to run against Obama.
Really, I think this is just the R's trying to get "oppose everything Obama" bandwagon up and running again. It has done them well before.
It depends on your perspective. I think opening relationships with Cuba is a good thing, it's about damn time. They pose no threat to anybody, and they aren't going to become more democratic by continuing to block all relations with them. Just piling on sanction isn't going to work in Iran, we either work out a deal, or bomb them into the ground. I think our economy is certainly improving, and a possible climate agreement with China would be great. I don't really like the ACA, but I'd rather we have something along the lines of the Canadian or British systems.
Really, not much of anything has come out of the Obama administaration, congress being deadlocked throughout most of his time in office.
But that's not really the point, the point is that they seem to be opposing anything Obama, for the point of opposing it and earning political points, instead of what is best.
CptJake wrote: Or, perhaps they have a very different definition of 'what is best'.
True, but Co'tor Shas is correct in the sense the Republicans can't keep blaming Obama for everything. Sooner or later they're going to have to come up with some ideas and initiatives of their own.
Political Prisoners are still behind bars? Fugitives that are wanted in the US are still walking free in Cuba? Opening up a relationship is a two way street.
Co'tor Shas wrote: And how do we fix those problems, by having no relations with them?
I made the point earlier that one of the reasons why the USA dislikes Iran, is because Iran humiliated the USA in the 1970s.
Cuba humiliated the USA in the 1960s with the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and the missile crisis not long later, didn't exactly help things.
In my view, an element of pride is getting in the way of better relations.
Cuba is no threat to the USA and opening up the island to US goods, might led to the end of the regime. Once people get a taste of the good life, they tend to ditch Karl Marx in favour of an Amazon wishlist.
How long have we (the US) been talking to Cuba? Like six months or something? Cuba has not giving anything up and the reforms (few that they did was token). Next thing up is waivers for US Immigration Fee's for Cubans and ahead of the line. So far we're given but achieving nothing
Edit
Why not wait till the Castro brothers die off. Cuban military is well taken care of so they (Castro's) are not losing any control over the populace
Edit
By waivers the US Tax payers are footing the fee payments to process Immigration paperwork. USCIS is a fee base department.
CptJake wrote: Or, perhaps they have a very different definition of 'what is best'.
True, but Co'tor Shas is correct in the sense the Republicans can't keep blaming Obama for everything. Sooner or later they're going to have to come up with some ideas and initiatives of their own.
That's a disingenuous argument there...
There've been plenty of Republican ideas and plans... up until recently, they couldn't get their bills past Harry Reid's Senate.... because, reasons.
Then, if it were to pass Congress, Obama does wield the veto pen.
So... yeah, in most cases, Republicans do have a point about blaming it on Obama because he's a potential road block.
If Hillary locks up the Democratic Primary, the Republicans can bring up both Hillary's issues AND Obama's (by claiming she's running for a 3rd Obama Presidency Policy-wise) How that plays in the general election remains to been. Frankly, I'm tired of it... just remember what it was like with outgoing Bush in '08. (at least it worked for Obama).
Jihadin wrote: Political Prisoners are still behind bars? Fugitives that are wanted in the US are still walking free in Cuba? Opening up a relationship is a two way street.
And the property rights issues... Many immigrants, especially the first wave escaping the revolution, had businesses and other property/land nationalized or given to the regime's favored sons. They (the folks who lost their property) want a way to re-assert their rights of ownership or some type of fair compensation. The Castro's and crew have refused to address this except to say 'screw off'.
CptJake wrote: Or, perhaps they have a very different definition of 'what is best'.
True, but Co'tor Shas is correct in the sense the Republicans can't keep blaming Obama for everything. Sooner or later they're going to have to come up with some ideas and initiatives of their own.
That's a disingenuous argument there...
There've been plenty of Republican ideas and plans... up until recently, they couldn't get their bills past Harry Reid's Senate.... because, reasons.
Then, if it were to pass Congress, Obama does wield the veto pen.
So... yeah, in most cases, Republicans do have a point about blaming it on Obama because he's a potential road block.
If Hillary locks up the Democratic Primary, the Republicans can bring up both Hillary's issues AND Obama's (by claiming she's running for a 3rd Obama Presidency Policy-wise) How that plays in the general election remains to been. Frankly, I'm tired of it... just remember what it was like with outgoing Bush in '08. (at least it worked for Obama).
Harry Reid deserves a share of the blame for the deadlock, but the Republicans didn't help things with their unwillingness to compromise, and their my way or the highway approach.
LBJ faced a hostile congress, but he was always willing to horse trade to get things passed.
You talk about unwillingness to compromise, but look at legislation like the ACA. Reed and Pelosi barely compromised with the blue dog Dems, let alone the Rs.
Boehner on the other hand passed a clean DHS bill that the Dems wanted, and faced leadership challenges in his own party due to it. Did Pelosi ever do something similar? I can't think of an example where she passed something her party was against, using Rs to push the votes to get the needed pass number.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Cuba is no threat to the USA and opening up the island to US goods, might led to the end of the regime. Once people get a taste of the good life, they tend to ditch Karl Marx in favour of an Amazon wishlist.
A million time sthis. Nothing ends communist regimes faster than a taste of the $$$$ that can be made in Capitalist system.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Cuba is no threat to the USA and opening up the island to US goods, might led to the end of the regime. Once people get a taste of the good life, they tend to ditch Karl Marx in favour of an Amazon wishlist.
A million time sthis. Nothing ends communist regimes faster than a taste of the $$$$ that can be made in Capitalist system.
Only works if the general population gets that taste. Castro government totally blocked that taste.
Though I would not say no if allowed a trip to Cuba to go car shopping if the price was not at the government rates of Castro's lol
There've been plenty of Republican ideas and plans... up until recently, they couldn't get their bills past Harry Reid's Senate.... because, reasons.
Because the ideas were crap and wouldn't even pass a GOP controlled Senate, or the people backing them had been quite solidly in the the "feth the Democrats!" camp; often both. You can't build a partisan platform around sticking it to the party in power and expect the party in power to go quietly into the night.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Cuba is no threat to the USA and opening up the island to US goods, might led to the end of the regime. Once people get a taste of the good life, they tend to ditch Karl Marx in favour of an Amazon wishlist.
A million time sthis. Nothing ends communist regimes faster than a taste of the $$$$ that can be made in Capitalist system.
Only works if the general population gets that taste. Castro government totally blocked that taste.
Though I would not say no if allowed a trip to Cuba to go car shopping if the price was not at the government rates of Castro's lol
If there is one thing I definitely do not want to see, it is all those beautiful cars disappearing off into the collections of random individuals all over the world. Would be a tragedy to have those cars sitting in big garages gathering metaphorical dust rather than driving amongst their own kind in the wild
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Political Prisoners are still behind bars? Fugitives that are wanted in the US are still walking free in Cuba? Opening up a relationship is a two way street.
Well the US also has some people which the Cuban government would like to see, too.
There was that one person who bombed the plane with the cuban olympic team on or something like that?
Like who do we have in jail that Castro regime wants?
It sure as Hell not Noriega
Edit
Also I am ssoooo with you on the cars Malus. Someone going to go and steal that out from under the general population of car lovers around the world. I say go to War if Castro decides to melt all those vehicles down.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Cuba is no threat to the USA and opening up the island to US goods, might led to the end of the regime. Once people get a taste of the good life, they tend to ditch Karl Marx in favour of an Amazon wishlist.
A million time sthis. Nothing ends communist regimes faster than a taste of the $$$$ that can be made in Capitalist system.
In East Berlin, they could see the bright lights of the West Berlin cafes. In Communist Estonia, TV signals from Finland gave people a blurry image of a better life.
Now we hhave more than just Paul and Cruz in the race at least!
Anyone wnat to rate Rubio's chances? I think in a general he would be okay, but will have a tough time in primaries.
Barring some gotcha surprise from the media he will be the Republican VP choice.
So you agree with my prediction: Clinton Vs Bush?
I don't know about you Frazz, but I miss the 1990s. A man knew where he stood. Joe Commie had been defeated in Russia, Guns and Roses were in their prime, we had twin peaks, x files, Nirvana...I'm getting all misty eyed
No. Walker vs. Clinton. Rubio for Republican VP. Warren for Democratic VP (not 100% sure on that one though).
I don't know about you Frazz, but I miss the 1990s. A man knew where he stood. Joe Commie had been defeated in Russia, Guns and Roses were in their prime, we had twin peaks, x files, Nirvana...I'm getting all misty eyed
"what is these are the Good Old Days?"
- Londo Molari.
Jihadin wrote: Like who do we have in jail that Castro regime wants?
It sure as Hell not Noriega
I think the problem is that the person they want is not in jail
Found the name: Luis Posada Carriles. Orchestrated many terrorist acts against Cuba, including possibly blowing up a civilian airline and killing all 73 people on board.
CptJake wrote: You talk about unwillingness to compromise, but look at legislation like the ACA. Reed and Pelosi barely compromised with the blue dog Dems, let alone the Rs.
The public option was dropped, too quickly in the opinion of many people, and the ACA has been widely lampooned for including special concessions. You really can't argue that compromises weren't made in the course of ACA passage.
CptJake wrote: You talk about unwillingness to compromise, but look at legislation like the ACA. Reed and Pelosi barely compromised with the blue dog Dems, let alone the Rs.
The public option was dropped, too quickly in the opinion of many people, and the ACA has been widely lampooned for including special concessions. You really can't argue that compromises weren't made in the course of ACA passage.
We all know the answer will be the same as every other time.
"Here are all the concessions that were made and all the stuff that was included that you guys always wanted."
"Well, we didn't ask for any of it and we weren't talking to you guys at the time, so it doesn't count."
CptJake wrote: You talk about unwillingness to compromise, but look at legislation like the ACA. Reed and Pelosi barely compromised with the blue dog Dems, let alone the Rs.
The public option was dropped, too quickly in the opinion of many people, and the ACA has been widely lampooned for including special concessions. You really can't argue that compromises weren't made in the course of ACA passage.
We all know the answer will be the same as every other time.
"Here are all the concessions that were made and all the stuff that was included that you guys always wanted."
"Well, we didn't ask for any of it and we weren't talking to you guys at the time, so it doesn't count."
Or more accurately, the concessions/compromises were put in to get the blue dog Ds to vote for it.
Let's face it, the Republicans secretly wanted the ACA to pass as it is. Because they've been able to use it ever since then as a political tool to try to get votes. If the parties had all worked together to create something wondrous and magical for America, Americans would have forgotten about it in a month. But let something people don't like go through? You can capitalize on that negativity for years.
The best part of the ACA is all the people that whined, complained, and fought against it as evil incarnate turning around after its passage and complaining it isn't enough. It went from doing to much and being unwanted to not being enough and to weak. Good times.
WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton was directly asked by congressional investigators in a December 2012 letter whether she had used a private email account while serving as secretary of state, according to letters obtained by The New York Times.
But Mrs. Clinton did not reply to the letter. And when the State Department answered in March 2013, nearly two months after she left office, it ignored the question and provided no response.
The query was posed to Mrs. Clinton in a Dec. 13, 2012, letter from Representative Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Mr. Issa was leading an investigation into how the Obama administration handled its officials’ use of personal email.
“Have you or any senior agency official ever used a personal email account to conduct official business?” Mr. Issa wrote to Mrs. Clinton. “If so, please identify the account used.”
Mr. Issa also asked Mrs. Clinton, “Does the agency require employees to certify on a periodic basis or at the end of their employment with the agency they have turned over any communications involving official business that they have sent or received using nonofficial accounts?”
Mr. Issa’s letter also sought written documentation of the department’s policies for the use of personal email for government business. Mrs. Clinton left the State Department on Feb. 1, 2013, seven weeks after the letter was sent to her.
When Mr. Issa received a response from the State Department on March 27, all he got was a description of the department’s email policies. According to the letter, any employee using a personal account “should make it clear that his or her personal email is not being used for official business.”
Mrs. Clinton acknowledged last month that she had exclusively used a personal email account, which was housed on a server that had been specially set up for her, when she was secretary of state. She said that she used the private account for convenience purposes because she did not want to carry more than one electronic device. By using the private account, many of her emails were shielded from inquiries by Congress, the news media and government watchdogs.
The revelation has set off the first major test of her early presidential campaign, as she seeks to assure the public and the news media that she was not seeking to hide her correspondence.
A congressional official provided The Times with a copy of Mr. Issa’s letter and the response from the State Department on the condition of anonymity because the official did not want to jeopardize his access to such information.
A spokesman for the State Department declined on Tuesday to answer questions about why it had not addressed Mr. Issa’s question about whether Mrs. Clinton or senior officials used personal email accounts.
“The department responds to thousands of congressional inquiries and requests for information each year,” said the spokesman, Alec Gerlach. “In its March 2013 letter, the department responded to the House Oversight Committee’s inquiry into the department’s ‘policies and practices regarding the use of personal email and other forms of electronic communications’ with a letter that described those policies in detail.”
An aide to Mrs. Clinton said in a statement Tuesday that “her usage was widely known to the over 100 department and U.S. government colleagues she emailed, as her address was visible on every email she sent.”
Mr. Issa had sent letters to the State Department and other executive agencies after it was discovered that some administration and Environment Protection Agency officials had used private accounts to conduct government business.
In the State Department’s letter back to Mr. Issa, Thomas B. Gibbons, the acting assistant secretary for legislative affairs, described the department’s records management policies and guidelines.
He said “employees may use personal email on personal time for matters not directly related to official business, and any employee using personal email ‘should make it clear that his or her personal email is not being used for official business.’ ”
The State Department offered training on its record management programs to its employees, he said.
... and she didn't respond. What the feth were congress-cirtters doing all this time? Taking their sweet assed time.
Taking 2 years to get around to something important, sounds like congress alright.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Honestly, the Clinton have always been a bit slimy. Bill was a good president, but he's a slimeball, and it looks like Hillary might be as well.
All that remains is to find out if she will be as good a president as Bill was. If so, than she's alright in my book, although I still don't really want her to be president.
Depends on locality, yes. I know I've seen many articles now saying, "Nationally, rates have gone down" as an AHA!!! GOTCHA! kind of thing to all the anti-ACA people.
CptJake wrote: You talk about unwillingness to compromise, but look at legislation like the ACA. Reed and Pelosi barely compromised with the blue dog Dems, let alone the Rs.
The public option was dropped, too quickly in the opinion of many people, and the ACA has been widely lampooned for including special concessions. You really can't argue that compromises weren't made in the course of ACA passage.
We all know the answer will be the same as every other time.
"Here are all the concessions that were made and all the stuff that was included that you guys always wanted."
"Well, we didn't ask for any of it and we weren't talking to you guys at the time, so it doesn't count."
I think we are supposed to pretend that Obama didn't run on Single Payer for the 2008 election, that he didn't win with a mandate for that platform, and that the ACA wasn't a horrible compromise by a naive President meant to appease Republicans.
Depends on locality, yes. I know I've seen many articles now saying, "Nationally, rates have gone down" as an AHA!!! GOTCHA! kind of thing to all the anti-ACA people.
Here's a good chart: That's just going from '14 to '15.
The market is whacked big time.
Here's some trendlines from JAMA:
It's a bloody mess... (fyi, I work in the healthcare industry).
What you're going to see is that the regional caregivers throughout the nation will start merging/colloaborating/partnering with each other in a Accountable Care Organization (ACO)*... with an asterick next to it.
These ACO would also start getting into the insurance market as well, thus cutting out the payor-middle man.
CptJake wrote: You talk about unwillingness to compromise, but look at legislation like the ACA. Reed and Pelosi barely compromised with the blue dog Dems, let alone the Rs.
The public option was dropped, too quickly in the opinion of many people, and the ACA has been widely lampooned for including special concessions. You really can't argue that compromises weren't made in the course of ACA passage.
We all know the answer will be the same as every other time.
"Here are all the concessions that were made and all the stuff that was included that you guys always wanted." "Well, we didn't ask for any of it and we weren't talking to you guys at the time, so it doesn't count."
I think we are supposed to pretend that Obama didn't run on Single Payer for the 2008 election, that he didn't win with a mandate for that platform, and that the ACA wasn't a horrible compromise by a naive President meant to appease Republicans.
Pelosi/Reid: This is a compromise. <shuts door to R's face>
Republicans: But, I want to participate in this!!!
Pelosi/Reid: <opens door a crack> The framework is from your Heritage™ buddies! So... get off my lawn!
Republicans: :throws up hands:
~~~ PPACA passes w/o any R's voting for it. ~~~~
Supporters of ACA: It was a Republican idea, but they don't like it because the Democrats passed it. (which isn't anywhere near the same as that Heritage "op-ed" plan back in the 80's). But, again, supporters keeps on fighting to revise history.
Supporters of ACA: keeps on fighting to revise history.
If this was aimed at me, I am absolutely not a supporter of the ACA. I voted for a Single Payer system. What we got was a bad attempt to appease Republicans and the insurance industry, and, as you say, while it seems to have appeased the insurance industry (anything beats extinction), it certainly did not appease the Republicans.
Depends on locality, yes. I know I've seen many articles now saying, "Nationally, rates have gone down" as an AHA!!! GOTCHA! kind of thing to all the anti-ACA people.
The reality is that the Dems weren't ineterested in compromise and neither were the Republicans. The Dems didn't want compromise, because they thought they had the votes to get whatever they wanted through. The Reps didn't want compromise because they were determined to kill Obamacare before it was born. They had already promised to do everything possible to make Obama a one-term President, and they were certainly not going to compromise on anything he proposed or Dems supported. The Dems needed to get concessions put in to appease the "Blue-Dog" Dems, who were representing more conservative districts. That is where the compromises were made, because the Dems wanted a 60 vote fillibuster-proof majority before attempting to hold a vote (they knew no Rep would back the bill, so they were determined to get the votes needed to shoot down a fillibuster). This is what turned the ACA into the mess it became, because Joe Lieberman demanded alteration after alteration after alteration to appease the insurance companies that were funding his campaign. The Dems caved to him to ensure they had the full 60 votes (he was an Independant, but he was also that 60th vote) and the rest is history...
Republicans: But, I want to participate in this!!!
But they really didn't.
There was too much electoral hay to be made after the complete Democratic overtake of the Federal Government. The GOP's best option was to do what it did: sandbag and rally assumed supporters.
Depends on locality, yes. I know I've seen many articles now saying, "Nationally, rates have gone down" as an AHA!!! GOTCHA! kind of thing to all the anti-ACA people.
Here's a good chart:
That's just going from '14 to '15.
The problem with this chart is that it's using Silver plans... not Bronze (which is in reality, the better plan for most people, provided they have an agent get them into appropriate supplements) Which I personally saw increase for every single person I ran a plan for (anecdotally, I am using myself as a "baseline" since I started during the 2014 year prices and for me, a Bronze plan was about 460 a month, when they rolled out the 2015 pricing, all my quotes for myself said 520 a month, just for the Bronze plan and that was with NO age changes or any changes beyond fiscal year pricing)
Just what someone who likes someone in a gay way would say.
Way to early to pick someone to be honest, except to say no to Hillary of course. That is timeless.
But he's young. New. Only spent like one term as a Senator. He's Hispanic and speak it fluently. He even has a catchy phrase to, "Yesterday Leaders". I see him teaming up with Walker to. Now getting my vote is entirely different. I rather have him in office then another Bush or Clinton. Has to much like a dynasty with repeats
WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton was directly asked by congressional investigators in a December 2012 letter whether she had used a private email account while serving as secretary of state, according to letters obtained by The New York Times.
But Mrs. Clinton did not reply to the letter. And when the State Department answered in March 2013, nearly two months after she left office, it ignored the question and provided no response.
The query was posed to Mrs. Clinton in a Dec. 13, 2012, letter from Representative Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Mr. Issa was leading an investigation into how the Obama administration handled its officials’ use of personal email.
“Have you or any senior agency official ever used a personal email account to conduct official business?” Mr. Issa wrote to Mrs. Clinton. “If so, please identify the account used.”
Mr. Issa also asked Mrs. Clinton, “Does the agency require employees to certify on a periodic basis or at the end of their employment with the agency they have turned over any communications involving official business that they have sent or received using nonofficial accounts?”
Mr. Issa’s letter also sought written documentation of the department’s policies for the use of personal email for government business. Mrs. Clinton left the State Department on Feb. 1, 2013, seven weeks after the letter was sent to her.
When Mr. Issa received a response from the State Department on March 27, all he got was a description of the department’s email policies. According to the letter, any employee using a personal account “should make it clear that his or her personal email is not being used for official business.”
Mrs. Clinton acknowledged last month that she had exclusively used a personal email account, which was housed on a server that had been specially set up for her, when she was secretary of state. She said that she used the private account for convenience purposes because she did not want to carry more than one electronic device. By using the private account, many of her emails were shielded from inquiries by Congress, the news media and government watchdogs.
The revelation has set off the first major test of her early presidential campaign, as she seeks to assure the public and the news media that she was not seeking to hide her correspondence.
A congressional official provided The Times with a copy of Mr. Issa’s letter and the response from the State Department on the condition of anonymity because the official did not want to jeopardize his access to such information.
A spokesman for the State Department declined on Tuesday to answer questions about why it had not addressed Mr. Issa’s question about whether Mrs. Clinton or senior officials used personal email accounts.
“The department responds to thousands of congressional inquiries and requests for information each year,” said the spokesman, Alec Gerlach. “In its March 2013 letter, the department responded to the House Oversight Committee’s inquiry into the department’s ‘policies and practices regarding the use of personal email and other forms of electronic communications’ with a letter that described those policies in detail.”
An aide to Mrs. Clinton said in a statement Tuesday that “her usage was widely known to the over 100 department and U.S. government colleagues she emailed, as her address was visible on every email she sent.”
Mr. Issa had sent letters to the State Department and other executive agencies after it was discovered that some administration and Environment Protection Agency officials had used private accounts to conduct government business.
In the State Department’s letter back to Mr. Issa, Thomas B. Gibbons, the acting assistant secretary for legislative affairs, described the department’s records management policies and guidelines.
He said “employees may use personal email on personal time for matters not directly related to official business, and any employee using personal email ‘should make it clear that his or her personal email is not being used for official business.’ ”
The State Department offered training on its record management programs to its employees, he said.
... and she didn't respond. What the feth were congress-cirtters doing all this time? Taking their sweet assed time.
Just what someone who likes someone in a gay way would say.
Way to early to pick someone to be honest, except to say no to Hillary of course. That is timeless.
But he's young. New. Only spent like one term as a Senator. He's Hispanic and speak it fluently. He even has a catchy phrase to, "Yesterday Leaders". I see him teaming up with Walker to. Now getting my vote is entirely different. I rather have him in office then another Bush or Clinton. Has to much like a dynasty with repeats
Supporters of ACA: keeps on fighting to revise history.
If this was aimed at me, I am absolutely not a supporter of the ACA. I voted for a Single Payer system. What we got was a bad attempt to appease Republicans and the insurance industry, and, as you say, while it seems to have appeased the insurance industry (anything beats extinction), it certainly did not appease the Republicans.
Republicans: But, I want to participate in this!!!
But they really didn't.
There was too much electoral hay to be made after the complete Democratic overtake of the Federal Government. The GOP's best option was to do what it did: sandbag and rally assumed supporters.
I saw this and thought it would be of interest to folks watching this topic.
I would like to see how they graded some of that. For example, Ron Paul may have 'voted conservative' while in congress, but stuffing pork for your district into a spending bill which has more than enough support to pass, and then voting against the bill you stuffed so you can say 'Look, I voted against it' is disingenuous in my opinion.
The Western Conservative Summit, a gathering of some of the most influential newsmakers on the right, created a firestorm this week when it uninvited a gay GOP group to set up a table at the Denver event.
Members of the Colorado Log Cabin Republicans and gay-rights activists in both major parties say the move sends a wrong message.
The summit is sponsored by Colorado Christian University in Lakewood and its think tank, the Centennial Institute. Summit chairman and institute director John Andrews said Wednesday that the Log Cabin Republicans "advocate contrary to our agenda and our core beliefs."
"The Log Cabin Republicans exists to redefine the family," he said. "Log Cabin Republicans think gay marriage should be the law of the land, and Colorado Christian University doesn't believe it should be."
Log Cabin Republican members have been told they can still purchase tickets and attend the summit, scheduled for June 26- 28 at the Colorado Convention Center.
"It is a pretty common issue we face. They'll take our money but want us in the closet," said Denver resident Michael Carr, a former state Senate candidate and secretary of the state chapter of Log Cabin Republicans.
"This is the most important time for us to be reaching out to all types of groups and people, all types of Republicans, all types of conservatives," Carr said. "Young people especially want to see a robust political debate, and this disinvitation is the exact opposite of that. Being perceived as anti-gay turns young people off even more than it does the general public."
Upon hearing the news, conservative columnist David Harsanyi tweeted "makes no sense."
Among those scheduled to speak at the summit are 2016 presidential hopefuls Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Ben Carson.
Speakers still set
Andrews, a former state Senate president, said so far none of the speakers has backed out because of publicity over the Log Cabin Republicans. Walker is in Europe this week attending a trade summit, and his campaign said he was not immediately available for comment.
The Human Rights Campaign called for Walker to cancel his summit appearance.
"As a potential candidate, Gov. Walker should lead by example and tell the organizers that he will pull out of this event unless they allow equal access to LGBT Republicans," said Fred Sainz, vice president of communications for the national gay-rights group.
Political consultant Eric Sondermann said the outrage over the revoked invitation isn't surprising, as some conservatives "refuse to get the memo" that public attitudes about homosexuality have shifted.
"For so many people who might be receptive to a conservative message on economic issues, on personal liberties, on foreign policy, on regulation, they'll never get that message because they can't get past this issue," Sondermann said.
Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute in Denver, said the decision was made for religious reasons, not political ones, and it's not that surprising considering the summit is an outgrowth of a Christian university. But he said he wished the summit hadn't revoked the GOP gay group's invitation.
"This is one of the reasons our side loses. There's a perception that we're not friendly to alternative lifestyles," Caldara said.
$250 fee refunded
Alexander Hornaday, spokesman for the Colorado Log Cabin Republicans, said the group was invited to participate in the summit at a discount rate by the Center Right Coalition. The summit this week refunded their $250 fee and informed the group it couldn't attend "as a partner, exhibitor or advertiser."
Andrews told Log Cabin Republicans that their "worldview and policy agenda are fundamentally at odds with what Colorado Christian University stands for, so it's just not a fit. I'm sorry it has to be that way."
Hornaday said voters under 40 and especially under 30 need to see Republicans not only tolerating gay conservatives but welcoming them.
"It's just heartbreaking some of these older guard in the movement don't see that," he said.
Andrews said all are welcome, and he pointed to the summit's Facebook page.
"Come one, come all: conservatives, moderates, and liberals; black, white, Asian, or Hispanic; men and women, younger and old, Republican, Democrat, or libertarian; immigrant or DAR; gay or straight," Andrews said on the post, adding that the summit "aims to build a coalition of all ages and all colors around reviving liberty and sharing Judeo-Christian truth and love."
Yeah, I think the root of the problem is that the parties don't know how to handle the growing segment of the population that is "fiscally conservative but socially liberal." I'm in that group, and neither party is truly engaging me.
They actually talked about that last night on Hannity. The gap between current (most) of Congress/POTUS and the general populace.
As in using 20th Century fixes to 21st Century problems.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Yeah, I think the root of the problem is that the parties don't know how to handle the growing segment of the population that is "fiscally conservative but socially liberal." I'm in that group, and neither party is truly engaging me.
You got that right.
The Democrats need to stop being (or appearing) the party of issues... like Operation WallStreet, Grievance Industry, etc...
The Republicans need to stop being (or appearing) the party of the wealthy, business, etc...
The biggest gap, imo, is the lack of both parties engaging the workers of this country as a whole. (Democrats focuses on niched groups, whereas Republicans focuses on establishment groups).
We really do need to start embracing third parties on a national level.
I was really hoping with the mood after the election of Obama that the GOP might fracture into two parties....one party for economoc conservatism , and one for religious conservatism.
I just can't bring myself to consider a GOP politician for my vote because of the religious baggage they bring to the table. I think the GOP would find many people more open to their economic platform if there were less strings attached to things like gay marriage, war on drugs, abortion, and other "values" issues.
Here’s a transcript of Clinton’s remarks from the video:
Hillary Clinton: You know, what I think about the really unfortunate argument that has been going on around Common Core, it’s very painful because the Common Core started off as a bipartisan effort. It was actually nonpartisan. It wasn’t politicized. It was to try to come up with a core of learning that we might expect students to achieve across our country, no matter what kind of school district they were in, no matter how poor their family was, that there wouldn’t be two tiers of education. Everybody would be looking at what would be learned doing their best to achieve that
I think part of the reason Iowa may be more understanding of this is you have had the Iowa core for years. The U.S. had a system plus the Iowa Assessment Test. I think I’m right in saying that I took those when I was in elementary school. The Iowa tests. So that Iowa has had a testing system based on a core curriculum for a really long time. You see the value of it. You understand why that helps you organize your whole education system.
And a lot of states, unfortunately, haven’t had that. They do not understand the value of a core in the sense, a Common Core, yes, of course, you can figure out the best way in your community to try to reach — but your question is a larger one. How do we end up at a point where we are so negative about the most important non-family enterprise in the raising of the next generation which is how our kids are educated?
BS. Educating your child is not a "non-family enterprise". Parents are responsible for their child's education and this whole idea that just because you send your kids to whichever schools the public offers means that parents abdicate their responsibility of their child's education is asinine.
This mindset... the worship on the altar of Statism.
This is like Obama's "you didn't build that" statement....
My wife is a fifth grade teacher. Trust me, at least half of her students' parents have abdicated their responsibility in their child's education. Sad, but true.
jasper76 wrote: We really do need to start embracing third parties on a national level.
I was really hoping with the mood after the election of Obama that the GOP might fracture into two parties....one party for economoc conservatism , and one for religious conservatism.
I just can't bring myself to consider a GOP politician for my vote because of the religious baggage they bring to the table. I think the GOP would find many people more open to their economic platform if there were less strings attached to things like gay marriage, war on drugs, abortion, and other "values" issues.
Be careful what you wish for. If we only have parties 1 and 2, each with their own key demographics, and party 2 splits to become 2 and 3 then that leaves party 1 in a very strong position.
jasper76 wrote: We really do need to start embracing third parties on a national level.
I was really hoping with the mood after the election of Obama that the GOP might fracture into two parties....one party for economoc conservatism , and one for religious conservatism.
I just can't bring myself to consider a GOP politician for my vote because of the religious baggage they bring to the table. I think the GOP would find many people more open to their economic platform if there were less strings attached to things like gay marriage, war on drugs, abortion, and other "values" issues.
I've always thought the same, I'm someone who only really cares about social problems (I don't know enough economis to make an educated choice, so I don't), and it's always seemed to me that the R's do better when they focus on fiscal conservatism, instead of social. True fiscal conservatism mind you, not the corporations above all else bs they try to pull.
BS. Educating your child is not a "non-family enterprise". Parents are responsible for their child's education and this whole idea that just because you send your kids to whichever schools the public offers means that parents abdicate their responsibility of their child's education is asinine.
When did Clinton state that education is exclusively a "non-family" enterprise?
Her statement was clearly about Common Core, and public education as a whole, not removing the responsibility of parents regarding the education of their children.
jasper76 wrote: We really do need to start embracing third parties on a national level.
I was really hoping with the mood after the election of Obama that the GOP might fracture into two parties....one party for economoc conservatism , and one for religious conservatism.
I just can't bring myself to consider a GOP politician for my vote because of the religious baggage they bring to the table. I think the GOP would find many people more open to their economic platform if there were less strings attached to things like gay marriage, war on drugs, abortion, and other "values" issues.
Be careful what you wish for. If we only have parties 1 and 2, each with their own key demographics, and party 2 splits to become 2 and 3 then that leaves party 1 in a very strong position.
I suppose I am imaging a party system where numerous parties represent actual constituent priorities. I think that religious conservatives do deserve a party that represents their interests (how the GOP machine prioritizes interests was on clear display with the Indiana RFRA law reversal). Similarly, I think that socialists deserve a Socialist party, labor deserves a Labor party, etc, etc.
BS. Educating your child is not a "non-family enterprise". Parents are responsible for their child's education and this whole idea that just because you send your kids to whichever schools the public offers means that parents abdicate their responsibility of their child's education is asinine.
When did Clinton state that education is exclusively a "non-family" enterprise?
Read the last sentence of that transcript.
The context isn't just Common Core... but education.
Her statement was clearly about Common Core, and public education as a whole, not removing the responsibility of parents regarding the education of their children.
Why didn't she just say "Common Core" than "no-family enterprise"??? She's making a more broader statement encompassing education in general.
Again... it's that statist mindset that some politician expouses saying that THE STATE should always be in the driver seat.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: that 538 source... Rand Paul is being the most conservative voter in congress??? wut? o.O
<digging deeper>
Really, the common core is a good idea at heart, but badly executed. Have some sort of education standards is good, but the common core is just bad. I don't think I know one teacher who actually likes it, and that's not a good sign.
Honestly though, we need more invested in education. It hardly ever gets the support it really needs. And while were at it, lets invest in out infrastructure as well. I think those are things everyone can agree on.
BS. Educating your child is not a "non-family enterprise". Parents are responsible for their child's education and this whole idea that just because you send your kids to whichever schools the public offers means that parents abdicate their responsibility of their child's education is asinine.
This mindset... the worship on the altar of Statism.
No. I know you want her to mean in it that way, sinister intent and all, but that isn't it... at all.
Public education by its defintion is a non-family enterprise, plain and simple. We as parents entrust our public school teachers to be a part of raising our kids even though they are outside of the family, and most of the time that is a child's first education experience with someone other than a family member. Like Dogma said, nowhere did she claim that parents have no responsibility regarding the education of their children.
Come on, Whembly... you're digging pretty deep here, dude.
If one going to embellish a story one needs to check the credibility of the story. I did not know all of Hillary grandparents immigrated to the US.........wait....
Co'tor Shas wrote: Really, the common core is a good idea at heart, but badly executed. Have some sort of education standards is good, but the common core is just bad. I don't think I know one teacher who actually likes it, and that's not a good sign.
Agree on the good idea (and really simple idea actually) that appears to have been implemented poorly. Based on your conversations, what do they not like about it?
Co'tor Shas wrote: Really, the common core is a good idea at heart, but badly executed. Have some sort of education standards is good, but the common core is just bad. I don't think I know one teacher who actually likes it, and that's not a good sign.
Agree on the good idea (and really simple idea actually) that appears to have been implemented poorly. Based on your conversations, what do they not like about it?
Like anything handed down from Top Level™ (the state/feds)... it's almost too draconian to effectively adapt to each class.
What people tend to forget, each class, ever year is different.... especially the elementary years.
When you realize that... the "One Size Fits All Idea" just doesn't work all that well.
That whammer part is that many of these programs tie $$$$ to test results.
Note: This isn't simply whembly being "anti-gubmint" in all things... I'm not oppose to certain standardized testings... but, the cirriculum really needs to be driven by the Teacher's and School's that's tailored to their student body.
Note: This isn't simply whembly being "anti-gubmint" in all things... I'm not oppose to certain standardized testings... but, the curriculum really needs to be driven by the Teacher's and School's that's tailored to their student body.
Why? Many many many school districts have proven utterly incapable of that. if they could this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.
if you let the schools decide, the schools will low ball it, which is the problem we've had.
Note: This isn't simply whembly being "anti-gubmint" in all things... I'm not oppose to certain standardized testings... but, the curriculum really needs to be driven by the Teacher's and School's that's tailored to their student body.
Why? Many many many school districts have proven utterly incapable of that. if they could this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.
if you let the schools decide, the schools will low ball it, which is the problem we've had.
That's the opposite what we have here...
Think about it.
If you treat the inner-city schools and the well-to-do schools the same... and benchmark the test scores the same way accross the board.... AND tie the results of those the scores to how much additional State/Fed fundings the schools would get.
It's a receipe for disaster imo. The common theme... many schools are teaching the kids how to take these tests... and not teach how to think. A small, but important distinction imo.
Frazzled wrote: Why? The alternative is what we have now, which is absolute gak for inner city schools.
Frazzled. There is no "A" and "B" solution.
It'll take a multi-faceted assault to improve education and such a plan would be different depending on location.
Actually if you really want to improve the schools, make EVERYONE go to public schools. Suddenly they would get better very quickly.
No.
If you actually want to improve the schools, empower the teachers and school districts to design the curriculum. If the state wants to send $$ using the carrot approach, the use fething meaningful benchmark.
That is: take a baseline test per school, and see if improvements occurs overtimeat that school. (which is NOT how it's done now... in my neck of the woods at least).
I don't buy it. School districts have been designing the curriculum. Thats what caused No Child Left Behind in the first place. If you let them make the decision, who are they responsible to?
As an example: Germany beats our heads in on the education front. What are they doing?
Frazzled wrote: Why? The alternative is what we have now, which is absolute gak for inner city schools.
Frazzled. There is no "A" and "B" solution.
It'll take a multi-faceted assault to improve education and such a plan would be different depending on location.
Actually if you really want to improve the schools, make EVERYONE go to public schools. Suddenly they would get better very quickly.
No.
If you actually want to improve the schools, empower the teachers and school districts to design the curriculum. If the state wants to send $$ using the carrot approach, the use fething meaningful benchmark.
That is: take a baseline test per school, and see if improvements occurs overtimeat that school. (which is NOT how it's done now... in my neck of the woods at least).
The problem with having each school/teacher design it's own basic curriculum is that it makes it very hard for employers to actually know what it is that applicants have been taught when they have applications from graduates of a wide range of schools from many different states.
dogma wrote: Not to mention the already ridiculous issues with the transition to higher education.
This too. One of the people who is on my physics degree course took several years out after finishing his A-levels. By the time he came back to apply to university he had to basically retake those A-levels (in a fast-track course) as the curriculum had changed so many times that the University couldn't gauge what exactly he knew and so whether he was suitable for the course.
Overtinkering with the curriculum from anybody, be it government or the schools themselves, is a bad thing which basically makes qualifications meaningless as you actually have no idea whether two people with the same qualification actually have the same knowledge or experience.
For example, what if a school in a very religious district removes evolution from their curriculum (or just alters it to make it basically non-existent whilst still managing to include it for legal reasons or whatever), following pressure from the parents of the district. A child from that school who was interested in Biology would be completely unprepared to study it at a higher level as they would not have the groundwork in evolution necessary to succeed.
So even if you do allow schools to set their own curriculum it would have to be within a very strict framework, at which point you might as well just have a national curriculum which determines which topics must be taught but allow freedom for teachers on how these topics would be taught which best fit their students, so long as those techniques do not result in a reduction of quality (i.e getting a young-earth creationist in to teach evolution, or a flat-earther to teach the solar system or a neo-nazi to teach about the holocaust etc.).
Tell you what... go talk to different school teachers to see what's it like? Then come back.
I've already said that we'd need some standardized testing... we ALL should be teaching the basic fundamentals.
We need to be using these test results as a tool to adjust curriculum as needed, not as a crudgel to beat the students in order for the school to maintain some arbitrary level that their budget streams depend on... which, in turn, creates a perverse incentive that we see today.
Tell you what... go talk to different school teachers to see what's it like? Then come back.
I've already said that we'd need some standardized testing... we ALL should be teaching the basic fundamentals.
We need to be using these test results as a tool to adjust curriculum as needed, not as a crudgel to beat the students in order for the school to maintain some arbitrary level that their budget streams depend on... which, in turn, creates a perverse incentive that we see today.
Tell you what... go talk to different school teachers to see what's it like? Then come back.
I've already said that we'd need some standardized testing... we ALL should be teaching the basic fundamentals.
We need to be using these test results as a tool to adjust curriculum as needed, not as a crudgel to beat the students in order for the school to maintain some arbitrary level that their budget streams depend on... which, in turn, creates a perverse incentive that we see today.
We need to be using these test results as a tool to adjust curriculum as needed...
This already happens, and cannot be completely separated from testing being used as a cudgel; that is pretty much the point of testing after all.
The tests could certainly be better designed though. In short: they're too easy and/or not sufficiently comprehensive. Correcting that deficiency is a large part of the point behind the Common Core.
Tell you what... go talk to different school teachers to see what's it like? Then come back.
I've already said that we'd need some standardized testing... we ALL should be teaching the basic fundamentals.
We need to be using these test results as a tool to adjust curriculum as needed, not as a crudgel to beat the students in order for the school to maintain some arbitrary level that their budget streams depend on... which, in turn, creates a perverse incentive that we see today.
Jihadin wrote: They're no longer teaching cursive in school
Though I have notice the atrocious writing style of younger troops to older NCO's
They still teach cursive. However, it isn't often mandated (currently or previously) and school districts and states decide whether of not to teach it. Schools teaching it have steadily declined since the 1970s; it isn't a recent phenomenon. There is no real reason to teach it though and any teaching of it today has more to do with tradition than the practical application of the script. Never in my adult life or career has the use of cursive script ever been a factor.
My wife teaches it because the Virginia Department of Education mandates that all students are able to read and legibly write in cursive by the third grade.
CptJake wrote: How the feth do you sign a check or legal document if you don't know cursive?
The same way I do... Some large first letters followed by squiggly lines. And yes, I learned how to write cursive when I was a kid.
Also, there is nothing that says a signature has to be in cursive.
Uniform Commercial Code §1-201(37) "Signed" includes using any symbol executed or adopted with present intention to adopt or accept a writing.
Uniform Commercial Code §3-401(b) A signature may be made (i) manually or by means of a device or machine, and (ii) by the use of any name, including a trade or assumed name, or by a word, mark, or symbol executed or adopted by a person with present intention to authenticate a writing.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Still have to know what you're signing. If you don't it's duress, and there's a law against that.
No one said that wasn't the case.
Illiterate people can still sign legal papers (using and "X") after they have been explained to them and they acknowledge that it is understood what they are signing. Another party has to then cosign to verify that the illiterate party understands the document.
They still teach it in NY AFAIK. I was taught it at the very least, although that was something like 10-12 years ago. Not that I really write in cursive though.
I've always thought I'd make a good doctor. All the movement in my signature is there, it's just crammed into space the size for 4 letters (and I have and 8 letter first name, and 5 letter last name).
Co'tor Shas wrote: I've always thought I'd make a good doctor. All the movement in my signature is there, it's just crammed into space the size for 4 letters (and I have and 8 letter first name, and 5 letter last name).
Go become a Pharmacist... not a doctor.
Just a little less pay than a "good doc" for a feth ton less BS that docs suffers these days.
Just imagine the poor pharmacists having to document those "scribbles" as who's the ordering physician.
The ordering physician's name is printed on the prescription, or referral. The signature is just like the signature on a cheque or receipt. It is something which can be tied directly to the person, or enable them to extricate themselves from illegal behavior by another party.
Hmm, I just came across the website www.isidewith.com by following a link from some other site I was on. I'm sure most of you have seen it already, but it is new to me. A bunch of questions, with several possible answers along with a scale of how important that particular issue is to you, and a final analysis of which parties you side the most with on various issues.
Here are my results.
So, I am apparently 82% Democrat, 80% Green Party, 55% Libertarians, 37% Republican.
And 43% Socialist. And I appear to be mildly Left-Wing Libertarian.
I mean, I expected to fall more on the Democrat side than the Republican side on the issues, but I wasn't expecting that whopping big of a difference. I think my strong answers on LGBT rights, supporting the environment, and alternative energy may be what pushed it that far over? But I appear to be rather conservative on immigration issues.
I do find it odd that there weren't many questions on government spending apart from asking twice about military spending (I personally believe we can cut the defense spending if we spend the money more intelligently rather than piss away millions of dollars to support various congressmen's local pet projects, if the Army says they don't need more tanks, don't force them to buy more tanks!).
Anyway, any of you that try it out, on the last question asking who you support for President, let's skew the results and vote for people who aren't the list. I voted Kinky Friedman because he made the elections here in Texas more interesting when he ran.
I believe last time I took that I got the Green Party, which is interesting because I literally could not care less about environmental issues.
It turns out, however, that they're actually a pretty moderate party who indeed I have a lot in common with, outside of the aforementioned environmental disconnect.
Also, as an aside the Koch brothers announced they are supporting Scott Walker.
I got 91% green: unsurprising, the ernivroment is very important to me 85% democrat: also unsurprising, as they are what passes for a liberal party in this country 66% socialist: I thought it would be more, turns out I'm a bit more conservative on economic issues then I thought. 64% libertatian: which is pretty actuate, I agree with half of libertarian-ism. 39% constitution party: Honestly no idea what this party does, but I seem to agree with them on domestic policy. 18% Conservative party: I am quite liberal, and pround of it. 13% republican: Other than some economic things, I barely agree with anything from the republicans. Pretty much anything I don't lean to the left on, is right in the middle, maybe slightly to the right. It's funy that I agree with the conservative party more though.
My beliefs are strongly left wing (pretty accurate). But I'm a centrist on economic issues (also pretty accurate, I don't know gak about economics, so I don't presume to hold beliefs on them).
In order of highest to lowest, my most important issues are 1. Social, 2. The Environment 3. Education 4. Immigration 5. Domestic Policy 6. The Economy 7. Forgeign Policy 8. Healthcare.
Which is pretty accurate the way I see it, although immigration being #4 is kind of surprising, as I don't really care too much, maybe because I put in a specialized answer?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I was just thinking, being quite young (19), my political beliefs are strongly held, but at the same time, fluid. For exmple, I've seen my stance on some issues change, because of the OT forum. Specifically gun control, where I went from just going along with "we should restrict access to guns", to my current stance of not giving a feth either way. Kind of interesting I thought. It's Jihadin and Whembly's fault!
Also, I was just thinking, being quite young (19), my political beliefs are strongly held, but at the same time, fluid. For exmple, I've seen my stance on some issues change, because of the OT forum. Specifically gun control, where I went from just going along with "we should restrict access to guns", to my current stance of not giving a feth either way. Kind of interesting I thought. It's Jihadin and Whembly's fault!
If you go to college or other higher learning place, I would expect your views to change... I know mine certainly have, and not from a dusty old professor standing in front of the class saying, "you need to believe this because if you don't you'll fail the class, and fail at life". Rather, as I've been exposed to even more ways of thinking and forced into reading things I wouldn't on my own, or paying attention to things I didn't before, these new ideas and new things have made me step back, research and reevaluate my position on some issues.
Without taking that test, (and from talking to my neighbor) I know that I'm fairly all over the place on the US political spectrum.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Hmm, I just came across the website www.isidewith.com by following a link from some other site I was on. I'm sure most of you have seen it already, but it is new to me. A bunch of questions, with several possible answers along with a scale of how important that particular issue is to you, and a final analysis of which parties you side the most with on various issues.
Here are my results.
So, I am apparently 82% Democrat, 80% Green Party, 55% Libertarians, 37% Republican.
And 43% Socialist. And I appear to be mildly Left-Wing Libertarian.
I mean, I expected to fall more on the Democrat side than the Republican side on the issues, but I wasn't expecting that whopping big of a difference. I think my strong answers on LGBT rights, supporting the environment, and alternative energy may be what pushed it that far over? But I appear to be rather conservative on immigration issues.
I do find it odd that there weren't many questions on government spending apart from asking twice about military spending (I personally believe we can cut the defense spending if we spend the money more intelligently rather than piss away millions of dollars to support various congressmen's local pet projects, if the Army says they don't need more tanks, don't force them to buy more tanks!).
Anyway, any of you that try it out, on the last question asking who you support for President, let's skew the results and vote for people who aren't the list. I voted Kinky Friedman because he made the elections here in Texas more interesting when he ran.
89% Constitution Party
78% Libertarian
36% Democrat
Tannhauser42 wrote: Hmm, I just came across the website www.isidewith.com by following a link from some other site I was on. I'm sure most of you have seen it already, but it is new to me. A bunch of questions, with several possible answers along with a scale of how important that particular issue is to you, and a final analysis of which parties you side the most with on various issues. Here are my results.
So, I am apparently 82% Democrat, 80% Green Party, 55% Libertarians, 37% Republican. And 43% Socialist. And I appear to be mildly Left-Wing Libertarian.
I mean, I expected to fall more on the Democrat side than the Republican side on the issues, but I wasn't expecting that whopping big of a difference. I think my strong answers on LGBT rights, supporting the environment, and alternative energy may be what pushed it that far over? But I appear to be rather conservative on immigration issues.
I do find it odd that there weren't many questions on government spending apart from asking twice about military spending (I personally believe we can cut the defense spending if we spend the money more intelligently rather than piss away millions of dollars to support various congressmen's local pet projects, if the Army says they don't need more tanks, don't force them to buy more tanks!).
Anyway, any of you that try it out, on the last question asking who you support for President, let's skew the results and vote for people who aren't the list. I voted Kinky Friedman because he made the elections here in Texas more interesting when he ran.
89% Constitution Party 78% Libertarian 36% Democrat
91% Republican 86% Conservative Party 89% Constitution Party 78% Libertarian
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, there's this cool little map on the bottom that shows where you are, and compares your stance to the rest of the country.
The only places I really see any sizable support for mine is the California cost, and southern Wisconsin (weird).
Tannhauser42 wrote: Yeah, Utah, Maine, half of Nevada and, amazingly, a decent chunk of Texas would vote for me if I ran for office, according to that map.
Why does mine say Inner Mongolia?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: Apparently, the NRA are doing illegal things with contributions...
Aka in Texas you can legally conceal carry if you pass a background test, pass a test of the applicable law on legal defensive use etc., and pass a laughably easy shooting test.
The law will be shortly that these persons can also legally Open Carry where permitted.
The big advantage to the OC rule is that if your shirt comes up/jacket opens and someone sees your weapon you cannot be charged with brandishing (and then lose your permit as a result).
If Chipotle does not have a 'No Weapons' sign, yes, you could openly carry there.
Not sure about TX, but the 'where permitted' generally means government buildings, schools,and places where alcohol is the primary good being sold are places where weapons are not permitted. The so called 'no gun zones'.
CptJake wrote: The big advantage to the OC rule is that if your shirt comes up/jacket opens and someone sees your weapon you cannot be charged with brandishing (and then lose your permit as a result).
If Chipotle does not have a 'No Weapons' sign, yes, you could openly carry there.
Not sure about TX, but the 'where permitted' generally means government buildings, schools,and places where alcohol is the primary good being sold are places where weapons are not permitted. The so called 'no gun zones'.
Where permitted means no federal buildings, schools, or inside building with special 30.06 signs. I believe there will be a separate sign for OC. I haven't kept up because I could care less about OC, and was banned from the primary CHL site because my views were impermissably non conservative.
I don't OC, but I do like the OC laws in Oklahoma for the same reasons CptJake mentioned: no risk of trouble if the gun shows if your shirt lifts up while reaching for the top shelf at the store.
Aka in Texas you can legally conceal carry if you pass a background test, pass a test of the applicable law on legal defensive use etc., and pass a laughably easy shooting test.
The law will be shortly that these persons can also legally Open Carry where permitted.
What's a background check in Texas? Are you a Communist? No? Here's your permit.
Aka in Texas you can legally conceal carry if you pass a background test, pass a test of the applicable law on legal defensive use etc., and pass a laughably easy shooting test.
The law will be shortly that these persons can also legally Open Carry where permitted.
What's a background check in Texas? Are you a Communist? No? Here's your permit.
1, Are you from California? If yes, what is your permanent residence in the California Quarantine Zone in Travis County (Austin for you yankees) 2. How many firearms do you have? Why so few? 3. have you ever been in shootout at high noon in the middle of town? Did that no good bushwackin snake deserve it? 4. Driver's license of your pickup truck? Dodge or Ford? 5. Sign your mark here.
Aka in Texas you can legally conceal carry if you pass a background test, pass a test of the applicable law on legal defensive use etc., and pass a laughably easy shooting test.
The law will be shortly that these persons can also legally Open Carry where permitted.
What's a background check in Texas? Are you a Communist? No? Here's your permit.
1, Are you from California? If yes, what is your permanent residence in the California Quarantine Zone in Travis County (Austin for you yankees)
2. How many firearms do you have? Why so few?
3. have you ever been in shootout at high noon in the middle of town? Did that no good bushwackin snake deserve it?
4. Driver's license of your pickup truck? Dodge or Ford?
5. Sign your mark here.
I joke of course. After watching an Al Jazeera documentary about Texans defending themselves from Mexican drug smugglers, I do respect the Texans. It's tough at those border areas.
Jihadin wrote: Yet the border is more secure is being said
They have to say that. I'm more inclined to trust a foreign media network, not because they're 100% impartial, but because they have no hidden agenda against the USA.
CptJake wrote: The big advantage to the OC rule is that if your shirt comes up/jacket opens and someone sees your weapon you cannot be charged with brandishing (and then lose your permit as a result).
If Chipotle does not have a 'No Weapons' sign, yes, you could openly carry there.
My state does not have a brandishing law
And "No Gun" signs do not carry the weight of law (some properties are illegal to carry in though)
My state does not have a brandishing law
And "No Gun" signs do not carry the weight of law (some properties are illegal to carry in though)
Im not sure, and may be wrong... But I think that most states are like Texas. As Frazz pointed out, having a "No Guns" sign in your window don't mean gak there, unless it has the specific law codes printed on them as well
My state does not have a brandishing law
And "No Gun" signs do not carry the weight of law (some properties are illegal to carry in though)
Im not sure, and may be wrong... But I think that most states are like Texas. As Frazz pointed out, having a "No Guns" sign in your window don't mean gak there, unless it has the specific law codes printed on them as well
It may not carry the weight of the law (ie you can't be charged with a crime) but isn't a store owner allowed to ask you to leave for any reason?
My state does not have a brandishing law
And "No Gun" signs do not carry the weight of law (some properties are illegal to carry in though)
Im not sure, and may be wrong... But I think that most states are like Texas. As Frazz pointed out, having a "No Guns" sign in your window don't mean gak there, unless it has the specific law codes printed on them as well
It may not carry the weight of the law (ie you can't be charged with a crime) but isn't a store owner allowed to ask you to leave for any reason?
You can generally be charged with trespassing if you refuse to leave when asked, but not charged with a weapons violation.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Im not sure, and may be wrong... But I think that most states are like Texas. As Frazz pointed out, having a "No Guns" sign in your window don't mean gak there, unless it has the specific law codes printed on them as well
There is no legal provision in Indiana for these signs, so there is no law to cite. Some store owners have tried to display Illinois signs with the Illinois law cited but that has no legal significance here.
Really, I think any no gun sign should be respected. If someone doesn't want guns in their store, you should not be an donkey-cave, and bring an gun in anyway. If it's congealed, it's not so bad, but otherwise just it's just rude. Some people feel nervous around guns. And it's not something that too hard to do. The chances of you being attacked in the distance from the store to your car are probably like ten billion to one.
My state does not have a brandishing law
And "No Gun" signs do not carry the weight of law (some properties are illegal to carry in though)
Im not sure, and may be wrong... But I think that most states are like Texas. As Frazz pointed out, having a "No Guns" sign in your window don't mean gak there, unless it has the specific law codes printed on them as well
Texas has very specific requirements on no gun signs because its a crime to enter if there is one.
Actually unintentional reveal is not a violative in Texas either. The OC thing is a nothing law and it won't keep Fatman and Snowboots from invading the next Chipotle. Many of us think they're actually plants. No one, not even Occam is that stupid.
In the UK version of this thread, it's me against 6 other people. I need a break.
Just like in the world wars, American help would be appreciated, but I doubt if you guys know anything about UK politics.
To keep this post OT: I think Hilary will win in 2016
Hey there... we'd love ya.
Regarding Hillary... I think you're right. :shrugs: no one is "standing out" in the GOP side of the fence, except for, maybe, Rubio.
It's early days still, but Hilary's campaign feels like some coronation procession, as though the gods themselves have willed it.
In any other year, a Republican candidate would consider Hilary running for president as an early Christmas present - she has so much baggage that they could attack, but so far, they've done nothing. Early days, though.
You guys hear about the trade bill? Might be interesting to hear the candidates' and possible candidates' opinions on it. Apparently Bernie Sanders has come up against it.
Co'tor Shas wrote: You guys hear about the trade bill? Might be interesting to hear the candidates' and possible candidates' opinions on it. Apparently Bernie Sanders has come up against it.
I heard an interview with him a few days ago. He was still agonizing over the decision, stating it was the hardest political decision he has had to make.
Cindy Archer, one of the lead architects of Wisconsin’s Act 10 — also called the “Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill,” it limited public-employee benefits and altered collective-bargaining rules for public-employee unions — was jolted awake by yelling, loud pounding at the door, and her dogs’ frantic barking. The entire house — the windows and walls — was shaking. She looked outside to see up to a dozen police officers, yelling to open the door. They were carrying a battering ram.
She wasn’t dressed, but she started to run toward the door, her body in full view of the police. Some yelled at her to grab some clothes, others yelled for her to open the door. “I was so afraid,” she says. “I did not know what to do.” She grabbed some clothes, opened the door, and dressed right in front of the police. The dogs were still frantic. “I begged and begged, ‘Please don’t shoot my dogs, please don’t shoot my dogs, just don’t shoot my dogs.’ I couldn’t get them to stop barking, and I couldn’t get them outside quick enough. I saw a gun and barking dogs. I was scared and knew this was a bad mix.”
She got the dogs safely out of the house, just as multiple armed agents rushed inside. Some even barged into the bathroom, where her partner was in the shower. The officer or agent in charge demanded that Cindy sit on the couch, but she wanted to get up and get a cup of coffee. “I told him this was my house and I could do what I wanted.” Wrong thing to say. “This made the agent in charge furious. He towered over me with his finger in my face and yelled like a drill sergeant that I either do it his way or he would handcuff me.”
They wouldn’t let her speak to a lawyer. She looked outside and saw a person who appeared to be a reporter. Someone had tipped him off. The neighbors started to come outside, curious at the commotion, and all the while the police searched her house, making a mess, and — according to Cindy — leaving her “dead mother’s belongings strewn across the basement floor in a most disrespectful way.” Then they left, carrying with them only a cellphone and a laptop.
“IT’S A MATTER OF LIFE OR DEATH.” That was the first thought of “Anne” (not her real name). Someone was pounding at her front door. It was early in the morning — very early — and it was the kind of heavy pounding that meant someone was either fleeing from — or bringing — trouble. “It was so hard. I’d never heard anything like it. I thought someone was dying outside.” She ran to the door, opened it, and then chaos. “People came pouring in. For a second I thought it was a home invasion. It was terrifying. They were yelling and running, into every room in the house. One of the men was in my face, yelling at me over and over and over.”
It was indeed a home invasion, but the people who were pouring in were Wisconsin law-enforcement officers. Armed, uniformed police swarmed into the house. Plainclothes investigators cornered her and her newly awakened family. Soon, state officials were seizing the family’s personal property, including each person’s computer and smartphone, filled with the most intimate family information. Why were the police at Anne’s home? She had no answers. The police were treating them the way they’d seen police treat drug dealers on television. In fact, TV or movies were their only points of reference, because they weren’t criminals. They were law-abiding. They didn’t buy or sell drugs. They weren’t violent. They weren’t a danger to anyone. Yet there were cops — surrounding their house on the outside, swarming the house on the inside. They even taunted the family as if they were mere “perps.”
As if the home invasion, the appropriation of private property, and the verbal abuse weren’t enough, next came ominous warnings. Don’t call your lawyer. Don’t tell anyone about this raid. Not even your mother, your father, or your closest friends. The entire neighborhood could see the police around their house, but they had to remain silent. This was not the “right to remain silent” as uttered by every cop on every legal drama on television — the right against self-incrimination. They couldn’t mount a public defense if they wanted — or even offer an explanation to family and friends. Yet no one in this family was a “perp.”
Instead, like Cindy, they were American citizens guilty of nothing more than exercising their First Amendment rights to support Act 10 and other conservative causes in Wisconsin. Sitting there shocked and terrified, this citizen — who is still too intimidated to speak on the record — kept thinking, “Is this America?” “THEY FOLLOWED ME TO MY KIDS’ ROOMS.”
For the family of “Rachel” (not her real name), the ordeal began before dawn — with the same loud, insistent knocking. Still in her pajamas, Rachel answered the door and saw uniformed police, poised to enter her home. When Rachel asked to wake her children herself, the officer insisted on walking into their rooms. The kids woke to an armed officer, standing near their beds.
The entire family was herded into one room, and there they watched as the police carried off their personal possessions, including items that had nothing to do with the subject of the search warrant — even her daughter’s computer. And, yes, there were the warnings. Don’t call your lawyer. Don’t talk to anyone about this. Don’t tell your friends. The kids watched — alarmed — as the school bus drove by, with the students inside watching the spectacle of uniformed police surrounding the house, carrying out the family’s belongings. Yet they were told they couldn’t tell anyone at school. They, too, had to remain silent. The mom watched as her entire life was laid open before the police. Her professional files, her personal files, everything. She knew this was all politics.
She knew a rogue prosecutor was targeting her for her political beliefs. And she realized, “Every aspect of my life is in their hands. And they hate me.” Fortunately for her family, the police didn’t taunt her or her children. Some of them seemed embarrassed by what they were doing.
At the end of the ordeal, one officer looked at the family, still confined to one room, and said, “Some days, I hate my job.”
For dozens of conservatives, the years since Scott Walker’s first election as governor of Wisconsin transformed the state — known for pro-football championships, good cheese, and a population with a reputation for being unfailingly polite — into a place where conservatives have faced early-morning raids, multi-year secretive criminal investigations, slanderous and selective leaks to sympathetic media, and intrusive electronic snooping.
Yes, Wisconsin, the cradle of the progressive movement and home of the “Wisconsin idea” — the marriage of state governments and state universities to govern through technocratic reform — was giving birth to a new progressive idea, the use of law enforcement as a political instrument, as a weapon to attempt to undo election results, shame opponents, and ruin lives.
Most Americans have never heard of these raids, or of the lengthy criminal investigations of Wisconsin conservatives. For good reason. Bound by comprehensive secrecy orders, conservatives were left to suffer in silence as leaks ruined their reputations, as neighbors, looking through windows and dismayed at the massive police presence, the lights shining down on targets’ homes, wondered, no doubt, What on earth did that family do? This was the on-the-ground reality of the so-called John Doe investigations, expansive and secret criminal proceedings that directly targeted Wisconsin residents because of their relationship to Scott Walker, their support for Act 10, and their advocacy of conservative reform.
Largely hidden from the public eye, this traumatic process, however, is now heading toward a legal climax, with two key rulings expected in the late spring or early summer. The first ruling, from the Wisconsin supreme court, could halt the investigations for good, in part by declaring that the “misconduct” being investigated isn’t misconduct at all but the simple exercise of First Amendment rights.
The second ruling, from the United States Supreme Court, could grant review on a federal lawsuit brought by Wisconsin political activist Eric O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth, the first conservatives to challenge the investigations head-on. If the Court grants review, it could not only halt the investigations but also begin the process of holding accountable those public officials who have so abused their powers. But no matter the outcome of these court hearings, the damage has been done. In the words of Mr. O’Keefe, “The process is the punishment.” It all began innocently enough. In 2009, officials from the office of the Milwaukee County executive contacted the office of the Milwaukee district attorney, headed by John Chisholm, to investigate the disappearance of $11,242.24 from the Milwaukee chapter of the Order of the Purple Heart. The matter was routine, with witnesses willing and able to testify against the principal suspect, a man named Kevin Kavanaugh.
What followed, however, was anything but routine. Chisholm failed to act promptly on the report, and when he did act, he refused to conduct a conventional criminal investigation but instead petitioned, in May 2010, to open a “John Doe” investigation, a proceeding under Wisconsin law that permits Wisconsin officials to conduct extensive investigations while keeping the target’s identity secret (hence the designation “John Doe”).
John Doe investigations alter typical criminal procedure in two important ways:
First, they remove grand juries from the investigative process, replacing the ordinary citizens of a grand jury with a supervising judge.
Second, they can include strict secrecy requirements not just on the prosecution but also on the targets of the investigation. In practice, this means that, while the prosecution cannot make public comments about the investigation, it can take public actions indicating criminal suspicion (such as raiding businesses and homes in full view of the community) while preventing the targets of the raids from defending against or even discussing the prosecution’s claims.
Why would Chisholm seek such broad powers to investigate a year-old embezzlement claim with a known suspect? Because the Milwaukee County executive, Scott Walker, had by that time become the leading Republican candidate for governor. District Attorney Chisholm was a Democrat, a very partisan Democrat. Almost immediately after opening the John Doe investigation, Chisholm used his expansive powers to embarrass Walker, raiding his county-executive offices within a week.
As Mr. O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth explained in court filings, the investigation then dramatically expanded:
Over the next few months, [Chisholm’s] investigation of all-things-Walker expanded to include everything from alleged campaign-finance violations to sexual misconduct to alleged public contracting bid-rigging to alleged misuse of county time and property. Between May 5, 2010, and May 3, 2012, the Milwaukee Defendants filed at least eighteen petitions to formally “[e]nlarge” the scope of the John Doe investigation, and each was granted. . . . That amounts to a new formal inquiry every five and a half weeks, on average, for two years.
This expansion coincided with one of the more remarkable state-level political controversies in modern American history – the protest (and passage) of Act 10, followed by the attempted recall of a number of Wisconsin legislators and, ultimately, Governor Walker.
Political observers will no doubt remember the events in Madison — the state capitol overrun by chanting protesters, Democratic lawmakers fleeing the state to prevent votes on the legislation, and tens of millions of dollars of outside money flowing into the state as Wisconsin became, fundamentally, a proxy fight pitting the union-led Left against the Tea Party–led economic Right.
At the same time that the public protests were raging, so were private — but important — protests in the Chisholm home and workplace. As a former prosecutor told journalist Stuart Taylor, Chisholm’s wife was a teachers’-union shop steward who was distraught over Act 10’s union reforms. He said Chisholm “felt it was his personal duty” to stop them. Meanwhile, according to this whistleblower, the district attorney’s offices were festooned with the “blue fist” poster of the labor-union movement, indicating that Chisholm’s employees were very much invested in the political fight. In the end, the John Doe proceeding failed in its ultimate aims. It secured convictions for embezzlement (related to the original 2009 complaint), a conviction for sexual misconduct, and a few convictions for minor campaign violations, but Governor Walker was untouched, his reforms were implemented, and he survived his recall election.
But with another election looming — this time Walker’s campaign for reelection — Chisholm wasn’t finished. He launched yet another John Doe investigation, “supervised” by Judge Barbara Kluka. Kluka proved to be capable of superhuman efficiency — approving “every petition, subpoena, and search warrant in the case” in a total of one day’s work.
If the first series of John Doe investigations was “everything Walker,” the second series was “everything conservative,” as Chisholm had launched an investigation of not only Walker (again) but the Wisconsin Club for Growth and dozens of other conservative organizations, this time fishing for evidence of allegedly illegal “coordination” between conservative groups and the Walker campaign.
In the second John Doe, Chisholm had no real evidence of wrongdoing. Yes, conservative groups were active in issue advocacy, but issue advocacy was protected by the First Amendment and did not violate relevant campaign laws. Nonetheless, Chisholm persuaded prosecutors in four other counties to launch their own John Does, with Judge Kluka overseeing all of them. Empowered by a rubber-stamp judge, partisan investigators ran amok. They subpoenaed and obtained (without the conservative targets’ knowledge) massive amounts of electronic data, including virtually all the targets’ personal e-mails and other electronic messages from outside e-mail vendors and communications companies.
The investigations exploded into the open with a coordinated series of raids on October 3, 2013. These were home invasions, including those described above. Chisholm’s office refused to comment on the raid tactics (or any other aspect of the John Doe investigations), but witness accounts regarding the two John Doe investigations are remarkably similar: early-morning intrusions, police rushing through the house, and stern commands to remain silent and tell no one about what had occurred.
At the same time, the Wisconsin Club for Growth and other conservative organizations received broad subpoenas requiring them to turn over virtually all business records, including “donor information, correspondence with their associates, and all financial information.” The subpoenas also contained dire warnings about disclosure of their existence, threatening contempt of court if the targets spoke publicly. For select conservative families across five counties, this was the terrifying moment — the moment they felt at the mercy of a truly malevolent state.
Speaking both on and off the record, targets reflected on how many layers of Wisconsin government failed their fundamental constitutional duties — the prosecutors who launched the rogue investigations, the judge who gave the abuse judicial sanction, investigators who chose to taunt and intimidate during the raids, and those police who ultimately approved and executed aggressive search tactics on law-abiding, peaceful citizens.
For some of the families, the trauma of the raids, combined with the stress and anxiety of lengthy criminal investigations, has led to serious emotional repercussions. “Devastating” is how Anne describes the impact on her family. “Life-changing,” she says. “All in terrible ways.” O’Keefe, who has been in contact with multiple targeted families, says, “Every family I know of that endured a home raid has been shaken to its core, and the fate of marriages and families still hangs in the balance in some cases.”
Anne also describes a new fear of the police: “I used to support the police, to believe they were here to protect us. Now, when I see an officer, I’ll cross the street. I’m afraid of them. I know what they’re capable of.” Cindy says, “I lock my doors and I close my shades. I don’t answer the door unless I am expecting someone. My heart races when I see a police car sitting in front of my house or following me in the car.
The raid was so public. I’ve been harassed. My house has been vandalized. [She did not identify suspects.] I no longer feel safe, and I don’t think I ever will.” Rachel talks about the effect on her children. “I tried to create a home where the kids always feel safe. Now they know they’re not. They know men with guns can come in their house, and there’s nothing we can do.” Every knock on the door brings anxiety. Every call to the house is screened. In the back of her mind is a single, unsettling thought: These people will never stop. Victims of trauma — and every person I spoke with described the armed raids as traumatic — often need to talk, to share their experiences and seek solace in the company of a loving family and supportive friends. The investigators denied them that privilege, and it compounded their pain and fear.
The investigation not only damaged families, it also shut down their free speech. In many cases, the investigations halted conservative groups in their tracks. O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth described the effect in court filings:
O’Keefe’s associates began cancelling meetings with him and declining to take his calls, reasonably fearful that merely associating with him could make them targets of the investigation. O’Keefe was forced to abandon fundraising for the Club because he could no longer guarantee to donors that their identities would remain confidential, could not (due to the Secrecy Order) explain to potential donors the nature of the investigation, could not assuage donors’ fears that they might become targets themselves, and could not assure donors that their money would go to fund advocacy rather than legal expenses. The Club was also paralyzed. Its officials could not associate with its key supporters, and its funds were depleted. It could not engage in issue advocacy for fear of criminal sanction.
These raids and subpoenas were often based not on traditional notions of probable cause but on mere suspicion, untethered to the law or evidence, and potentially violating the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against “unreasonable searches and seizures.”
The very existence of First Amendment–protected expression was deemed to be evidence of illegality. The prosecution simply assumed that the conservatives were incapable of operating within the bounds of the law. Even worse, many of the investigators’ legal theories, even if proven by the evidence, would not have supported criminal prosecutions.
In other words, they were investigating “crimes” that weren’t crimes at all. If the prosecutors had applied the same legal standards to the Democrats in their own offices, they would have been forced to turn the raids on themselves. If the prosecutors and investigators had been raided, how many of their computers and smartphones would have contained incriminating information indicating use of government resources for partisan purposes?
With the investigations now bursting out into the open, some conservatives began to fight back. O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth moved to quash the John Doe subpoenas aimed at them. In a surprise move, Judge Kluka, who had presided over the Doe investigations for more than a year, recused herself from the case. (A political journal, the Wisconsin Reporter, attempted to speak to Judge Kluka about her recusal, but she refused to offer comment.)
The new judge in the case, Gregory Peterson, promptly sided with O’Keefe and blocked multiple subpoenas, holding (in a sealed opinion obtained by the Wall Street Journal, which has done invaluable work covering the John Doe investigations) that they “do not show probable cause that the moving parties committed any violations of the campaign finance laws.” The judge noted that “the State is not claiming that any of the independent organizations expressly advocated” Walker’s election.
O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth followed up Judge Peterson’s ruling by filing a federal lawsuit against Chisholm and a number of additional defendants, alleging multiple constitutional violations, including a claim that the investigation constituted unlawful retaliation against the plaintiffs for the exercise of their First Amendment rights. United States District Court judge Rudolph Randa promptly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, declaring that “the Defendants must cease all activities related to the investigation, return all property seized in the investigation from any individual or organization, and permanently destroy all copies of information and other materials obtained through the investigation.”
From that point forward, the case proceeded on parallel state and federal tracks. At the federal level, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Randa’s order. Declining to consider the case on the merits, the appeals court found the lawsuit barred by the federal Anti-Injunction Act, which prohibits federal courts from issuing injunctions against some state-court proceedings. O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth have petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari and expect a ruling in a matter of weeks.
At the same time, the John Doe prosecutors took their case to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals to attempt to restart the Doe proceedings. The case was ultimately consolidated before the state supreme court, with a ruling also expected in a matter of weeks.
And so, almost five years after their secret beginning, the John Doe proceedings are nearly dead — on “life support,” according to one Wisconsin pundit — but incalculable damage has been done, to families, to activist organizations, to the First Amendment, and to the rule of law itself.
In international law, the Western world has become familiar with a concept called “lawfare,” a process whereby rogue regimes or organizations abuse legal doctrines and processes to accomplish through sheer harassment and attrition what can’t be accomplished through legitimate diplomatic means. The Palestinian Authority and its defenders have become adept at lawfare, putting Israel under increasing pressure before the U.N. and other international bodies.
The John Doe investigations are a form of domestic lawfare, and our constitutional system is ill equipped to handle it. Federal courts rarely intervene in state judicial proceedings, state officials rarely lose their array of official immunities for the consequences of their misconduct, and violations of First Amendment freedoms rarely result in meaningful monetary damages for the victims.
As Scott Walker runs for president, the national media will finally join the Wall Street Journal in covering John Doe. Given the mainstream media’s typical bias and bad faith, they are likely to bring a fresh round of pain to the targets of the investigation; the cloud of suspicion will descend once again; even potential favorable court rulings by either the state supreme court or the U.S. Supreme Court will be blamed on “conservative justices” taking care of their own.
Conservatives have looked at Wisconsin as a success story, where Walker took everything the Left threw at him and emerged victorious in three general elections. He broke the power of the teachers’ unions and absorbed millions upon millions of dollars of negative ads. The Left kept chanting, “This is what democracy looks like,” and in Wisconsin, democracy looked like Scott Walker winning again and again.
Yet in a deeper way, Wisconsin is anything but a success. There were casualties left on the battlefield — innocent citizens victimized by a lawless government mob, public officials who brought the full power of their office down onto the innocent. Governors come and go. Statutes are passed and repealed. Laws and elections are important, to be sure, but the rule of law is more important still.
And in Wisconsin, the rule of law hangs in the balance — along with the liberty of citizens. As I finished an interview with one victim still living in fear, still shattered by the experience of nearly losing everything simply because she supported the wrong candidate at the wrong time, I asked whether she had any final thoughts. “Just one,” she replied. “I’m hoping for accountability, that someone will be held responsible so that they’ll never do this again.” She paused for a moment and then, with voice trembling, said: “No one should ever endure what my family endured.”
Indeed... these are Federal jail worthy offences. This is what governmental malfeasances looks like.
Whilst you guys are talking about Presidential candidates, over at the UK politics thread, we're talking nuclear weapons, guns, hotdogs, and Russian invasions! That's how we roll. We seem to acting more American than the Americans
On the subject of Presidential candidates, for the life of me, I cannot see anybody who can stop the Clinton bandwagon. I've been doing some in depth reading on this.
Bill's charm offensive will win the ground war, and as long as Hilary walks a straight line, I can't really see any serious blows landing on her.
Sounds about right, but time will tell. We may have another Obama-like candidate, unknown, and a good campaigner. I'd say Obama is better at campaigning than anything else.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Sounds about right, but time will tell. We may have another Obama-like candidate, unknown, and a good campaigner. I'd say Obama is better at campaigning than anything else.
man...
I'd like to move at some point.
