Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Seriously, I wish you guys would do what we do in the UK, and just have an intense, 4 week campaign every 5 years. It's easier on the mind

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We've got four months of the EU referendum to go.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Seriously, I wish you guys would do what we do in the UK, and just have an intense, 4 week campaign every 5 years. It's easier on the mind

That's one of the things I miss about the UK

Politicians here seem to spend most of their term of service campaigning to be elected again...

 curran12 wrote:
Can someone more knowledgeable tell me what a brokered convention is?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Whembley, would I be correct in saying that a contested convention sounds like the elites trying to stich up ordinary voters?

I'm no fan of Donald Trump, but I'd hate to see him lose the nomination because of shady backroom deals that spit in the face of ordinary Republican voters.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Whembley, would I be correct in saying that a contested convention sounds like the elites trying to stich up ordinary voters?

I'm no fan of Donald Trump, but I'd hate to see him lose the nomination because of shady backroom deals that spit in the face of ordinary Republican voters.

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Whembley, would I be correct in saying that a contested convention sounds like the elites trying to stich up ordinary voters?

I'm no fan of Donald Trump, but I'd hate to see him lose the nomination because of shady backroom deals that spit in the face of ordinary Republican voters.

That backroom dealing is looking more and more like their only chance to maintain control and get a Rubio into office.

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Whembley, would I be correct in saying that a contested convention sounds like the elites trying to stich up ordinary voters?

I'm no fan of Donald Trump, but I'd hate to see him lose the nomination because of shady backroom deals that spit in the face of ordinary Republican voters.

That backroom dealing is looking more and more like their only chance to maintain control and get a Rubio into office.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe Rubio or Cruz will do a deal and given his delegates to Trump in return for the vice-presidency.

An Illinois voter's lawsuit challenging Ted Cruz's eligibility to run for president of the United States because he was born in Canada was dismissed on a technicality on Tuesday by a state judge.

Cook County Circuit Court Judge Maureen Ward Kirby in Chicago ruled that she did not have jurisdiction in the lawsuit - which had sought to have Cruz removed from the state's primary election ballot - because it had not been properly served on the state Board of Elections.

She found that the plaintiff, Lawrence Joyce, had not properly filed his petition for judicial review.

Joyce, a lawyer and a pharmacist from the Chicago suburb of Poplar Grove who supports Cruz rival Ben Carson, initially filed a complaint in January with the elections board. When the board rejected the complaint, he filed the lawsuit seeking judicial review in Cook County.

Kirby's ruling came as voters in 12 other states were taking part in the Super Tuesday Republican and Democratic nominating contests, a milestone in the selection of candidates for the Nov. 8 election.

Illinois' primary is on March 15, but early voting has already begun.

Republican front-runner Donald Trump has repeatedly questioned Cruz's eligibility because of his Canadian birth.

Joyce's lawsuit argued that Cruz cannot run for president under the U.S. Constitution because the U.S. senator from Texas is not a "natural-born" citizen. Cruz gained citizenship at birth because his mother was an American citizen, but Joyce contends that was a form of naturalization. Cruz's father is from Cuba.

Cruz, himself an attorney, has maintained he is a natural-born American due to his mother's citizenship.

Kirby ruled that Joyce should have served the complaint directly to Cruz and the election board members, not to their lawyers, citing requirements in the Illinois election code.

"I recognize that election decisions are of great importance to the public," the judge said. "But it's a matter of strict compliance." She said she could not look at the issues presented in the case because it was not properly before her.

Joyce said he has not yet decided whether he will appeal the ruling. He said it depended on whether Trump, as expected, dominates in the Super Tuesday contests and becomes the most likely Republican nominee.

"My main concern all along has been keeping Senator Cruz from being the nominee of the party. Depending on what happens today on Super Tuesday, that whole point might become a moot point," Joyce told reporters.

Joyce said he did not want Cruz to win the nomination because he believes Democrats would then seek to have the Texan disqualified because he was born abroad.

An attorney who represented Cruz in court, Sharee Langenstein, called the lawsuit "a misguided attempt to distract the voters away from the most qualified candidate we have for president, and that's Senator Ted Cruz."

"There's no issue here," she said. "It's very clear that Senator Cruz is a natural-born citizen."

Voters in New York, Alabama, Pennsylvania and Texas have also filed legal challenges to Cruz's eligibility. Some legal experts do not expect any court to invalidate a presidential candidate on the issue.

 whembly wrote:

Based on that tool... doesn't that point out that Rubio/Cruz need to form a unity ticket to take down Trump? I wonder how that works... *could* one guy throw his assigned delegates to the other?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Based on that tool... doesn't that point out that Rubio/Cruz need to form a unity ticket to take down Trump? I wonder how that works... *could* one guy throw his assigned delegates to the other?

It depends on the State, whether or not the national GOP decides to break precedent by overturning State Party rules, and actual delegate behavior.

But none of that is important, what is important is that the amount of chicanery the GOP would need to engage in to make it happen would probably doom a Cruz/Rubio ticket in the General.

 jasper76 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Whembley, would I be correct in saying that a contested convention sounds like the elites trying to stich up ordinary voters?

I'm no fan of Donald Trump, but I'd hate to see him lose the nomination because of shady backroom deals that spit in the face of ordinary Republican voters.

That backroom dealing is looking more and more like their only chance to maintain control and get a Rubio into office.

Alot of GOP politicians and talking heads are starting to get behind Cruz, rather than Rubio. I think if the GOP goes this direction, they really shouldn't totally abandon Republican voters by throwing support behind a guy who has only won a single state. In any case, it'll never happen. Drumpf is going to get the requisite delegates.

Probably the best hope for the future of the GOP is a Clinton presidency, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if many influential Republicans of the David Brooks variety end up endorsing Clinton should Drumpf get the nomination.

 whembly wrote:

I like Rubio... but, I don't see how Cruz accepts a VP slot as he wouldn't be able to do jack gak. (you only have to look at Biden... what did he do?).

 whembly wrote:

Especially if Cruz is on the top of that unity ticket. The Clinton Machine can easily take on Cruz.

However, if Rubio is on that top ticket... I feel he can combat that easily.

 Jihadin wrote:
I see a Caesar rising.......

 Jihadin wrote:
I see a Caesar rising.......
Trump

If Julius can form a triumvirate with Crassus and Pompeii then I can see these three doing it....

I doubt Trump going to get stabbed multiple times in the Senate though

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The last thing America needs is more troops in the Middle East.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The last thing America needs is more troops in the Middle East.

It could always send in it's auxiliaries from Germania, Gaul and Britannia.

Ben Carson has told supporters he sees "no path forward" in the Republican presidential race and is planning to exit.

In an email to supporters, Carson said that he plans to skip Thursday's GOP debate in Detroit and ultimately exit from the GOP primary contest, arguing that there is no "political path forward" after a poor showing on Super Tuesday.

Longtime advisor Armstrong Williams confirmed to the Washington Examiner that Carson will officially suspend his campaign Friday in a speech to CPAC.

"I have decided not to attend the Fox News GOP Presidential Debate tomorrow night in Detroit," Carson said in the statement. "Even though I will not be in my hometown of Detroit on Thursday, I remain deeply committed to my home nation, America. I do not see a political path forward in light of last evening's Super Tuesday primary results."

"However, this grassroots movement on behalf of 'We the People' will continue. Along with millions of patriots who have supported my campaign for President, I remain committed to Saving America for Future Generations," Carson said. "We must not depart from our goals to restore what God and our Founders intended for this exceptional nation."

The famed neurosurgeon also told supporters that his call to exit the race is not a financial decision, but rather one to best benefit "the American people."

"I will discuss more about the future of this movement during my speech on Friday at CPAC in Washington, D.C.," Carson said closing out his statement.

Ben Carson has told supporters he sees "no path forward" in the Republican presidential race and is planning to exit.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Ben Carson has told supporters he sees "no path forward" in the Republican presidential race and is planning to exit.

I'm glad he finally realized what the rest of us have known for months.


In other news, I'm pretty disappointing that Trump won Virginia, with his 34% barely beating Rubio's 32% (Trump got 17 delegates and Rubio got 16).

 jasper76 wrote:
Drumpf is crushing it in southern states hat I would have at least at one point expected to go firmly to Cruz due to his evangelical religiosity.

So I must ask the question. Was it ever reasonable to expect a Hispanic to win the Republican primary?

 whembly wrote:
I've seen "Drumpf" on twittah... is there a story, or just a viral snarkiness?

 Laughing Man wrote:
So, on the off chance of a brokered convention: Who here wants to put money on Drumpf doing a 3rd party run?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Well, he already won Colorado and Minnesota, then also picked up Oklahoma which Clintron* won last time.

*Clintron was a typo, but I decided it was a good typo, one of those happy little accidents

 Frazzled wrote:
In contrast, if Trump wins, how many votes are needed for Texas to secede...

By the way happy Texas Independence Day! Lets celebrate with TexMex and tequila!

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Well, he already won Colorado and Minnesota, then also picked up Oklahoma which Clintron* won last time.

*Clintron was a typo, but I decided it was a good typo, one of those happy little accidents

 Frazzled wrote:
In contrast, if Trump wins, how many votes are needed for Texas to secede...

By the way happy Texas Independence Day! Lets celebrate with TexMex and tequila!

 whembly wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:
So, on the off chance of a brokered convention: Who here wants to put money on Drumpf doing a 3rd party run?

It's too late to get his name on "a 3rd party" ticket in most states.

 Jihadin wrote:
He still gets my vote for even providing more entertainment. He cracks me up in debates.

 Crimson wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
He still gets my vote for even providing more entertainment. He cracks me up in debates.

Yeah, no matter if he buddies up with KKK or crashes the world economy by starting a trade war with China, as long as you are entertained!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Trump can't crash the world economy until January 2017.

Before that happens. Britain will have left the European Union in June 2016, and then the world economy will collapse, according to the Remain camp.

Don't blame Trump, blame Britain

 jasper76 wrote:
Mitt Romney has announced he's going to give a "major speech" on Thursday about the state of the 2016 Presidential election...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/politics/mitt-romney-to-speak-on-state-of-the-2016-presidential-race-thursday/index.html

 Crimson wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Trump can't crash the world economy until January 2017.

Before that happens. Britain will have left the European Union in June 2016, and then the world economy will collapse, according to the Remain camp.

Don't blame Trump, blame Britain

Good point.

(Though I kinda assumed the rationality prevails and UK will not commit economic seppuku.)

 TheMeanDM wrote:
And Romney thinks he is relavent still because....?

 Crimson wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
He still gets my vote for even providing more entertainment. He cracks me up in debates.

Yeah, no matter if he buddies up with KKK or crashes the world economy by starting a trade war with China, as long as you are entertained!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
And Romney thinks he is relavent still because....?

He's rich, and people will always listen to a rich man, even if he does make Gerald Ford look like Bill Clinton

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
And Romney thinks he is relavent still because....?

He's rich, and people will always listen to a rich man, even if he does make Gerald Ford look like Bill Clinton

 Ouze wrote:
I suspect if Romney jumped into the race, right now, without campaigning, and there was a brokered convention, he'd win the nomination.


Hell, maybe the general.

 d-usa wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
And Romney thinks he is relavent still because....?

He's rich, and people will always listen to a rich man, even if he does make Gerald Ford look like Bill Clinton

He is relevant as a voice of the Republican Party establishment, and as a previous contender in a general presidential election as a representative of the party that he is addressing.

You don't have to agree with any of his politics, but people shouldn't simply dismiss him either.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
And Romney thinks he is relavent still because....?

He's rich, and people will always listen to a rich man, even if he does make Gerald Ford look like Bill Clinton

Last Republican Debate looked like a WWF cage match; I think Romney is coming out to try and salvage the brand.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

He's the Republican version of Al Gore, and I doubt if America, or even the Democrats, give two hoots for Gore's thoughts, either..

If Romney attacks Trump, and Trump is probably praying that he does, then all Trump has to do is turn around and shout LOSER! And Trump's support will increase, and a tiny little bit of Ted Cruz starts crying even more.

If the Republican party had any sense, they would post Romney to an Alaskan log cabin for the duration of the election - he only makes Trump look good.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Romney's intervention will send the Republicans to the bottom of the ocean for the reasons I outline above.

For all his faults, Americans will listen to George W Bush because he's a former president and a winner. But Romney? Hell, you may as well wheel out Bob Dole.

Victory has a thousand fathers, defeat is an orphan. I wonder who said that

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Sometimes I look up into the night and ask if Collin Powell will deliver ous from all this.

.....everytime though I swear I can hear the faintest "no" on the breeze.

 jasper76 wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Sometimes I look up into the night and ask if Collin Powell will deliver ous from all this.

.....everytime though I swear I can hear the faintest "no" on the breeze.

He could have run and won in either the Republican or Democrat primary, I think.

 Ouze wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Sometimes I look up into the night and ask if Collin Powell will deliver ous from all this.

.....everytime though I swear I can hear the faintest "no" on the breeze.

He could have run and won in either the Republican or Democrat primary, I think.

No. Every opposition ad would include the photo of him holding the vial. He's inextricably tied to bad intelligence that lead up to the disastrous Iraq war.

 Ouze wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Sometimes I look up into the night and ask if Collin Powell will deliver ous from all this.

.....everytime though I swear I can hear the faintest "no" on the breeze.

He could have run and won in either the Republican or Democrat primary, I think.

No. Every opposition ad would include the photo of him holding the vial. He's inextricably tied to bad intelligence that lead up to the disastrous Iraq war.

 Ouze wrote:
I think it's very much not established that people have forgiven the architects of the Iraq War (and hence, largely responsible the power vacuum that led to the rise of ISIL) .


In other news, Fox News is done with Rubio.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Wow...so quick to crown Hillary....

If you don't/can't win the states that your party tends to dominate/represent....what is that really saying?

Mike Rowe wrote:

Hey Mike - I can't even believe what I'm seeing on my television. If you have a moment, could you please explain what the hell is happening to our country?

Thanks,
Steve Burgess

Hi Steve. You must be referring to the new reality show sweeping the nation called “That’s Debatable!” For those not up to speed, it's a total riot! Here’s how it works.

In Round 1, our contestants enter The Shark Tank, where a pack of gameshow hosts posing as journalists ask a series of questions critical to the fate of America. But here’s the fun part - every time a contestant tries to answer, one of the Sharks rings a bell before they can finish! Is that not hysterical?! When this happens, all the other contestants must try to answer the same question at the same time!! It’s crazier than an Amish Mafia, but a really fun way to see who can make the most noise, and find The Voice.

In Round 2, hundreds of other Sharks with their own TV and radio shows analyze every nuance of each contestants performance from Round 1, and then, try to convince their audience to agree with their analysis. This too, is a really clever way to keep the viewers engaged, without asking them to think for themselves!

In Round 3, our contestants travel to Hollywood to see who can be photographed with the most number of famous people. This is called Dancing With The Stars, and it’s a super way to show the audience who could be America's Next Top Model! After that, it’s off to Hell’s Kitchen to form their own Duck Dynasty and learn Who Wants to be Millionaire!

Things really heat up in Round 4, when our Contestants must spend all their money on commercials no one watches, and then insult each other from their smartphones in 140 characters or less. This allows America to follow along without getting too confused, and gives the contestants a chance to discuss things that matter most to them - things like incontinence, flop sweat, big ears, small hands, bad hair, spray-on tans, and various Dirty Jobs.

Finally, in Round 5, a series of hastily conducted polls allows the audience to identify the most forgettable contestant for that week and say in one loud, unanimous voice - "You're Fired!" This person is deemed The Biggest Loser, and ordered to fly back to The Jersey Shore in a giant airplane, where they must watch the rest of this Amazing Race from home.

Eventually, everyone is Chopped but the loudest, angriest, and most ruthless contestant. This is our Survivor, who is declared an American Idol, and moved to a large White House filled with helpful Apprentices. There, in spite of an Extreme Home Makeover and a 24-hour marathon of Let's Make a Deal, absolutely nothing will happen.

Check back in four years for Season 2 of "That's Debatable - The Celebrity Edition!" when Kanye West joins the cast, and Alec Baldwin finally moves to Canada!

Mike

PS. If you’re interested in a much shorter program with no devastating consequences to the free world, check out The Way I Heard It, with Mike Rowe. It’s a five minute podcast guaranteed to offend no one. http://mikerowe.com/podcast/

(I'm Mike Rowe and I approve this post. Paid for by The Committee to promote The Way I Heard It with Mike Rowe.)

 Easy E wrote:
I know, i know. I just like to rub it in a bit that the establishment R's are getting killed, and the Socialist isn't getting killed. It is the end of the GOP as we know it, and now onto the new GOP!

 sebster wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I know, i know. I just like to rub it in a bit that the establishment R's are getting killed, and the Socialist isn't getting killed. It is the end of the GOP as we know it, and now onto the new GOP!

Fair enough

And I think you might be right. Might not, of course. We’ll see, but even if Trump is beaten, I suspect he could signal a wave of candidates attempting a more populist version of Republicanism, less concerned about maintaining the ‘pure conservative credentials’ as they are currently defined by the gatekeepers of the Republican party.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I know, i know. I just like to rub it in a bit that the establishment R's are getting killed, and the Socialist isn't getting killed. It is the end of the GOP as we know it, and now onto the new GOP!

Fair enough

And I think you might be right. Might not, of course. We’ll see, but even if Trump is beaten, I suspect he could signal a wave of candidates attempting a more populist version of Republicanism, less concerned about maintaining the ‘pure conservative credentials’ as they are currently defined by the gatekeepers of the Republican party.

I think by the same token, Sanders' run may open the door some for future democratic socialists, and perhaps even "true" socialists. I for one wouldn't mind seeing more of the former, but I do think that true socialism wouldn't be accepted by most in the US.

 Breotan wrote:

I don't know about that. Here in Seattle, we have a bonafide member of the revolutionary Socialist Alternative party sitting on the City Council. She was heavily involved in the whole $15 minimum wage issue out here and is likely to continue to be re-elected for as many terms as she legally can be. This is the future of America's left wing. What starts on the West Coast usually moves East.

 whembly wrote:
Rubio finally won a state in MN! There's a thought that Rubio's strength will manifest itself on 3/15 where FL is in play.

Pre-Super Tuesday, Trump was polled/estimated that he'd win all states except for TX. He lost 4, and barely squeaked by in 4 other states by less than 3%... So, in this regard, he kinda under performed and the likelihood of a 'Contested Convention' seems to grow.

 Ouze wrote:
No. Every opposition ad would include the photo of him holding the vial. He's inextricably tied to bad intelligence that lead up to the disastrous Iraq war.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think by the same token, Sanders' run may open the door some for future democratic socialists, and perhaps even "true" socialists. I for one wouldn't mind seeing more of the former, but I do think that true socialism wouldn't be accepted by most in the US.

Aleksandr Dugin, otherwise known as “Putin's Rasputin," has endorsed Donald Trump for president of the United States.

Aleksandr Dugin is a key theorist of the ideological underpinnings of Putinism. His "Eurasianism" seeks to provide a basis for uniting not only Russia, but all the world's anti freedom forces, under Moscow's banner against the West.

What Russia needs, says Dugin, is a "genuine, true, radically revolutionary and consistent, fascist fascism." On the other hand, "Liberalism, is an absolute evil. . . .Only a global crusade against the U.S., the West, globalization, and their political-ideological expression, liberalism, is capable of becoming an adequate response. . . . The American empire should be destroyed."

Now, in an article entitled "Trump is the Real America" published on the website of the Kremlin-backed Katehon think tank, Dugin says "Trump...is a sensation. … The Republicans, as well as the Democrats, are the representatives of the US ruling elites. It is a special part of society, being quite far from the ordinary Americans. …The American elite is not even American. Thus, there is Donald Trump, who is tough, rough, says what he thinks, rude, emotional and, apparently, candid. The fact that he is a billionaire doesn't matter. He is different. He is an extremely successful ordinary American. …

"Maybe, that redhead rude Yankee from the saloon will get back to the problems inside the country and will leave humanity alone, which is tired of American hegemony and its destructive policy of chaos, bloody rivers and color revolutions? Trump is a leader…

"Vote for Trump, and see what will happen."

Dugin's endorsement of Trump is noteworthy, particularly in view of the fact that he has been given the role or organizing Eurasianist fifth columns supporting the Putin regime in western countries. In May 2014, as Putin was ramping up his war against Ukraine, Dugin held a secret meeting in Vienna with leaders of most of the ultranationalist parties of continental Europe, ranging from small fringe groups to the powerful French National Front, to organize support for the invasion. This subversive effort has been bearing fruit, as evidenced by the fact, reported by the February 19 Moscow Times that French National Front leader Marine Le Pen, who received $13 million from the Kremlin in 2014, is currently negotiating with Putin for another $30 million (equivalent in France to about $200 million in U.S. political terms) to finance future support.

Trump and Marine Le Pen offer similar political profiles, combining xenophobic demagoguery, anti-Atlanticism, socialistic and protectionist policies, and open admiration and apologetics for Vladimir Putin. The founder of the French National Front, Jean-Marie Le Pen, recently endorsed Trump. Marine Le Pen supported the Russian takeover of Crimea, and is being openly bankrolled out of Moscow. Trump supports Russia's actions in Syria, and has reportedly had many questionable business dealings with elements of Russian organized crime.

Trump has been praised by Putin, and rather than reject such praise, has returned it, calling the Russian dictator "a real leader" and dismissing his many murders of political opponents at home and abroad as "unproven." Last month, a British court found that Putin had ordered the murder by Polonium poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, a former FSB agent who revealed that the 1999 apartment buildings bombings in Moscow that Putin used to seize dictatorial power were the work of Putin's FSB itself. Apparently the billionaire is fine with that too.

 Goliath wrote:
Quite a worrying/hilarious/deeply depressing article on the BBC website at the moment:

The day after Super Tuesday, Google searches increased by 350% for people searching for "How can I move to Canada?"

 Crimson wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
He still gets my vote for even providing more entertainment. He cracks me up in debates.

Yeah, no matter if he buddies up with KKK or crashes the world economy by starting a trade war with China, as long as you are entertained!

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
Quite a worrying/hilarious/deeply depressing article on the BBC website at the moment:

The day after Super Tuesday, Google searches increased by 350% for people searching for "How can I move to Canada?"

Isn't this an election staple that people threaten to move to Canada if their candidate/party doesn't win? Even in the OT we have people throw the head and threaten to leave for good, most times they come back - hollow threats are hollow.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I read in the newspapers today, that a lot of senior Republicans are lining up to attack Trump. I can't think of anything that will do more to increase Trump's support and entrench his power base.

Rightly or wrongly, people are fed up with the elites, the corporate interests, lecturing them on what's good for them.

Right now in Britain, we have the same vested interests looking down their noses at ordinary people, because ordinary people want to pull out of the European Union, and the corporate interests are worried about losing money.

I don't rate Trump at all, but I can see why people are supporting him, because frankly, people are fed up with this ruling elite lecturing the rest of us.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I read in the newspapers today, that a lot of senior Republicans are lining up to attack Trump. I can't think of anything that will do more to increase Trump's support and entrench his power base.

Rightly or wrongly, people are fed up with the elites, the corporate interests, lecturing them on what's good for them.

Right now in Britain, we have the same vested interests looking down their noses at ordinary people, because ordinary people want to pull out of the European Union, and the corporate interests are worried about losing money.

I don't rate Trump at all, but I can see why people are supporting him, because frankly, people are fed up with this ruling elite lecturing the rest of us.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I read in the newspapers today, that a lot of senior Republicans are lining up to attack Trump. I can't think of anything that will do more to increase Trump's support and entrench his power base.

Rightly or wrongly, people are fed up with the elites, the corporate interests, lecturing them on what's good for them.

Right now in Britain, we have the same vested interests looking down their noses at ordinary people, because ordinary people want to pull out of the European Union, and the corporate interests are worried about losing money.

I don't rate Trump at all, but I can see why people are supporting him, because frankly, people are fed up with this ruling elite lecturing the rest of us.

Is that why they jumped on board with the first "elite" that told them they are pretty and smart and that he will take care of them?

If anything all these people have proven is that politicians don't need policies or a cohesive message to get elected, they just need to repeatedly talk about themselves, used mountains of adjectives and tell their supporters how great they are.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
We have a person who's main campaign message seems to be vote for me because I'm a woman.

 Goliath wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
We have a person who's main campaign message seems to be vote for me because I'm a woman.

I mean, if you don't look at the campaign message then I can see how it might seem to be that.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
We have a person who's main campaign message seems to be vote for me because I'm a woman.

I mean, if you don't look at the campaign message then I can see how it might seem to be that.

If memory serves, Clinton, or one of her supporters said that woman who don't vote for Clinton should burn in hell, or words to that effect. This was only a few weeks ago. So yes, the gender card is being played, here.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
We have a person who's main campaign message seems to be vote for me because I'm a woman.

I mean, if you don't look at the campaign message then I can see how it might seem to be that.

If memory serves, Clinton, or one of her supporters said that woman who don't vote for Clinton should burn in hell, or words to that effect. This was only a few weeks ago. So yes, the gender card is being played, here.

Romney plans to deliver his speech at 11.30am ET at the University of Utah, but leaked contents of his remarks have already made the contents of the announcement clear.



Here’s what I know: Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He’s playing the American public for suckers: he gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.

“The president of the United States has long been the leader of the free world,” Romney’s remarks say. “The president and, yes, the nominees of the country’s great parties help define America to billions of people. All of them bear the responsibility of being an example for our children and grandchildren.”

Romney also claims that Trump, if nominated, would help facilitate Hillary Clinton’s ascension to the White House.

“Trump relishes any poll that reflects what he thinks of himself, but polls are also saying that he will lose to Hillary Clinton.”

Trump, speaking on MSNBC’s Morning Joe this morning, did not hold back his disdain for the failed Republican nominee, describing Romney as “a man who begged me for my endorsement four years ago”.

“He failed in his campaign, it was a horribly run campaign, Republicans did not even go out to vote, it was a disaster,” Trump said. “He ran one of the worst campaigns in presidential history. That was an election that should have been won by the Republicans. He was a catastrophe.”

In a Twitter storm earlier this morning, Trump declared that establishment Republicans like Romney want to “kill the movement” that he has ignited among discontented voters.

 Goliath wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
We have a person who's main campaign message seems to be vote for me because I'm a woman.

I mean, if you don't look at the campaign message then I can see how it might seem to be that.

If memory serves, Clinton, or one of her supporters said that woman who don't vote for Clinton should burn in hell, or words to that effect. This was only a few weeks ago. So yes, the gender card is being played, here.

Okay, someone said something about people voting for her because she's a woman. In what way does that make it her main campaign message?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

There's never been a female president, let's make history etc etc

 Crimson wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

There's never been a female president, let's make history etc etc

That is one small part of her platform, yes (and perfectly valid one), but is not her whole platform, not even close.
You may disagree with her policies, but she is easily the most experienced and qualified person running.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Clinton's time as SoS certainly gave her a lot of experience of failure

 skyth wrote:
I'm not exactly sure where you are getting failure from her SoS tenure.

 Goliath wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Clinton's time as SoS certainly gave her a lot of experience of failure

Examples please.

The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked on Hillary Clinton’s private email server, as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.

The official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009.

As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents are likely to want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said.

The inquiry comes against a political backdrop in which Clinton is the favorite to secure the Democratic nomination for the presidency.

So far, there is no indication that prosecutors have convened a grand jury in the email investigation to subpoena testimony or documents, which would require the participation of a U.S. attorney’s office.

Spokesmen at the FBI and Justice Department would not discuss the investigation. Pagliano’s attorney, Mark J. MacDougall, also declined to comment.

In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said: “As we have said since last summer, Secretary Clinton has been cooperating with the Department of Justice’s security inquiry, including offering in August to meet with them to assist their efforts if needed.”

He also said the campaign is “pleased” that Pagliano, who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights before a congressional panel in September, is now cooperating with prosecutors. The campaign had encouraged Pagliano to testify before Congress.

As part of the inquiry, law enforcement officials will look at the potential damage had the classified information in the emails been exposed. The Clinton campaign has described the probe as a security review. But current and former officials in the FBI and at the Justice Department have said investigators are trying to determine whether a crime was committed.

“There was wrongdoing,” said a former senior law enforcement official. “But was it criminal wrongdoing?”

Clinton has since apologized for what happened: “Yes, I should have used two email addresses, one for personal matters and one for my work at the State Department. Not doing so was a mistake. I’m sorry about it, and I take full responsibility.”

Any decision to charge someone would involve Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, who told Congress when asked last month about the email inquiry: “That matter is being handled by career independent law enforcement agents, FBI agents, as well as the career independent attorneys in the Department of Justice. They follow the evidence, they look at the law and they’ll make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate.”

She added, “We will review all the facts and all the evidence and come to an independent conclusion as how to best handle it.”

Current and former officials said the conviction of retired four-star general and CIA director David H. Petraeus for mishandling classified information is casting a shadow over the email investigation.

The officials said they think that Petraeus’s actions were more egregious than those of Clinton and her aides because he lied to the FBI, and classified information he shared with his biographer contained top secret code words, identities of covert officers, war strategy and intelligence capabilities. Prosecutors initially threatened to charge him with three felonies, including conspiracy, violating the Espionage Act and lying to the FBI. But after negotiations, Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information.

He was fined $100,000 and sentenced to two years of probation. FBI officials were angered by the deal and predicted it would affect the outcome of other cases involving classified information.

Petraeus “was handled so lightly for his offense there isn’t a whole lot you can do,” said a former U.S. law enforcement official who oversaw counterintelligence investigations and described the email controversy as “a lesser set of circumstances.”

The State Department has been analyzing the contents of Clinton’s correspondence, as it has prepared 52,000 pages of Clinton’s emails for public release in batches, a process that began in May and concluded Monday. The State Department has said 2,093 of Clinton’s released emails were redacted in all or part because they contained classified material, the vast majority of them rated “confidential,” the lowest level of sensitivity in the classification system.

Clinton and the State Department have said that none of the material was marked classified at the time it was sent. However, it is the responsibility of individual government officials to properly handle sensitive material.

The email investigation is being conducted by FBI counterintelligence agents and supervised by the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

In a letter filed last month in federal court as part of ongoing civil litigation over Clinton’s emails, the FBI confirmed that it was “working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.” The agency declined to publicly detail the investigation’s “specific focus, scope or potential targets.”

On Tuesday, FBI Director James B. Comey said he was “very close” to the investigation.

Former federal prosecutor Glen Kopp said it is not surprising that agents want to interview Clinton and her aides.

“They are within the zone of interest of the investigation,” he said.

A request to interview her would have to be reviewed by top level officials at both the FBI and the Justice Department, a former official said.

As part of those interviews, the FBI would also seek to establish that Clinton and her aides understood the policies and protocols for handling classified information, former officials said.

Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, declined to comment.

Kendall, who also has represented President Bill Clinton and Petraeus, has navigated similar issues in other cases. During the investigation of President Clinton by independent counsel Ken Starr, for instance, Kendall rebuffed several requests for interviews.

The president was then subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury. In a deal brokered by Kendall, the subpoena was withdrawn and Clinton testified voluntarily in 1998.

Former prosecutors said investigators were probably feeling the pressure of time because of the election. Take action before the election, they said, and you risk being perceived as trying to influence the result. Take action after and face criticism for not letting voters know there was an issue with their preferred candidate.

“The timing is terrible whether you do it before or after,” Kopp said.

The issue of Clinton’s use of a private email server was referred to the FBI in July after the Office of the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community determined that some of the emails that traversed Clinton’s server contained classified material.

Emails that contain material now deemed classified were authored by Clinton but also by many of her top aides, including Jacob Sullivan, who was her director of policy planning and her deputy chief of staff. He is now advising Clinton’s campaign on foreign policy and is thought to be a likely candidate for national security adviser if she is elected president.

The State Department has said that, at the request of intelligence agencies, it has classified 22 Clinton emails as “top secret” and will not release those emails, even in redacted form. “Top secret” is the highest level of classification, reserved for material whose release could cause “exceptionally grave damage to the national security.”

I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general of the intelligence community, has indicated that some of the material intelligence officials have reviewed contained information that was classified at the time it was sent; the State Department has indicated that it has not analyzed whether the material should have been marked classified when it was sent, only whether it requires classification before being released now.

"very likely" that Hillary Clinton will face questioning from FBI in coming weeks, @jonkarl reports @GMA

— Rick Klein (@rickklein) March 3, 2016

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Months ago, we had a thread about a certain African country that begins with the letter L, and a certain city within that country that begins with the letter B Hilary Clinton was involved...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I'm not exactly sure where you are getting failure from her SoS tenure.

You gotta be kidding me!

Months ago, we had a thread about a certain African country that begins with the letter L, and a certain city within that country that begins with the letter B Hilary Clinton was involved...

This thread went on for centuries, and because of the actions of a certain user who's name begins with W

everybody on dakka agreed NEVER EVER EVER to talk about this country or that thread ever again, because people died of boredom

Dakka mods passed a rule that says W shall be locked in a room for a 100 years, have his eyes prised open with cocktail sticks, and forced to watch the phantom menace until he goes insanse, should he ever mention Hilary Clinton and that African country...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Please, God, no, not another 200 pages discussing Clinton emails

HEALTHCARE REFORM TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

Since March of 2010, the American people have had to suffer under the incredible economic burden of the Affordable Care Act—Obamacare. This legislation, passed by totally partisan votes in the House and Senate and signed into law by the most divisive and partisan President in American history, has tragically but predictably resulted in runaway costs, websites that don’t work, greater rationing of care, higher premiums, less competition and fewer choices. Obamacare has raised the economic uncertainty of every single person residing in this country. As it appears Obamacare is certain to collapse of its own weight, the damage done by the Democrats and President Obama, and abetted by the Supreme Court, will be difficult to repair unless the next President and a Republican congress lead the effort to bring much-needed free market reforms to the healthcare industry.

But none of these positive reforms can be accomplished without Obamacare repeal. On day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare.

However, it is not enough to simply repeal this terrible legislation. We will work with Congress to make sure we have a series of reforms ready for implementation that follow free market principles and that will restore economic freedom and certainty to everyone in this country. By following free market principles and working together to create sound public policy that will broaden healthcare access, make healthcare more affordable and improve the quality of the care available to all Americans.

Any reform effort must begin with Congress. Since Obamacare became law, conservative Republicans have been offering reforms that can be delivered individually or as part of more comprehensive reform efforts. In the remaining sections of this policy paper, several reforms will be offered that should be considered by Congress so that on the first day of the Trump Administration, we can start the process of restoring faith in government and economic liberty to the people.

Congress must act. Our elected representatives in the House and Senate must:

Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.
Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.
Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.
Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.
Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.
Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.
Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.
The reforms outlined above will lower healthcare costs for all Americans. They are simply a place to start. There are other reforms that might be considered if they serve to lower costs, remove uncertainty and provide financial security for all Americans. And we must also take actions in other policy areas to lower healthcare costs and burdens. Enforcing immigration laws, eliminating fraud and waste and energizing our economy will relieve the economic pressures felt by every American. It is the moral responsibility of a nation’s government to do what is best for the people and what is in the interest of securing the future of the nation.

Providing healthcare to illegal immigrants costs us some $11 billion annually. If we were to simply enforce the current immigration laws and restrict the unbridled granting of visas to this country, we could relieve healthcare cost pressures on state and local governments.

To reduce the number of individuals needing access to programs like Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program we will need to install programs that grow the economy and bring capital and jobs back to America. The best social program has always been a job – and taking care of our economy will go a long way towards reducing our dependence on public health programs.

Finally, we need to reform our mental health programs and institutions in this country. Families, without the ability to get the information needed to help those who are ailing, are too often not given the tools to help their loved ones. There are promising reforms being developed in Congress that should receive bi-partisan support.

To reform healthcare in America, we need a President who has the leadership skills, will and courage to engage the American people and convince Congress to do what is best for the country. These straightforward reforms, along with many others I have proposed throughout my campaign, will ensure that together we will Make America Great Again.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm not having a go at you, Whembley, I'm just in danger of going stir crazy.

I have campaign work to do for Britain's referendum on European Union membership in June.

I have campaign work to do for the Scottish Parliament elections in May.

On a daily basis, I get bombarded by news about Trump, Europe, and how the world will end if Britain quits the EU.

I'm suffering from the effects of too much freedom and democracy

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm suffering from the effects of too much freedom and democracy

 jasper76 wrote:
Reviews of the plan I've read are saying it does not mention how people who can't afford health insurance will be covered.

That's a pretty huge hole. Any replacement to the ACA will have to address this issue.

 jasper76 wrote:
I'll just say that it's not the answer I'm looking for, and I think expecting states to do right by their poor citizens is quite naive.

 CptJake wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'll just say that it's not the answer I'm looking for, and I think expecting states to do right by their poor citizens is quite naive.

The States should darned well be able to understand their own populations and cater to them better than the Federal One Size Fits All answer. State governments should also be a lot more accountable to the citizens of the State than the Fed gov't is. If one governor is screwing it up, recall or send him/her packing in the next election.

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'll just say that it's not the answer I'm looking for, and I think expecting states to do right by their poor citizens is quite naive.

The States should darned well be able to understand their own populations and cater to them better than the Federal One Size Fits All answer. State governments should also be a lot more accountable to the citizens of the State than the Fed gov't is. If one governor is screwing it up, recall or send him/her packing in the next election.

Look at Oklahoma if you want to look at states fething over their people and the people being happy about it.

 CptJake wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'll just say that it's not the answer I'm looking for, and I think expecting states to do right by their poor citizens is quite naive.

The States should darned well be able to understand their own populations and cater to them better than the Federal One Size Fits All answer. State governments should also be a lot more accountable to the citizens of the State than the Fed gov't is. If one governor is screwing it up, recall or send him/her packing in the next election.

 djones520 wrote:
Has anyone looked into Trumps new healthcare plan?

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Please, God, no, not another 200 pages discussing Clinton emails

Hey... keep denying that this isn't a big dealio.

 jasper76 wrote:
True in principal, but again, I think expecting states to do right by their poor people is quite naive.

 Breotan wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
True in principal, but again, I think expecting states to do right by their poor people is quite naive.

There is also the issue of rich states and very poor states. How does anyone expect the State of Alabama or the territory of Puerto Rico to pay for a comprehensive health care program without Federal aid?

 jasper76 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'll just say that it's not the answer I'm looking for, and I think expecting states to do right by their poor citizens is quite naive.

The States should darned well be able to understand their own populations and cater to them better than the Federal One Size Fits All answer. State governments should also be a lot more accountable to the citizens of the State than the Fed gov't is. If one governor is screwing it up, recall or send him/her packing in the next election.

True in principal, but again, I think expecting states to do right by their poor people is quite naive.

The fundamental difference on this issue always boils down to whether healthcare should be a right, or a luxury. Under Drumpf's plan (such as it is) I would personally be very skeptical about poor people's prospects for health coverage in states with governors, legislators, and citizens who believe that health care should be a luxury.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'll just say that it's not the answer I'm looking for, and I think expecting states to do right by their poor citizens is quite naive.

The States should darned well be able to understand their own populations and cater to them better than the Federal One Size Fits All answer. State governments should also be a lot more accountable to the citizens of the State than the Fed gov't is. If one governor is screwing it up, recall or send him/her packing in the next election.

True in principal, but again, I think expecting states to do right by their poor people is quite naive.

The fundamental difference on this issue always boils down to whether healthcare should be a right, or a luxury. Under Drumpf's plan (such as it is) I would personally be very skeptical about poor people's prospects for health coverage in states with governors, legislators, and citizens who believe that health care should be a luxury.

I think I'd rather keep it with the federal government over allowing people like Governor Synder a shot at it. That guy has proven that his people's health isn't even remotely on the radar. An he will get away with it too.

 djones520 wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'll just say that it's not the answer I'm looking for, and I think expecting states to do right by their poor citizens is quite naive.

The States should darned well be able to understand their own populations and cater to them better than the Federal One Size Fits All answer. State governments should also be a lot more accountable to the citizens of the State than the Fed gov't is. If one governor is screwing it up, recall or send him/her packing in the next election.

True in principal, but again, I think expecting states to do right by their poor people is quite naive.

The fundamental difference on this issue always boils down to whether healthcare should be a right, or a luxury. Under Drumpf's plan (such as it is) I would personally be very skeptical about poor people's prospects for health coverage in states with governors, legislators, and citizens who believe that health care should be a luxury.

I think I'd rather keep it with the federal government over allowing people like Governor Synder a shot at it. That guy has proven that his people's health isn't even remotely on the radar. An he will get away with it too.

If you're talking the Flint issue, you should seriously educate yourself on the matter before jumping on the "Ebil republican hates black people" bandwagon.

Mitt Romney has instructed his closest advisers to explore the possibility of stopping Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention, a source close to Romney's inner circle says.

 Breotan wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Please, God, no, not another 200 pages discussing Clinton emails

Hey... keep denying that this isn't a big dealio.

Sorry, whembly, but until they bring actual charges against Hillary, it isn't a big deal. The Clintons are masters at letting the fires of scandal rage only for no actual crime to ever be linked directly to them. You'll recall back when Bill Clinton was President, Hillary had to sit for a deposition about her involvement with the Rose law firm and Whitewater. A common response in her testimony was "I don't recall." or "I don't remember." In the end, her partner Jim McDougal died in prison while nobody could pin anything on Hilary. If Hillary can skate from that, do you really expect charges to be brought against her related to her email server or the classified material on it?

EXCLUSIVE: The FBI is investigating whether computer passwords were shared among Hillary Clinton's close aides to determine how sensitive intelligence "jumped the gap" between the classified systems and Clinton's unsecured personal server, according to an intelligence source familiar with the probe.

The source emphasized to Fox News that “if [Clinton] was allowing other people to use her passwords, that is a big problem.” The Foreign Service Officers Manual prohibits the sharing of passwords.

Such passwords are required to access each State Department network. This includes the network for highly classified intelligence -- known as SCI or Sensitive Compartmented Information -- and the unclassified system, known as SBU or Sensitive But Unclassified, according to former State Department employees.

Fox News was told there are several potential scenarios for how classified information got onto Clinton’s server:

Reading intelligence reports or briefings, and then summarizing the findings in emails sent on Clinton's unsecured personal server.

Accessing the classified intelligence computer network, and then lifting sections by typing them verbatim into a device such as an iPad or BlackBerry.

Taking pictures of a computer screen to capture the intelligence.

Using a thumb drive or disk to physically move the intelligence, but this would require access to a data center. It’s unclear whether Clinton’s former IT specialist Bryan Pagliano, who as first reported by The Washington Post has reached an immunity deal with the Justice Department, or others had sufficient administrator privileges to physically transfer data.

Most of these scenarios would require a password. And all of these practices would be strictly prohibited under non-disclosure agreements signed by Clinton and others, and federal law.

It remains unclear who had access to which computers and devices used by Clinton while she was secretary of state and where exactly they were located at the time of the email correspondence. Clinton signed her NDA agreement on Jan. 22, 2009 shortly before she was sworn in as secretary of state.

The intelligence source said the ongoing FBI investigation is progressing in "fits and starts" but bureau agents have refined a list of individuals who will be questioned about their direct handling of the emails, with a focus on how classified information jumped the gap between classified systems and briefings to Clinton's unsecured personal email account used for government business.

Fox News was told the agents involved are “not political appointees but top notch agents with decades of experience.”

A separate source said the list of individuals is relatively small -- about a dozen, among them Clinton aide Jake Sullivan, who was described as "pivotal" because he forwarded so many emails to Clinton. His exchanges, now deemed to contain highly classified information, included one email which referred to human spying, or "HCS-O," and included former Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

As Fox News first reported last year, two emails -- one sent by Abedin that included classified information about the 2011 movement of Libyan troops during the revolution, and a second sent by Sullivan that contained law enforcement information about the FBI investigation in the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack – kick-started the FBI probe.

Testifying to Congress Tuesday about encryption, FBI Director James Comey also was asked about the Clinton investigation. He responded that he is “very close personally” to the case “to ensure that we have the resources we need including people and technology and that it's done the way the FBI tries to do all of its work: independently, competently and promptly. That's our goal and I'm confident it's being done that way."

Earlier this week when she was asked if Clinton has been interviewed by the FBI, Attorney General Loretta Lynch insisted to Fox News’ Bret Baier “that no one outside of DOJ has been briefed on this or any other case. That’s not our policy and it has not happened in this matter.”

Fox News also has learned the State Department cannot touch the security clearance of top aides connected to the case without contacting the FBI, because agents plan to directly question individuals about their handling of the emails containing classified information, and they will need active clearances to be questioned.

While it is standard practice to suspend a security clearance pending the outcome of an investigation, Fox News reported Monday that Clinton’s chief of staff at State, Cheryl Mills, who is also an attorney, maintains her top secret clearance. Mills was involved in the decisions as to which emails to keep and which to delete from the server.

At a press briefing Monday, Fox News pressed the State Department on whether this represented a double standard, or whether the clearances are in place at the direction of the FBI.

“This issue is under several reviews and investigations. I won't speak for other agencies that may be involved in reviews and investigations,” spokesman John Kirby said. “Clearly we are going to cooperate to the degree that we need to."

 jasper76 wrote:
This Romney stuff makes Rubio and Cruz look really, really bad, as though they need a more experienced and intelligent surrogate to run their campaigns not even with the goal of winning, but only to deliver delegates to Romney or a candidate suitable to Romney. I'm very interested to see how they respond.

 jasper76 wrote:
I think that's the way it will turn out, but the argument is suggesting that "Team Romney" is looking for a way to inject himself as a candidate at the convention.

Have no idea if it could or will happen. It would be crazy theater, though.

 CptJake wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
True in principal, but again, I think expecting states to do right by their poor people is quite naive.

There is also the issue of rich states and very poor states. How does anyone expect the State of Alabama or the territory of Puerto Rico to pay for a comprehensive health care program without Federal aid?

Isn't that exactly what the Medicaid funds the Feds free up and 'block grant' (as the plan says) are supposed to address?

 jasper76 wrote:

I suspect Trump will get the delegates, he is pretty much crushing it.

 jasper76 wrote:
@whembley: Romney would run largely on the Bush platform. That would be my guess, anyways.

 jasper76 wrote:
If a holy-roller like Cruz can't win the religious states against someone like Trump, he's not doing politics right..

 whembly wrote:

Oh... by the way... another GOP debate tonight. Megyn Kelly's is part of the moderation team and you JUST KNOW TRUMP LOVES HER!

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Oh... by the way... another GOP debate tonight. Megyn Kelly's is part of the moderation team and you JUST KNOW TRUMP LOVES HER!

At this point I'm pretty sure that FoxNews assigns her on purpose to try and make Trump look worse.

 jasper76 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'll just say that it's not the answer I'm looking for, and I think expecting states to do right by their poor citizens is quite naive.

The States should darned well be able to understand their own populations and cater to them better than the Federal One Size Fits All answer. State governments should also be a lot more accountable to the citizens of the State than the Fed gov't is. If one governor is screwing it up, recall or send him/her packing in the next election.

True in principal, but again, I think expecting states to do right by their poor people is quite naive.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Oh... by the way... another GOP debate tonight. Megyn Kelly's is part of the moderation team and you JUST KNOW TRUMP LOVES HER!

At this point I'm pretty sure that FoxNews assigns her on purpose to try and make Trump look worse.

She's Fox's Trump card...




I'll show myself out.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm well aware of Trump's background, and I'm sure most of his supporters are as well, but I honestly believe that people are so fed up with the system, and those who support it, that'll they support somebody like Trump.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
That will persuade Trump's supporters to ditch him.

 whembly wrote:
But, switch gears here... Trump finally released *his* healthcare plan:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

 sebster wrote:

The lack of thought put in to this plan, like all Republican plans, is fething terrifying.

 CptJake wrote:
The States should darned well be able to understand their own populations and cater to them better than the Federal One Size Fits All answer. State governments should also be a lot more accountable to the citizens of the State than the Fed gov't is. If one governor is screwing it up, recall or send him/her packing in the next election.

 djones520 wrote:
What I'm getting from Trumps plan is that he is rewarding participation (tax credit for getting insurance) instead of punishing those who don't participate as the ACA does.

 Breotan wrote:
The Clintons are masters at letting the fires of scandal rage only for no actual crime to ever be linked directly to them. You'll recall back when Bill Clinton was President, Hillary had to sit for a deposition about her involvement with the Rose law firm and Whitewater.

 LordofHats wrote:
Personally, I'm more horrified by the possibility that religion has never been what won the south, but racism with a non-racist veneer and the force is simply stronger on that front with Trump than it has been any GOP candidate in ages.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
But hey, it's not Obamacare, so that's a plus, right? Or at least, I know that's the usual Republican "logic"

 BrotherGecko wrote:
♡ my home town crowd. Can't believe the crowd is booing and heckling Trump lol.

Rubio is burning Trunp up. O.o

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I'm getting more of a kick out of watching the crowd when the moderators are on. "Look ma! I'm on the Fox News show!"

 whembly wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
♡ my home town crowd. Can't believe the crowd is booing and heckling Trump lol.

Rubio is burning Trunp up. O.o

This debate so far:
Cruz: Great
Rubio: Solid, but raspy
Trump: Full of gak
Kasich: Wahhhhh

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I'm getting more of a kick out of watching the crowd when the moderators are on. "Look ma! I'm on the Fox News show!"

That's distracting...

Did Trump seriously just vowed that he will order the US military to commit war crimes, and that they will not resist. Did I hear that right??!

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I'm getting more of a kick out of watching the crowd when the moderators are on. "Look ma! I'm on the Fox News show!"

That's distracting...

Did Trump seriously just vowed that he will order the US military to commit war crimes, and that they will not resist. Did I hear that right??!

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I'm getting more of a kick out of watching the crowd when the moderators are on. "Look ma! I'm on the Fox News show!"

That's distracting...

Did Trump seriously just vowed that he will order the US military to commit war crimes, and that they will not resist. Did I hear that right??!

That's what you and everybody with a brain heard. What Trump supporters heard was "I have big...hands"

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I'm getting more of a kick out of watching the crowd when the moderators are on. "Look ma! I'm on the Fox News show!"

That's distracting...

Did Trump seriously just vowed that he will order the US military to commit war crimes, and that they will not resist. Did I hear that right??!

....yes

 sebster wrote:
And while there might be potential savings in state administered programs, in either lower overheads or more efficient allocations, we’re talking maybe 10 or 20% if results are excellent. In contrast, ACA gives subsidies to tens of millions of families. Medicaid expansion simply cannot replace the ACA model that makes insurance affordable for low income

 whembly wrote:
Cruz/Rubio has had a good night tonight. So has Kasich, surprisingly. Trump's defecated all over himself & stage, but his fans will call it chocolate.

 whembly wrote:
O man...

Ted Cruz: “Learn not to interrupt, Donald. Count to ten, Donald. Count to ten."

Buuuuurrn.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
O man...

Ted Cruz: “Learn not to interrupt, Donald. Count to ten, Donald. Count to ten."

Buuuuurrn.

Is that seriously a thing that was said? In a presidential debate? Because I'm pretty sure someone running for highschool class president would be told off for a juvenile approach if he used that line.

What the actual feth is happening to the Republican party?

 Ouze wrote:
You haven't considered the cost savings from eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse from Medicaid, which account for approximately 1400 dollars per every 3 cents spent on healthcare.

 whembly wrote:
That's Trump. Watch the debate man... it's golden!

 motyak wrote:
Cruz did, several times

 motyak wrote:
Cruz did, several times

 whembly wrote:
Sorry I wasn't clear seb...

 sebster wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Cruz did, several times

Ah, that's what I thought. What an amazingly puerile thing for a presidential candidate to say in a debate.

 motyak wrote:
To be fair, 3/4 of the people on the stage were reliably puerile, and the 4th still stooped to that level every so often. So while the count to 10 things is childish etc, it's hardly a stand out moment of such behaviour from this debate.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I was just waiting for Trump to whip out little Trump and say "it's huuuuge" when he was defending the size of his penis. On a televised debate stage. For the President of the United States of America. Let that sink in.

Really, it sort of makes the "people like you well enough, Hillary" putdown look downright genteel.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
How did Trump's penis even become a topic?

 sebster wrote:

 motyak wrote:
To be fair, 3/4 of the people on the stage were reliably puerile, and the 4th still stooped to that level every so often. So while the count to 10 things is childish etc, it's hardly a stand out moment of such behaviour from this debate.

That's the point exactly. It's characteristic of most debates, and all the recent debates.

Does anyone else remember the Republicans as the party of adults? What the hell has happened? I think we've all watched the march down the line in to hardright crazy stuff, but the childishness and stupidity? That's come hard and fast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I was just waiting for Trump to whip out little Trump and say "it's huuuuge" when he was defending the size of his penis. On a televised debate stage. For the President of the United States of America. Let that sink in.

Really, it sort of makes the "people like you well enough, Hillary" putdown look downright genteel.

I just went and looked this up. Incredible. Forget all that stuff about the count to 10 nonsense. 'Little Marco'. 'Big Donald'.

This is a real thing that happened.

 sebster wrote:
Does anyone else remember the Republicans as the party of adults? What the hell has happened? I think we've all watched the march down the line in to hardright crazy stuff, but the childishness and stupidity? That's come hard and fast.

 whembly wrote:
Nate at 538 made an interesting observation...

Trumps only won 1 of the 4 "closed" primary. He vastly underperformed in all those 4 states.

There's 34 states left to vote and 29 of those states are the closed primary variety.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Trump's influence. He's been openly running a mockery of a campaign, been caught in a dozen outright lies and contradictions and debuted his first televised debate by essentially telling the RNC to go feth itself. ... and it's all worked to his advantage.

My guess is that at this point the remaining candidates feel that emulation is their best path to victory. Trying to remain mature and above-the-nonsense certainly didn't save any of the numerous candidates who've since dropped out of the race.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Does anyone else remember the Republicans as the party of adults? What the hell has happened? I think we've all watched the march down the line in to hardright crazy stuff, but the childishness and stupidity? That's come hard and fast.

Trump's influence. He's been openly running a mockery of a campaign, been caught in a dozen outright lies and contradictions and debuted his first televised debate by essentially telling the RNC to go feth itself. ... and it's all worked to his advantage.

My guess is that at this point the remaining candidates feel that emulation is their best path to victory. Trying to remain mature and above-the-nonsense certainly didn't save any of the numerous candidates who've since dropped out of the race.

 Breotan wrote:
The Republican primary is like watching clowns climb out of and back into their clown car. Except the car is on fire.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I think the GOP has *nearly* always been an immature, bullying, name calling, obstructionist, freakshow of a party.

Donald has finally brought them out of their shell and exposed them to the world....candidates, voters, office holders, etc.

Like a vile caterpiller they have metamorphisized into the horrible butterfly they had always been waiting to become...that ugly little creature just hiding beneath the skin is finally emerged.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Nate at 538 made an interesting observation...

Trumps only won 1 of the 4 "closed" primary. He vastly underperformed in all those 4 states.

There's 34 states left to vote and 29 of those states are the closed primary variety.

I didn’t see Nate’s exact comment, but your summary isn’t quite right. Trump has only lost two primaries, and one of those was Texas. The other states he lost were caucuses. There’s a big difference between caucuses and closed primaries.

Not saying it isn’t an issue for Trump, it could well be. And this race is far from over for lots of reasons, just pointing out the error. I’d be interested in seeing Nate Silver’s original comment, if you can link to it.

 feeder wrote:



Yes America. This is the man that would be your king. Jebus fething wept.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Two days ago, I was re-watching the HBO John Adams drama series,

and there's this brilliant scene where the founding fathers are discussing breaking away from Britain, and it's killing them to even think about turning their backs on the country they love...

They just want their rights as Englishmen to be respected, and then a message turns up from King George which basically says I'm gonna hang every one of you mutha fethers

and you can see the founding fathers' reaction, as their hearts are crushed, and they're forced to go to war against the country they love to protect their rights...

Now, this is not news to American dakka members, but when I think about the risks those men took to win their freedom, and then you fast forward a few hundred years and see Donald Trump talking about his manhood...

You wonder why the founding fathers even bothered to get out of bed

 whembly wrote:

Even more ridiculous that no one's talking about this:



Someone ought to tell Trumpie that the Military *will not* follow illegal orders.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
People cheering for torture.


Stay classy, America!

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:


Yes America. This is the man that would be your king. Jebus fething wept.

Even more ridiculous that no one's talking about this:



Someone ought to tell Trumpie that the Military *will not* follow illegal orders.

In 1935, Sinclair Lewis published It Can’t Happen Here, a novel today more referred to than read, which imagined fascism coming to the U.S. The movement’s leader is Buzz Windrip, a populist demagogue who promises “to make America a proud, rich land again,” punish nations that defy him, and raise wages very high while keeping prices very low. Advertisement

You can’t read Lewis’ novel today without flashes of Trumpian recognition. Windrip is a demagogic huckster, “an inspired guesser at what political doctrines the people would like,” who understands how to manipulate the media and considers the truth an irrelevancy. His constituency of economically dispossessed white men moos at his xenophobic nationalism and preposterous promises. After he wins the 1936 election, Windrip moves to assert control over the press, lock up his opponents, and put competent businessmen in charge of the country.

 curran12 wrote:
Donald Trump reverses position on torture, killing terrorists' families

 kronk wrote:
I'm getting more and more scared as this gak continues.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
People cheering for torture.


Stay classy, America!

Probably the same people that cheered when he talked about deporting Muslims and spying on Mosques.

That anyone can even entertain the concept of him being POTUS is flying rodent gak insane.

 curran12 wrote:
Donald Trump reverses position on torture, killing terrorists' families

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/04/politics/donald-trump-reverses-on-torture/index.html

 Frazzled wrote:
If you really want to be annoyed, watch that debate, and then imagine if T. Roosevelt, Nixon, and Reagan were there instead, and how that would have gone. You will be mad.

I wonder if this type of debate was something more normal at the time of Jackson?

Psychiatric hospitals filling up with time travellers sent back to kill Donald Trump

Psychiatric facilities across the United States are at breaking point after the number of people claiming to be sent from the future to stop Donald Trump reached epidemic proportions.



New research has shown that every ten minutes someone claiming to the from the future sent back to save humanity is admitted to a hospital somewhere in the US.

Dr Simon Williams told us, “We’re struggling to cope to be honest. We’re constantly booking people in who’ve been arrested before telling police they are on a secret mission from the future, and have to save the world.

“It used to be ‘I’m Napoleon’ – but not any more.

“To say you’ve been sent from the future to stop Donald Trump is a very unusual psychological delusion, especially to be suffered by so many people, with such a similar stated aim.

“They all say the same thing, they come from a future of riots, war, famine, the collapse of civilised society, and then being sent back to ‘make it all right’.

“I mean, it’s almost like they’re telling the truth and for some unknown reason the future is getting increasingly desperate to stop the rise of Donald Trump and the end of the world he will inevitably bring about.

“He can’t be that bad, can he?”

 Frazzled wrote:


I wonder if this type of debate was something more normal at the time of Jackson?

 Frazzled wrote:
If you really want to be annoyed, watch that debate, and then imagine if T. Roosevelt, Nixon, and Reagan were there instead, and how that would have gone. You will be mad.

I wonder if this type of debate was something more normal at the time of Jackson?

 Frozocrone wrote:
I'm 95% certain a businessman who won't take no for an answer/do what he wants is not the best person to run the country.

 Frazzled wrote:
I wonder if this type of debate was something more normal at the time of Jackson?

Hillary Clinton promises to 'get to the bottom of UFO mystery' if elected, and 'maybe send a task force' to alleged alien prison Area 51
Campaign manager John Podesta said she would declassify UFO files
Clinton herself said words to the same effect in December
She added: 'We may have been visited already'
Podesta pressured Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to declassify files while working for their administrations

While Donald Trump continues to promise a wall between the US and Mexico, Hillary Clinton is thinking about a different kind of alien: if elected she will release classified UFO files, her campaign manager revealed.

As the Clinton campaign passed through Las Vegas last month, campaign manager John Podesta told KLAS-TV Politics NOW that he has persuaded the Democratic candidate to open up the long-closed documents for the US public.

'I think I've convinced her that we need an effort to kind of go look at that and declassify as much as we can, so that people have their legitimate questions answered,' he said.

Podesta continued: 'More attention and more discussion about unexplained aerial phenomena can happen without people — who are in public life, who are serious about this — being ridiculed.'

In December of last year, Clinton said much the same at a meeting with The Conway Daily Sun, in which she 'enthusiastically' told the editorial board, 'Yes, I'm going to get to the bottom of [the UFO files].'

She added that Podesta 'has made me personally pledge we are going to get the information out, one way or another. Maybe we could have, like, a task force to go to Area 51.'

Area 51 is an infamous US military base in Nevada which is ostensibly used to test stealth technology, but has long been linked to UFOs by conspiracy theorists, who say that the base was used to imprison and perform tests on aliens.

She also said, 'I think we may have been [visited already]. We don't know for sure.'

Clinton's remarks emerged in conversation with a Conway Daily Sun reporter who had questioned her on the topic in 2007. She was described as 'recalling the conversation with a smile' and 'having fun with the topic.'

A later CNN report characterised the remarks as 'tongue-in-cheek,' a descriptor not used in the Daily Sun's report.

She has been linked to UFOs since 1995, when a photograph was taken of her and businessman Laurance Rockefeller in which she can be seen holding a copy of the book Are We Alone: Philosophical Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life by Paul Davies.

Two years before, Rockefeller had started up an initiative requesting that then-President Bill Clinton release information about UFOs.

That Podesta would use his position as Hillary Clinton's campaign manager to press her to look into the files is no surprise - he has been campaigning for declassification of secret documents, especialy UFO-related ones, for decades.

As White House Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton, Podesta declassified hundreds of millions of documents himself, but was never able to get to the UFO documents.

And in 2014, as he left his position of counselor to Barack Obama, he tweeted: 'Finally, my biggest failure of 2014: Once again not securing the #disclosure of the UFO files.' He concluded with the hashtag '#thetruthisstilloutthere,' a reference to popular sci-fi conspiracy show The X-Files.

Obama brought on Podesta after the disastrous rollout of his health care law. Several current and former White House officials said Podesta — regarded by many as an elder statesman — quickly injected more depth into strategy discussions and would often play devil’s advocate, pushing the team to consider things not on their radar.


Bill Clinton has also broached the topic on various occasions, including a conversation on The Jimmy Kimmel show in 2014, when he said that during his time as President he had made enquiries about Area 51 itself.

'First I had people go looking through the records of Area 51, to make sure there was no alien down there,' he said, going on to say that stealth technology is developed in the base, 'but there were no aliens there.'

He added that he also looked at the files related to the Roswell Incident in 1947, when a US Air Force surveillance balloon crashed in Rosewell, New Mexico. Since then rumors have swirled that the balloon was actually an alien spacecraft.

Kimmel asked the former president whether he would tell the audience if he'd found proof of alien life. 'Yes,' he replied, without hesitation, to the cheers of audience members.

And speculating on the likeliness of life elsewhere in the universe, he said: 'If we were visited someday I wouldn't be surprised. I just hope it's not like Independence Day.'

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
I'm 95% certain a businessman who won't take no for an answer/do what he wants is not the best person to run the country.

And yet when I speak to everyday Americans, so many of them want a businessman in charge.

A businessman, assuming we're talking the head of a company, is in it to make money to the exclusion of all else. Typically they don't care for their employees and are morally flexible. What they say, goes. They are the decision maker, a company is typically not democratic, and if they don't like someone, "you're fired". This certainly defines Trump's character.

Is this really the type of person we want as POTUS?