BlaxicanX wrote:

 whembly wrote:

In the General? Who knows... it might have legs dude.

It won't, because nobody gives a gak about this except for the people who weren't going to vote for her anyway and are actively looking for whatever dirt they can find to fuel their confirmation bias.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

At this point, no one is going to change their minds about Clinton. Hence, why I believe she'll win handily.

Those emails won't be a significant issue in the primary, and I can guarantee that neither side wants information security to be a significant issue in the general.

IN the primary... nope.

In the General? Who knows... it might have legs dude.

The problem here is that the whole concern that she sent stuff using her private server and this it might have been hacked is that, in this day and age of cyberspy movies, bank breaches, and the hacking of Target, Home Depot, etc., people have grown accustomed to anything getting hacked. It's just no longer the big deal it used to be. For this to truly hurt HRC, it would have to be proven that something really important and vital got stolen, and that it was used against the USA (probably would have to be someone's death, anything less than that and many people will still say "meh").

There are only two things that will bring down HRC: something really stupid/offensive/negligent on her part that just completely stands out, AND an appealing Republican candidate. Like Romney's 47% comment, he still could have done well if he hadn't been running against Obama, who was someone that people generally liked. HRC could still have her "47% moment," but if the only Republican alternative is, say, Ted Cruz, then too many people would stay with HRC. The Rs absolutely need a candidate that can appeal to a wide audience.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The patriot act causes an interesting separation. The D's seem to be generally against it, but the R's seem pretty spit, with the more conservative being generally for it, and the more libertarian being general against.

There is still that post 9/11 mentality that we need this sort of thing to better fight terrorism. Or else the terrorists win. There was a lot of that going around after 9/11, and a lot of bad laws and policies got rammed down people's throats in the name of the War on Terror, because nobody wanted the political death sentence of being accused of letting the terrorists win. Shades of McCarthyism.

In an incredible Orwellian attempt to justify his (Senator Orrin Hatch) opposition to government transparency he said "...if senators are concerned about the level of transparency on trade agreements, they should support the current legislation.", referring to TPP itself. Sen. Hatch admitted that he doesn't know exactly what's in the TPP bill, but still decided to kill any effort to bring transparency to the process.

Obama wins trade victory in the Senate

President Obama won a big victory for his trade agenda Friday with the Senate’s approval of fast-track legislation that could make it easier for him to complete a wide-ranging trade deal that would include 11 Pacific Rim nations.

A coalition of 48 Senate Republicans and 14 Democrats voted for Trade Promotion Authority late Friday, sending the legislation to a difficult fight in the House, where it faces more entrenched opposition from Democrats.

The Senate coalition fought off several attempts by opponents to undermine the legislation, defeating amendments that were politically popular but potentially poisonous to Obama’s bid to secure the trade deal.

“This is an important bill, likely the most important bill we will pass this year. It’s important to President Obama,” Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and primary author of the bill, said at the close of debate.

TPA’s fast-track provisions would allow Congress, under strict timelines, to consider trade deals with a simple up-or-down vote without any amendments or requirements of a Senate super-majority to end debate. That would help Obama complete the final details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), with the other 11 nations, a bloc that represents about 40 percent of the global economy.

If TPA clears Congress, Obama’s negotiators will push to conclude the Pacific trade pact and then send it to Congress for final approval, possibly later this year or early next year. The legislative package also includes new funding for labor training for workers that are certified for having lost their jobs because of foreign competition.

Obama’s aggressive push for the trade agenda has upended his relationship with his long-standing allies in the labor movement, as well as anti-corporate liberal activists who strongly supported his 2008 and 2012 elections. It sparked sharp exchanges, played out in the national media, with a liberal icon, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), leading to one of Obama’s normally closest allies, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), to question whether he was being sexist for singling her out for criticism.

Unions and progressive activists have mobilized their forces against TPA for more than a year now, believing that defeating the fast-track authority would probably also kill negotiations on the Pacific trade deal.

On Friday, union leaders narrowly lost their bid for passage of an amendment designed to create strict regulation of global currency markets, offered by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), whose states have been ravaged by losses of manufacturing jobs to foreign competition.

“This amendment is simply a modest enforcement measure that would direct the administration to conduct negotiations in a manner that will push them closer to getting trade done right. We urge you to support it and oppose any language to weaken it,” William Samuel, a top lobbyist for the AFL-CIO, wrote to senators in a “legislative alert” Friday.

Portman, a former trade representative facing a difficult 2016 reelection campaign, locked arms with Democrats in a bid that was designed as a get-tough gesture toward China, which some have long accused of manipulating its currency to make its exports cheaper. “I want you to be able to tell your workers you not only disagree with currency ma­nipu­la­tion, you want to be able to do something about it,” he said during debate.

However, Treasury Department officials warned that the Portman proposal would prompt a presidential veto, because the other nations would potentially abandon the TPP talks. In the hours leading up to Portman’s vote, Obama worked the phones with wavering senators to defeat the measure, relying heavily on his usual foes — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his top lieutenants — to round up 51 votes to narrowly defeat the measure.

“President Obama will veto any TPA bill that contains this amendment. A vote for Portman-Stabenow is also a vote to kill TPP,” Hatch said just before the vote on the amendment.

In the end, 41 Republicans and 10 Democrats defeated the amendment, which was considered the last major hurdle to securing Senate passage of the legislation.

On the final roll call, five Republicans joined 32 Democrats in opposing TPA — an odd collection that ranged from Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and his top two lieutenants to staunch conservatives such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). “Congress is forgetting its duty: to improve jobs and wages for Americans,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), one of the most conservative senators, said in a statement.

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has said that the TPA bill will come up at some point in June, after his chamber returns from a 10-day break that began Thursday.

In perhaps the most unusual alliance in the debate, Obama’s trade agenda will soon rest largely in the hands of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who was the Republicans’ 2012 vice presidential nominee.

Now chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Ryan is leading the push to secure as many votes as possible from the Republican side of the aisle for Obama’s fast-track authorities on trade deals. He has been working with Boehner’s leadership team convening meetings with Republicans to educate the dozens of junior lawmakers who have never considered a trade deal like the potential Pacific Rim pact.

Just 55 members of the House were in office during the 1993 debate for the North American Free Trade Agreement, and nearly 140 lawmakers — a third of the entire House — have never voted on any trade deal before. The last trade deals, with Panama, Colombia and South Korea, were approved in October 2011.

 whembly wrote:
Lemme get this straight... he's voting in favor of a bill that he haven't read?

 whembly wrote:

No one would give a gak because most of the voting population doesn't pay attention.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
According to the guardian newspaper, June 1st onwards is the day the NSA can't legally collect data, because an extension deadline was not filed.

WASHINGTON — Ignoring the polls and pundits, former New York Gov. George Pataki plans to announce Thursday that he’s joining the crowded Republican field for president.

The three-term governor will unveil his candidacy in Exeter, N.H. — which claims the birthplace of the Republican Party — and join a group of contenders who are inching toward the 20 mark.

Skeptics abound about Pataki’s chances.

He doesn’t register on national polls and has been out of elected office for nearly a decade.

“I just don’t see where he could win,” GOP consultant Ed Rollins told The Post. “I’m not sure he could win in New York anymore.”

But Pataki says he’s undeterred by the odds.

“It will be a very stiff climb up a very steep mountain, but that hasn’t stopped me in the past,” Pataki said in an interview.

Pataki is putting most of his chips on a strong showing in New Hampshire — a state he’s visited more than any other presidential contender.

The first-in-the-nation primary is a key test for the conservative Republican field and is open to the large contingent of independent voters who could favor a moderate like Pataki, who is pro-choice and has a record of tightening gun laws and environmental protections.

“I’m a Republican following in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt who understands that conservatism isn’t just economic policy but it’s also preserving and enhancing the outdoors,” Pataki said, arguing that decisions like marriage, gun rights and education should be left up to the states.

Pataki’s super PAC has run ads in New Hampshire. He’s met with longtime donors in New York and Florida about his presidential hopes. And he got a nudge to run from the Republican county chairs in New York City last week.

Pataki believes he can succeed with retail politics and so does one supporter, Alissa Tweedie, a 35-year-old Navy veteran from New Hampshire.
“The more time the governor spends here, the better he is doing,” said Tweedie, who likes Pataki’s record on charter schools, national security and leadership.

“He meets with groups of any size without any pretenses — no scripting here. I think many have underestimated him and I think that’s just where he wants to be.”

Pataki will have an uphill climb to make the national stage. For the first GOP debate Aug. 6, Fox News will only accept the top 10 candidates based on polling — and Pataki isn’t even registering on national polls. One New Hampshire poll this month didn’t even include him as an option.

“Right now, Governor Pataki is on everyone’s list of also-rans. That’s remarkable to say about a three-term governor of New York who was a prominent part of 9/11, but it’s true,” said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

 Easy E wrote:
The Republican primary is attracting wanna-be's like crazy.

Meanwhile, on the Dems side we have Clinton and Sanders? Well, at least we might get Sanders to appear in a primary debate then!

Bill Clinton company shows complexity of family finances

WASHINGTON (AP) — The newly released financial files on Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton's growing fortune omit a company with no apparent employees or assets that the former president has legally used to provide consulting and other services, but which demonstrates the complexity of the family's finances.

Because the company, WJC, LLC, has no financial assets, Hillary Clinton's campaign was not obligated to report its existence in her recent financial disclosure report, officials with Bill Clinton's private office and the Clinton campaign said. They were responding to questions by The Associated Press, which reviewed corporate documents.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to provide private details of the former president's finances on the record, said the entity was a "pass-through" company designed to channel payments to the former president.

Under federal ethics disclosure rules, declared candidates do not have to report assets worth less than $1,000. But the company's existence demonstrates the complexity of tracking the Clintons' finances as Hillary Clinton ramps up her presidential bid.

While Bill Clinton's lucrative speeches have provided the bulk of the couple's income, earning as much as $50 million during his wife's four-year term as secretary of state in the Obama administration, the former president has also sought to branch out into other business activities in recent years. Little is known about the exact nature and financial worth of Bill Clinton's non-speech business interests.

The identities of several U.S and foreign-based companies and foundations that Bill Clinton worked for have been disclosed in Hillary Clinton's recent financial report as well as in earlier reports during her stint as secretary of state.

Under federal disclosure rules for spouses' earned income, Hillary Clinton was only obligated to identify the source of her spouse's income and confirm that he received more than $1,000. As a result, the precise amounts of Bill Clinton's earned income from consulting have not been disclosed, and it's not known how much was routed through WJC, LLC.

WJC, LLC was set up in Delaware in 2008 and again in 2013 and in New York in 2009, according to documents obtained by The AP. The company did not appear among holdings in the Clintons' financial disclosure released last week or in previous Hillary Clinton disclosure reports between 2008 and 2013, when she resigned as secretary of state. Bill Clinton signed a document as its "authorizing person" in a corporate filing in Delaware in 2013.

A limited liability company is a commonly used business structure that provides tax advantages and limited legal protection for the assets of company owners and partners.

The purpose of Bill Clinton's U.S.-based company was not disclosed in any of the corporate filings in Delaware and New York, but State Department files recently reviewed by the AP show that WJC, LLC surfaced in emails from Bill Clinton's aides to the department's ethics officials.

In February 2009, Clinton's counselor, Douglas Band, asked State Department ethics officials to clear Bill Clinton's consulting work for three companies owned by influential Democratic party donors. Memos sent by Band proposed that Bill Clinton would provide "consulting services regarding geopolitical, economic and social trends affecting the entity and philanthropic opportunities" through the WJC, LLC entity.

State Department officials approved Bill Clinton's consulting work for longtime friend Steve Bing's Shangri-La Industries and another with Wasserman Investments, GP, a firm run by entertainment executive and Democratic party donor Casey Wasserman. The ethics officials turned down Bill Clinton's proposed work with a firm run by entertainment magnate and Democratic donor Haim Saban because of Saban's active role in Mideast political affairs.

WJC, LLC was also cited by Band in a June 2011 memo sent to State Department ethics officials asking for clearance to allow Bill Clinton to advise Band's international consulting company, Teneo Strategy LLC. Band's request said Teneo would use "consulting services provided by President Clinton through WJC, LLC." State Department officials approved the three-year contract between the two companies.

None of the proposals detailed how much Bill Clinton would be paid.

While Hillary Clinton's 2011 federal disclosure report did not mention WJC, LLC, it reported that Bill Clinton received "non-employee compensation over $1,000 from Teneo," but did not disclose a more precise amount. Federal disclosure rules require the spouses of filers to disclose the identity of any income sources over $1,000, but they do not have to provide exact figures.

Pass-through, or shell, companies became an issue in the 2012 presidential campaign when Republican candidate Mitt Romney disclosed a private equity entity worth $1.9 million despite failing to report the company on his previous federal disclosure. Romney aides said the company previously held no assets but then received the $1.9 million "true up" payment — a catch-up payment to make up for private equity fees from defunct investment advisory businesses that had not been previously paid.

With news that Senator Bernie Sanders will have a more formal unveiling of his presidential campaign this afternoon, it seems like a good time to get to know the self-proclaimed socialist from Vermont.

1. He is not running against Hillary Clinton

“I’m not running against Hillary Clinton,” he said. “She’s a candidate, I’m a candidate, and I suspect that there will be other candidates. The people in this country will make their choice.” His socialist platform is “one that resonates” with the American people, and he believes he can effectively appeal to them no matter who his opponent is, or how large her war chest is. But, as he’s said, he’s engaged in “a real struggle against the billionaire class.”

2. Yes, we did say “socialist”

Twice now, actually, because not only is Senator Sanders not afraid of the word, he openly embraces it. Earlier this month, he freely admitted that he wanted to make America “more Scandinavian” — by which he meant, a democratic country with a socialist backbone when it comes to healthcare, education, and retirement. “If you see the transfer of 99 percent of the wealth to the top one-tenth of the one percent,” he’s said, “you’ve got to transfer that back.”

3. President Sanders would overturn Citizens United

“The major issue of our time is whether the United States of America retains its democratic foundation or whether we devolve into an oligarchic form of society where a handful of billionaires are able to control our political process by spending hundreds of millions of dollars to elect candidates who represent their interests,” he said last September. The best way to do that, he said, is to overturn Citizens United, because “freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to buy the United States government.”

4. Senator Sanders is about as anti-corporate a candidate you can imagine this side of Noam Chomsky

He has proposed what would, in essence, be a “Wall Street sales tax,” and his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership is based on the fact that only “[m]ultinational corporations that have outsourced millions of good-paying American jobs to China, Mexico, Vietnam, India and other low-wage countries think this is a great deal.” Whereas “every union in this country…opposes this agreement that will wipe out jobs and depress wages.”

5. And about those unions…

Senator Sanders’ top five campaign contributors since 2009 are all unions, and 69 percent of the money he receives from political action committees comes from union PACs. “I’m not going to use a super PAC,” he’s said, and the facts bear him out. He has one, but it hasn’t raised any money for his presidential bid to date.

6. He believes public education — all of it — should be free

From elementary to middle, through high school and into community college or a university, Sanders believes that education should cost the student nothing. It’s not merely a personal investment, he believes, it’s a public good — and as such should be funded by the public. “These are not utopian ideas,” he’s said. “They are not radical ideas. They are fairly commonsensical ideas that can happen when you have a government that is directed by the people themselves and not by wealthy powerful corporate interests.”

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
The Republican primary is attracting wanna-be's like crazy.

Having all these potential Republican candidates can only be a good thing.

You'd WANT to have a healthy debate of ideas.

Although, Sander's anti deorderant is... weird.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
The Republican primary is attracting wanna-be's like crazy.

Having all these potential Republican candidates can only be a good thing.

You'd WANT to have a healthy debate of ideas.

Want healthy debate, sure. But will it be? They're all ultimately trying to get the nomination of the same party, so I fear it may very much be an echo chamber (just using different words) and a contest of who has the best hair and whose book is being published that month.

 whembly wrote:

Sanders... possibly the only candidate that's to the left of Clinton... so much so, that she'd appear very centrist compared to Sanders.

 whembly wrote:

Having all these potential Republican candidates can only be a good thing.

You'd WANT to have a healthy debate of ideas.

 whembly wrote:

Sanders... possibly the only candidate that's to the left of Clinton... so much so, that she'd appear very centrist compared to Sanders.

 Easy E wrote:
The Republican primary is attracting wanna-be's like crazy.

Meanwhile, on the Dems side we have Clinton and Sanders? Well, at least we might get Sanders to appear in a primary debate then!

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Having all these potential Republican candidates can only be a good thing.

You'd WANT to have a healthy debate of ideas.

Which you will never get in a Presidential primary. The only way numerous candidates can benefit a Party is if the minor, throwaway candidates mobilize select groups of people and push them to a candidate that actually has a chance of winning the Primary and the General. This can be a very effective strategy, but it is also one which is very difficult to pull off.

 whembly wrote:

Sanders... possibly the only candidate that's to the left of Clinton... so much so, that she'd appear very centrist compared to Sanders.

I suppose if you compare Hillary to the majority of the current crop of Republicans she is quite far to the left, but that has more to do with the GOP swinging to the right than Hillary being particularly leftist.

They voted the same way 93 percent of the time in the two years they shared in the Senate.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
The Republican primary is attracting wanna-be's like crazy.

Meanwhile, on the Dems side we have Clinton and Sanders? Well, at least we might get Sanders to appear in a primary debate then!

Is it bad that I thought Pataki was a Democrat?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Slightly OT, and there is another thread on this,

BUT

Remind me to NEVER EVER mess with the USA

The FBI have arrested a dozen FIFA officials on corruption and bribery charges (FIFA is the group responsible for overseeing international soccer)

I watched a press conference with the head of the FBI, the head of the Justice department, the head of the IRS, the attorney general of the USA, and I swear I saw a 4 star Marine general in there as well The USA declared war on FIFA

I was genuinely frightened of American awesomeness

I also learned that an incriminating email passing through a server in the USA is enough to have the justice department come after you, even if you've never been to the USA.

So yeah, don't mess with America. God bless Obama, Reagan, guns. Please don't come after me

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The FBI have arrested a dozen FIFA officials on corruption and bribery charges (FIFA is the group responsible for overseeing international soccer)

 whembly wrote:

That's what the politician say...

 whembly wrote:

Juiciest part:

They voted the same way 93 percent of the time in the two years they shared in the Senate.

If Sanders a hard-core socialist lefty, then Clinton ain't too far behind.

Derek Willis wrote:
The 31 times that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders disagreed happened to be on some the biggest issues of the day, including measures on continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an immigration reform bill and bank bailouts during the depths of the Great Recession.

 whembly wrote:
Maybe those differences (that 7%) are for quid pro quo for her allies donating to her foundations....

 whembly wrote:

THe point is... since it's so eff'n high dogma, the comparison warrants closer inspection... no?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Maybe those differences (that 7%) are for quid pro quo for her allies donating to her foundations....

I actually suspect the similarity in voting behavior had more to do with Sanders trying to remain in the good graces of the Democrats.

 whembly wrote:

Socialist bills... as in what?

 whembly wrote:

Sanders liberal/lefty tendencies gravitate/support certain bills. As does Clinton's... as does all Congressional-critters.

 whembly wrote:

He got 20% of the votes in the primary last time... I can't seem him competitive this time around.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Maybe this belongs on the FIFA thread, but I'm glad the USA is taking a stand on the FIFA corruption allegations.

I love football, and it's been frustrating to see the game I love dragged into the gutter for years on end. And nobody seemed willing, or bothered to do anything about it.

Yes, I'm critical of the USA on many issues, but well done America for shining the light of the law on this nest of vipers.

I would like to say to American dakka members, thank you. Your hard earned tax money is getting spent on a noble cause

Seriously, thank you.

Still can't believe the Clintons may be caught up in this, though.