Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Eh, I still believe that it probably doesn't really matter who it is, just that it isn't the kind of thing a lot of people care about to begin with.

After all, the whole OPM thing has largely been forgotten by the masses, and that was a tangible disaster that only barely made the top headlines for a little while before the latest celebrity breakup/hookup took over.

As far as why she isn't charged already compared to "rank and file officials"? Tinfoil-Hat-Conspiracy-Idea: The Republicans secretly want to drag it out as long as they can so they can produce the real "Gotcha!" at the height of her campaign shortly before the election.

The sad part is, the state of our politics is such that that idea may actually be possible.

I don't think it's tinfoil territory at all... they're still dragging their feet on the Benghazi Committee.

I mean, Patreus got ding'ed for sharing classified info...

In other news, Cruz just attacked his own party on the Senate floor, basically saying:

the majority does get things done, but it listens to one and only one voice: That is, the voice of the Washington cartel, of the lobbyists on K Street, of the big money and big corporations.

He's not wrong... but man... he's burning some bridges there...

No, Cruz isn't wrong, but he is the pot calling the kettle black. He just got $15 million from some billionaires, he's been bragging about being the better candidate because he's raised more money than others, and he certainly made good to his cable company contributors when he spouted off against net neutrality. I would love to see his NASCAR sponsor suit.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
No, Cruz isn't wrong, but he is the pot calling the kettle black. He just got $15 million from some billionaires, he's been bragging about being the better candidate because he's raised more money than others, and he certainly made good to his cable company contributors when he spouted off against net neutrality. I would love to see his NASCAR sponsor suit.

Indeed... just a curious tactic that's all.

I mean, the only thing I can think of is that when the inevitable Trumpmania dies down... Cruz is trying to line himself up as a replacement for trump voters.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
No, Cruz isn't wrong, but he is the pot calling the kettle black. He just got $15 million from some billionaires, he's been bragging about being the better candidate because he's raised more money than others, and he certainly made good to his cable company contributors when he spouted off against net neutrality. I would love to see his NASCAR sponsor suit.

See. That's one of the things I like about Trump
Besides entertainment and not a politician
He owes no one any favors from donations

@Whembly Oh yeah, no doubt about that. When Trump mouthed off about McCain not being a hero, Cruz very conspicuously did not attack Trump himself, just Trump's comment He's definitely hoping to get Trump's endorsement when/if the time comes.

Which is one more reason I have no faith/trust in Cruz. I would prefer a politician with the moral strength to reject Trump's endorsement. That's one reason why I like Perry after his attack on Trump.

Yeah... I'm a Perry fan, but I'm not convinced he can overcome his "oops" moment.

 whembly wrote:
Yeah... I'm a Perry fan, but I'm not convinced he can overcome his "oops" moment.

One would think the more serious issue for that particular candidate would be attempting to run a presidential campaign while under criminal indictment for felony corruption charges

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Yeah... I'm a Perry fan, but I'm not convinced he can overcome his "oops" moment.

One would think the more serious issue for that particular candidate would be attempting to run a presidential campaign while under criminal indictment for felony corruption charges

Sure... if you buy that this doesn't mean anything:






Let's not forget that the DA prosecuted Perry for threatening to veto funding while a disgraced DA remained in charge of the county’s public integrity unit. He did veto funding for the office, an act allowed under the Texas constitution.

Text book definition of prosecuturial abuse.

Your talking about that hammered Democrat who tried to use her position to get out of a DUI/DWI while being process into lockup? The one who's in charge of a Corruption Task Force or something to that effect?

Edit

by Whembly
Still recovering from Cooper/Crue concert

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Yeah... I'm a Perry fan, but I'm not convinced he can overcome his "oops" moment.

One would think the more serious issue for that particular candidate would be attempting to run a presidential campaign while under criminal indictment for felony corruption charges

Sure... if you buy that this doesn't mean anything:
VIDEOS

Let's not forget that the DA prosecuted Perry for threatening to veto funding while a disgraced DA remained in charge of the county’s public integrity unit. He did veto funding for the office, an act allowed under the Texas constitution.

Text book definition of prosecuturial abuse.

I'm not commenting on the charges themselves, only that he's under indictment, and, no matter what the facts are, that's an awkward thing to wrestle with when running for President that is likely going to be an insurmountable issue later in the campaigning season if the final charge is not dropped. Even if he's totally innocent, that sort of a cloud is basically impossible to move out from under once he's out of his home base.

That said, you'll have to excuse me if I find videos directly from his campaign, and a country music station, to be somewhat...biased sources of information on the matter.

As I understand it, and I could be wrong, the issue isn't that Perry didn't have the authority to veto the funding, but that he did so as a means of coercion. Hell yes that DA should have been kicked out, I just think it could have been done a better way. How many other people wee going to lose their jobs without that funding, just because the DA fethed up?

Think he did it under a "Line Item Veto" way

The issue isn't that he used the line-item veto, but that he used it to coerce another branch of government and when they did not kowtow to his dictates, he did so punitively.

The fact that someone else also acted poorly doesn't somehow negate that this is, under Texas law, a felony.

As an analogy, if I have an employee that works for me, and it's at-will state, I can fire someone for any non-discriminatory reason I want, or no reason at all. But I can't tell an employee to have sex with me or I'll fire them, and then fire them if they don't. You see how harping on the fact that one of his actions was lawful while disregarding the unlawful basis for that action is a little intellectually dishonest? "Yeah, but it's not illegal to eat candy" while glossing over the candy was shoplifted, to use another analogy.

The charges are pretty weak, but clearly not so weak that an appellate court was willing to dismiss them. I think he'll beat the charge. I don't think it's going to impact his presidential race, because, come on, he's Rick Perry. It's like me being worried about whether or not Katy Perry liking my sex moves when we hook up - it's never, ever going to happen, so it probably doesn't matter.

The real issue is, in my opinion, that Texas has a line-item veto, which is I think a poor practice. I feel like it usurps too far into the powers of the legislature and lends itself to exactly the kinds of shenanigans you see here. But, you know, the voters in Texas seem OK with it, so it's their call.

Does not the POTUS has that power to?

 Jihadin wrote:
Does not the POTUS has that power to?

I want to say that it was struck down as unconstitutional at some point. I know he doesn't have it, but I honestly don't know why from the top of my head to be honest.

 d-usa wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Does not the POTUS has that power to?

I want to say that it was struck down as unconstitutional at some point. I know he doesn't have it, but I honestly don't know why from the top of my head to be honest.

Bill Clinton had it for a bit...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996

Just read up about the line item veto. Regardless of the merits of the actual case, that's the sort of bipartisanship we need. Dole and McCain law, Clintn signed it, Bryd challenged it. 6-3 Supreme Court ruling. Man, those were the good old days when stuff was judged on the merits.

 d-usa wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Does not the POTUS has that power to?

I want to say that it was struck down as unconstitutional at some point. I know he doesn't have it, but I honestly don't know why from the top of my head to be honest.

Start bailing we're in the same damn boat and we hear banjo music

 CptJake wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:
This election, and the next administration is for ONE THING and one thing only:

• Control of the Supreme Court.

Whoever controls the White House in 2016 - 2024 will likely control it for the remainder of the Century (or most of it), due to the Justices they appoint.

That is one reason to like Hillary, regardless of anything else you think about her, is that Justices she appoints will undo EVERYTHING the Roberts' Court has done, and it will undo the Gerrymandering which currently keeps the GOP in power in Congress.

MB

So you are not a fan of the ACA? I thought your life absolutely depended on the ACA. Does that make you suicidal?

Yes.

In fact it does make me suicidal (among other things).

If I was capable of killing myself with a morphine overdose, I would have already done so (I get around 2400mg of Morphine a month - but it is in pills that do not lend themselves to being "cooked" to inject, or I would already be dead).

Why do you ask?

Odds are likely that the ACA will be replaced with something that does not cause doctors to become utter imbeciles WRT insurance options. I doubt seriously that the ACA is in any danger, unless it comes in the form of a Single-Payer replacement in the 20s (the earliest that the GOP's gerrymandering of key states giving them an artificial majority can be undone).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
o.0

How the hell are you people considering Hillary winning the national election? Or are you guys only paying attention to the mainstream media, who have a blackout on Sanders, and not the local outlets that are actually following him around?

This dude is pulling huge crowds everywhere he goes. 11k in Phoenix. 8k in Dallas. Over 5k in Houston. More importantly? His speeches are resonating with working-class voters in conservative states. You want to talk about a guy who's reaching across the aisle and building bridges in the voting populace? Sanders is that guy.

"Dude is pulling huge crowds" of people who are already Far Left, for the most part.

His polling among the vital "Undecideds" is tepid in states like Wisconsin, to non-existent in Ohio and Pennsylvania, where the undecidededs will not vote for someone who answers the question "Are you a socialist?" with an emphatic "YES!"

Which is sad, because I would love to see him as President, if we had the necessary foundations in place to implement his policies.

But, alas, he is roughly 4 to 8 years too early. which is tremendously frustrating.

Most of the issues with Hillary, though, I find to be overblown, and based upon as much biased, manufactured outrage as exists on the right.

She remains one of the most qualified and capable politicians alive, and has more experience in dealing with the White House than any other candidate running on either side.

I am pretty sure, though, that Bernie Sanders will wind up in her administration. He could wind up her VP, or he could go for a Cabinet Position (although I can't quite figure out what he would be interested in doing in the cabinet).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Unless Colin Powell runs then Trump S.O.L.

I'm pretty liberal (my vote is with Sanders so far), and I'd seriously consider Powell. More to the point, if Powell decided to run, it's hard for me to imagine that any contender from either party could beat him, either in the Primaries or the general election.

Powell will not run for the GOP.

If you have been reading his latest works, he has abandoned the GOP over their decline into insanity.

But I would be ALL OVER A Powell Candidacy.... He is very much the pragmatist's pragmatist.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Eeesshhhhh
Might as well blame Reagan, Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, Carter, Obama

Sure, blame all of them if you want. But don't then claim a high moral ground that Iran is horrible because they sometimes talk about wanting to destroy another country.

I take it you have on excellent knowledge that Iran will not try to nuke Israel?

Are they going to carry the nuke to Israel in a truck?

They have no delivery systems.

And I doubt Russia (and the Chinese certainly aren't) is going to give them any capable of throwing an atomic bomb.

There will be certain events that take place that let us know if Iran ever assembles a working nuclear weapon.

When that happens, it is unlikely that Israel would wait for the USA for permission to do anything, and would likely act themselves (putting us in the position of having to either abandon them, or support them - and we will support them).

We have a pretty good idea of a time-table for their ability to assemble a bomb, and how to track key technologies that could be reverse-engineered to create parts for a bomb (and how long it would take).

So it is a little bit of a gamble once we reach the end of that time-table, but if they assembled a bomb (and then tried to deploy it without testing it), we would probably be able to detect it long before it got anywhere (especially if they put it in a vehicle capable of any speed, where shielding the fissiles enough to halt neutron detection would not be possible).

And if they are stupid enough to test one, then we would know INSTANTLY they had a bomb (so would Israel)... and we are back to Israel acting pre-emptively.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
After sitting through that Senate hearing yesterday, I forgot to post my take on the whole thing, and this won't come as a surprise to Americans on dakka, but that hearing was a disgrace.

No wonder people on this forum are depressed at the prospect of next year's Presidential campaign, because yesterday's hearing was partisan politics at its worst.

The Republican response to the deal can be summed up as this: Democrats bad. Iran very very bad.

When it was pointed out that GW Bush offered Iran a similar deal, their response was democrats bad.

When the Republicans were asked what they would have done differently, they were silent for a while, and then it was Democrats bad.

Rubio's grandstanding was nauseating at the best of times. Yes, we know you're running for president. And the other Republican senators weren't much better.

To be fair, Democrat Senators were equally as clueless.

I actually thought Kerry and his team argued their case quite well, and after reading some of the detail of the deal, IMO it's not a bad deal.

But God almighty, it's just as well most of America doesn't watch these hearings because you would see another American revolution.

The sad thing is, this circus will repeat itself on Tuesday when Kerry goes before Congress.

American dakka members, I've said this before, and I acknowledge that British politicians are equally as bad, but if that's the calibre of politicians that the USA is producing, then I genuinely fear for your country. I would not let these people run a hotdog stand, never mind a global superpower.

Having lived in England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Pakistan, Egypt, Israel, Kenya, South Africa, Afghanistan, Mexico, Honduras, Columbia, Venezuela, and Canada (I can't recall if I actually lived in Australia, India, or several other European Countries... GREECE! I lived in Greece for about six months, and went back a few times), and been an avid consumer of politics....

The USA's politicians (especially on the right) are right now behaving worse than most of the developing world I have seen.

The history of how they got to this point is equally interesting. And we are poisoning the rest of the world with our toxic partisan politics, as other "allies" of the USA take our political behavior as a sign that they can behave just as stupidly (Korea and Japan have both seen neo-reactionary movements arise in their countries since 2000 that are directly related to the shift rightward we took after Bush's "Election" in 2000 - among others).

Since 1995 there has been a growing rejection of expertise in the USA, where people have resorted to a Post-Modernistic Rejection of "Facts" in favor of "beliefs," "values," or "opinion."

Yet, those things can all be completely wrong no matter how strongly one "believes" they are right.

MB

 d-usa wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Does not the POTUS has that power to?

I want to say that it was struck down as unconstitutional at some point. I know he doesn't have it, but I honestly don't know why from the top of my head to be honest.

It was, and I think that was the right call. I understand that sometimes the legislature has to put on their big boy pants and actually do their jobs, and that doesn't make them happy, but I don't think the answer is essentially abdicating their responsibilities. It gives too much power to the executive.

I think it could work on the most local of levels - townships or small cities, but anything larger that that scale is I think an invitation to bad governance.

 whembly wrote:

She and her staff took classified material provided by the intelligence community and dropped it into unsecured communications... which is a violation of the law, and a potential disaster for national security.

In a letter to members of Congress on Thursday, the inspector general of the intelligence community concluded that Mrs. Clinton’s email contains material from the intelligence community that should have been considered “secret”—the second-highest level of classification—at the time it was sent.

Simply because something should have been considered "secret" does not indicate that it was at the time, as the State Department appears to be arguing.

 whembly wrote:

Rank and File officials would be charged already.

That's not necessarily true. The case against Hillary, as presented, is not a strong one. A rank-and-file official may have resigned by now, but it isn't certain they would have been charged with anything.

Your hate-on for Clinton is clouding your judgment.

^^!!Yep!!^^

MB

Congress hearing tomorrow on Iran. I don't know if I can put myself through that again after last week's Senate hearing.

But like watching a slow motion car-crash, you find yourself drawn in...

House of Rep congresscritters are generally worse than even senate congresscritters. The Reps have to try to be re-elected every couple of years so they tend to try even harder to score points. If you watch you'll surely be entertained.

And because there are so many more of them compared to the Senate, they have to try even harder to outdo each other in attention whoring.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
And because there are so many more of them compared to the Senate, they have to try even harder to outdo each other in attention whoring.

I don't know...

I don't blame Cruz's attention whoring here. After what transpired last weekend... that's exhibit 'A' as to why typical GOP voters hate the current GOP leadership.

It's no wonder why Trump is appealing to some folks... (even though he's so far away from a typical republican).

To be fair, the crazy vote isn't usually catered for so Trump will have some people supporting him.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
To be fair, the crazy vote isn't usually catered for so Trump will have some people supporting him.

It's not 'the crazies'...

It's just that the current GOP leadership/direction isn't popular within their own voters.

I think Cruz hit's the mark when he said there's no really Republican / Democrat parties with respect to the whole lobbying-to-funding activities. It's truly a "#WashintonCartel".

Frankly, I've yet to be convinced that Ex-Im bills is a good thing... heck, I think it's blatant corporate cronyism there. But, alas, the general election voters won't care about it. *shrug*

Well, only crazies would vote for Trump so I would say it is the crazies.

I typically HATE The Huffington Post.

But this article was too funny, and made me think that Trump really could be playing a Nigerian 419 Scam:


Is Donald Trump Pulling a Nigerian 419 Scam?

MB