Dreadwinter wrote:
You laughed off an endorsement I posted for what reason then? You also claimed I did not read what you had previously written. fething don't do that.

 motyak wrote:
Why don't you two both just step back from your keyboards, have a breath, and stop with the he said/he said/snarky repetition of how the other one said something/etc etc. Just leave it, go back to being politely engaged with this topic.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Are there similar rules to being VP as to being POTUS??


By this I naturally mean, could Rubio choose the Governator as his VP??

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

President Barack Obama is about to unveil an ambitious plan for a “21st century clean transportation system.” And he hopes to fund it with a tax on oil.

Obama aides told POLITICO that when he releases his final budget request next week, the president will propose more than $300 billion worth of investments over the next decade in mass transit, high-speed rail, self-driving cars, and other transportation approaches designed to reduce carbon emissions and congestion. To pay for it all, Obama will call for a $10 “fee” on every barrel of oil, a surcharge that would be paid by oil companies but would presumably be passed along to consumers.

There is no real chance that the Republican-controlled Congress will embrace Obama’s grand vision of climate-friendly mobility in an election year—especially after passing a long-stalled bipartisan highway bill just last year—and his aides acknowledge it’s mostly an effort to jump-start a conversation about the future of transportation. But by raising the specter of new taxes on fossil fuels, it could create a political quandary for Democrats. The fee could add as much as 25 cents a gallon to the cost of gasoline, and even with petroleum prices at historic lows, the proposal could be particularly awkward for Hillary Clinton, who has embraced most of Obama’s policies but has also vowed to oppose any tax hikes on families earning less than $250,000 a year.

During Obama’s first year in office, he was so concerned about the politics of taxes that he scuttled a Democratic transportation bill just to avoid a debate over a gasoline-tax hike. Now in his last year in office, he seems to be actively courting a similar debate. A White House memo outlining his plan suggested that its $10-a-barrel fee would not only be necessary to pay for his sustainable transportation dreams, but would do some good on its own by increasing fossil-fuel prices and creating “a clear incentive for private-sector innovation to reduce our reliance on oil and invest in clean-energy technologies that will power our future.”

Two senior administration officials authorized to discuss the plan described it as a sharp departure from unsustainable asphalt-driven Washington policies that date back to President Eisenhower’s creation of the interstate highway system, as well as an aspirational next step for a climate-conscious president who has already ratcheted up fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks, doled out unprecedented green energy subsidies, cracked down on carbon pollution from power plants, and pushed through a global climate deal in Paris. They said that transportation accounts for 30 percent of U.S. emissions, and that Obama’s plan would boost spending on green transportation infrastructure by about 50 percent. They also argued that the U.S. transportation system, long the envy of the world, has become an economic drag that imposes $160 billion in hidden taxes on businesses and commuters while stranding Americans in traffic for 7 billion hours every year.

Former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell, who was briefed about the plan in his role as co-chair of the pro-infrastructure group Building America’s Future, called it the boldest transportation blueprint since Eisenhower envisioned the interstates.

“Since then we’ve just been bumping along, doing short-term fixes, and I give them a lot of credit for laying out this kind of long-term investment,” said Rendell, a Democrat who has been a frequent Obama critic. “I also give them credit for having the guts to say how they would pay for it all. That’s very unusual in this area.”

The biggest chunk of Obama’s proposed new spending, about $20 billion a year—roughly equivalent to the EPA and Interior Department budgets combined—would go to “enhanced transportation options,” especially alternatives to driving and flying. That would include subways, buses, light rail, freight rail modernization projects, and a major expansion of the high-speed rail initiative that Obama launched in his 2009 stimulus bill. It would also include a 150 percent increase for a more popular stimulus program known as TIGER, which provides competitive grants for multi-modal transportation projects with measurable economic and environmental benefits.

Obama’s plan will also include about $10 billion a year to encourage local, regional and state governments to plan and build smarter infrastructure projects, including incentives to reduce carbon emissions through land-use planning, public transit, electric-vehicle charging, and other strategies. There would be a Climate Smart Fund to reward states that make greener choices with existing federal dollars, as well as competitive grant programs to promote region-wide planning, more livable cities, and infrastructure projects with greater resilience to climate impacts.

Finally, Obama will call for more than $2 billion in annual investments in clean transportation research and development, including efforts to deploy self-driving cars, charging stations for electric vehicles, greener airplanes, and other climate-friendly technologies. The thinking is that traditional transportation bills—including the five-year, $305 billion FAST Act that Obama signed in December after 36 consecutive short-term patches—basically pour federal dollars into band-aids for a decrepit system. The White House memo envisions a new approach that would develop a “more integrated, sophisticated and sustainable transportation sector,” financing forward-looking projects like rapid bus lines under development in Indianapolis and Richmond, or a massive transit expansion in Denver.

“We’re still living in a vision that was great for its time, but not for this time,” one senior administration official said. “This is a new vision. We’re realistic about the near-term prospects in Congress, but we think this can change the debate.”

Those near-term prospects are basically nil; Obama’s entire budget request is expected to be dead on arrival on GOP-controlled Capitol Hill. And Obama’s call for a barrel fee reminiscent of the gasoline taxes and carbon taxes that are anathema to so many Republicans would be especially dead on arrival, even though it would be phased in over five years, and would include relief for low-income families and Northeastern households that transition away from heating oil. Most politicians love infrastructure spending, but most politicians, especially Republican politicians, do not love raising taxes to pay for that spending. The FAST Act, for example, was mostly paid for with budgetary gimmicks, to the extent it was paid for at all. The Obama plan also floats the notion of using revenues from corporate tax reform to help pay the tab, but the headline proposal is the $10-a-barrel fee.

Even Rendell, a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton, declined to speculate whether she would embrace Obama’s plan. But he noted that Ronald Reagan—“a very wise man”—supported gas tax hikes. Eventually, he said, America will have to decide whether it wants to drag its transportation system into the 21st century.

“Obviously, it’s tough sledding this year,” he said. “But this is a great blueprint to hand the next administration, no matter whose administration it is.”

 d-usa wrote:
TIL that oil companies hate the poor and the middle class.

 whembly wrote:
Why does Obama hate the poor?

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Why does Obama hate the poor?

Well, it's not just the poor, per se. He pretty much hates all Americans, along our freedoms, white culture, and Jesus. Not in that order.

 Ouze wrote:
No it won't, but only because it won't pass. My opposition to this is less because of what it does, and more because I wish legislators wouldn't work on things they know perfectly fething well won't go anywhere, like trying to repeal the ACA or what have you, over and over again so they can make some stupid point that we all already know.

Going on to the specific proposal, there are some elements of it that bother me more than others. 25 cents per gallon seems a bit excessive, and self-driving cars are something I'm not sure the government should be developing - I'm pretty sure that the market already is there for such a thing to the point private development is proceeding apace. I'd really prefer government backed development to be into things that are both really useful to society as well as being hard to fund otherwise, such as relatively unprofitable flu vaccines.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I wouldn't have a problem with nuclear energy, it's use the byproduct I'm not a fan of. If we could somehow just shoot it off into space, I would be all for it. Until a rocket blew up and scattered radioactive waste all over Florida...wait, I'm all for it.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

I feel bad for my fellow millenials.

 Ouze wrote:
No it won't, but only because it won't pass. My opposition to this is less because of what it does, and more because I wish legislators wouldn't work on things they know perfectly fething well won't go anywhere, like trying to repeal the ACA or what have you, over and over again so they can make some stupid point that we all already know.

Going on to the specific proposal, there are some elements of it that bother me more than others. 25 cents per gallon seems a bit excessive, and self-driving cars are something I'm not sure the government should be developing - I'm pretty sure that the market already is there for such a thing to the point private development is proceeding apace. I'd really prefer government backed development to be into things that are both really useful to society as well as being hard to fund otherwise, such as relatively unprofitable flu vaccines.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

I feel bad for my fellow millenials.

Honestly, I don't. Granted, I'm in school currently, surrounded by these kids on a near daily basis. Personally, I prefer to look at things the optimistic way: if they are actually involved NOW, at 18-24 age ranges, when it's been historically true that 18-35 y/o typically aren't very involved, that should lead to more future involvement, and I can remain hopeful and optimistic that even if my preferred candidate, Sanders, doesn't get elected, that the change he's been preaching about will still come because the political will is still there.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I wouldn't have a problem with nuclear energy, it's use the byproduct I'm not a fan of. If we could somehow just shoot it off into space, I would be all for it. Until a rocket blew up and scattered radioactive waste all over Florida...wait, I'm all for it.

Clinton email scandal: Why it might be time for Democrats to draft Joe Biden

The Hillary Clinton email issue is developing into a real whodunit, complete with Clintonesque legal semantics. “I never sent or received any material marked classified,” she said with respect to the discovery of classified information on her private, unclassified email server. That surface denial nearly rivals Bill Clinton’s classic: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

But this is no laughing matter.

There is nothing trivial about a secretary of state having top-secret information on an unsecured computer in her home. That appears to have been the case, based on the State Department’s announcement last week that 22 emails, across seven email chains, containing top-secret information were on Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

At issue is whether the information in the emails was classified when it was sent to her unsecured server. It was, after all, the State Department, upon review of the content by intelligence agencies, that upgraded the emails to top-secret and ordered them withheld from the public.

Now, it may well be that some of Clinton’s political opponents are out to derail her presidential campaign and are using the email controversy to do so. Or it could be the case, as Clinton’s supporters claim, that intergovernmental infighting over what is and isn’t classified is driving this investigation.

The important nonpolitical question: Did the nation’s top diplomat or her State Department staff improperly handle extremely sensitive, top-secret information and do so in a manner in which the information could be compromised?

State Department rules are quite clear.

Top-secret information must not be placed on any unclassified systems. It must be accounted for and controlled. And no copy of a top-secret document can be made without the permission of the office or agency in which it originated.

In addition, any State Department employee who causes the compromise of top-secret information or makes a copy of a top-secret document or any portion of it without the originator’s permission is subject to administrative action.

There are also limited ways in which top-secret information can be transmitted. Sending top-secret information via a private, unsecured email server is not one of them. Transmitting top-secret information with the classification removed is also forbidden.

That makes it critical to establish whether Clinton’s private server contained information that was classified at the time it was sent or received.

Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said , “She was at worst a passive recipient of unwitting information that subsequently became deemed as classified.” In other words, Clinton is an innocent victim of bureaucratic infighting. If so, how did it happen?

That’s what makes this a Washington whodunit.

Someone inside the State Department transmitted the information to Clinton’s personal email account through a private server. That employee — or employees, as the case may be — knows or should know whether the material was drawn from, was based on or included top-secret information.

Given that the information on the server has been upgraded to top-secret, another fear arises: Have unauthorized individuals, even foreign governments, gained access to highly classified information, to the detriment of the United States?

It’s not as though clandestine attempts to penetrate government agencies have not been made.

In fall 2014, the State Department shut down and shored up its unclassified email system after detecting a possible hacker attack. A hacker also attacked the White House’s unclassified computer system around the same time.

Last year, Iranian hackers broke into the email and social media accounts of State Department officials who focused on Iran and the Middle East, according to the New York Times.

In July, The Post reported that hackers who attacked the Office of Personnel Management got the personnel and security files of at least 22 million people, including federal employees and contractors, as well as their families and friends.

The U.S. Postal Service was hacked in 2014. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s computer system was compromised the same year.

The nongovernment personal accounts of CIA Director John Brennan and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson reportedly have been hacked.

It’s chilling to think of what a breach of Clinton’s email account might mean to national security.

Presidential election year or not, the Clinton email issue must be resolved. Just a thought: As a precaution, the manager in the White House dugout might consider telling the bullpen to start warming up Joe Biden.

 whembly wrote:
Oh my!

Now, it may well be that some of Clinton’s political opponents are out to derail her presidential campaign and are using the email controversy to do so. Or it could be the case, as Clinton’s supporters claim, that intergovernmental infighting over what is and isn’t classified is driving this investigation.

 whembly wrote:

There is nothing trivial about a secretary of state having top-secret information on an unsecured computer in her home.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
At this point, it might not matter if Hillary straight up knifed some guy. Sure, the right wing media would howl and screech about it like they do about every BM she takes or booger she flicks. Everyone else will just roll their eyes and dismiss it as the Republicans crying wolf.

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:

There is nothing trivial about a secretary of state having top-secret information on an unsecured computer in her home.

It is completely trivial. That's why no one cares.