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.
I don't think she can run if there's a Federal Charge leveled against her. As in she has to get it resolved quickly
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
They're letting all the fire burn out slowly, but in the end we'll know that DoS systems were never safe, other employees did this and worse, her system was at least if not more secure as the DoS ones, and the Evil Republicans that waste a gak ton of tax payer dollars in long drawn out investigations which will turn up nothing of significance will look more foolish than usual.
And among Dems, even now, she is polling decently. She is ahead of even Walker in Wisconsin. She has time, and she'll be fine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: I don't think she can run if there's a Federal Charge leveled against her. As in she has to get it resolved quickly
No one will charge her. The DoJ will wait for the results of any investigation, and there will never be enough found to charge her.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/13 00:20:01
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
CptJake wrote: Just out of curiosity, why do you see the need to go off on an anti-R diatribe under the guise of agreeing with my point (which was correcting an incorrect statement by another poster)?
Because your statement was factually correct, but lacked the context that showed it to be irrelevant. The final deal was written up without any compromise being given to the Republicans, but this is not because Democrats wanted to go alone on the deal, but because Republicans had made it clear they were never going to be part of producing a healthcare reform bill.
Pelosi never had any intention of offering compromise to the Rs on the ACA. She had no reason to do so as she had the numbers and was very effective at whipping her side.
The basic realities of how politics works make your claim nonsense. Point 1) Healthcare is just a sinkhole, it always costs way more than voters like to think it does, and no-one enjoys going to the doctor. Even the most amazing reform will cost you at the ballot. Point 2) Any politician committed to healthcare reform is going to want to minimise the political hit from that reform. This means bringing the other side of politics in, making the issue bi-partisan and reducing the political circus on this issue as much as possible. Point 3) The other side of politics is going to reject that offer, because they will want to make the healthcare reformers take the political hit all by themselves. So instead they will look to oppose the legislation, and make it as much of a political circus as possible. Point 4) No-one will ever admit that their political strategy was purely destructive. So when all is done and dusted, of course the opposition will pretend they were just trying to be part of a constructive debate on the issue.
Of course she can also lay claim to making Blue Dog Democrats an extinct sort of congress critter. Her holding them to the fire on the ACA killed them off.
Nah, that’s just the Democrats steadily following the Republicans down the path of increasing partisanship.
You do realize no one is making anything close to a legitimate claim the fines are excessive, right.
If the argument was ‘the fines aren’t excessive’ then you’d have a point. But the argument made was ‘don’t worry about excessive fines, just don’t break the law’… and so you have no point.
You said that exact fething thing. You noted the Republicans pulled a stunt, and concluded it was a symptom of both sides. I described this as “when the Republicans pull these kinds of stunts, some people will conclude 'both sides' every time.”
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/13 01:48:06
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
CptJake wrote: Just out of curiosity, why do you see the need to go off on an anti-R diatribe under the guise of agreeing with my point (which was correcting an incorrect statement by another poster)?
Because your statement was factually correct, but lacked the context that showed it to be irrelevant. The final deal was written up without any compromise being given to the Republicans, but this is not because Democrats wanted to go alone on the deal, but because Republicans had made it clear they were never going to be part of producing a healthcare reform bill.
Pelosi never had any intention of offering compromise to the Rs on the ACA. She had no reason to do so as she had the numbers and was very effective at whipping her side.
The basic realities of how politics works make your claim nonsense. Point 1) Healthcare is just a sinkhole, it always costs way more than voters like to think it does, and no-one enjoys going to the doctor. Even the most amazing reform will cost you at the ballot. Point 2) Any politician committed to healthcare reform is going to want to minimise the political hit from that reform. This means bringing the other side of politics in, making the issue bi-partisan and reducing the political circus on this issue as much as possible. Point 3) The other side of politics is going to reject that offer, because they will want to make the healthcare reformers take the political hit all by themselves. So instead they will look to oppose the legislation, and make it as much of a political circus as possible. Point 4) No-one will ever admit that their political strategy was purely destructive. So when all is done and dusted, of course the opposition will pretend they were just trying to be part of a constructive debate on the issue.
Of course she can also lay claim to making Blue Dog Democrats an extinct sort of congress critter. Her holding them to the fire on the ACA killed them off.
Nah, that’s just the Democrats steadily following the Republicans down the path of increasing partisanship.
You do realize no one is making anything close to a legitimate claim the fines are excessive, right.
If the argument was ‘the fines aren’t excessive’ then you’d have a point. But the argument made was ‘don’t worry about excessive fines, just don’t break the law’… and so you have no point.
You are amazingly wrong. Pelosi did have the numbers, and the compromises were not put in for Rs, they were put in for the Blue Dogs and other Ds in 'red' districts. You admit this, but then try to argue Pelosi did want to work with the Rs, but they had no intention of passing health care. Do you not understand she knew this, and as I stated, also knew she had the numbers and could whip the votes, and therefore never had the need to give an honest attempt at compromise with the Rs? And it did kill off the blue dog Ds. You can call that 'Democrats steadily following the Republicans down the path of increasing partisanship' if you want, the actual reality is the blue dog dems got HAMMERED in the following elections, and not by more progressive leaning Ds.
As for the fines, I do indeed have a point. You tried to make it an VIIIth amendment issue.
"Hey, that constitutional amendment you're working up, that puts limits on governments ability to mete out punishment, you should put something in there banning excessive fines." "Nah, if people are worried about excessive fines then they just shouldn't break the law in the first place. Best way to prevent a speeding fine costing you your home and life savings isn't with some civil protection, but by just not speeding." "Good point, leave it out then. Good thing we're not the USA, those idiots amended their constitution to prohibit 'excessive fines', they mustn't have thought of that people should just never, ever do anything wrong." "What a bunch of idiots those guys must have been."
And you wrote that in reply to: "Isn't the simple solution to, you know, not break the traffic laws in the first place?" which does not mention a damned thing about excessive fines.
You are the one who brought up excessive fines and tied it to the VIIIth.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/03/13 10:31:32
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
You said that exact fething thing. You noted the Republicans pulled a stunt, and concluded it was a symptom of both sides. I described this as “when the Republicans pull these kinds of stunts, some people will conclude 'both sides' every time.”
Twisting what has been and resorting to profanity as a first resort again? Sorry Seb, I refuse to go round this roundabout with you this time - or ever again.
It's like people forget that Congress is actually co-equal to the Executive Branch and the President is NOT. THE. FETHING. KING.
The President is not the King, but Congress does not have the same powers as the President. The Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary were never intended to be co-equal.
True. The executive and judicial branches had less power than the legislative branch at the start of the Republic. The Presidency didn't become so powerful until the 30s.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
True. The executive and judicial branches had less power than the legislative branch at the start of the Republic. The Presidency didn't become so powerful until the 30s.
You mean when there were 26 Senators, 59 Congressmen, slavery was legal, women couldn't vote, and Texas was controlled by European powers?
Anyway, the Legislature still has more power than the Executive, it simple is not allowed to exercise that power in the same fashion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/13 15:17:14
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
It was a good decision. Be the branch with the most power, but decentralize that power to keep one person from having all the power and therefore force compromise. Of course that counts on people placing country before party.
Washington sounds like a freaking time traveler when you read his predictions regarding the development of political parties.
Martin O'Malley: 'Important' for secretary of state to use official server By NICK GASS 3/12/15 8:05 AM EDT Updated 3/12/15 10:47 AM EDT
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley says if he were president, it would be important as commander in chief to have his secretary of state use the official server for business.
“Well sure, it would be important to me,” he said Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” when asked about Hillary Clinton’s email practices at the State Department. But he said getting the economy working would be more important.
O’Malley said he didn’t “feel compelled to answer” a follow-up question about Clinton’s actions from Bloomberg Politics’ John Heilemann. “Secretary Clinton is perfectly capable of defending her own service in office,” he said.
He also addressed his underdog status in the nascent Democratic race for president, saying the “inevitable front-runner is inevitable up until he or she is no longer inevitable.”
“So I think you’re going to see a robust conversation in the Democratic Party,” he said.
O’Malley said American voters are more interested in economic policies than email policies.
“After 12 years of declining wages, people want executive leadership that knows how to get things done,” the former governor said, adding that he would make his decision on a presidential run this spring.
He's a former governor... so, at least he'd have a flipping clue.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/13 20:52:15
It was a good decision. Be the branch with the most power, but decentralize that power to keep one person from having all the power and therefore force compromise. Of course that counts on people placing country before party.
Washington sounds like a freaking time traveler when you read his predictions regarding the development of political parties.
And Madison must be laughing his arse off in whatever afterlife he is in.... because he specifically designed this system to be cumbersome, unwieldy and extremely inefficient.
whembly wrote: Martin O'Malley the next man up in case Hillary chooses not to run?
He's a former governor... so, at least he'd have a flipping clue.
His speech at the DNC a few years back was a bit of a flop, but I didn't have a problem with him as mayor of Baltimore or governor of Maryland. I know he wants the job, but honestly I'm not sure he'd actually be a good president.
President Obama's senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, right, and Hillary Clinton
Photo: Startraks.com/Getty Images
Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett leaked to the press details of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail address during her time as secretary of state, sources tell me.
But she did so through people outside the administration, so the story couldn’t be traced to her or the White House.
In addition, at Jarrett’s behest, the State Department was ordered to launch a series of investigations into Hillary’s conduct at Foggy Bottom, including the use of her expense account, the disbursement of funds, her contact with foreign leaders and her possible collusion with the Clinton Foundation.
Six separate probes into Hillary’s performance have been going on at the State Department. I’m told that the e-mail scandal was timed to come out just as Hillary was on the verge of formally announcing that she was running for president — and that there’s more to come.
Members of Bill Clinton’s camp say the former president suspects the White House is the source of the leak and is furious.
“My contacts and friends in newspapers and TV tell me that they’ve been contacted by the White House and offered all kinds of negative stories about us,” one of Bill’s friends quotes him as saying. “The Obamas are behind the e-mail story, and they’re spreading rumors that I’ve been with women, that Hillary promoted people at the State Department who’d done favors for our foundation, that John Kerry had to clean up diplomatic messes Hillary left behind.”
Then, according to this source, Bill added: “The Obamas are out to get us any way they can.”
The sabotage is part of an ongoing feud between the two Democrat powerhouses.
Last fall, during the run-up to the 2014 midterm elections, Jarrett was heard to complain bitterly that the Clintons were turning congressmen, senators, governors and grass-root party members against Obama by portraying him as an unpopular president who was an albatross around the neck of the party.
Jarrett was said to be livid that most Democrats running for election refused to be seen campaigning with the president. She blamed the Clintons for marginalizing the president and for trying to wrestle control of the Democratic Party away from Obama.
And she vowed payback.
My sources say Jarrett saw an opportunity to hit back hard when Monica Lewinsky suddenly resurfaced after years of living in obscurity. Jarrett discreetly put out word to some friendly members of the press that the White House would look with favor if they gave Monica some ink and airtime.
Relations have gotten even frostier in the past few months.
After the Democrats took a shellacking in the midterms, the White House scheduled a meeting with Hillary Clinton. When she showed up in the Oval Office, she was greeted by three people — the president, Jarrett and Michelle Obama.
With his wife and Jarrett looking on, Obama made it clear that he intended to stay neutral in the presidential primary process — a clear signal that he wouldn’t mind if someone challenged Hillary for the nomination.
“Obama and Valerie Jarrett will go to any lengths to prevent Hillary from becoming president,” a source close to the White House told me. “They believe that Hillary, like her husband, is left of center, not a true-blue liberal.”
If she gets into the White House, they believe she will compromise with the Republicans in Congress and undo Obama’s legacy.
“With Obama’s approval,” this source continued, “Valerie has been holding secret meetings with Martin O’Malley [the former Democratic governor of Maryland] and [Massachusetts Sen.] Elizabeth Warren. She’s promised O’Malley and Warren the full support of the White House if they will challenge Hillary for the presidential nomination.”
Edward Klein’s most recent book is “Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas” (Regnery).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/15 08:57:49
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
For those who can't see the video... he stated that he "suspect" that HRC used the private email system because she didn't want to be under congressional oversight... that's quite an admission.
Heh, nobody wants to be under Congressional oversight (including Congressmen), so that's nothing new.
The only way this email thing will really hurt her is if it gets proven that something important actually has been deleted/lost/hacked, like, say, 18 1/2 minutes' worth?
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Tannhauser42 wrote: Heh, nobody wants to be under Congressional oversight (including Congressmen), so that's nothing new.
The only way this email thing will really hurt her is if it gets proven that something important actually has been deleted/lost/hacked, like, say, 18 1/2 minutes' worth?
Is this bigger than Watergate?
If it were anyone but a Clinton, then yeah... it'd be huge.
