Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I would vote for Sanders. Course I am free to vote whoever I want safe in the knowledge that the Texas electors will vote republican. Its like freaking being in California again.

Kind of silly to whine about that but want to vote for a socialist. You really could just go back to CA if you like socialist policies so much.

Its silly to whine about living in a one party state?

 Frazzled wrote:
Doesn't matter. the electors are all or nothing, by state. My vote literally amounts to nothing at the Federal level, and almost nothing at the state level.

Nope don't want a socialist. I do like Sanders. Although I disagree on his prescription for the cure, his diagnosis of problems in this country are spot on. In many ways he's very close to Cruz, just not how to fix it.

 CptJake wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Doesn't matter. the electors are all or nothing, by state. My vote literally amounts to nothing at the Federal level, and almost nothing at the state level.

Nope don't want a socialist. I do like Sanders. Although I disagree on his prescription for the cure, his diagnosis of problems in this country are spot on. In many ways he's very close to Cruz, just not how to fix it.

The how means everything. If you don't want a socialist, you don't want the socialist candidate. That should not be a hard concept Frazz.

 Frazzled wrote:
True, and quit stupid ass votes to protect our poor innocent menz from Dem Gheys.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
True, and quit stupid ass votes to protect our poor innocent menz from Dem Gheys.

Uh...

Wat?

I thought them Dems were quarantined in Austin and San Antonio?

 Torga_DW wrote:
Is it just me or do those posters look like an ad for a new zombie movie? Where the innocent buystander guy is just standing there innocently while the zombie behind him opens her mouth and gets ready to bite? Or maybe a vampire movie. Either way, is that really the best picture they could get of hillary? She looks kind of..... disturbing.

Taking a page from the well-worn Clinton playbook, a digest compiled almost entirely before the dawn of the digital age, Hillary Clinton has responded to the deluge of scandalous revelations regarding her conduct at the State Department by clamming up. But the proliferation of citizen journalists, commendably dogged reporters, and a seemingly endless digital trail to follow has undermined this tactic. New details about Clinton’s improprieties continue to mount. As the fabrications pile up and Clinton’s character is called into question, it seems clear that the former secretary of state did casually imperil American national security in the effort to preserve the “convenience” to which she had become accustomed as a U.S. Senator. But can she make the case that she will serve as a competent commander-in-chief after such a revelation? It is a question the press has been hounding Republicans with for the better part of two weeks.


Clinton’s transparent aim is to allow the sting of these myriad controversies to be acutely felt early, and only to address them when she can legitimately dub them “old news” and thereby scold those reporters who myopically dwell on ancient history. That strategy is only effective, however, when the revelations dry up. But the scandalous details of her behavior exposed in the press continue to emerge, one by one, drip by drip, gradually eroding away Clinton’s presidential prospects.

The latest report to expose Clinton’s mendacity comes from the New York Times, which revealed that the former secretary did send sensitive government information over her private email account:

Clinton’s Personal Email Account Contained Sensitive Information

Mrs. Clinton’s emails show that she had a special type of government information known as “sensitive but unclassified,” or “SBU,” in her account. That information included the whereabouts and travel plans of American officials in Libya as security there deteriorated during the uprising against the leadership of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in 2011. Nearly a year and a half before the attacks in Benghazi, Mr. Stevens, then an American envoy to the rebels, considered leaving Benghazi citing deteriorating security, according to an email to Mrs. Clinton marked “SBU.”

That report also detailed the communications sent to Clinton via her longtime ally and political hit man Sidney Blumenthal in the wake of the Benghazi attack. It noted that Blumenthal informed Clinton on September 13, 2001 that the deadly event was not the result of a spontaneous demonstration but rather a coordinated terrorist act conducted by Ansar al-Shariah. This disclosure casts into doubt the administration’s claim that it was unaware of the precise nature of that attack until September 16, 2012.

Clinton defenders will note that “sensitive” information is not “classified” information, and the former secretary’s contention that she never sent or received classified documents via her email account remains, for now, intact. But any information security expert will attest that just because “sensitive” documents are not classified does not render them useless to America’s adversaries, as the details in this Times report attest.

This is just the latest misstatement from Clinton’s disastrous March press conference to be called into question. Standing before a lectern at the United Nations, Clinton claimed that she only used one mobile device in service to her sense of entitlement while at State. We now know there were at least two devices she used to conduct State business. Clinton insisted that her system was never “breached,” but information security experts now believe that her “homebrew” server was vulnerable to infiltration and was possibly compromised by foreign intelligence services. Clinton insisted that she only deleted those emails that were personal in nature; a trove of communications that amounted to the majority of the emails she sent as Secretary of State. One of the recipients of private email communications, she averred, was her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Wrong, the 42nd President’s office contended. He only sent two emails in his life, according to Bill Clinton spokesperson Matt McKenna, and both of those were composed and transmitted while he served as president.

This all paints a picture not only of a political figure utterly unconcerned with accountability, the public trust, and national security, but of a person with a pathological aversion to truth.

This also should lead observers to an inescapable conclusion: Clinton carelessly jeopardized national security while she served as America’s chief diplomat. Does this erode Clinton’s claim to be able to serve as America’s next commander-in-chief? It should, and the press seems to be aware of that. Why else have they been hounding 2016 Republican presidential aspirants to account for the last GOP chief executive’s decision to invade Iraq?

Old habits die hard, it seems, as the left and their allies in the press have been busily engaged in a process of forced collectivization over the last week. But instead of plots of arable land, we are collectivizing guilt – namely, Republican guilt for the decision to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein. The underlying assumption in the media’s dogged pursuit of Republican admissions that the war was a mistake is that George W. Bush carelessly and callously endangered American national security in pursuit of the parochial goal of ridding the world of a particularly unpleasant regime. In this way, not only does the press absolve Barack Obama for sloppily surrendering the West’s hard-won gains in that turbulent country, but it also liberates all Democratic figures – Clinton included – from having to account for the present state of affairs.

If we are to believe that Bush was thoughtless in his approach to safeguarding American national security, Clinton deserves a similar reproach. If Republicans are collectively to blame for the disaster in Iraq, even those who held only minor office in 2003, why then are Democrats not collectively responsible for Clinton’s serial lies and her hard-hearted indifference to the behavior associated with a Cabinet official entrusted with protecting America’s information security? Is there a logically satisfactory explanation for this double standard?

daaaaaaamn pic.twitter.com/R2Z6SorFxJ

— daveweigel (@daveweigel) May 22, 2015

View image on Twitter

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

My verdict: none of these contenders has a God damn clue or any coherent foreign policy!

Seriously, America, you deserve better than that lot. Boycott the election. It could not make things any worse.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

My verdict: none of these contenders has a God damn clue or any coherent foreign policy!

Seriously, America, you deserve better than that lot. Boycott the election. It could not make things any worse.

Actually, not voting could make things worse. And as for foreign policy, if any of them run on the "let's get back to our historic roots" and wants to go back to isolationism, or even take steps to get closer to that, I think many people would be more than happy.


Heck, Bush Jr. ran on basically that very platform, only 9/11 fethed that one up.

 whembly wrote:
So... The Clinton Foundation is supposedly a charity... right?

Then why did Big Labor label their contributions as "political" on their financial disclosure report?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Isolationism worked 150n years ago when you had the Royal Navy at its height, patrolling the seas and allowing, inadvertently, America to get on with its own affairs.

But we live in an age of ICBMs, internet, satellites etc etc

It's just not possible anymore.

Noah Rothman wrote:
If we are to believe that Bush was thoughtless in his approach to safeguarding American national security, Clinton deserves a similar reproach. If Republicans are collectively to blame for the disaster in Iraq, even those who held only minor office in 2003, why then are Democrats not collectively responsible for Clinton’s serial lies and her hard-hearted indifference to the behavior associated with a Cabinet official entrusted with protecting America’s information security? Is there a logically satisfactory explanation for this double standard?

 dogma wrote:

Noah Rothman wrote:
If we are to believe that Bush was thoughtless in his approach to safeguarding American national security, Clinton deserves a similar reproach. If Republicans are collectively to blame for the disaster in Iraq, even those who held only minor office in 2003, why then are Democrats not collectively responsible for Clinton’s serial lies and her hard-hearted indifference to the behavior associated with a Cabinet official entrusted with protecting America’s information security? Is there a logically satisfactory explanation for this double standard?

Its always fun when a given author tries to paint people sitting on the opposite side of the fence with a broad brush.

At any rate, the reasonable explanation is simple partisanship. Democrat supporters will defend Clinton, in much the same way Republican supporters defended Bush. Rothman's line of argument simply ends in a protracted game of "I know you are, but what am I!" Good job Noah, way to elevate the conversation, at least your namesake had the good sense to build an ark.

 whembly wrote:

So, wait... I thought the argument ought to be that we need to be above partisanship?

 whembly wrote:

Oh... and those Clinton emails. The gak has hit the fan.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So, wait... I thought the argument ought to be that we need to be above partisanship?

That's not the argument Noah Rothman presented. Noah Rothman presented the sort of argument a partisan hack would make, hence my joke about the ark.

 whembly wrote:

Oh... and those Clinton emails. The gak has hit the fan.

Not really. While you and a few others do their best to emulate Rorschach, most people really don't care.

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.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
At this point Whembly, it looks like you have a playground crush on Mrs, Clinton. You can't stop talking about her and everything you say just makes you and her look mor cute.

 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.

 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.

 whembly wrote:

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