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.
It's a political party that *may* have aspects of the above ideology.
Same can be said of the Democrat party in the reverse too.
Republicans and Democrat, as a party apparatchik, are distinctly different than the diverse ideological groups.
Hence what we're having party rifts.
Just to clarify, are you using "<>" as a stand in for "does not equal"? I don't normally see it expressed that way, so just want to be sure. I'm used to seeing it as != or =/=.
"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
I think Christie could pose the biggest challenge to Clinton if he can somehow not come across as being a bully. However, he has no shot in hell of getting through the GOP primary. Iowa is out for him and unless he can win NH (which will likely go Bush) his road after that is nonexistent.
I've said it once, and I'll say it again, none of these candidates looks like they can provide the vision necessary to lead America in this new century against the rise of China.
It looks like the USA is adopting a damage limitation mode - pick the candidate who'll do the least amount of damage for 4 years.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I've said it once, and I'll say it again, none of these candidates looks like they can provide the vision necessary to lead America in this new century against the rise of China.
It looks like the USA is adopting a damage limitation mode - pick the candidate who'll do the least amount of damage for 4 years.
China's got their own problems. They're going to have severe demographic problems in the upcoming decades and they're still in the midst of the difficult task of pushing a huge portion of their workforce into the middle class in order to generate the level of domestic spending they need to keep their growing economy functional and stable. China will continue to grow their influence as a regional superpower but in the long run their global dominance is no sure thing.
Used 3rd party in reference to past elections, pointed out how this election cycle has a slew of candidates on the R side and that they represent a broader part of the spectrum (which you disagree with, but you're contrarian to anything I type, so who cares).
You, apparently, though I am not contrarian.
Regardless, there is no need to get angry, a simple clarification would have sufficed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/30 19:59:44
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I've said it once, and I'll say it again, none of these candidates looks like they can provide the vision necessary to lead America in this new century against the rise of China.
It looks like the USA is adopting a damage limitation mode - pick the candidate who'll do the least amount of damage for 4 years.
China's got their own problems. They're going to have severe demographic problems in the upcoming decades and they're still in the midst of the difficult task of pushing a huge portion of their workforce into the middle class in order to generate the level of domestic spending they need to keep their growing economy functional and stable. China will continue to grow their influence as a regional superpower but in the long run their global dominance is no sure thing.
Not so long ago, the UK was saying the same thing about the USA. Looked how that turned out
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
CptJake wrote: No, it isn't a cop out. If you pay a bit of attention you'll see a pretty decent schism in the Republican party.
Every political group has factions, and factions within factions, and factions within factions within… well its turtles all the way down. There are no hive minds political organisations out there. Trying to use the existence of factions and disagreements within the group to claim to separate right wingers from Republicans is nonsense. It’s the kind of nonsense that communists tried for decades, trying to pretend that communist theory had no part to play in the dystopian nightmares in Russia and China.
But honest, real thinking means reflecting on how the overall ideology followed by you and people like you actually functions in the real world.
But of course honest, real thinking and politics have very little in common.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Politicians... they belong to Mos Eisley moreso then any government offices.
Everyone thinks the politicians are the only ones lying. But they only say nonsense that we like to hear because it’s reinforcing the lies we’ve already told ourselves.
Hmmm… reading that back to myself it sounds way more ‘student party at 3:00 in the morning’ than it should.
Again... with feelings:
Republicans <> Conservatives.
Republicans <> Tea Party Groups.
Republicans <> Right Wingers.
It's a political party that *may* have aspects of the above ideology.
Same can be said of the Democrat party in the reverse too.
Republicans and Democrat, as a party apparatchik, are distinctly different than the diverse ideological groups.
Hence what we're having party rifts.
Of course there are rifts and factions, and the party functionaries are going to differ from the grassroots, but that doesn’t mean you get to just live in a nice little ideological bubble and separate your beliefs from what the party actually delivers. People need to be honest about how their private beliefs actually manifest themselves in real world politics.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/07/01 04:17:44
“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.
whembly wrote: Politicians... they belong to Mos Eisley moreso then any government offices.
Everyone thinks the politicians are the only ones lying. But they only say nonsense that we like to hear because it’s reinforcing the lies we’ve already told ourselves.
Hmmm… reading that back to myself it sounds way more ‘student party at 3:00 in the morning’ than it should.
Thanks for the laugh.
Again... with feelings:
Republicans <> Conservatives.
Republicans <> Tea Party Groups.
Republicans <> Right Wingers.
It's a political party that *may* have aspects of the above ideology.
Same can be said of the Democrat party in the reverse too.
Republicans and Democrat, as a party apparatchik, are distinctly different than the diverse ideological groups.
Hence what we're having party rifts.
Of course there are rifts and factions, and the party functionaries are going to differ from the grassroots, but that doesn’t mean you get to just live in a nice little ideological bubble and separate your beliefs from what the party actually delivers. People need to be honest about how their private beliefs actually manifest themselves in real world politics.
The point seb, is that there are many things we disagree with overall direction of our Party.
What many are arguing, is that we are nothing more than lemmings in our party.
That's fething BS man. We're much more than simply whatever "planks" the party has...
If you REALLY want see this dichotomy, google up the Mike Flynn is running for House seat in Illinois. The dude is F'n aweseom, yet the party establishment hates him.
It is quite well informed. I know the man's political positions and the people who will likely vote for him. He is generic Tea Party and knows how to appeal to that group.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
I listened to opening and closing arguments from this Flynn guy. He does not appear to have a platform other than "beauracrats are bad". Also, I have a hard time taking someone seriously at a formal debate when they dress up like it's casual Friday at Facebook HQ, and he's smug to the point of distraction. If this guy wants serious national attention, he needs some coaching.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/01 15:47:59
Hillary Clinton withheld Benghazi-related emails from the State Department that detailed her knowledge of the scramble for oil contracts in Libya and the shortcomings of the NATO-led military intervention for which she advocated.
Clinton removed specific portions of other emails she sent to State, suggesting the messages were screened closely enough to determine which paragraphs were unfit to be seen by the public.
For example, one email Clinton kept from the State Department indicates Libyan leaders were "well aware" of which "major oil companies and international banks" supported them during the rebellion, information they would "factor into decisions" about about who would be given access to the country's rich oil reserves.
The email, which Clinton subsequently scrubbed from her server, indicated Clinton was aware that involvement in the controversial conflict could have a significant financial benefit to firms that were friendly to the Libyan rebels.
She thanked Sidney Blumenthal, her former aide and author of dozens of informal intelligence memos, for the tip, which she called "useful," and informed him she was preparing to hold a meeting with Libyan leaders in Paris in an exchange that suggests the flow of information went both ways.
State Department officials admitted Clinton had withheld all of nine emails and parts of six others after Blumenthal provided 60 emails to the House Select Committee on Benghazi that the agency had failed to submit earlier this year.
Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., immediately demanded to know whether State or Clinton herself withheld the records. The agency's admission Thursday that it couldn't find 15 of the new emails in its records indicated both had played a role in keeping the emails away from Congress.
An undisclosed memo sent in February 2012 contains details about how new Libyan leaders were forging business relationships with private firms. Blumenthal told Clinton his sources were concerned about the focus of international interest on Libya's oil sector, playing up the importance of other "private firms" that could provide "medical assistance."
By his own admission, Blumenthal had a personal financial interest in Libya involving medical assistance.
The fact that Clinton held the email back raises questions about whether she was aware of the conflict of interest at play in Blumenthal's advocacy.
Clinton also declined to hand over a memo in which Blumenthal relayed the complaints of Libyan rebels who felt NATO wasn't going far enough in its assistance in their struggle against Gaddafi.
"[R]ebel military commanders are extremely frustrated by the performance of NATO air forces over the weekend of April 22 [2011]," Blumenthal said.
"At the same time, these commanders believe that the small number of tactical advisers sent by Great Britain and France, under their NATO mandate, is not equipped to deal with the scope of the challenge facing the rebels," he added.
Blumenthal said his sources believed the U.S. could better support the rebels by sending traditional aircraft, such as A-10 "Warthogs," to combat the regime instead of the Predator drones it deployed after NATO took the lead in the mission.
The reason why Clinton withheld that particular memo is unclear, but it demonstrates that she knew the coalition's efforts were falling flat — and that they could have been boosted if she pushed for the use of a less politically popular aircraft.
Clinton withheld an email sent March 22, 2011 that described the French government's alleged involvement in forming the transitional government as the uprising against Gaddafi raged.
In the email, Blumenthal claimed the French had "provided money and guidance to assist" with the emerging Libyan council.
"In return for this assistance, [French government] officers indicated that they expected the government of Libya to favor French firms and national interests, particularly regarding the oil industry in Libya," Blumenthal wrote.
An email in which Blumenthal encouraged Clinton to consider the same "shock-and-awe" tactics former President George W. Bush employed in Iraq was also not included among the emails Clinton provided to State.
Blumenthal openly pressed for an increase in U.S. funding in another email that Clinton refused to turn over.
"My own view is that they desperately need professional military trainers, preferably Americans," Blumenthal said.
"Some of the funds released should go to that end," Blumenthal added, referring to the creation of a "more professional military" in the aftermath of the Gaddafi regime.
In the same memo, Blumenthal assured Clinton that representatives of the country's transitional government were "very, very happy," about a meeting with the secretary of state in May of 2011.
The subject of the same email refers to a "memo on OBL photos," likely referring to photographs of slain terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, who was killed days before Blumenthal sent the memo. A controversy over whether the government should release graphic pictures of bin Laden continues to this day.
In the subject, Blumenthal said there was "more to come soon on Libya," but he did not send another email until the following month. The gap raises additional questions about whether Blumenthal provided Congress with all the emails he and Clinton exchanged.
Clinton selectively edited other portions of emails she declined to provide to the State Department.
For example, in July 2012, Clinton removed paragraphs from a Blumenthal memo that warned "simply completing the election...and fulfilling a list of proper democratic milestones may not create a true democracy." Blumenthal also wrote — in sections that Clinton deleted before providing the document to State — that the government would likely be "founded on Sharia," or Islamic laws.
The group advocating to implement Sharia, Ansar al-Sharia, is a designated terrorist group that played a role in the Benghazi attacks.
But Clinton hid how much she knew about that development.
Clinton withheld another email that showed she informed Blumenthal of a "very good call" she had with the new Libyan president, Mohammed Yussef el Magariaf. She deleted another, in which she called a memo about Magariaf's intention and history "a keeper."
Clinton did not include in the batch published by the State Department last month an exchange in which she prompted Blumenthal to provide her with "more intel" about French and British involvement with Libyan leaders.
She told Blumenthal the memo "strains credulity" in a message she withheld from State. Clinton posed the same question to a top aide, Jake Sullivan, when she forwarded him the memo, according to the records released by the agency.
So... she:
1) printed the subpoenaed emails and gave only what she though pertains as official records.
2) Sid Blumenthal released some emails that proves Hillary didn't release ALL the relevent emails to the committee
3) Now we find out that those released subpoenaed, printed emails were actually EDITED.
jasper76 wrote: I listened to opening and closing arguments from this Flynn guy. He does not appear to have a platform other than "beauracrats are bad". Also, I have a hard time taking someone seriously at a formal debate when they dress up like it's casual Friday at Facebook HQ, and he's smug to the point of distraction. If this guy wants serious national attention, he needs some coaching.
Then you missed some good quotes...
At 25 minute ish mark, he talks about his definition of conservative philosophy that I think is great:
We are all children of God, and we are all touched by the divine. And because of that we are unique, and we are all individuals. Conservatism is a humility in government, that we do not know what's best for you. That we would not try to define what's best for you. You go, with your divine spark, and pursue. Conservatism is freedom -- within responsibilities, we enter into a social contract through the Constitution to protect those rights we have so that others do not infringe on them, but at that point Government should largely go away. And let us live. As conservatives -- I've said it before, and it amazes me, but we are selling freedom. And if we can't sell freedom, we do indeed suck.
At 44 minute ish mark, he talks about flat tax. Many of us disagrees with this, but at least he's making a case to push the conversation.
At 53 minute ish mark, he praises an idea implmented by CANADA. The idea of "regulatory budgeting," in which if a regulatory agency implements a new regulation costing $100 million, they must offset that by taking a regulation worth $100 million off the books. Again, I doubt we can truly ever achieve this, but at least he's push these out there in the political realms to foment debates of these ideas.
Nothing about the extracted material seems particularly anti-establishment to me, with the possible exception of the flat tax (I don't really know what the GOP "establishment" platform is in tax scales).
His definition of conservatism seems pretty boiler plate, appeling to religious, small government, and libertarian-lite sensibilities. None of it would sound odd coming from any mainstream GOP politician .
jasper76 wrote: Nothing about the extracted material seems particularly anti-establishment to me, with the possible exception of the flat tax (I don't really know what the GOP "establishment" platform is in tax scales).
His definition of conservatism seems pretty boiler plate, appeling to religious, small government, and libertarian-lite sensibilities. None of it would sound odd coming from any mainstream GOP politician .
Cool.
I think he's feisty... although, he's going against the establishment candidate, so he's got a tall order to get the nomination.
There seems to be a lot more talk in Washington and in political operative circles around the country about the prospect of Vice President Joe Biden running for president in 2016. Interesting. Is a Biden candidacy more likely as a result of his recent family tragedy? It would be perfectly plausible for anyone who has suffered the kind of loss he has to want to rededicate themselves to their life’s work as well as stay as busy as possible. There is probably no better way on earth to stay busy than to run for president, to say nothing of how busy your life becomes if you ultimately get elected. The death of Biden’s son and the way he handled it with such dignity and grace struck a chord with not just Americans but also with people all over the world. Perhaps it made people see him in a new light and maybe even revealed a somewhat hidden dimension of his character.
All of this has happened at the same time the Hillary Clinton campaign is limping along as a synthetic, tired, manufactured exercise that appears to be — at best — winning by default. I actually feel sorry for the Clinton surrogates I see on TV. They gamely tough it out as they recite the talking points, deny the obvious, defend the indefensible and pretend there is some energy within the campaign.
In a lot of ways, Biden would be the true anti-Hillary. He is completely uninhibited, he is impossible to script — which makes him seem authentic — and he has a human appeal that everyone can relate to. Clinton, on the other hand, is running a surreal campaign that avoids crowds, media and spontaneity of any kind. She is protecting her lead in the most standard, unimaginative way possible. Compared with Clinton’s robotic, stiff approach, could having a reputation for occasionally saying the wrong thing and hugging too much work to Biden’s advantage in an era where voters want the real thing?
The Democrats appear to be yearning for an emotional connection with their candidate, which could explain the flurry of excitement surrounding the Bernie Sanders campaign. Sen. Sanders seems to have an outsize appeal, which could be a product of how his outside-the-box approach contrasts with the stale Clinton march. But whatever Bernie can do, can’t Biden do it better? Maybe Sanders’s candidacy has exposed the opening that exists for Biden in the Democratic primary. Maybe this is Biden’s moment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/01 19:21:52
Been watching an Obama press coverage - formal relations with Cuba are almost here. They're just thrashing out the embassy plans.
American dakka members: are you happy that your nation is extending the hand of friendship to Joe Commie?
I still think that Obama's motivation for this was securing his legacy.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Been watching an Obama press coverage - formal relations with Cuba are almost here. They're just thrashing out the embassy plans.
American dakka members: are you happy that your nation is extending the hand of friendship to Joe Commie?
I still think that Obama's motivation for this was securing his legacy.
*meh*
It's going to be a hot topic simply due to Florida constituents and the Presidential candidates. The Amb. position would likely see a confirmation fight... which, imo, is not a hill to die on.
If we can encourage meaningful reforms, sure... why not.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Been watching an Obama press coverage - formal relations with Cuba are almost here. They're just thrashing out the embassy plans.
American dakka members: are you happy that your nation is extending the hand of friendship to Joe Commie?
I still think that Obama's motivation for this was securing his legacy.
*meh*
It's going to be a hot topic simply due to Florida constituents and the Presidential candidates. The Amb. position would likely see a confirmation fight... which, imo, is not a hill to die on.
If we can encourage meaningful reforms, sure... why not.
Florida is one of those key election states, is it not?
I remember the last election when all they did was bang on about Ohio and Florida. It got so bad, I could recite Ohio's GDP and percentage of women in work, in my sleep
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
jasper76 wrote: Florida is indeed a swing state, and is notorious for problems with election processing.
You should get the British electoral commission in there. We get results 2 hours after polls close. Last month's election saw a few records broken.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
