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.

“What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?”

“Uh,” Wasserman-Schultz responded.

Man, she avoided answering that question like I would avoid an ebola infected monkey.

I saw that. It was funny actually.

I think the bigger issue is "do people even know what the term means?"

Probably 98% of the time I hear the word "socialist", it's being used as a derogatory term without any deeper meaning but as an insult, or as some all-encompassing generalization with limited application to the given context.

Almost all people are for at least some level of Socialism and the public provision & ownership of certain goods and services, whether they want to think of it in those terms or not

The inability to respond is pretty amusing however.

Yeah she was unable to answer, yet had he asked Bernie, he would have parsed it out as if matthews was in junior high level of reading comprehension.

But those highways we drive on, the Libraries folks still get books out of, municipal hospitals and other services, social security/medicare and other safety net programs, and the now gone but talked about community and public education for colleges, plus our public education system all fir into socialistic tendencies of the United States.

And I am seeing Bernie overtaking Hilary, so maybe not all the Democratic eggs are all in her campaign basket after all.

Even after a dinner in 2014, Liz Warren does not feel Hilary is sincere and she has not been strongly clear on anything she claims to espouse, she has said things because of the Sanders-Warren stances on issues. Hilary is a political animal trying to feed off the populist ideal of reforming an overloaded to the Rich and Corporate run that people are tired of,

Bernie so far comes off as the most authentic, no odd political double speak. There appears even to be a Republicans for Bernie Sanders on FB.

Wasserman-Schulz is of the middle of the road, milk toast demos, you know, the ones who cave when faced with the Republican tantrums? But yes, she was incapable of a coherent answer, and she is allegedly Pelosi's protege`

I feel any party group that tosses a childish tantrum, either side of the aisle, should be stood up to, especially when they are wrong.

Gov't shutdowns are stupid.

One of Hilary's aides said she was not looking to re-instate the Glass-Steagall act her husband removed in his term in office, makes folks wonder, is she really against Wall-Street? or as suspected, is she a pal to them?

Bernie comes off authentic because he's literally shouting out what he is and what he wants to do.

He's not your typical 'double-speaking' politician for sure.

 whembly wrote:
Bernie comes off authentic because he's literally shouting out what he is and what he wants to do.

He's not your typical 'double-speaking' politician for sure.

But he also has drawn the biggest crowds of any of the campaigners, and that has many of the old school polis worried.

Now i also said Hilary is coming across as not so authentic or trust worthy, add in her e-mail issues and it may come down to the 4 other demos running, and Bernie is more prominent than O'Malley or the other guys I hardly hear about.

But many want Hilary to be the anointed one to face whoever gets the final go for the reps in the general election.

For now, the primaries are still it, Trump is still there, far longer than I thought he would be, No telling where the Republican primaries will wind up at the end.

Demo primaries, Hilary is still lead, but losing ground.

 shasolenzabi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Bernie comes off authentic because he's literally shouting out what he is and what he wants to do.

He's not your typical 'double-speaking' politician for sure.

But he also has drawn the biggest crowds of any of the campaigners, and that has many of the old school polis worried.

Now i also said Hilary is coming across as not so authentic or trust worthy, add in her e-mail issues and it may come down to the 4 other demos running, and Bernie is more prominent than O'Malley or the other guys I hardly hear about.

But many want Hilary to be the anointed one to face whoever gets the final go for the reps in the general election.

For now, the primaries are still it, Trump is still there, far longer than I thought he would be, No telling where the Republican primaries will wind up at the end.

Demo primaries, Hilary is still lead, but losing ground.

Yeah...

If you're in a camp that doesn't believe HRC should be the nominee... the next, and probably best choice, is for Warren to throw her hat in. She's like Obama, only on steroids. The question would be, could she rally the base like Obama did?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
It also depends on whether any of it actually is classified information. What most people think is classified actually isn't. 99% of the time it's considered "sensitive" or whatever term the particular agency uses for information they want to keep private without going to the trouble of actually classifying it, or because it doesn't meet the requirements for classification. Because it is a lot of hassle to classify stuff and handle classified data, as there are ridiculous amounts of labeling requirements for it.

Except that, within the realm of the US government, there are basically four classifications for anything, and everything falls within them. Even if a piece of infiormation isn't classified, if it is sent via classified channels, then it is treated as though it is classified as well.

 whembly wrote:

Yeah...

If you're in a camp that doesn't believe HRC should be the nominee... the next, and probably best choice, is for Warren to throw her hat in. She's like Obama, only on steroids. The question would be, could she rally the base like Obama did?

Warren is a progressive, more like Bernie than Obama as she has criticized Obams for placing a Wall-Street insider in the SEC, she demanded he not and pick someone outside the Wall-Street gang, but if she tossed her hat in the dream ticket would be either her and sander, or sanders and her amongst progressive dems.

Obama proved to be a very establishment/corporate guy, especially with the demand to fast track TPP he pulled Warren and Sanders lead the charge to slow that down so folks could get a chance to read how they would get bent over and screwed by it. Had folks had a chance, they would not want it passed. I know even some of the Reps did not think it was good to pass, so there was bi-partisan sentiment against the TPP and what it could possibly do to many things.

For now, since Bernie is running, and is focused on important issues and not dodging like HRC he is the one we want.

 whembly wrote:
Bernie comes off authentic because he's literally shouting out what he is and what he wants to do.

He's not your typical 'double-speaking' politician for sure.

It's one of his big draws, IMO. He is honest, and keeps his principals. You can respect that even if you disagree with the man. That was my relationship with McCain until the election. It's sort of my relationship with my representative now (he's conservative, and I'm liberal, but when it comes to vets or the army, he will vote against his party when the need arises (him being an Iraq war vet himself)).

Even if your sending "sensitive" issue out on digital its still a NO GO.

 Jihadin wrote:
Even if your sending "sensitive" issue out on digital its still a NO GO.

Even FOUO/PII must be encrypted.

It is the State Department. They are not the brightest cog in the Great Machine

 Jihadin wrote:
It is the State Department. They are not the brightest cog in the Great Machine

So... is that her defense to this?

 Jihadin wrote:
It is the State Department. They are not the brightest cog in the Great Machine

Oh, I know.

 whembly wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
It is the State Department. They are not the brightest cog in the Great Machine

So... is that her defense to this?

You cannot imagine the extreme stupidity State Department officials will go to.

 Jihadin wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
It is the State Department. They are not the brightest cog in the Great Machine

So... is that her defense to this?

You cannot imagine the extreme stupidity State Department officials will go to.

To your knowledge... are they held to account? or shuffled off somewhere in the vast bureacracy?

Lets be honest, no large organization is as competent as we'd like them to be

I remember interning for a large defense contractor in an IT role, and having to routinely transport equipment, including a dozen servers at a time, on a cart, on foot, between buildings, unescorted, via public sidewalk...

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Except that, within the realm of the US government, there are basically four classifications for anything, and everything falls within them. Even if a piece of infiormation isn't classified, if it is sent via classified channels, then it is treated as though it is classified as well.

There's actually 4.5 if you consider CUI: Core Secrets, Top Secret, Secret, Confidential, and Controlled Unclassified Information. A great deal of information falls outside that framework, as "unclassified" is not a classification.

It is true that information is often classified because of the it's source, but the information itself still has to be classified. The US government cannot classify a line of communication, even if it often does so in a de facto sense.

Within those classifications are additional levels that goes with those classifications

 Jihadin wrote:
Within those classifications are additional levels that goes with those classifications

Kinda like this?

 whembly wrote:

So... is that her defense to this?

Her best defense is that the US classification system (especially CUI), outside the DoD, is an absolute mess and the State Department has to deal with nearly all of it.

 Jihadin wrote:
Within those classifications are additional levels that goes with those classifications

Oh, I know. It makes pulling direct sources a nightmare.

 dogma wrote:

There's actually 4.5 if you consider CUI: Core Secrets, Top Secret, Secret, Confidential, and Controlled Unclassified Information. A great deal of information falls outside that framework, as "unclassified" is not a classification.

When I was in the army, it was simply TS, S, Confidential and FOUO/Unclass. Each document, or packet of info was given a rating, of course, as I was saying, information that isn't classified will be classified if it's part of a larger packet of info.

For example, if we have a detailed battle plan, such as storming the beaches of Normandy, those plans will be rated at TS or S. Included in our plan for invading Normandy will be a weather report. You and I know that the weather isn't classified, however the overall "plan" or document's overall classification means that the weather is now treated as though it is TS or S.

I have honestly never heard of a "Core Secret" classification, and I worked in the realm of the intelligence community.

I was just thinking, because I've been hearing a lot about it lately, do you think the R's will be focusing on abortion this election now that gay marriage is out the window as an issue? Or do you think they will focus less on the conservative christian voting bloc?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 dogma wrote:

There's actually 4.5 if you consider CUI: Core Secrets, Top Secret, Secret, Confidential, and Controlled Unclassified Information. A great deal of information falls outside that framework, as "unclassified" is not a classification.

When I was in the army, it was simply TS, S, Confidential and FOUO/Unclass. Each document, or packet of info was given a rating, of course, as I was saying, information that isn't classified will be classified if it's part of a larger packet of info.

For example, if we have a detailed battle plan, such as storming the beaches of Normandy, those plans will be rated at TS or S. Included in our plan for invading Normandy will be a weather report. You and I know that the weather isn't classified, however the overall "plan" or document's overall classification means that the weather is now treated as though it is TS or S.

I have honestly never heard of a "Core Secret" classification, and I worked in the realm of the intelligence community.

Exactly, there are only three levels of classification: Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret, each defined as, if released, would cause X amount of damage to national security (IIRC, the terms, in ascending order, were serious, grave, and exceptionally grave). Anything else is just made up by that particular department/agency and has no real legal meaning apart from "stuff the agency doesn't want to get out but isn't classified." Classified data is a pain to handle. Every page has to be marked with what level of classification, when it will be declassified, and, I think, when it was classified. Derivative documents also have to maintain all the same markings, and if a document incorporates stuff from multiple sources, that page has to cite all those sources. They can only be stored/transported in approved containers. Media that holds the information must also be properly labeled. And not just anybody can say something is classified, it has to be classified by a designated classifying authority.

For the stuff that isn't classified but is still supposed to be kept private, some agencies call it sensitive, some call it compartmentalized, and there are other terms for it. For example, the name of someone the FBI is investigating wouldn't be classified, but it would be "sensitive." I've had to go through classified document training every year, even though not one classified document has ever passed through our entire building. Hell, the steel, combination locked filing cabinet that was intended to secure stuff like that was used to store office supplies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I was just thinking, because I've been hearing a lot about it lately, do you think the R's will be focusing on abortion this election now that gay marriage is out the window as an issue? Or do you think they will focus less on the conservative christian voting bloc?

Nah, some of them will still bang the drum of anti-same-sex-marriage. Look at how many of them were talking about trying to amend the Constitution to protect their definition of marriage.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I was just thinking, because I've been hearing a lot about it lately, do you think the R's will be focusing on abortion this election now that gay marriage is out the window as an issue? Or do you think they will focus less on the conservative christian voting bloc?

They'll still be beating the dead horses of abortion, "Take the country back", "We're a Christian Nation, and god told me to run, to lead y'all to the promised land", gay marriage, "They" are coming to take your gunz, Taxes are bad mmm'kay?


Outside of Trump, it seems like the majority of candidates from the Republican side are focusing MORE on the conservative christian block, not less.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Outside of Trump, it seems like the majority of candidates from the Republican side are focusing MORE on the conservative christian block, not less.

As a voting bloc how big is that faction of the GOP?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Outside of Trump, it seems like the majority of candidates from the Republican side are focusing MORE on the conservative christian block, not less.

As a voting bloc how big is that faction of the GOP?

Overall? Not that much I think. But they are a big faction of the group of voters that come out and vote during the primary.

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Outside of Trump, it seems like the majority of candidates from the Republican side are focusing MORE on the conservative christian block, not less.

As a voting bloc how big is that faction of the GOP?

Overall? Not that much I think. But they are a big faction of the group of voters that come out and vote during the primary.

So the squeaky wheel gets the grease?