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.
2015/08/21 13:20:45
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
CptJake wrote: Unfortunately being decent =/= being effective.
Bowden's book on the Hostage Crisis is pretty good and casts Carter in a very sympathetic light, made me change my opinion on his handling of the whole deal.
What's the name of the book?
Very good book (as are most of his books in my opinion).
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2015/08/21 13:28:27
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
CptJake wrote: Unfortunately being decent =/= being effective.
Bowden's book on the Hostage Crisis is pretty good and casts Carter in a very sympathetic light, made me change my opinion on his handling of the whole deal.
What's the name of the book?
Very good book (as are most of his books in my opinion).
I'll add it to my reading list. Cheers.
On the flip side, what happened to those hostages was obviously a bad thing, but having read 'A legacy of ashes', which is a book about the history of the CIA, I don't blame the Iranians for wanting American influence out of their country. But that's another debate.
"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
2015/08/21 13:44:45
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Exclusive: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest
For months, the U.S. State Department has stood behind its former boss Hillary Clinton as she has repeatedly said she did not send or receive classified information on her unsecured, private email account, a practice the government forbids.
While the department is now stamping a few dozen of the publicly released emails as "Classified," it stresses this is not evidence of rule-breaking. Those stamps are new, it says, and do not mean the information was classified when Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in the 2016 presidential election, first sent or received it.
But the details included in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.
The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.
In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.
This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.
"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House's National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.
"If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."
Reuters' findings may add to questions that Clinton has been facing over her adherence to rules concerning sensitive government information. Spokesmen for Clinton declined to answer questions, but Clinton and her staff maintain she did not mishandle any information.
"I did not send classified material, and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified," Clinton told reporters at a campaign event in Nevada on Tuesday.
Although it appears to be true for Clinton to say none of her emails included classification markings, a point she and her staff have emphasized, the government's standard nondisclosure agreement warns people authorized to handle classified information that it may not be marked that way and that it may come in oral form.
The State Department disputed Reuters' analysis but declined requests to explain how it was incorrect.
The findings of the Reuters review are separate from the recent analysis by the inspector general for U.S. intelligence agencies, who said last month that his office found four emails that contained classified government secrets at the time they were sent in a sample of 40 emails not yet made public.
FOR THE SECRETARY'S EYES ONLY
Clinton and her senior staff routinely sent foreign government information among themselves on unsecured networks several times a month, if the State Department's markings are correct. Within the 30 email threads reviewed by Reuters, Clinton herself sent at least 17 emails that contained this sort of information. In at least one case it was to a friend, Sidney Blumenthal, not in government.
The information appears to include privately shared comments by a prime minister, several foreign ministers and a foreign spy chief, unredacted bits of the emails show. Typically, Clinton and her staff first learned the information in private meetings, telephone calls or, less often, in email exchanges with the foreign officials.
In an email from November 2009, the principal private secretary to David Miliband, then the British foreign secretary, indicates that he is passing on information about Afghanistan from his boss in confidence. He writes to Huma Abedin, Clinton's most senior aide, that Miliband "very much wants the Secretary (only) to see this note."
Nearly five pages of entirely redacted information follow. Abedin forwarded it on to Clinton's private email account.
State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach, in an initial response to questions on how the department applies classification regulations, said that Reuters was making "outlandish accusations." In a later email, he said it was impossible for the department to know now whether any of the information was classified when it was first sent.
"We do not have the ability to go back and recreate all of the various factors that would have gone into the determinations," he wrote.
The Reuters review also found that the declassification dates the department has been marking on these emails suggest the department might believe the information was classified all along. Gerlach said this was incorrect.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
A series of presidential executive orders has governed how officials should handle the ceaseless incoming stream of raw, usually unmarked information they acquire in their work. Since at least 2003, they have emphasized that information shared by a foreign government with an expectation or agreement of confidentiality is the only kind that is "presumed" classified.
The State Department's own regulations, as laid out in the Foreign Affairs Manual, have been unequivocal since at least 1999: all department employees "must ... safeguard foreign government and NATO RESTRICTED information as U.S. Government Confidential" or higher, according to the version in force in 2009, when these particular emails were sent.
"Confidential" is the lowest U.S. classification level for information that could harm national security if leaked, after "top secret" and "secret".
State Department staff, including the secretary of state, receive training on how to classify and handle sensitive information, the department has said. In March, Clinton said she was "certainly well aware" of classification requirements.
Reuters was unable to rule out the possibility that the State Department was now overclassifying the information in the emails, or applying the regulations in some other improper or unusual way.
John Fitzpatrick, the current ISOO director, said Reuters had correctly identified all the governing rules but said it would be inappropriate for his office to take a stance on Clinton's emails, in part because he did not know the context in which the information was given.
A spokeswoman for one of the foreign governments whose information appears in Clinton's emails said, on condition of anonymity to protect diplomatic relations, that the information was shared confidentially in 2009 with Clinton and her senior staff.
If so, it appears this information should have been classified at the time and not handled on a private unsecured email network, according to government regulations.
The foreign government expects all private exchanges with U.S. officials to be treated that way, the spokeswoman for the foreign government said.
Leonard, the former ISOO director, said this sort of information was improperly shared by officials through insecure channels more frequently than the public may realize, although more typically within the unsecured .gov email network than on private email accounts.
With few exceptions, officials are forbidden from sending classified information even via the .gov email network and must use a dedicated secure network instead. The difference in Clinton's case, Leonard said, is that so-called "spillages" of classified information within the .gov network are easier to track and contain.
I really enjoyed his book "Killing Pablo" about Pablo Escobar in Colombia. Having been in the SOUTHCOM AOR during that time I found his coverage pretty darned good and interesting.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2015/08/21 14:28:02
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
pities2004 wrote: I think this will hurt her severely in the election, people can't trust her. I sure as hell don't.
I've said it once, I've said it 100 times: Hilary Clinton is bulletproof. The day this email scandal hurts her, is the day the Union Jack flies over the White House (again!)
It may have escaped people's attention, but the following has happened: Donald Trump has been talking about immigration. And now, every other GOP candidate is talking about immigration. And some of Trump's ideas on immigration are crazy. And the rest of the GOP candidates are trying to match him.
And Hilary welcomes the Hispanic vote with open arms
Mitt Romney lost the Hispanic vote by 44 points. Alarm bells should be ringing at Republican HQ but here we go again. The Republicans have found a way to once again annoy America's fastest growing demographic
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/21 14:29:03
"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
2015/08/21 15:10:38
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
LordofHats wrote: Jimmy Carter gets a bad rap I think. All the complaints people have about politicians today, it's kind of ironic that one of the most genuinely decent human beings to ever sit in the White House is regarded as having been so ineffective in office.
Its because he sucked, utterly and completely, as President.
-"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!
2015/08/21 15:15:00
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
pities2004 wrote: I think this will hurt her severely in the election, people can't trust her. I sure as hell don't.
I've said it once, I've said it 100 times: Hilary Clinton is bulletproof. The day this email scandal hurts her, is the day the Union Jack flies over the White House (again!)
It may have escaped people's attention, but the following has happened: Donald Trump has been talking about immigration. And now, every other GOP candidate is talking about immigration. And some of Trump's ideas on immigration are crazy. And the rest of the GOP candidates are trying to match him.
And Hilary welcomes the Hispanic vote with open arms
Mitt Romney lost the Hispanic vote by 44 points. Alarm bells should be ringing at Republican HQ but here we go again. The Republicans have found a way to once again annoy America's fastest growing demographic
I'm Hispanic and would rather be castrated with a rusty spoon then vote for Hilary Clinton. ( Though it would be entertaining to see people address Hilary and Bill as President Clinton and President Clinton)
pities2004 wrote: I think this will hurt her severely in the election, people can't trust her. I sure as hell don't.
I've said it once, I've said it 100 times: Hilary Clinton is bulletproof. The day this email scandal hurts her, is the day the Union Jack flies over the White House (again!)
It may have escaped people's attention, but the following has happened: Donald Trump has been talking about immigration. And now, every other GOP candidate is talking about immigration. And some of Trump's ideas on immigration are crazy. And the rest of the GOP candidates are trying to match him.
And Hilary welcomes the Hispanic vote with open arms
Mitt Romney lost the Hispanic vote by 44 points. Alarm bells should be ringing at Republican HQ but here we go again. The Republicans have found a way to once again annoy America's fastest growing demographic
Which really just shows how Hispanics are weird voters.
Only those who got here legally are able to become citizens and vote. These are the same people who should hate illegal immigration because they ignored the rules that the legal voters had to go through to get here.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/21 15:20:33
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
If there’s a Clinton crash, the vice president might not be the only one who exploits it
It’s time to ask a question, the answer to which we do not know: Will former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal do fatal damage to her campaign?
Over the past few months it’s become clearer that the questions surrounding Clinton’s emails — and a corresponding flood of negative press that she has been unable to counteract — have done her considerable harm, at least in the short term. Her favorability rating has continued to erode. In June, we noted that despite months of questions about her emails — the story broke in early March — Clinton’s net favorability had only gone from 48%-46% favorable to 46%-48% unfavorable, according to HuffPost Pollster’s average. Since then, her unfavorability has only inched up to 49%, but her favorability has dropped to about 41%.
The fact that her unfavorability number hasn’t grown much while her favorability number has clearly dropped suggests that some Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are not willing to say they like their party’s frontrunner right now, but they also aren’t willing to say they dislike her. These are the voters that Clinton, as the nominee, would probably be able to bring back into the fold. Polarization raises the floor for candidates of both parties, even ones who are damaged.
So perhaps the damage is only temporary.
However, it’s possible to imagine that the email scandal could get so bad that it would drive Clinton from the race. It’s certainly not something we’d predict right now, but we also can’t rule it out. Not when the FBI is sniffing around and Clinton felt compelled, after months of stalling, to turn over her private server, and when there are indications that those tens of thousands of emails she deleted might be retrievable on a backup server.
Clinton could be brought down by facts about the emails we don’t know. Her secretive behavior has reinforced preexisting suspicions, as she’s reminded voters of the consistent scent of scandal that has hung around the Clintons ever since they arrived on the national scene. Like so many other Clinton scandals, this one might roll off their backs. Or it might be the one that sticks.
If Clinton does leave the race, then Katie, bar the door: Every Democratic governor and senator will look in the mirror and see a future president.
However: If she remains in the contest, which is still highly probable, we continue to believe Clinton is a very formidable favorite for her party’s nomination.
Our argument for Clinton’s primary strength is largely unchanged from last month, and we won’t reiterate those points here in detail. The case for Clinton, in short, is this: Party leaders still overwhelmingly support Clinton over any other contenders; the impressive crowds that Clinton’s chief rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT), has been attracting have no predictive value; Clinton is widely supported by Democratic women and minorities, both of whom have a dominant say in the primary process; and the primary calendar suggests looking beyond the very white, unrepresentative opening contests of Iowa and New Hampshire to the more diverse contests that follow, where Clinton should be stronger than Sanders.
But what if Clinton’s perceived weakness draws other candidates into the race even as she remains? This brings us to the rumor of the moment: a potential run by Vice President Joe Biden.
Dartmouth College’s Brendan Nyhan, a shrewd analyst who has contributed to the Crystal Ball, recently argued that Biden already is running. Not because he has announced a decision, but because the growing media buzz around his potential candidacy is a way for Biden and his allies to “test the waters.” If donors, elected Democratic officials, and others are receptive to his candidacy, Biden might actually run. If they are not, he won’t.
In effect, Biden is doing what 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney did at the start of 2015, when he semi-publicly considered a candidacy. The reaction among GOP elites to a third Romney run was mixed at best, so Romney passed. If Biden does run, it will tell us that Democratic elites are less sold on Clinton than her long list of endorsements from sitting party officials would suggest, and that the email scandal and her declining favorability have done her harm.
But just because a Biden run would add to Clinton’s mounting list of woes doesn’t automatically mean Biden is a truly serious threat to win the nomination.
As a candidate, Biden would find himself in an unenviable situation. So long as Clinton remains in the race, Biden would have to contend with her daunting funding, organization, and popularity in the party (which remains quite strong). And if Clinton is not in the race, it is unlikely Biden would have to contend only with Sanders, former Gov. Martin O’Malley (MD), and the other existing candidates: As noted above, a Clinton-less field could entice several others to launch a late entrance. It’s unclear whether Biden would be the favorite in a reshuffled Democratic presidential scrum.
That’s because, for a sitting vice president, Biden is unintimidating.
Throughout the entire presidential cycle — going all the way back to 2013 — Clinton has led every single national poll of Democrats, and even in her weakened state her level of support in every poll is near or over 50%. Biden, on the other hand, has never reached even 20% in any national primary poll included in RealClearPolitics’ list, and his average in the most recent surveys is 12%. That strikes us as a fairly weak number for a sitting vice president who did not, unlike former Vice President Dick Cheney, frequently and loudly insist he was not considering a run for president. There just has not been much grassroots support for Biden.
Now, there’s an important caveat here. If Biden actually announces his run, his poll numbers will assuredly improve. But by how much? It’s hard to say, but it doesn’t seem likely that he would jump ahead of Clinton in the polls. It’s also not impossible that a Biden run would hurt Sanders more than Clinton. Although Clinton and Biden are ideologically closer to each other than either is to the socialist senator, Sanders is benefitting somewhat from the perception that he is the leading alternative to Clinton among the currently announced candidates.
Biden’s two previous presidential runs in 1988 and 2008 were busts. He was forced from the former race long before voting started in part because of https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/biden.htm]accusations that he plagiarized from the stump speech of British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock. More recently, in 2008, Biden’s candidacy was almost inert, barely registering in Iowa before he dropped out. Biden’s public persona as a scrappy underdog from Scranton also feels increasingly out of step with the diverse Democratic Party, particularly because of the things Biden has often said — “You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.” — and done — getting much too close to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter’s wife (pawing her, in fact, to her obvious discomfort) during Carter’s swearing-in earlier this year. These incidents are problematic when running for the nomination of a party increasingly reliant on women and minorities.
This gets at Biden’s perception problem: To many, it’s impossible to separate Biden the vice president from Biden the caricature. One of the most popular running gags on The Onion, the satirical news site, is poking fun at “Diamond Joe” Biden (example headlines: “Shirtless Biden Washes Trans Am In White House Driveway” and “Biden To Cool His Heels in Mexico For A While”). His frequentgaffes make him the subject of ridicule, and conservatives have criticized press coverage of Biden for years, saying that the vice president gets away with behavior that would imperil Republicans.
Responding to another Biden flub last year — Biden told a group of girls learning computer programming and coding that they were “as smart as any guy” — the sharp conservative commentator Noah Rothman summed up what he saw as Biden’s frequent free passes from the media: “What frustrates conservatives is that a small but influential community that occupies itself with daily outrages over trivialities just can’t seem to find it in themselves to express dissatisfaction over these comments.”
But it’s possible that Biden has paid a deeper price for his years of verbal missteps and indecorous behavior. The public and the media may excuse or ignore his behavior because they just don’t view him as a truly serious presidential candidate.
It’s an uncomfortable thing to discuss Biden’s vulnerabilities, given his recent personal tragedy: His beloved elder son Beau died in May of a brain tumor. Supplementing this is that, for many, Joe Biden is impossible to dislike.
But if Biden runs for president, the personal behavior outlined here will come up. Certainly Biden’s rivals would try to argue that he’s unfit for the presidency, and they will have plenty of examples to cite as they try to make that point.
We’ll just have to wait and see, and if the Donald Trump surge has taught us anything, it’s that primary polls can move on a dime. Perhaps all the previous polls on Biden are meaningless and he’ll get a giant surge in support if he runs. But just because we can imagine something happening doesn’t mean we expect it.
One other note about Biden: There are a couple of rumors surrounding his potential candidacy that merit comment.
The first is that Biden could make a one-term pledge as an acknowledgement of his advanced age (74 at the time of the 2017 inauguration). He could promise to protect President Obama’s legacy and spend his four years in office trying to govern without worrying about reelection. He also could pick a running mate with the idea of grooming that person to be the nominee in the 2020 election and make a contrast with Clinton, who is also an older candidate (Biden is currently 72, Clinton is 67).
This is probably a non-starter and it wouldn’t go over well with the base, which not only wants to win the White House but keep it for eight more years. He would also be a lame duck as soon as he was elected. Republican presidential nominees Bob Dole (1996) and John McCain (2008) considered this strategy, and the fact that both underdog nominees decided against it means they ultimately did not believe it would be very effective. We suspect Biden might discover the same thing.
The other rumor is that Clinton could potentially cut a deal with Biden in order to keep him out, promising to make him her running mate instead.
There would be some precedent for a vice president serving under two different presidents, though it’s ancient. George Clinton served as vice president during President Thomas Jefferson’s second term and President James Madison’s first, and John C. Calhoun held the position under both Presidents John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson (during his first term).
Frankly, if Clinton sees Biden as such a threat to her that she has to keep him on as her running mate, then she has more problems than we think. And more broadly, the Democrats don’t have much of a national bench right now. At least from a purely political standpoint, the running mate slot would be better used on a promising, younger politician who could either try to retain the White House after a President Hillary Clinton retires or win it back if the Republicans triumph in 2016. Biden would also add little or nothing from an Electoral College standpoint, whereas someone like Sen. Tim Kaine (VA) could help Clinton squeeze a few extra votes out of a swing state, which could be the difference in the election.
With that, Table 1 features our most recent ratings of the Democratic presidential field. The order of the candidates is unchanged. Given the uncertainty surrounding Biden, we’re keeping him just as a wild card. If he runs, we’ll probably put him above Sanders but behind Clinton. The other three candidates — O’Malley, former Sen. Jim Webb (VA), and former Gov. Lincoln Chafee (RI) — have largely failed to make much of an impression. Of these candidates, O’Malley has the best chance to have a moment, as he’s working Iowa hard and has an ideological profile generally in line with the Democratic electorate.
Harvard law Prof. Lawrence Lessig is considering running for the Democratic nomination as a referendum president. If elected, he says, he would stay in office only until he oversaw the passage of a package of political and ethical reforms, after which he would resign the presidency, allowing his liberal vice president — someone like Sanders or Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA) — to take over. His candidacy is a pipe dream, but so too are many of the other campaigns this year. If he announces and indicates he is running an actual campaign, we’ll add him — to the very bottom of our list.
Table 1: Crystal Ball rankings of 2016 Democratic presidential primary field
**see table at link**
Doesn't really work for me unless I have closed captioning turned on. I actually read lips!
Also... Trump is expecting over 30,000 people at a rally tonight in Alabama. With the Dow dropping 500-points today and if its driven by China, that feeds right into Trump's wheelehouse, no?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/08/21 21:37:43
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
This thing keeps following everywhere I go. Watching my every move, waiting until there is a lapse of judgement, waiting for it's time to strike. It's like a bad internet horror story bu even scarier.
Spoiler:
But seriously, they are everywhere I go. And I don't even like her.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/21 22:00:42
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2015/08/21 22:07:31
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Co'tor Shas wrote: This thing keeps following everywhere I go. Watching my every move, waiting until there is a lapse of judgement, waiting for it's time to strike. It's like a bad internet horror story bu even scarier.
Spoiler:
But seriously, they are everywhere I go. And I don't even like her.
Switch to Republican and those will go away. And, as an added bonus, the Republican and NRA banner adds that will replace her are more pleasing to look at.
2015/08/21 22:56:57
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Somehow I'm sure we're still going to see that accusation repeated anyway, though.
One thing I was wrong about, though, was when I said that I didn't think any of the candidates would take swipes at the likely terminally-ill Jimmy Carter - wherever there's a bar, here comes Turd Cruz to lower it. Point to Tannhauser.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/08/22 11:45:36
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
2015/08/22 11:10:57
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
David Miliband, the former British foreign secretary, sent confidential diplomatic emails to Washington, through the usual channels...which somehow ended up in Hilary's private email accounts, violating security procedures...
What HRC does, is America's business, but I'm warning you America, don't drag Britain into this mess
If you do, the Royal Navy will blockade the Chesapeake, and the New England merchants will pressure President Madison to sue for peace
PS for any American who doesn't know, the Daily Mail is the British version of Fox news. You have been warned
"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
2015/08/22 13:55:53
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Somehow I'm sure we're still going to see that accusation repeated anyway, though.
Okay... I gotta just jump in... how in the bloody hell are these investigations in any way accurate? Were they in the locations while these procedures are performed? Or, did they just review documentations? Specificallly, how did they determine it didn't happen?
Because, that "blob of cells" at the 6th minute mark tells a different story. Unless... you think its an elaborate hoax.
IF that were true, then why would StemExpress cut ties with PP? If there were no wrong doings... seems like StemExpress is overreacting... no?
One thing I was wrong about, though, was when I said that I didn't think any of the candidates would take swipes at the likely terminally-ill Jimmy Carter - wherever there's a bar, here comes Turd Cruz to lower it. Point to Tannhauser.
It's a dickish move for sure.
Welcome to politics.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/22 13:56:16
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/08/22 14:01:51
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Cutting ties with someone who might be toxic, true or not, but is generating a ton of negative press? Seems normal to me for a business.
So what you're saying is it doesn't really matter how many investigations are done, until one agrees with you. That was fairly expected.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/22 14:02:39
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
2015/08/22 14:03:29
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
So official investigations are slipshod and untrustworthy, but edited videos from a biased source are impeccable sources of truth.
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
2015/08/22 14:06:19
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
(Note that I'm only discussing this because it seems salient to the discussion at hand, many of the candidates involved have brought this up specifically as a campaign issue. It seems inextricable from this discussion to me. I don't intend this as an end-run around the locked thread that discussed this when the story broke a few weeks ago.)
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
2015/08/22 14:06:51
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: The old "they're not finding what that dubiously edited video said they'd find" means "the investigations must be slipshod", eh?
"dubiously edited videos"? They released the full unedited videos man.
But, whateve. *shrugs*
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: (Note that I'm only discussing this because it seems salient to the discussion at hand, many of the candidates involved have brought this up specifically as a campaign issue. It seems inextricable from this discussion to me. I don't intend this as an end-run around the locked thread that discussed this when the story broke a few weeks ago.)
Yeah... that's why I'm trying not to engage the discussion too much... because we know how it all end.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/22 14:08:07
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/08/22 14:08:29
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
MrDwhitey wrote: So official investigations are slipshod and untrustworthy, but edited videos from a biased source are impeccable sources of truth.
Presumably the 5 million Benghazi investigations that turned up no real evidence of wrongdoing were similarly slipshod, as was the George Zimmerman trial that failed to convict, and the Darren Wilson grand jury that failed to indict.
For this thread, that's the equivalent of a tetris. 4 lines!