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.

 whembly wrote:
Which one are you objecting?

It would probably be shorter to list the ones that aren't ridiculous.

I won't even pretend I bothered reading the 162 pages of this thread so keep your comments about repeats to yourself

But how is Hillary Clinton not under arrest? I am not saying this as a means to incite the democrats to lose the election, because hell if the Republicans put Trump forward as the candidate im either throwing my vote away or voting for Bernie.

Back to Clinton. She knowingly allowed classified documents and intelligence to be moved and stored on her private e-mail server. Not only is that a flagrant violation of a number of rules regarding the handling of classified material, it is in effect treason. If a member of the US military did this he would be immediately arrested, have all his assets and personal affects confiscated and have his clearance revoked immediately. So why is Hillary above the law in this case?

Because she's not in the military. Military seems to have much stricter rules then every other aspect of government. I've noticed that a lot. Although it's not really surprising, if most people feth up it means money and paperwork, if you feth up in the military, it could mean people dying.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Because she's not in the military. Military seems to have much stricter rules then every other aspect of government. I've noticed that a lot. Although it's not really surprising, if most people feth up it means money and paperwork, if you feth up in the military, it could mean people dying.

Well the thing is she violated the classification rules which comes down from DIRINT so she is just as subject as the military. And she signed agreements not to do exactly this. She still broke the law and yet seems above reproach.

If you really care so much about the answer then by all means go ahead and start reading all the previous pages. Or you can always PM wembly for the details, I'm sure he will be glad to make sure you know all about this case.

Tell me this: do you think it would be any different if a republican had done the same thing? Of course not. High-level politicians don't play by the same rules as the rest of us.

 Peregrine wrote:
Tell me this: do you think it would be any different if a republican had done the same thing? Of course not. High-level politicians don't play by the same rules as the rest of us.

And thats my point, these guys should be held to a higher standard then mere Enlisted members of the military, if nothing else they have access to a lot more sensitive data.

If Bush did this I would want his head, it doesn't matter what political camp they are in, they shouldn't be allowed to pull this BS>

 Ghazkuul wrote:
And thats my point, these guys should be held to a higher standard then mere Enlisted members of the military, if nothing else they have access to a lot more sensitive data.

If Bush did this I would want his head, it doesn't matter what political camp they are in, they shouldn't be allowed to pull this BS>

Yeah, but my point is that's just wishful thinking. Neither party wants to change the situation because they both benefit from it. So you can base your vote on "Hillary should be punished", but she just happened to get caught. Whoever else you vote for is unlikely to be any better.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
And thats my point, these guys should be held to a higher standard then mere Enlisted members of the military, if nothing else they have access to a lot more sensitive data.

If Bush did this I would want his head, it doesn't matter what political camp they are in, they shouldn't be allowed to pull this BS>

Yeah, but my point is that's just wishful thinking. Neither party wants to change the situation because they both benefit from it. So you can base your vote on "Hillary should be punished", but she just happened to get caught. Whoever else you vote for is unlikely to be any better.

Well like I said, im either throwing my vote away or voting for Bernie, because realistically trump is a fething moron/racist/bigot and I will not vote for him, and Hillary is an incompetent Moron.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Because she's not in the military. Military seems to have much stricter rules then every other aspect of government. I've noticed that a lot. Although it's not really surprising, if most people feth up it means money and paperwork, if you feth up in the military, it could mean people dying.

Well the thing is she violated the classification rules which comes down from DIRINT so she is just as subject as the military. And she signed agreements not to do exactly this. She still broke the law and yet seems above reproach.

Actually, the classification rules come from the President's Executive Order 13526.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information

The problems extend far beyond her actions (and the real truth is that her part in it really is rather minor compared to the larger picture, but who cares about that when there are political points to be scored?).

And I love how her "damn emails" are still the cause of so much uproar....while nobody gives one flying feth about the actual theft of all personally identifiable information of every federal employee due to the OPM hack.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Not only is that a flagrant violation of a number of rules regarding the handling of classified material, it is in effect treason.

I don't think the word "treason" means what you think it means.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Not only is that a flagrant violation of a number of rules regarding the handling of classified material, it is in effect treason.

I don't think the word "treason" means what you think it means.

A lot of the politicians who throw it around don't either.

I remember when the whole wikileaks thing first broke some US politicians were saying that Assange should be charged with treason

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Not only is that a flagrant violation of a number of rules regarding the handling of classified material, it is in effect treason.

I don't think the word "treason" means what you think it means.

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

I would say that allowing classified material which is held on classified servers to be leaked onto a private e-mail server which has been proven to be incredibly easy to hack would fall under the "Aid and comfort" clause of that law. It was unintentional aid but it is still aid nonetheless.

So I would venture that YOU don't understand what the word "Treason" means.

That's an impossibly broad definition of "treason". You'd have to convict any President that declared war, for example, because he'd be warning the enemy that you're coming. You generally don't convict people for treason unless they conciously chose to aid the enemy.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Not only is that a flagrant violation of a number of rules regarding the handling of classified material, it is in effect treason.

I don't think the word "treason" means what you think it means.

A lot of the politicians who throw it around don't either.

I remember when the whole wikileaks thing first broke some US politicians were saying that Assange should be charged with treason

I had to read this twice. How could a non-American be charged with treason against the USA?

Silly politicians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Because she's not in the military. Military seems to have much stricter rules then every other aspect of government. I've noticed that a lot. Although it's not really surprising, if most people feth up it means money and paperwork, if you feth up in the military, it could mean people dying.

Well the thing is she violated the classification rules which comes down from DIRINT so she is just as subject as the military. And she signed agreements not to do exactly this. She still broke the law and yet seems above reproach.

Actually, the classification rules come from the President's Executive Order 13526.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information

The problems extend far beyond her actions (and the real truth is that her part in it really is rather minor compared to the larger picture, but who cares about that when there are political points to be scored?).

And I love how her "damn emails" are still the cause of so much uproar....while nobody gives one flying feth about the actual theft of all personally identifiable information of every federal employee due to the OPM hack.

Great point. Apart from causing some embarrassment for UK politicians (some of Hilary's emails were unflattering about some UK politicians, but most UK folk would agree with what she said ) it's hard to see what damage the emails have done compared to that mega hack, the results of which seem to have been swept under the carpet.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Not only is that a flagrant violation of a number of rules regarding the handling of classified material, it is in effect treason.

I don't think the word "treason" means what you think it means.

A lot of the politicians who throw it around don't either.

I remember when the whole wikileaks thing first broke some US politicians were saying that Assange should be charged with treason

I had to read this twice. How could a non-American be charged with treason against the USA?

Silly politicians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Because she's not in the military. Military seems to have much stricter rules then every other aspect of government. I've noticed that a lot. Although it's not really surprising, if most people feth up it means money and paperwork, if you feth up in the military, it could mean people dying.

Well the thing is she violated the classification rules which comes down from DIRINT so she is just as subject as the military. And she signed agreements not to do exactly this. She still broke the law and yet seems above reproach.

Actually, the classification rules come from the President's Executive Order 13526.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information

The problems extend far beyond her actions (and the real truth is that her part in it really is rather minor compared to the larger picture, but who cares about that when there are political points to be scored?).

And I love how her "damn emails" are still the cause of so much uproar....while nobody gives one flying feth about the actual theft of all personally identifiable information of every federal employee due to the OPM hack.

Great point. Apart from causing some embarrassment for UK politicians (some of Hilary's emails were unflattering about some UK politicians, but most UK folk would agree with what she said ) it's hard to see what damage the emails have done compared to that mega hack, the results of which seem to have been swept under the carpet.

Wrong, considering that some of the emails that have been released have been significantly redacted there was alot more in them than unflattering comments amount UK politicians. Second considering me, Ghaz and the NGA individuals Whembly was referring to in another post are far more effected than even most government employees I humbly request that you please stop using the incompetence of one portion of the executive branch as a smokescreen for likely felonious activity of another portion.

I've now seen 3 instances (at least) of Bernie Sanders being directly asked to define "democratic socialist", and each time, he has failed to do so. His stock answer to this question, as shown in the debate, is something like "it's obscene that 0.1% of the population controls more wealth than the bottom 90%, we should have universal healthcare, we should expand social security by raising the tax cap on it, and we should make public colleges free by taxing specualtive bank practices." Those are statements of opinion and perhaps policy, but they do not constitute a definition of "democratic socialist". I'm educated, so I understand that the United States has myriad socilaist programs, but if this guy wants to win the Democratic nomination, at some point I think he'll need to give a better definition. And if he wants to be POTUS, than I believe he owes voters a definition of his political philosophy. Just listing opinions and names of Scandanavian countries is not good enough.

On Bill Maher's show last Friday, Maher basically begged Sanders for a concrete answer, and no concrete answer was provided. This will be a huge problem for his campaign.

 jasper76 wrote:
I've now seen 3 instances (at least) of Bernie Sanders being directly asked to define "democratic socialist", and each time, he has failed to do so. His stock answer to this question, as shown in the debate, is something like "it's obscene that 0.1% of the population controls more wealth than the bottom 90%, we should have universal healthcare, we should expand social security by raising the tax cap on it, and we should make public colleges free by taxing specualtive bank practices." Those are statements of opinion and perhaps policy, but they do not constitute a definition of "democratic socialist". I'm educated, so I understand that the United States has myriad socilaist programs, but if this guy wants to win the Democratic nomination, at some point I think he'll need to give a better definition. And if he wants to be POTUS, than I believe he owes voters a definition of his political philosophy. Just listing opinions and names of Scandanavian countries is not good enough.

On Bill Maher's show last Friday, Maher basically begged Sanders for a concrete answer, and no concrete answer was provided. This will be a huge problem for his campaign.

A democratic socialist is someone who is a socialist and operates within the democratic system.

Asking for some mystical super definition is a bit silly.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I've now seen 3 instances (at least) of Bernie Sanders being directly asked to define "democratic socialist", and each time, he has failed to do so. His stock answer to this question, as shown in the debate, is something like "it's obscene that 0.1% of the population controls more wealth than the bottom 90%, we should have universal healthcare, we should expand social security by raising the tax cap on it, and we should make public colleges free by taxing specualtive bank practices." Those are statements of opinion and perhaps policy, but they do not constitute a definition of "democratic socialist". I'm educated, so I understand that the United States has myriad socilaist programs, but if this guy wants to win the Democratic nomination, at some point I think he'll need to give a better definition. And if he wants to be POTUS, than I believe he owes voters a definition of his political philosophy. Just listing opinions and names of Scandanavian countries is not good enough.

On Bill Maher's show last Friday, Maher basically begged Sanders for a concrete answer, and no concrete answer was provided. This will be a huge problem for his campaign.

A democratic socialist is someone who is a socialist and operates within the democratic system.

Asking for some mystical super definition is a bit silly.

I'm not asking for a mystical super deifintion....a regular definition will do.

And a definition that is self-referential, like Democratic Socialist = a socialist that operates within the democratic system, is not good enough (for me, at least).

I mean, I think I know what he means by the term, but unless he tells me, how would I know for sure? The fact that he does obfuscate rather than provide a direct answeris a problem. And I guarantee you there is a huge swath of our voting public that immediately equates socialism with communism, and if Bernie can't spell it out even for his supporters, he has small chance of winning these folks over in a primary, and zero chance of winning the election.

 jasper76 wrote:

Spoiler:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I've now seen 3 instances (at least) of Bernie Sanders being directly asked to define "democratic socialist", and each time, he has failed to do so. His stock answer to this question, as shown in the debate, is something like "it's obscene that 0.1% of the population controls more wealth than the bottom 90%, we should have universal healthcare, we should expand social security by raising the tax cap on it, and we should make public colleges free by taxing specualtive bank practices." Those are statements of opinion and perhaps policy, but they do not constitute a definition of "democratic socialist". I'm educated, so I understand that the United States has myriad socilaist programs, but if this guy wants to win the Democratic nomination, at some point I think he'll need to give a better definition. And if he wants to be POTUS, than I believe he owes voters a definition of his political philosophy. Just listing opinions and names of Scandanavian countries is not good enough.

On Bill Maher's show last Friday, Maher basically begged Sanders for a concrete answer, and no concrete answer was provided. This will be a huge problem for his campaign.

A democratic socialist is someone who is a socialist and operates within the democratic system.

Asking for some mystical super definition is a bit silly.

I'm not asking for a mystical super deifintion....a regular definition will do.

And a definition that is self-referential, like Democratic Socialist = a socialist that operates within the democratic system, is not good enough (for me, at least).

I mean, I think I know what he means by the term, but unless he tells me, how would I know for sure? The fact that he does obfuscate rather than provide a direct answeris a problem. And I guarantee you there is a huge swath of our voting public that immediately equates socialism with communism, and if Bernie can't spell it out even for his supporters, he has small chance of winning these folks over in a primary, and zero chance of winning the election.

His definition seemed pretty clear to me. He is a socialist in that he believes in the ideals that he lists out namely lowering disparity, universal healthcare, expanded social security, and free higher education. He hopes to achieve these ideals by working in a democratic system.

Also, do you Americans still have a problem with socialism? The Cold War has been over for 24 years.

 the Signless wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

Spoiler:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I've now seen 3 instances (at least) of Bernie Sanders being directly asked to define "democratic socialist", and each time, he has failed to do so. His stock answer to this question, as shown in the debate, is something like "it's obscene that 0.1% of the population controls more wealth than the bottom 90%, we should have universal healthcare, we should expand social security by raising the tax cap on it, and we should make public colleges free by taxing specualtive bank practices." Those are statements of opinion and perhaps policy, but they do not constitute a definition of "democratic socialist". I'm educated, so I understand that the United States has myriad socilaist programs, but if this guy wants to win the Democratic nomination, at some point I think he'll need to give a better definition. And if he wants to be POTUS, than I believe he owes voters a definition of his political philosophy. Just listing opinions and names of Scandanavian countries is not good enough.

On Bill Maher's show last Friday, Maher basically begged Sanders for a concrete answer, and no concrete answer was provided. This will be a huge problem for his campaign.

A democratic socialist is someone who is a socialist and operates within the democratic system.

Asking for some mystical super definition is a bit silly.

I'm not asking for a mystical super deifintion....a regular definition will do.

And a definition that is self-referential, like Democratic Socialist = a socialist that operates within the democratic system, is not good enough (for me, at least).

I mean, I think I know what he means by the term, but unless he tells me, how would I know for sure? The fact that he does obfuscate rather than provide a direct answeris a problem. And I guarantee you there is a huge swath of our voting public that immediately equates socialism with communism, and if Bernie can't spell it out even for his supporters, he has small chance of winning these folks over in a primary, and zero chance of winning the election.

His definition seemed pretty clear to me. He is a socialist in that he believes in the ideals that he lists out namely lowering disparity, universal healthcare, expanded social security, and free higher education. He hopes to achieve these ideals by working in a democratic system.

Also, do you Americans still have a problem with socialism? The Cold War has been over for 24 years.

This will be my last post on the subject, because I can tell maybe its just me and Bill Maher who are not satisfied with the "definition" he has failed to provide.

Inasmuch as US citizens support Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Roads and Bridges, Infrastructure programs etc, US citizens largely support socialist programs...but many do not even understand that these are, in fact, socialist programs. This is why its so very important for Sanders to provide a clear definition if he hopes to compete beyond the Democratic primaries, because many Americans don't really know what socialism is, and immediately equate it with Communism, which, in the USA, is probably as popular as beating puppies to death with spiked clubs.

And if Sanders lets the likes of Donald Trump define what "democratic socialist" is without providing his own definition, he'll have only himself to blame.

For Jasper:

 the Signless wrote:


Also, do you Americans still have a problem with socialism? The Cold War has been over for 24 years.

Many voters are still old enough to remember the "duck and cover" videos in schools to prepare them for Russian missile attacks, so "socialist" is still a dirty word to a very large demographic in the US. But, as already said, what is needed to is get people to realize that we already have many socialist policies and institutions in place, and Bernie simply wants to expand on that.

The problem with American politics, however, is that many voters aren't interested in making informed decisions on the issues, and simply prefer to rely on doing whatever their chosen echo chamber tells them.

Keep in mind that many think that Obama is a communist because of his extremely liberal left-wing ideas and you should realize how delusional this country is about "socialism" and other things in then left side of politics.

OK I gotta ask. Are people saying trump is a racist because of his stance on immigration. Or is there something I missed.

yellowfever wrote:
OK I gotta ask. Are people saying trump is a racist because of his stance on immigration. Or is there something I missed.

It's not just his stance on immigration. It's the way he says it and presents it. It''s a whole host of other remarks that occasionally have nothing to do with immigration.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

yellowfever wrote:
OK I gotta ask. Are people saying trump is a racist because of his stance on immigration. Or is there something I missed.

It's not just his stance on immigration. It's the way he says it and presents it. It''s a whole host of other remarks that occasionally have nothing to do with immigration.

technically i am a republican, my voter ID says so at least. However, every political survey I have ever taken has put me almost dead center on the political spectrum, usually 1-2 points leaning right (conservative, republican). With that said, I will not vote for Trump, I will not vote for Hillary and I really don't like Sanders that much but he might be the best option unless the republicans put forward a real candidate.

Why I won't vote for:

Trump: He is not a good businessman. A lot of studies showed that based on the money he was given from his father he could have actually increased his wealth significantly more simply by investing in a mid to low risk portfolio instead of what he did. He is a racist, his remarks about immigrants is insulting and he seems to forget that EVERY US PERSON with the exception of Native Americans was at one point an immigrant.

Hillary: Any person who can knowingly leak classified material does not deserve to be president. She should be in jail not running for office. As President she will be faced with a significant increase in classified material and if she can't figure out how to add SECRET//REL TO to her documents and then keep them on the classified computers and networks that the information was original put on .........

Bernie: I might vote for him, but only as a last resort if the other option is Trump, but I would not vote for him normally because I personally believe most socialist programs we have are garbage. I don't agree with a lot of his policies but at least he isnt a moron like Trump nor an ignorant security risk like Clinton.

Personally, my issues with Clinton, aside from the family name, and lack of policies, is that she continually harps on being the "first woman president". It's fething annoying and does nothing except pander to the idiots who will vote that way (the same as whatever number of people voted for Obama simply for being black, and we all know that there ARE people out there who did)

Honestly, I would be much more inclined to vote a woman into office if, when questioned on it, she responded with "no, I don't want to be the first woman president, I want to be the Xth president of the US." (where X obviously represents whatever number we're on at that point.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Personally, my issues with Clinton, aside from the family name, and lack of policies, is that she continually harps on being the "first woman president". It's fething annoying and does nothing except pander to the idiots who will vote that way (the same as whatever number of people voted for Obama simply for being black, and we all know that there ARE people out there who did)

My sister and Mothers were fans of the Clintons.

They both own a copy of Hillary's book that was signed by her! And after that last debate, they ain't voting for her.

<--this guy is still stunned at that.

Honestly, I would be much more inclined to vote a woman into office if, when questioned on it, she responded with "no, I don't want to be the first woman president, I want to be the Xth president of the US." (where X obviously represents whatever number we're on at that point.

Carly Fiorina actually said something like that.

If I have time, I'll try to find it.

Vox article describing troubles in the Democratic party.

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9565119/democrats-in-deep-trouble