Ghazkuul wrote:


I actually consider this

the existence of an investigation doesn't actually mean what you seem to think it means

is snotty. So keep those comments out of the forums please

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm telling you boys, its Rubio/Fiorino.

I'm good with that.

Although, I think Rubio/Haley is a much better ticket.

The news on Fiorina is her inability to capitalize on her debate performance... doesn't bode well on her campaign.

Nikki Haley, on the other hand, is term-limited as Governor of South Carolina.

As Clinton being the eventual Democrat candidate... strategically speaking, you'd have to blunt the gender politics a bit and get a woman on the ticket.

 d-usa wrote:
I can't believe that somebody just accused somebody of talking snobby 5 minutes after calling medical professionals "Board Certified R******"

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:


I actually consider this

the existence of an investigation doesn't actually mean what you seem to think it means

is snotty. So keep those comments out of the forums please

"Snotty" is a term used by people like yourself to talk down at someone whom they believe is putting on airs and has no knowledge of the topic at hand. I consider the use of the term "snotty" to be detrimental to discussion.
And quite frankly?
The existence of an investigation really doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

You're under the impression of it being proof positive that wrongdoing exists. That's not the case.

 d-usa wrote:
I can't believe that somebody just accused somebody of talking snobby 5 minutes after calling medical professionals "Board Certified R******"

 Ghazkuul wrote:


Ohh I am sorry, your right, forcing hundreds of people to take medicine for a disease that is non-existent in the part of the country in which they are stationed is completely warranted. And im sure the significant health problems that resulted from taking that medicine for 6 months is worth preventing 1-2 possible cases of Malaria.

Just because they are doctors doesn't mean they know wtf they are doing. Please continue to take my comments out of context

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:


Ohh I am sorry, your right, forcing hundreds of people to take medicine for a disease that is non-existent in the part of the country in which they are stationed is completely warranted. And im sure the significant health problems that resulted from taking that medicine for 6 months is worth preventing 1-2 possible cases of Malaria.

Just because they are doctors doesn't mean they know wtf they are doing. Please continue to take my comments out of context

But you, someone with apparently zero experience in medicine, somehow knows the risk of malaria contraction in all areas of Afghanistan. Got it.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:


Ohh I am sorry, your right, forcing hundreds of people to take medicine for a disease that is non-existent in the part of the country in which they are stationed is completely warranted. And im sure the significant health problems that resulted from taking that medicine for 6 months is worth preventing 1-2 possible cases of Malaria.

Just because they are doctors doesn't mean they know wtf they are doing. Please continue to take my comments out of context

But you, someone with apparently zero experience in medicine, somehow knows the risk of malaria contraction in all areas of Afghanistan. Got it.

Or im someone who was in that specific area of Afghanistan, looked up the numbers with the CDC and posted them. But please continue to comment on things you don't know about.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:


Ohh I am sorry, your right, forcing hundreds of people to take medicine for a disease that is non-existent in the part of the country in which they are stationed is completely warranted. And im sure the significant health problems that resulted from taking that medicine for 6 months is worth preventing 1-2 possible cases of Malaria.

Just because they are doctors doesn't mean they know wtf they are doing. Please continue to take my comments out of context

But you, someone with apparently zero experience in medicine, somehow knows the risk of malaria contraction in all areas of Afghanistan. Got it.

Or im someone who was in that specific area of Afghanistan, looked up the numbers with the CDC and posted them. But please continue to comment on things you don't know about.

And you somehow think that the doctors, whose entire job was to evaluate the risk and propose countermeasures, didn't look at those figures, and probably more which you don't have access to?

Yesterday was slightly heavy on the breaking news front, so this (not unexpected) development went largely overlooked. President Obama held a photo-op to highlight his decision to veto the bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act, which appropriates $612 billion in defense spending -- a figure that matches Obama's military budget request. Among other things, the legislation pays the troops and gives them a raise. It sailed through the Senate with 70 votes, attracting dozens of Democratic votes at both ends of Capitol Hill. But in an escalation of partisan politics, Obama has refused to sign the measure into law in an effort to coerce Republicans into caving into his domestic spending demands:

President Obama made good on his threat to veto a $612 billion defense policy bill Thursday, bringing the fight over domestic spending into the realm of national security. Speaking to reporters for four minutes in a rare public veto message, Obama said the bill fell "woefully short" because it kept across-the-board budget cuts in place, blocked needed military reforms and prohibited him from closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. With a pen stroke of his left hand, he sent the bill back to Congress, saying, "My message to them is simple. Let's do this right." The veto of the National Defense Authorization Act was an extraordinary use of one of the president's most powerful executive tools. While the White House had problems with some of the bill's provisions, Obama's main objection is that the bill anticipates off-budget spending to increase the defense budget without increasing domestic spending first. The president wants Congress to lift the automatic budget caps included in a 2011 budget agreement. That, congressional Republicans said, is an unprecedented and irresponsible use of the veto power.

The White House says it objects to the manner in which the additional dollars were appropriated, and is frustrated with Congress' continued bipartisan refusal to go along with Obama's unpopular plan to empty the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility. But at the heart of this move is an attempt to strong arm the Republican-held Congress into trading an increased defense budget for more domestic spending. Adopting the White House's colorful parlance, Obama is holding funding for our troops hostage to unrelated political objectives. The president adamantly opposes similar tactics as it relates to the GOP's desire to defund Obamacare, Planned Parenthood or his illegal executive amnesty program -- but they're entirely reasonable and fair when deployed on behalf of his agenda. Outgoing House Speaker John Boehner unloads:

“By placing domestic politics ahead of our troops, President Obama has put America’s national security at risk. This indefensible veto blocks pay and vital tools for our troops while Iranian terrorists prepare to gain billions under the president’s nuclear deal. Congress should not allow this veto to stand.”

Since Boehner raised Iran in his curt statement, it's probably worth mentioning that Congressional Democrats threw a party to celebrate the implementation of Obama's widely-opposed nuclear deal this week. They toasted to an agreement that shovels more than $100 billion into the terrorist-backing regime's coffers, legitimizes Iran's rogue nuclear program, and guarantees Iran's place as a threshold nuclear power as soon as the accord's restrictions begin to automatically expire after one decade. Pelosi and friends were evidently unperturbed by, or unaware of, the facts that (a) Iran ostentatiously resisted complying with international investigators' probe into the past military dimensions of its illegal nuclear program, and (b) the regime just test fired an advanced ballistic missile, in violation of international law and the just-inked deal. In response, the Obama administration has valiantly pledged to 'raise the issue' at the United Nations. Good work, everyone. Clink. And with that as a backdrop, Obama has now rejected a consensus defense spending bill for his own ideological purposes -- and as with the Iran issue, Hill Democrats are planning to dutifully sustain his veto, promising to reverse their own votes if necessary. I'll leave you with this from our Commander-in-Chief, with no further commentary necessary:

NB: WH says POTUS did not sign off on #Iraq Spec Ops raid that left US solider dead, says it was Def. Sec. Carter's call

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) October 22, 2015

 d-usa wrote:
I thought the reason it was vetoed was because it bypassed sequestration?

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I thought the reason it was vetoed was because it bypassed sequestration?

You mean, that thing that was his idea in the first place?

Frankly, I think it's because of the rider prohibiting him from transferring the Gitmo detainee to the states and closing Gitmo.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I thought the reason it was vetoed was because it bypassed sequestration?

You mean, that thing that was his idea in the first place?

Frankly, I think it's because of the rider prohibiting him from transferring the Gitmo detainee to the states and closing Gitmo.

So it didn't bypass sequestration?

 whembly wrote:

As Clinton being the eventual Democrat candidate... strategically speaking, you'd have to blunt the gender politics a bit and get a woman on the ticket.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

As Clinton being the eventual Democrat candidate... strategically speaking, you'd have to blunt the gender politics a bit and get a woman on the ticket.

Eh, not necessarily. Gender politics, much like racial politics, largely go without direct mention by the campaign with the perceived advantage. And make no mistake, even with Haley or Fiorina on the GOP ticket Clinton would still have the advantage as she has done a lot of work on women's rights throughout her career. Indeed, even if Clinton does try to leverage her feminist history the worst thing the GOP could do is counter with some variation on "We have a woman too!", as that's likely to galvanize the anti-GOP sentiment of women who do vote along gender lines.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I thought the reason it was vetoed was because it bypassed sequestration?

You mean, that thing that was his idea in the first place?

Frankly, I think it's because of the rider prohibiting him from transferring the Gitmo detainee to the states and closing Gitmo.

So it didn't bypass sequestration?

...I'm looking at the bill the 2nd time.

It doesn't appear that it's rolling back the sequestration... but, it's spending some money as if does indeed bypass it.

My head hurts now Mr. E-bola man...

Jeb Bush Is Toast
And other insights from third-quarter fundraising reports
To win the GOP primary and, more important, the general election, a candidate must be able to play to both grassroots supporters and the major donors. Since the dawn of the era of Internet campaigns, beginning in the 2000 election, no candidate in either party who was not, at this point in the election cycle, in the top two in grassroots fundraising has won the nomination, nor has any candidate outside the top three in major-donor funding.

Candidates who cannot win the support of major donors ultimately lack the qualities to be competitive in a general election. Influential votes and voices matter, and not just for their money.

This is why candidates such as Bernie Sanders are extremely unlikely to be president, no matter how much money they raise. Conversely, candidates whom big donors love but who do not excite the base can sometimes be lifted by the establishment to the nomination but have no hope in the general election.

This why candidates such as Rudy Giuliani, despite his enormous major-donor fundraising totals, went absolutely nowhere in the GOP primaries. Ultimately, it is candidates who — e.g., Obama and George W. Bush — excite the grassroots and do well with major donors who win.

This perspective is instructive when analyzing the candidates’ latest quarterly financial reports in the 2016 GOP presidential primary. I have compared the cumulative fundraising data from the election to date with the data through the same quarter of the 2012, 2008, 2004, and 2000 election cycles to see what we can learn about which candidates are likely to do well and which candidates are almost certain to fail.

From examining the data, several striking patterns emerge, and if fundraising history is any guide to the present, all of the following assertions will prove true.

Jeb Bush has almost no chance of being the GOP nominee, owing to a near-complete lack of support from the GOP’s rank-and-file donors.

John Kasich, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, Lindsey Graham, and George Pataki also have almost no chance of being the GOP nominee, much less of winning the general election. That doesn’t mean it is impossible that one could do well in Iowa or New Hampshire. Nor does it mean that they should drop out, or that they are bad candidates, or that they might not have a significant effect through their presence on the nominating process. But from their early fundraising, it is clear that they will not have the grassroots support, money, or organization to win the general election, especially against what is still a very deep field.

Contrary to media narratives, Ted Cruz looks to be in the strongest position to win the nomination, given the fundraising data. The one major wild card in that analysis is Donald Trump, currently by far the leader in GOP polling. His support base overlaps in some ways with Cruz’s. He hasn’t fundraised actively, so it is difficult to draw firm conclusions, but it seems likely that he would be a very strong in both major-donor and grassroots fundraising. He looks like the favorite, but the party establishment, as well as a significant number of conservative activists, are set against him. He’s a unique candidate with unique positioning, and therefore he is uniquely challenging to quantify using traditional measurements.

Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio could still win the nomination. But compared with past successful nominees, they have substantial fundraising and strategic weaknesses right now. In Rubio’s case, those weaknesses have been under-recognized. Ben Carson cannot be entirely excluded but rates as very, very unlikely to be the nominee, given historical patterns.

There has been a small-donor revolution in GOP fundraising in 2016. Below are the small-donor (under $200) donations by election cycle, through the third quarter of each year preceding the election.
2016: $61.3 million
2012: $16.7 million
2008: 28.4 million
2004: $9 million
2000: $13.9 million

Note that this fundraising boom effectively excludes Donald Trump, the leader in the polls, who would almost certainly be at or near the top of small-donor fundraising if he had been fundraising actively. Were that the case, the GOP’s small-donor dollars would probably be about triple the highest previous total ever raised.

SOME DATA ON HISTORICAL RATIOS OF SMALL-DOLLAR TO LARGE-DOLLAR MONEY

Examining data from the previous four election cycles is one of the best ways to understand the importance of campaign finance. Below is a list of the ratios of major-donor money ($2,000–$2,700) to small-donor money (less than $200) for both parties’ nominees for the past four election cycles. The data are imperfect because my primary source (the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute) has tracked donation amounts slightly differently in different election cycles. I have rounded the ratios below, reflecting this imperfection in the data. Below are the ratios between big-donor (more than $2,000) and small-donor (less than $2,000) amounts raised for candidates, 2000–2016, through the third quarter of the year preceding the general election:

2016
Clinton 3:1,
Sanders 1:33
Carson 1:11.5,
Cruz 1:1.6,
Bush 15:1,
Rubio 1.7:1,
Fiorina 1:2.5,
Trump 1:6.5

2012
Romney 7:1
Obama 1:3 2008
McCain 1.7:1
Obama 1.3:1

2004
Bush 6.2:1
Kerry 5.4:1

2000
Bush 12:1
Gore 6:1

A few points stand out.

First, ratios of big- to small-donor money have fallen. The importance of small-donor money has grown. Even the famously plutocratic Romney raised a higher percentage of his money from small donors than did George W. Bush in 2000. Obama’s ratio of small-donor to big-donor money in 2012 was 18 times higher than Gore’s in 2000.

Second, Jeb Bush cannot win. I don’t say this because I dislike Jeb. (On the contrary, I think he has virtues as both a candidate and a person.) But the numbers don’t lie. It’s not just that his ratio of big-donor to small-dollar donations is vastly out of sync with the rest of the GOP and Democratic fields today. (Even Romney’s ratio of small-donor to big-donor dollars was more than twice Jeb’s.) Jeb’s big-donor to small-donor ratio is 15:1. No candidate has ever won the nomination with such a heavy reliance on big donors, even at a time when big-donor money made up a much larger percentage of total fundraising.

For the rest of the GOP field, the ratio of big-donor to small-donor money is 1:1.6. Furthermore, Jeb ranks just third in total fundraising. For reasons I examine below, that seems unlikely to improve.

Jeb devotees examining this data might want to point to the year 2000, when George W. Bush at this point in the campaign had an approximately 12:1 ratio of large- to small-donor money.

But using just this ratio (which Jeb exceeds) masks some important points. First, George W. Bush had locked up the big donors at this point in 2000. He had 80 percent of major-donor dollars, making him the clear choice of the GOP’s donor class. Jeb gets just 35 percent of big-donor dollars. The donor class is split. Second, with 19 percent of the small-dollar total, George W. Bush essentially was tied for first among a divided field of small-dollar donors.

In contrast, Jeb has just 2.3 percent of small-dollar contributions in the GOP field, ranking ninth.

And George W. Bush’s solid but unspectacular showing among small donors looks dramatically different when mid-dollar donations, $200 to $999, are considered. Amounts less than $1,000 come typically from slightly more-prosperous grassroots donors. George W. Bush crushed the competition in this category, taking 64 percent of the mid-dollar money in the GOP field (and raising more of it than Gore and Bradley, combined, managed on the Democratic side).

By contrast, Jeb takes only 7 percent of that total in the GOP field today and ranks sixth. Even Romney in 2012 was a competitive second in the small- and medium-grassroots donor categories to Ron Paul, who had famously fanatical small donors. Romney achieved this while, like George W. Bush, winning an overwhelming victory among large donors.

The contrast between Jeb in 2016 and George W. in 2000 could not be more dramatic. George W. Bush won by dominating among large donors, being right in the top tier with the smallest, most-grassroots donors, and dominating again among the GOP’s mid-dollar donors. That is what a strong, winning candidate looks like. Meanwhile, Jeb, while relying on big-donor fundraising from his friends and family, takes just 35 percent of a fragmented major-donor pool. His performance with small donors is abysmal, ranking with that of fringe candidates, at a time when small-donor money has become ever more valuable. And his performance with mid-dollar donors is scarcely better, in contrast to his brother’s domination of this sector.

Jeb raised only three times as much from small donors as did Lawrence Lessig, the semi-obscure Harvard professor, running as a Democrat, who was too fringey to be invited to a debate that featured Lincoln Chaffee, who had only 29 itemized donors through the third quarter of 2011. And Jeb’s total amount, $4.2 million, raised from donations under $2,000 is just $1 million more than the total fundraising of Lindsey Graham, who is polling at 0 percent.

Jeb’s supporters are maxed out, and he has no grassroots support to grow new ones. But what about the super PAC? Jeb supporters might counter. Yes, that money would certainly be helpful for Jeb, but it has severe legal limits as to its usage — and he’s already spent millions of it on TV in early-primary states, with little to show for it. The super-PAC money just further emphasizes his reliance on wealthy donors. And it won’t get him over the top. Meg Whitman spent more than $178 million (far more than is in Jeb’s super PAC) to take just 40.9 percent of the vote in the governor’s race in one state, California, during the 2010 election. She ran just a point ahead of California GOP lieutenant-gubernatorial candidate Abel Maldonado, who spent less than $2 million on his entire campaign. As conservatives always say to campaign finance “reformers”: You cannot buy elections. The GOP establishment needs to take this to heart and realize that in Jeb, it has a lost cause.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Spoiler:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:


I actually consider this

the existence of an investigation doesn't actually mean what you seem to think it means

is snotty. So keep those comments out of the forums please

"Snotty" is a term used by people like yourself to talk down at someone whom they believe is putting on airs and has no knowledge of the topic at hand. I consider the use of the term "snotty" to be detrimental to discussion.
And quite frankly?
The existence of an investigation really doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

You're under the impression of it being proof positive that wrongdoing exists. That's not the case.

No, I am well aware of what "snotty" means. I am also well aware of what an investigation means. It means that there is possible wrong doing that is worth the time to investigate But what your failing to see is that Hillary clinton has gone on the record saying she used a private e-mail server to conduct State dept business. And the fact that several of her e-mails were redacted because they were classified. which means classified information was leaked, now whether or not that information was classified before or after is up for debate, but at the same time some information is ALWAYS classified, and just because you pulled it out of the air doesn't make it any less classified.

 whembly wrote:
So in other interesting news...

Obama is holding the Military hostage now...

Spoiler:

By the Way, Obama Just Vetoed a Bipartisan Bill to Fund the Military, Pay Troops

Yesterday was slightly heavy on the breaking news front, so this (not unexpected) development went largely overlooked. President Obama held a photo-op to highlight his decision to veto the bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act, which appropriates $612 billion in defense spending -- a figure that matches Obama's military budget request. Among other things, the legislation pays the troops and gives them a raise. It sailed through the Senate with 70 votes, attracting dozens of Democratic votes at both ends of Capitol Hill. But in an escalation of partisan politics, Obama has refused to sign the measure into law in an effort to coerce Republicans into caving into his domestic spending demands:

President Obama made good on his threat to veto a $612 billion defense policy bill Thursday, bringing the fight over domestic spending into the realm of national security. Speaking to reporters for four minutes in a rare public veto message, Obama said the bill fell "woefully short" because it kept across-the-board budget cuts in place, blocked needed military reforms and prohibited him from closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. With a pen stroke of his left hand, he sent the bill back to Congress, saying, "My message to them is simple. Let's do this right." The veto of the National Defense Authorization Act was an extraordinary use of one of the president's most powerful executive tools. While the White House had problems with some of the bill's provisions, Obama's main objection is that the bill anticipates off-budget spending to increase the defense budget without increasing domestic spending first. The president wants Congress to lift the automatic budget caps included in a 2011 budget agreement. That, congressional Republicans said, is an unprecedented and irresponsible use of the veto power.

The White House says it objects to the manner in which the additional dollars were appropriated, and is frustrated with Congress' continued bipartisan refusal to go along with Obama's unpopular plan to empty the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility. But at the heart of this move is an attempt to strong arm the Republican-held Congress into trading an increased defense budget for more domestic spending. Adopting the White House's colorful parlance, Obama is holding funding for our troops hostage to unrelated political objectives. The president adamantly opposes similar tactics as it relates to the GOP's desire to defund Obamacare, Planned Parenthood or his illegal executive amnesty program -- but they're entirely reasonable and fair when deployed on behalf of his agenda. Outgoing House Speaker John Boehner unloads:

“By placing domestic politics ahead of our troops, President Obama has put America’s national security at risk. This indefensible veto blocks pay and vital tools for our troops while Iranian terrorists prepare to gain billions under the president’s nuclear deal. Congress should not allow this veto to stand.”

Since Boehner raised Iran in his curt statement, it's probably worth mentioning that Congressional Democrats threw a party to celebrate the implementation of Obama's widely-opposed nuclear deal this week. They toasted to an agreement that shovels more than $100 billion into the terrorist-backing regime's coffers, legitimizes Iran's rogue nuclear program, and guarantees Iran's place as a threshold nuclear power as soon as the accord's restrictions begin to automatically expire after one decade. Pelosi and friends were evidently unperturbed by, or unaware of, the facts that (a) Iran ostentatiously resisted complying with international investigators' probe into the past military dimensions of its illegal nuclear program, and (b) the regime just test fired an advanced ballistic missile, in violation of international law and the just-inked deal. In response, the Obama administration has valiantly pledged to 'raise the issue' at the United Nations. Good work, everyone. Clink. And with that as a backdrop, Obama has now rejected a consensus defense spending bill for his own ideological purposes -- and as with the Iran issue, Hill Democrats are planning to dutifully sustain his veto, promising to reverse their own votes if necessary. I'll leave you with this from our Commander-in-Chief, with no further commentary necessary:

NB: WH says POTUS did not sign off on #Iraq Spec Ops raid that left US solider dead, says it was Def. Sec. Carter's call

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) October 22, 2015

[/quote

]

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Spoiler:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:


I actually consider this

the existence of an investigation doesn't actually mean what you seem to think it means

is snotty. So keep those comments out of the forums please

"Snotty" is a term used by people like yourself to talk down at someone whom they believe is putting on airs and has no knowledge of the topic at hand. I consider the use of the term "snotty" to be detrimental to discussion.
And quite frankly?
The existence of an investigation really doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

You're under the impression of it being proof positive that wrongdoing exists. That's not the case.

No, I am well aware of what "snotty" means. I am also well aware of what an investigation means. It means that there is possible wrong doing that is worth the time to investigate But what your failing to see is that Hillary clinton has gone on the record saying she used a private e-mail server to conduct State dept business. And the fact that several of her e-mails were redacted because they were classified. which means classified information was leaked, now whether or not that information was classified before or after is up for debate, but at the same time some information is ALWAYS classified, and just because you pulled it out of the air doesn't make it any less classified.

And what did she "leak"? Simply using an unapproved server is not a leak. It is, however, mishandling of classified material. In truth, Hillary and her private server are not the real problem, but only a symptom of the real problem: the general complacency towards and mishandling of classified information at high levels within the bureaucracy (and I'm sure it is not limited to the State Department, as I've said before, there are probably lots of people in D.C., even including congressmen, who are squeezing cheeks right now hoping nobody ever looks at their own private communications).

 whembly wrote:
So in other interesting news...

Obama is holding the Military hostage now...

Spoiler:

By the Way, Obama Just Vetoed a Bipartisan Bill to Fund the Military, Pay Troops

Yesterday was slightly heavy on the breaking news front, so this (not unexpected) development went largely overlooked. President Obama held a photo-op to highlight his decision to veto the bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act, which appropriates $612 billion in defense spending -- a figure that matches Obama's military budget request. Among other things, the legislation pays the troops and gives them a raise. It sailed through the Senate with 70 votes, attracting dozens of Democratic votes at both ends of Capitol Hill. But in an escalation of partisan politics, Obama has refused to sign the measure into law in an effort to coerce Republicans into caving into his domestic spending demands:

President Obama made good on his threat to veto a $612 billion defense policy bill Thursday, bringing the fight over domestic spending into the realm of national security. Speaking to reporters for four minutes in a rare public veto message, Obama said the bill fell "woefully short" because it kept across-the-board budget cuts in place, blocked needed military reforms and prohibited him from closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. With a pen stroke of his left hand, he sent the bill back to Congress, saying, "My message to them is simple. Let's do this right." The veto of the National Defense Authorization Act was an extraordinary use of one of the president's most powerful executive tools. While the White House had problems with some of the bill's provisions, Obama's main objection is that the bill anticipates off-budget spending to increase the defense budget without increasing domestic spending first. The president wants Congress to lift the automatic budget caps included in a 2011 budget agreement. That, congressional Republicans said, is an unprecedented and irresponsible use of the veto power.

The White House says it objects to the manner in which the additional dollars were appropriated, and is frustrated with Congress' continued bipartisan refusal to go along with Obama's unpopular plan to empty the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility. But at the heart of this move is an attempt to strong arm the Republican-held Congress into trading an increased defense budget for more domestic spending. Adopting the White House's colorful parlance, Obama is holding funding for our troops hostage to unrelated political objectives. The president adamantly opposes similar tactics as it relates to the GOP's desire to defund Obamacare, Planned Parenthood or his illegal executive amnesty program -- but they're entirely reasonable and fair when deployed on behalf of his agenda. Outgoing House Speaker John Boehner unloads:

“By placing domestic politics ahead of our troops, President Obama has put America’s national security at risk. This indefensible veto blocks pay and vital tools for our troops while Iranian terrorists prepare to gain billions under the president’s nuclear deal. Congress should not allow this veto to stand.”

Since Boehner raised Iran in his curt statement, it's probably worth mentioning that Congressional Democrats threw a party to celebrate the implementation of Obama's widely-opposed nuclear deal this week. They toasted to an agreement that shovels more than $100 billion into the terrorist-backing regime's coffers, legitimizes Iran's rogue nuclear program, and guarantees Iran's place as a threshold nuclear power as soon as the accord's restrictions begin to automatically expire after one decade. Pelosi and friends were evidently unperturbed by, or unaware of, the facts that (a) Iran ostentatiously resisted complying with international investigators' probe into the past military dimensions of its illegal nuclear program, and (b) the regime just test fired an advanced ballistic missile, in violation of international law and the just-inked deal. In response, the Obama administration has valiantly pledged to 'raise the issue' at the United Nations. Good work, everyone. Clink. And with that as a backdrop, Obama has now rejected a consensus defense spending bill for his own ideological purposes -- and as with the Iran issue, Hill Democrats are planning to dutifully sustain his veto, promising to reverse their own votes if necessary. I'll leave you with this from our Commander-in-Chief, with no further commentary necessary:

NB: WH says POTUS did not sign off on #Iraq Spec Ops raid that left US solider dead, says it was Def. Sec. Carter's call

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) October 22, 2015

[/quote

]

Yeah, in general, you don't play politics with the defense spending bill.
But that also applies to Congress, too. If Obama really did veto it solely to push his own agenda, bad on him. If Congress tried to use it to cram all sorts of their own shenanigans into it, bad on them.

 whembly wrote:
The term you're looking for is "spillage".

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Vulnerable in the sense that they might have been hacked? As in how Secretary of State's Kerry's emails were hacked and tens of thousands of other governmental emails were hacked? Frankly, at this point I almost trust a private email more than an official govt. one. Don't get me wrong, Clinton did bad. Bad, bad lady. But really when everybody's emails are getting hacked, to quote a famous future president, "at this point, what does it matter?"

 whembly wrote:
Now *this* is interesting...

Spoiler:

Jeb Bush Is Toast
And other insights from third-quarter fundraising reports
To win the GOP primary and, more important, the general election, a candidate must be able to play to both grassroots supporters and the major donors. Since the dawn of the era of Internet campaigns, beginning in the 2000 election, no candidate in either party who was not, at this point in the election cycle, in the top two in grassroots fundraising has won the nomination, nor has any candidate outside the top three in major-donor funding.

Candidates who cannot win the support of major donors ultimately lack the qualities to be competitive in a general election. Influential votes and voices matter, and not just for their money.

This is why candidates such as Bernie Sanders are extremely unlikely to be president, no matter how much money they raise. Conversely, candidates whom big donors love but who do not excite the base can sometimes be lifted by the establishment to the nomination but have no hope in the general election.

This why candidates such as Rudy Giuliani, despite his enormous major-donor fundraising totals, went absolutely nowhere in the GOP primaries. Ultimately, it is candidates who — e.g., Obama and George W. Bush — excite the grassroots and do well with major donors who win.

This perspective is instructive when analyzing the candidates’ latest quarterly financial reports in the 2016 GOP presidential primary. I have compared the cumulative fundraising data from the election to date with the data through the same quarter of the 2012, 2008, 2004, and 2000 election cycles to see what we can learn about which candidates are likely to do well and which candidates are almost certain to fail.

From examining the data, several striking patterns emerge, and if fundraising history is any guide to the present, all of the following assertions will prove true.

Jeb Bush has almost no chance of being the GOP nominee, owing to a near-complete lack of support from the GOP’s rank-and-file donors.

John Kasich, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, Lindsey Graham, and George Pataki also have almost no chance of being the GOP nominee, much less of winning the general election. That doesn’t mean it is impossible that one could do well in Iowa or New Hampshire. Nor does it mean that they should drop out, or that they are bad candidates, or that they might not have a significant effect through their presence on the nominating process. But from their early fundraising, it is clear that they will not have the grassroots support, money, or organization to win the general election, especially against what is still a very deep field.

Contrary to media narratives, Ted Cruz looks to be in the strongest position to win the nomination, given the fundraising data. The one major wild card in that analysis is Donald Trump, currently by far the leader in GOP polling. His support base overlaps in some ways with Cruz’s. He hasn’t fundraised actively, so it is difficult to draw firm conclusions, but it seems likely that he would be a very strong in both major-donor and grassroots fundraising. He looks like the favorite, but the party establishment, as well as a significant number of conservative activists, are set against him. He’s a unique candidate with unique positioning, and therefore he is uniquely challenging to quantify using traditional measurements.

Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio could still win the nomination. But compared with past successful nominees, they have substantial fundraising and strategic weaknesses right now. In Rubio’s case, those weaknesses have been under-recognized. Ben Carson cannot be entirely excluded but rates as very, very unlikely to be the nominee, given historical patterns.

There has been a small-donor revolution in GOP fundraising in 2016. Below are the small-donor (under $200) donations by election cycle, through the third quarter of each year preceding the election.
2016: $61.3 million
2012: $16.7 million
2008: 28.4 million
2004: $9 million
2000: $13.9 million

Note that this fundraising boom effectively excludes Donald Trump, the leader in the polls, who would almost certainly be at or near the top of small-donor fundraising if he had been fundraising actively. Were that the case, the GOP’s small-donor dollars would probably be about triple the highest previous total ever raised.

SOME DATA ON HISTORICAL RATIOS OF SMALL-DOLLAR TO LARGE-DOLLAR MONEY

Examining data from the previous four election cycles is one of the best ways to understand the importance of campaign finance. Below is a list of the ratios of major-donor money ($2,000–$2,700) to small-donor money (less than $200) for both parties’ nominees for the past four election cycles. The data are imperfect because my primary source (the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute) has tracked donation amounts slightly differently in different election cycles. I have rounded the ratios below, reflecting this imperfection in the data. Below are the ratios between big-donor (more than $2,000) and small-donor (less than $2,000) amounts raised for candidates, 2000–2016, through the third quarter of the year preceding the general election:

2016
Clinton 3:1,
Sanders 1:33
Carson 1:11.5,
Cruz 1:1.6,
Bush 15:1,
Rubio 1.7:1,
Fiorina 1:2.5,
Trump 1:6.5

2012
Romney 7:1
Obama 1:3 2008
McCain 1.7:1
Obama 1.3:1

2004
Bush 6.2:1
Kerry 5.4:1

2000
Bush 12:1
Gore 6:1

A few points stand out.

First, ratios of big- to small-donor money have fallen. The importance of small-donor money has grown. Even the famously plutocratic Romney raised a higher percentage of his money from small donors than did George W. Bush in 2000. Obama’s ratio of small-donor to big-donor money in 2012 was 18 times higher than Gore’s in 2000.

Second, Jeb Bush cannot win. I don’t say this because I dislike Jeb. (On the contrary, I think he has virtues as both a candidate and a person.) But the numbers don’t lie. It’s not just that his ratio of big-donor to small-dollar donations is vastly out of sync with the rest of the GOP and Democratic fields today. (Even Romney’s ratio of small-donor to big-donor dollars was more than twice Jeb’s.) Jeb’s big-donor to small-donor ratio is 15:1. No candidate has ever won the nomination with such a heavy reliance on big donors, even at a time when big-donor money made up a much larger percentage of total fundraising.

For the rest of the GOP field, the ratio of big-donor to small-donor money is 1:1.6. Furthermore, Jeb ranks just third in total fundraising. For reasons I examine below, that seems unlikely to improve.

Jeb devotees examining this data might want to point to the year 2000, when George W. Bush at this point in the campaign had an approximately 12:1 ratio of large- to small-donor money.

But using just this ratio (which Jeb exceeds) masks some important points. First, George W. Bush had locked up the big donors at this point in 2000. He had 80 percent of major-donor dollars, making him the clear choice of the GOP’s donor class. Jeb gets just 35 percent of big-donor dollars. The donor class is split. Second, with 19 percent of the small-dollar total, George W. Bush essentially was tied for first among a divided field of small-dollar donors.

In contrast, Jeb has just 2.3 percent of small-dollar contributions in the GOP field, ranking ninth.

And George W. Bush’s solid but unspectacular showing among small donors looks dramatically different when mid-dollar donations, $200 to $999, are considered. Amounts less than $1,000 come typically from slightly more-prosperous grassroots donors. George W. Bush crushed the competition in this category, taking 64 percent of the mid-dollar money in the GOP field (and raising more of it than Gore and Bradley, combined, managed on the Democratic side).

By contrast, Jeb takes only 7 percent of that total in the GOP field today and ranks sixth. Even Romney in 2012 was a competitive second in the small- and medium-grassroots donor categories to Ron Paul, who had famously fanatical small donors. Romney achieved this while, like George W. Bush, winning an overwhelming victory among large donors.

The contrast between Jeb in 2016 and George W. in 2000 could not be more dramatic. George W. Bush won by dominating among large donors, being right in the top tier with the smallest, most-grassroots donors, and dominating again among the GOP’s mid-dollar donors. That is what a strong, winning candidate looks like. Meanwhile, Jeb, while relying on big-donor fundraising from his friends and family, takes just 35 percent of a fragmented major-donor pool. His performance with small donors is abysmal, ranking with that of fringe candidates, at a time when small-donor money has become ever more valuable. And his performance with mid-dollar donors is scarcely better, in contrast to his brother’s domination of this sector.

Jeb raised only three times as much from small donors as did Lawrence Lessig, the semi-obscure Harvard professor, running as a Democrat, who was too fringey to be invited to a debate that featured Lincoln Chaffee, who had only 29 itemized donors through the third quarter of 2011. And Jeb’s total amount, $4.2 million, raised from donations under $2,000 is just $1 million more than the total fundraising of Lindsey Graham, who is polling at 0 percent.

Jeb’s supporters are maxed out, and he has no grassroots support to grow new ones. But what about the super PAC? Jeb supporters might counter. Yes, that money would certainly be helpful for Jeb, but it has severe legal limits as to its usage — and he’s already spent millions of it on TV in early-primary states, with little to show for it. The super-PAC money just further emphasizes his reliance on wealthy donors. And it won’t get him over the top. Meg Whitman spent more than $178 million (far more than is in Jeb’s super PAC) to take just 40.9 percent of the vote in the governor’s race in one state, California, during the 2010 election. She ran just a point ahead of California GOP lieutenant-gubernatorial candidate Abel Maldonado, who spent less than $2 million on his entire campaign. As conservatives always say to campaign finance “reformers”: You cannot buy elections. The GOP establishment needs to take this to heart and realize that in Jeb, it has a lost cause.

Soooo... when Trump and Carson fizzle... watch out for... CRUZ?!?!

o.O

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Look, the only reason Hilary looks as if she has the nomination all wrapped up is the Corporate media which put money into her campaign wants us to believe it is so. Bernie was the winner that CNN debate, CNN as a Time-Warner owned operation switched their polls to reflect the chosen one, not Bernie.

Social Media knows Bernie won, People on the vast Social Media networks are pro-Bernie, so the polls may lie as per the mandate of the Media moguls who want Hilary as she will leave them alone tax wise. Bernie would close loopholes and make them pay their fair share of taxes they dodge.

The corporate corruption, handouts, and other bad policies will make this nation a Oligarchial Corporatocracy which is a Fascist state BTW. Bernie seeks to end that.

Stop believing the Mainstream Media as they are pro-corporatist mouth pieces.