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.
2016/03/03 20:16:54
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: I'll just say that it's not the answer I'm looking for, and I think expecting states to do right by their poor citizens is quite naive.
The States should darned well be able to understand their own populations and cater to them better than the Federal One Size Fits All answer. State governments should also be a lot more accountable to the citizens of the State than the Fed gov't is. If one governor is screwing it up, recall or send him/her packing in the next election.
True in principal, but again, I think expecting states to do right by their poor people is quite naive.
The fundamental difference on this issue always boils down to whether healthcare should be a right, or a luxury. Under Drumpf's plan (such as it is) I would personally be very skeptical about poor people's prospects for health coverage in states with governors, legislators, and citizens who believe that health care should be a luxury.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/03/03 20:21:53
2016/03/03 20:25:33
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
What I'm getting from Trumps plan is that he is rewarding participation (tax credit for getting insurance) instead of punishing those who don't participate as the ACA does.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/03 20:26:10
Full Frontal Nerdity
2016/03/03 20:32:14
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Sorry, whembly, but until they bring actual charges against Hillary, it isn't a big deal. The Clintons are masters at letting the fires of scandal rage only for no actual crime to ever be linked directly to them. You'll recall back when Bill Clinton was President, Hillary had to sit for a deposition about her involvement with the Rose law firm and Whitewater. A common response in her testimony was "I don't recall." or "I don't remember." In the end, her partner Jim McDougal died in prison while nobody could pin anything on Hilary. If Hillary can skate from that, do you really expect charges to be brought against her related to her email server or the classified material on it?
2016/03/03 20:45:25
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
One overview of his healthcare plan said it makes Rubio's look about a million times better.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/03/03 20:47:28
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: True in principal, but again, I think expecting states to do right by their poor people is quite naive.
There is also the issue of rich states and very poor states. How does anyone expect the State of Alabama or the territory of Puerto Rico to pay for a comprehensive health care program without Federal aid?
2016/03/03 21:05:42
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: True in principal, but again, I think expecting states to do right by their poor people is quite naive.
There is also the issue of rich states and very poor states. How does anyone expect the State of Alabama or the territory of Puerto Rico to pay for a comprehensive health care program without Federal aid?
Isn't that exactly what the Medicaid funds the Feds free up and 'block grant' (as the plan says) are supposed to address?
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2016/03/03 21:23:37
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: I'll just say that it's not the answer I'm looking for, and I think expecting states to do right by their poor citizens is quite naive.
The States should darned well be able to understand their own populations and cater to them better than the Federal One Size Fits All answer. State governments should also be a lot more accountable to the citizens of the State than the Fed gov't is. If one governor is screwing it up, recall or send him/her packing in the next election.
True in principal, but again, I think expecting states to do right by their poor people is quite naive.
The fundamental difference on this issue always boils down to whether healthcare should be a right, or a luxury. Under Drumpf's plan (such as it is) I would personally be very skeptical about poor people's prospects for health coverage in states with governors, legislators, and citizens who believe that health care should be a luxury.
I think I'd rather keep it with the federal government over allowing people like Governor Synder a shot at it. That guy has proven that his people's health isn't even remotely on the radar. An he will get away with it too.
2016/03/03 21:28:48
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: I'll just say that it's not the answer I'm looking for, and I think expecting states to do right by their poor citizens is quite naive.
The States should darned well be able to understand their own populations and cater to them better than the Federal One Size Fits All answer. State governments should also be a lot more accountable to the citizens of the State than the Fed gov't is. If one governor is screwing it up, recall or send him/her packing in the next election.
True in principal, but again, I think expecting states to do right by their poor people is quite naive.
The fundamental difference on this issue always boils down to whether healthcare should be a right, or a luxury. Under Drumpf's plan (such as it is) I would personally be very skeptical about poor people's prospects for health coverage in states with governors, legislators, and citizens who believe that health care should be a luxury.
I think I'd rather keep it with the federal government over allowing people like Governor Synder a shot at it. That guy has proven that his people's health isn't even remotely on the radar. An he will get away with it too.
If you're talking the Flint issue, you should seriously educate yourself on the matter before jumping on the "Ebil republican hates black people" bandwagon.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2016/03/03 22:14:31
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: I'll just say that it's not the answer I'm looking for, and I think expecting states to do right by their poor citizens is quite naive.
The States should darned well be able to understand their own populations and cater to them better than the Federal One Size Fits All answer. State governments should also be a lot more accountable to the citizens of the State than the Fed gov't is. If one governor is screwing it up, recall or send him/her packing in the next election.
True in principal, but again, I think expecting states to do right by their poor people is quite naive.
The fundamental difference on this issue always boils down to whether healthcare should be a right, or a luxury. Under Drumpf's plan (such as it is) I would personally be very skeptical about poor people's prospects for health coverage in states with governors, legislators, and citizens who believe that health care should be a luxury.
I think I'd rather keep it with the federal government over allowing people like Governor Synder a shot at it. That guy has proven that his people's health isn't even remotely on the radar. An he will get away with it too.
If you're talking the Flint issue, you should seriously educate yourself on the matter before jumping on the "Ebil republican hates black people" bandwagon.
I had to recheck what I wrote. I definitely didn't mention Republican or Black People. Is there something you need to get off your chest?
2016/03/03 22:44:41
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Mitt Romney has instructed his closest advisers to explore the possibility of stopping Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention, a source close to Romney's inner circle says.
Spoiler:
Washington (CNN)Mitt Romney has instructed his closest advisers to explore the possibility of stopping Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention, a source close to Romney's inner circle says.
The 2012 GOP nominee's advisers are examining what a fight at the convention might look like and what rules might need revising.
"It sounds like the plan is to lock the convention," said the source.
Romney is focused on suppressing Trump's delegate count to prevent him from accumulating the 1,237 delegates he needs to secure the nomination.
But implicit in Romney's request to his team to explore the possibility of a convention fight is his willingness to step in and carry the party's banner into the fall general election as the Republican nominee.
In a speech Thursday at the University of Utah, he urged voters to support the candidate most likely to prevent Trump from racking up delegates in their states -- saying he'd back Florida Sen. Marco Rubio if he were voting in the Sunshine State, Gov. John Kasich if he were voting in Ohio, or Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in the states where he polls as Trump's strongest foe.
"If the other candidates can find common ground, I believe we can nominate a person who can win the general election and who will represent the values and policies of conservatism," Romney said.
According to the source, Romney does not expect Rubio, Cruz or Kasich to emerge as the single candidate that can accumulate 1,237 delegates and outright defeat Trump before the convention.
In addition, two senior Republican Party insiders told CNN that the convention scenario is now dominating a lot of conversation in GOP fundraising circles. To be sure, both of these sources are skeptical about Romney being able to execute this plan, but both believe that there is a real attempt underway to try to do this.
If the plan were to come to fruition, these Republican Party insiders believe it will likely drive Trump into a third party candidacy in the fall.
Trump has repeatedly threatened an independent run if he isn't treated "fairly" by Republicans.
After Romney attacked Trump in a blistering speech Thursday morning, Trump hit back by mocking Romney's 2012 loss at a campaign rally in Portland, Maine -- pointing to Romney's efforts to secure Trump's endorsement.
"He was begging for my endorsement. I could have said, 'Mitt, drop to your knees' -- he would have dropped to his knees," he said.
He said of 2012: "That was a race, I have to say, folks, that should have been won. ... I don't know what happened to him. He disappeared. He disappeared. And I wasn't happy about it, I'll be honest, because I am not a fan of Barack Obama, because I backed Mitt Romney -- I backed Mitt Romney. You can see how loyal he is."
Trump said Romney thought about running again in 2016, but "chickened out."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/03 22:45:37
2016/03/03 22:48:00
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
This Romney stuff makes Rubio and Cruz look really, really bad, as though they need a more experienced and intelligent surrogate to run their campaigns not even with the goal of winning, but only to deliver delegates to Romney or a candidate suitable to Romney. I'm very interested to see how they respond.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/03 22:54:16
2016/03/03 22:57:05
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Sorry, whembly, but until they bring actual charges against Hillary, it isn't a big deal. The Clintons are masters at letting the fires of scandal rage only for no actual crime to ever be linked directly to them. You'll recall back when Bill Clinton was President, Hillary had to sit for a deposition about her involvement with the Rose law firm and Whitewater. A common response in her testimony was "I don't recall." or "I don't remember." In the end, her partner Jim McDougal died in prison while nobody could pin anything on Hilary. If Hillary can skate from that, do you really expect charges to be brought against her related to her email server or the classified material on it?
Hence, The Teflon Clintons™ theme...
But, it's more than that... anyone who has dealt with handling classified information has nightmares had they done what Clinton & her staff has done.
EXCLUSIVE: The FBI is investigating whether computer passwords were shared among Hillary Clinton's close aides to determine how sensitive intelligence "jumped the gap" between the classified systems and Clinton's unsecured personal server, according to an intelligence source familiar with the probe.
The source emphasized to Fox News that “if [Clinton] was allowing other people to use her passwords, that is a big problem.” The Foreign Service Officers Manual prohibits the sharing of passwords.
Such passwords are required to access each State Department network. This includes the network for highly classified intelligence -- known as SCI or Sensitive Compartmented Information -- and the unclassified system, known as SBU or Sensitive But Unclassified, according to former State Department employees.
Fox News was told there are several potential scenarios for how classified information got onto Clinton’s server:
Reading intelligence reports or briefings, and then summarizing the findings in emails sent on Clinton's unsecured personal server.
Accessing the classified intelligence computer network, and then lifting sections by typing them verbatim into a device such as an iPad or BlackBerry.
Taking pictures of a computer screen to capture the intelligence.
Using a thumb drive or disk to physically move the intelligence, but this would require access to a data center. It’s unclear whether Clinton’s former IT specialist Bryan Pagliano, who as first reported by The Washington Post has reached an immunity deal with the Justice Department, or others had sufficient administrator privileges to physically transfer data.
Most of these scenarios would require a password. And all of these practices would be strictly prohibited under non-disclosure agreements signed by Clinton and others, and federal law.
It remains unclear who had access to which computers and devices used by Clinton while she was secretary of state and where exactly they were located at the time of the email correspondence. Clinton signed her NDA agreement on Jan. 22, 2009 shortly before she was sworn in as secretary of state.
The intelligence source said the ongoing FBI investigation is progressing in "fits and starts" but bureau agents have refined a list of individuals who will be questioned about their direct handling of the emails, with a focus on how classified information jumped the gap between classified systems and briefings to Clinton's unsecured personal email account used for government business.
Fox News was told the agents involved are “not political appointees but top notch agents with decades of experience.”
A separate source said the list of individuals is relatively small -- about a dozen, among them Clinton aide Jake Sullivan, who was described as "pivotal" because he forwarded so many emails to Clinton. His exchanges, now deemed to contain highly classified information, included one email which referred to human spying, or "HCS-O," and included former Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
As Fox News first reported last year, two emails -- one sent by Abedin that included classified information about the 2011 movement of Libyan troops during the revolution, and a second sent by Sullivan that contained law enforcement information about the FBI investigation in the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack – kick-started the FBI probe.
Testifying to Congress Tuesday about encryption, FBI Director James Comey also was asked about the Clinton investigation. He responded that he is “very close personally” to the case “to ensure that we have the resources we need including people and technology and that it's done the way the FBI tries to do all of its work: independently, competently and promptly. That's our goal and I'm confident it's being done that way."
Earlier this week when she was asked if Clinton has been interviewed by the FBI, Attorney General Loretta Lynch insisted to Fox News’ Bret Baier “that no one outside of DOJ has been briefed on this or any other case. That’s not our policy and it has not happened in this matter.”
Fox News also has learned the State Department cannot touch the security clearance of top aides connected to the case without contacting the FBI, because agents plan to directly question individuals about their handling of the emails containing classified information, and they will need active clearances to be questioned.
While it is standard practice to suspend a security clearance pending the outcome of an investigation, Fox News reported Monday that Clinton’s chief of staff at State, Cheryl Mills, who is also an attorney, maintains her top secret clearance. Mills was involved in the decisions as to which emails to keep and which to delete from the server.
At a press briefing Monday, Fox News pressed the State Department on whether this represented a double standard, or whether the clearances are in place at the direction of the FBI.
“This issue is under several reviews and investigations. I won't speak for other agencies that may be involved in reviews and investigations,” spokesman John Kirby said. “Clearly we are going to cooperate to the degree that we need to."
Obviously if information “jumping the gap” from a classified system onto Clinton’s server... then the information was already classified. Full stop.
Buckle up ya'll... the DoJ just doesn't grant immunity deals willy nilly (to the IT email administrator)... something's up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: This Romney stuff makes Rubio and Cruz look really, really bad, as though they need a more experienced and intelligent surrogate to run their campaigns not even with the goal of winning, but only to deliver delegates to Romney or a candidate suitable to Romney. I'm very interested to see how they respond.
I don't get that sense. It's only going to be either Trump/Rubio/Cruz.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/03 23:04:51
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/03 23:09:11
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I think that's the way it will turn out, but the article is suggesting that "Team Romney" is looking for a way to inject himself as a candidate at the convention, or at least to execute a plan whereby the candidates remain in the race just to win the strong states and block Trump from the delegate threshold, and then they pick their non-Trump candidate who-knows-how.
Have no idea if it could or will happen. It would be crazy theater, though. I suspect Trump will get the delegates, he is pretty much crushing it.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/03/03 23:12:32
2016/03/03 23:11:40
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: I think that's the way it will turn out, but the argument is suggesting that "Team Romney" is looking for a way to inject himself as a candidate at the convention.
Have no idea if it could or will happen. It would be crazy theater, though.
Indeed, it would be balls-to-the-wall crazy theater.
I'm just stuggling on what Romney would run on... "See, I was right!" campaign theme isn't going to garner any excitement... probably more like resentment for channeling Nelson's "HA HA" moment.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/03 23:14:05
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: True in principal, but again, I think expecting states to do right by their poor people is quite naive.
There is also the issue of rich states and very poor states. How does anyone expect the State of Alabama or the territory of Puerto Rico to pay for a comprehensive health care program without Federal aid?
Isn't that exactly what the Medicaid funds the Feds free up and 'block grant' (as the plan says) are supposed to address?
They can, if you have a state that with a policy other than "we won't accept any federal money of any kind while cutting 110,000 from our Medicaid program because we are broke".
(Currently on a conference call talking about Oklahoma HB 2665)
2016/03/03 23:14:27
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I suspect Trump will get the delegates, he is pretty much crushing it.
He's not really crushing it when you look at the numbers...
He'll need 1237 votes to get the nomination in the 1st round.
Cruz is only 93 votes behind and there's still 34 states to go whereas most of them are winner's-take-all viaclosed primaryvoting. Combined that with the general downturn that Trump has experienced since the last debate. This is still very much up in the air.
Oh... by the way... another GOP debate tonight. Megyn Kelly's is part of the moderation team and you JUST KNOW TRUMP LOVES HER!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: Romney would run largely on the Bush platform. That would be my guess, anyways.
yeah... that's not going to happen.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/03 23:17:09
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/03 23:21:56
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I wargame tonight, I'll have to watch the debate tomorrow.
The fact that Trump beat Cruz in the South on Super Tesuday speaks volumes to me. If a holy-roller like Cruz can't win the religious states against someone like Trump, he's not doing politics right. I don't see it being much of a contest, despite the current close delegate count. Maybe I'll be proven wrong.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/03 23:26:06
2016/03/03 23:44:38
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: If a holy-roller like Cruz can't win the religious states against someone like Trump, he's not doing politics right..
Personally, I'm more horrified by the possibility that religion has never been what won the south, but racism with a non-racist veneer and the force is simply stronger on that front with Trump than it has been any GOP candidate in ages.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/03 23:46:09
jasper76 wrote: I'll just say that it's not the answer I'm looking for, and I think expecting states to do right by their poor citizens is quite naive.
The States should darned well be able to understand their own populations and cater to them better than the Federal One Size Fits All answer. State governments should also be a lot more accountable to the citizens of the State than the Fed gov't is. If one governor is screwing it up, recall or send him/her packing in the next election.
True in principal, but again, I think expecting states to do right by their poor people is quite naive.
The same applies to the Federal government. And I'd say they'll do an even poorer job of it, so better to kick it to the states IMO.
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.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm well aware of Trump's background, and I'm sure most of his supporters are as well, but I honestly believe that people are so fed up with the system, and those who support it, that'll they support somebody like Trump.
It's basically the association fallacy. They want something different, Trump is something different, therefore they want Trump.
It isn’t about convincing Trump supporters to stop voting for Trump. It’s about convincing everyone else to vote for whoever it takes to beat Trump. It’s right there in Romney’s speech – vote for Kasich in Ohio, vote for Rubio in Florida.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/03/04 01:54:40
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
