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.
2016/04/05 22:58:56
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ustrello wrote: Looks like the zodiac killer is slated to win Wisconsin, and most likely leading to a brokered convention.
Heh... in the early going Mr. Zodiac is kicking arse.
It'll be fun watching the republican party tear itself apart
Just you wait till you see the Democrat's side... Sanders is whooping Clinton in WI!
I voted and donated for berine but I doubt he will win, but 66 percent of bernie supporters said they will vote for hillary. On the flip side 25 percent of republicans won't vote for zodiac or the misogynist hair piece, and the hair piece supporters most likely wont vote for cruz if he gets chosen to be the front runner. My guess is no matter who they chose the republicans have lost the presidential, and are losing support via the supreme court nonsense for the senate (we are seeing people breaking line here in IL with kirk saying he will meet with the pick)
Rosebuddy wrote: The Democratic Party wants nothing at all to do with leftism, however.
The Democratic Party is not a permanent, never changing thing. Remember it was once the home of good old boy southern racism. But another part of the party, New England progressives, pulled it somewhere new, and now it's the home of special interest minorities. More recently, Reagan dragged the Republican party in to movement conservatism.
I think the mechanism you don't understand is that moving a political party doesn't rely on getting elites to change their policy goals, a political party moves when old elites are replaced with new ones who have new policy goals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: This is an excellent point, and I agree. However, it will be very hard when the media WANTS to make it a horse-race. That's where the ratings are at! Therefore, any step to differentiate yourself from Clinton will be spun as an "attack", especially when some of Sanders core beliefs are very different from Clinton's. If tries to highlight those, it will be seen as an attack and any praise/positives will be cut from the sound bites.
Sure, and I think that explained most of his campaign before now. Sanders differentiated, the media called it attacks, Sanders internet supporters understood it as attacks and went to town. But more recently he's pushed in to territory that is just straight up attacks, with no media interpretation required.
In order to maintain his movements momentum, he needs to keep them relevant. However, he also needs to pivot to creating an actual movement and ground game for post-election grass roots mobilization. I haven;t heard much about the second point. Since I want his ideas to stay in mainstream US politics after this election, I truly hope he can pivot and build that movement and not just be a Ron Paul of the left.
Yeah, I think Sanders needs to focus on remaining relevant after this election. It's a tough balancing act between continuing to make waves and win votes, and not burning any bridges.
And your comparison to Ron Paul is perfect - Ron Paul much prefers ideological purity to actually being useful. And as a result the libertarian movement he leads is doomed to sitting on the sidelines, talking about how everything would be great if they ever got a tiny amount of relevance. Sanders would be making a big mistake if he did the same, especially because the supporter base for his politics is much greater than Paul ever came close to commanding.
Liberalism is very well defined, we don't have to reinvent the word to make it fit some agenda.
I think the issue here is that liberalism has two very distinct meanings. In the greater world liberal is used to mean economic liberalism, ie it's an argument for open markets and capitalism. Whereas in the US liberal is used to mean social liberalism, which is a philosophy looking for a happy medium between individual liberty and social justice.
But even when the term used in the economic liberal sense, it doesn't really equate to libertarianism. There's a really big difference between believing that the best result for society comes from more open markets, and believing that open markets are an end in and of themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Janthkin wrote: No idea if it's intentional, but previewing this attack helps desensitize the voters to it when the Republicans try to pull it out in the general election.
Maybe? It was such a weak argument that that could just be right. Doesn't say much for the Sanders supporters who are doubling down on it, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Looks like the zodiac killer is slated to win Wisconsin, and most likely leading to a brokered convention.
It'll be fun watching the republican party tear itself apart
Exit polling in Wisconsin asked Republican voters who should be the party's candidate - who wins the most delegates or who the delegates decide through party rules. What the pollsters were expecting was to see Trump supporters say it should be whoever got the most delegates, while the Cruz and Kasich people would think it should be up to elected delegates.
Except a strong majority of voters for everyone said the nomination should go to whoever got the most votes.
This was a Wisconsin only thing, so it could be some quirk in that state alone, but it could also be a sign that simply stopping Trump from getting 1,237 and then shafting him in the second round might end up being a total mess for the Republican party.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/04/06 03:48:08
“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.
2016/04/06 07:41:19
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Well, it looks like Ted Cruz's victory has just hammered the final nail into the Republican party's bid to have their candidate in the White House.
If Trump can't win a majority, expect to see a deal done behind closed doors with anybody but Trump gaining the nomination.
The Republican party grassroots will never forgive the top brass for this 'betrayal,' the party will be divided...
and a divided party will be steam rolled by HRC.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2016/04/06 07:48:34
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Perhaps the Republican Party needs to split into the Tea party wing and the more moderate central Republicans.
While there is certainly a core of support for Tea Party and Trump, they clearly don't have the wide-spread support needed to allow them to take over the whole organisation.
At the end of the day, the party needs a candidate that is acceptable to the majority of its own members and to the general public. Trump isn't that candidate.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps the Republican Party needs to split into the Tea party wing and the more moderate central Republicans.
While there is certainly a core of support for Tea Party and Trump, they clearly don't have the wide-spread support needed to allow them to take over the whole organisation.
At the end of the day, the party needs a candidate that is acceptable to the majority of its own members and to the general public. Trump isn't that candidate.
The Republicans haven't had anybody like that since Ronald Reagan.
I think GW Bush's victory was more due to the fact that they didn't want to be bored to death by Mr Charisma AKA Al Gore
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2016/04/06 09:45:32
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Rosebuddy wrote: The Democratic Party wants nothing at all to do with leftism, however.
The Democratic Party is not a permanent, never changing thing. Remember it was once the home of good old boy southern racism. But another part of the party, New England progressives, pulled it somewhere new, and now it's the home of special interest minorities. More recently, Reagan dragged the Republican party in to movement conservatism.
I think the mechanism you don't understand is that moving a political party doesn't rely on getting elites to change their policy goals, a political party moves when old elites are replaced with new ones who have new policy goals.
The very short post that you are quoting goes on to say that much of the Democratic Party would have to be replaced before it would go left.
2016/04/06 11:53:55
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The whole libertarian thing is really interesting when viewed on spectrum as it seems to reach towards anarchism. But then you also have the left leaning anarchism, which doesn't get along well at all with right leaning anarchism. Just like left leaning statists and right leaning statists don't seem to get along so well.
Thats the funny part about this, Libertarian used to mean left-wing anarchist until the 50´s, if I remember correctly, when right-wing think-tanks successfully shifted its meaning to it´s laissez-faire definition we have today.
2016/04/06 12:49:12
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, it looks like Ted Cruz's victory has just hammered the final nail into the Republican party's bid to have their candidate in the White House.
If Trump can't win a majority, expect to see a deal done behind closed doors with anybody but Trump gaining the nomination.
The Republican party grassroots will never forgive the top brass for this 'betrayal,' the party will be divided...
and a divided party will be steam rolled by HRC.
They lose with Trump, and they lose without him. This campaign is getting pretty boring because all roads lead to
Clinton in the White House (which has been the most likely outcome since Obama won his second term).
I suppose the GOP could try and recruit some serious star power. It would have to be someone better than Paul Ryan. Colin Powell would do the trick, but I know he's not interested and maybe not even Republican anymore. But it would take someone of that caliber to compete.
In any case, there's certainly entertainment left to be had in how much damage a wrecking ball can do.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/06 12:51:31
2016/04/06 13:15:19
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Yup, looks like a flaming dumpster train wreck at this point.
Cruz the "outsider" (who was actually originally desperately seeking to be part of the power structure until they rejected him and so he determined to do it his own way) apparently believes he has a shot at a contested convention and has now teamed up with the GOP establishment and is torpedoing Trump's chances of hitting the magic number. What Cruz, in his arrogance, doesn't seem to get is that there is no way the GOP supports him as the national candidate. Convention means no Trump and no Cruz. It also means the GOP likely fractures badly, potentially crippling it nationally. Even if the GOP were to somehow get around the personality conflicts with Cruz, he loses badly to HRC.
Bernie is cute, but he still is not a serious threat to HRC. He needs to be very careful not to get to aggressive and burn bridges. HRC is pretty notorious for her memory of slights and he is already being quite the gadfly.
So my prediction is HRC for the Dems, Republicans go to convention and it turns into a cluster with someone completely unelectable in the general coming out and HRC waltzes to victory.
-James
2016/04/06 13:15:23
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Cruz won Wisconsins, as did Bernie, but I have a feeling both of them will get crushed in New York. That will essentially kill Bernie dead for good (unless he can pivot and create a political base that is more than an election lever).
Meanwhile, Trump and Cruz will head to a brokered convention because Cruz just is not going to win NY after dissing it in the past.
Edit: i think the GOP Elites would be wise to let Cruz be the nominee and get crushed to silence the call off "We would win if we had a true Conservative on the ballot. Moderates aren't Conservative enough!". After Cruz's crushing defeat, the elites could turn to the base and say "STFU Noobs!"
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/06 13:20:27
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2016/04/06 13:21:04
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps the Republican Party needs to split into the Tea party wing and the more moderate central Republicans.
While there is certainly a core of support for Tea Party and Trump, they clearly don't have the wide-spread support needed to allow them to take over the whole organisation.
At the end of the day, the party needs a candidate that is acceptable to the majority of its own members and to the general public. Trump isn't that candidate.
That's been the Republican Party's problem for years now. This election cycle is just highlighting how bad it's become because they had high number of candidates running and still couldn't find anybody that could consistently win over a majority of primary voters. The months of battling pluralities just showcases how bad the candidates are.
Now that it's highly unlikely that Trump will win enough delegates to win the nomination with the first floor vote at the convention it seems likely that none of the current candidates, Trump, Cruz and Kasich will win the nomination. If Trump can't win the first vote I don't see how he gets enough support from unbound delegates to win a subsequent vote. If the party doesn't want Trump I don't see how they can rationalize picking Cruz who will have a smaller plurality of total votes and delegates than Trump, ditto for Kasich. If there's a Republican who could appeal to the majority of the party and moderate middle of the electorate enough to have a shot at beating HRC after winning the nomination at a contested convention I can't think of who he/she is and that person probably should have already been running a campaign.
It will be interesting to see what impact a race between HRC and Not Trump has on voter turnout since turnout is a key factor in the Congressional races that are also on the ballot.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/04/06 13:48:36
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, it looks like Ted Cruz's victory has just hammered the final nail into the Republican party's bid to have their candidate in the White House.
If Trump can't win a majority, expect to see a deal done behind closed doors with anybody but Trump gaining the nomination.
The Republican party grassroots will never forgive the top brass for this 'betrayal,' the party will be divided...
Nah... it simply means none of the Primary candidates won't get to 1237 delegates to win the nomination outright on the first ballot.
Mechanisms exists to reconcile this on the convention floor.
and a divided party will be steam rolled by HRC.
Regardless of the GOP Primary outcomes, that's still very much true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Appearing as an obstructionist dbag is a fast way to lose and election
Well... Cruz has so far has show that hasn't hurt him.
Yet...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/06 13:49:36
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/06 13:51:39
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I think more interesting is the congressional races. The D's will probably recapture the Senate, but can they get enough momentum to capture the house?
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2016/04/06 13:51:51
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps the Republican Party needs to split into the Tea party wing and the more moderate central Republicans.
While there is certainly a core of support for Tea Party and Trump, they clearly don't have the wide-spread support needed to allow them to take over the whole organisation.
At the end of the day, the party needs a candidate that is acceptable to the majority of its own members and to the general public. Trump isn't that candidate.
Trump isn't *that* candidate...
However, splitting up the parties is just pissing in the wind.
During Obama's Presidential tenure, the more conservative GOP voters has been kicking ass in local and state elections. The challenge up to this point is seeing that translate in the Federal government.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: A significant part of Bush's victory was to do with distinctly dodgy voting practices in Florida.
Getting the 1% to pay for everything is not really close to what Sanders is agitating for.
Yeah... I flubbed that... he should've said:
"You locate the wealthiest top one-tenth of 1% of people in the station and demand they buy everyone's subway pass."
Those poor poor plutocrats, how will they survive with just two Cadillacs instead of ten?!
Indeed... poor bastiches...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Cruz won Wisconsins, as did Bernie, but I have a feeling both of them will get crushed in New York. That will essentially kill Bernie dead for good (unless he can pivot and create a political base that is more than an election lever).
It's not a forgone conclusion that Bernie gets curb stomped in NY anymore...
Meanwhile, Trump and Cruz will head to a brokered convention because Cruz just is not going to win NY after dissing it in the past.
All Cruz needs to do is to keep Trump under 50% statewide, which prevents Trump from triggering the winners-takes-all provision in NY. That's probably doable as Cruz obviously has the momentum after WI, and there's a 2-week gap between now and NY's Primary.
Edit: i think the GOP Elites would be wise to let Cruz be the nominee and get crushed to silence the call off "We would win if we had a true Conservative on the ballot. Moderates aren't Conservative enough!". After Cruz's crushing defeat, the elites could turn to the base and say "STFU Noobs!"
I'm not so sure about that... otherwise, they wouldn've have fought the Tea Party so hard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: I think more interesting is the congressional races. The D's will probably recapture the Senate, but can they get enough momentum to capture the house?
Not likely.
But I do see them gaining control over the Senate in '17.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/04/06 18:48:55
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/06 22:33:42
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Cruz is dead in New York and New Jersey. Trumps going to get more than 50%. Cruz mocked New York in a national debate. They won't forget that. (It's politics 101 not to insult the voters whose votes you wish to acquire)
Even if he hadn't made that statement, I think that he'd still get crushed. I don't think excessive Southern religiosity is attractive to voters in that region generally speaking.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/06 22:36:41
2016/04/06 23:34:12
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: Cruz is dead in New York and New Jersey. Trumps going to get more than 50%. Cruz mocked New York in a national debate. They won't forget that. (It's politics 101 not to insult the voters whose votes you wish to acquire)
Even if he hadn't made that statement, I think that he'd still get crushed. I don't think excessive Southern religiosity is attractive to voters in that region generally speaking.
Trump can still win all of NY and NJ's delegates... and he would STILL need 61% of the remaining delegates to get to 1267.
Not happening...
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/06 23:43:48
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
That's what I keep hearing. It would be more entertaining to see the convention process play out. Although Trump vs Clinton debates would be fun, and Trump vs Sanders would be epic. (Note that I do care about the Republic, so I don't want Trump within a whiff of the Executive branch.)
Cruz is custom-built to lose the 2016 general election, so if I were RNC I'd be trying to pump Paul Ryan up like nobody's business. But he's just a kid, so he'll lose too. But who else do they have?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/06 23:48:00
2016/04/07 01:17:27
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: Cruz is dead in New York and New Jersey. Trumps going to get more than 50%. Cruz mocked New York in a national debate. They won't forget that. (It's politics 101 not to insult the voters whose votes you wish to acquire)
Even if he hadn't made that statement, I think that he'd still get crushed. I don't think excessive Southern religiosity is attractive to voters in that region generally speaking.
NY never forgets an insult.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2016/04/07 01:36:57
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Cruz is custom-built to lose the 2016 general election, so if I were RNC I'd be trying to pump Paul Ryan up like nobody's business. But he's just a kid, so he'll lose too. But who else do they have?
Some dude from Ohio who just happens to be sitting in third place AND isn't quite as crazy as the guy in silver and gold.....
2016/04/07 01:46:52
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
This is how the FBI destroys Hillary: The 10 questions that could end her White House dreams These questions, if answered honestly, would most likely hand the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders
The FBI’s upcoming interview of Hillary Clinton will be a turning point in the race for Democratic nominee, especially since Clinton won’t be able to speak to James Comey and his FBI agents in the same manner her campaign has communicated with the public. Unlike loyal Hillary supporters who view the marathon Benghazi hearings to be a badge of courage and countless prior scandals to be examples of exoneration, the FBI didn’t spend one year (investigating this email controversy) to give Clinton or her top aides parking tickets. They mean business, and lying to an FBI agent is a felony, so Hillary Clinton and her aides will be forced to tell the truth. The doublespeak involving convenience and retroactive classification won’t matter to seasoned FBI agents whose reputations are on the line; the entire country feels there’s a double-standard regarding this email controversy.
Imagine if you had 22 Top Secret emails on your computer?
Would you be able to claim negligence?
Also, the issue of negligence is a canard. Clinton and her top aides were smart enough to understand protocol. For every legal scholar saying that indictment isn’t likely (because it’s difficult to prove Clinton “knowingly” sent or received classified intelligence), there’s a former attorney general and former intelligence officials saying that indictment is justified.
Ultimately, every question asked of Hillary Clinton by James Comey will benefit the Sanders campaign. In a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party, one candidate is being investigated by the FBI and has negative favorability ratings in ten national polls. The other candidate, Bernie Sanders, just raised more money in February than Clinton, without the help of Wall Street or oil and gas lobbyists. If Clinton gets indicted, the Democratic establishment and superdelegates will have no choice but to rally around Bernie Sanders.
I explain three possible scenarios in my latest YouTube segment regarding how the Clinton campaign would react to the reality of indictment. No doubt, certain supporters would still vote for Clinton, even with the possibility of criminal behavior.
In reality, Bernie Sanders is the true front-runner, since he’s free of perpetual scandal and performs better against Trump in general election. Vermont’s Senator also isn’t linked to an FBI investigation, which used to mean automatic front-runner status in American politics.
Therefore, below are ten questions the FBI should ask Clinton and her top aides. These questions, if answered honestly, will most likely hand the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders. Remember, the issue of convenience or negligence won’t be enough to circumvent repercussions from owning a private server as Secretary of State. FBI director James Comey and his agents aren’t Democratic superdelegates or beholden in any way to a political machine. They’ll demand answers to tough questions and below could be some of the topics discussed in Clinton’s FBI interview.
1. What was the political utility in owning a private server and never using a State.gov email address?
There was a political motive in circumventing U.S. government servers and networks. Clinton didn’t go to the trouble of owning a private server (something her predecessors never did) for work and private use, without thinking of the political ramifications.
An editorial from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel titled “Clinton’s abysmal record on open government” explains the possible political motive regarding Clinton’s unconventional email practices:
The issue immediately at hand — and under investigation by the FBI — is Clinton’s use of a private email server for State Department communications. Clinton may have violated national security laws by making top secret documents vulnerable to hackers and available to people without proper security clearance…
In addition, regardless of Clinton’s excuses, the only believable reason for the private server in her basement was to keep her emails out of the public eye by willfully avoiding freedom of information laws. No president, no secretary of state, no public official at any level is above the law. She chose to ignore it, and must face the consequences…
And donations to the foundation from foreign governments have raised conflict of interest questions for Clinton as secretary of state, an office with power over foreign affairs and favors second only to the president’s.
As stated in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “the only believable reason for the private server in her basement was to keep her emails out of the public eye by willfully avoiding freedom of information laws.”
We can’t even see Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speeches, do you think Clinton wanted the public to know information about her foundation?
2. Were all 31,830 deleted private emails about yoga?
According to ABC News, Clinton’s staff had an amusing way of deciphering how to delete over 30,000 emails:
A Time magazine cover story about the email scandal released last week reported: “This review did not involve opening and reading each email. Instead, Clinton’s lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and searched for those. Slightly more than half the total cache — 31,830 emails — did not contain any of the search terms, according to Clinton’s staff, so they were deemed to be ‘private, personal records.’”
There was no government oversight, therefore the FBI has every right to ask why Clinton’s staff was allowed to pick and choose (through keyword searches) private emails from others that could have contained classified intelligence.
3. Why didn’t you know that intelligence could be retroactively classified?
This leads to the issue of negligence; a zero-sum proposition. Either Clinton wasn’t smart enough to know protocol, or breached protocol. Both scenarios aren’t good for a future presidency. Both scenarios won’t prevent legal repercussions, given the 22 Top Secret emails.
4. Why did you use a Blackberry that wasn’t approved by the NSA?
An article in Madison.com titled “Emails: Clinton sought secure smartphone, rebuffed by NSA” explains the issue of Clinton’s Blackberry:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Newly released emails show a 2009 request to issue a secure government smartphone to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was denied by the National Security Agency.
A month later, she began using private email accounts accessed through her BlackBerry to exchange messages with her top aides.
“We began examining options for (Secretary Clinton) with respect to secure ‘BlackBerry-like’ communications,” wrote Donald R. Reid, the department’s assistant director for security infrastructure.
“The current state of the art is not too user friendly, has no infrastructure at State, and is very expensive.”
Standard smartphones are not allowed into areas designated as approved for the handling of classified information…
Clinton used a Blackberry that wasn’t approved by the NSA. Along with the issue of political motive, and why she deleted tens of thousands of emails, the unsecured Blackberry use could easily lead to an indictment.
5. What did you say to Bryan Pagliano?
Mr. Pagliano recently received immunity. He’s told the FBI, most likely, about his conversations with Hillary Clinton. Any discrepancy in stories could lead to a felony charge for Hillary Clinton or Pagliano’s immunity to be revoked. Both have every incentive to tell the truth.
6. Why were 22 Top Secret emails on a private server?
This is a simple question with no logical answer circumventing political repercussions. If Clinton and her staff are able to evade this issue, future government officials will also be able to have Top Secret intelligence on unguarded private servers.
7. Was any information about the Clinton Foundation mingled with State Department documents?
The answer to this question could lead to hundreds of other questions.
8. Did President Obama or his staff express any reservations about your private server?
President Obama’s White House communicated with Clinton via her private server. If anyone in the White House said anything about Clinton’s server, this could lead to new controversy.
9. Did Bill Clinton send or receive any emails on your private network?
The server was located in their home, so it’s a valid question.
10. How was your private server guarded against hacking attempts?
Foreign nations and hackers already tried to compromise Clinton’s server.
These questions could easily give Bernie Sanders the nomination. I explain that Clinton faces possible DOJ indictment in the following appearance on CNN International. Although Bernie can win without Clinton’s indictment, the email controversy will most likely become a giant story very soon. With issues revolving around trustworthiness before the FBI interviews, Clinton won’t be able to prevent Bernie Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination in 2016.
...
Then... I wasn't shocked as this site has effectively endorses Sanders.
Silly me.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/07 02:19:39
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Rosebuddy wrote: The very short post that you are quoting goes on to say that much of the Democratic Party would have to be replaced before it would go left.
I thought about using your latter 'ousting' language to explain that what happens is nothing like that, there's no planned takeover or coup or anything like that. It's just a natural process, Monday's base produces Tuesday's elites.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Cruz won Wisconsins, as did Bernie, but I have a feeling both of them will get crushed in New York. That will essentially kill Bernie dead for good (unless he can pivot and create a political base that is more than an election lever).
Yeah, and this is the other place where Sanders has been lacking. He's campaigned only on his own behalf, Clinton has been fundraising for other candidates, because she knows the long game and how to build a base of support. Sanders is running a one man crusade that is likely to peter out. It's a shame, because his campaign has shown there's a lot of votes and a lot of money out there for the Democrats if they make a genuine effort at tackling inequality, higher education and similar issues.
Edit: i think the GOP Elites would be wise to let Cruz be the nominee and get crushed to silence the call off "We would win if we had a true Conservative on the ballot. Moderates aren't Conservative enough!". After Cruz's crushing defeat, the elites could turn to the base and say "STFU Noobs!"
Something tells me that there'll still be voices out there claiming Cruz wasn't conservative enough
The other issue is that while losing the presidency sucks, there's a whole lot of other races on the same day. There's a big concern that Trump will not only lose, but he'll push the Democratic participation up so high that the Republicans will end up losing lots of other races. It gets really interesting in the house - it's current gerrymandered state means there's a whole lot of Republican seats that are held 55-45 or thereabouts, get a really bad presidential candidate and it could hit that tipping point where loads of Republicans lose their seat.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/07 02:23:21
“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.
2016/04/07 02:34:26
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Edit: i think the GOP Elites would be wise to let Cruz be the nominee and get crushed to silence the call off "We would win if we had a true Conservative on the ballot. Moderates aren't Conservative enough!". After Cruz's crushing defeat, the elites could turn to the base and say "STFU Noobs!"
Something tells me that there'll still be voices out there claiming Cruz wasn't conservative enough
Heh... not likely. If someone does that, just invoke The Gibb's Stare:
The other issue is that while losing the presidency sucks, there's a whole lot of other races on the same day. There's a big concern that Trump will not only lose, but he'll push the Democratic participation up so high that the Republicans will end up losing lots of other races. It gets really interesting in the house - it's current gerrymandered state means there's a whole lot of Republican seats that are held 55-45 or thereabouts, get a really bad presidential candidate and it could hit that tipping point where loads of Republicans lose their seat.
The issue in this regard is if Trump's the nominee, most GOP/Conservative voters would just stay home. Thus, putting the House at risk for the D's to take control.
Me? If Trump's the nominee, I'll write in Deadpool/Cthulu and then vote conservative down ticket.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/07 02:53:45
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
End of the day that was a knife edge election. Whichever way Florida went decided the President, but showed that both parties were commanding roughly equal voter turnouts. And 2004 showed that a skilful Republican candidate could win a strong result.
It's what has come after that where the wheels have fallen off.
It's not a forgone conclusion that Bernie gets curb stomped in NY anymore...
538 is projecting Clinton winning 61 to 36. Have you got different figures?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Trump can still win all of NY and NJ's delegates... and he would STILL need 61% of the remaining delegates to get to 1267.
Not happening...
Does New York have a 50% trigger? I know there's a 20% minimum like most loophole primaries, but I've not seen a 50% trigger anywhere. I thought the big issue was whether Cruz would hit 20% and so claim a bunch of primaries, because if he didn't then the delegates would end up overwhelmingly with Trump, he'll claim something like 75 of the 91 delegates.
Anyhow, the other part that's misleading about Trump needing 60% of the delegates is that many states to come are winner take all. If he wins Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, then he gets real close. The trick then is the other two winner take all states, Nebraska, Montana and South Dakota. Give him any two of those and he'll make his target.
That's all a quite a stretch of course, winning any one of those three looks unlikely, winning two looks very slim. But it shows that it isn't about the % of delegates needed, but the key winner takes all states that will decide this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The issue in this regard is if Trump's the nominee, most GOP/Conservative voters would just stay home. Thus, putting the House at risk for the D's to take control.
Yep. The alternate risk is if Trump was to be shut out at the convention in favour of Cruz or anyone else, then there might be a groundswell against the party. Exit polling from Wisconsin asked Trump, Cruz and Kasich voters who the nomination should be - they expected Trump supporters to say 'whoever gets the most votes' and Cruz/Kasich voters to say 'whoever is decided through the convention process'. But a strong majority of voters for each candidate all stated it should be whoever got the most delegates. That shows there's a decent risk of a reaction against the party, maybe even one that's as strong as the reaction against a Trump nomination.
No-one likes it when party insiders overturn democratic results, and I'd say Republicans are a lot more sensitive that than most. However this ends up playing out, the Republican leadership will have to play it very cleverly.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/07 03:38:49
“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.
