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.
sebster wrote: Far right economic positions (flat taxes, attacks on welfare, school vouchers etc) have never actually held much of a voter base - they appeal to a fairly closed circle closely tied to the Republican leadership, and pretty much no-one else.
I think they have more of an appeal than you might expect. The US is really big on the myth that anyone can become rich if they just work hard enough, so there seem to be a lot of republican voters who think "I'm going to be rich, and when I'm rich I don't want to pay taxes". And there are a lot of them who think "I don't need welfare, I worked hard and got where I am, so I'm not paying for you to be lazy" without being in the richest 1%. The angry and entitled (mostly white) middle class voter is an important element of the republican party.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: From what I understand, it was a close run vote, and "demands" for a recount were not met.... I'm just guessing here, but if Nevada is a "winner takes all delegates" type state
There are no winner take all states in the Democratic primaries. Each state has proportionate allocation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: Well some is, some isn't. If it were that simple Bernie wouldn't have won any states but he has won quite a few. I don't really have a dog in this hunt but that seems to be the problem on the Democratic side at the moment is the perception that something fishy is going on between voters and higher ups in the party.
Sanders winning some states doesn't mean Clinton isn't be significantly more popular. She's won bigger states, and won a few of them by pretty large margins.
The feeling of 'suspicion' is basically some people who really are letting what they really want to believe override plain reality. It's a bit like the problem the Republicans have been steadily sinking in to over the last 20 years, and now the far left of the Democrats are catching up really fast.
You say I'm wrong to believe that polling is fairly worthless and I'm just not liking the polls....
And yet you go on to say that polls for primaries are unreliable....
Sigh. I didn't say unreliable, I said not that reliable. That is - the polls are less reliable than you see in the late stages of the general election. This means you shouldn't bet your house on any individual result coming within 3 points of the polling average, but it also means you're crazy if you want to bet on someone beating their current polling numbers in every remaining state by an average of 10 points.
If you really, honestly can't see the wishful thinking that is needed to think Sanders is still in the race... just think about how this would be getting debated if Sanders was ahead 65-35 in all the remaining states. Do you think the Sanders people would be claiming that polls weren't reliable then, or do you think they'd be loving every single poll that showed he had the support to win it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: I think they have more of an appeal than you might expect. The US is really big on the myth that anyone can become rich if they just work hard enough, so there seem to be a lot of republican voters who think "I'm going to be rich, and when I'm rich I don't want to pay taxes". And there are a lot of them who think "I don't need welfare, I worked hard and got where I am, so I'm not paying for you to be lazy" without being in the richest 1%. The angry and entitled (mostly white) middle class voter is an important element of the republican party.
Maybe. Exactly what got individuals to the ballot box has always been more theory than anything else. I agree that it's been commonly believed for a long time that people like you describe were an important part of the Republican voting base, and maybe they still are.
But this primary is incredible not just because Trump won, but second place went to Cruz, who's appeal is almost entirely among social conservatives. The moderate candidates who should appeal to the voters you describe, Bush and Rubio never built any kind of base at all. At the end Kasich was left aiming for those voters, and they just never appeared.
Maybe it's just one of those things, maybe those three guys had other problems. That isn't a bad case to make - Bush had the family connection to his disastrous brother, and his only claim to success was getting out of office just before the Florida real estate bubble popped. Rubio always seemed lightweight, and his approach to campaign with minimal ground game was radical strategy that failed big time. And Kasich was ultimately just a boring guy from Ohio who was kind of campaigning against his own record.
So maybe it was just one of those things, and in 4 years service will return as normal. Afterall they got Romney up in 2012.
But maybe not, you know.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/05/16 08:54:39
“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.
sebster wrote: Sanders winning some states doesn't mean Clinton isn't be significantly more popular.
Sure, but anecdotally I still haven't met anyone that actually likes Clinton. I've met some that don't like Trump or Cruz, but that isn't the same thing. Even online it seems more like the people willing to go for her are holding their nose while doing it. It is very strange. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that Clinton supporters are generally acting more passive than Sanders supports?
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House Benghazi committee's Republican chairman is ignoring statements by his own former lawyer indicating that the U.S. military acted properly on the night of the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in Libya, the panel's Democrats said.
Reps. Elijah Cummings and Adam Smith said Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., omitted the lawyer's comments when he fired back at the Defense Department for criticizing the GOP-led investigation into the attacks that killed four Americans.
Gowdy's actions, coupled with delays that have pushed the 2-year-old inquiry into the heat of the 2016 presidential race, "have damaged the credibility of the Select Committee beyond repair," Cummings and Smith wrote Sunday in a letter to Gowdy.
The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter.
Cummings of Maryland is the senior Democrat on the Benghazi panel; Smith, of Washington state, is the senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. He also serves on the select Benghazi panel.
The criticism by the two Democrats is the latest volley in an escalating, election-year fight over the Benghazi panel's actions — or inaction. The panel, created in May 2014, has not conducted a public hearing since October when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified.
Democrats call the panel a thinly veiled excuse for Republicans to criticize Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. Republicans say the Obama administration has dragged its feet, failing to produce needed documents or interview subjects, delaying a final report.
U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens was among those died during the twin assaults nearly four years ago. Previous investigations blamed management failures at the State Department for a lack of security at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, an issue that has dogged Clinton and other Obama administration officials.
Cummings and Smith cite comments by retired Army Lt. Gen. Dana Chipman, who served as chief counsel for Republicans on the Benghazi panel from August 2014 until last January.
Chipman "repeatedly commended the military's actions on the night of the attacks during closed interviews with Defense Department officials," Cummings and Smith wrote.
Chipman, a former judge advocate general for the Army, attended a closed-door interview with former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Jan. 8.
[d-usa: he had security clearance to read emails, so he knows what he's talking about!!!]
Cummings and Smith quote Chipman as telling Panetta: "I think you ordered exactly the right forces to move out and to head toward a position where they could reinforce what was occurring in Benghazi or Tripoli or elsewhere in the region. And, sir, I don't disagree with the actions you took, the recommendations you made and the decisions you directed."
Chipman later told Panetta he was "worried" that U.S. officials were caught by surprise during the Benghazi raids, which occurred on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Still, Chipman told Panetta: "Nothing could have affected what occurred in Benghazi," Cummings and Smith wrote.
The letter from the Democrats comes after Gowdy sent a letter to Defense Secretary Ash Carter complaining that a top Pentagon official had intentionally mischaracterized the House inquiry.
Gowdy said comments by Stephen C. Hedger, assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs, were "riddled with factual inaccuracies" and did "a disservice to the public" and employees at the Defense Department.
Hedger, in an April 28 letter to Gowdy, expressed frustration with the Benghazi panel, citing a "crescendo" of costly, duplicative and unnecessary requests, including a few based on claims made on Facebook or talk radio.
dogma wrote: The impeachable offense still needs to be committed in office, the question regards whether or not it needs to be the office the person presently holds.
I don't think that's specified in Article 2, Section 4. I think it's left intentionally vague just for these sorts of "unknown unknowns". Does it matter, anyway - I mean, who is going to check Congress if they decided to impeach? No one has the authority to - it seems like an academic question.
Are you saying can she be retroactively impeached as Secretary of State? Since the only remedy is removal of office, and she doesn't hold that office, it doesn't seem likely to me.
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that once you're President, you could only be impeached/removed from office for things committed duringsaid Presidency.
In any case, ain't.going.to.happen. Democrats in the House/Senate would have to play ball in this and I seriously doubt they'll play along.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: So this has been blowing up my Twittah:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House Benghazi committee's Republican chairman is ignoring statements by his own former lawyer indicating that the U.S. military acted properly on the night of the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in Libya, the panel's Democrats said.
Reps. Elijah Cummings and Adam Smith said Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., omitted the lawyer's comments when he fired back at the Defense Department for criticizing the GOP-led investigation into the attacks that killed four Americans.
Gowdy's actions, coupled with delays that have pushed the 2-year-old inquiry into the heat of the 2016 presidential race, "have damaged the credibility of the Select Committee beyond repair," Cummings and Smith wrote Sunday in a letter to Gowdy.
The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter.
Cummings of Maryland is the senior Democrat on the Benghazi panel; Smith, of Washington state, is the senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. He also serves on the select Benghazi panel.
The criticism by the two Democrats is the latest volley in an escalating, election-year fight over the Benghazi panel's actions — or inaction. The panel, created in May 2014, has not conducted a public hearing since October when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified.
Democrats call the panel a thinly veiled excuse for Republicans to criticize Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. Republicans say the Obama administration has dragged its feet, failing to produce needed documents or interview subjects, delaying a final report.
U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens was among those died during the twin assaults nearly four years ago. Previous investigations blamed management failures at the State Department for a lack of security at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, an issue that has dogged Clinton and other Obama administration officials.
Cummings and Smith cite comments by retired Army Lt. Gen. Dana Chipman, who served as chief counsel for Republicans on the Benghazi panel from August 2014 until last January.
Chipman "repeatedly commended the military's actions on the night of the attacks during closed interviews with Defense Department officials," Cummings and Smith wrote.
Chipman, a former judge advocate general for the Army, attended a closed-door interview with former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Jan. 8.
[d-usa: he had security clearance to read emails, so he knows what he's talking about!!!]
Cummings and Smith quote Chipman as telling Panetta: "I think you ordered exactly the right forces to move out and to head toward a position where they could reinforce what was occurring in Benghazi or Tripoli or elsewhere in the region. And, sir, I don't disagree with the actions you took, the recommendations you made and the decisions you directed."
Chipman later told Panetta he was "worried" that U.S. officials were caught by surprise during the Benghazi raids, which occurred on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Still, Chipman told Panetta: "Nothing could have affected what occurred in Benghazi," Cummings and Smith wrote.
The letter from the Democrats comes after Gowdy sent a letter to Defense Secretary Ash Carter complaining that a top Pentagon official had intentionally mischaracterized the House inquiry.
Gowdy said comments by Stephen C. Hedger, assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs, were "riddled with factual inaccuracies" and did "a disservice to the public" and employees at the Defense Department.
Hedger, in an April 28 letter to Gowdy, expressed frustration with the Benghazi panel, citing a "crescendo" of costly, duplicative and unnecessary requests, including a few based on claims made on Facebook or talk radio.
That Democrat panel is desperate to close this issue down.
I mean, that Committee *still* hasn't been able to interview key witnesses:
whembly wrote: That Democrat panel is desperate to close this issue down.
And the "Republican panel" is desperate to continue to waste everyone's time and money.
But you know what they say...
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."
In other news, Trump is saying that he won't have a good relationship with British Prime Minister, David Cameron.
Now, this is not news to anybody on dakka, given what's been said about Trump in Britain,
but you would think that a man running for President would have some knowledge of the politics of the USA's closest ally.
David Cameron's party, the Conservatives, are on the verge of civil war over the EU referendum. Cameron is unlikely to last the year.
Trump should know these things...
"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
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In other news, Trump is saying that he won't have a good relationship with British Prime Minister, David Cameron.
Now, this is not news to anybody on dakka, given what's been said about Trump in Britain,
but you would think that a man running for President would have some knowledge of the politics of the USA's closest ally.
David Cameron's party, the Conservatives, are on the verge of civil war over the EU referendum. Cameron is unlikely to last the year.
Trump should know these things...
Trump is an idiot, but this I don't see that as too much of a problem. Cameron getting kicked out is not a certainty and he is the current leader. I could say the same about anyone actually taking the idea of Trump being president from another country
When talking about another country's leadership, you always would mention the current leader regardless of whether they might (or even likely will) get voted out of office. Same as someone in another country talking about Obama even though he'll definitely be out of office in under a year.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In other news, Trump is saying that he won't have a good relationship with British Prime Minister, David Cameron.
Now, this is not news to anybody on dakka, given what's been said about Trump in Britain,
but you would think that a man running for President would have some knowledge of the politics of the USA's closest ally.
David Cameron's party, the Conservatives, are on the verge of civil war over the EU referendum. Cameron is unlikely to last the year.
Trump should know these things...
Trump is an idiot, but this I don't see that as too much of a problem. Cameron getting kicked out is not a certainty and he is the current leader. I could say the same about anyone actually taking the idea of Trump being president from another country
When talking about another country's leadership, you always would mention the current leader regardless of whether they might (or even likely will) get voted out of office. Same as someone in another country talking about Obama even though he'll definitely be out of office in under a year.
Damn! I can't disagree with this because it's true!
On another note, when in God's name does this primary business finish? A 5 week campaign for a UK election is enough to bore me to death, but this presidential nomination has been going on since Obama started his second term!
I admire the stamina of Americans for being able to survive this.
"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
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: On another note, when in God's name does this primary business finish? A 5 week campaign for a UK election is enough to bore me to death, but this presidential nomination has been going on since Obama started his second term!
I admire the stamina of Americans for being able to survive this.
Election campaigning, much like Black Friday and Christmas, has been creeping forward for years until we're now at what feels like an endless election cycle. I think a lot of Americans have had enough of it as well, but not enough to do anything to change it.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Why on earth would we choose to put the Clinton family drama at the center of our politics again?
By Christopher Hitchens
Also in Slate, John Dickerson details the "distractions" the Clinton team is creating for itself, and Timothy Noah argues that she's not the experience candidate.
Seeing the name Hillary in a headline last week—a headline about a life that had involved real achievement—I felt a mouse stirring in the attic of my memory. Eventually, I was able to recall how the two Hillarys had once been mentionable in the same breath. On a first-lady goodwill tour of Asia in April 1995—the kind of banal trip that she now claims as part of her foreign-policy "experience"—Mrs. Clinton had been in Nepal and been briefly introduced to the late Sir Edmund Hillary, conqueror of Mount Everest. Ever ready to milk the moment, she announced that her mother had actually named her for this famous and intrepid explorer. The claim "worked" well enough to be repeated at other stops and even showed up in Bill Clinton's memoirs almost a decade later, as one more instance of the gutsy tradition that undergirds the junior senator from New York.
Sen. Clinton was born in 1947, and Sir Edmund Hillary and his partner Tenzing Norgay did not ascend Mount Everest until 1953, so the story was self-evidently untrue and eventually yielded to fact-checking. Indeed, a spokeswoman for Sen. Clinton named Jennifer Hanley phrased it like this in a statement in October 2006, conceding that the tale was untrue but nonetheless charming: "It was a sweet family story her mother shared to inspire greatness in her daughter, to great results I might add."
Perfect. It worked, in other words, having been coined long after Sir Edmund became a bankable celebrity, but now its usefulness is exhausted and its untruth can safely be blamed on Mummy. Yet isn't it all—all of it, every single episode and detail of the Clinton saga—exactly like that? And isn't some of it a little bit more serious? For Sen. Clinton, something is true if it validates the myth of her striving and her "greatness" (her overweening ambition in other words) and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose. And we are all supposed to applaud the skill and the bare-faced bravado with which this is done. In the New Hampshire primary in 1992, she knowingly lied about her husband's uncontainable sex life and put him eternally in her debt. This is now thought of, and referred to in print, purely as a smart move on her part. In the Iowa caucuses of 2008, he returns the favor by telling a huge lie about his own record on the war in Iraq, falsely asserting that he was opposed to the intervention from the very start. This is thought of, and referred to in print, as purely a tactical mistake on his part: trying too hard to help the spouse. The happy couple has now united on an equally mendacious account of what they thought about Iraq and when they thought it. What would it take to break this cheap little spell and make us wake up and inquire what on earth we are doing when we make the Clinton family drama—yet again—a central part of our own politics?
What do you have to forget or overlook in order to desire that this dysfunctional clan once more occupies the White House and is again in a position to rent the Lincoln Bedroom to campaign donors and to employ the Oval Office as a massage parlor? You have to be able to forget, first, what happened to those who complained, or who told the truth, last time. It's often said, by people trying to show how grown-up and unshocked they are, that all Clinton did to get himself impeached was lie about sex. That's not really true. What he actually lied about, in the perjury that also got him disbarred, was the women. And what this involved was a steady campaign of defamation, backed up by private dicks (you should excuse the expression) and salaried government employees, against women who I believe were telling the truth. In my opinion, Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth; so was Monica Lewinsky, and so was Kathleen Willey, and so, lest we forget, was Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton. (For the full background on this, see the chapter "Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?" in the paperback version of my book No One Left To Lie To. This essay, I may modestly say, has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton "rapid response" team.) Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's "issues."
One also hears a great deal about how this awful joint tenure of the executive mansion was a good thing in that it conferred "experience" on the despised and much-deceived wife. Well, the main "experience" involved the comprehensive fouling-up of the nation's health-care arrangements, so as to make them considerably worse than they had been before and to create an opening for the worst-of-all-worlds option of the so-called HMO, combining as it did the maximum of capitalist gouging with the maximum of socialistic bureaucracy. This abysmal outcome, forgiven for no reason that I can perceive, was the individual responsibility of the woman who now seems to think it entitles her to the presidency. But there was another "experience," this time a collaborative one, that is even more significant.
During the Senate debate on the intervention in Iraq, Sen. Clinton made considerable use of her background and "experience" to argue that, yes, Saddam Hussein was indeed a threat. She did not argue so much from the position adopted by the Bush administration as she emphasized the stand taken, by both her husband and Al Gore, when they were in office, to the effect that another and final confrontation with the Baathist regime was more or less inevitable. Now, it does not especially matter whether you agree or agreed with her about this (as I, for once, do and did). What does matter is that she has since altered her position and attempted, with her husband's help, to make people forget that she ever held it. And this, on a grave matter of national honor and security, merely to influence her short-term standing in the Iowa caucuses. Surely that on its own should be sufficient to disqualify her from consideration? Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry.
Oh how people forget how uglythe 2008 primary got.
I don't remember it being quite as bad as this one has already gotten on the Dem side. There were winners and losers and the hard feelings that go with that, but I don't recall there being a whole tone of how it was rigged to pick winners and losers like this one has been spun, or actually is, depending who you're rooting for. I don't remember much of an air of illegitimacy in 2008.
Ouze wrote: I don't remember it being quite as bad as this one has already gotten on the Dem side. There were winners and losers and the hard feelings that go with that, but I don't recall there being a whole tone of how it was rigged to pick winners and losers like this one has been spun, or actually is, depending who you're rooting for. I don't remember much of an air of illegitimacy in 2008.
Also, I don't really remember anything like what the GOP has going. I don't remember Perot very well, though, I wasn't politically interested yet.
As far as primaries goes... I think you're right. That last time was probably during the late 60's and 70's.
I remember when Perot ran before Bill Clinton's 2nd term. Many believe that he's the reason why Bill was able to win handily over Bob Dole.
I wonder if this is going to be "a thing" now because of how saturated Social Media is now...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: That would be the damning case that stopped her getting the office of secretary of state, wouldn't it?
Let's hope it has a similar effect eight years later.
Kinda hard to "stop her" if Democrats controlled the White House and Senate. Besides, it was a "runner-up" prize for Clinton as she needed to build up her resume.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/16 14:21:38
Kilkrazy wrote: That would be the damning case that stopped her getting the office of secretary of state, wouldn't it?
She wasn't elected Secretary of State by popular vote. She was appointed to the office by a Democrat President and confirmed by a Democrat controlled Senate.
As far as primaries goes... I think you're right. That last time was probably during the late 60's and 70's.
Yeah, I've been doing a bunch of research for a prohibition paper in one of my classes, and I'll say that the 1910s and 1920s were fething UGLY when it came to campaigning..... ESPECIALLY in regards to the one massive hot-button issue back then. Whether someone was a "dry" or a "wet" back then carried far more weight than even the term "socialist" does today.
Fast forwarding a bit, I've read a bit on the rhetoric and tone during the Kennedy run and that was also pretty ugly. Perhaps it's not so much that today's primaries are any uglier or nicer than back in the day, they could be the "same" but we're just talking differences in technology and scales of magnitude within political life itself. (as in, the coverage and "place" of politics has increased by scales of magnitude)
Belknap resigned first, and the House moved to impeach on the same day; in the same office all the time. Questions of criminal prosecution only become pertinent when he left office.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
sebster wrote: Maybe it's just one of those things, maybe those three guys had other problems. That isn't a bad case to make - Bush had the family connection to his disastrous brother, and his only claim to success was getting out of office just before the Florida real estate bubble popped. Rubio always seemed lightweight, and his approach to campaign with minimal ground game was radical strategy that failed big time. And Kasich was ultimately just a boring guy from Ohio who was kind of campaigning against his own record.
I think this is the most likely explanation. Trump and Cruz were the only candidates who got anyone excited. The other candidates were either boring placeholders whose primary appeal was that they weren't Trump or Cruz, or obvious joke candidates with no hope of winning. So that's a lot of apathetic voters, with their vote split between several equally boring candidates. And I think that group of voters is where a lot of the "I don't like Trump, but at least he's not a democrat" feelings come from.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Kilkrazy wrote: That would be the damning case that stopped her getting the office of secretary of state, wouldn't it?
She wasn't elected Secretary of State by popular vote. She was appointed to the office by a Democrat President and confirmed by a Democrat controlled Senate.
Who of course don't give A FETH what the public think but to some slight degree are concerned with actual competence in the job.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/16 18:23:44
Kilkrazy wrote: That would be the damning case that stopped her getting the office of secretary of state, wouldn't it?
She wasn't elected Secretary of State by popular vote. She was appointed to the office by a Democrat President and confirmed by a Democrat controlled Senate.
Who of course don't give A FETH what the public think but to some slight degree are concerned with actual competence in the job.
Partisan Politicians being... ya know... partisans. That's how HRC got her Secretary of State job... Not simply because she was qualified.
However, when given the opportunity... Hillary Clinton does do something I'd do:
Spoiler:
That is to look at Christina Aguilera's boobs at every chance!
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/05/16 18:42:29
