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.
d-usa wrote: The tl;dr version of whembly's claim:
- They asked for a budget of $100
- They were given a budget of $60
- But last year they had a budget of $55, so they got more money.
- They didn't ask for the missing $40 a second time, so they were happy.
That's most agencies within the Fed. Sure, our budget may get an increase every year, but ultimately we're still underfunded. Ever since that sequestration crap, it's like HQ has given up on ever getting even half of the budget increases they ask Congress for.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
whembly wrote: Where were they in the early going of the primaries?
Seem to me, they want to "build up" a weak Republican candidate, and then tear him down in the General.
When Trump was first leading polls everyone assumed it was just a silly blip, like we saw through the 2012 race with lots of fast rising, fast falling populist outsiders. There were stories about Trump being horrible, but they were mostly funny because everyone assumed it was just the silly season before the sensible candidates moved to the fore.
As the primaries began and Trump started racking up wins, then he got taken seriously and plenty of serious, negative stories were posted. But in the media there is a massive difference between 'here is a bad story about someone who is winning' and 'here is a bad story about someone who is losing'. The latter is picked up more and commented on more. It produces a feedback in the media, where a poor performing candidate will have more negative stories and those stories will have more impact, pushing polling numbers further down and so on.
Trump never suffered that because about 40% of the Republican base wanted to vote for him no matter what crazy gak he said. As such every story came with a bit saying 'Trump said a crazy/racist thing, but his poll numbers are fine' which kind of read like it was okay to say crazy/racist things.
Oh, and the really important thing to remember in all of this is that the candidate who had the highest % of negative stories through the primaries was... Hillary Clinton. Damn liberal media.
See Romney last year...
Yeah, if only they hadn't been helping out Romney, then Santorum or Ron Paul, or Newt Gingrich wouldn't have had their crack at the Whitehouse. That would have worked out so much better for the Republican party.
You remind me of the sports fan who always wants to blame the umpire when their team loses. But the plain and simple reality is that your team is putting up a lot of crappy players. I can already see the idea forming that this defeat is just a Trump thing, an unhappy accident*, but second place went to Ted Cruz who would be probably less competitive in a general election. Third place was either Rubio or Kasich depending on how you assess it, and the plain reality is that they both looked like political roadkill from the day they announced.
*Or possibly a media conspiracy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Apparently it's only a non-issue to the people who don't face jail time for the things she did. For those of us who do have to deal with the consequences of our actions, it is an issue.
The special treatment argument relies on the idea that other people who did what she did have gone to jail. So name them. Give me the list of people who've gone to prison for being reckless in their security handling of emails.
Has Obama/Clinton & Obama/Kerry done anything against Russian aggressions?
US led sanctions on Russia led directly to the 2014 collapse of the ruble, in which the ruble fell by almost double against the US dollar. This in turn led to the Russian financial crisis of 2014/15, which continues to cause suffering and instability in Russia.
Obama has taken more direct action against Russia than any president since the Cold War ended. This is because Russia has done more to deserve such direct action but still, it is what it is.
Trying to ignore that and then speculating about some unfounded, baseless, rumour mill nonsense about 'what the Clinton Foundation might mean' is pretty weak, mate.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/08 00:58:57
“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: [
The special treatment argument relies on the idea that other people who did what she did have gone to jail. So name them. Give me the list of people who've gone to prison for being reckless in their security handling of emails.
Sandy Berger
John Deutch
Bryan Nishimura
Kristian Saucier
Maj. Jason Brezler
Jessica Lynn Quintana
Donald Willis Keyser
John Kiriakou
Shamai Leibowitz
Jeffrey Sterling
Stephen Kim
That enough for you, or would you like me to keep going?
cuda1179 wrote: That enough for you, or would you like me to keep going?
How about making an honest reply and naming people who have actually gone to jail, as requested by sebster, not people who mishandled classified information but didn't go to jail over it?
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.
jmurph wrote: But realistically it is one more illustration that Clinton is a pretty poor candidate and that were she not running against what may be the worst Republican nominee in recent memory, she could not afford such missteps.
Yeah, Clinton is a crappy campaigner. She's a policy person, not a politician. It's interesting because her husband is probably the most natural politician I've seen, while Clinton is one of the worst. Some things you can't be taught, I guess.
And yeah, Trump is the worst candidate for either major party since, well probably since Goldwater, and arguably before then. But if Trump hadn't won it would have been Cruz or Rubio, in which the Republicans still would have had the worst presidential candidate since McGovern.
“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: [
The special treatment argument relies on the idea that other people who did what she did have gone to jail. So name them. Give me the list of people who've gone to prison for being reckless in their security handling of emails.
Sandy Berger - removed original copies of classified documents without authorization, did not go to jail John Deutch - prosecution declined by the CIA, prosecution declined by the DOJ Bryan Nishimura - did not have authorization to remove classified materials, but did so anyway. Then he destroyed them in a matter that he knew was not authorized. Kristian Saucier - Took pictures of a nuclear sub inside a restricted area. Attempted to destroy evidence that he had done so Maj. Jason Brezler - knowingly shared classified information, no criminal case Jessica Lynn Quintana - removed computers from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, kept them at her meth house, Donald Willis Keyser - unauthorized possession of secret documents and lying to the FBI John Kiriakou - passed classified information to a reporter Shamai Leibowitz - passed classified information to a blogger Jeffrey Sterling - passed classified information to a reporter Stephen Kim - passed classified information to a reporter
Also, you know, [citation needed]
That enough for you, or would you like me to keep going?
Eventually you might actually get someone who was send to prison for being careless in their handling of emails.
Be honest cuda1179, you didn't look up one of those cases, did you? I'm guessing you just went and got a list of some conservative website somewhere and re-pasted it here without checking if one of those cases met the criteria.
You gave me ten cases. Four cases involved reckless use of information, none of them resulted in jail time (one has yet to be sentenced). Of the cases with jail time, one involved giving information to a mistress who was an intelligence agent for another country, and four involved giving information to journalists.
So the courts are pretty clearly and consistently passing sentences that say 'with intent = jail time, reckless = no jail time". Which is consistent with the Clinton case, and makes the claims that she's gotten special treatment quite ridiculous.
Anyhow, he's a case by case breakdown of the list you gave. Because, you know, someone has to go and get some actual information, and you don't appear to want that job.
Spoiler:
John Deutch had classified information on his laptop wrongly labeled as unclassified. The CIA and then the Dept of Justice both investigated and declined to prosecute. The latter recommended an investigation on whether Deutch should lose his security clearance.
Bryan Nishimura put classified information on his personal computer. He was fined and given probation.
Kristian Saucier snuck a phone on to his sub and took photos of it, then lost the phone. He has recently pleaded guilty and as yet no sentence has been passed.
Maj. Jason Brezler sent an email containing classified information on an Afghani police chief. Brezler was honorably discharged, and no prosecution was attempted.
Jessica Lynn Quintana took classified information home to finish a project. She received two years probation.
Donald Willis Keyser lied about a sexual relationship with a Taiwanese intelligence officer, whom prosecutors believe he gave confidential information that he had taken posession of. He originally pleaded guilty to unauthorised access to classified information and received no jail time. Eventually he was convicted of lying to prosecutors and got jail time.
John Kiriakou revealed state secrets to journalists, including the identity and role of a CIA agent. He received 30 months prison.
Shamai Leibowitz knowingly and willfully disclosed secret documents, pled guilty and got 20 months prison.
Jeffrey Sterling gave state secrets to a journalist, and got 3.5 years.
Stephen Kim gave information to a journalist and got 13 months.
That enough for you, or would you like me to keep going?
I'd like a case of someone actually going to prison for being reckless with classified emails. I mean, I can list random names all day. Former Test and ODI batsman Damian Martyn is a name. How about current UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon. That's also a name. I can put those two names together and look there's a list. But it'd be a very stupid list to give as response to my question, because neither of these people have been given jail time for the reckless handling of emails.
And of course, no-one in your list has either. Which made it a waste of your time and mine. And yet you listed it anyway, because the alternative is to do the hard and honest thinking of admitting that the 'Clinton would go to jail if she wasn't protected' is a vacuous line of argument. So just be honest, admit that what Clinton did doesn't send people to prison.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Eventually you might actually get someone who was send to prison for being careless in their handling of emails.
Thing is, I mean I know politics is silly and right now there's a lot of people yelling for Clinton to go to jail. This is basically just because she's the other team's presidential candidate and has nothing to do with people's actual opinions of how the protection of state secrets should be enforced, however I just have to shake my head in disbelief at the ridiculously silly world that so many people have ended up arguing for. I mean, actual jail time for just being reckless with internet security. Not deliberabely giving information away, but just being reckless..
I mean, how reckless is reckless enough that you need jail time? What if you make your password too obvious? If its 'password1'... what's that worth, three months jail? What about if you write your password on a post-it and stick in your top drawer... should that be six month in the slammer?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: At least we have moved past the BS "Petraeus did the same thing" argument into a fresh set of BS.
In looking up the Kiriakou case I came across this quote from Gen Petraeus "Oaths do matter, and there are indeed consequences for those who believe they are above the laws". I hope somebody quoted that line at Petraeus during his own trial
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: So, the media is all about how Trump is cratering. Assuming this is so and not just wishful thinking, is it deliberate or just inevitable?
The polls are showing a clear decline in Trump's polling numbers. Well, about a 2 point fall in Trump's numbers, while Clinton's have improved about 4 points, giving Clinton a lead of around 7 points.
This is hardly election over stuff, because there's still about three months to go and when polls can move 7 points in a little over a week, they can certainly move that much again in the next few months. The
It isn't deliberate. It was maybe inevitable. The conventions mark the first time a lot of people switch in to politics, so what we may have seen in the polls is the effect of people who aren't partisan tuning in for the first time and seeing Trump really is just an awful human being and so deciding to go for the other person. But maybe not, it wasn't like there was that many people who didn't have an opinion on Trump and Clinton a month ago. Maybe it's impact of Clinton's long term view finally paying off - she's stayed steady in her campaign message, and that culminated in the convention which confirmed the messages she'd been running on. This contrasted to Trump who's suddently decided to put law and order first and foremost, due to events in the weeks leading up to the convention.
Or maybe it was because you really shouldn't pick a fight with the parents of a dead veteran?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: I don't buy it. Trump doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would intentionally tarnish his own name for someone else. I could perhaps see him being an unwitting dupe (Bill playing him by recommending he run like he is being played by Putin).
There's been speculation that major motivator for Trump to run was the genuinely hilarious mockery that Obama gave him in the aftermath of the birther nonsense. Maybe Obama was goading him to run, Obama playing 12th dimensional chess...
Nah, Trump has been shaping up to run since at least 2008. Trump thinks Trump is amazing, and thinks he would be an amazing president. Now he's having his first sustained bad run in the polls since announcing he was running last year.
I think the rumours about Trump giving up are basically an even more desperate version of the #stopTrump campaign. Trump may be miles out of his depth, but he isn't a quitter.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2016/08/08 02:56:20
“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: posting from my phone, too complicated to quote and edit your long post to address one point.
Another reason why Trump managed to keep chugging along early on was that he had a friend. When all of the other R candidates would go after Trump for the stuff he said, the one who was the darling of the far right stayed silent: Ted Cruz. I suspect if Cruz had gone after Trump early on, things may have gone differently, and I bet he's kicking himself for it. But, no, Cruz played buddy buddy hoping to scoop up Trump's followers.
That's the main reason I just don't care about Trump's personal attacks on Cruz, and why I think Cruz was full of it at the convention. Cruz is like that old moral lesson: when Trump did X, Cruz stayed silent, when Trump did Y, Cruz stayed silent, when Trump came for Cruz, there was nobody left to speak out.
Hehe, on a side note, autocorrect wanted to spell Trump as Turnip.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Ouze wrote: At least we have moved past the BS "Petraeus did the same thing" argument into a fresh set of BS.
When they get to arguing that Colin Powell and Condi Rice should be in jail for keeping classified documents on their private email accounts, I might believe they care about equal treatment under the law. Once they take the fight to Bush and his senior advisors who ran al their emails through an RNC server, before deleting them, then there may be an argument that they care about public records.
But then, I can't say this because it's excusing Clinton because of the transgressions of others. But it's perfectly fine to excuse the transgressions of republicans because of what Clinton did. Because reasons.
Looking for a club in Brisbane, Australia? Come and enjoy a game and a beer at Pubhammer, our friendly club in a pub at the Junction pub in Annerley (opposite Ace Comics), Sunday nights from 6:30. All brisbanites welcome, don't wait, check out our Club Page on Facebook group for details or to organize a game. We play all sorts of board and war games, so hit us up if you're interested.
Pubhammer is Moving! Starting from the 25th of May we'll be gaming at The Junction pub (AKA The Muddy Farmer), opposite Ace Comics & Games in Annerley! Still Sunday nights from 6:30 in the Function room Come along and play Warmachine, 40k, boardgames or anything else!
Tannhauser42 wrote: @Sebster: posting from my phone, too complicated to quote and edit your long post to address one point.
Another reason why Trump managed to keep chugging along early on was that he had a friend. When all of the other R candidates would go after Trump for the stuff he said, the one who was the darling of the far right stayed silent: Ted Cruz. I suspect if Cruz had gone after Trump early on, things may have gone differently, and I bet he's kicking himself for it. But, no, Cruz played buddy buddy hoping to scoop up Trump's followers.
That's the main reason I just don't care about Trump's personal attacks on Cruz, and why I think Cruz was full of it at the convention. Cruz is like that old moral lesson: when Trump did X, Cruz stayed silent, when Trump did Y, Cruz stayed silent, when Trump came for Cruz, there was nobody left to speak out.
Yeah, that definitely played a part. It wasn't just Trump, none of the other candidates wanted to take on Trump, they all wanted to pick up his votes. Some of the candidates, Rubio and Bush come to mind, tried to attack Trump as a last ditch effort once their own campaigns were sinking, as a last play to shake things up. Which was the worst place to try it from, and got the results you'd expect.
Cruz gave the speech he did at the convention because he's banking on Trump going down in flames in November. He'll then walk in as the 'I told you so' candidate, and aim to present himself as the principled conservative, distinct from the 'vichy Republicans' like Paul Ryan. His role in the #neverTrump effort at the campaign was basically just building a platform for 2020. The guy is basically naked ambition given an almost human form.
“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.
Trump's an imbecile and pathological liar (not as bad as Clinton imo).
I don't think Trump is an imbecile, or a pathological liar. I think he's actually pretty intelligent, and that the lies he's told throughout his campaign more carefully crafted than many people want to believe. At worst he is a talented conman.
Hillary's a much worst pathological liar, in addition a fabulist AND tendencies of quid pro quo activities with her Foundation.
The quid pro quo thing is a nonstarter, that's true of pretty much all professional interaction, regardless of area or level. It is very rare for people to do something, professionally, without an expectation of some form of reciprocity. It's pretty much just as rare socially, though not to the same extent. For example, most people would get pretty pissed if they helped a friend move and the friend didn't reciprocate; at least without a really good excuse.
And Clinton isn't a pathological liar. She lies, badly, to cover her ass when problems occur but she doesn't do it on impulse. Lying in defense of yourself is not pathological, as one of the defining characteristics of pathological lying is that the person lies for no other reason than a compulsion to do so.
Honestly, you shouldn't use the phrase "pathological liar" at all, as you're talking about the public (and therefore constructed) personae of people you probably haven't met.
You simply can't trust either, and just realize that we're boned... pray that the other two govt branch would keep a Clinton/Trump administration in check.
Trust shouldn't be a factor here. Any US national politician is (usually) so far removed from your immediate interests that it should be assumed they will try to manipulate you: it is both easy and effective. Really, most local politicians will try to do it too.
Stepping out of politics for a second: so will a lot of the people you work with; probably most of them. Recognizing manipulation attempts, seeing through them and working around them, is just something people need to learn to do.
dogma wrote: I don't think Trump is an imbecile, or a pathological liar. I think he's actually pretty intelligent, and that the lies he's told throughout his campaign more carefully crafted than many people want to believe.
I guess that gets in to the difference between intelligence and knowledge. Trump is probably smart than the average person and certainly has some natural aptitudes, but given his knowledge of national and world affairs through this campaign... well when the ghost writer of The Art of a Deal said Trump had probably never read a book in his adult life, I believe him.
I'm not sure I'd call his lies that well crafted though. In fact, I'd say there's a lack of craft in Trump's campaign because it is impossible to have craft without discipline, and Trump has terrible discipline, he'll jump at any baiting.
I think the rumours about Trump giving up are basically an even more desperate version of the #stopTrump campaign. Trump may be miles out of his depth, but he isn't a quitter.
Trump has already prepared his story. If he loses, it will be because the voting was rigged.
I'm not sure I'd call his lies that well crafted though. In fact, I'd say there's a lack of craft in Trump's campaign because it is impossible to have craft without discipline, and Trump has terrible discipline, he'll jump at any baiting.
I disagree. Trump has consistently pitched his message to people who would not only accept his brand, but advance it, regardless of discipline. In such a situation all you need to do is latch onto a particular, and principle, and run with it.
In Trump's case that's 'angry not-Democrat". I guess that's tantamount to Tea Party, but neither he, nor they, have run that way.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/08 06:48:47
sebster wrote: Be honest cuda1179, you didn't look up one of those cases, did you? .
Actually I did look them up. You are right, technically. I didn't find an EXACT match to what you are looking for, namely people in prison for emails. What I did find was a list of people that got into heaps of trouble for doing things that are arguably less severe. Have any gotten prison time, no. One might though. However, this wasn't exactly for a lack of trying. The authorities actually saw it though, they didn't just shrug their shoulders and say "well, watcha gunna do?"
In a best-case scenario of Clinton, even the FBI and those in charge that decided not to press charges basically called it extreme negligence, or possibly incompetence. Neither are traits I'd like for a President.
I think the rumours about Trump giving up are basically an even more desperate version of the #stopTrump campaign. Trump may be miles out of his depth, but he isn't a quitter.
Trump has already prepared his story. If he loses, it will be because the voting was rigged.
Ah, the Al Gore defense.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/08 06:49:09
I'm not sure I'd call his lies that well crafted though. In fact, I'd say there's a lack of craft in Trump's campaign because it is impossible to have craft without discipline, and Trump has terrible discipline, he'll jump at any baiting.
I disagree. Trump has consistently pitched his message to people who would not only likely accept his brand, but advance it; regardless of discipline. In such a situation all you need to do is latch onto a particular source and push it via any social media medium.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/08/08 07:07:08
d-usa wrote: So printing out information that you are not authorized to have and handing them to foreign security agents and reporters is arguably less severe?
At least one word in that post was correct, I guess.
Well, considering some of the information found on Clinton's private servers were from non-networked computers, and removing said information is illegal....Possibly?
cuda1179 wrote: Actually I did look them up. You are right, technically. I didn't find an EXACT match to what you are looking for, namely people in prison for emails. What I did find was a list of people that got into heaps of trouble for doing things that are arguably less severe. Have any gotten prison time, no. One might though. However, this wasn't exactly for a lack of trying. The authorities actually saw it though, they didn't just shrug their shoulders and say "well, watcha gunna do?"
You're right. You didn't find an exact match. And this would have been fine if you had honestly and openly said "here are some people who got jail time for similar offenses", but you lied and said "here's a list of people who got jail time for email security failures". I'm guessing you just hoped nobody would research those names you posted and realize that you'd been dishonest in presenting your "examples".
And really, you didn't even find a close match. The people on your list who merely stored classified information improperly (as Clinton did) did not get jail time. The people who did get jail time committed additional offenses (deliberately giving classified information to people who shouldn't have it, destruction of evidence to obstruct an investigation, etc) beyond mere improper storage. Clinton neatly fits the pattern that your own list established.
In a best-case scenario of Clinton, even the FBI and those in charge that decided not to press charges basically called it extreme negligence, or possibly incompetence. Neither are traits I'd like for a President.
Too bad, because your only alternative is even less competent.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/08 07:13:53
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.
Harvard Republican Club Refuses to Endorse Donald Trump
Dear Members and Alumni,
In every presidential election since 1888, the members and Executive Board of the Harvard Republican Club have gathered to discuss, debate, and eventually endorse the standard-bearer of our party. But for the first time in 128 years, we, the oldest College Republicans chapter in the nation, will not be endorsing the Republican nominee.
Donald Trump holds views that are antithetical to our values not only as Republicans, but as Americans. The rhetoric he espouses –from racist slander to misogynistic taunts– is not consistent with our conservative principles, and his repeated mocking of the disabled and belittling of the sacrifices made by prisoners of war, Gold Star families, and Purple Heart recipients is not only bad politics, but absurdly cruel.
If enacted, Donald Trump’s platform would endanger our security both at home and abroad. Domestically, his protectionist trade policies and draconian immigration restrictions would enlarge our federal deficit, raise prices for consumers, and throw our economy back into recession. Trump’s global outlook, steeped in isolationism, is considerably out-of-step with the traditional Republican stance as well. The flippancy with which he is willing to abdicate the United States’ responsibility to lead is alarming. Calling for the US’ withdrawal from NATO and actively endorsing nuclear proliferation, Donald Trump’s foreign policy would wreak havoc on the established world order which has held aggressive foreign powers in check since World War II.
Perhaps most importantly, however, Donald Trump simply does not possess the temperament and character necessary to lead the United States through an increasingly perilous world. The last week should have made obvious to all what has been obvious to most for more than a year. In response to any slight –perceived or real– Donald Trump lashes out viciously and irresponsibly. In Trump’s eyes, disagreement with his actions or his policies warrants incessant name calling and derision: stupid, lying, fat, ugly, weak, failing, idiot –and that’s just his “fellow” Republicans.
He isn’t eschewing political correctness. He is eschewing basic human decency.
Donald Trump, despite spending more than a year on the campaign trail, has either refused or been unable to educate himself on issues that matter most to Americans like us. He speaks only in platitudes, about greatness, success, and winning. Time and time again, Trump has demonstrated his complete lack of knowledge on critical matters, meandering from position to position over the course of the election. When confronted about these frequent reversals, Trump lies in a manner more brazen and shameless than anything politics has ever seen.
Millions of people across the country are feeling despondent. Their hours have been cut, wages slashed, jobs even shipped overseas. But Donald Trump doesn’t have a plan to fix that. He has a plan to exploit that.
Donald Trump is a threat to the survival of the Republic. His authoritarian tendencies and flirtations with fascism are unparalleled in the history of our democracy. He hopes to divide us by race, by class, and by religion, instilling enough fear and anxiety to propel himself to the White House. He is looking to to pit neighbor against neighbor, friend against friend, American against American. We will not stand for this vitriolic rhetoric that is poisoning our country and our children.
President Reagan called on us to maintain this, our shining city on a hill. He called on us to maintain freedom abroad by keeping a strong presence in the world. He called on us to maintain liberty at home by upholding the democratic process and respecting our opponents. He called on us to maintain decency in our hearts by loving our neighbor.
He would be ashamed of Donald Trump. We are too.
This fall, we will instead focus our efforts on reclaiming the Republican Party from those who have done it considerable harm, campaigning for candidates who will uphold the conservative principles that have defined the Republican Party for generations. We will work to ensure both chambers of Congress remain in Republican hands, continuing to protect against executive overreach regardless of who wins the election this November.
We call on our party’s elected leaders to renounce their support of Donald Trump, and urge our fellow College Republicans to join us in condemning and withholding their endorsement from this dangerous man. The conservative movement in America should not and will not go quietly into the night.
A longtime student of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville once said, “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
De Tocqueville believed in the United States. Americans are a decent people. We work hard, protect our own, and look out for one another in times of need, regardless of the color of our skin, the God we worship, or our party registration. Donald Trump may not believe in that America, but we do. And that America will never cease to be great.
The Harvard Republican Club
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
cuda1179 wrote: Actually I did look them up. You are right, technically. I didn't find an EXACT match to what you are looking for, namely people in prison for emails.
Forget emails. you didn't find a single person who served jail time for recklessness. The only jail time was for deliberate acts.
What I did find was a list of people that got into heaps of trouble for doing things that are arguably less severe.
There's nothing arguable about it. In every case where the acts were reckless but no more than that there was no jail time. In cases where information was willingly given, then you see jail time.
So now the argument appears to be that Clinton was investigated by the FBI, but at the end the FBI didn't push for a trial that'd give Clinton a slap on the wrist fine, which has happened in some other cases where information was handled recklessly. Well yeah, I guess that's true. Maybe they should have pushed for a federal trial producing a fine somewhere of $5,000 or something.
Of course, we should be similarly outraged about Powell and Rice not having similar trials and fines, shouldn't we. But we're not. There's probably reasons for that.
Ah, the Al Gore defense.
On hearing the decision of the Supreme Court in the case in Florida, Gore gave a speech; "Let there be no doubt: While I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. And tonight for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession."
Except, once again, the opposite of what you claimed is true. There was a very tight election and both sides announced legal challenges, as you should to ensure the process was sufficiently accurate in a close election. When this was decided in the Supreme Court, Gore conceded and did not attempt any kind of incendiary rhetoric.
Trump hasn't even lost yet and has made much more heated claims.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: I disagree. Trump has consistently pitched his message to people who would not only likely accept his brand, but advance it; regardless of discipline. In such a situation all you need to do is latch onto a particular source and push it via any social media medium.
Yeah, I think there was definitely skill in some of primary strategy, it was both a novel and well executed plan to dominate the race coverage with incendiary language. But Trump's inability to manage any kind of change of strategy when he moved on to the general has shown we're likely looking at a one trick pony who lucked upon a brief period where his strategy perfectly matched the moment, rather than an actually skilled political operator.
I mean, the dude has just traded barbs with his own parody account. These are not the actions of shrewd operator.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/08 08:24:21
“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.
dogma wrote: I disagree. Trump has consistently pitched his message to people who would not only likely accept his brand, but advance it; regardless of discipline. In such a situation all you need to do is latch onto a particular source and push it via any social media medium.
Yeah, I think there was definitely skill in some of primary strategy, it was both a novel and well executed plan to dominate the race coverage with incendiary language. But Trump's inability to manage any kind of change of strategy when he moved on to the general has shown we're likely looking at a one trick pony who lucked upon a brief period where his strategy perfectly matched the moment, rather than an actually skilled political operator.
I mean, the dude has just traded barbs with his own parody account. These are not the actions of shrewd operator.
I know I'm an outsider, but I wonder...don't you think the simplicity in Trump being just a bully with lots of money more believable than thinking he is "smarter than the average" to explain why he went so far?
I understand some people may have difficulties to believe someone who is rich may not mean he has really done something worthy to earn it, but most of the time the simpler answers are closer to the truth.
I mean, there is nothing to believe that Trump is really behind all the strategies that made him go that far in the race for Presidency. Given all the stupid things he says when he's alone makes me doubt he is actually smarter than most people...quite the opposite.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/08 09:53:27
Trump's an imbecile and pathological liar (not as bad as Clinton imo).
I don't think Trump is an imbecile, or a pathological liar. I think he's actually pretty intelligent, and that the lies he's told throughout his campaign more carefully crafted than many people want to believe. At worst he is a talented conman.
He's media/business savvy... so in that respect, yes he's intelligent.
But, he's still a pathetic imbecile AND an pathological liar. Pathological as in he can't help himself.
Hillary's a much worst pathological liar, in addition a fabulist AND tendencies of quid pro quo activities with her Foundation.
The quid pro quo thing is a nonstarter, that's true of pretty much all professional interaction, regardless of area or level. It is very rare for people to do something, professionally, without an expectation of some form of reciprocity. It's pretty much just as rare socially, though not to the same extent. For example, most people would get pretty pissed if they helped a friend move and the friend didn't reciprocate; at least without a really good excuse.
Yeah... sure, the "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" is a thing. But, you know damn well that isn't what I referring to.
When you have many, many foreign nationals donating to the Clinton Foundation... a foundation mind you that's been accused of being a "slush fund" for the Clintons and her cronies, it isn't hard to see nefarious quid pro quo relationships.
And Clinton isn't a pathological liar. She lies, badly, to cover her ass when problems occur but she doesn't do it on impulse. Lying in defense of yourself is not pathological, as one of the defining characteristics of pathological lying is that the person lies for no other reason than a compulsion to do so.
Cogenital Liar™ then? This isn't something *new* about Clinton...
A 1996 Essay;Blizzard of Lies
Spoiler:
Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady -- a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation -- is a congenital liar.
Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.
1. Remember the story she told about studying The Wall Street Journal to explain her 10,000 percent profit in 1979 commodity trading? We now know that was a lie told to turn aside accusations that as the Governor's wife she profited corruptly, her account being run by a lawyer for state poultry interests through a disreputable broker.
She lied for good reason: To admit otherwise would be to confess taking, and paying taxes on, what some think amounted to a $100,000 bribe.
2. The abuse of Presidential power known as Travelgate elicited another series of lies. She induced a White House lawyer to assert flatly to investigators that Mrs. Clinton did not order the firing of White House travel aides, who were then harassed by the F.B.I. and Justice Department to justify patronage replacement by Mrs. Clinton's cronies.
Now we know, from a memo long concealed from investigators, that there would be "hell to pay" if the furious First Lady's desires were scorned. The career of the lawyer who transmitted Hillary's lie to authorities is now in jeopardy. Again, she lied with good reason: to avoid being identified as a vindictive political power player who used the F.B.I. to ruin the lives of people standing in the way of juicy patronage.
3. In the aftermath of the apparent suicide of her former partner and closest confidant, White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster, she ordered the overturn of an agreement to allow the Justice Department to examine the files in the dead man's office. Her closest friends and aides, under oath, have been blatantly disremembering this likely obstruction of justice, and may have to pay for supporting Hillary's lie with jail terms.
Again, the lying was not irrational. Investigators believe that damning records from the Rose Law Firm, wrongfully kept in Vincent Foster's White House office, were spirited out in the dead of night and hidden from the law for two years -- in Hillary's closet, in Web Hubbell's basement before his felony conviction, in the President's secretary's personal files -- before some were forced out last week.
Why the White House concealment? For good reason: The records show Hillary Clinton was lying when she denied actively representing a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S.& L., and indicate she may have conspired with Web Hubbell's father-in-law to make a sham land deal that cost taxpayers $3 million.
Why the belated release of some of the incriminating evidence? Not because it mysteriously turned up in offices previously searched. Certainly not because Hillary Clinton and her new hang-tough White House counsel want to respond fully to lawful subpoenas.
One reason for the Friday-night dribble of evidence from the White House is the discovery by the F.B.I. of copies of some of those records elsewhere. When Clinton witnesses are asked about specific items in "lost" records -- which investigators have -- the White House "finds" its copy and releases it. By concealing the Madison billing records two days beyond the statute of limitations, Hillary evaded a civil suit by bamboozled bank regulators.
Another reason for recent revelations is the imminent turning of former aides and partners of Hillary against her; they were willing to cover her lying when it advanced their careers, but are inclined to listen to their own lawyers when faced with perjury indictments.
Therefore, ask not "Why didn't she just come clean at the beginning?" She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.
No wonder the President is fearful of holding a prime-time press conference. Having been separately deposed by the independent counsel at least twice, the President and First Lady would be well advised to retain separate defense counsel.
Honestly, you shouldn't use the phrase "pathological liar" at all, as you're talking about the public (and therefore constructed) personae of people you probably haven't met.
BS. Real or public personae who demonstratively lies... should be labeled is a liar.
You simply can't trust either, and just realize that we're boned... pray that the other two govt branch would keep a Clinton/Trump administration in check.
Trust shouldn't be a factor here. Any US national politician is (usually) so far removed from your immediate interests that it should be assumed they will try to manipulate you: it is both easy and effective. Really, most local politicians will try to do it too.
Why not? Isn't that how most people going to choose between Trump and Clinton? I've had conversations with folks in this thread that amounts to:
"Yeah, they're both bad... but, I trust Clinton more to govern in "this way" "
Maybe 'trust' is too strong of a word...
Stepping out of politics for a second: so will a lot of the people you work with; probably most of them. Recognizing manipulation attempts, seeing through them and working around them, is just something people need to learn to do.
Of course. That's in day-to-day interactions.
Your politics? You can only do that at the Polls, and your interactions with your peers in discussion politics.
Ouze wrote: At least we have moved past the BS "Petraeus did the same thing" argument into a fresh set of BS.
When they get to arguing that Colin Powell and Condi Rice should be in jail for keeping classified documents on their private email accounts, I might believe they care about equal treatment under the law. Once they take the fight to Bush and his senior advisors who ran al their emails through an RNC server, before deleting them, then there may be an argument that they care about public records.
But then, I can't say this because it's excusing Clinton because of the transgressions of others. But it's perfectly fine to excuse the transgressions of republicans because of what Clinton did. Because reasons.
Ouze wrote: At least we have moved past the BS "Petraeus did the same thing" argument into a fresh set of BS.
When they get to arguing that Colin Powell and Condi Rice should be in jail for keeping classified documents on their private email accounts, I might believe they care about equal treatment under the law. Once they take the fight to Bush and his senior advisors who ran al their emails through an RNC server, before deleting them, then there may be an argument that they care about public records.
But then, I can't say this because it's excusing Clinton because of the transgressions of others. But it's perfectly fine to excuse the transgressions of republicans because of what Clinton did. Because reasons.
