The New American Politics thread

[Lanny_McDonald]

Interesting results. Cruz with a 3.3 point victory over Trump, but only a one delegate advantage. Most importantly, Rubio only back by one delegate. Clinton and Sanders in a statistical tie, having to go to a coin toss for the extra delegate. What this says is the front runners are both in trouble.

Clinton was hoping for a big lead coming out of Iowa and didn't get it. Sanders splitting the delegates has to have the Clinton camp thinking to themselves, not again. She got the super delegates, but those delegates can come and go as they please. It will all be up to Sanders to make a statement in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina by the end of the month. If he can have some strong showings and hold the momentum going into Super Tuesday Clinton could be staring another upset in the face.

On the Republican side, make no mistake, this is headed to a brokered convention. This is between three candidates, with only two of them being viable. Trump will carry a lot of delegates, but he won't get the support required to win the nomination. There will be a lot of horse trading going on with the other candidates for their delegates, as the Cruz and Rubio jockey for support to take the legs out from underneath Trump. This may end up with a floor battle over who can get the most support from the other candidates, and then one falling on their sword for the other to gain the delegate count to finally take Trump out of the running. It is still going to come down to Cruz or Rubio and which of the two the conservative king makers is most comfortable with. I firmly believe it will be Rubio. The Republicans can do themselves a great deal of good by nominating a Hispanic from a swing state. I still believe a Rubio-Kasich ticket is the best the Republicans have strategically, and think those in the Republican Party will come to that conclusion on their own as well.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

This email thing is actually a lot more serious than partisan hacks give credit.

Is that the partisan hack in you speaking?

You have yet to explain how this email thing is important or exactly what the issue is? Care to elaborate?

[HOWITZER]

If Clinton flounders near the end of the primaries and the RNC goes to the convention floor will we end up hearing more about Michael Bloomberg as a possible independent candidate? Depending on how things shape-up there's definitely an opening for him.

The best case scenario for the Republicans is Rubio winning and Bernie winning.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by New Era

Is that the partisan hack in you speaking?

You have yet to explain how this email thing is important or exactly what the issue is? Care to elaborate?

How can you not think this is important? She was Secretary of State, and even though it was completely avoidable, used a personal server - which was not encrypted - to send highly sensitive emails, many of which contained information regarding American intelligence operations. She literally put American lives at risk because of her carelessness (http://observer.com/2016/02/breaking...lives-at-risk/). How does this demonstrate good judgement by a presidential candidate? She has not been exactly contrite or forthcoming, but like her track record shows, must have every ounce of truth wrung painfully out of her. Thankfully, she has a coterie of slimy sycophants willing to take every fall for her.

What about the allegations that she funneled government contracts in Haiti to supporters of the Clinton Foundation, or used that as leverage to facilitate further donations? As Christopher Hitchens once said, "The Clintons never met a donor they didn't like." Public corruption is now a second track in the FBI investigation (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...is_129293.html).

You can say that other candidates are guilty of the same, but she is by far the most prominent, and the only one with realistic presidential aspirations. How could anyone say that this has not been a problem?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

How can you not think this is important? She was Secretary of State, and even though it was completely avoidable, used a personal server - which was not encrypted - to send highly sensitive emails, many of which contained information regarding American intelligence operations. She literally put American lives at risk because of her carelessness (http://observer.com/2016/02/breaking...lives-at-risk/). How does this demonstrate good judgement by a presidential candidate? She has not been exactly contrite or forthcoming, but like her track record shows, must have every ounce of truth wrung painfully out of her. Thankfully, she has a coterie of slimy sycophants willing to take every fall for her.

What about the allegations that she funneled government contracts in Haiti to supporters of the Clinton Foundation, or used that as leverage to facilitate further donations? As Christopher Hitchens once said, "The Clintons never met a donor they didn't like." Public corruption is now a second track in the FBI investigation (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...is_129293.html).

You can say that other candidates are guilty of the same, but she is by far the most prominent, and the only one with realistic presidential aspirations. How could anyone say that this has not been a problem?

Again, you say nothing of substance on this subject in this post. You do nothing but regurgitate the same tired opinions of what people thinktranspired, by the same partisans, based on very limited information in the mass media. How about a discussion about the actual facts? How about you actually say where, what and how there was wrong doing? I've already gone through this with an eye on the compliance side of things. If there were wrong doing she would have been brought up on charges already. If there were something there the Republicans would have presented it during the Fugazi, er Benghazi Committee Hearings. It's time to move on from this. The Republicans can try and use this as an attack ad or to obfuscate issues on the campaign trail, but to the real world there just hasn't been anything there to make an issue of.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by New Era

How about a discussion about the actual facts?

Aren't the "actual facts," at this point in time, classified?

If so, aren't you arguing that there is no there "there," but only because the "there" hasn't been released by the very people who have an interest in ensuring that the "there" never comes to light?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by peter12

Clinton winning by a coin toss is symbolic with a loss to Sanders in the eyes of the media and voting public. Honestly, if Sanders was 10 years - heck, make it 5 years - younger than he is now, the Clinton camp would already be dead on its feet. The truth is, she isn't a compelling candidate. She has a lot of baggage, experience that she has mostly made up, and she stands on the wrong side of a lot of bad issues (health-care, gay rights, Iraq).

She now has to fight an uphill battle against a revolutionary socialist in his mid-70s, with no money, riding a protest vote on a platform that would be better suited to Woodrow Wilson's rather than Barack Obama's America. This is America now.

If Sanders wins in NH, which he is polling to do, then the fight becomes that much more serious. If her lead continues to shrink in South Carolina, then you will see panic buttons being pushed.

A few observations going forward:
a) Can the Sanders campaign scale national? My gut says no.
b) Up until now, Sanders has played the good guy. Now that he is a serious contender, is he going to start going after Clinton on her dubious record?
c) The FBI and the emails is a tumor in the Clinton campaign that will either be removed or kill her campaign.

Very, very exciting 8 months ahead of us.

I think that this was the litmus test to see if Bernie actually had a chance against a candidate like Clinton.

Now I expect that the gloves are really going to come off and things are going to get nasty.

To me if Bernie is going to be the counter revolutionary candidate he really has to go after Clinton's donation list and frame her as being too tied to the evil mega corps, and he also has to go after her trustworthiness, which I think if you polled the voters would be low.

He needs to replay over and over again her constructed truths and attack her character.

For Hillary it might be easier, she needs to frame Bernie as a crackpot socialist with ideas that can't be supported by reality.

For Trump this loss was bigger then people think because it exposed a fundamental flaw in how he campaigns, he's popular but he's not stirring a grass roots feet on the ground strategy instead going for the big glitzy events.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Aren't the "actual facts," at this point in time, classified?

If so, aren't you arguing that there is no there "there," but only because the "there" hasn't been released by the very people who have an interest in ensuring that the "there" never comes to light?

Go back to post 3065 in this thread. I explained this at length. This all boils down to a data classification issue and when something had a classification label applied to it. If there were problems we would have seen something by now. The Feds act pretty quickly on anything considered a breach.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

...
To me if Bernie is going to be the counter revolutionary candidate he really has to go after Clinton's donation list and frame her as being too tied to the evil mega corps, and he also has to go after her trustworthiness, which I think if you polled the voters would be low.

He needs to replay over and over again her constructed truths and attack her character...

If he decides to do that, he'd be no better than all of the other campaigning politicians. I hope he finds the way to avoid this and keeps campaigning on being Bernie - "a small guy against big money politics". If he wins over Clinton this way, that would be very respectable (and supportable).

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

yeah, that's not a great bet right now. bernie has all the momentum. a 30 point lead in iowa has been widdled away to what looks like will be a .2- .5 % narrow escape for Clinton.

Bernie will destroy her in NH.

Wasn't it a 53 point lead at one point?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I don't see how Sanders has any possible chance in a general election. The promises he was highlighting in his speech were just not sound policies. $15 minimum wage, free college for everyone, paying for it all by taxing wall street speculators and Medicare for everyone won't hold up as being good ideas under any scrutiny. Medicare for everyone is really the only one that he could make a compelling argument for, but it would almost be impossible for a president to implement it.

I guess if it is between Rubio, Cruz, Trump, Sanders and Clinton, then I have to go with Clinton. The other 4 all seem like awful and dangerous choices.

I dunno, his policies aren't just things he is throwing into the wind hoping it picks up steam. He actually backs them up as well.

$15 minimum wage is hardly new, given how many European countries have higher minimum wage levels than the US, and a single payer system has been shown to actually save the US money over the long term.

Free college tuition on the other hand is a different beast.

Can't believe you'd vote for someone bought and paid for by Wall Street.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

If he decides to do that, he'd be no better than all of the other campaigning politicians. I hope he finds the way to avoid this and keeps campaigning on being Bernie - "a small guy against big money politics". If he wins over Clinton this way, that would be very respectable (and supportable).

How can he do that without holding up her donations list though?

Its the best way to show that he's grass roots while she's sucking the leathery teet of wallstreet.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by New Era

Again, you say nothing of substance on this subject in this post. You do nothing but regurgitate the same tired opinions of what people thinktranspired, by the same partisans, based on very limited information in the mass media. How about a discussion about the actual facts? How about you actually say where, what and how there was wrong doing? I've already gone through this with an eye on the compliance side of things. If there were wrong doing she would have been brought up on charges already. If there were something there the Republicans would have presented it during the Fugazi, er Benghazi Committee Hearings. It's time to move on from this. The Republicans can try and use this as an attack ad or to obfuscate issues on the campaign trail, but to the real world there just hasn't been anything there to make an issue of.

You do realize the FBI isn't releasing part of her emails because they are sensitive in nature?

What does that tell you about what she did?

[Coach]

Why do we need the FBI to release them if they were so unsecure?

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by New Era

Go back to post 3065 in this thread. I explained this at length.

Actually, you didn't---at least not whether the underlying "facts," at this point in time, are classified.

Originally Posted by New Era

This all boils down to a data classification issue and when something had a classification label applied to it.

No, it doesn't. It "all boils down to" the desire for someone (for reasons that, I suppose, one can only speculate) to not be transparent and not follow the law.

The "data classification" issue is a sideshow. Information does not need to be classified as being classified in order to be classified. Anyone in government with a modicum of intelligence knows that.

The fact that Hillary specifically requested one of her underlings to, essentially, sidestep the restrictions on handling sensitive data, remove a classified marking on a document, and send the document over an unsecured line* speaks directly to her failures of judgment, honesty, integrity, and leadership.

This is no simple "data classification" issue.

Nor is this, as you suggested in post 3065, a simple case of where the " information did not have a classification standard at the time," but has later "become sensitive and had been classified as such."

Originally Posted by New Era

If there were problems we would have seen something by now.

We have seen "something" by now.

Originally Posted by New Era

The Feds act pretty quickly on anything considered a breach.

Only when the public becomes aware of the breach and/or when someone's current job is on the line.


* Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ommon-practice)

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

You do realize the FBI isn't releasing part of her emails because they are sensitive in nature?

As they would be expected to. Law enforcement is not compelled to release information gather during an investigation of any sort. Also, they may currently be labeled with a handling requirement, but that does not mean they had that same handling classification back when they were transmitted or received. Classification of information can change depending on the nature of the data or the incidents going on.

What does that tell you about what she did?

Absolutely nothing. What is does say is the FBI has reviewed the information. If anything the fact that they acknowledge they have reviewed the information, have placed a classification to them, and have not laid charges against Clinton sort of runs counter to what you conspiracy theorists are trying to spin up. If there was something there they would have acted by now.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Actually, you didn't---at least not whether the underlying "facts," at this point in time, are classified.



No, it doesn't. It "all boils down to" the desire for someone (for reasons that, I suppose, one can only speculate) to not be transparent and not follow the law.

The "data classification" issue is a sideshow. Information does not need to be classified as being classified in order to be classified. Anyone in government with a modicum of intelligence knows that.

The fact that Hillary specifically requested one of her underlings to, essentially, sidestep the restrictions on handling sensitive data, remove a classified marking on a document, and send the document over an unsecured line* speaks directly to her failures of judgment, honesty, integrity, and leadership.

This is no simple "data classification" issue.

Nor is this, as you suggested in post 3065, a simple case of where the " information did not have a classification standard at the time," but has later "become sensitive and had been classified as such."



We have seen "something" by now.



Only when the public becomes aware of the breach and/or when someone's current job is on the line.


* Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ommon-practice)

This is so much bull#### it is beyond belief.

"Information does not need to be classified as being classified in order for it to be classified" may be one of the dumbest things I have read in my life. How the #### do you think information classification takes place? Do you know anything about sensitivity labels? Do you know anything about information handling? Do yourself a favor and head off to the kindercare that is Wikipedia and look up "Classified Information In the United States." This is a very basic primer on data security that the federal government follows. It is a lot more complex than this and has many layers which are all developed off the principle of least privilege. A little education on the FACTS may go a long way to solving your problems in understanding this very simple issue.

[octothorp]

I think Sanders is hurt a bit my Trump's poor performance. It's easy to see Sanders beating Trump in a general election, but with the Republicans suddenly looking more serious about nominating an electable candidate, Democrats may rally around the seemingly safe choice in Clinton. Yeah, I know she's not actually the safe candidate and Sanders does great in head-to-head polls... But I think Clinton as the safe choice is an easier sell. Can Sanders flip that narrative and become the safe choice? Maybe, there's certainly an opening for him to do so.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by New Era

As they would be expected to. Law enforcement is not compelled to release information gather during an investigation of any sort. Also, they may currently be labeled with a handling requirement, but that does not mean they had that same handling classification back when they were transmitted or received. Classification of information can change depending on the nature of the data or the incidents going on.

In the batch released last week several top secret/sensitive e-mails were held back but it was explicitly stated they were not marked or considered such at the time they were sent/received.

Absolutely nothing. What is does say is the FBI has reviewed the information. If anything the fact that they acknowledge they have reviewed the information, have placed a classification to them, and have not laid charges against Clinton sort of runs counter to what you conspiracy theorists are trying to spin up. If there was something there they would have acted by now.

I agree. I also think you wouldn't have the GOP admit the Benghazi thing was just a way to drive down her poll numbers, various other things and they'd be going after her aggressively if they truly thought something was coming. They are just as much on the inside as anyone and not a peep of late. I think on the contrary the GOP is holding their breath hoping the all clear doesn't come too early in the race.

[nik-]

The State Department themselves has refused to release some of the emails as a result of classification, not the FBI.