The New American Politics thread

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

You have to read things before you talk about them. I have only posted one Lipson article. The other was a completely different one from the Observer. Pay attention, dude.

So this one is the same one from post 3017? Sorry, then you're getting a lot of milage out of an article that's been reviewed to death.

Also, I just googled Lipson and Obama, like you obviously did because you like to attack sources, and not address arguments. He opposed the Obama Library because he opposed Chicago's association with what would be a very partisan library and think-tank.

Huh? A Presidential Library is now a think-tank? WTF? Presidential Libraries are considered national archives and museums. They are the repository for presidential documents and writings and they are very prestigious. There is nothing Partisan about them. You've officially gone all Ted Cruz.

In regards to Clinton, I tend to see smoke as a sign of fire. I would love to be proven wrong, but until there is a definitive statement from both the State Department and FBI, I will presume her guilty.

So much for the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Hoe Donald Trump of you.

So are you insinuating that the talk about an FBI investigation is partisan in itself? Oh man, here is another source making allegations that the State Department is making it difficult for the FBI. Make sure to read it, ok?

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_...clinton_emails

Not suggesting that at all. You should also take your own advice a about reading the articles you post. This is another one that basically admonishes Clintonas the document labeling was being upgraded.

"The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information," State Department spokesman John Kirby told the Associated Press, adding the move was "not unusual."

Again, this was a change in data label and classification after events that would change the intelligence community's posture on the particular subject matter. This is no different than label changes that would take place after 9/11. When big events happen, information that was unclassified and have its label changed overnight. It doesn't mean that anyone who discussed the information prior to the label change, or sent emails about the events, did anything illegal.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

as far email goes, they could investigate Bush, Gowdy, Chaffetz, Christie, Jeb etc. etc. etc.
GWBush lost millions of emails??? no one bats an eye
It's a partisan witch hunt, like Benghazi.

This is from Nov 2014



So why is there an 8th investigation going currently?

Yeah, it is awful. That said, just because there are past cases where there should have been a full-blown investigation, but was covered up, does not mean that there currently should be no investigation. Let's be honest. Taken on its own, this Clinton thing is mighty fishy.

[peter12]

Huh? A Presidential Library is now a think-tank? WTF? Presidential Libraries are considered national archives and museums. They are the repository for presidential documents and writings and they are very prestigious. There is nothing Partisan about them. You've officially gone all Ted Cruz.

I am just quoting him.

So much for the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Hoe Donald Trump of you.

I follow Orwell's suggestion that all politicians should be presumed guilty until proven innocent.

"The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information," State Department spokesman John Kirby told the Associated Press, adding the move was "not unusual."

Again, this was a change in data label and classification after events that would change the intelligence community's posture on the particular subject matter. This is no different than label changes that would take place after 9/11. When big events happen, information that was unclassified and have its label changed overnight. It doesn't mean that anyone who discussed the information prior to the label change, or sent emails about the events, did anything illegal.

Do you work for the Clinton campaign? I have only said two things:
a) Don't underestimate the future political consequences of the email controversy on Clinton's prospects for the Democrat candidacy.
b) There is clearly something wrong here, and it is right to be suspicious. We should wait for the independent investigation to finish.

[DuffMan]

Bush
13 attacks on embassies
66 dead
1 investigation

Obama/Clinton
1 embassy attack
4 dead
8 investigations

[nik-]

ok, no one else is talking about Benghazi dude.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by nik-

ok, no one else is talking about Benghazi dude.

It's not American politics? or related to Hillary?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

It's not American politics? or related to Hillary?

It's not what we're talking about. So for someone who seems to be annoyed at the lifespan it has, it's odd that you bring it up when no one else has.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

I am just quoting him.

I follow Orwell's suggestion that all politicians should be presumed guilty until proven innocent.


Do you work for the Clinton campaign? I have only said two things:
a) Don't underestimate the future political consequences of the email controversy on Clinton's prospects for the Democrat candidacy.
b) There is clearly something wrong here, and it is right to be suspicious. We should wait for the independent investigation to finish.

Believe it or not I want Clinton done in as much as you do. Can't stand the woman. But I also believe that rules apply and people, even bad people, deserve to be treated fairly. Well, except Oiler fans. I would love to see an investigation go against her but I just don't see it happening based on the stuff presented to date.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by nik-

It's not what we're talking about. So for someone who seems to be annoyed at the lifespan it has, it's odd that you bring it up when no one else has.

What are we talking about?

[nik-]

Her setting up a private email server outside of the State department network and proceeding to use it to send sensitive, state department related emails.

We can argue back and forth how bad it is, and the level of illegality. But regardless of where you stand on those two spectrums, one should agree that it's not a smart decision.

[nik-]

For the record, when this first came out, I thought it was stupid too. I also figured it was just some partisan Benghazi type hackery. As time goes by though, and more info comes out, the situation just looks worse and worse. Some seriously dumb decision making, and questions as to why she did it I feel are pretty legit. Is it to maintain a copy of all her communication? To keep it from oversight? Or is it just because she's a technical moron and didn't realize how poor a decision it was, and also didn't have anyone on her staff to tell her how poor a decision it was?

You're the head of foreign policy for the most powerful country in the world. You don't communicate via an email server sitting in your house. An email server that you hire some random IT company to manage and backup.

In terms of things that make Clinton a poor choice for president, I would readily admit this is pretty damn far down the list. However, it's not something that should just be dismissed as nothing. It was either just really really dumb, or there was malicious/secretive intent.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by nik-

It was either just really really dumb, or there was malicious/secretive intent.

Considering that even Hillary's most vocal critics will readily admit that she is very smart, I submit that the answer should be rather obvious.

[wittynickname]

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.

The US already spends more per capita on healthcare than countries that have universal healthcare, because pharma companies can charge whatever they please for meds here, because hospitals can charge whatever they want here. Insurance and healthcare is a huge for-profit business in the US, and those profits aren't going to the hard working medical professionals, those profits are going to insurance companies, pharma CEOs, etc. If the US passes Medicaid for all, they can use that to bring down the cost of medications, they can bring down the cost of procedures. They can get people to the doctor for inexpensive preventative care instead of waiting until someone is in a dire situation and needs major care to recover. The Affordable Care Act helped--but it didn't go nearly far enough. Sanders just wants to push it farther.

A $7.25 minimum wage is unsustainable. Period. That wage keeps millions in poverty, keeps millions depending on the federal government to keep food in their mouths and roofs over their heads. Corporations are making record profits and CEOs are making record bonuses, companies are spending millions lobbying to keep a low min wage--these companies have the money to pay a living wage, but they refuse to do so. And 15 dollars may not happen--but if Sanders can bring it to 12, that's a huge boon for the economy, people who have been in poverty for too long would suddenly have a bit of disposable income--and when low income people get extra money, they spend it.

Similarly with education--free education for all probably wouldn't happen, but if Sanders can manage to bring costs back to the realm of reality for most families, it's a huge benefit to Americans.

Campaigning is like the beginning of a negotiation. You say all the things you really want to happen--but in reality the goal is probably something lower but still in your favor.

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Wow, I just read Sanders' platform for the first time. I didn't realize he was that far left. My god the thought of a Sanders-Cruz general is frightening.

He's left for American politics, certainly. But in America Obama (pretty moderate by global political standards) is a left wing commie, so we're not really the best guide.

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Please Bloomberg, come up the middle. Please come up the middle. Please.

If it comes down to Cruz and Clinton and Bloomberg comes up the middle, Cruz wins. Democrats will split--GOP voters will vote Cruz.

Cruz is terrifying.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by nik-

Her setting up a private email server outside of the State department network and proceeding to use it to send sensitive, state department related emails.

We can argue back and forth how bad it is, and the level of illegality. But regardless of where you stand on those two spectrums, one should agree that it's not a smart decision.

Having actually used a ministry email account I can perfectly understand Clinton, and all her predecessors decision, you get snowed under with extraneous crap, 'Bettie's retiring, help us celebrate at the Prince George Office' and to be frank, government IT is abysmal.

[nik-]

I'm sure your anecdote is straight across the board applicable to the State Department.

[Lanny_McDonald]

I'm sure this is going to get some more feathers ruffled even though nothing classified was disclosed.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kerry-use...-politics.html

Big question? How is this different from the following?

https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/...overnor-palin/

Again, this is something that has been done by many politicians on both sides of the aisle. I don't think this is kosher because of the open government mandate. It prevents comprehensive oversight. Just as you shouldn't use a personal email for company business you shouldn't be using a personal email address for government business. But the genie is out of the bottle. How do you get it back in without first establishing some level of governance and then compliance requirement that all parties can agree to, and penalties for non-compliance?

[nik-]

The existence of other examples doesn't make it ok.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Clinton is the first person to ever do something like this.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by nik-

Well Benghazi is another matter, one investigation being silly doesn't automatically make another silly. I mean honestly, it's clear that Clinton ####ed up here with sending sensitive information with her own server, including things to family that really shouldn't be sent to family.

How much weight one wants to put on the gravity of her decisions is a matter that can be discussed for eternity. It was bad judgement though, and it's pretty silly to deny that.

Sharing sensitive information is only bad if a whistleblower is doing it.

Come on. Get with the times.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Bush
13 attacks on embassies
66 dead
1 investigation

Obama/Clinton
1 embassy attack
4 dead
8 investigations

What is your point? Peter is talking about the email issue and you're trying to change the subject.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

The US already spends more per capita on healthcare than countries that have universal healthcare, because pharma companies can charge whatever they please for meds here, because hospitals can charge whatever they want here. Insurance and healthcare is a huge for-profit business in the US, and those profits aren't going to the hard working medical professionals, those profits are going to insurance companies, pharma CEOs, etc. If the US passes Medicaid for all, they can use that to bring down the cost of medications, they can bring down the cost of procedures. They can get people to the doctor for inexpensive preventative care instead of waiting until someone is in a dire situation and needs major care to recover. The Affordable Care Act helped--but it didn't go nearly far enough. Sanders just wants to push it farther.

A $7.25 minimum wage is unsustainable. Period. That wage keeps millions in poverty, keeps millions depending on the federal government to keep food in their mouths and roofs over their heads. Corporations are making record profits and CEOs are making record bonuses, companies are spending millions lobbying to keep a low min wage--these companies have the money to pay a living wage, but they refuse to do so. And 15 dollars may not happen--but if Sanders can bring it to 12, that's a huge boon for the economy, people who have been in poverty for too long would suddenly have a bit of disposable income--and when low income people get extra money, they spend it.

Similarly with education--free education for all probably wouldn't happen, but if Sanders can manage to bring costs back to the realm of reality for most families, it's a huge benefit to Americans.

Campaigning is like the beginning of a negotiation. You say all the things you really want to happen--but in reality the goal is probably something lower but still in your favor.

I don't think I could ever be convinced that a high, universal, national minimum wage is a good tool for helping the economy. There are so many pitfalls to it. First of all, there is no way that the minimum wage in Mississippi should be the same as the minimum wage in New York City. Sure, the New York McDonald's and Walmarts could probably absorb a $15 minimum wage. Restaurants and other businesses in Mississippi would either trim staff or go under. It would absolutely lead to lower employment and higher prices. If prices go up, then people aren't really any more wealthy.

A 19 year old teenager is happy as can be making 9-10$ an hour in most parts of the country. A $15 minimum wage would basically take that job away from them. Don't forget there are already some anti poverty tools in the current tax code. A single mom making $10 an hour with a couple kids, doesn't pay any income taxes and gets about $4000-$5000 back at tax time due to things like the earned income credit. Bumping the minimum wage for everyone might make that single mom get $15/hour, but will be bumped into a bracket that pays income taxes, and would no longer receive that credit. They'd basically go from a net income of about $25,000 a year to a net income of about $25,000 a year, and the increased prices will mean the money won't go as far. On the other hand, the 19 year old teenager working 30 hours a week and being happy with his $12,000 net income, will probably see a nice big jump to around $20,000 per year if he manages to keep his job. Is that really having the desired result? That's just a couple things I can think of off the top of my head.

While I can buy into the argument that executive compensation has got out of control, you lose me when you say things like record corporate profits are an evil thing. Corporations aren't some evil beast. They are mostly made up of regular people's retirement funds. Corporations doing well is generally good for everyone.

Socialistic type policies have pitfalls, and that can't really be denied. it doesn't mean that none of them should be done or considered. But the further you go down that road, the riskier the consequences become. I don't buy that it can all be funded by CEO bonuses and taxes on the Wall Street speculators, but I do think CEO salaries and bonuses are gaming the system and would be all for measures to rein them in a bit.

I think I am fairly comfortable with what Obama has tried to do. I think I am fairly comfortable with what Clinton is trying to do. So what that she has changed her stance on things over the years. She's 68 years old, and a lot has changed during her career. It's a good thing that she's change through the times. The email thing is dumb. I doubt it will get her arrested or anything, but I'm sure people will try for the next 10 years if she gets elected in. It does show some terrible judgement though, and it is hard to look past that. I don't think I really like her, but I could live with her as a president.

I think there is a big chunk of independents who'd think like me and probably wouldn't vote for Sanders. If I was allowed to vote, I don't know what I would do if the choices were Sanders or one of the crazy republicans. I generally lean toward democrats mostly for social issues, but if they do go full Sanders, I don't think I could get behind that.