The New American Politics thread

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

I can scarcely think of someone who has a more impressive resume than Hillary.

You might enjoy this book though:

Read it. Fantastic book.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

A Republicab controlled Congress and Senate, and Trump will do nothing to stop them from passing legislation that unfairly benefits Wall Street, Billionaires, and big money corporate interests. (To be fair, I'm not sure Hillary will stem this tide much either, but I like her chances better than the GOP candidates) He also will do nothing to keep a GOP-led Congress/Senate from repealing the Affordable Care Act and leaving millions without adequate healthcare. He won't stop them from defunding Planned Parenthood, then leaving those without healthcare from accessing basic reproductive services. He won't stop them from attempting to change marriage equality and certainly won't help further LGBT interests. He won't do anything to further prison reform.

Most importantly, he'll likely bring in multiple Supreme Court judges who will lean right, thus leaving America in the hands of judges who think Citizens United was a wonderful idea.

Wanting a democrat in office is about so much more than just Hillary.

This is nuts. Some of Clinton's TOP donors are Wall Street bankers and Silicon Valley oligarchs. Your post is exactly what is wrong with the left in America.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, I tell you what. I would not want America led by such a ruthless, cold, calculating liar such as Mrs. Clinton. The record speaks for itself. She has done nothing to deserve the Presidency, but clearly feels it is her inheritance.

She is no different to any other serious candidate running for either party since I've been alive, the issue isn't whether they are honest, none of them are, or ruthless, they'd all put you or I up against the wall if they thought it would get them elected, the question is only are they competent.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is nuts. Some of Clinton's TOP donors are Wall Street bankers and Silicon Valley oligarchs. Your post is exactly what is wrong with the left in America.

To which I commented, saying that she was unlikely to stop that as well. That said, your response made no reference to the numerous other issues mentioned, all of which the GOP candidates are very vocally against.

Again, I am not a Hillary supporter, when it comes to Wall Street connections she's in the same ballpark as these GOP candidates, but on other issues that matter to me--healthcare, social issues like marriage/LGBT/race/gender equity, etc, she's still far better, also her choices for the Supreme court are far less likely to replace Antonin Scalia with a younger version of himself.

I plan to vote Sanders in the primary, but the bottom line is, come November, I'm voting Democrat no matter who wins the races (unless Trump comes out ahead for the GOP and magically starts laying out progressive policies), because a Wall Street democrat still lines up with my personal values better than does someone who believes their religious beliefs trump a gay person's right to marry, that women don't deserve the right to choose, that access to healthcare is a privilege, or that climate change is a hoax.

I don't love Hillary, and I'm voting against her in the primary, but she's still far less scary to me than any of the GOP field.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

See the article that I posted on the last page. That summarized my position quite well.

That's an interesting read, but has plenty of holes and is a little slanted. Lipson is a partisan so I didn't expect him to actually go into the actual details of the overall issue. I think the article that was posted in this thread earlier is a little better and provides a little more information. Still not enough, and not enough of an explanation for people to understand the actual issues with the server and email files.

The issue here is data classification and handling standards, and when the data was classified to a given level. The government saying that there were 22 emails with material requiring classification does not mean that at the time of transmission or reception that the data was classified as such. This is important to understand and whether Clinton did anything that was illegal. The quote I find most interesting is "The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information," which means the information did not have a classification standard at the time and there were no specific handling requirements on the data at that time. Since the discovery the information has become sensitive and had been classified as such, but when the information was first disseminated it did not face any handling restrictions.

Another thing in this article that gave me pause was the fact that the Diplomatic Security and Intelligence and Research bureaus were to investigate further. These are the guys that should have been all over this initially. They probably would have been the ones that would have come in and done the review of the email server to see if it was secure and compliant with government standards. If there was a problem they would have been obligated to report it to the FBI.

All of this stuff about the email server being insecure is questionable as well. I would like to know what aspects of the server they are claiming to be insecure? Was it the configuration? Was it the physical location? What was it that deemed it insecure? I know of plenty of government servers that are less secure than your wireless access point in your home. I also know of plenty of individual's home networks that are as close to impenetrable as they come. Location does not automatically make a system insecure and neither does ownership. I would like to see more details on this to truly understand if there was a security breach or if this is a narrative that has developed because of misinformation in the mediasphere. If there was any impropriety the BDS or BIR are obligated to inform the FBI and they would secure the system and take it to their facilities for forensic examination.

A big thing that people also need to understand is the mechanisms in the Freedom of Information Act and the limitations that live within that act. When using the FOI you have to be very specific what you are looking for. You cannot cast a wide net and go fishing. There are very specific restrictions that applicants have to understand.

One of the limitations not identified in the link is the right to client privilege. This might come into play in this discussion, depending on who was included in the email threads in questions. Depending on the request, and again, you must be specific in what you ask for, the information you receive may be highly redacted, that is, if you receive anything at all. A lot of exemptions apply to the information that could reside in State Department email, regardless of whether they were transmitted through a government or private server. Also, gaining access to a private server is very difficult to do. Private interests are not subject to a FOI request. You can go through legal means to try and access data on a private system, but FOI really only applies to public systems.

Finally, the money quote from this piece is this. "Independent experts say it is highly unlikely that Clinton will be charged with wrongdoing, based on the limited details that have surfaced up to now and the lack of indications that she intended to break any laws."

The last thing worth mentioning, and plays a huge role in deciding the ethics of this whole mess, on both sides, are the concept of transparency. Government employees are supposed to maintain their email on a government server so it can be reviewed as a complete data set. As a public employee you are accountable to the people and having a holistic store that maintains all of your communications and data is expected, and a requirement by many departments or agencies. This is because of the oversight requirement for many of these bodies. When staff use private systems it compromises the holistic data store and makes oversight difficult to potentially impossible.

It blows my mind how anyone but the most partisan-blinded Democrat could be in favour of another Clinton presidency. Absolutely zero understanding of political history in the United States.

Speaking as the completely unbiased and impartial individual that you are? I mean, there is no slanted language or anything in your statement. Couldn't be that you have an unhinged hatred for the Clintons, and that is preventing you from seeing the other candidates as they are? I know I don't like Hillary Clinton in any shape or form, and am hoping Sanders gets the nomination, but given the choices available from the Republican side of things, Clinton is the only viable candidate if she earns the nomination. I mean, just compare resumes.

Given what we know about the Clintons, I would honestly take Trump over her.

What do we know about the Clintons that make them any worse than Trump? Hell, Trump is a fast friend with the Clintons.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...clinton-119071


http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/19/bi...mp-he-supporte


http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...mps-2005-wedd/

Well, I tell you what. I would not want America led by such a ruthless, cold, calculating liar such as Mrs. Clinton. The record speaks for itself. She has done nothing to deserve the Presidency, but clearly feels it is her inheritance.

This is too easy. "I would not want America led by such a ruthless, cold, calculating liar such as Mr. Trump. The record speaks for itself. He has done nothing to deserve the Presidency, but clearly feels it is his inheritance."

What exactly has Trump done to hold such a high moral standard in your eyes?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by New Era

That's an interesting read, but has plenty of holes and is a little slanted. Lipson is a partisan so I didn't expect him to actually go into the actual details of the overall issue. I think the article that was posted in this thread earlier is a little better and provides a little more information. Still not enough, and not enough of an explanation for people to understand the actual issues with the server and email files.

The issue here is data classification and handling standards, and when the data was classified to a given level. The government saying that there were 22 emails with material requiring classification does not mean that at the time of transmission or reception that the data was classified as such. This is important to understand and whether Clinton did anything that was illegal. The quote I find most interesting is "The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information," which means the information did not have a classification standard at the time and there were no specific handling requirements on the data at that time. Since the discovery the information has become sensitive and had been classified as such, but when the information was first disseminated it did not face any handling restrictions.

Another thing in this article that gave me pause was the fact that the Diplomatic Security and Intelligence and Research bureaus were to investigate further. These are the guys that should have been all over this initially. They probably would have been the ones that would have come in and done the review of the email server to see if it was secure and compliant with government standards. If there was a problem they would have been obligated to report it to the FBI.

All of this stuff about the email server being insecure is questionable as well. I would like to know what aspects of the server they are claiming to be insecure? Was it the configuration? Was it the physical location? What was it that deemed it insecure? I know of plenty of government servers that are less secure than your wireless access point in your home. I also know of plenty of individual's home networks that are as close to impenetrable as they come. Location does not automatically make a system insecure and neither does ownership. I would like to see more details on this to truly understand if there was a security breach or if this is a narrative that has developed because of misinformation in the mediasphere. If there was any impropriety the BDS or BIR are obligated to inform the FBI and they would secure the system and take it to their facilities for forensic examination.

A big thing that people also need to understand is the mechanisms in the Freedom of Information Act and the limitations that live within that act. When using the FOI you have to be very specific what you are looking for. You cannot cast a wide net and go fishing. There are very specific restrictions that applicants have to understand.

One of the limitations not identified in the link is the right to client privilege. This might come into play in this discussion, depending on who was included in the email threads in questions. Depending on the request, and again, you must be specific in what you ask for, the information you receive may be highly redacted, that is, if you receive anything at all. A lot of exemptions apply to the information that could reside in State Department email, regardless of whether they were transmitted through a government or private server. Also, gaining access to a private server is very difficult to do. Private interests are not subject to a FOI request. You can go through legal means to try and access data on a private system, but FOI really only applies to public systems.

Finally, the money quote from this piece is this. "Independent experts say it is highly unlikely that Clinton will be charged with wrongdoing, based on the limited details that have surfaced up to now and the lack of indications that she intended to break any laws."

The last thing worth mentioning, and plays a huge role in deciding the ethics of this whole mess, on both sides, are the concept of transparency. Government employees are supposed to maintain their email on a government server so it can be reviewed as a complete data set. As a public employee you are accountable to the people and having a holistic store that maintains all of your communications and data is expected, and a requirement by many departments or agencies. This is because of the oversight requirement for many of these bodies. When staff use private systems it compromises the holistic data store and makes oversight difficult to potentially impossible.



Speaking as the completely unbiased and impartial individual that you are? I mean, there is no slanted language or anything in your statement. Couldn't be that you have an unhinged hatred for the Clintons, and that is preventing you from seeing the other candidates as they are? I know I don't like Hillary Clinton in any shape or form, and am hoping Sanders gets the nomination, but given the choices available from the Republican side of things, Clinton is the only viable candidate if she earns the nomination. I mean, just compare resumes.



What do we know about the Clintons that make them any worse than Trump? Hell, Trump is a fast friend with the Clintons.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...clinton-119071


http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/19/bi...mp-he-supporte


http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...mps-2005-wedd/




This is too easy. "I would not want America led by such a ruthless, cold, calculating liar such as Mr. Trump. The record speaks for itself. He has done nothing to deserve the Presidency, but clearly feels it is his inheritance."

What exactly has Trump done to hold such a high moral standard in your eyes?

I've seen nothing that leads me to believe, if Trump is nominated, that it won't be a right leaning democrat running against either a left or centerist democrat depending on who gets the democratic nomination.
Personally I think he will continue to as outrageous as possible slowly and inexorably isolating republican support down to a few whack jobs.

[T@T]

Trump is pure comedy, "Cruz is an anchor baby, except he's Canadian and Canada don't have anchor baby's"

If Trump wins the GOP it'll be the most entertaining political event in history.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I've seen nothing that leads me to believe, if Trump is nominated, that it won't be a right leaning democrat running against either a left or centerist democrat depending on who gets the democratic nomination.
Personally I think he will continue to as outrageous as possible slowly and inexorably isolating republican support down to a few whack jobs.

That is a possibility. I posited two theories on this at a conference a few months ago. Trump is either attempting to move the center line so far to the right that he makes Rubio and Cruz look like moderates, or he is the Manchurian candidate for the Clintons and doing everything he can in his power to make Republicans un-electable. One thing is certain, he is going to get a massive pay day out of this when it all comes to an end. The money in the numerous super pacs supporting his cause will go to Trump as soon as he ends his campaign. Sadly, thanks to Citizens United, we will never know how much that is or where the money came from.

[Kavvy]

Trump has some interesting ideas, however, it is too bad he is saying them as it seems to make them poison

Hopefully, maybe the poison that is trump wears off these ideas, and they become part of the national dialog.

Lastly, for anyone to vote for a man who wants to identify all Muslims on a list is disgraceful. The Nazi Germany comparisons are real. It is horrifying that this man is part of the election and that people support him, no matter his other policies.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by New Era

That is a possibility. I posited two theories on this at a conference a few months ago. Trump is either attempting to move the center line so far to the right that he makes Rubio and Cruz look like moderates, or he is the Manchurian candidate for the Clintons and doing everything he can in his power to make Republicans un-electable. One thing is certain, he is going to get a massive pay day out of this when it all comes to an end. The money in the numerous super pacs supporting his cause will go to Trump as soon as he ends his campaign. Sadly, thanks to Citizens United, we will never know how much that is or where the money came from.

There's absolutely nothing in his recent past, no moment of epithiny you can point to and say 'that's why he became a conservative', he has been, all his life, a mostly unpolitical unreligeous pro lifer who was close friends with the Clintons, he really is the very model of a New York liberal banker.

If there was something that happened, a Mexican that tried to rob him or a 9/11 epithiny a'la Dennis Miller I could understand it, but there is nothing, so I can only draw the conclusion it's a scam pure and simple, he's just pulling the wool over the dumb rubes eyes. I think the idea that some yokel idiot like Palin or a venal prick like Cruz could end up running the U.S. offends him and he and Bill came up with this to sink them.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

Trump has some interesting ideas, however, it is too bad he is saying them as it seems to make them poison

Hopefully, maybe the poison that is trump wears off these ideas, and they become part of the national dialog.

Lastly, for anyone to vote for a man who wants to identify all Muslims on a list is disgraceful. The Nazi Germany comparisons are real. It is horrifying that this man is part of the election and that people support him, no matter his other policies.

What ideas? make the Mexicans build a wall, on so many levels that makes so little sense it can't be described as an idea, deport the Muslims, neither possible nor moral, make the U.S. Great again, a little short on specifics there.

Thus far I haven't heard a single idea from him, an idea being a plan with an objective and a reasonable road map to achieve it.

I think that fits with my previous post as to it all being a sham campaign, he has not given the other idiots anything they can run with, he's effectively harnessed all the poisoness bile that swills around the U.S. right wing without actually focusing it on anything, if he quit tommorow there would be nothing for a Cruz to pick up and carry.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I think the ship has sailed on Trump being a plant candidate. I had thought for a while that's the case, but if he were to drop out right now absolutely no one would benefit except maybe Ted Cruz, who has more extreme policies than Trump. But Trump has so thoroughly destroyed Cruz these past few weeks (just look at how Evangelicals have flipped since Trump went after him) I doubt Trump supporters go to him. If anything Trump supporters simply sit out which might slightly help the Dems but not significantly. Ultimately a lot of Trump supporters are strongly anti-Hillary, so I still see them voting against Hillary in pretty decent numbers.

I guess I could still see massive troll as a possibility, but even then considering the damage he has done to the Trump brand around the globe, the net result of a huge troll is a loss in net worth. Seems unlikely to me but who knows. I think we all want to maybe think this is something other than what he really is: Trump seriously wants to be President. Still time for a different outcome, but I've definitely come around that he is in fact serious.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I think the ship has sailed on Trump being a plant candidate. I had thought for a while that's the case, but if he were to drop out right now absolutely no one would benefit except maybe Ted Cruz, who has more extreme policies than Trump. But Trump has so thoroughly destroyed Cruz these past few weeks (just look at how Evangelicals have flipped since Trump went after him) I doubt Trump supporters go to him. If anything Trump supporters simply sit out which might slightly help the Dems but not significantly. Ultimately a lot of Trump supporters are strongly anti-Hillary, so I still see them voting against Hillary in pretty decent numbers.

I guess I could still see massive troll as a possibility, but even then considering the damage he has done to the Trump brand around the globe, the net result of a huge troll is a loss in net worth. Seems unlikely to me but who knows. I think we all want to maybe think this is something other than what he really is: Trump seriously wants to be President. Still time for a different outcome, but I've definitely come around that he is in fact serious.

I can't see how he's hurt his brand at all, and I don't think he'll drop out, I think he will run the way he's running now, which is a dog whistle to the morons in the hills but isn't building a centerist voting bloc at all.

There is no route to the White House in this campaign.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

She is no different to any other serious candidate running for either party since I've been alive, the issue isn't whether they are honest, none of them are, or ruthless, they'd all put you or I up against the wall if they thought it would get them elected, the question is only are they competent.

Sorry, but Sanders is clearly different.

Anyone who thinks otherwise has their head stuck in the sand.

He is the only candidate in the last 50 years worthy of being President.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Sorry, but Sanders is clearly different.

Anyone who thinks otherwise has their head stuck in the sand.

He is the only candidate in the last 50 years worthy of being President.

Don't kid yourself, he's staked out his own little piece of the pie.
He represents the single largest gun manufacturing state in the U.S., what's he soft on? gun laws.

I like Bernie but he will just as quickly compromise his beliefs in order to be elected or get a piece of legislation through, and thank god frankly, the last thing you want running a nuclear superpower is a true believer, that's how you get Hitler or Stalin.

[Flash Walken]

Azure is Benjamin buttoning politically. By the time he's 40 he'll be running the communist chapter in Portage LA Prairie.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Azure

Sorry, but Sanders is clearly different.

Anyone who thinks otherwise has their head stuck in the sand.

He is the only candidate in the last 50 years worthy of being President.

You didn't like Ronny?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by T@T

You didn't like Ronny?

Reagan and the cult of Reagan has been a disaster for the middle class of the US.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by nik-

Reagan and the cult of Reagan has been a disaster for the middle class of the US.

Disaster, how so? he taxed the rich higher than Obama does now, reduced inflation from 12% to 4%, grew the GDP over 3% a year and had the highest approval rating for a departing president since FDR.

He spent a lot on the military but most people would say that spending ended the cold war.

His successor George H screwed the middle class and economy more than Ronald did.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by T@T

Disaster, how so? he taxed the rich higher than Obama does now, reduced inflation from 12% to 4%, grew the GDP over 3% a year and had the highest approval rating for a departing president since FDR.

He spent a lot on the military but most people would say that spending ended the cold war.

His successor George H screwed the middle class and economy more than Ronald did.

So much wrong with this post it isn't even funny. The narrative built up around St. Reagan never ceases to make my head spin. Your statements are true, but they come with distinct caveats.

Economically:

* In 1981 Reagan gave a massive 23% tax break to everyone, then adjusted tax brackets and personal exemptions that mostly affected the rich, giving them huge tax loopholes. He also granted massive loopholes to businesses.

* Due to Regan's tax cuts unemployment soared to 10.8%. This also kick started the problematic phenomena we see today, income inequity.

* Between 1984 and 1987 Reagan passed a tax bills that increased tax rates on the middle class, but again decreased taxes on the upper class. The end result of this was the top tax bracket was slashed from a 70% rate to a 28% rate. To pay for this loss of revenue he transferred that liability to the middle and lower class. If you were rich, Ronald Regan was your man. If you were middle class or poor, not so much.

* Reagan was also a massive tax and spender. He made that initial tax cut to redistribute the tax burden, but he also raised taxes seven times during his eight years in office, including the two largest peace time tax increases in American history, to try and pay for his increased spending on the military. He was forced to continue to raise taxes because he spent so much money on programs he felt were important, mostly military.

* Reagan also didn't give a rip about debts or deficits. Reagan tripled the budget deficit and increased the debt by almost $3 trillion. The crazy thing about his spending is that interest rates were at record highs. He borrowed all of that money at rates in double digits, and as high as 18% interest. People complain about borrowing money right now, but we are getting interest rates in the fractions of percentage point versus double digits. Which is more damaging in the long haul? Reagan's borrowing is going to be felt for generations.

Politically:

* While Reagan's spending did contribute to the fall of the Soviet Union, what defeated the Soviet's was their foray into Afghanistan. The Afghanistan campaign bleed to Soviets dry and bankrupted the nation. That left the Soviets with no other option but open up to western interests to get an influx of cash needed to rebuild their crumbling infrastructure.

* Reagan was responsible for the death of journalism, journalistic integrity, and the rise of a divided mediasphere. Reagan's killing of the Fairness Doctrine eliminated the requirements of balanced reporting (equal time on issues). He also forced changes on media ownership that began the slippery slope of elimination of the diversity of voices in the mass media to where are today. His changes on ownership and elimination of the balanced reporting requirement gave rise a new schism in the mass media and the future birth of politically motivated interests like hate radio and Fox News. Reagan didn't get us to this point on his own, the Telecommunications Act of 1993 under Clinton sold us completely out, but Reagan got the ball rolling by killing the Fainess Doctrine.

* Reagan was a cut and runner. He didn't have the taste for war and preferred to retreat and negotiate. When the Beirut marine barracks were bombed, he pulled out the troops and went home.

* Speaking of negotiating, Reagan negotiated with terrorists. Reagan has been given credit for negotiating the release of the hostages in Iran. He negotiated with terrorists for the release of hostages. Also, if anyone examines the timeline he did so prior to being in power. He did this through back channels before he was sworn in as president. Isn't there a word for this?

* Reagan, in a roundabout way, was responsible for the creation of Al Qeada. In his attempts to help fight the Soviets in Afghanistan he approved the CIA training and equipping of the mujaheddin. Unbeknownst to him or the CIA a tall Wahhabi Saudi would join the cause and become an astute student of the tactics employed. That Saudi was Osama bin Laden and the mujaheddin would evolve into the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

* Reagan was soft on immigration. He granted amnesty to over 3 million illegals.

* Reagan grew government in ways other administrations never dreamed of. His spending and increases in the military bloated the government in size, but Reagan also created the Department of Veteran Affairs, which continues to be one of the largest of all governmental agencies.

A point to also remember about Reagan is he didn't give a #### about the rules. They didn't apply to him or to his cronies. His use of the Kitchen Cabinet to develop policy was appalling. His ignorance of the illegal actions that took place on his watch, Iran-Contra as an example, was disgusting. To have his wife carry the banner on the War on Drugs, then allow the CIA to import and sell drugs to pay for weapons to support other regimes was criminal. He was the epitome of modern politician.

The myth of Ronald Reagan is a real pet peeve of mine. I don't mind when people get a fact or two wrong, but to create a narrative that is completely counter to the facts is just unacceptable. Reagan would be considered a liberal Democrat in today's politics. He was an anti-war, large spending, big government politician. He was all for the rich and sticking it to the middle class, but that is the way of both parties these days. Reagan would be a perfect fit on the left side of the aisle.