That post or these types of threads? Asking for a friend.
that post.
That post or these types of threads? Asking for a friend.
The USA with its two party system is so damn stupid.
When has a successful campaign ever laid of staff?
The problem is he has these two corrupt cronies manipulating him into signing two more months worth of paychecks.
Which leads me to a question I've been wondering. If his campaign is being run by two guys who literally define establishment politics (except always on the losing side) how was he going to pull off the whole outsider thing? Would they have gotten jobs in his administration?
It's not just Europe though is it. Countries like Canada, New Zealand, Costa Rica etc might agree. I'd say it's more of an international interpretation if anything.
In New York he spent more money then Hillery and the GOP knuckle heads combined.Gonna be really interested in finding out two things when the numbers eventually come out. How much he'll manage to raise after losing yesterday and how much Bernie actually has left, especially since he keeps outspending Hillary like crazy.
Canada just had nearly 10 years of a hardcore conservative.
Seriously who looks at Tad Devine's resume and says "Yeah this man can get me into the white house"
A man with no other options.
But Sanders' overhead is also very high, with $46 million in expenses in March and outspending Clinton across most major spending categories. For example, Sanders spent more than $4.8 million on payroll expenses in March, compared with $2.7 million for Clinton, according to an NPR analysis of those fundraising reports
A man with no other options.
They were talking about how his campaign was a lot bigger than Hillary's on npr
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/27/47593...ders-campaign-to-lay-off-hundreds-of-staffers
Seriously who looks at Tad Devine's resume and says "Yeah this man can get me into the white house"
The State Department withheld a vital Hillary Clinton email for two years that would have exposed the existence of her private email server before she wiped it, a conservative watchdog claimed Tuesday.
Judicial Watch, the group that successfully sued in federal court for Clinton’s emails, claims the Sept. 29, 2012 email was withheld from them in 2014 by the State Department because it showed she was not using a government account for State Department business. They received the document last week from the State Department.
“Upon further review, the Department has determined that one document previously withheld in full in our letter dated November 12, 2014 may now be released in part,” the letter, dated April 18, said.
The email in question was sent to Clinton from then-Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan and concerns talking points for a call with senators about the Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi attack -- an attack that left four Americans dead. The email contains Clinton’s non-state.gov address.
I have plenty of political knowledge. It's why I don't ever post in political threads; they're a shitshow. But I just wanted to make clear: Hillary Clinton is not in any danger from this email server thing, no matter how much people like you want to make it an issue.
She didn't even do anything. Her staffers did. The sent redacted and truncated documents, some of which were classified after the fact, to a private server for the purposes of being informed on certain issues which, as SoS, is essential. It's not even clear she even knew about it. And as others in this thread have pointed out, people in her position in the past have done similar things without consequence, so the precedent is already established. Actual politicians have teams of people working under them that fill office buildings. It's not some kind of shady conspiracy theory.
I can't fucking wait until after the election. I hate Donald Trump and I hate Bernie Sanders and I really hate their supporters and what they represent. This obnoxious "anti-establishment" bullshit is one of the most pathetic things I have ever seen. If you can unironically say that you'd vote for Trump if you can't vote for Bernie I have no respect for you. None.
It's not a hypothetical. Two former SoS (Condi Rice and Colin Powell) also had private email servers that received classified Intel.
Did they go to jail? Has that idea even been floated outside the context of questioning why HRC deserves to go to jail?
You say if it were anyone else they'd be in the slammer but the two people who did the job previously did the same and did not.
So now it's time for some critical thinking.
The majority of our elected officials don't think we cause it.
Or if they do think so, they don't say so.
Sanders can't fix climate change on his own
Maybe if he'd shown any effort or inclination in tangibly supporting other politicians who would also help with climate change he would have gotten my vote, since it is the single most important issue to me
But he didn't, and I never bought into the idea that as a lone figurehead he could make his college student supporters protest outside of government buildings until everything got fixed. There is no revolution. There never was. And that's what pisses me off. Because there could have been. If we'd gotten a candidate who was serious about political change instead of a grandstander
This is assuming the ridiculous notion that accelerationism would actually do what it's intended to do. Hint: It won't. It will just stack the SCOTUS with more right leaning corporate friendly judges
He is definitely a Democratic Campaign "Kiss of Death"! He couldn't even get Al Gore into the White House and Gore won lol!
I also recently found out he was the mastermind behind the Superdelegates the Sanders campaign loves to hate!
The discussion of the email server issue makes my head hurt. I've only ever seen a few posters get it anywhere near correct. I work in IT/Security. I'm not an expert in the field, but I'm very familiar with security policies and procedures... but it doesn't take an expert to comprehend the issues here. Pysdonk had some of the details wrong. Other posters don't understand the issue, and/or hand-waved it away due to having drank the Kool-Aid, or whatever.
Hillary Clinton will not be indicted for her use of a private email server. However, this does not mean that there was not wrongdoing.
There was a loophole in department policy, the intent of which was to allow the Secretary of State or their staff to use personal email for official business during urgent circumstances. Clinton used this loophole to conduct all or most of her SoS communications, including those involving state secrets, through a private email server, for the purposes of avoiding the Freedom of Information Act. What she did was a violation of at least the spirit of department policy, from what I've read, and certainly far outside of best practices. It was absolutely terrible judgment from a national security standpoint. In the vaaast majority of organizations, Clinton's actions would have been grounds for immediate termination, perhaps more.
From what I've seen, the general consensus in our industry is "this was crazy, how did this slip through the cracks." The State Department was aware that wrongdoing had been committed. From an article yesterday:
Is this a partisan issue? Yes. But again, there was clear wrongdoing. Clinton showed remarkably poor judgement to order, or even to sign off, on this email server.
Who owned the email server that Hillary used for official State Department communications?
The "Rice and Powell did it too" defense is probably the second-worst defense of the email scandal. You do realize that Rice and Powell used official email to conduct business as SoS, right? You need to also realize that Clinton exclusively used her private email server, or near-enough to exclusively.
You don't think a single figure head can combat climate change... But you want there to be a figure head to combat climate change?
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/our-work/by-topic/climate-change
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/
The Clintons have done more REAL work through their foundation towards solving climate change than Sanders has done his entire life. They are completely and 100% connected to the cause -- and it started 10 years ago with the CCI.
What matters is that she won't be indicted, and not because of a cover up. She won't be indicted because like you said it was mere spirit of the policy violation. I've seen some internal rules that say the decision of whether or not to punish would come down to her superiors in the cabinet. So, if the indictment wasn't going to happen anyways, what giant political hay can be gleaned here besides "she really should have been more secure and informed"?
which allows corporations to sue nations
Yet she supported the TPP. Which allows corporations to sue nations when they aren't allowed to pollute as they see fit. There's that incrementalism.
Is experience that important? I would find a brilliant new person with adept understanding of the system and hire them over those two.
Were there no good governor or senate campaign people he could choose from either?
he doesn't think a single figurehead can combat climate change when that figurehead couldn't do shit to get people sympathetic to their agenda elected downballot, but someone actually trying to put together a coalition of 218+ representatives and 50+ senators to combat climate change would be nice
I also want to add this article, which is illuminating, on the email scandal:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html
Clinton wasn't the only person at fault here. There's blame to go around.
It demonstrates extremely poor judgement for someone to make these kinds of decisions, yet run for Commander-in-chief. Sanders (and now Trump) say, "Hillary's poor judgement makes her unqualified to be president." I don't agree with that, but it's concerning. The stakes were very high and she blew it, intentionally, "for convenience" (her words).
The "Rice and Powell did it too" defense is probably the second-worst defense of the email scandal. You do realize that Rice and Powell used official email to conduct business as SoS, right? You need to also realize that Clinton exclusively used her private email server, or near-enough to exclusively.
The one thing I love more than the damn image popping up once again (after being debunked so many times on this forum and in these threads) is your smug condescension on top of it. PCO also has Barack Obama as right as Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Good job showing us how "learned up on politics" you are, Mecha.![]()
Learn up on some politics.
The "Rice and Powell did it too" defense is probably the second-worst defense of the email scandal. You do realize that Rice and Powell used official email to conduct business as SoS, right? You need to also realize that Clinton exclusively used her private email server, or near-enough to exclusively.
This thread got really, really fucking stupid.
This can't be good. The race isn't over yet though, why would he do this?
Primary two of the most liberal senators in the country because they didn't support the guy you liked in a primary.At least the revolution will continue...
https://twitter.com/mn4bernie/status/725426919873736704
Hold on let's slow down a second there...
What is your point? Wouldn't you agree that most people, Canadian and otherwise agreed that Harper was hardcore Conservative? I'm talking about how political leanings are assessed or defined, not that previously left leaning countries can't be right wing lol, in fact I'm implying the complete opposite of what you're trying to infer there! We ought to adhere to a broader understanding of any such political compass, rather than a US centric one, lest you diminish the acceptance that America does overall lean towards the right, and leave less space for when more socialist and left leaning politics do actually come in to play.
I mean Clinton would likely be a Liberal in Canada, same with Obama.
And the US has things leftier than other countries Australia still doesn't have same-sex marriage for example and their abortion laws are iffy compared to some of the laws in more liberal states in the US. There is no universal right and left scale.
I mean Clinton would likely be a Liberal in Canada, same with Obama.
And the US has things leftier than other countries Australia still doesn't have same-sex marriage for example and their abortion laws are iffy compared to some of the laws in more liberal states in the US. There is no universal right and left scale.
And the US has things leftier than other countries Australia still doesn't have same-sex marriage for example and their abortion laws are iffy compared to some of the laws in more liberal states in the US. There is no universal right and left scale.
Y
Let's see. Do I trust "Eco Watch" or a Dot Gov site more?
The one thing I love more than the damn image popping up once again (after being debunked so many times on this forum and in these threads) is your smug condescension on top of it. PCO also has Barack Obama as right as Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Good job showing us how "learned up on politics" you are, Mecha.
.Yes, but I used the chart as a joke.
I mean Clinton would likely be a Liberal in Canada, same with Obama.
And the US has things leftier than other countries Australia still doesn't have same-sex marriage for example and their abortion laws are iffy compared to some of the laws in more liberal states in the US. There is no universal right and left scale.
nib95 said:I'd personally argue she was centre right or right by European or more international standards, based on her policies on healthcare (still far from Universal), foreign policy (hawkish and aggressive), taxation (far lower than most European standards), big business (more lenient on regulations and major policy shifts) and so on.
That's pretty accurate though. I would say on the whole they've had relatively decent charts, but more inclined towards a European or more progressive idea or understanding of political leanings. I suspect many Americans would strongly disagree with it, simply because the political culture and landscape in the US is still behind compared to many other Western nations (not necessarily just European). It's amusing to me that so many actually think Hillary is left wing, by European or international standards, she absolutely is not.
I'd personally argue she was centre right or right by European or more international standards, based on her policies on healthcare (still far from Universal), foreign policy (hawkish and aggressive), taxation (far lower than most European standards), big business (more lenient on regulations and major policy shifts) and so on. Obviously you could argue that US politics in general are more right wing and less….developed….but that doesn't change her political alignment comparative to most standards.
In New York he spent more money then Hillery and the GOP knuckle heads combined.
What makes Hillary far more right wing ? Is it one a few issues or a vast amount?
What makes Hillary far more right wing ? Is it one a few issues or a vast amount?
Boy did it.
Also, fuck, I get annoyed when people say they're not gonna vote. I don't care who you vote for, go vote. Do a write-in for captain underpants if you want.
Just vote dammit.
To give just one example, a candidate who doesn't propose single payer healthcare in the US wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it in a country where it already exists. This is one of the huge problems with trying to map one country's political spectrum onto another's.