Democratic Candidates Debate (1 Viewer)

Rx_

Nothing In Moderation
Local time
Today, 10:50
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
2,803
RE:I would have liked to see Rand Paul win.

The system won't allow a Rand Paul. I read the news of Jesse Benton, Ron Paul’s former campaign manager and a top aide to Sen. Rand Paul, and John Tate, a former official of the Paul-affiliated Campaign, have had bogus charges of bribery, “conspiracy,” falsifying campaign records, and other fake charges. These charges were serious felonies. All of them were thrown out of court. In dismissing the charges, US District Judge John Garvery cited prosecutorial misconduct. He cited the government was clearly out to get Benton and Tate any way they could. He included the smear concept.

This was clearly a political case, in which a dissident group with little political influence in the corridors of power are targeted by those with power. The goal to discredit them and shut them up is not uncommon in the US. Although the investigation had been going on for quite some time, it’s no coincidence that the indictment was announced days before the first GOP presidential debate was to begin.
 

statsman

Active member
Local time
Today, 12:50
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
2,088
Hilary is the only candidate who comes to the campaign with a body count. Three people who knew what happened with Whitewater and were about to be interviewed by the investigators died or disappeared mysteriously.
Tack on Benghazi and the emails and she has a lot of luggage.
While her Democratic opponents are laying off this, don't think that if she gets the nomination the Republicans will.
Could you imagine Donald Trump with this ammunition.
 

Rx_

Nothing In Moderation
Local time
Today, 10:50
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
2,803
Donald Trump was a huge supporter of Mrs. Clinton in the past.
It is one club, not a competition.

According to all the news media this week, Joe Biden won the Democratic Debate. LOL
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 11:50
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
26,999
As far as Hilary and the mail-server issue and whether she has baggage...

It is being investigated, but there is a little matter of violations of the National Secrets Act (or maybe the Federal Secrets Act, I'd have to research which one is which for this case) that makes misclassification of government secret documents a minor felony with a fine and possible jail time. The way that the relevant act was written would allow the arrest of a seated government official while still in office. Since Hil has stepped down from Secretary of State, she SURELY is exposed to the possibility of arrest for EACH INDIVIDUAL DOCUMENT that should have been Classified but wasn't.

The person who ran the server for her had sufficient knowledge of government regulations to know that she was in violation by running "official" government mail through a non-government server (because of the ability of government servers to properly mark messages according to their clearance and then safeguard them from improper access by those lacking sufficient credentials.)

As someone who has repeatedly taken government-mandated security classes, I have to say that Hil really screwed the pooch on the mail server issue. It is, however, not clear to the general American public just how egregious this situation really is.
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Local time
Today, 12:50
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,276
My understanding of the emails in question indicate that the CIA (or was it the FBI?) looked at the emails and decided that nothing in the documents being emailed was Secret or higher; in fact, they pointed out that the redaction done to the emails released by the GOP were done BY the GOP after the fact.

Also, while it has been ten years and things may have changed, but when I was a security officer at a defense contractor, secret data being transmitted by email was fine as long as the server met certain specifications and the emails themselves were sufficiently well encrypted ('sufficiently' being defined by the classification level of the data contained therein). In fact, we had a harder time getting our SCIF cleared than our email server.

TS, of course, was an entirely different bag of kittens.
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 11:50
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
26,999
Frothingslosh,

My understanding of the emails in question indicate that the CIA (or was it the FBI?) looked at the emails and decided that nothing in the documents being emailed was Secret or higher

This is no longer true. At least 32 e-mails have been reclassified as Top Secret /CAS, which is as high as it ever gets. That is in the "burn BEFORE reading" category. There are also quite a few cases of Top Secret (not compartmentalized) and Secret. If you read the relevant act, it DOES NOT MATTER that the documents were not marked on her server. If they SHOULD have been marked with elevated classification, then that is the crux of the violation right there.

It is also coming out that she may have used a private e-mail server to avoid the Freedom of Information act since that only applies to government servers. If she was using a privately-owned server to conduct government business, that ALSO violates at least a couple of clauses in the Public Records Act, since in essence she is hiding what is called a "System of Records" that relate to operation of a specific branch of the U.S. Government.

By the way, your logo is interesting. I wonder how many people recognize and appreciate your "I See All" comment and the Eye of Horus?
 

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 09:50
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
5,824
Some low level assistant or government cubicle worker will be forced to resign or slapped on the wrist. After all her accession to the presidency can not be hindered by technicalities.;)
 
Last edited:

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 11:50
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
26,999
Blaster, the latest I heard was that the guy who ran her server was granted immunity to prosecution based on the inquiries by the Justice Dept. Which pretty much means that he can't invoke the 5th amendment rights about self-incrimination and could be compelled to testify. However, given the Clinton's body count starting from the Whitewater investigations, this must be the ultimate rock/hard-place situation for that person.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 12:50
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,617
By coincidence, the Washington Post today has this article: Fact checking the Hillary Clinton email controversy.

I would like to reiterate:
Hillary has claimed to be "transparent". Hillary has claimed that the use of her private server was "legal". Hillary is also a lawyer. Lawyers love paper work and they like to contemplate legal issues that could potentially blow-up.

So, as Secretary of State, I would assume that before setting up a private email server, that Hillary would have submitted, to the State Department's legal division, a request to evaluate the legality of setting-up a private server. Where is this paper work, assuming that it exists? Additionally, if there is any paper trail, where is the response from the State Department's legal division approving Hillary's plan of action.

The apparent lack of a public written paper trail would imply that Hillary went-off on her own to set-up the "secret" private server. Hillary has also claimed, with a laugh, a lack of knowledge concerning technology. So if one lacks technological knowledge, then it would logically seem that using an existing technology would be the simple expedient solution. The implication is that Hillary despite her disingenuous assertions has not been transparent, but has purposely hid her actions from the public and perhaps even from the Obama administration. (Was the private server a maneuver to circumvent FOIA requests?)

----------------------------------
As an other observation concerning Hillary's obfuscations and avoidance of "transparency". A reported asked Hillary if she would release her transcripts concerning speech that she gave to Wall Street firms. Instead of answering the question, she responded that as a New York State Senator, that her work was public and that people could clearly see that she was being "transparent". I do not recall if the the reporter ever stated that she failed to answer the question and then requested that she answer it.

-----------------------------------
Hillary is currently playing her pity cards. Hillary was the "top dog" at the State Department. Yet she acts as if she was not a decision maker, but simply the victim of a run amok bureaucracy. Hillary also makes the lame excuse that others have had private email accounts. The actions of others does not absolve Hillary from being found to have conducted illegal activities.

---------------------------------
Since posting the above, CNN had an interview with Hillary Clinton. Hillary once again refused to be "transparent" and obfuscated her response by saying that she did nothing wrong, because others did it too. A very superficial response that side-steps whether her actions were legal or not. Good for Mr. Ramos finally asking Hillary some tough questions.

Hillary Dismisses Jorge Ramos Grilling Her on Emails: ‘I’m Not Even Answering That’
 
Last edited:

ColinEssex

Old registered user
Local time
Today, 16:50
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
9,110
God I miss him.

Still here keeping a watching brief.

It seems nauticalguy hasn't got English as his first language (must be American is my guess) if he takes exception to a post indicating correct English grammar.

Col
 

Rx_

Nothing In Moderation
Local time
Today, 10:50
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
2,803
Political Cartoon attached - Both Major Politically funded parties
Every political year, I say "it can't get worse than this". Then every year... its worse.

Just a reminder of US History:
Before the Federal Government took over the election system, voters use to have multiple political parties. It is an old concept known as democracy.

Each party was required to print its own ballot. The voters had to find members of that political party to obtain the ballot of their choice.

In order to get voters out, the Bars (Pubs) were closed for Election Day.
The party leaders ordered many bottles of whiskey to give to voters for their trouble to locate the ballot. The single largest political expense for our first President through Abe Lincoln was "whiskey". Voter turn-out percentages were very high! The American tradition was to respect the office because of the competitive nature of being a "winner".

Lets put this into perspective: Drunk American Voters elected the best Presidents in US history from a very completive group of multiple political parties. New parties would spring up to replace outdated parties.

Those who avoid the newspapers coverage of the elections are Uninformed.
Those who read the newspapers coverage of the elections are Misinformed.

Perhaps giving away Whiskey and the requirement to go find your own ballot should be considered again?

Louis Black was in Denver - this is his interview on TV:
Spoiler alert, he is not found of the process or either candidate: http://www.9news.com/news/politics/balance-of-power/balance-of-power-lewis-black-on-2016/92108868
 

Attachments

  • ElectionCartoon2016.jpg
    ElectionCartoon2016.jpg
    69.8 KB · Views: 189

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 12:50
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,617
Just a reminder of US History:
Before the Federal Government took over the election system, voters use to have multiple political parties. It is an old concept known as democracy.

Each party was required to print its own ballot. The voters had to find members of that political party to obtain the ballot of their choice.

In order to get voters out, the Bars (Pubs) were closed for Election Day.
The party leaders ordered many bottles of whiskey to give to voters for their trouble to locate the ballot. The single largest political expense for our first President through Abe Lincoln was "whiskey". Voter turn-out percentages were very high! The American tradition was to respect the office because of the competitive nature of being a "winner".
As an extension to what you wrote, the various Democratic and Republican sycophants are spewing massive disingenuous hype concerning the "will of the people".

Both parties are private organizations where they can each establish their own rules for how their respective candidate for President will be elected. There is no intrinsic obligation for either party to base choosing their presidential candidate based on the simple "will of the people".

Donald Trump claims the system is rigged against him. Well too bad, Trump should have studied the rule book before running for President. Had running for President been an "Apprentice" program Trump would have gleefully screamed "Your fired!" instead of whining (as he is currently doing).

Debbie Wasserman Schultz when asked about the Democratic super delegates having the ability to negate the votes of delegates elected by the people artfully avoids confirming that by disingenuously asserting that the Democratic convention has not yet been held so that the delegates currently elected do reflect the will of the people". This "proves" Democrats embrace the will of the people". Schultz leaves out the itty-bitty negative detail that the super delegates will have the ability (at the convention) to vote, possibly nullifying the votes of the elected delegates.
 

Rx_

Nothing In Moderation
Local time
Today, 10:50
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
2,803
Can someone in the UK please steer me to a good odds site that might track this? Thaks

Funny cartoon attached to your last comment
Elections, food for comics and stand-ups, all candidates provide food for these fine artist.

What are the odds that Joe Biden will be the next US President?
Heard an audio about this wager placed in London. Evidently, England has these betting machines set up like ATM's with a few service counters around. One can walk in and get odds to bet on anything so I hear.

So, a well known economics writer was speaking in London last week on his new best seller.
He said that he placed a bet that Joe Biden will be the next President.
Here is the logic explained in his audio interview:

1. The FBI has top staff working on Hillary's 'situation'. It isn't just about the emails. There was a large money laundering event too. They may not bring this up until Hillary clears the nomination. The Democratic Party insiders doesn't want Bernie anymore than the Republicans wanted Trump.

2. Hillary evidently asked Joe's running mate? Interesting, the interview called this before it happened.

3. If Hillary can't win due to the FBI actions, the Democrats have the right to save the party. They have the method to bring in Joe Biden. He has already gone on record saying he would only be a single term President.

4. The big Washington Insider money would support Biden over Trump. Back room secret concessions and all of that over cigars won't surprise anyone. The Republicans get off the hook for supporting Hilary over Trump. Joe is a pill easier to swallow than Hillary for the opposition party.

The odd in London were suppose to be 100:1 against this at the time of the audio interview. I think he said he wagered 20 Pounds.
My guess is that this kind of thing can be tracked?

I found this, no idea if it is the one used in the UK or not:
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=791149
Joe Biden is now Just behind Bernie: Maybe this one isn't accurate?
Can someone in the UK please steer me to a good odds site?
 

Attachments

  • cartoon.jpg
    cartoon.jpg
    37.5 KB · Views: 199

Rx_

Nothing In Moderation
Local time
Today, 10:50
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
2,803
Americans Settle for Horrible Presidential Outcome Regardless:

Poll - Level of fear is double old record - Americans Settle for Less
The vast majority of Americans say they are afraid of at least one of the two major candidates — Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump — winning the White House, a remarkable finding that reflects an unsettled nation unhappy with its choice.
Eighty-one percent of Americans say they would feel afraid following the election of one of the two polarizing politicians, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll. That includes a quarter who say it doesn't matter who wins: they're scared of both.

Three-quarters of voters say their pick for president is motivated by a desire to cast their Election Day ballot against (not for) Clinton or Trump, more than those who say they're voting for the candidate who shares their positions on the issues or is the most qualified to hold the office.

So: Who are you voting against on election day? :rolleyes:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom