2016 presidential election campaign 2

444 posts / 0 new
Last post
ygtbk

josh wrote:
The issue is sloppiness, not criminality. Your final sentence is total conjecture. No proof that they could have or did.

I kind of like the campaign slogan "Sloppiness, Not Criminality, for 2016! Keeping Classiified Data On An Unsecured Server And Not Picking Up The Phone At 3 AM".

But it's not really a joke, is it. The choices are narrowed to Clinton and Trump - which is to say, no good choices.

Aristotleded24

montrealer58 wrote:
According to my friend, both the Hillary and Bernie campaigns have registered more voters than the Republicans. These voters are not being counted in the polls because they have a bad history of voting in the past. Young people, women, and people of colour are very motivated to stop Trump, and they are now coming out to register to vote. Add to this the natural advantage the Democrats have demographically in the electoral college count, and any Republican candidate would have difficulty winning.

That contradicts initial reports that the Republicans had more people voting in their contests (at least early on) than the Democrats did. Something else is that the groups you mentioned (i.e. Latinos, people of colour) disproprtionately face higher barriers for voting, for example fewer polling stations in their precints and long line-ups. Are they really going to take time off from work to stand in line for hours waiting to vote?

You are also underestimating the "Bernie or Bust" movement. Bernie engaged many people in the political process because of the issues and the stands he represents, and that's what pleased this crowd. If this crowd doesn't see any political candidate addressing their issues, they won't bother to support that candidate. It's one thing to vote for compromise when that's the only position that's offered, but Bernie has actually offered people what they want, so why would they then settle for a cheap immitation? Additionally, rather than trying to win over Bernie's voters, the Clinton campaign is doing nothing to win these people over and is actually gloating that they won. This won't endear people, no matter how scared they may be of Trump. And when people like Bill Maher scold the Bernie or Bust movement, not only will that harden their resolve not to support Clinton, but that may even push lukewarm Clinton supporters away from her.

Clinton's main asset is that she is not her Republican opponent. There is a precedent where the best asset a Democratic Presidential candidate had was not being the Republican, and that was John Kerry. Bush had actually done things to make him unpopular, and there was a big push to defeat him, and we know how that story ended. Liberals don't necessarily understand what motivates voters, but [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ghKl9K62Fo]Bill Maher[/url] was right when he said, "I often talk about how conservatives are in a bubble, but liberals have their bubble too, and inside it...the Republicans are so ridiculously out of touch. Well, they may be out of touch with you, but believe me, they're in touch with your brother-in-law, in rural Pennsylvania."

The fact is, Trump and Clinton are both about equally disliked, and people desparately want other options. The public mood is very volatile, and that could lead to so many unpredictable things, for example New Jersey, Michican, and Wisconson voting Trump on the basis of the trade issue, or enough people voting for Stein in Washington State and Oregon to hand these states over to Trump. Perhaps the Republicans will find their feet in traditional New England strongholds like New Hampshire and Maine.

Aristotleded24

ygtbk wrote:
josh wrote:
The issue is sloppiness, not criminality. Your final sentence is total conjecture. No proof that they could have or did.

I kind of like the campaign slogan "Sloppiness, Not Criminality, for 2016! Keeping Classiified Data On An Unsecured Server And Not Picking Up The Phone At 3 AM".

But it's not really a joke, is it. The choices are narrowed to Clinton and Trump - which is to say, no good choices.

Yeah, the dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent behaviour of Clinton and those around her is really reminiscent of the George W. Bush era. It's actually much worse, because Bush was obviously a clown who was put there as a saleable public face for the people behind him who didn't himself understand what was happening around him. Clinton is quite intelligent and clearly enjoys calling the shots herself.

josh
NorthReport

Washington Has Been Obsessed With Punishing Secrecy Violations — until Hillary Clinton

https://theintercept.com/2016/07/05/washington-has-been-obsessed-with-pu...

NorthReport

Why does the British Chilcot Inquiry remind me of the USA FBI's Clinton Email investigation? Oh, I get it now, rich and powerful can do whatever they like and get away with it. Yup, there definitely are two kinds of justice on this planet: one for the Blairs, the Clintons, the Trumps, the Bushes, and the other one for the working folks and for people like Alton Sterling, who are subjected to, and who pay for this rot at the top. It starts with tax breaks for business lunches, and just escalates from there. When you don't nip injustice at the very beginning, it is hard to stop the train when it has gathered speed and is rolling down the tracks.

ygtbk
josh

NorthReport wrote:

Washington Has Been Obsessed With Punishing Secrecy Violations — until Hillary Clinton

https://theintercept.com/2016/07/05/washington-has-been-obsessed-with-pu...

Apples and oranges.  None of those had the clearance level that Clinton had.  And as a political appointee, the only remedy for mishandling classified information would have been dismissal.

josh
ygtbk

Seems to be evolving from a nothingburger into a somethingburger...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/clinton-untrue-statements-fbi-comey-225216

josh

Still nothing.  What was supposed to be her intent?  To share classified information with those not authorized to receive it?  No.  To steal classified secrets?  No.  She was the secretary of state, for God's sake.  With the highest possible clearance.  There's no there there.  This is all political.  Which is fine.  But don't try to turn slipshod handling of information by the secretary of state into a criminal offense.

kropotkin1951

josh wrote:

But don't try to turn slipshod handling of information by the secretary of state into a criminal offense.

No that is a minor thing compared to actively supporting the coup in Honduras. She is a imperialist warmonger bought and paid for by the military industrial complex. If you don't believe me then ask the GOP "security experts" who are flocking to her campaign because they know she is their best bet to continue perpetual war. 

josh

kropotkin1951 wrote:

josh wrote:

But don't try to turn slipshod handling of information by the secretary of state into a criminal offense.

No that is a minor thing compared to actively supporting the coup in Honduras. She is a imperialist warmonger bought and paid for by the military industrial complex. If you don't believe me then ask the GOP "security experts" who are flocking to her campaign because they know she is their best bet to continue perpetual war. 

 

Yes, you can fault Clinton on a lot of things, but this e-mail business is just bullshit. 

ygtbk

I guess posting the link was not a big enough hint.

Hillary lied, repeatedly, about her emails. This is not trivial.

Quote:

During an extended exchange with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), Comey affirmed that the FBI's investigation found information marked classified on her server even after Clinton had said that she had neither sent nor received any items marked classified."That is not true," Comey said. "There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents."

Asked whether Clinton's testimony that she did not email "any classified material to anyone on my email" and "there is no classified material" was true, Comey responded, "No, there was classified material emailed."

"Secretary Clinton said she used one device. Was that true?" Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered, "She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state."

Gowdy then asked whether it was true that Clinton, as she said, returned all work-related emails to the State Department."No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned," Comey said.

"Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account. Was that true?" Gowdy asked."That's a harder one to answer," Comey responded. "We found traces of work-related emails in, on devices or in slack space. Whether they were deleted or whether when a server changed out something happened to them, there is no doubt that the work-related emails that were removed electronically from the email system."

Gowdy asked whether Clintons' lawyers read every one of her emails as she had said. Comey replied, "No."

josh

So what?  THere's no evidence that she knew the material was classified at the time she sent it.  All three of them.  I don't know the context of her one device remark, or the other statements claimed.  Gowdy is summarizing her testimony to put her in the worst possible light.

However, if she is elected, I would expect the house Republicans to introduce articles of impeachment on her first day in office.  They way they impeached Bill for lying about sex.  While babbling about the rule of law.  The same folks that support an illegal war, torture, etc.

ygtbk

josh wrote:

So what?  THere's no evidence that she knew the material was classified at the time she sent it.  All three of them.  I don't know the context of her one device remark, or the other statements claimed.  Gowdy is summarizing her testimony to put her in the worst possible light.

However, if she is elected, I would expect the house Republicans to introduce articles of impeachment on her first day in office.  They way they impeached Bill for lying about sex.  While babbling about the rule of law.  The same folks that support an illegal war, torture, etc.

Comey agreed with Gowdy's summarization. Normally that would mean he thinks the summarization is correct. So it's not just Gowdy.

At this point we have a dilemma: either Hillary is not competent to handle classified material, or she set up her server precisely to be able to avoid FOIA requests and do some Clinton Foundation fundraising (wink) on the side. Neither possibility is a resume-enhancer for a presidential nominee.

She then lied about her emails, repeatedly. This is also a problem for a presidential nominee.

I think you are wrong about impeachment, but I guess we'll see.

Split-ticket voting (Hillary for President, random Republicans for Representatives and Senators) has been suggested to me as the least-bad solution. I do not envy American voters. Fortunately I have no vote.

josh

What did emerge from the hearing is Comey's belief that Clinton indeed was telling the truth when she said she did it as a matter of "convenience," as Clinton has said publicly since her use of a private email server became public.

Comey also may have given the Clinton campaign some breathing room over the question of whether Clinton knowingly sent information marked as classified. Clinton has maintained throughout her campaign she did not send information marked as classified; Comey said in his testimony that the emails that Clinton sent and were marked classified were incorrectly labeled—meaning that Clinton may not have known that she was sending classified information from her server. 

http://time.com/4396958/hillary-clinton-email-congress/ 

 

ygtbk

Hmmm. The next paragraph at your link was also interesting.

Quote:

The hearing, however, will also help Republicans continue to build a case against Clinton for her misuse of classified information on a private server. Comey explained for the first time that Clinton typed an email response from her personal email address into an email chain that was marked “top secret.” He also repeated that Clinton’s attorneys did not read every email before Clinton’s personal emails were deleted, again contradicting a false claim that the Clinton campaign made to TIME.

http://time.com/4396958/hillary-clinton-email-congress/

NorthReport

Nothing new here as the media have been deciding who wins for eons.

Media’s rising political clout: How we created the Donald Trump of today 

The 2016 campaign is less a populist revolt than a corporate media takeover

http://www.salon.com/2016/07/07/medias_rising_political_clout_how_we_cre...

josh

ygtbk wrote:

Hmmm. The next paragraph at your link was also interesting.

Quote:

The hearing, however, will also help Republicans continue to build a case against Clinton for her misuse of classified information on a private server. Comey explained for the first time that Clinton typed an email response from her personal email address into an email chain that was marked “top secret.” He also repeated that Clinton’s attorneys did not read every email before Clinton’s personal emails were deleted, again contradicting a false claim that the Clinton campaign made to TIME.

http://time.com/4396958/hillary-clinton-email-congress/

That info you had already posted.

Aristotleded24

josh wrote:
So what?  THere's no evidence that she knew the material was classified at the time she sent it.  All three of them.  I don't know the context of her one device remark, or the other statements claimed.

People who work in intelligence know what information can be retroactively classified, and people have gotten in trouble for that.

NorthReport
ygtbk

josh wrote:
ygtbk wrote:

Hmmm. The next paragraph at your link was also interesting.

Quote:

The hearing, however, will also help Republicans continue to build a case against Clinton for her misuse of classified information on a private server. Comey explained for the first time that Clinton typed an email response from her personal email address into an email chain that was marked “top secret.” He also repeated that Clinton’s attorneys did not read every email before Clinton’s personal emails were deleted, again contradicting a false claim that the Clinton campaign made to TIME.

http://time.com/4396958/hillary-clinton-email-congress/

That info you had already posted.

Not from TIME. So you assert that your editing was not strategic?

Mr. Magoo

These accusations are so totally unbiased and truthy that I have to believe them.  She should be rotting in jail, not leading against Bernie Sanders!!!!

NorthReport
brookmere

So a poliitical nobody wants to hitch her wagon to a somebody.

Bernie Sanders is no Ralph Nader. He's a career politician with an awfiul lot to lose if he appeared to be trying to put Trump in the White House, and more still if Trump won.

Mr. Magoo

On the contrary, that's the most fascinating political thingy to happen in a long time.

The story so far is that those narsty centrists and war-mongers in the Democratic Party are too behooven to the Dark Side to ever let an honest man like Sanders run, even as millions of Americans support him.

So, now he doesn't need them to get on the ballot.  They can go ahead and put their support behind Clinton, and he can run as a Green, and let the best person win.

NorthReport
Aristotleded24

brookmere wrote:
He's a career politician with an awfiul lot to lose if he appeared to be trying to put Trump in the White House, and more still if Trump won.

What does he have to lose? He's very popular in his home state of Vermont, and could easily be re-elected blindfolded and with both hands tied behind his back if he had to. That's one of the reasons he was able to run in the first place is that the Democratic machine wasn't able to threaten him for challenging Clinton, unlike Martin O'Malley. Did you ever find it strange how an Independent Senator's campaign took off, while a governor could not gain any traction whatsoever?

brookmere

What does he have to lose? What every progressive American would lose if Trump won. Sanders is no fool, he knows the progressive agenda would be set back for decades by a Trump victory and at this point the focus must be on stopping Trump. And that's the difference between a real progressive like Sanders and a poseur like Stein.

Quote:
“Yes (I will vote for Clinton). The issue right here is I’m going to do everything I can to defeat Donald Trump. I think Trump in so many ways would be a disaster for this country if he were elected president.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-sanders-idUSKCN0ZA272

 

josh

Sanders might have run on the Green ticket had the Democrats controlled congress. But he doesn't want to be responsible for Trump, or any other Republican for that matter, being president with a Republican congress.

NorthReport
Aristotleded24

brookmere wrote:
What does he have to lose? What every progressive American would lose if Trump won. Sanders is no fool, he knows the progressive agenda would be set back for decades by a Trump victory and at this point the focus must be on stopping Trump. And that's the difference between a real progressive like Sanders and a poseur like Stein.

Quote:
“Yes (I will vote for Clinton). The issue right here is I’m going to do everything I can to defeat Donald Trump. I think Trump in so many ways would be a disaster for this country if he were elected president.”

">http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-sanders-idUSKCN0ZA272[/qu...

Can someone please explain exactly what progressive principles are supported by voting for Clinton? On nearly every issue, from the TPP to fracking to Israel to climate change to Wall Street, the Democrats are not taking the principled position and effectively sided with what the Republicans will do. Not only that, but Clinton has been giving the progressive wing of the Democratic Party the finger every step of the way and is courting Bush-era Republican donors. So tell us exactly what scary Republican policies are being stopped by Clinton? Michigan UAW activist warned the left that if Clinton is the nominee, they will have to contend with a Democrat supporting free trade and the Iraq war and a Republican candidate opposed to both. This is why I find it so frustrating to talk to liberals about politics, becuase it's all about rhetoric and appearances, and facts don't enter into the equation, especially when it can be proved that the "liberal" politician is as bad as the right-winger everyone is afraid of.

Bernie's voters are not sheep that he can corral into supporting anyone, and he knows that very well. They will make up their own minds as to who to support, and many have already decided that they are not voting for Clinton. And no, this does not help Trump. That's just a weak argument the Democrats are throwing out to avoid their responsibility to convince voters to come over to them. If the Greens pull away enough Democratic votes for Trump to win, it's Clinton's fault for not resonating with them, not the Green's fault for giving them something to vote for.

And either way, I stand by my assertion that "he" loses nothing, because with Trump or Clinton, he still wins Vermont and his own personal situation is comfortable regardless.

josh

They'd be supporting a non-conservative majority on the Supreme Court for the first time in a quarter century, and preventing the enactment of right-wing legislation.

iyraste1313

Can someone please explain exactly what progressive principles are supported by voting for Clinton? On nearly every issue.....

...thank you for that! Hard to believe such arguments make it to a so called progressive site!

josh

Sanders endorses Clinton.

Aristotleded24

[url=http://www.jill2016.com/sanders_endorsement_clinton]Green Party presumptive nominee Jill Stein responds to Bernie's capitulation:[/url]

Quote:
I join millions of Americans who see Hillary Clinton's campaign as the opposite of what they and Bernie Sanders have fought for. Despite her penchant for flip flopping rhetoric, Hillary Clinton has spent decades consistently serving the causes of Wall Street, war and the Walmart economy.

The policies she fought for - along with her husband and political partner, Bill Clinton - have been foundations of the economic disaster most Americans are still struggling with: the abuses of deregulated Wall Street, rigged corporate trade agreements, racist mass incarceration, and the destruction of the social safety net for poor women and children. The consistent efforts of the Democratic Party to minimize, sideline, and sabotage the Sanders campaign are a wake up call that we can't have a revolutionary campaign inside a counter-revolutionary party.

Sadly, Sanders is one of a long line of true reformers that have been undermined by the Democratic Party. The eventual suppression of the Sanders campaign was virtually guaranteed from the beginning with super-delegates and super Tuesdays, that were created after George McGovern's nomination to prevent grassroots campaigns from winning the nomination again.

Sanders, a life-long independent who has advocated for building an independent democratic socialist party similar to Canada's New Democratic Party, has said that his decision to run as a Democrat was based on pragmatism, but there is nothing pragmatic about supporting a party that for decades has consistently sold out the progressive majority to the billionaire class. This false pragmatism is not the path to revolutionary change but rather an incrementalism that keeps us trapped, voting for lesser evil again and again.

Each time a progressive challenger like Sanders, Dennis Kucinich or Jesse Jackson has inspired hope for real change, the Democratic Party has sabotaged them while marching to the right, becoming more corporatist and militarist with each election cycle.

Millions are realizing that if we want to fix the rigged economy, the rigged racial injustice system, the rigged health care system, toxic fossil fuel energy and all the other systems failing us, we must fix the rigged political system, and that will not happen through the rigged Democratic Party.

Right now we have a real chance to change our rigged political system, and we must not squander this opportunity by pledging allegiance to a corrupt political insider who the majority of Americans do not like, trust or believe in.

What is most disappointing is that Sanders has refused invitations to speak to the Green Party, a truly democratic national party that has long championed the progressive stands that lifted the Sanders campaign to the top of national polls.

Fortunately, this November voters across America will still have the choice to cast a revolutionary vote to cancel student debt, achieve full employment and stop the climate meltdown through a Green New Deal, provide universal healthcare with Medicare for All, provide a welcoming path to citizenship, end mass incarceration and create a foreign policy based on international law and human rights. We need to commit to improving the lives of all Americans, not just the wealthy and special interests.

As the Sanders campaign's dominance of national polls has shown, our positions are shared by a majority of voters, and with the Green Party on the ballot in November the majority can vote for what they want and get it. Together we can beat both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the two most unpopular and least trusted presidential candidates in American history.

I call on the tens of millions inspired by Bernie Sanders' call for political revolution, the 60% of Americans who want a new major party, and the independents who outnumber both Democrats and Republicans to reject the self-defeating strategy of voting for the lesser evil and join our fight for the greater good.

I ask the rising independent majority to demand our inclusion in the Presidential debates, for as Sanders proved, in fair debates we can rally the majority of Americans behind a plan for an America and a world that works for all of us.

I congratulate Bernie Sanders on running an impressive campaign within an undemocratic primary, and I thank Bernie for showing clearly how a grassroots campaign, armed only with a progressive vision and small contributions from real people, can win over the majority of Americans. Let's keep the revolution going and build it into the powerful force for transformative change that it is becoming. Together we are unstoppable.

brookmere

What a sefl-important nobody, presuming to tell Sanders what he should do.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
What is most disappointing is that Sanders has refused invitations to speak to the Green Party, a truly democratic national party that has long championed the progressive stands that lifted the Sanders campaign to the top of national polls.

There's where it stops being chin music and she gets right down to it.

Quote:
As the Sanders campaign's dominance of national polls has shown, our positions are shared by a majority of voters, and with the Green Party on the ballot in November the majority can vote for what they want and get it.

I wonder if she might want to explain why the U.S. Greens needed Bernie to do their work for them.  Why are their policies only suddenly relevant and resonating because of Sanders?  What were they doing when he was stumping??  How have they so consistently failed to do even one tenth of what he did?

Quote:
I ask the rising independent majority to demand our inclusion in the Presidential debates

LOL.  Greens gotta be Greens.

 

NorthReport

The GOP must be at death's door to have ever allowed a freak like Trump get anywhere them. What a sad excuse for a human being he is.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/trump-seeks-10-mi...

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
The GOP must be at death's door to have ever allowed a freak like Trump get anywhere them.

Do you understand how it works down there?

You or I could run for President, if we were citizens of a given age, and we wouldn't "get" anywhere near any party unless their membership endorsed us.

Trump did not force himself on the Republicans.  A bunch of Republicans chose him.  That's a big difference.

NorthReport
NorthReport
Rev Pesky

NorthReport wrote:
The GOP must be at death's door to have ever allowed a freak like Trump get anywhere them. What a sad excuse for a human being he is...

The damage was done when the Republican party decided to allow the 'Tea Party' to operate within the Republican party. That drove a lot of so-called 'moderate' Republicans out of the party, and at the same time, partially replaced them with fringe right-wingers. Which set the stage for a Trump style candidacy. 

JKR

Rev Pesky wrote:

NorthReport wrote:
The GOP must be at death's door to have ever allowed a freak like Trump get anywhere them. What a sad excuse for a human being he is...

The damage was done when the Republican party decided to allow the 'Tea Party' to operate within the Republican party. That drove a lot of so-called 'moderate' Republicans out of the party, and at the same time, partially replaced them with fringe right-wingers. Which set the stage for a Trump style candidacy. 

What should the Republican Party have done instead?

Aristotleded24

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Quote:
As the Sanders campaign's dominance of national polls has shown, our positions are shared by a majority of voters, and with the Green Party on the ballot in November the majority can vote for what they want and get it.

I wonder if she might want to explain why the U.S. Greens needed Bernie to do their work for them.  Why are their policies only suddenly relevant and resonating because of Sanders?  What were they doing when he was stumping??  How have they so consistently failed to do even one tenth of what he did?

For one, the policies advocated by Sanders have more continuity with the Greens than the Democrats.

As for why the Greens couldn't get anywhere? When was the last time you saw the Greesn on CNN or any of the major media networks? The fact is that the Democrats and Republicans have conspired to limit ballot access to other parties. Since they are both backed by major wealthy donors, they already have a greater advantage in terms of organization, media access, ballot access etc. True, the Internet has helped with small party organizing (it was because of the Internet that Sanders could do what he did) but getting on the ballot, getting your name out there, and doing all the organizing work outside of that system is a huge uphill battle.

In any case, Stein has been courting the Bernie or Bust movement for months. I suspect that Bernie's endorsement of Clinton is good for Stein to have a permanent double-digit base of support in the opinion polls.

NorthReport

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the WaPo editors are not supporting Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-vice-presidential-hopeful...

Rev Pesky

JKR wrote:
Rev Pesky wrote:

NorthReport wrote:
The GOP must be at death's door to have ever allowed a freak like Trump get anywhere them. What a sad excuse for a human being he is...

The damage was done when the Republican party decided to allow the 'Tea Party' to operate within the Republican party. That drove a lot of so-called 'moderate' Republicans out of the party, and at the same time, partially replaced them with fringe right-wingers. Which set the stage for a Trump style candidacy. 

What should the Republican Party have done instead?

They could have told the Tea Partyer's to make their own party.

Debater

Indy Star has confirmed that Indiana Gov. Mike Pence is Trump's VP pick.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/07/14/report-pence-trum...

josh

Debater wrote:

Indy Star has confirmed that Indiana Gov. Mike Pence is Trump's VP pick.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/07/14/report-pence-trum...

Down the line right-winger.

Pages

Topic locked