Let's just say that I would breathe a sigh of relief if both major parties would just go away and leave us all alone.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it against the law to have multiple passports? I have only one and have never thought about trying to get a second one. Also, wouldn't applying for passports year after year flag something over at State?
Traveling with a phone registered under a fake name...well, that isn't illegal even if it is a little shady. I can go buy a phone right now and register it under some fake name and the provider won't care as long as I pay what they want me to pay.
Cliff Notes version of what I said in the previous post: All day today you will be hearing from Trump supporters about how we need to end the diversity visas and that Chuck Schumer is to blame. Diversity visas were signed into law 27 years ago by a Republican President. 4 years ago, the person Trump is blaming for this attack was part of a bipartisan group of Senators that eliminated diveristy visas and implemented merit-based ones. This bill was killed by extreme pressure from the Tea Party wing of the Republican base. In 2016, the Tea Party morphed into the core of Trump's base. Conclusion?? Trump supporters themselves quite literally KILLED the effort to implement merit based immigration in place of the current system by not being willing to strike a deal.
I've given up hope of anything in a large respect. For one thing, Republicans are never going to impeach Trump unless we get a videotape of him roasting a live infant over a spit.
I think there is a tipping point; Trump has already committed one, unignorable impeachable offense*. Like all politicians, though, the number one goal is their own power, e.g. their reelection prospects. On that, there is currently little traction:
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it against the law to have multiple passports? I have only one and have never thought about trying to get a second one. Also, wouldn't applying for passports year after year flag something over at State?
I know of at least one additional US passport beyond the normal one that every citizen can get, and there could be more. Federal employees who travel to conduct business on behalf of the US get special federal passports with a different color cover.
I'm very sure that's not what's going on with Manafort, though.
* I mean, of course, the time he cut a deal with Pelosi and Schumer.
Trump supporters themselves quite literally KILLED the effort to implement merit based immigration in place of the current system by not being willing to strike a deal.
And 500 shot, 50+ killed by a white dude in Vegas and it's "too soon" to talk gun control. After a white dude runs over the protesters at Charlottesville Trump doesn't say anything for days because he says he always gathers the facts first. But with this he had no problem jumping the gun.
Trump supporters themselves quite literally KILLED the effort to implement merit based immigration in place of the current system by not being willing to strike a deal.
And 500 shot, 50+ killed by a white dude in Vegas and it's "too soon" to talk gun control. After a white dude runs over the protesters at Charlottesville Trump doesn't say anything for days because he says he always gathers the facts first. But with this he had no problem jumping the gun.
Yes, but for other reasons than racism.
It is a wonderful distraction for people regarding the Mueller investigation. If news networks have to talk about this attack, then they have less time to talk about Papa, Manafort and Russia.
Trump will gladly add fuel to the terrorist attack story to keep the negative press off of him.
Trump seems to be suggesting that the justice and legal system is not sufficient to deal with the man who committed the attack, and John McCain said "People who kill Americans don't get Miranda rights". What?? Since when?? Did this change overnight??
Is there a single example anywhere of a Democratic or liberal politician arguing that Dylan Roof or the Charlottesville driver shouldn't be read their rights and given a trial?? What is it about violent acts committed by Muslims that causes large parts of the country to want to dispense with the entire Justice system, when no such suggestions are made in any other case??
You arrest the suspect, charge him, put him on trial, get a conviction from a jury, and sentence him. That's how it works. It's how it HAS to work.
Update on two significant stories which generated alot of interest in this thread:
1.) The GA Attorney General has QUIT in the defense of state officials in the election integrity case as a result of the server wiping.
2.) The Utah nurse who did the right thing protecting her patient from an illegal blood draw by a detective and was arrested because of it has been awarded $500,000 and the cop was fired.
Ok, so first off....I have no problem with the death penalty for people who absolutely deserve it. I also think that to give out the death penalty, you need something that ties the accused person to the crime with nearly 100% certainty (such as DNA evidence) because there have been too many people exonerated after decades on death row. We have put many people to death who were innocent. And that is a problem. This guy is not one of those, so, yeah, by all means give him the punishment that is deserved.
But guess what?? That probably isn't going to happen now no matter what, because President Dipshit, with this tweet, just prejudiced every potential jury pool in the country with this tweet. Smooth move. There was an excellent chance (with Federal charges filed today) that he WOULD get the death penalty. Donald Trump just made the sentencing phase of the trial a hurdle for prosecutors. Shut the hell up and stay out of the legal process.
Ok, so first off.... Shut the hell up and stay out of the legal process.
Isn't he on an Asian trip? He can't stop making trouble while on a different continent? Can't take a break from Fox News for a couple days and just focus on muddling through whatever he's supposed to be pretending to be doing?
Donna Brazille coming out and admitting the DNC rigged the election, something we already know, doesn't tell me she had a sincere change of heart, but it does tell me she now feels safer on the Anti Clinton side of the fence.
Donna Brazille coming out and admitting the DNC rigged the election, something we already know, doesn't tell me she had a sincere change of heart, but it does tell me she now feels safer on the Anti Clinton side of the fence.
How can you spend the entire year using Donna Brazile as your PRIME example of DNC corruption (in relation to the fed debate questions) and now turn around and point to an op-ed she writes (and that's what this is, none of this is journalism) as the holy grail?? Donna Brazile has a book coming out, and has been exiled from her former cushy pundit jobs at ABC and CNN. She has become a pariah on Twitter. This piece describes her in "agony" about having to make a phone call to Bernie Sanders. What?? She fed debate questions to the Hillary campaign, and a few months later she is all of a sudden done a complete 180?? Furthermore, the only thing this reveals is what we already knew: that the DNC was a mess financially because of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and that Hillary basically had to prop it up with cash while still funding her own campaign. Furthermore, Bernie had every access to joint fundraising, which he signed. He never utilized it.
This article concerns the issue of funding. The DNC had debt, Clinton had cash. That isn't "rigging an election", it's trying to shore up previous bad managment. Clinton had excess cash, and shared it with the DNC. The only thing that can be argued is it was a bad allocation of resources. It has nothing to do with a single vote.
But doesn't that create a bias? Here have all this money. What? No! Of course this doesn't paint me as the favorable candidate to the institution that I basically just bribed! Its certainly not on the level of Russian collusion, but the DNC showed blatant favoritism towards a certain candidate and got away with it basically scot free. The current investigation into the Trump administration certainly takes precedence, but I'd appreciate a similar investigation into the DNC during the election after this is all said and done.
But doesn't that create a bias? Here have all this money. What? No! Of course this doesn't paint me as the favorable candidate to the institution that I basically just bribed! Its certainly not on the level of Russian collusion, but the DNC showed blatant favoritism towards a certain candidate and got away with it basically scot free. The current investigation into the Trump administration certainly takes precedence, but I'd appreciate a similar investigation into the DNC during the election after this is all said and done.
There wasn't anything illegal done. The DNC is not a government entity, it is a political apparatus of the Democratic Party. They could conceivably strike a deal with whoever they like. They are allowed to show favouritism. It was always obvious they preferred Hillary. What they didn't do is throw elections. They don't control elections. They simply control how delegates are dispersed BASED on election results and how money is spent.
Hillary came in and was able to prop up the DNC. In return, the DNC was obligated to help the Clinton campaign how it saw fit. Moreover, Bernie Sanders was allowed to run in the Democratic primary despite, you know, not being a Democrat. The idea that the DNC would favor the actual Democrat in the race is hardly a shock to anyone. The charge from some is that the primary was rigged, suggesting Hillary was awarded votes she didn't get and that Bernie had votes taken that he earned. Never happened. No one is suggesting Trump "stole" votes either, only that his campaign illegally sought the assistance of a foreign government. If someone can find illegality in this fine, but they won't. The Clintons didn't survive 25+ years of constant investigation by being stupid enough to blatantly break campaign finance laws.
How is that rigging the election? Do you mean nomination?
A primary election is still an election. The whole concept is that people in the party vote on who they like and that person is the one the party chooses.
I have mentioned Brazile, but to say she's the only one i've mentioned is simply untrue. After all, Donna was only interim DNC chair because of the corrupt moves of Debbie Schultz before her, who stepped down and worked for the Clinton campaign afterwords. Can't move two lines of seperation any which way without one of them popping up.
And the DNC charter mandates impartiality. They can't work as an activist arm for whoever has the most money and influence. And why on earth would anyone want to defend that even if it wasn't in their charter? Using the DNC as your personal cheerleaders would be more undue influence than an army of russian hackers. Elections should be impartial.
How is that rigging the election? Do you mean nomination?
A primary election is still an election. The whole concept is that people in the party vote on who they like and that person is the one the party chooses.
I have mentioned Brazile, but to say she's the only one i've mentioned is simply untrue. After all, Donna was only interim DNC chair because of the corrupt moves of Debbie Schultz before her, who stepped down and worked for the Clinton campaign afterwords. Can't move two lines of seperation any which way without one of them popping up.
And the DNC charter mandates impartiality. They can't work as an activist arm for whoever has the most money and influence. And why on earth would anyone want to defend that even if it wasn't in their charter? Using the DNC as your personal cheerleaders would be more undue influence than an army of russian hackers. Elections should be impartial.
The DNC charter is not federal law. It's more akin to a company mission statement. It doesn't matter if it was undue influence or not. It isn't illegal. And seeking the aide of foreign governments is.
Sam Clovis, a non-scientist who was nominated by Trump for the top science job at the USDA, has withdrawn his nomination. Sad. Shock. (J/k I called it on p.355 of this forum).
According to unsealed court documents, Papadopoulos was told the the Russian had "dirt" on Clinton, he reported that he could arrange a meeting with Russia about this to a "campaign supervisor" (identified by the Washington Post as Clovis). The supervisor was like "yeah go for it!" according to email exchanges filed in court documents. Clovis' lawyer said he was only being a polite Iowan gentleman and that he'd never ever never encourage collusion with Russia. But for some reason he withdrew his name from conservation. Good riddance.
The DNC charter is not federal law. It's more akin to a company mission statement. It doesn't matter if it was undue influence or not. It isn't illegal. And seeking the aide of foreign governments is.
I agree it's not illegal, but if I were a Democrat I would want to understand why the DNC was not following their charter and whether changes should be made to ensure they do so next time.
Donna Brazille coming out and admitting the DNC rigged the election, something we already know, doesn't tell me she had a sincere change of heart, but it does tell me she now feels safer on the Anti Clinton side of the fence.
Despite its dramatic, breathless tone, the article only says one thing: the Clinton campaign gave millions of dollars to the DNC because the DNC was severely in debt. It makes vague references to Clinton being given "control" over the DNC, whatever that means, but there is no mention of what exactly that entailed, or what exactly that got the Clinton campaign.
By itself, this article is not a story of somebody rigging a primary--it's a story of Clinton bailing out a poorly-run and near-bankrupt DNC.
But doesn't that create a bias? Here have all this money. What? No! Of course this doesn't paint me as the favorable candidate to the institution that I basically just bribed!
This is one of those rare exceptions, I think. Not because money doesn't rule politics--it does--but because the DNC was already stocked with Clinton allies. It's hard to get more Democratic establishment than the Clintons, and they have had relationships, some spanning decades, with the people who make up the DNC.
I agree it's not illegal, but if I were a Democrat I would want to understand why the DNC was not following their charter and whether changes should be made to ensure they do so next time.
You're goddamn right. The standard for elections (and I do include the entirely private RNC/DNC nominating process) should not be to avoid impropriety, the standard should be to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
Donna Brazille coming out and admitting the DNC rigged the election, something we already know, doesn't tell me she had a sincere change of heart, but it does tell me she now feels safer on the Anti Clinton side of the fence.
Despite its dramatic, breathless tone, the article only says one thing: the Clinton campaign gave millions of dollars to the DNC because the DNC was severely in debt. It makes vague references to Clinton being given "control" over the DNC, whatever that means, but there is no mention of what exactly that entailed, or what exactly that got the Clinton campaign.
By itself, this article is not a story of somebody rigging a primary--it's a story of Clinton bailing out a poorly-run and near-bankrupt DNC.
Well they do mention specifically that basically all things, budget, strategy, etc. were to be run by or examined by the Clinton Campaign, but I agree Donna could have gone into more specifics here.
"When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.
The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings."
Hell, why bother holding the primary debates in the first place?
Oh, I don't know if I'd go that far. You have to remember that before Bernie sort of haphazardly threw himself in the race, Hillary had basically been the candidate by acclamation for almost all of Obama's 2nd term. Despite the fact that he was not and is not a Democrat, he was welcomed into the race and given center-stage, one on one billing with Hillary at every debate. Bernie had access to DNC funds he TURNED DOWN because he made a strategic choice to be known as the candidate of small donors. No delegate rules or math was retroactively changed. No votes were altered. People can whine all they want about this, but Bernie would have never offered to bail out the DNC's financial situation. There is no indication Bernie ever wanted anything to do with the DNC other than access to their voter databases. Yet he was still able to oust Debbie Wasserman Schultz despite all this.
And it should go without saying, but of COURSE the DNC wanted Hillary to win. She is/was a monolothic Democratic figure and Bernie Sanders was an Independent hopping on the party bandwagon for media exposure and debate access. As I've said from the beginning, wanting her to win and being the CAUSE of her winning are two different things. And the main thing this article demonstrates is ALSO what I have been saying all along. The DNC has no actual power. They couldn't even keep their head above water without the Clinton machine bailing them out, much less rigging a goddamn national primary.
Which brings up another point. If the DNC is nearly bankrupt, and Clinton has to bail them out, she would literally have been handing money to her opponent to use against her. Which would have happend if Bernie had accepted it. But he didn't.
The UN General Assembly held a vote for a measure to call for an end to the U. S. embargoes against Cuba, many of which are still in place despite great strides taken to normalize relations in the last two years. Sadly, Nikki Haley, our representative at the UN and someone who could be a better politician in the Republican Party than those who came before her, voted against the resolution.
Anyway, the fact that we don't have completely normal, even warm, relations with Cuba (which is only 80 mi/128 km away) is ridiculous. Fidel is dead and Raul is out--time to let go of the past.
*************
It appears that Trump has nominated Jerome Powell, a banker, to be the new head of the Federal Reserve. The fact that he is a banker rather than an economist is interesting because that will be a different take on the Fed, which is probably the Federal agency which has the most power, dwarfing even those which the FBI and the IRS have. That isn't the most interesting thing, though. No, the most interesting thing is that he is a former partner at the Carlyle Group.
If you are unfamiliar with the Carlyle Group don't worry--most people aren't and the company, *the* largest private equity company in the world, likes to keep itself out of the news. Over the years, there have been several high-ranking politicians who have served as "partners" or "consultants" to the corporation, including former President GHWB himself. The bin Laden family--yes, *that* bin Laden family--once owned 7% of Carlyle but they were divested in October 2001 (obviously).
I wonder if people feel like Clinton was shaddy, because to many people Hillary was blatantly unelectable, and no 'sane' organization would have fielded her. As in, the mere fact she was nominated is proof to them the system was coopted.
In my most crazy moments it certainly occured to me that Trump was given a huge gift when Hillary was nominated successfully.
Comments
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it against the law to have multiple passports? I have only one and have never thought about trying to get a second one. Also, wouldn't applying for passports year after year flag something over at State?
Traveling with a phone registered under a fake name...well, that isn't illegal even if it is a little shady. I can go buy a phone right now and register it under some fake name and the provider won't care as long as I pay what they want me to pay.
Poll: Vast majority of Trump voters say he should stay in office even if Russia collusion is proven
Keep in mind, the same was true for Nixon during Watergate. He had good support, and even won reelection, until it simply became too big to ignore. I know of at least one additional US passport beyond the normal one that every citizen can get, and there could be more. Federal employees who travel to conduct business on behalf of the US get special federal passports with a different color cover.
I'm very sure that's not what's going on with Manafort, though.
* I mean, of course, the time he cut a deal with Pelosi and Schumer.
It is a wonderful distraction for people regarding the Mueller investigation. If news networks have to talk about this attack, then they have less time to talk about Papa, Manafort and Russia.
Trump will gladly add fuel to the terrorist attack story to keep the negative press off of him.
Is there a single example anywhere of a Democratic or liberal politician arguing that Dylan Roof or the Charlottesville driver shouldn't be read their rights and given a trial?? What is it about violent acts committed by Muslims that causes large parts of the country to want to dispense with the entire Justice system, when no such suggestions are made in any other case??
You arrest the suspect, charge him, put him on trial, get a conviction from a jury, and sentence him. That's how it works. It's how it HAS to work.
1.) The GA Attorney General has QUIT in the defense of state officials in the election integrity case as a result of the server wiping.
2.) The Utah nurse who did the right thing protecting her patient from an illegal blood draw by a detective and was arrested because of it has been awarded $500,000 and the cop was fired.
Ok, so first off....I have no problem with the death penalty for people who absolutely deserve it. I also think that to give out the death penalty, you need something that ties the accused person to the crime with nearly 100% certainty (such as DNA evidence) because there have been too many people exonerated after decades on death row. We have put many people to death who were innocent. And that is a problem. This guy is not one of those, so, yeah, by all means give him the punishment that is deserved.
But guess what?? That probably isn't going to happen now no matter what, because President Dipshit, with this tweet, just prejudiced every potential jury pool in the country with this tweet. Smooth move. There was an excellent chance (with Federal charges filed today) that he WOULD get the death penalty. Donald Trump just made the sentencing phase of the trial a hurdle for prosecutors. Shut the hell up and stay out of the legal process.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774
This article concerns the issue of funding. The DNC had debt, Clinton had cash. That isn't "rigging an election", it's trying to shore up previous bad managment. Clinton had excess cash, and shared it with the DNC. The only thing that can be argued is it was a bad allocation of resources. It has nothing to do with a single vote.
Hillary came in and was able to prop up the DNC. In return, the DNC was obligated to help the Clinton campaign how it saw fit. Moreover, Bernie Sanders was allowed to run in the Democratic primary despite, you know, not being a Democrat. The idea that the DNC would favor the actual Democrat in the race is hardly a shock to anyone. The charge from some is that the primary was rigged, suggesting Hillary was awarded votes she didn't get and that Bernie had votes taken that he earned. Never happened. No one is suggesting Trump "stole" votes either, only that his campaign illegally sought the assistance of a foreign government. If someone can find illegality in this fine, but they won't. The Clintons didn't survive 25+ years of constant investigation by being stupid enough to blatantly break campaign finance laws.
I have mentioned Brazile, but to say she's the only one i've mentioned is simply untrue. After all, Donna was only interim DNC chair because of the corrupt moves of Debbie Schultz before her, who stepped down and worked for the Clinton campaign afterwords. Can't move two lines of seperation any which way without one of them popping up.
And the DNC charter mandates impartiality. They can't work as an activist arm for whoever has the most money and influence. And why on earth would anyone want to defend that even if it wasn't in their charter? Using the DNC as your personal cheerleaders would be more undue influence than an army of russian hackers. Elections should be impartial.
According to unsealed court documents, Papadopoulos was told the the Russian had "dirt" on Clinton, he reported that he could arrange a meeting with Russia about this to a "campaign supervisor" (identified by the Washington Post as Clovis). The supervisor was like "yeah go for it!" according to email exchanges filed in court documents. Clovis' lawyer said he was only being a polite Iowan gentleman and that he'd never ever never encourage collusion with Russia. But for some reason he withdrew his name from conservation. Good riddance.
By itself, this article is not a story of somebody rigging a primary--it's a story of Clinton bailing out a poorly-run and near-bankrupt DNC.
But it does lead naturally to this: You're goddamn right. The standard for elections (and I do include the entirely private RNC/DNC nominating process) should not be to avoid impropriety, the standard should be to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
"When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.
The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings."
And it should go without saying, but of COURSE the DNC wanted Hillary to win. She is/was a monolothic Democratic figure and Bernie Sanders was an Independent hopping on the party bandwagon for media exposure and debate access. As I've said from the beginning, wanting her to win and being the CAUSE of her winning are two different things. And the main thing this article demonstrates is ALSO what I have been saying all along. The DNC has no actual power. They couldn't even keep their head above water without the Clinton machine bailing them out, much less rigging a goddamn national primary.
Which brings up another point. If the DNC is nearly bankrupt, and Clinton has to bail them out, she would literally have been handing money to her opponent to use against her. Which would have happend if Bernie had accepted it. But he didn't.
Anyway, the fact that we don't have completely normal, even warm, relations with Cuba (which is only 80 mi/128 km away) is ridiculous. Fidel is dead and Raul is out--time to let go of the past.
*************
It appears that Trump has nominated Jerome Powell, a banker, to be the new head of the Federal Reserve. The fact that he is a banker rather than an economist is interesting because that will be a different take on the Fed, which is probably the Federal agency which has the most power, dwarfing even those which the FBI and the IRS have. That isn't the most interesting thing, though. No, the most interesting thing is that he is a former partner at the Carlyle Group.
If you are unfamiliar with the Carlyle Group don't worry--most people aren't and the company, *the* largest private equity company in the world, likes to keep itself out of the news. Over the years, there have been several high-ranking politicians who have served as "partners" or "consultants" to the corporation, including former President GHWB himself. The bin Laden family--yes, *that* bin Laden family--once owned 7% of Carlyle but they were divested in October 2001 (obviously).
In my most crazy moments it certainly occured to me that Trump was given a huge gift when Hillary was nominated successfully.