2016 Presidential Horse Race

[RDU Irish]

If she doesn't know how that tech stuff works "like wipe it with a cloth" then what they heck is she doing using a personal system instead of what everyone else is using?

 

[connor_in]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TbLvvOlgAm4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Cackalacky]

There are a thousand and one uses for Hillary Clinton Server Wipes!

Obama administration economists have discovered Server Wipes to be the perfect tool for eliminating economic data before releasing doctored unemployment statistics to the media, and the NOAA has even found Hillary Clinton Server Wipes to be great for deleting climate temperature data so that data points can be replaced with whatever desired fictional "evidence" paints a picture of global warming.

Hillary Clinton Server Wipes can even be used directly on journalists, causing them to forget things like the Whitewater cover-up, the convenient murder of Vince Foster, Bill Clinton's "bimbo eruptions" and Hillary Clinton's deep ties to Monsanto.

Thanks to Hillary Clinton Server Wipes, no data, history or memories ever need bother future Presidential candidates again! Whatever crime you might have recently committed doesn't really matter: if you don't like it, just WIPE it!

Subway restaurants are even handing out Hillary Clinton Server Wipes as napkins, hoping customers will wipe from their memories the fact that former Subway spokesperson Jared Fogle created a nonprofit for children so that he could prey on them to satisfy his perverted sexual urges. Enjoy your footlong in prison, you sicko!

Remember, if you need to totally erase something you did that was either illegal, unethical or filled with shame, just reach for Hillary Clinton Server Wipes... now offered free of charge to all Ashley Madison suckers who signed up for an online "cheating" service by using their real names and government work email addresses! (It doesn't get any funnier...)

Hillary Clinton Server Wipes are lightly scented with a hint of scandal, and they store best in your bathroom closet, right next to your illegal email server and abortion pills.

 

[BGIF]

CNN invites all but one Republican presidential hopeful to next debates | Reuters

All but one of the 17 Republicans vying for the party's presidential nomination have made the cut so far for the next candidates' debates hosted by CNN, the network said on Tuesday in a decision that could leave former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore on the sidelines.

...

Last time the bulk of the debaters got to speak for about 5 minutes. This time, what, 2 minutes?

 

[BGIF]

Exclusive: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest | Reuters

Fri Aug 21, 2015 1:06am EDT Related: POLITICS, AEROSPACE & DEFENSE
Exclusive: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest
NEW YORK | BY JONATHAN ALLEN

For months, the U.S. State Department has stood behind its former boss Hillary Clinton as she has repeatedly said she did not send or receive classified information on her unsecured, private email account, a practice the government forbids.

While the department is now stamping a few dozen of the publicly released emails as "Classified," it stresses this is not evidence of rule-breaking. Those stamps are new, it says, and do not mean the information was classified when Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in the 2016 presidential election, first sent or received it.

But the details included in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.

The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.

In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.

This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.

"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House's National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

"If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."

Reuters' findings may add to questions that Clinton has been facing over her adherence to rules concerning sensitive government information. Spokesmen for Clinton declined to answer questions, but Clinton and her staff maintain she did not mishandle any information.

"I did not send classified material, and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified," Clinton told reporters at a campaign event in Nevada on Tuesday.

Although it appears to be true for Clinton to say none of her emails included classification markings, a point she and her staff have emphasized, the government's standard nondisclosure agreement warns people authorized to handle classified information that it may not be marked that way and that it may come in oral form.

The State Department disputed Reuters' analysis but declined requests to explain how it was incorrect.

The findings of the Reuters review are separate from the recent analysis by the inspector general for U.S. intelligence agencies, who said last month that his office found four emails that contained classified government secrets at the time they were sent in a sample of 40 emails not yet made public.

The State Department has said it does not know whether the inspector general is correct. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has launched an investigation into the security of the copies of the emails outside the government's control.

FOR THE SECRETARY'S EYES ONLY

Clinton and her senior staff routinely sent foreign government information among themselves on unsecured networks several times a month, if the State Department's markings are correct. Within the 30 email threads reviewed by Reuters, Clinton herself sent at least 17 emails that contained this sort of information. In at least one case it was to a friend, Sidney Blumenthal, not in government.

The information appears to include privately shared comments by a prime minister, several foreign ministers and a foreign spy chief, unredacted bits of the emails show. Typically, Clinton and her staff first learned the information in private meetings, telephone calls or, less often, in email exchanges with the foreign officials.

In an email from November 2009, the principal private secretary to David Miliband, then the British foreign secretary, indicates that he is passing on information about Afghanistan from his boss in confidence. He writes to Huma Abedin, Clinton's most senior aide, that Miliband "very much wants the Secretary (only) to see this note."

Nearly five pages of entirely redacted information follow. Abedin forwarded it on to Clinton's private email account.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach, in an initial response to questions on how the department applies classification regulations, said that Reuters was making "outlandish accusations." In a later email, he said it was impossible for the department to know now whether any of the information was classified when it was first sent.

"We do not have the ability to go back and recreate all of the various factors that would have gone into the determinations," he wrote.

The Reuters review also found that the declassification dates the department has been marking on these emails suggest the department might believe the information was classified all along. Gerlach said this was incorrect.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS

A series of presidential executive orders has governed how officials should handle the ceaseless incoming stream of raw, usually unmarked information they acquire in their work. Since at least 2003, they have emphasized that information shared by a foreign government with an expectation or agreement of confidentiality is the only kind that is "presumed" classified.

The State Department's own regulations, as laid out in the Foreign Affairs Manual, have been unequivocal since at least 1999: all department employees "must ... safeguard foreign government and NATO RESTRICTED information as U.S. Government Confidential" or higher, according to the version in force in 2009, when these particular emails were sent.

"Confidential" is the lowest U.S. classification level for information that could harm national security if leaked, after "top secret" and "secret".

State Department staff, including the secretary of state, receive training on how to classify and handle sensitive information, the department has said. In March, Clinton said she was "certainly well aware" of classification requirements.

Reuters was unable to rule out the possibility that the State Department was now overclassifying the information in the emails, or applying the regulations in some other improper or unusual way.

John Fitzpatrick, the current ISOO director, said Reuters had correctly identified all the governing rules but said it would be inappropriate for his office to take a stance on Clinton's emails, in part because he did not know the context in which the information was given.

A spokeswoman for one of the foreign governments whose information appears in Clinton's emails said, on condition of anonymity to protect diplomatic relations, that the information was shared confidentially in 2009 with Clinton and her senior staff.

If so, it appears this information should have been classified at the time and not handled on a private unsecured email network, according to government regulations.

The foreign government expects all private exchanges with U.S. officials to be treated that way, the spokeswoman for the foreign government said.

Leonard, the former ISOO director, said this sort of information was improperly shared by officials through insecure channels more frequently than the public may realize, although more typically within the unsecured .gov email network than on private email accounts.

With few exceptions, officials are forbidden from sending classified information even via the .gov email network and must use a dedicated secure network instead. The difference in Clinton's case, Leonard said, is that so-called "spillages" of classified information within the .gov network are easier to track and contain.

 

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

 

[ACamp1900]

The four windowed Trump one is great....

 

[Cackalacky]

 

[connor_in]

 

[GATTACA!]

Exclusive: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest | Reuters

Fri Aug 21, 2015 1:06am EDT Related: POLITICS, AEROSPACE & DEFENSE
Exclusive: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest
NEW YORK | BY JONATHAN ALLEN

That does not sound good.

 

[wizards8507]

That does not sound good.

If the idiot Republicans had any sense, they'd stop criticizing Mrs. Clinton ASAP. The later in the cycle that shit REALLY hits the fan, the more the Democrats have to scramble to do damage control and/or find a new candidate.

 

[Irish#1]

If the idiot Republicans had any sense, they'd stop criticizing Mrs. Clinton ASAP. The later in the cycle that shit REALLY hits the fan, the more the Democrats have to scramble to do damage control and/or find a new candidate.

My guess is the idiot republicans will have plenty of dirt to throw, so the idiot Democrats will have to stay on their toes trying to do damage control.

 

[GATTACA!]

If the idiot Republicans had any sense, they'd stop criticizing Mrs. Clinton ASAP. The later in the cycle that shit REALLY hits the fan, the more the Democrats have to scramble to do damage control and/or find a new candidate.

It's too bad that right now the easiest way to score points in the primaries is to attack Clinton. If the GOP had their shit together and had three or four candidates instead of 17 they could simply run on their own merits. Instead they all have to try and make it out of this dog fight first. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

If the GOP just ran some moderate candidates and told the far right "too fucking bad" what are those people going to do? Not vote for a Republican? No way, they will still choose the lesser of two evils. Instead by going through these primaries all the candidates are trying to out extreme each other. Like wtf is Rubio doing by changing his opinion on the rape and incest exclusion on abortion?? Good way to lose all of the moderates support.

 

[wizards8507]

If the GOP just ran some moderate candidates and told the far right "too fucking bad" what are those people going to do? Not vote for a Republican?

Yes, actually. That's exactly what happened in 2012. Mitt Romney would have won the election if he had gotten the same turnout among Republicans as John McCain. But the base saw him as soft-to-liberal on social issues so they stayed home.

I'm not saying that any of those issues are good, bad, or indifferent, but it's an electoral fact that Republicans need evangelical turnout to win national elections.

 

[pkt77242]

Yes, actually. That's exactly what happened in 2012. Mitt Romney would have won the election if he had gotten the same turnout among Republicans as John McCain. But the base saw him as soft-to-liberal on social issues so they stayed home.

I'm not saying that any of those issues are good, bad, or indifferent, but it's an electoral fact that Republicans need evangelical turnout to win national elections.

Are you sure. I am pretty sure that I have seen some analysis that shows otherwise.

Karl Rove: The Myth of the Stay-at-Home Republicans - WSJ

 

[GATTACA!]

Yes, actually. That's exactly what happened in 2012. Mitt Romney would have won the election if he had gotten the same turnout among Republicans as John McCain. But the base saw him as soft-to-liberal on social issues so they stayed home.

I'm not saying that any of those issues are good, bad, or indifferent, but it's an electoral fact that Republicans need evangelical turnout to win national elections.

There's a difference between voter turnout and a willingness to vote for someone. I don't think people didn't vote for Romney because he was too moderate, it's definitely possible he didn't excite people to come out and vote. If youre correct they Republicans have no shot either way because there is no way you can carry the election with just the far right.

 

[wizards8507]

Are you sure. I am pretty sure that I have seen some analysis that shows otherwise.

Karl Rove: The Myth of the Stay-at-Home Republicans - WSJ

Karl Rove is everything that's wrong with the Republican party.

There's a difference between voter turnout and a willingness to vote for someone. I don't think people didn't vote for Romney because he was too moderate, it's definitely possible he didn't excite people to come out and vote. If youre correct they Republicans have no shot either way because there is no way you can carry the election with just the far right.

Depends on the issues and how they're sold. Immigration, for example, is a winning issue for Republicans despite media spin to the contrary. I think entitlement reform can be a winning issue if it's presented the right way, too. The Romney-Ryan plan in 2012 was fantastic but it was marketed extremely poorly. Allowing people the option to privatize their own Social Security is brilliant. It lets people out of the system while maintaining the system for those who are more comfortable relying on it.

 

[phgreek]

Karl Rove is everything that's wrong with the Republican party.


Depends on the issues and how they're sold. Immigration, for example, is a winning issue for Republicans despite media spin to the contrary. I think entitlement reform can be a winning issue if it's presented the right way, too. The Romney-Ryan plan in 2012 was fantastic but it was marketed extremely poorly. Allowing people the option to privatize their own Social Security is brilliant. It lets people out of the system while maintaining the system for those who are more comfortable relying on it.

Seriously...if the Federal Government offered me the ability to invest for myself what goes to SS, I'd be all over it. I'd abandon my due from years of paying in without a thought. I've been of the mindset for a number of years that there won't be social security for me, so anything is better than nothing.

 

[pkt77242]

Seriously...if the Federal Government offered me the ability to invest for myself what goes to SS, I'd be all over it. I'd abandon my due from years of paying in without a thought. I've been of the mindset for a number of years that there won't be social security for me, so anything is better than nothing.

Why would you think there wouldn't be anything for you? The worst case scenario is they will be paying out 75-80% of expected benefits and that is the worst case scenario, saying that we do nothing to shore it up.

 

[BGIF]

Yes, actually. That's exactly what happened in 2012. Mitt Romney would have won the election if he had gotten the same turnout among Republicans as John McCain. But the base saw him as soft-to-liberal on social issues so they stayed home.

Gee, how did that turn out for them?

They passed on voting for the guy far closer to their point of view and left the election by default to the candidate 180 degrees from their point of view. So the Republican base assured obamacare!

I'm not saying that any of those issues are good, bad, or indifferent, but it's an electoral fact that Republicans need evangelical turnout to win national elections.

Not true! Getting the Independent Vote is essential for a EITHER Democrat or a Republican to win national elections electorally. Neither party has enough votes in their party to win without the Independents.

 

[pkt77242]

Gee, how did that turn out for them?

They passed on voting for the guy far closer to their point of view and left the election by default to the candidate 180 degrees from their point of view. So the Republican base assured obamacare!




Not true! Getting the Independent Vote is essential for a EITHER Democrat or a Republican to win national elections electorally. Neither party has enough votes in their party to win without the Independents.

Interesting article from 2012 about how winning moderates won Obama the election.

Romney Won Independents, But Not The Election - Business Insider

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Seriously...if the Federal Government offered me the ability to invest for myself what goes to SS, I'd be all over it. I'd abandon my due from years of paying in without a thought. I've been of the mindset for a number of years that there won't be social security for me, so anything is better than nothing.

Yes.

 

[Fbolt]

Anytime you can keep your $ away from the government is good. Like most worthwhile programs - the opposition bet on the ignorance of the American voter. Safe bet.

 

[kmoose]

Anytime you can keep your $ away from the government is good.

For whom? Are you going to provide your own road maintenance, EMS/Fire/Police, military, and garbage services? Are you going to hand deliver your mail to people?

The government does a lot of good things with the money that it receives. The debate is not about whether or not we should share the financial burden of society; we should. The debate should be about wise, and fair, uses of those funds.

 

[connor_in]

Biden/Warren ticket...thoughts?

My Way News - Biden consults with Warren as he mulls 2016 presidential bid

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Biden/Warren ticket...thoughts?

My Way News - Biden consults with Warren as he mulls 2016 presidential bid

The Dems need him to run. Hillary could go to prison and Bernie isn't going to cut it.

 

[BGIF]

The Dems need him to run. Hillary could go to prison and Bernie isn't going to cut it.

You delude yourself. Hillary isn't going to prison for anything. This is 'merica, royalty doesn't go to jail.

 

[connor_in]

From the funny picture thread...

Is this going to become a theme?

 

[phgreek]

You delude yourself. Hillary isn't going to prison for anything. This is 'merica, royalty doesn't go to jail.

totally agree...The entirety of the FBI's findings won't see the light of day unless they say they can't recover anything. The Justice department will not bring perjury, obstruction, or charges related to handling/housing classified material. Nothing. The only way she gets whats coming to her is if the President pushes for it...and that ain't happening.

What we have here is a show, without any intent to actually do anything.