2016 Presidential Horse Race

[wizards8507]

So I heard on the radio a little while ago that they supposedly found that both Colin Powell and Condaleza Rice had confidential emails sent to their personal address. If true, what will be the response from those of you that constantly bang on Hillary for this?

Not a "gotcha" question. I'm honestly interested.

Condoleezza Rice Aides, Colin Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Emails - NBC News

A few points.

1. Colin Powell allegedly received two e-mails that are now classified status. Clinton had hundreds.

2. It was Rice's staffers, not Rice herself.

3. I see a huge difference between sending and receiving. Someone could send me instructions on how to join ISIS and build a bomb, but that doesn't make me a terrorist.

4. I also see a huge difference between information that is classified after the fact and information that was classified at the time of transmission. The former is perhaps negligent, but the latter is what I consider much more egregious.

*All of this is how I personally feel about the actions of the individuals involved. If the law says that receiving information that is classified after-the-fact is just as much a crime as sending a message that's top secret when you send it, they should all be investigated accordingly and prosecuted as appropriate.

 

[pkt77242]

our ancestors followed the rules/laws by and large...

To be fair they really didn't have any rules about immigration till the late 1800's and even then mostly it dealt with health issues (mental, physical or both) and then later (1917?) they had to read a passage in their own language (shockingly nothing on reading in English), not be a criminal (though I don't know how that could have been proven back then) and show that they had sufficient money (though mostly if they were in the lowest class arriving at Ellis Island, the higher class passengers were assumed to not be rebel rousers). So yes they followed the law mostly because we really didn't have laws about it or that they were meant to keep out sick people and criminals.

It wasn't until the 1920's that we became more serious about immigration and even then it was still relatively easy if you were from Europe.

Also we pretty much excluded the Chinese after 1880 until 1943.

 

[woolybug25]

A few points.

1. Colin Powell allegedly received two e-mails that are now classified status. Clinton had hundreds.

Isn't that like saying that a criminal only robbed one bank, so that's ok. It's not like he robbed several? Isn't a crime a crime? I get that severity of offense does matter, but it doesn't mean that there isn't a line crossed. Regardless of how many times its done.

2. It was Rice's staffers, not Rice herself.

She didn't report it. Bottom line, it's her email. Clinton could argue the same thing for many of her emails probably as well.

3. I see a huge difference between sending and receiving. Someone could send me instructions on how to join ISIS and build a bomb, but that doesn't make me a terrorist.

You're responsible for the correspondence of your email. If someone emails my bank email with instructions on how to commit wire fraud. You bet your arse that i'll be fired and legally responsible for not reporting it.

4. I also see a huge difference between information that is classified after the fact and information that was classified at the time of transmission. The former is perhaps negligent, but the latter is what I consider much more egregious.

What emails are you talking about specifically? I'm guessing the vast majority of people that have been calling Clinton a criminal the last 6 months have no idea who sent, who they were sent to, what they contained and/or the status of confidentiality at the time of remittance.

 

[pkt77242]

Of the several thousand emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server that have been released to the public, more than 180 have been redacted, meaning they contain information deemed classified. But State Department officials decided only in the past few months that this information should be classified.

This sort of classification upgrade occasionally happens when new information comes into play that affects the sensitivity of the information. Because the information was classified after the emails were sent, no one mishandled this information at the time by sending it over Clinton’s private server.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/sep/10/hillary-clintons-emails-classified-or-not/

Really is it any different than Powell? Also they haven't looked through all of Powell's emails so they could find more.

 

[GoIrish41]

You're describing pretty much every Republican candidate's position except for Donald Trump. Secure the border to stop the flow of new illegal immigrants. Implement mandatory eVerify systems and crack down on companies that hire illegal immigrants. Then figure out what to do with the folks who are here already.

This is what Mitt Romney termed "voluntary deportation." Crack down on companies that hire illegally, the work dries up, and the incentive for illegal immigration vanishes.

Since Trump entered the presidential race, I have not heard a single Republican talk about cracking down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants. Not one. And I certainly haven't heard anyone demonize the larger farmers and construction companies that illegally hire undocumented aliens in droves as part of their business model to maximize profits and keep prices down. But i've heard plenty of talk about the how the illegal behavior of foreigners entering this country is a national security risk, and even the notion that we can't let any Muslims come into the country because "how can we be sure they aren't terrorists?"

I'm certainly not advocating for Romney's "voluntary deportation," but I am pointing out that the GOP "solutions" to the immigration problem have grown more and more absurd over the past four years. Romney's big problem was that he tried to turn the stated policy into a bumper sticker and it backfired as callous and mean spirited (which, it kinda is). My larger point is that businesses who are the enablers of illegal immigration are never singled out for ridicule -- just the people who are trying to get by.

 

[wizards8507]

Isn't that like saying that a criminal only robbed one bank, so that's ok. It's not like he robbed several? Isn't a crime a crime? I get that severity of offense does matter, but it doesn't mean that there isn't a line crossed. Regardless of how many times its done.

Robbing a bank is not the same as sending an e-mail. If you get one e-mail from an old lady porn site, it's probably spam. If you get hundreds of e-mails from old lady porn sites, you probably signed up for them.

I think it's much different to receive one or two emails on a personal account than to ALWAYS conduct your work business from that account.

She didn't report it. Bottom line, it's her email. Clinton could argue the same thing for many of her emails probably as well.

No, it's not her email. It's someone who worked for her's email. If I do some sketchy stuff with my email, that might get me fired. It's not going to get my boss fired if she had no idea about it.

You're responsible for the correspondence of your email. If someone emails my bank email with instructions on how to commit wire fraud. You bet your arse that i'll be fired and legally responsible for not reporting it.

What emails are you talking about specifically? I'm guessing the vast majority of people that have been calling Clinton a criminal the last 6 months have no idea who sent, who they were sent to, what they contained and/or the status of confidentiality at the time of remittance.

If it were just the email story, I don't know if it would have become such a huge issue. For Mrs. Clinton, it's part of a pattern of above-the-rules arrogance from her and her husband. She doesn't get the benefit of the doubt for an "honest mistake."

 

[woolybug25]

Robbing a bank is not the same as sending an e-mail. If you get one e-mail from an old lady porn site, it's probably spam. If you get hundreds of e-mails from old lady porn sites, you probably signed up for them.

I think it's much different to receive one or two emails on a personal account than to ALWAYS conduct your work business from that account.

C'mon man... so it's a very serious crime when Clinton did it, but now that its someone else, it's "just an email"?

No, it's not her email. It's someone who worked for her's email. If I do some sketchy stuff with my email, that might get me fired. It's not going to get my boss fired if she had no idea about it.

It's her responsibility to know it. Not to mention, it's pretty clear that she knew before the news came out. It was never reported and it was done on her watch.

If it were just the email story, I don't know if it would have become such a huge issue. For Mrs. Clinton, it's part of a pattern of above-the-rules arrogance from her and her husband. She doesn't get the benefit of the doubt for an "honest mistake."

I see... that reads to everyone else like, "it's a big story because it was Clinton and I hate her". At least you're transparent about it.

 

[wizards8507]

Really is it any different than Powell? Also they haven't looked through all of Powell's emails so they could find more.

Maybe it's not, legally. But from an optics perspective, I see a difference between receiving two classified e-mails and sending and receiving ALL of your classified e-mails from a personal account.

I'm trying to think of an analogy. If some teammate snuck up behind Mark McGwire and shot his ass full of steroids two times in 1998, he would have been a first ballot hall of famer. That's way different that shooting yourself full of steroids over and over again for years. Both are equally against the rules, but one is worse.

Since Trump entered the presidential race, I have not heard a single Republican talk about cracking down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants. Not one. And I certainly haven't heard anyone demonize the larger farmers and construction companies that illegally hire undocumented aliens in droves as part of their business model to maximize profits and keep prices down. But i've heard plenty of talk about the how the illegal behavior of foreigners entering this country is a national security risk, and even the notion that we can't let any Muslims come into the country because "how can we be sure they aren't terrorists?"

I'm certainly not advocating for Romney's "voluntary deportation," but I am pointing out that the GOP "solutions" to the immigration problem have grown more and more absurd over the past four years. Romney's big problem was that he tried to turn the stated policy into a bumper sticker and it backfired as callous and mean spirited (which, it kinda is). My larger point is that businesses who are the enablers of illegal immigration are never singled out for ridicule -- just the people who are trying to get by.

You not seeing / hearing them say it does not mean they haven't said it. I'll admit that Trump's bluster takes up most of the air on the issue and little else is heard. I'll also admit that the Chamber of Commerce / WSJ wing of the party (Jeb Bush, his Right to Rise PAC, and John Kasich) love illegal immigration. They think amnesty is the key to the Hispanic vote.

FWIW, Obama's executive order on immigration gives amnesty to businesses who hire illegal workers.

 

[woolybug25]

For transparency sake, here's my opinion. I really didn't like the accusations regarding Clinton. I honestly felt that, if found true and deliberate, that it should disqualify her from running. As well as responsible legally.

That being said, now that it seemingly looks like this is a recurring issue (albeit different severities), I wonder if there is a broader issue not directly attributed to one person. If wire fraud happens consistently with one bank, you can harp on the people doing as much as you want. But if you don't put better security measures into place, then you aren't solving the problem.

From a Presidential Race standpoint, this is a boom for Clinton. Regardless of what comes out about severity of Powell and Rice, the general independent voter is now going to look at this as a systematic issue, not a Clinton issue.

 

[wizards8507]

C'mon man... so it's a very serious crime when Clinton did it, but now that its someone else, it's "just an email"?

It's her responsibility to know it. Not to mention, it's pretty clear that she knew before the news came out. It was never reported and it was done on her watch.

I see... that reads to everyone else like, "it's a big story because it was Clinton and I hate her". At least you're transparent about it.

Like I said, I'm talking about my personal opinion on the issue, now how I think they should be prosecuted. If there's an investigation and it turns out that everybody violated the same laws, then everybody should be indicted.

 

[phgreek]

Prosecute it the same way you would if it was a regular guy.

Amen...

 

[connor_in]

Des Moines Register calls for audit of Iowa results: 'Something smells in the Democratic Party' - POLITICO

In a strongly worded editorial on Thursday, The Des Moines Register called on the Iowa Democratic Party to move quickly to prove that Monday's results are correct.

The piece titled “Editorial: Something smells in the Democratic Party,” starts out: “Once again the world is laughing at Iowa.”

It gets sharper from there.

 

[woolybug25]

Des Moines Register calls for audit of Iowa results: 'Something smells in the Democratic Party' - POLITICO

Aren't some of their votes decided by coin flip? That's enough for me to laugh off their system. ha

 

[connor_in]

Aren't some of their votes decided by coin flip? That's enough for me to laugh off their system. ha

from the same article:

The editorial cites Clinton’s razor-thin victory as too close “not to do a complete audit of results.”

The newspaper editorial also said there were too many opportunities for error to arise.

“Too many accounts have arisen of inconsistent counts, untrained and overwhelmed volunteers, confused voters, cramped precinct locations, a lack of voter registration forms and other problems,” the editorial reads. “Too many of us, including members of the Register editorial board who were observing caucuses, saw opportunities for error amid Monday night’s chaos.”

The editorial ends by calling on the state's Democratic Party to “work with all the campaigns to audit results. Break silly party tradition and release the raw vote totals. Provide a list of each precinct coin flip and its outcome, as well as other information sought by the Register. Be transparent.”

 

[Black Irish]

. It is the all too present, "I got mine, but screw everyone else" mentality that I find objectionable about Republican positions on a wide variety of issues.

I feel the same way about the leftist/Democrat rhetoric about raising taxes. Multi-millionaires and billionaires are happy to raise income taxes, which has little impact on already accumulated wealth. So it strikes me as hypocritical when people like Warren Buffet or the Clintons, who have vast wealth socked away, want to raise taxes on those "fat cats" who have just gotten into the upper income bracket and are suddenly being called greedy bastards by people who have been rolling in cash for years. $400K a year puts you in top income bracket, so it's a bit rich (pun intended) to hear multi-millionaires with global influence shame those people about "not paying their fair share."

 

[kmoose]

Really is it any different than Powell? Also they haven't looked through all of Powell's emails so they could find more.

The thing about Clinton's emails, for me, is that they cast serious doubt on her judgement. She risked classified material simply because she couldn't be bothered to use two different smart phones. Something that I do, everyday. And I don't have a passel of assistants following me around that can manage said devices. If she were not running for President, then I wouldn't be as worried about it: It was bad judgement on her part, but I'm not outraged enough to care if she gets prosecuted for it. However, it does significantly impugn her judgement and integrity, in that she risked classified info, or even just sensitive info, based on her laziness or lack of organizational skills. And to me, by itself it would be enough of a question to keep me from voting her into the highest elected office in the land. That's how it's different than Powell. Powell is not asking America to trust him to be their Senior Executive and Commander-in-Chief.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

The thing about Clinton's emails, for me, is that they cast serious doubt on her judgement. She risked classified material simply because she couldn't be bothered to use two different smart phones. Something that I do, everyday. And I don't have a passel of assistants following me around that can manage said devices. If she were not running for President, then I wouldn't be as worried about it: It was bad judgement on her part, but I'm not outraged enough to care if she gets prosecuted for it. However, it does significantly impugn her judgement and integrity, in that she risked classified info, or even just sensitive info, based on her laziness or lack of organizational skills. And to me, by itself it would be enough of a question to keep me from voting her into the highest elected office in the land. That's how it's different than Powell. Powell is not asking America to trust him to be their Senior Executive and Commander-in-Chief.

I think it's likely that lots of people have done similar things. I bet we can find loads of personal congressional emails with classified information. Is it a good idea? No. Is it the kind of scandal that people are trying to make it with Clinton? No. People are making it seem like she was selling state secrets. The backlash, to me, is entirely politically motivated. Similar to Benghazi.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I'll try...

Ribbing all in good fun, but I sense you think immigration reform isn't a big issue. It is. It just would not tip me in this election given all the other flaming dumpster fires needing attention. Now, I don't think Kasich is real clear on what he wants to do...not sure if he is signaling an area of compromise or he just sees it as a giant moral and ethical cluster that has no bumper sticker solution. Either way, I think he is in the camp of secure the damned border...shut down the flow of illegals, and then address the illegals that are here...somehow. I think the somehow musings are what make people nervous. Don't blame them...

There's a perfectly cynical reason why it doesn't get solved: corporations benefit from the cheap labor and the parties benefit from using it as an issue. It gets a chunk of the Republican base to the polls, it gets Democrats' hispanics to the polls, it gets companies widen margins. So we could talk and talk and talk about how to fix the problem but the reality is it won't get fixed.

But anywho, we're approaching a decade since the last increase in illegal immigrants in this country.

A real solution to the issue is to go after the companies (ha! not going to happen) while giving the ones who have been here for years and decades (and more importantly, have American children...) an easy path to citizenship. Then there's the part where we do a complete review of our policies that are harming Mexico and Central America to see if we can help those places not be so shitty (ha! not going to happen), probably start with the War on Drugs.

Does it strike anyone as absurd that we know the number of illegal anything that exists?

Not really, no.

 

[Buster Bluth]

our ancestors followed the rules/laws by and large...

lolololol

 

[RDU Irish]

The thing about Clinton's emails, for me, is that they cast serious doubt on her judgement. She risked classified material simply because she couldn't be bothered to use two different smart phones. Something that I do, everyday. And I don't have a passel of assistants following me around that can manage said devices. If she were not running for President, then I wouldn't be as worried about it: It was bad judgement on her part, but I'm not outraged enough to care if she gets prosecuted for it. However, it does significantly impugn her judgement and integrity, in that she risked classified info, or even just sensitive info, based on her laziness or lack of organizational skills. And to me, by itself it would be enough of a question to keep me from voting her into the highest elected office in the land. That's how it's different than Powell. Powell is not asking America to trust him to be their Senior Executive and Commander-in-Chief.

Very well said - I would only add, who the F has their own private server? Survey congress and see how many are doing this. It is blatantly obvious to me that she valued control of her email above all else and could not be bothered to fall under the same process as everyone else. So we are all supposed to trust the Clintons have a better tech guy than the Department of Defense. As a lawyer she knows that the best defense is ignorance, an ability to delete emails gives her plausible deniability - which we all know Clintons hold in very high regard.

Really don't see how anyone can defend her on this, which is I guess why we see everyone marginalizing it. "Everyone does it!" "Just an email" "BFD"

 

[RDU Irish]

There's a perfectly cynical reason why it doesn't get solved: corporations benefit from the cheap labor and the parties benefit from using it as an issue. It gets a chunk of the Republican base to the polls, it gets Democrats' hispanics to the polls, it gets companies widen margins. So we could talk and talk and talk about how to fix the problem but the reality is it won't get fixed.

But anywho, we're approaching a decade since the last increase in illegal immigrants in this country.

A real solution to the issue is to go after the companies (ha! not going to happen) while giving the ones who have been here for years and decades (and more importantly, have American children...) an easy path to citizenship. Then there's the part where we do a complete review of our policies that are harming Mexico and Central America to see if we can help those places not be so shitty (ha! not going to happen), probably start with the War on Drugs.



Not really, no.

There is the graph I was going to look for. Two things - we have stepped up corporate responsibility AND the economy tanked. Put a pretty big dent in the growth chart. Then I have to wonder how the hell we know how many people are here illegally - I wouldn't be surprised if these numbers are just really unreliable. Maybe they use the same method of tracking but behaviors changed, I don't know.

Not a huge fan of punishing businesses for hiring people in their community, don't understand the need for them to enforce what the government screws up other than expediency. Assuming the graph at least captures some truth, scaring the shit out of companies has worked to some degree. Really seems a bit harsh to take away the livelihood of illegals and force them out like that. Kicking them out is incredibly disruptive to them and the businesses that have a hard time filling low skill positions with people that will actually show up and fly straight. Whether it is voluntary or not, deportation of 11 million people is economically dangerous and morally questionable. But again, the WalMarts of the world can deal with it efficiently while the true small business or start up can be bankrupted over a mistake in one more byzantine regulation.

Finally - why the hell is a pathway to citizenship so essential? Give them permanent resident status but get to the back of the line for citizenship. Anything less than 10 years to earn citizenship borders on amnesty IMO.

 

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

 

[EddytoNow]

To be fair they really didn't have any rules about immigration till the late 1800's and even then mostly it dealt with health issues (mental, physical or both) and then later (1917?) they had to read a passage in their own language (shockingly nothing on reading in English), not be a criminal (though I don't know how that could have been proven back then) and show that they had sufficient money (though mostly if they were in the lowest class arriving at Ellis Island, the higher class passengers were assumed to not be rebel rousers). So yes they followed the law mostly because we really didn't have laws about it or that they were meant to keep out sick people and criminals.

It wasn't until the 1920's that we became more serious about immigration and even then it was still relatively easy if you were from Europe.

Also we pretty much excluded the Chinese after 1880 until 1943.

And we are the descendants of those immigrants. If they hadn't been given an opportunity to live and prosper in America, then none of us (including the presidential candidates, senators, and congressional representatives of both parties) would be benefiting from their ancestors' sacrifices. Has the "Land of Opportunity" vanished from our vernacular? Or does opportunity only exist for a select few to be decided upon by those who have already benefited from a parent or grandparent who emigrated to America.

I am not opposed to immigration reform, but legal immigration must be applied without bias. It should not exclude immigrants based upon religion, ethnicity, economic status, level of education, etc.

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Rachel Maddow embraces both Clinton and Sanders at end of debate. I don't think I've ever seen a moderator do that before.</p>— Brit Hume (@brithume) <a href="https://twitter.com/brithume/status/695458804041908224">February 5, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I think there was a big kiss in the outtakes of the Candy Crowley debate in 2012. <a href="https://t.co/7kyWBmsDYw">https://t.co/7kyWBmsDYw</a></p>— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) <a href="https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/695459198293970944">February 5, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[wizards8507]

I am not opposed to immigration reform, but legal immigration must be applied without bias. It should not exclude immigrants based upon religion, ethnicity, economic status, level of education, etc.

Of course it should, and always has. Immigration policy is not and never has been about the immigrant. Immigration policy is about the citizen. You don't import poor, uneducated satanists.

 

[RDU Irish]

so EddytoNow proposes a straight up lottery for immigration? Put all the names in a hat and pull out a winner! Or is it a pure and open border with citizenship to anyone that can stumble into our country?

 

[wizards8507]

so EddytoNow proposes a straight up lottery for immigration? Put all the names in a hat and pull out a winner! Or is it a pure and open border with citizenship to anyone that can stumble into our country?

I believe that's what he's saying. Anyone who wants to be a citizen automatically is. It appears the only increased security he'd like from what we have today is documentation.