Jump to content

The Clinton Slush Fund


dirtyhairy
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, GEORGIAfan said:

It is about knowing that if the party loses, then it moves the american people further from his ideals . The best way to get his ideals done is to make sure the party closest to him wins and that they are adopting and making pillars of his ideals. Income inequality is now a major topic on the dem side because of him. Campaign Finance reform has always been a major part of the party platform, but until Bernie highlighted it, it was not a major pillar that politicians talked about. 

The pillars of his ideals...the democrats hold very few of them.  The Republicans hold less, for sure.  But this is about the best opportunity to change Washington and the way Washington operates.  And if he really believed he'd be changing anything, he'd be running 3rd party.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 226
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6 hours ago, kicker said:

The pillars of his ideals...the democrats hold very few of them.  The Republicans hold less, for sure.  But this is about the best opportunity to change Washington and the way Washington operates.  And if he really believed he'd be changing anything, he'd be running 3rd party.  

INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY

IT'S TIME TO MAKE COLLEGE TUITION FREE AND DEBT FREE

GETTING BIG MONEY OUT OF POLITICS AND RESTORING DEMOCRACY

CREATING DECENT PAYING JOBS

A LIVING WAGE

COMBATING CLIMATE CHANGE TO SAVE THE PLANET

A FAIR AND HUMANE IMMIGRATION POLICY

RACIAL JUSTICE

FIGHTING FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS

FIGHTING FOR LGBT EQUALITY

CARING FOR OUR VETERANS

MEDICARE FOR ALL

FIGHTING FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS

STRENGTHEN AND EXPAND SOCIAL SECURITY

FIGHTING TO LOWER PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES

IMPROVING THE RURAL ECONOMY

REFORMING WALL STREET

REAL FAMILY VALUES

WAR AND PEACE

WAR SHOULD BE THE LAST OPTION: WHY I SUPPORT THE IRAN DEAL

REAL TAX REFORM POLICIES THAT SEN. SANDERS HAS PROPOSED

HOW BERNIE PAYS FOR HIS PROPOSALS

 

https://berniesanders.com/issues/

 

Which of these do democrats not already hold? 

 

How does running third party actually change anything in Washington? Running third party hurts the party that he votes with over 90% of the time and hurts the candidate that he voted with 93% of the time. How did Nader's third party run help his values become more mainstream?  Nader's run did nothing to help push liberal values forward. 

You clearly have a romanticized view of third party, but you need to come back to reality. As long as we are a first past the post system, there will never be a viable third party. And if you wanted to change that, then you would have to do it WITHIN the system, which is exactly what bernie sanders said when asked about a third party run.  Our history shows that even when parties die, a new one will take its place as the second party. We have had two parties fighting each other since the Washington presidency. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, kicker said:

The pillars of his ideals...the democrats hold very few of them.  The Republicans hold less, for sure.  But this is about the best opportunity to change Washington and the way Washington operates.  And if he really believed he'd be changing anything, he'd be running 3rd party.  

How he runs and how he governs or intends to govern are very different things.

I'm not a Bernie supporter, but it is certainly possible to run as a major party nominee and still attempt to effect change in the status quo.

One of my biggest complaints about Sanders is that his policy is such that it will be impossible to enact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eatcorn said:

How he runs and how he governs or intends to govern are very different things.

I'm not a Bernie supporter, but it is certainly possible to run as a major party nominee and still attempt to effect change in the status quo.

One of my biggest complaints about Sanders is that his policy is such that it will be impossible to enact.

He's too impractical and too much of an ideologue to ever have my vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this applies to all politicians and not just Bernie, but I am so tired of hearing these ******** parrot about creating jobs without bringing any real plan to the table

 

edit: in all fairness I think that the global job market is going to be ****** in the next 20 years between 3D printing and fusion becoming a reality

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dago 3.0 said:

this applies to all politicians and not just Bernie, but I am so tired of hearing these ******** parrot about creating jobs without bringing any real plan to the table

 

edit: in all fairness I think that the global job market is going to be ****** in the next 20 years between 3D printing and fusion becoming a reality

Perhaps it's time to rethink our entire economic system, then.  Old ideologies that presume good-paying jobs for anyone who wants to work hard are outdated and not appropriate for the type of economy that you're talking about.  The causes of poverty in the economy you are describing are much different, so the tired old solutions (e.g., "bootstraps") are not going to address an economy where millions of jobs have been replaced with technology.  Either another sector of the economy has to emerge that provides good paying jobs for people, or we have to start considering different social policies that acknowledges there will be more people than jobs.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Trout_Farm said:

Perhaps it's time to rethink our entire economic system, then.  Old ideologies that presume good-paying jobs for anyone who wants to work hard are outdated and not appropriate for the type of economy that you're talking about.  The causes of poverty in the economy you are describing are much different, so the tired old solutions (e.g., "bootstraps") are not going to address an economy where millions of jobs have been replaced with technology.  Either another sector of the economy has to emerge that provides good paying jobs for people, or we have to start considering different social policies that acknowledges there will be more people than jobs.  

like I have said before...Arnold Schwarzenegger and Richard Dawson already showed us the future

richard-damion-the-running-man.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

I'm seeing where they're reporting that anywhere from 7 to 22 emails from her private server have information to top secret they can't even release heavily redacted versions. 

If this is true, how can they not indict her? 

Obama? IDK, she deserves to be locked away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

I'm seeing where they're reporting that anywhere from 7 to 22 emails from her private server have information so top secret they can't even release heavily redacted versions. 

If this is true, how can they not indict her? 

It has been confirmed by the Obama admin that 22 emails are not going to be released. HRC spokesperson has demanded they be released and states this is over classification. Also the SAP emails we were discussing before snake locked the thread was about an NY times article on drone strikes. Also it seems like 18 of the emails are being withheld because they were between Obama and Hillary. 

Quote

However, State spokesman John Kirby said they are part of a set the intelligence community inspector general told Congress contained information classified for discussing "Special Access Programs."

"These documents were not marked classified at the time they were sent," Kirby said in a statement. He said State is still looking into whether they should have been considered classified at the time they were created.

 

According to the law, there are five elements that must be met for a violation of the statute, and they can all be found in section (a) of the statute: “(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].”

As I have said before, 3, 4, 5 are speculative at best at this point. FBI is not going to recommend indictment unless they have rock solid proof on all three accounts. And considering that Obama just save HRC a ringing endorsement, I do not believe he feels that she is in any danger. If she was, then he would have continued to distance himself from the situation. And Biden would be running, since he has already stated that he wants to run for president. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

I'm seeing where they're reporting that anywhere from 7 to 22 emails from her private server have information so top secret they can't even release heavily redacted versions. 

If this is true, how can they not indict her? 

I don't think it's a crime for her to have received the emails.  If she sent them knowing they were top secret/classified, that's another matter.  They would have to prove that she sent classified material and that she knew the material was classified when she sent them, I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, GEORGIAfan said:

It has been confirmed by the Obama admin that 22 emails are not going to be released. HRC spokesperson has demanded they be released and states this is over classification. Also the SAP emails we were discussing before snake locked the thread was about an NY times article on drone strikes. Also it seems like 18 of the emails are being withheld because they were between Obama and Hillary. 

 

According to the law, there are five elements that must be met for a violation of the statute, and they can all be found in section (a) of the statute: “(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].”

As I have said before, 3, 4, 5 are speculative at best at this point. FBI is not going to recommend indictment unless they have rock solid proof on all three accounts. And considering that Obama just save HRC a ringing endorsement, I do not believe he feels that she is in any danger. If she was, then he would have continued to distance himself from the situation. And Biden would be running, since he has already stated that he wants to run for president. 

 

Thanks, you explained it much better than I did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

hillary-clinton-meme.jpg

Quote

How did Clinton receive and consume classified information?

The Secretary's office was located in a secure area. Classified information was viewed in hard copy by Clinton while in the office. While on travel, the State Department had rigorous protocols for her and traveling staff to receive and transmit information of all types.

A separate, closed email system was used by the State Department for the purpose of handling classified communications, which was designed to prevent such information from being transmitted anywhere other than within that system.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

Quote

So what's the difference between a modern-day cable and an e-mail? It has more to do with content than method of delivery. Both travel from computer to computer, but e-mails are reserved for person-to-person messages that are not intended for, or not of interest to, anyone but the addressees. Cables, on the other hand, usually contain more important information that's meant to be accessible to other diplomatic and military staff with the appropriate security clearance. As such, every electronic message that's classified as a cable is uploaded into a database for permanent storage. When drafting a cable, a sender can specify where the information should be saved, depending on its sensitivity. (Confidential messages, for example, end up in a networked database called ClassNet.) Put simply, if you want to send a personal note to Hillary Clinton about the agenda for next week's meeting, you'd use an e-mail. If you're transmitting an assessment of the Afghan elections, you'd send a cable.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/11/whats_a_diplomatic_cable.html

Before anyone cries Bias, the slate article is from 2010. Well prior to the current email "scandal". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another article on the 5 myths of classification

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-classified-information/2015/09/18/a164c1a4-5d72-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html

Quote

3. Anything classified is sensitive.

 

Many discussions of Clinton’s e-mail assume that all classified information deserves to be classified, often using the terms “classified” and “sensitive” interchangeably. The same assumption underlies frequent blanket statementsby officials that “unauthorized disclosure of classified information jeopardizes national security.”

In fact, the classification system is marked by discretion (intended) on the front end and uncertainty (unintended) on the back end. This lack of clear boundaries opens the door to a huge amount of unnecessary classification.

There are multiple incentives, unrelated to national security, to classify. It is easier and safer for busy officials to classify by rote rather than to pause for thought. Classification is a way for officials to enhance their status or protect agencies’ turf. It can hide embarrassing facts or evidence of misconduct. There are no countervailing disincentives, as classification decisions normally go unreviewed, and agencies do not punish overclassifying. The result is massive overclassification, a phenomenon noted by experts and blue ribbon commissions for decades. Current and former government officials have estimated that 50 to 90 percent of classified documents could safely be released.

One need look no further than Clinton’s own e-mails for evidence of this problem. In February 2010, Clinton’s top foreign policy adviser e-mailed that he was unable to send her a statement by former British prime minister Tony Blair because someone had entered it into the State Department’s classified system, “for reasons that elude me.” Clinton responded incredulously: “It’s a public statement!” Yet her adviser was unable to access it, let alone send it to an unsecured e-mail address. Clinton also has come under fire for e-mailsthat referenced the CIA’s “top secret” drone strikes in Pakistan — a program well known to our friends and enemies around the world.

4. Any mishandling of classified information is illegal.

Some 2016 presidential candidates have not hesitated to label the mishandling of classified information as criminal, with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee calling Clinton’s actions “beyond outrageously illegal.” Even a New York Times article stated flatly, “Mishandling classified information is a crime.”

In fact, in a nod to the complexities of handling classified information, the law criminalizes only violations that are “knowing,” “negligent” or the like. The law falls short, however, in failing to give express protection to knowing releases of classified information by whistleblowers. The Obama administration has used the Espionage Act — a statute meant to target spies and traitors — to prosecute federal employees who revealed waste, fraud and abuse. Judges allowed these cases to go forward even though none of the defendants harmed or intended to harm national security.

 

Another quote from another article about public articles with classified emails. 

Quote

The Department of Defense, in its own directive to military personnel and contractors, says that simply viewing these documents, without proper authorization, will violate long-standing rules even though they are accessible to the public at large on Internet sites.

...

“Classified information, whether or not already posted on public websites or disclosed to the media, remains classified, and must be treated as such by federal employees and contractors, until it is declassified by an appropriate U.S. Government authority,” said the notice sent on Friday afternoon by the Office of Management and Budget, which is part of the White House, to agency and department heads, urging them to distribute it to their staff.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/world/05restrict.html?referer=

Recently there was the letter that the IG sent to congress that got leaked about SAP. We later found out that the email was about a public article about drone strikes. For those not paying attention, it was a new bombshell, but here is an article from AUGUST talking about said email.

Quote

Clinton didn't transmit the sensitive information herself, they said, and nothing in the emails she received makes direct reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or any other form of sensitive sourcing.

The drone exchange, the officials said, begins with a copy of a news article about the CIA drone program that targets terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere. While that program is technically top secret, it is well-known and often reported on. Former CIA director Leon Panetta and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, have openly discussed it.

The copy makes reference to classified information, and a Clinton adviser follows up by dancing around a top secret in a way that could possibly be inferred as confirmation, the officials said. Several people, however, described this claim as tenuous.

But a second email reviewed by Charles McCullough, the intelligence community inspector general, appears more problematic, officials said. Nothing in the message is "lifted" from classified documents, they said, though they differed on where the information in it was sourced. Some said it improperly points back to highly classified material, while others countered that it was a classic case of what the government calls "parallel reporting" — receiving information the government considers secret through "open source" channels.

The issue came to light Tuesday after Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said McCullough found four "highly classified" emails on the unusual private server that Clinton used while she was secretary of state. Two were sent back to the State Department for review, but Grassley said the other two were, in fact, classified at the closely guarded "Top Secret/SCI level." SCI stands for "sensitive compartmented information," which can only be examined under strict security protocols.

Doesn't that bolded part sound JUST like the new " leaks" that the media got this month. This is a witch hunt in January to hurt HRC numbers before the IA Caucus. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

‘This was all planned’: Former IG says Hillary, State Dept. are lying

January 31, 2016 | 5:10am

 
Modal Trigger
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2010Photo: Getty Images

 

The State Department is lying when it says it didn’t know until it was too late that Hillary Clinton was improperly using personal e-mails and a private server to conduct official business — because it never set up an agency e-mail address for her in the first place, the department’s former top watchdog says.

“This was all planned in advance” to skirt rules governing federal records management, said Howard J. Krongard, who served as the agency’s inspector general from 2005 to 2008.

 
Edited by dirtyhairy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2016 at 3:40 PM, mdrake34 said:

I'm seeing where they're reporting that anywhere from 7 to 22 emails from her private server have information so top secret they can't even release heavily redacted versions. 

If this is true, how can they not indict her? 

It has also come out Obama sent Hillary 18 emails regarding this and then Obama goes into a press conference and tells us all, "I didn't know about the emails untill I saw it in the media". He has said that many times before and we all know it is a lie. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dirtyhairy said:

It has also come out Obama sent Hillary 18 emails regarding this and then Obama goes into a press conference and tells us all, "I didn't know about the emails untill I saw it in the media". He has said that many times before and we all know it is a lie. 

It's good to be a democrat...Put the shoe on the other foot and all h.ell breaks lose for a conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, The Great American said:

Most scholars know that its been a screwed up region since the dawn of civilization and Bush has had little effect in the big scheme of things. 

 

So false it is not funny.

 

Sadam Hussein as evil as he was would have crushed a group like Isis........ It was Bush's   ill fated decision to go into Iraq with no  viable exit r stabilization strategy  that helped   give groups like Isis the platform  to  grow and expand.  The rise of groups like Isis  can be laid DIRECTLY at the feet of our  incompetent foreign policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, The Great American said:

Most scholars know that its been a screwed up region since the dawn of civilization and Bush has had little effect in the big scheme of things. 

I always gotta laugh at the people who think that the Middle East has been in a perpetual state of war throughout history. I also laugh at the irony of them mocking the Middle East for their supposed war-like culture when this country has been at war for nearly its entire existence.

PS. You can thank Bush for ISIS, and the great power vacuum that he created.

In before one of the right-wing loonies on here say we should've just left thousands of American soldiers over there indefinitely to get shot at. Of course, we all know how much right wingers on here love dead soldiers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...