US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3392

On March 19 2016 01:22 Gorsameth wrote:

Which is why such initiatives have to come from those with power. If the government or large insurance companies tell a hospital they can either provide insight into their cost/quality or not receive their customers anymore then they have little choice but the comply.

ps.
How is 'Free market healthcare' supposed to work when they forbid cost/quality comparisons? The entire basis of free market rests upon openness of information to allow consumers to make the best choice.

On March 19 2016 01:29 Plansix wrote:

Because the core of the case is her releasing top secret information or putting it as risk of being released. It has not been proven that she released the information, only that she had a private server that put that put a small amount of information(6 emails) at risk.

In contrast David Petraeus released top secret information to his mistress and did so knowingly. She was not authorized to have that information and it was a crime. He was charged and received probation, while also having to resign. I don't think he should have gotten jail time, but I would be upset if Clinton was charged with anything more severe than what he was charged with. I personally think this is all a huge waste of time.

Of course the final details are different, but the core of the case is putting top secret information as risk. One was done intentionally, while the other was due to poor practices and we cannot confirm any information was released.

And of course I think people should be held accountable, but it should be everyone. Not just the democratic front runner. And I don’t think poor practices that happened under the review of the NSA should be the sole fault that person. The NSA should be clamping down on this shit, not expect civilian elected or appointed officials build their offices around security requirements. This isn’t fixing the problem, it’s a politically motivated witch hunt.

The NSA should be clamping down on this shit, not expect civilian elected or appointed officials build their offices around security requirements.

On March 19 2016 01:55 Plansix wrote:
Yes, congress should be addressing these issues by updating security in government agencies, sending money doing so and updating policies. But they haven’t and are working with a dated system where everyone is forced to risk violating the rules or doing their job. But that isn’t what congress is doing, its try to pin this issue on Clinton because….well we know exactly why they are doing that.

On March 19 2016 02:12 KwarK wrote:
If Trump was getting record turnouts all voting his way that'd be one thing. But when you have two large crowds, one very pro-Trump, one voting to try and stop Trump, you can't extrapolate that he'll have both supporting him in the general.

I don't think there is no relationship but I don't think the relationship is as simple as "if one is high the other will be too". Obama's 2008 primary turnout was certainly prophetic of the election but that's because they were getting out to vote for him. A lot of Republican voters are getting out there to vote against Trump which is unlikely to help him come the election.

On March 18 2016 11:32 Doraemon wrote:
can someone explain how this whole merrick thing will negatively affect the republicans? is it just the whole public image of them that's going to lose them votes, being portrayed as obstructionists

Thousands of US government employees under permanent surveillance are being investigated for signs of “greed”, “ego”, money worries, disgruntlement or other flaws in the hope of intercepting the next big official leak, according to a document obtained by Chelsea Manning.

The extent of the government’s internal surveillance system designed to prevent massive leaks of the sort linked to WikiLeaks and the former NSA contractor Edward Snowden is revealed in the document, published here by the Guardian for the first time. The US soldier, who is serving 35 years in military prison as the source of the 2010 WikiLeaks disclosure of secret state documents, requested her own intelligence file under freedom of information laws.

The file was compiled under the “Insider Threat” program that was set up by President Obama in the wake of Manning’s disclosures. The file shows that officials have been using Manning’s story as a case study from which they have built a profile of the modern official leaker in the hope of catching future disclosures before they happen.

On March 19 2016 02:36 ticklishmusic wrote:
I have a friend who works for the Air Force as an analyst of some sort. Apparently they periodically polygraph her and ask if she's a terrorist.