|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 26 2016 02:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2016 01:54 SolaR- wrote:On May 26 2016 01:38 Plansix wrote:On May 26 2016 01:30 SolaR- wrote:
I am an atheist who is basically an anti-theist and I'm voting for trump. I am sure there are many closet trump supporters out there. Only my girlfriend, family, and very close friends know I'm voting for trump. Everyone else I'm in the closet.Kind of have to be as a trump supporter in our age group. Most of my friends are very democrat and believe in the rhetoric that all trump supporters are racist/sexist. Can't claim you're a trump supporter unless you want to be labeled. I don’t believe every Trump supporter is racists. I just believe Trump is pandering to racists for their votes and is receiving a lot of support from known racists. And this belief has evolved and been affirmed over time. And that is one of the numerous reasons why I believe he cannot be in that office and is dangerous. The overuse of the word rhetoric in political discussions is just a way to devalue peoples own assessment and review of Trump and Clinton. Of course there are biased sources, but it is possible to find solid information within that biased coverage. From our discussions on TL, I have learned that you do not think all Trump supporters are racist. People on TL are generally more informed and not as simple-minded. However, the average college graduate at least in my area gets the majority of their news on buzzfeed and social media. They all think that trump supporters are all old white racist men. I only used the word rhetoric, because the average person seems easily motivated by it. For example, my girlfriend and I have recently joined a new circle of friends who are your typical bernie supporters. They all gossip about who they know supports trump and label that person ignorant or what not. I could not tell those people that I support trump without them making unfair judgements about me. Obviously, this applies on the other end as well. Conservatives claiming liberals are tearing our country a part and that they are weak and a bunch of other bullshit. Sadly, alot of peope treat poltics like the Nfl. They have to have a team they rally behind and constantly talk about why their team is better than your team. To be honest, that is a problem with a lot of recent college grads who were able to cherry pick their groups and who they associated with. And in that part of life, there is always another group to join if you burn some bridges. That changes when work and other aspects of life that doesn’t give them that option and the realization that its hard to meet people sets in. That and it is likely their first election and they don’t realize that they have a lot of these ahead of them. Some day they have to ask themselves the question of “why does this person I like support Trump? And do I care that much?” You should watch “The Best of Enemies” which shows the rise of the “two sides” focused political media. Watch it with those friends, it will be a good discussion.
Thanks. I will check it out. 
|
This won't help in the poll numbers and probably puts pressure on the Obama administration:
|
I love how there are totally opposite interpretations of what the report means. It was her state department (as well as others) that was being raked in the report, that other SoS's also screwed up doesn't make her screw ups acceptable imo.
Though if the whole getting FP advice from Kissinger doesn't turn off a Hillary supporter I don't think there's much that could.
|
On May 26 2016 02:53 GreenHorizons wrote:I love how there are totally opposite interpretations of what the report means. It was her state department (as well as others) that was being raked in the report, that other SoS's also screwed up doesn't make her screw ups acceptable imo. Though if the whole getting FP advice from Kissinger doesn't turn off a Hillary supporter I don't think there's much that could.
Unless they are going to press charges against Powell and everyone else, I don't see this as anything more than a systemic problem within Washington. The problem with this focus on Clinton endlessly criticizing and how she much to blame is that it doesn't fix anything. There are likely numerous goverment agencies that have practices that are just as bad.
|
She also reportedly refused to cooperate with the investigation, as did several of her aides.
|
Nearly every single federal agency has its own sort of culture relative to how closely various procedures are followed. That the SoS has a history of lax security measures relative to email handling ought surprise no one, though it does seem that Hillary eschewed the rules in her own way.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
To be honest it looks like the State Department will bear most of the flak for this and Hillary will only bear a minor portion of the fallout. Such is my interpretation of this repot.
|
On May 26 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2016 02:53 GreenHorizons wrote:I love how there are totally opposite interpretations of what the report means. It was her state department (as well as others) that was being raked in the report, that other SoS's also screwed up doesn't make her screw ups acceptable imo. Though if the whole getting FP advice from Kissinger doesn't turn off a Hillary supporter I don't think there's much that could. Unless they are going to press charges against Powell and everyone else, I don't see this as anything more than a systemic problem within Washington. The problem with this focus on Clinton endlessly criticizing and how she much to blame is that it doesn't fix anything. There are likely numerous goverment agencies that have practices that are just as bad.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Clinton disregarded various State Department guidelines for avoiding cybersecurity risks, an internal audit found Wednesday, faulting her and past secretaries of state for weak information management.
The inspector general's 78-page analysis, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, cites "longstanding, systemic weaknesses" related to the agency's communications. These started before Clinton's appointment as secretary of state, but her failures were singled out as more serious.
Source
|
On May 26 2016 02:53 GreenHorizons wrote:I love how there are totally opposite interpretations of what the report means. It was her state department (as well as others) that was being raked in the report, that other SoS's also screwed up doesn't make her screw ups acceptable imo. Though if the whole getting FP advice from Kissinger doesn't turn off a Hillary supporter I don't think there's much that could.
The end result is that she's not getting in any sort of legal trouble. Oversight completely failed to do their job. 5 people in her position did the same thing. No matter how you look at it, this report excludes the possibility of anything legal happening.
|
If that is the Democratic strategy to say the rules weren't communicated clearly or enough times then expect Trump to have a field day.
|
On May 26 2016 03:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
If that is the Democratic strategy to say the rules weren't communicated clearly or enough times then expect Trump to have a field day.
Or that "all of them did it"... It's like they have no idea what Trump is running on lol.
|
On May 26 2016 02:59 Jormundr wrote:
She also reportedly refused to cooperate with the investigation, as did several of her aides.
This has been going on since 2013 when the GOP used 5 separate committees they ran to investigate Benghazi. Watergate only required one and was over in a few months. Bill Clinton's impeachment took about 1 year. This shit has been going on for years and never ended. The 2015 discovery of the emails was after 2 years of nothing out of Benghazi.
So yeah, I sort of see why they resisted the investigation. Its been a joke for a while now and has lead to nothing. Just +$10 million down the tubes so we can know something that was pretty much common knowledge in DC, goverment agencies suck at secure email. Clinton was bad at it and it wasn't safe. Also it can't be proven to have done any damage, it just was bad practices.
|
On May 26 2016 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2016 02:53 GreenHorizons wrote:I love how there are totally opposite interpretations of what the report means. It was her state department (as well as others) that was being raked in the report, that other SoS's also screwed up doesn't make her screw ups acceptable imo. Though if the whole getting FP advice from Kissinger doesn't turn off a Hillary supporter I don't think there's much that could. The end result is that she's not getting in any sort of legal trouble. Oversight completely failed to do their job. 5 people in her position did the same thing. No matter how you look at it, this report excludes the possibility of anything legal happening.
I suppose this is a preview for what her presidency would look like..."Well the people before me made the same (not really) mistake so I should be absolved of any responsibility".
|
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s (D-FL) days as chair of the Democratic National Committee could be numbered, according to a Tuesday report from The Hill, as elected officials discuss replacing her ahead of the general election.
Anonymous sources in the party told the site they’re concerned Wasserman Schultz has become too divisive a character during the primary season and her leading the committee into November could set back efforts to rally around the nominee.
“There have been a lot of meetings over the past 48 hours about what color plate do we deliver Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s head on,” a Democratic senator who backs Hillary Clinton said. “I don’t see how she can continue to the election. How can she open the convention?”
The senator also said “Sanders supporters would go nuts” if Wasserman Schultz was allowed to continue and that about a dozen lawmakers have talked about the prospect behind closed doors.
Another anonymous senior Democratic senator confirmed to CNN lawmakers are discussing removing the chair.
"There is a lot of sentiment that replacing her would be a good idea. It is being discussed quietly among Democratic senators on the floor, in the cloakroom and in lunches," the lawmaker said.
But Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) told The Hill she wasn’t aware of any talk about usurping the chair and said Wasserman Schultz “really gave a lot of room to Bernie supporters.”
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), asked about the prospect of an ouster, said: “That’s not going to happen. I certainly wouldn’t let it happen.”
In a statement to TPM, DNC spokeswoman Luis Miranda downplayed the anonymously-sourced reports and said the chair would continue to focus on uniting the party.
Source
|
I hope they've at least done a review of email practices by the president, and all cabinet level departments; established new rules for concerns, so they get sent up to a bosses' boss or somesuch if not dealt with to make sure they get properly addressed (i.e. if your boss doesn't want to follow proper email rules, sending something to their boss)
|
ExxonMobil moved to squash a well-established congressional lecture series on climate science just nine days after the presidential inauguration of George W Bush, a former oil executive, the Guardian has learned.
Exxon’s intervention on the briefings, revealed here for the first time, adds to evidence the oil company was acutely aware of the state of climate science and its implications for government policy and the energy industry – despite Exxon’s public protestations for decades about the uncertainties of global warming science.
Indeed, the company moved swiftly during the earliest days of the Bush administration to block public debate on global warming and delay domestic and international regulations to cut greenhouse gas emissions, according to former officials of the US Global Change Research Program, or USGCRP.
The Bush White House is now notorious for censoring climate scientists and blocking international action on climate change by pulling the US out of the Kyoto agreement.
The oil company is under investigation by 17 attorney generals for misleading the public about climate change, and is facing a shareholder revolt at its annual general meeting on Wednesday by investors pressing Exxon for greater disclosure about the effect of climate change on its profits.
In early 2001, however, after Al Gore lost the White House to George Bush, Exxon officials apparently saw a chance to influence the incoming administration, according to former officials of the research program.
The government agency was set up in 1990 and charged with producing definitive reports to Congress every four years on the effects of climate change on the US. In the mid-1990s, as part of its legal mandate, USGCRP began organizing monthly seminars on climate science for elected officials and staffers in Congress.
On 29 January 2001, nine days after Bush’s inauguration, Arthur Randol, a former senior environmental advisor at Exxon, telephoned Nicky Sundt, then communications director for the research program, to inquire about the future of the lecture series.
Source
|
On May 26 2016 03:38 zlefin wrote:
I hope they've at least done a review of email practices by the president, and all cabinet level departments; established new rules for concerns, so they get sent up to a bosses' boss or somesuch if not dealt with to make sure they get properly addressed (i.e. if your boss doesn't want to follow proper email rules, sending something to their boss)
Yeah I can't imagine this will be continuing. I'm sure more than a few people have been blasted to pieces over letting this go on for the past 5 people to occupy the position lol.
|
On May 26 2016 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2016 03:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
If that is the Democratic strategy to say the rules weren't communicated clearly or enough times then expect Trump to have a field day. Or that "all of them did it"... It's like they have no idea what Trump is running on lol.
Yeah, Trump has been more than happy to throw the Bush Administration under the bus. Hillary isn't going to be able hide behind the "all of them did it" excuse.
|
While I know some have said this current congress is the worst one ever; from my watching of cspan, I've found that while it has numerous things I dislike and detest, I think the previous 1-2 congresses were worse; and that things have gotten slightly better/more civil.
|
Anyone wanna draw up a list of what else these eleven states share in common?
Eleven states and state officials filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging the Obama administration over federal guidance directing schools to allow transgender students to use restrooms and other facilities that match their gender identities.
The federal lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, states that this guidance “has no basis in law” and could cause “seismic changes in the operations of the nation’s school districts.”
This legal challenge has been hinted at by officials since the Obama administration released a letter earlier this month from two federal agencies — the Justice Department and the Education Department — that said they were issuing it in response to questions from school districts and schools.
“There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex,” Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said in a statement when this letter was released. “This guidance gives administrators, teachers, and parents the tools they need to protect transgender students from peer harassment and to identify and address unjust school policies.”
In that letter, the two agencies cited Title IX, which prohibits sexual discrimination at educational facilities that receive federal funding, and said that this extended to how schools treat transgender students. The lawsuit filed Wednesday argues that the Obama administration was “officially foisting its new version of federal law” on schools with this guidance and went on to accuse federal officials of seeking “to rewrite Title IX by executive fiat.”
This lawsuit — which bears the names of nine states as well as a governor and another state’s education department — is the first filed in response to the administration’s letter. Although some politicians, parents, elected officials and school districts embraced the directive, others aggressively argued against it and said the administration was overstepping its authority.
After the guidance was made public, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) said that his state would fight the letter because Obama is “not a king.” Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, accused Obama of trying to “bully Texas schools into allowing men to have open access to girls in bathrooms” and vowed a legal fight.
Last week, Paxton and the attorneys general of two other states — Oklahoma and West Virginia — wrote to the agencies that issued the guidance questioning whether states could lose federal funding if they don’t follow the letter. Joy Hofmeister, the state education chief in Oklahoma, had been among those who immediately objected after the guidance was released, calling it “disturbing” that that it carried “an implicit threat of loss of federal funds.”
Paxton argued Wednesday that the lawsuit was needed to protect Texas schools, saying that they face losing federal money “for simply following common sense policies that protect their students.” Jeff Landry, the attorney general for Louisiana, who also signed on to the lawsuit Wednesday, said he would “not allow Washington to wreak further havoc on our schools.”
Eleven states sue Obama administration over bathroom directive
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
