US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3907

Hillary broke a couple of internal state department rules out of unfamiliarity with computers and personal convenience for her use of e-mails.

On May 31 2016 08:28 oBlade wrote:
It's basically sounding like the only difference between the two examples is you personally don't like one of the candidates.

On May 31 2016 08:32 SK.Testie wrote:

This is the narrative we're accepting? MSNBC isn't even accepting that anymore. She lied, and lied, and lied about it some more. She double downed on lying. If it was an honest mistake, she probably could have moved on immediately. But lying about something consistently for that long knows that you majorly fucked up.

On May 31 2016 08:41 kwizach wrote:

Yes, it's the narrative we're accepting, because that's what happened. Regardless, if your problem with Hillary is that she lied over the virtual non-issue that is her e-mails, perhaps you should stop supporting the guy whose entire candidacy is based on lies, bluster, simplistic statements and insults.

On May 31 2016 09:01 GreenHorizons wrote:

Well at least we got as far as admitting she lied repeatedly about a "virtual non-issue", maybe in a couple months we can get to "maybe she's lying about important things too...?"

On May 31 2016 09:07 kwizach wrote:

What important things do you think Sanders is lying about, considering he lied about releasing his tax returns?

On May 31 2016 09:10 GreenHorizons wrote:

That he likes Hillary.

On May 31 2016 09:15 Jaaaaasper wrote:
So can we talk about how sanders has been accused of abusing his position as senator to help his wife get the loans that ruined Burlington college?

On May 31 2016 09:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Hell, favoring Sanders over Hillary due to personal trustworthiness and transparency (where I can certainly concede that a transparent private life is more likely to lead to a transparent presidency) is also legitimate imo - even if it requires some degree of naivete to accept his political platform as attainable.

Nearly 40,000 striking Verizon (VZ) workers are scheduled to return to work Wednesday after reaching a tentative agreement on a new contract that provides gains for both the communications giant and its employees.

The timetable for restoring normal working scheduled was announced Monday, three days after both sides reached an agreement in principle to end a strike that began in April and became one of the broadest U.S. job actions in recent years.

The Communications Workers of America said the deal terms, subject to approval by Verizon's union members, include 1,300 new East Coast call center jobs and 10.9% wage hikes over four years, a boost from the 6.5% hike the company offered before the strike.

New York-based Verizon said the company will achieve cost savings and avoidance through healthcare plan design changes, adoption of Medicare Advantage plans for the company's retirees and increased flexibility in call sharing.

"The addition of good new jobs at Verizon is a huge win not just for striking workers, but for our communities and the country as a whole," CWA President Chris Shelton said in a statement announcing details of the tentative agreement.

Verizon CEO Marc Reed said terms of the agreement "will allow our business to be more flexible and competitive and will help achieve greater efficiencies as we operate in the ever changing and dynamic digital marketplace."

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the other major union representing Verizon workers, could not immediately be reached for comment Monday. However, IBEW President Lonnie Stephenson in a Friday statement said his union's workers "look forward to returning to work serving their customers, working under a strong pro-worker and pro-jobs contract."

Verizon deployed thousands of non-union employees and contractors to fill in for striking installers, customer service employees repairmen and other landline and cable workers along the East Coast during the nearly seven-week job action. However, the strike slowed some services for Verizon customers.

On May 31 2016 09:57 kwizach wrote:

Actually, when it comes to tax transparency, Clinton is the transparent candidate and Sanders isn't. As David Cay Johnston argues here, Sanders is helping the future candidates who will want to keep their tax returns secret. He's doing a disservice to existing standards of transparency.

On May 31 2016 10:16 GreenHorizons wrote:


If Brock isn't paying you, he should be.

On May 31 2016 10:16 GreenHorizons wrote:

If Brock isn't paying you, he should be.

What's interesting now, is because it's leveraged against Hillary's transcripts, she has control over both the "existing standard of transparency" and future standards.

If Hillary want's to keep her transcripts private and her supporters are willing to defend her on it, there will now be a precedent for candidates/spouses to collect millions of dollars for "speaking" to big money donors and then turn around and say that there's no reason the American public should want to know what they said in at those private speeches they got paid millions of dollars to give.

At best the "standard" is one more year. I wish Bernie would release them just to kill the talking point altogether, since Hillary isn't releasing what she said for the money (which is the part people want to know) no matter what, and they are just going to come out in the general anyway.

But alas, Bernie doesn't have the "wingin' it" skills Trump has employed in creating a new campaign rule book, nor does he have quite the widespread brooding contempt with the party to work with. Too bad lifespans aren't a bit longer so his age wasn't such an issue, because in 4-8 years America is finally going to be ready for him.

In comments to Wolf Blitzer on CNN midday Tuesday, Jane Sanders revealed that she and her husband either lack an understanding of the historic reasons it is crucial that presidential candidates release many years of complete tax returns, that they lack a broad regard for integrity in government, or that they have something to hide.

The latter concern grows from Jane Sanders’ own conduct. First, she falsely asserted that the couple had repeatedly released tax returns, an assertion with no basis in fact as my April 13 National Memo column showed. Then there was her role as the president of a small, financially struggling nonprofit college, where she reportedly funneled $500,000 to her daughter and may have made false statements on bank loan papers.

But even if the Sanders tax returns are clean as a whistle, we should care about the Sanders tax returns. [...] We should care because we want every single person running for president to make public their complete tax returns – including schedules, statements and worksheets – for many years so that we do not ever again have an unindicted felon in the White House or an admitted tax cheat just a heartbeat away.

If a white hat politician like Sanders will not follow a tradition dating to the corrupt, tax-cheating presidency of Richard Nixon and his first vice president, Spiro Agnew, it gives aid and comfort to those who want to hide their black hat conduct. [...]

Plenty of people who want to exercise power over us from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will want to keep their tax returns out of public record now and for as long as the United States of America endures. Many of them who have something to hide will cite Sanders as their model. [...]

On May 31 2016 10:47 Jaaaaasper wrote:
I still want to know when Bernie Supporters scream about shills when Bernie spent 16 million dollars on revolution messaging (who claim to be running the subreddit btw) vs the one million she spent. Source

On May 31 2016 10:33 JW_DTLA wrote:


This right here is exactly why the Sander's movement will collapse into nothing. Every argument, even from Bernie, rapidly devolves into ad hominem accusations of corruption. Even my Bernie friends on Facebook do it. You go straight to personal insults even when dealing with other Liberals. How do you think that will go over with Conservatives? Conservatives and Liberals can have real political convictions without being in the thrall of Wall Street or some other imaginary Bernie boogieman.

EDIT: prediction: when Bernie gets voted down by the delegates and his campaign loses finally, all Bernie will have left are his accusations that everyone who beat him is Corrupt. He is a small man who belittles anyone who disagrees with him as being Corrupted by Wall Street or the Establishment. He will flame out with nothing left but the recriminations.

On May 31 2016 10:47 Jaaaaasper wrote:
I still want to know when Bernie Supporters scream about shills when Bernie spent 16 million dollars on revolution messaging by January (who claim to be running the subreddit btw) vs the one million she spent. Source

On May 31 2016 10:42 kwizach wrote:

Ah, the usual deflection. Releasing speech transcripts like these is not something that has ever been expected of any presidential candidate. Releasing one's tax returns is the standard, and it's a very important standard, which is why there was so much pressure on Romney to release his in the 2012 election.

But sure, keep pretending that David Cay Johnston is a "paid shill" as well. The fact is that by refusing to release his tax returns, and by lying about doing so, Sanders is undermining an important standard in presidential politics, and it's a standard that should be absolutely fundamental to anyone who thinks the role of money in politics is an important issue. To quote the article by DCJ I linked to:

There is simply no excuse for Sanders not to release his tax returns. That's what's expected of presidential candidates.