Saturday morning links

Re: "Trump is no conservative."

He is a moderate Republican in the traditional Northeast mold with a strong populist streak.

The majority of self-identified Republicans are not conservatives; they are moderates. Until the Reagan Revolution, the Republican Party could be described as center/left. Its mainstream leadership still is. There is no New Deal of Great Society program they oppose.

Until the realignment of the 1970's, the Republican Party was arguably to the left of the Democrat Party. It had its own progressives, like T. Roosevelt, Hoover, Wallace, Rockefeller, Lindsay, and, arguably, even Nixon and both Bushes.

Until the realignment, both parties were broad tent parties, coalitions of convenience of state parties, and included both conservatives and progressives, who fought for control. They had no real ideologies, and couldn't because of the very nature of the coalitions, which were intent of getting power.

The Democrats were arguably a broader party since they included both communists and racist segregationists. The Democrats are now a socialist party with a dominant communist wing. The Republican Party nowadays is broader and shifted to the right of the Democrats.

PS. I think it is clear that the neocons are not conservatives either. The older generation are mainly Jewish socialists, who shifted to the Republican Party because of perceived anti-Semitism in the Democrat Party, mainly due to lack of support for Israel. What was once perceived or inferred is now blatant: the Democrat Party is openly anti-Semitic (and anti-American).

#1 bob sykes on 2016-07-23 07:53 (Reply)

bob sykes: Until the realignment, both parties were broad tent parties, coalitions of convenience of state parties, and included both conservatives and progressives, who fought for control. They had no real ideologies, and couldn't because of the very nature of the coalitions, which were intent of getting power.

Largely so. As the twentieth century progressed, however, the Democrats began to be seen more and more as the party of the working class, while Republicans began to be seen as the party of business.

bob sykes: The Democrats were arguably a broader party since they included both communists and racist segregationists.

While the Democratic Party did welcome segregationists, both political parties considered communism to be anathema. Of course, the Democratic Party made an explicit break with segregationists, such as when Truman integrated the military, fracturing the party into the Dixiecrats.

bob sykes: Democrats are now a socialist party with a dominant communist wing.

Some people are certainly communists, but they have little influence on American politics.

Socialism is a term that has a wide variety of definitions. Few people advocate state ownership of business. However, many people do believe that society has an interest in providing a social safety net. Indeed, that's the consensus position, even in the Republican Party.

#1.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-23 09:13 (Reply)

"While the Democratic Party did welcome segregationists, both political parties considered communism to be anathema."

Are you shitting us??? The Democrats have become all communist all the time. Sure they make efforts to cover up their communist ties and programs and the MSM works over time to hide it for them but the Democrats are literally the largest communist party outside of Russia. Ted Kennedy even collaborated with the Russian communist against the U.S.

#1.1.1 SweetPea on 2016-07-23 10:12 (Reply)

Stop feeding the trolls.

#1.1.1.1 anon on 2016-07-23 10:45 (Reply)

SweetPea: The Democrats have become all communist all the time.

You responded to the comment concerning historical Democrats. Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson, all fought communists. In more recent times, communism has been largely discredited on a global scale, and has very little remaining influence.

SweetPea: Sure they make efforts to cover up their communist ties and programs and the MSM works over time to hide it for them but the Democrats are literally the largest communist party outside of Russia.

The Democratic Party platform doesn't seem to include Marxism.

#1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2016-07-23 14:07 (Reply)

Z: Socialism is a term that has a wide variety of definitions. Few people advocate state ownership of business.

True. The Nazis didn't believe in state ownership of business. They chose to heavily tax and regulate businesses to support the state. Not that different from Democrats today.

Z: However, many people do believe that society has an interest in providing a social safety net.

It started out as a "social safety net", but it has become a means of transferring wealth from people who earn money to those who don't/won't. That "social safety net" gets bigger and bigger - as in more generous and supporting more and more people. For some, the sum of benefits can be more than a decent job. In the end, whatever it's original intent it becomes a way to buy votes.

#1.1.2 mudbug on 2016-07-23 11:32 (Reply)

mudbug: The Nazis didn't believe in state ownership of business. They chose to heavily tax and regulate businesses to support the state. Not that different from Democrats today.

The Nazis had strong support from conservative sectors of society. Not that different from Republicans. (See how silly suc comparisons really are?)

mudbug: It started out as a "social safety net", but it has become a means of transferring wealth from people who earn money to those who don't/won't.

A social safety net transfers wealth by definition.

mudbug: That "social safety net" gets bigger and bigger - as in more generous and supporting more and more people.

Almost all major expansions have been medical, including the prescription drug coverage for seniors during the Bush Administration, and medical insurance subsidies for the poor under the Obama Administration. Most markets continue to operate unabated in the U.S.

#1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-23 14:10 (Reply)

Certainly there were some policy issues that a conservative might appreciate. That doesn't detract from the reality that Nazi economic policy and Democrat economic policy have significant similarities which was my point.

Transferring wealth is a socialist goal. Both parties are guilty of this but in general Republicans are "less guilty".

ObamaCare put significant new regulations on health care providers (see remarks about the Nazis), but there are many more socialist features at play that are also recent - for example Section 8 housing - and there are older programs that have been enhanced such as giving out Obamaphons.

It's instructive that when Welfare Reform was being discussed - even before it was passed - the welfare roles declined dramatically, but that did not bring on a reduction of welfare spending.

#1.1.2.1.1 mudbug on 2016-07-23 16:43 (Reply)

mudbug: Certainly there were some policy issues that a conservative might appreciate. That doesn't detract from the reality that Nazi economic policy and Democrat economic policy have significant similarities which was my point.

Certainly there were some policy issues that a liberal might appreciate. That doesn't detract from the reality that Nazi social policy have significant similarities with conservatives which was the point. That's why Nazis drew strong support primarily from conservative sectors of society.

Do you really think this is a valid line of argumentation?

#1.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-24 08:39 (Reply)

We're talking about economic policy!

#1.1.2.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-07-24 09:21 (Reply)

Fascism is not an economic philosophy, and Mussolini was flexible on economic policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Italy_under_fascism#Fascist_economic_policy

#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-24 09:28 (Reply)

You're lost. The original topic was definitions of socialism. It had nothing to do with fascism or Mussolini.

#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-07-24 12:06 (Reply)

mudbug: You're lost. The original topic was definitions of socialism

You're the one who introduced Nazism, saying that the modern Democratic Party is alike to Nazism. Of all the possible comparisons, you use the one linked to wars of aggression and the Holocaust.

As pointed out, fascism is not an economic philosophy, and is flexible in terms of economic policy, albeit everything subservient to the state, economic or otherwise. That's quite different from democratic socialism. While there is a democratic socialist wing of the Democratic Party, it is not communist, nor is it socialist in the sense of owning (or directly controlling) the means of production.

#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-24 12:29 (Reply)

The new Democrat ticket:

Klinton Kaine Kommunists.

Bringing back the Democrat KKK

#1.1.3 IdahoBob on 2016-07-23 12:12 (Reply)

IdahoBob: Bringing back the Democrat KKK

David Duke is running for the Senate as a Republican.

#1.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-23 14:13 (Reply)

If the Republicans embraced him you might have a point. The Democrats formed/created the KKK, embraced it for over a century and embraced many a grand wizard of the KKK. One would hope you could see the difference but undoubtedly you will not.

However Democrats actively embrace communist and conspire with them (sent a communist group to demonstrate against the Republican convention) and accept money and advice from them. That should scare you... Unless of course you are communist.

#1.1.3.1.1 IdahoBob on 2016-07-23 14:41 (Reply)

IdahoBob: The Democrats formed/created the KKK, embraced it for over a century and embraced many a grand wizard of the KKK.

They certainly did! But then they broke with segregation, which resulted in a fracturing of the Democratic Party. The Republican Party welcomed segregationist voters, starting with Goldwater, which resulted in a political realignment.

One would hope you could see the difference but undoubtedly you will not.

#1.1.3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-24 08:45 (Reply)

In the 60's the Democrat South was, let's say; unfriendly to blacks. The Republicans fought hard to reverse this and indeed after the Democrat party was excoriated and thrown out of the South many voters moved to the Republican party. The result is today the South is not the South of the old Democrat party and racism is for the most part a thing of the past. A very good result you must agree.

The communist Democrats:
President Obama is involved with the following groups:
New Party/Progressive Chicago
Communist Party USA
Committees of Correspondence
the Labor Movement - SEIU's agenda is "my agenda"
ACORN & Project Vote
Council for a Livable World
Community Policing

Hillary is involved with:
Council for a Livable World
George Soros
Democratic Socialists of America
Democratic Socialists of America
Campaign for America's Future
Communist Party USA
Working Families Party
Farabundo Marti Liberation Front.
People's Weekly World
Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein.
Saul Alinsky.
Iranian American Political Action Committee
Hillary Clinton was directly involved in pardoning the Puerto Rican terrorists FALN.

The Clinton administration and his Democratic Party accepted massive campaign contributions from Loral Space & Communications, Hughes Electronics and other firms. Between 1993 and 1996, the administration allowed the export of ballistic- missile technology to Beijing.

#1.1.3.1.1.1.1 IdahoBob on 2016-07-24 13:13 (Reply)

IdahoBob: In the 60's the Democrat South was, let's say; unfriendly to blacks.

That's right.

IdahoBob: The Republicans fought hard to reverse this and indeed after the Democrat party was excoriated and thrown out of the South many voters moved to the Republican party.

Um, the seminal event was when Barry Goldwater, the Republican standard bearer in 1964, came out against the Civil Rights Act.

The actual battle over integration was fought within the Democratic Party, as they were the majority at the time. The Democratic Party ended up being split by the issue, which resulted in the immediately movement of blacks to the Democratic Party and the slow movement of Southern whites to the Republican Party.

#1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-24 13:25 (Reply)

The Democrats were split!! LOL Yeah I guess you could say they were split, 80% of them opposed any laws to give blacks equal rights. Yeah If I were a Democrat I would certainly try to spin it as if they were "split". LOL

Goldwater supported civil rights his objections to the 1964 law ws based on two parts of the bill that he felt were unconstitutional. Your attempt to paint him as a closet racist is despicable but not suprising.

#1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1 IdahoBob on 2016-07-24 21:20 (Reply)

IdahoBob: The Democrats were split!!

Yes.

In 1948, Truman integrated the military, which resulted in the Dixiecrats walking out of the Democratic Party, and a presidential bid by Strom Thurmond.

In 1964, the Republican standard-bearer, Barry Goldwater, came out against the Civil Rights Acts, resulting in a decisive swing of black and liberal voters to the Democratic Party.

In 1968, after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Acts, Wallace left the Democratic Party for an independent run for the presidency on a segregationist platform.

While the generation before the civil rights movement southern whites were solidly Democratic, a generation after the civil rights movement, southern whites are solidly Republican.

#1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-25 08:53 (Reply)

Why did Hillary REALLY visit Beaumont, Texas? - Got to read this!!

Hillary Clinton made a campaign stop yesterday in Beaumont, Texas. Only six people were there to greet her. Her security detail outnumbered her supporters by quite a bit. She wouldn’t talk, wave to, or even acknowledge those there to greet her. As bad as that is, it’s not the real story here.

The real story is who she took a private meeting with. After landing, Clinton headed off to a fundraiser in West Beaumont, where she was greeted by around 150-200 Muslims, most of whom were of Pakistani origin. The event was held by Pakistani businessman Tahir Javed and Hillary raised approximately $500,000 by pandering to Muslims, making it “one of the top five private fundraiser's Clinton has had in this country. She’s bought and paid for by them.

#1.1.3.2 IdahoBob on 2016-07-23 14:28 (Reply)

Good try. My state's Democrat party grew out of the Communist Party, and in the Fifties was under investigation by the House Un-American Affairs Committee. They survived by requiring all their members to renounce their Communist Party memberships. It is still organized under a socialist structure, being run by a Central Party Committee.

#1.1.4 Jim on 2016-07-23 19:07 (Reply)

Jim: They survived by requiring all their members to renounce their Communist Party memberships.

Proving the point.

#1.1.4.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-24 08:46 (Reply)

I disagree entirely. I read Trump's book about policy from 2011. Very conservative all the way around. His tax policy: conservative. His ideas about government: conservative. His Supreme Court pics: conservative. I could go on.

I'm a little annoyed at all of these supposed 'conservatives' who think that Bush was a bastion of conservatism, that McCain was a fantastic conservative, that Mitt 'Romneycare' Romney was conservative.

I want to beat my head against the wall.

Stop all this nonsense about Trump not being conservative...and actually read up on his policies. Gah!

#1.2 MissT on 2016-07-23 18:37 (Reply)

Have done. Sorry, he's no conservative. But I'll vote for him anyway, because he's somewhat to the right of Clinton on many issues.

#1.2.1 Texan99 on 2016-07-23 18:57 (Reply)

"Vermont doctors push back against assisted-suicide requirement"

The euphemism "assisted suicide" is a neat little oxymoron of course. If someone else has to assist you to die, it's not suicide.

We should call a spade a spade here: it's "death by physician".

#2 JJM on 2016-07-23 08:01 (Reply)

The bullet down the barrel was certainly a rarity but I wouldn't call it lucky. The bullet striking the gun kept it from killing the thug who was currently shooting him repeatedly.

#3 Formerly known as Skeptic on 2016-07-23 08:13 (Reply)

Your point is well taken, skeptic.

I am wondering if it was an act of God? Perhaps the good Lord has plans for the target? Time will tell.

#3.1 feeblemind on 2016-07-23 13:04 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Sea level rise normal for an interglacial

See Kopp et al., Temperature-driven global sea-level variability in the Common Era, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2015. They found that it is extremely likely y (P = 0.95) that more than half of the rise is due to anthropogenic global warming.
http://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/2_22_16_John_CC_NuisanceFlooding_GlobalSLR_1050_718_s_c1_c_c.jpg

#4 Zachriel on 2016-07-23 08:57 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Donald Trump’s RNC Speech Was a Terrifying Display of Nightmarish Authoritarianism

Bird Dog: Sheesh. I thought he was mainly talking about peace and prosperity

Reading the text, the vast majority of the speech is based on negatives, while the positives were largely of the "amazing" kind.

Trumpiness:
Fact-Check: How Did Trump's Claims Hold Up?

#5 Zachriel on 2016-07-23 09:46 (Reply)

How did Hillary's claims hold up?

#5.1 mudbug on 2016-07-23 09:57 (Reply)

Related.

What Does Hillary Want? (other than squashing free speech)

QUOTE:

She must be relieved that policy questions will have almost no effect whatsoever on this election. She clearly is bored by them. Her proposals so far have been the usual product of Clintonian political engineering, more clever than intelligent, and inevitably old, tired, hackneyed, and boring. She has big ideas about “free college,” which have about a 0.0004 percent chance of surviving into March of 2017. What she actually wants to accomplish in office is a great mystery. We know what she wants to be, but not what she wants to do.

And the sobering answer to that question may very well be: She hasn’t thought much about it. She wants to walk in the doors of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as something other than a mistreated appendage of Bill Clinton, as though that action would somehow undo 30 years of abuse and degradation. When she discovers that it won’t, even the literary powers of a Tom Wolfe would be insufficient to capture the moment. You’d need Herman Melville, if not an Ezekiel: “Mine eye shall not spare, and I will have no mercy.” At least it’s an ethos.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438170/hillary-clinton-what-does-she-want

#5.1.1 feeblemind on 2016-07-23 13:00 (Reply)

mudbug: How did Hillary's claims hold up?

We'll see. Her convention speech is next week.

#5.1.2 Zachriel on 2016-07-23 14:15 (Reply)

Why wait for the convention speech? She has already said:

She said she used only one device so that was why she set up her server - the FBI said she used multiple devices.
She never sent or received any classified emails - Not according to the FBI. Some were even deleted on her server.
She said there was nothing marked classified on her server - Not according to the FBI.
Here server was allowed - not according to the State Dept. IG.
She turned over all of her work related emails - not according to the FBI.
She said she took classification seriously
- She didn't go to her security briefing when she became Sec. of State.
- She conducted State Dept. business on an unsecured server
- She allowed people without security clearance access to her emails.
She said she didn't do anything different than Colin Powell or Condi Rice - not according to the State Dept. IG
She claimed an Internet video is what caused the attack in Benghazi - the night of the attack, she told the Egyptian Prime minister and her daughter she knew the attack was not a protest.
She told Patricia Smith that she was going to make sure the person responsible for the "anti Islam" video would be brought to justice.

That's a sampling from the last few years. That doesn't count what she said when she was first lady.

#5.1.2.1 mudbug on 2016-07-23 15:55 (Reply)

mudbug: She said she used only one device so that was why she set up her server - the FBI said she used multiple devices.

She only used a single Blackberry at a time. Her device was changed out several times. She did later adopt a tablet for occasional use.

mudbug: She never sent or received any classified emails - Not according to the FBI. Some were even deleted on her server.

She explicitly modified the statement to "marked classified".

mudbug: She said there was nothing marked classified on her server - Not according to the FBI.

There were three documents that had embedded Cs, but these were shown to be marked in error.

mudbug: Here server was allowed - not according to the State Dept. IG.

That is not correct. It was not explicitly approved, but was not disallowed. They did say they would not have approved it, if asked.

mudbug: She turned over all of her work related emails - not according to the FBI.

She turned everything over to her attorneys. The attorneys were not thorough. The FBI investigation did not find any attempt to avoid compliance.

mudbug: She said she didn't do anything different than Colin Powell or Condi Rice - not according to the State Dept. IG

Fact is that Colin Powell used AOL, and that some of the emails contained information considered classified. Aides to Condoleezza Rice also transmitted information considered classified on private email accounts. Do you think they should be prosecuted?

mudbug: She claimed an Internet video is what caused the attack in Benghazi - the night of the attack, she told the Egyptian Prime minister and her daughter she knew the attack was not a protest.

She was a diplomat and her public statements were carefully parsed. The videos were implicated in outbreaks of violence in the Middle East. In the fog of events, it was not unlikely the video was involved in the Benghazi events, as well. That doesn't preclude militia involvement.

mudbug: She told Patricia Smith that she was going to make sure the person responsible for the "anti Islam" video would be brought to justice.

Other families in the room said it never happened. Ambassador Steven's family says his death wasn't Clinton's fault.

#5.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-24 08:58 (Reply)

Z: She explicitly modified the statement to "marked classified".

Ah. Yes. The evolving truth. In the first place, even that isn't true since the FBI found top secret information on her server. In the second place, it's a stupid modification since supposes that the Sec. of State is too stupid to know classified information when she sees it or that she is incapable of generating classified information which couldn't be marked till it was reviewed by those in the classification system - which would not happen since she was operating outside that system. This is just another example of blindly parroting Democrat talking points.

QUOTE:

mudbug: Here server was allowed - not according to the State Dept. IG.

That is not correct. It was not explicitly approved, but was not disallowed. They did say they would not have approved it, if asked.

From the WaPo (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/state-dept-inspector-general-report-sharply-criticizes-clintons-email-practices/2016/05/25/fc6f8ebc-2275-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html):

QUOTE:

The State Department’s independent watchdog has issued a highly critical analysis of Hillary Clinton’s email practices while running the department, concluding that Clinton failed to seek legal approval for her use of a private server and that agency staff members would not have given their blessing if it had been sought because of “security risks.”

Z: She turned everything over to her attorneys. The attorneys were not thorough. The FBI investigation did not find any attempt to avoid compliance.

So we're going to blame it on her lawyers now? She said her lawyers had read every email - they didn't. To say those lawyers were incapable of deciding what was or was not a work related email is stretching credulity. But then you have to say that or then the supposition is that they wilfully did not pass them to the State Dept. which is a crime.

Z: Fact is that Colin Powell used AOL, and that some of the emails contained information considered classified. Aides to Condoleezza Rice also transmitted information considered classified on private email accounts. Do you think they should be prosecuted?

Yes - under the policies and laws at the time. See also: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/09/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/

QUOTE:

mudbug: [/]She claimed an Internet video is what caused the attack in Benghazi - the night of the attack, she told the Egyptian Prime minister and her daughter she knew the attack was not a protest.

She was a diplomat and her public statements were carefully parsed. The videos were implicated in outbreaks of violence in the Middle East. In the fog of events, it was not unlikely the video was involved in the Benghazi events, as well. That doesn't preclude militia involvement.

How is that any way a response to my statement? When our embassies are attacked have we ever tried to blame it on somebody we knew was not responsible? Is the fact that we knew it was a planned attack by militants (something that was obvious to anybody near the scene) something confidential?

QUOTE:

[b]mudbug: She told Patricia Smith that she was going to make sure the person responsible for the "anti Islam" video would be brought to justice.

Other families in the room said it never happened. Ambassador Steven's family says his death wasn't Clinton's fault.

I don't believe them. I can't imagine that when the family members of people who were murdered doing their duty are addressed by those responsible for their mission (and care) that those responsible would not seek to comfort them by saying they (the US government) would do everything in its power to bring their killers to justice. And that having said that they wouldn't tell them something different from what they were telling the world. (But then maybe I'm wrong since this is the administration that leads from behind)

#5.1.2.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-07-24 12:56 (Reply)

mudbug: In the first place, even that isn't true since the FBI found top secret information on her server.

"At a regular briefing for reporters Wednesday, Kirby said State is aware of two instances in the set of roughly 30,000 messages turned over to the agency by Clinton where classification markings appeared in the emails. However, he said those were mistakes where staff failed to remove the notations while preparing background and talking points for Clinton in a planned phone call with a foreign official."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/hillary-clinton-classified-emails-error-225194

mudbug: In the second place, it's a stupid modification since supposes that the Sec. of State is too stupid to know classified information when she sees it or that she is incapable of generating classified information which couldn't be marked till it was reviewed by those in the classification system

Most analysts think the problem has to do with the government not keeping up with technological changes, as well as their system of classification. For instance, the existence of drone attacks in Yemen is considered top secret, even though it is regularly reported in the media, and government officials often talk about it publicly.

mudbug: The State Department’s independent watchdog has issued a highly critical analysis of Hillary Clinton’s email practices while running the department, concluding that Clinton failed to seek legal approval for her use of a private server and that agency staff members would not have given their blessing if it had been sought because of “security risks.”

That's what we just said. They would have not approved it if asked, but no one asked.

mudbug: So we're going to blame it on her lawyers now?

No. The source of the problem was her mixing work and personal business on a single email account.

Keep in mind these two brute facts: Independent analysts kept saying an indictment was unlikely based on information publicly available, and the FBI, after a long investigation, recommended against an indictment.

mudbug: Yes - under the policies and laws at the time.

Yes, using AOL was arguably worse than using a private server, as it gave access to confidential information to AOL. At least it wasn't Google. Powell probably would have been inundated with ads for "Great deals on spyware!"

mudbug: When our embassies are attacked have we ever tried to blame it on somebody we knew was not responsible?

How is that any way a response to our statement? The fact is that the video was used as an excuse to accost U.S. facilities across the Middle East. Instead of waving your hands in the general direction, try to point to specific quotes.

mudbug: I can't imagine that when the family members of people who were murdered doing their duty are addressed by those responsible for their mission (and care) that those responsible would not seek to comfort them by saying they (the US government) would do everything in its power to bring their killers to justice.

Of course they would.

"I heard it had something to do with a video."

"We'll do everything we can to bring those responsible to justice."

#5.1.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-24 13:20 (Reply)

Z: "At a regular briefing for reporters Wednesday, Kirby said State is aware of two instances in the set of roughly 30,000 messages turned over to the agency by Clinton where classification markings appeared in the emails. However, he said those were mistakes where staff failed to remove the notations while preparing background and talking points for Clinton in a planned phone call with a foreign official."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/hillary-clinton-classified-emails-error-225194

Immaterial. The FBI found Top Secret emails on her server.

Z: Most analysts think the problem has to do with the government not keeping up with technological changes, as well as their system of classification. For instance, the existence of drone attacks in Yemen is considered top secret, even though it is regularly reported in the media, and government officials often talk about it publicly.

You can argue what should or should not be classified all you want but she is supposed to know what is classified. She didn't make the classification rules, but she was supposed to respect them. And of course as I said above, she had Top Secret emails on her server. Certainly she should have been able to recognize that as classified.

Z: That's what we just said. They would have not approved it if asked, but no one asked.

My apologies. I misread your original comment. So we agree she lied.

Z: No. The source of the problem was her mixing work and personal business on a single email account.

That is the source, but you blamed the lawyers for not being thorough. It was her responsibility to see that her emails were given to the State Dept. upon leaving. In fact it took her two years and only after it became an issue.

Z: ... using AOL was arguably worse than using a private server...

Maybe, but I doubt it. The FBI said that Hillary's server was less secure than a gmail account.

This gives some insight into the issue: http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/19/colin-powell-emails-hillary-clinton-424187.html

Nothing you have said about Hillary's blaming a video on the Benghazi attacks explains why she would tell Chelsea and the PM of Egypt that she knew the attacks were not caused by a video yet subsequently, she and the rest of the administration told the world that a video was responsible. It was a lie.

#5.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-07-24 14:06 (Reply)

mudbug: The FBI found Top Secret emails on her server.

That's right, though they weren't rated top secret at the time, and therefore weren't marked as such.

mudbug: You can argue what should or should not be classified all you want but she is supposed to know what is classified.

The classification scheme is often arbitrary and sometimes downright silly.

mudbug: So we agree she lied.

No. Private email wasn't disallowed. But if asked, they would have turned it down.

mudbug: It was her responsibility to see that her emails were given to the State Dept. upon leaving.

Of course it was her responsibility. She gave it to her attorneys, which is not an unreasonable method of complying.

mudbug: The FBI said that Hillary's server was less secure than a gmail account.

Except that Google reads every single email. Other than that...

mudbug: This gives some insight into the issue: http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/19/colin-powell-emails-hillary-clinton-424187.html

"So there is no Powell or Rice email scandal. And no doubt, that will infuriate the Republicans who are trying so hard to trick people into believing Clinton committed a crime by doing the exact same thing as her predecessors."

mudbug: Nothing you have said about Hillary's blaming a video on the Benghazi attacks explains why she would tell Chelsea and the PM of Egypt that she knew the attacks were not caused by a video yet subsequently, she and the rest of the administration told the world that a video was responsible.

You forgot to provide the specifics as requested. You're just waving your hands in the general direction.

#5.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-24 14:29 (Reply)

Consider that legal analysts have long said that there was little chance of an indictment. The FBI investigated the situation, and recommended against an indictment. It's hard to know what you would consider sufficient evidence to change your mind.

#5.1.2.1.2 Zachriel on 2016-07-24 08:59 (Reply)

You couldn't be more wrong. But you know that. It is impossible for you to come up with all those excuses without knowing crooked Hillary was guilty as hell. She not only sent and received classified emails but she had her staff remove the classified designation; THAT is premeditation and intent to commit a crime. She knew it and didn't care. The CIA has said that EVERYTHING on her server was hacked and everything is now in the hands of Russia, China, NK, and no doubt Israel too. The ONLY one who don't know all these secrets is the voting public. Everyone else in the world got copies. Her sloth got men killed and her crimes were pure treason. Win or lose she should face treason charges. She should permanently get orange jumpsuits to wear.

#5.1.2.1.2.1 SweetPea on 2016-07-24 10:03 (Reply)

SweetPea: You couldn't be more wrong.

We are entirely correct. The FBI recommended against indictment.

SweetPea: She not only sent and received classified emails but she had her staff remove the classified designation

And yet, career investigators who studied the issue in detail found no intent or indictable offense. Converting it to nonpaper means to create a document without any classified information. We understand this is hard for you to accept. But that's what happens when you swallow falsehoods. They can be hard to cough back up.

#5.1.2.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-24 12:42 (Reply)

You are correct; within a week of former president Clinton visit with the IG the FBI took the unprecedented step of not recommending prosecution of a criminal/perp/felon where the weight of the evidence was not just overwhelming against her but embarrassingly obvious to even the lowest Democrat scum that she was guilty. The Clinton's have a history of buying off prosecutors and investigators and they have a history of "suiciding" those who fail to cooperate with them. In my opinion at that press conference Comey looked like a man who woke up next to the head of his favorite horse in bed with him.

#5.1.2.1.2.1.1.1 SweetPea on 2016-07-24 13:21 (Reply)

SweetPea: In my opinion at that press conference Comey looked like a man who woke up next to the head of his favorite horse in bed with him.

Sure. If you say so.

#5.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-24 13:26 (Reply)

He looked like his wife and kids were being held hostage. He looked like he was in distress. He looked so upset and under pressure and disgusted that I was sure he was going to end the press conference by resigning. I wish he had...

#5.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 SweetPea on 2016-07-24 21:24 (Reply)

Hillary is only going to talk about how terrible life in America is for Blacks and Hispanics.

Oh, plus how she is going to ban guns from non-criminal, non-govermnent-employed citizens.

How she will mandate full employment at high wages upon all private business owners

and

impose a wartime, compulsory economy of the German pattern of socialism to combat Hotcoldwetdry

#5.1.3 JK Brown on 2016-07-23 14:31 (Reply)

Oh and a cadre of party "activists" to stop the civil police from acting against goo party supporters. Brown shirts optional

#5.1.3.1 JK Brown on 2016-07-23 14:34 (Reply)

After reading the link, most of it was stupid. For example:

QUOTE:

TRUMP CLAIM: We all remember the images of our sailors being forced to their knees by their Iranian captors at gunpoint. This was just prior to the signing of the Iran deal.

THE FACTS: It actually came AFTER the signing of the Iran deal, which happened on July 14, 2015. The sailors were captured in Jan. 2016 — right before President Obama's State of the Union address.

Big deal

QUOTE:

TRUMP CLAIM: My opponent wants to essentially abolish the 2nd amendment.

THE FACTS: Clinton has proposed gun regulations, like background checks to purchase firearms. Yet the 2008 Supreme Court decision protecting and individual's right to possess firearms also stated that the right isn't unlimited — and can be subjected to regulations.

To a Democrat, a regulation is as good as a law. Obama has already tried to poison the public on guns with Fast & Furious and is trying to drive gun shops out of business with Operation Choke Point. It isn't much of a stretch to think that she would appoint Supreme Court Justices who have no respect for the 2A and would gut it given the chance.

QUOTE:

TRUMP CLAIM: Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America's fifty largest cities. That's the largest increase in 25 years.

THE FACTS: Trump is correct that there has recently been an uptick in crime, including in some (but not all) of America's largest cities. But overall, violent crime is down significantly since the 1980s and 1990s...

Trump is correct. Adding a 'But...' is editorializing, not fact checking.

QUOTE:

TRUMP CLAIM: The number of new illegal immigrant families who have crossed the border so far this year already exceeds the entire total from 2015.

THE FACTS: That statistic is true, but it's also a bit of cherry-picking. In Fiscal Year 2014, there were more than 68,000 apprehensions of immigrant families crossing the border....

Trump's claim is about families crossing the border, not apprehensions.

QUOTE:

TRUMP CLAIM: Where was sanctuary for all the other ... Americans who have been so brutally murdered [by undocumented immigrants], and who have suffered so, so horribly?

THE FACTS: Researchers have found that first-generation immigrants (legal or not) commit less crime than native-born Americans or second-generation immigrants.

The a "facts" NBC claims are immaterial. There are sanctuary cities where illegal immigrants are shielded from federal immigration laws, sometimes ending badly. Those people shouldn't be in the US in the first place and they shouldn't be protected by local government in the second.

That was just a sampling. All in all, it was a pretty dishonest piece.

#5.2 mudbug on 2016-07-23 17:12 (Reply)

mudbug: Big deal

Trump is implying some connection between the events. It's a fact easy to check, and it's false.

mudbug: To a Democrat, a regulation is as good as a law.

The claim is that Clinton wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment. Rather, she is proposing regulation consistent with the 2nd Amendment.

mudbug: Trump is correct.

But misleading. Trump is claiming "Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed by this Administration’s rollback of criminal enforcement." The homicide rate has decreased during the Obama Administration, nor can you draw any conclusion from a limited subset of data over a limited period of time.

mudbug: Trump's claim is about families crossing the border, not apprehensions.

Do you have actual data on this? Or is Trump conflating the numbers, then cherry-picking?

mudbug: The a "facts" NBC claims are immaterial.

Trump is painting immigrants as criminals, when most are just coming to the U.S. to work.

#5.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-24 09:13 (Reply)

Z: Trump is implying some connection between the events. It's a fact easy to check, and it's false.

So what. If Trump had said the sailors were forced on their knees before, during, or after the untreaty was signed, the point was the same - we were supposedly reaching out to Iran and they had no more respect for us than before.

Z: Rather, she is proposing regulation consistent with the 2nd Amendment.

She wants to make gun makers and sellers liable for the actions of gun owners. She has supported a 25% tax on guns. She said the SCOTUS was wrong on the 2A. Where does "shall not be infringed" fit in that?

Z: Trump is painting immigrants as criminals, when most are just coming to the U.S. to work.

How do you get from Where was sanctuary for all the other ... Americans who have been so brutally murdered [by undocumented immigrants], and who have suffered so, so horribly? to that? That's not what NBC was fact checking. He was referring to sanctuary cities as well as the fact that there are criminals who are undocumented immigrants who, if the law was upheld, wouldn't be there. Unsaid, but implied, is how thousands of illegal immigrant criminals are released (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/202142-dhs-document-68000-illegal-immigrants-with-criminal-convictions-released-in).

#5.2.1.1 mudbug on 2016-07-24 13:37 (Reply)

mudbug: So what.

The implication is that Iran had additional leverage with regards to the nuclear deal, which is false.

mudbug: She wants to make gun makers and sellers liable for the actions of gun owners. She has supported a 25% tax on guns. She said the SCOTUS was wrong on the 2A. Where does "shall not be infringed" fit in that?

Nothing you mentioned seems to be contrary to the 2nd Amendment. Are you saying the government can't tax guns?

mudbug: How do you get from Where was sanctuary for all the other

Because it attempts to paint all immigrants with the same brush.

#5.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-24 13:53 (Reply)

Keep in mind that Trump was/is a birther.

#5.2.2 Zachriel on 2016-07-24 09:24 (Reply)

"The Democratic Party platform doesn't seem to include Marxism."

No, not by that name. The Democrats are dishonest but not stupid. Most Democrats have indeed sold themselves to communist groups within the U.S. But you are correct they are smart enought to at least try to hide it. Maybe Wikileaks will publish all their emails.

The Democrats are in bed with the communists and many/most Democrats are openly Marxist/socialists. Hillary took $100 million to give Russia our uranium mine. Most Democrats get huge donations and payola from communists groups. But they hide this from the American public and our MSM cooperates with that subterfuge.

Are you hiding it/denying it too or are you simply ignorant of it?

#6 SweetPea on 2016-07-23 21:10 (Reply)

SweetPea: No, not by that name. The Democrats are dishonest but not stupid. Most Democrats have indeed sold themselves to communist groups within the U.S.

Most Democrats have 'sold' themselves to large corporate contributors.

SweetPea: Hillary took $100 million to give Russia our uranium mine.

Um, that's corporatism, not communism.

#6.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-24 09:15 (Reply)

"Corporatism"

An interesting word. Who uses such a word? So I googled it. Would you believe only socialist/communist organizations and individuals use that word. It is a pejorative that most "normal" people would never even think of. Strange and coincidental that YOU used it in a discussion where you claim that Democrats aren't being coopted by socialist and communists. So which are you: A socialist or a communist? Now that is a distinction without a difference.

#6.1.1 SweetPea on 2016-07-24 13:29 (Reply)

SweetPea: Would you believe only socialist/communist organizations and individuals use that word.

You are still conflating "socialist/communist" with the political left.

In any case, too close a cooperation between government and corporations is considered a problem by many on the political left, while many on the right consider that "Corporations are people, too." Consequently, identifying the problem of corporate capture of government is a concern most often, but not always, found on the political left. For instance, Rand Paul sometimes talks about corporatism.

SweetPea: A socialist or a communist? Now that is a distinction without a difference.

Of course there's a difference.

#6.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-24 13:48 (Reply)

Conflating Democrats with communist??? Maybe if they would stop attending meetings of radical communist groups and stop accepting money from them then MAYBE you might have a point. But they can't. It's like the Mafia, you can't walk away and become clean. All of the Democrats who are communist, in collusion with communists and take money from communists can never be "clean" again. Do you think that the $15 minimum wage was handed down from god? Nooooo, it came from the radical communists. It is just one of the many programs they are pushing to crash the economy. Can't have a revolution if everyone is working.

#6.1.1.1.1 SweetPea on 2016-07-24 21:29 (Reply)

SweetPea: Conflating Democrats with communist??? Maybe if they would stop attending meetings of radical communist groups and stop accepting money from them then MAYBE you might have a point.

Ah yes, "they". Who is "they"? And what radical communist groups?

SweetPea: Do you think that the $15 minimum wage was handed down from god? Nooooo, it came from the radical communists.

Supporting a minimum wage doesn't make one a communist. Minimum wage laws date to the 1930s.

#6.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-25 08:55 (Reply)

Can we get a "National Review warning"? That site is so full of adware bloat that it freezes my screen for a minute or more, forcing me to close my browser and I never even get to read the article.

#7 egd on 2016-07-23 21:35 (Reply)

"Supporting a minimum wage doesn't make one a communist"

I see what you did there. That isn't what I said. But you can't respond to what I said.

Do you think that the $15 minimum wage was handed down from god? Nooooo, it came from the radical communists.

The purpose of the $15 minimum wage is to disrupt our economy and push people out of jobs. The very people who are easily duped into the far left causes. It is backed by communist groups. Period! Do some people support it who perhaps can't even spell communism never mind ever heard of communism? Of course they are the useful idiots who believe free stuff is endless and if a few billionaires would just "pay their fair share" that we could all live well and never have to work. But in the meantime just keep the free stuff and welfare, EBT, housing, medical, and drugs flowing and we will continue to vote for whatever dictator the Democrats put out there.

#8 SweetPea on 2016-07-25 15:25 (Reply)

SweetPea: Do you think that the $15 minimum wage was handed down from god? Nooooo, it came from the radical communists.

Perhaps in an alternate universe. In this universe, a hike in the minimum wage is a common proposal by people who aren't radical communists.

#8.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-25 16:53 (Reply)

What is your world? In my world no one ever said I hope they raise the minimum wage to $15. In my world people are smart enough to know this will lead to less employment and fewer jobs for people new to the work force. In my world people know this will cause more jobs to be offshored.

#8.1.1 SweetPea on 2016-07-25 20:10 (Reply)

SweetPea: In my world people are smart enough to know this will lead to less employment and fewer jobs for people new to the work force.

That would depend on the rate of economic expansion.

In any case, your argument was that the minimum wage was a radical communist plot, rather than simply a bad idea.

#8.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-26 09:21 (Reply)

It might be more interesting to know the top song on the day you were conceived.

#9 Bill on 2016-07-25 18:21 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, July 23. 2016

Saturday morning links