(07-05-2016 04:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: The applicable law:
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
This isn't applicable. Do you have a copy of the version that applies to Clintons?
(07-05-2016 04:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: The applicable law:
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
This isn't applicable. Do you have a copy of the version that applies to Clintons?
(07-25-2016 08:22 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: Things do seem to be off to a raucous start at the DNC in Philly.
It really looked like it was going to spiral out of control, but they seem to recovered by the time the networks switched over. Michelle Obama had the best speech of either convention so far, IMHO.
I guess Heidi Cruz will be giving it at the 2020 RNC. [rimshot]
(07-25-2016 08:22 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: Things do seem to be off to a raucous start at the DNC in Philly.
It really looked like it was going to spiral out of control, but they seem to recovered by the time the networks switched over. Michelle Obama had the best speech of either convention so far, IMHO.
I guess Heidi Cruz will be giving it at the 2020 RNC. [rimshot]
Nice one, JAAO. I think Cruz overstepped his mandate and might have torpedoed his national career, but strainger things have happened.
Meanwhile...outside the wall/fence they built to keep the rabble out of the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia:
[/quote]
Not quite the pretty picture the DNC is trying to control from the inside.
(07-25-2016 08:22 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: Things do seem to be off to a raucous start at the DNC in Philly.
It really looked like it was going to spiral out of control, but they seem to recovered by the time the networks switched over. Michelle Obama had the best speech of either convention so far, IMHO.
I guess Heidi Cruz will be giving it at the 2020 RNC. [rimshot]
Nice one, JAAO. I think Cruz overstepped his mandate and might have torpedoed his national career, but strainger things have happened.
Meanwhile...outside the wall/fence they built to keep the rabble out of the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia:
Not quite the pretty picture the DNC is trying to control from the inside.
[/quote]
Nope - it's interesting to see the sharp division between the "Bernie" supporters and the DNC. I put Bernie in quotes because they seem to have made it clear they do not support the candidate, but rather the idea of a political revolution, and one that happens quickly and immediately.
In my eyes, they may not have gotten exactly what they wanted, but Bernie had significant sway over the party platform and was able to force the DNC's hand to move further left than it wanted. Bernie now, being a politician, recognizes the compromise that was made and that the most logical path towards influencing actual legislation is throw his weight behind one of the two major parties - the party whose platform he helped craft. But "his" supporters either don't believe that his influence will actually come to fruition or they are too naive to understand that they have accomplished something, should be pragmatic, and continue to push their agenda during the next two elections.
I'd say that the Republican wing has handled their divide better, but it's a much less clear picture since the policy goals of the winning side are much more ambiguous.
(07-26-2016 10:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Nope - it's interesting to see the sharp division between the "Bernie" supporters and the DNC. I put Bernie in quotes because they seem to have made it clear they do not support the candidate, but rather the idea of a political revolution, and one that happens quickly and immediately.
In my eyes, they may not have gotten exactly what they wanted, but Bernie had significant sway over the party platform and was able to force the DNC's hand to move further left than it wanted. Bernie now, being a politician, recognizes the compromise that was made and that the most logical path towards influencing actual legislation is throw his weight behind one of the two major parties - the party whose platform he helped craft. But "his" supporters either don't believe that his influence will actually come to fruition or they are too naive to understand that they have accomplished something, should be pragmatic, and continue to push their agenda during the next two elections.
I'd say that the Republican wing has handled their divide better, but it's a much less clear picture since the policy goals of the winning side are much more ambiguous.
Good analysis, RiceLad. Trump is clearly trying to reach out to this portion of the "Bernie" supporters. He knows he can't get them all, he just wants to get enough of them to make the difference. It's a risky play, but one he clearly has to make to win. If Trump can convince enough of them that he's a similar outsider, a republican revolutionary, that was actually successful enough to get his party's nomination where Bernie failed (or was successfully rigged against) then Trump has a winning hand.
Hilliary and the DNC know this and they are trying to control and do everything they can to limp across the finish line. They will jettison anyone who gets in their way and they are making it known. It's amazingly fascist.
(This post was last modified: 07-26-2016 10:47 AM by GoodOwl.)
(07-26-2016 08:50 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: Michelle Obama had the best speech of either convention so far, IMHO.
I found interesting her point about the impact on her girls of the political rhetoric from those who oppose her husband's policies/positions.
Funny, she and her husband didn't seem too worried about the impact on the Bush girls as the dems bashed Obama's predecessor incessantly during the last 8 years?
(07-26-2016 08:50 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: Michelle Obama had the best speech of either convention so far, IMHO.
I found interesting her point about the impact on her girls of the political rhetoric from those who oppose her husband's policies/positions.
Funny, she and her husband didn't seem too worried about the impact on the Bush girls as the dems bashed Obama's predecessor incessantly during the last 8 years?
To be fair, she specifically brought up the rhetoric that suggested Obama was a Kenyan Muslim, and not the rhetoric that suggested his policies were bad.
"... how we urge them to ignore those who question their father's citizenship or faith."
Maybe I didn't follow politics as closely back during the W days, but I don't remember W being raked over the coals by politicos and talking heads for his citizenship or religion.
(07-26-2016 08:50 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: Michelle Obama had the best speech of either convention so far, IMHO.
I found interesting her point about the impact on her girls of the political rhetoric from those who oppose her husband's policies/positions.
Funny, she and her husband didn't seem too worried about the impact on the Bush girls as the dems bashed Obama's predecessor incessantly during the last 8 years?
To be fair, she specifically brought up the rhetoric that suggested Obama was a Kenyan Muslim, and not the rhetoric that suggested his policies were bad.
"... how we urge them to ignore those who question their father's citizenship or faith."
Maybe I didn't follow politics as closely back during the W days, but I don't remember W being raked over the coals by politicos and talking heads for his citizenship or religion.
How about accusations of "war crimes"? I can't imagine those were too pleasant for Bush's daughters to hear.
(07-26-2016 08:50 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: Michelle Obama had the best speech of either convention so far, IMHO.
I found interesting her point about the impact on her girls of the political rhetoric from those who oppose her husband's policies/positions.
Funny, she and her husband didn't seem too worried about the impact on the Bush girls as the dems bashed Obama's predecessor incessantly during the last 8 years?
To be fair, she specifically brought up the rhetoric that suggested Obama was a Kenyan Muslim, and not the rhetoric that suggested his policies were bad.
"... how we urge them to ignore those who question their father's citizenship or faith."
Maybe I didn't follow politics as closely back during the W days, but I don't remember W being raked over the coals by politicos and talking heads for his citizenship or religion.
How about accusations of "war crimes"? I can't imagine those were too pleasant for Bush's daughters to hear.
If you can't see the difference between those two types of comments, I'm impressed. I'd imagine if there was not so much controversy surrounding us conducting the Iraq War, then those claims would be unfounded. But you do notice that Michelle didn't bring up people blasting Obama over his questionable human rights issues (like his use of drones).
If there was rampant speculation that say, GWB was a Satanist, or he had pulled a Craig James, or something else, then I'd be with you in your claim. But heck, I don't even remember W's critics trying to use the fact that he used to be a bit of a lush to demean him in the same way that a decent amount of vocal opponents used Obama's religion and place of birth to try and paint him as an outsider who was, inherently, unfit to be president because of his made up citizenship and religious views.
(07-26-2016 02:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: But heck, I don't even remember W's critics trying to use the fact that he used to be a bit of a lush to demean him in the same way that a decent amount of vocal opponents used Obama's religion and place of birth to try and paint him as an outsider who was, inherently, unfit to be president because of his made up citizenship and religious views.
Of course W's critics brought up his questionable practices during his youth. What about the controversy over W's military service, you know the controversy that got Dan Rather relieved of his duties at CBS?
My point is being in politics is ugly business, regardless of which party you represent. Politicians know this/or should know this when they enter the field as well as the potential impact on their families. I suspect most choose to ignore it in their quest for power, er... I mean, to serve.
(This post was last modified: 07-26-2016 03:13 PM by Tomball Owl.)
One thing I'm surprised is getting so little attention is Trump's NATO comments. First there was the "maybe, maybe not" answer to whether he'd defend NATO allies is they were invaded by Russia, which sort of undermines the whole point of NATO. Now he's doubled down and said we should "walk away" from NATO. This is such a huge and fundamental policy shift, I can't believe it's not being discussed more.
It's even stranger in light of the Russians hacking the DNC, though I think that has more to do with Putin apparently hating Clinton than any link with Trump.
Also, you have Armitage and Scowcroft endorsing Clinton, as well as Robert Kagan and a number of neocons. (Her hawkishness is why many on the left are skeptical of her.)
(07-26-2016 05:22 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: One thing I'm surprised is getting so little attention is Trump's NATO comments. First there was the "maybe, maybe not" answer to whether he'd defend NATO allies is they were invaded by Russia, which sort of undermines the whole point of NATO. Now he's doubled down and said we should "walk away" from NATO. This is such a huge and fundamental policy shift, I can't believe it's not being discussed more.
It's even stranger in light of the Russians hacking the DNC, though I think that has more to do with Putin apparently hating Clinton than any link with Trump.
Also, you have Armitage and Scowcroft endorsing Clinton, as well as Robert Kagan and a number of neocons. (Her hawkishness is why many on the left are skeptical of her.)
Since I posted this, I saw that noted liberal hack and Dem partisan George Will has suggested Trump won't release his tax returns because they would reveal ties to Russian oligarchs. Just when you thought the election couldn't get any weirder....
(07-26-2016 05:22 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: One thing I'm surprised is getting so little attention is Trump's NATO comments. First there was the "maybe, maybe not" answer to whether he'd defend NATO allies is they were invaded by Russia, which sort of undermines the whole point of NATO. Now he's doubled down and said we should "walk away" from NATO. This is such a huge and fundamental policy shift, I can't believe it's not being discussed more.
To be fair, the most recent comment I saw and heard Trump make (not from I what I heard somebody said he said which often is incomplete and flat out wrong) on the NATO matter, is that if a NATO member country is living up to its obligations under NATO agreements, the US under his leadership would abide by its obligations to defend them. If a country wasn't meeting their obligations, then the US should decide on a case by case basis what to do.
I think this is consistent with his better deals mantra.
(07-26-2016 05:22 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: One thing I'm surprised is getting so little attention is Trump's NATO comments. First there was the "maybe, maybe not" answer to whether he'd defend NATO allies is they were invaded by Russia, which sort of undermines the whole point of NATO. Now he's doubled down and said we should "walk away" from NATO. This is such a huge and fundamental policy shift, I can't believe it's not being discussed more.
To be fair, the most recent comment I saw and heard Trump make (not from I what I heard somebody said he said which often is incomplete and flat out wrong) on the NATO matter, is that if a NATO member country is living up to its obligations under NATO agreements, the US under his leadership would abide by its obligations to defend them. If a country wasn't meeting their obligations, then the US should decide on a case by case basis what to do.
I think this is consistent with his better deals mantra.
(07-26-2016 05:22 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: One thing I'm surprised is getting so little attention is Trump's NATO comments. First there was the "maybe, maybe not" answer to whether he'd defend NATO allies is they were invaded by Russia, which sort of undermines the whole point of NATO. Now he's doubled down and said we should "walk away" from NATO. This is such a huge and fundamental policy shift, I can't believe it's not being discussed more.
To be fair, the most recent comment I saw and heard Trump make (not from I what I heard somebody said he said which often is incomplete and flat out wrong) on the NATO matter, is that if a NATO member country is living up to its obligations under NATO agreements, the US under his leadership would abide by its obligations to defend them. If a country wasn't meeting their obligations, then the US should decide on a case by case basis what to do.
I think this is consistent with his better deals mantra.
that does seem like a fair assessment.
There's really no way it wasn't a huge gaffe to say we wouldn't live up to our treaty obligations. That's why his campaign and other Republicans tried to walk it back. (And a few Republicans outright condemned it.)
If he said something like that when he was president, Putin could see it as a green light to re-annex the Baltic States. There may be a reasonable argument for modernizing NATO, but this wasn't it.
(07-27-2016 05:55 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: Aaaaaand, I just saw that he said he would consider recognizing the Russian annexation of Crimea. ????
fait accompli, thanks to our "leadership". Would you rather he say he would drive them out? Time for that was before they had possession.
Both sides have become full of it. Argument is over which side is more full of it, not if they are at all.
To that:
Nice long shot of Hiliary's GIANT LONG WALL at about :24-:27 in the video--notice she has police manning it so people don't get through illegally. Quite a unique concept. Perhaps it could also work somewhere else where illegal people and drugs now cross freely?
What we could use is leadership that cares about all American citizens, black or white, rich or poor, etc... This administration has been a failure. The previous one had deep, serious flaws, as did the one before that, etc... But don't really see that happening again this round, so we'll hold our noses and again choose which side stinks less this time.
/
Presidential Horse Race Thread
