I think there are huge anti-establishment, pro-populism sentiments among large portions of the electorate these days. It’s why Trump is so popular, why Corbyn will be the next Labour leader in the UK (with people such as Rupert Murdoch mentioning he is the only candidate that believes in anything), why Sander’s poll numbers continue to rise, and why there is so much dislike on the left and right for opportunistic ex-leaders/leaders such as Tony/Cherie Blair and the Clin-toons.
While there are some positives (e.g., permanent Tory rule in the UK for the foreseeable future) that are resulting from Labour’s likely populist path, I just don’t see any positive developments in the US from similar lurches towards populism. It seems that the US may choose a Trump (whose pro manufacturing, anti China messaging belongs in the AFL-CIO left wing of the Dems ) or Sanders over a Jeb Bush or Clinton. With Hillary, I think she remains far too polarizing to win. The Blairs are despised on the left and the right in the UK (I liked their foreign policy but little else), and I see Hillary trending that way with large swathes of Democrats and Republicans despising the arriviste Clintons. I wish the US would return to the High Toryism of the Federalists that placed on emphasis on property, education, family status, and sense of ethical responsibility. The Clintons fail in the latter.
I fully recognize that she’s tough and can be trusted on foreign policy (in the same way that Blair could be). And that because of this, some internationalist Republicans prefer her to the cast of clowns in the GOP contest (with the exception of Jeb). But will this help her win the primaries/election? It just seems like it’s going to be a populist year and there is a huge fatigue of brand names at the moment. I see it as an uphill battle for her to position herself to take advantage of this trend.
I fully recognize that she’s tough and can be trusted on foreign policy (in the same way that Blair could be). And that because of this, some internationalist Republicans prefer her to the cast of clowns in the GOP contest (with the exception of Jeb). But will this help her win the primaries/election? It just seems like it’s going to be a populist year and there is a huge fatigue of brand names at the moment. I see it as an uphill battle for her to position herself to take advantage of this trend.[/quote]
Yep- terrifying as the thought may be, Trump might actually beat her. Hillary comes across like a computer program from the 80s. She’s such a control freak that people like her less the more they see of her. She’s still the best choice for Prez., and still has a lock on the nomination, but she may have to do at least something to show there’s a real person in there.
For the record, I think that the president should be a control freak as “in control.” For the record, I don’t want a president to be spontaneous. For the record, I have nothing against a president being cold, calculating, ruthless, ambitious or shrewd. What I have a problem with is those who think that a president should be “just like the rest of us,” or “concerned with public opinion” as opposed to doing the right thing or somehow that he/she needs to “be funny” and make a joke of themselves on Saturday Night Live. The job is not a joke. That is why I liked George W. He NEVER catered to the need to be liked or popular or funny and when the going got tough, he got tough and refused to back down. I credit him with saving Iraq during the siege. Subsequently, we were treated with decisions that were made to “appeal to the American people” and look at where we are today. I suspect that Donald Trump, despite his tough-talking bravado would cater to those appeals. He does not appear to have had a consistent position on anything. Now, while I disagree that people should be held to account because of an email or comment from 25 years ago, there has to be some consistency. While Hillary flip flopped on gay marriage, I see that more as a timing issue. And, while she is reliably liberal on many policies, I think that she is tough enough and realistic enough not to flood America with social programs that squander dollars for feel-good efforts that don’t really solve problems. We saw that under the Clinton administration, while supposedly tough-on-spending conservatives like George W. opened the floodgates on compassionate conservatism to win the support of limousine liberals (with justly deserved guilty consciences) like Teddy Kennedy on “Leave No Child Behind” that represented yet more money to an already swimming in $$$s public school educational system that cannot and will not deliver. IF Jeb wins the Republican primary, I will reconsider but… if it comes down to experience and toughness, who do you think best exemplifies that? Hillary or Jeb? My vote would still be for Hillary.
[quote]The intelligence community believes that at least several dozen of the emails sent and received by Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state contained classified material, including intelligence material classified at the highest levels, according to a new letter by the inspector general.
Some of the information was classified “top secret/SAP” or “special access program,” an even more restricted category, according to the letter.
In a Jan. 14 letter to congressional oversight committees, I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general of the intelligence community, wrote that he had received sworn declarations confirming the presence of the classified material from intelligence officials who have taken part in reviewing Clinton’s emails as they have been released publicly by the State Department.[/quote]
I hated seeing W. tarred with all sorts of ridiculous accusations, notably Valerie Plame, and now I see the same thing happening with Hillary. Politics really is dirty. Again, with Benghazi, nothing to see here. Want to talk about her for and then against policies on our trade agreements, then I think that you have something. Want to talk about Big Money politics, plenty to see, but these two issues, really?
[quote]I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general of the intelligence community, wrote that he had received sworn declarations confirming the presence of the classified material from intelligence officials
[/quote]
And the explanation has already been provided. Much of what was “classified” was not “classified” at the time. It was “classified” later. Both Rice and Powell (Republicans) supported Hillary on this. Her separate server is a more problematic state of affairs particularly as it involved her work/support of the Clinton Foundation but it was NOT illegal and there were no rules against having such a server. That said, again, want to talk about Big Money politics, go right ahead. That IS a legitimate discussion.
I see your point. No one labeled Curveball’s hallucinations “bad intelligence” before Bush II launched Operation Fool Me Once so how was he to know? Likewise no one labeled the government intelligence she was disseminating “Top Secret” so how was Clinton II to know it was top secret before emailing it out using her private email server?
[quote=“fred smith”][quote]I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general of the intelligence community, wrote that he had received sworn declarations confirming the presence of the classified material from intelligence officials
[/quote]
And the explanation has already been provided. Much of what was “classified” was not “classified” at the time. It was “classified” later. Both Rice and Powell (Republicans) supported Hillary on this. Her separate server is a more problematic state of affairs particularly as it involved her work/support of the Clinton Foundation but it was NOT illegal and there were no rules against having such a server. That said, again, want to talk about Big Money politics, go right ahead. That IS a legitimate discussion.[/quote]
Do you buy it was not classified at the time nonsense, she has over a thousand classified, secret or top secret emails and at least a dozen are classified as top secret (and those are the ones she didnt delete). She told people to remove the classified markings, she set up the server and resisted attempts to create a government account. It was willful and deliberate action to circumvent the system put in place to secure communications. No one else at the state department would be allowed to get away with what she did, you know that, I’m surprised you are defending her on this. Anyone else would have been brought up on charges long ago.
Both Rice and Powell said it did not seem to be a big deal. They are Republicans. They both served as secretary of state. Given that every secret that the U.S. government has ever had is out on Wikileaks or the Russians/Chinese/others? have hacked them, what really is the issue?
In fact, I am thrilled that Wikileaks released all the classified information ever possessed by the government since what? the 1940s? Put paid to all those conspiracy theories on what the U.S. government has or is doing. Funny. We don’t hear from all those shrill outraged lefties about U.S. foreign policy machinations anymore now that everything and anything ever done is “known.” Cat got your tongue?
You are nothing but an opportunistic crank. On the one hand, you believe all is controlled by an all-powerful cabal that never makes mistakes with all strategies implemented seamlessly to advance nefarious schemes. On the other hand, you are filled with contempt at the apparent incompetence of the U.S. government and its officials. Clue: The answer lies somewhere between the two extremes.
The “classified” emails are no news. If you want to look into whether she was also engaged in activities with the Clinton Foundation that were not entirely ethical, then that is a legitimate topic of discussion. THAT is the news story, not this supposed “threat” to U.S. security. All of our “secrets” have long been posted on Wikileaks or hacked by the Chinese, Russians and God knows who else. What “cat” do you think got “let out of the bag?”
[quote=“fred smith”]
Both Rice and Powell said it did not seem to be a big deal. They are Republicans. They both served as secretary of state. Given that every secret that the U.S. government has ever had is out on Wikileaks or the Russians/Chinese/others? have hacked them, what really is the issue?
In fact, I am thrilled that Wikileaks released all the classified information ever possessed by the government since what? the 1940s? Put paid to all those conspiracy theories on what the U.S. government has or is doing. Funny. We don’t hear from all those shrill outraged lefties about U.S. foreign policy machinations anymore now that everything and anything ever done is “known.” Cat got your tongue?[/quote]
It doesn’t matter what Rice and Powell think, they don’t make and enforce the rules. The State department doesn’t get to decide what is secret or top secret if the information originates from another agency. Her claim there was no confidential material is an absolute joke, over a thousand emails are now considered classified and according to a recent IG letter several dozen were special access programs classified above top secret.
Let’s wait and see what this 50 to 100 team from the FBI assigned to Clinton’s emails recommend.
Regarding Wikileaks, to my knowledge they only ever got their hands on low level intelligence. Or would you really have us believe some private in the army like Bradley Manning or a low level contractor like Edward Snowden have access to the most secure communications throughout the intelligence community? I think you’re just having a bit of fun with the Hillary and wikileaks comments, which is ok, in fact it’s refreshing to see a more playful type of posting style for a change.
[quote]It doesn’t matter what Rice and Powell think, they don’t make and enforce the rules. The State department doesn’t get to decide what is secret or top secret if the information originates from another agency. Her claim there was no confidential material is an absolute joke, over a thousand emails are now considered classified and according to a recent IG letter several dozen were special access programs classified above top secret.
Let’s wait and see what this 50 to 100 team from the FBI assigned to Clinton’s emails recommend.
Regarding Wikileaks, to my knowledge they only ever got their hands on low level intelligence. Or would you really have us believe some private in the army like Bradley Manning or a low level contractor like Edward Snowden have access to the most secure communications throughout the intelligence community? I think you’re just having a bit of fun with the Hillary and wikileaks comments, which is ok, in fact it’s refreshing to see a more playful type of posting style for a change.[/quote]
Seriously? With all of the hatred and heat on Hillary from the Republicans and you think that there is no pressure on anyone to prosecute her IF they can find a smoking gun? IF they had that smoking gun, she would have been toast with regard to Benghazi OR this email issue. She is not and with regard to Benghazi, I don’t see that anyone can do anything more to obfuscate the issue and try to pin this on her. As to the emails, looks like a lot of people are still ginned up about it but again I would say for the wrong reasons. This is not about national security; if there really is a scandal, it would involve her blurring the boundaries between serving as US government official and self-promoting (via the Clinton Foundation). That’s how I see it and so, quite frankly, I don’t see this email “scandal” going anywhere. Have fun!
[quote=“fred smith”]
Seriously? With all of the hatred and heat on Hillary from the Republicans and you think that there is no pressure on anyone to prosecute her IF they can find a smoking gun? IF they had that smoking gun, she would have been toast with regard to Benghazi OR this email issue. She is not and with regard to Benghazi, I don’t see that anyone can do anything more to obfuscate the issue and try to pin this on her. As to the emails, looks like a lot of people are still ginned up about it but again I would say for the wrong reasons. This is not about national security; if there really is a scandal, it would involve her blurring the boundaries between serving as US government official and self-promoting (via the Clinton Foundation). That’s how I see it and so, quite frankly, I don’t see this email “scandal” going anywhere. Have fun![/quote]
Maybe you know something the rest of us don’t know fred, but the recent letter from the IG indicates these several dozen emails with special access programs information were so classified that even "senior members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, despite having high-level clearances, are among those not authorized to read the intelligence from so-called “special access programs” without taking additional security steps – like signing new non-disclosure agreements. " and you’re right I am having fun, doesn’t seem to me like these were innocuous documents, I mean that’s just me, I may be wrong.
The Clinton foundation you’re right, that too is being investigated and Clinton is going with the right wing conspiracy theory. You know that actually works with the Democrat base (amazingly) BUT she is now coming under fire from the Bernie Sanders supporting camp. Clinton is absolutely loathed, just check out her twitter feed comments, it’s 99% pure hatred of the woman. You would think Donald Trump would be the candidate in this race to draw the most negative comments, yet it’s not even close, his feed is more like 80/20 positive to negative.
She’s got the entire establishment behind her, virtually all MSM propping her up and she’s running against a self declared socialist (the worst of any category for US voters) and yet Hillary Clinton’s national lead is slipping faster in 2016 than it did in 2008 :roflmao: and I quite like Bernie so this is all good as far as I’m concerned. Well, I’m certainly having fun, I hope you are too, let’s see if Bernie can get this last minute town hall debate desperately and hastily put together in a last ditch attempt to prop up Hillarys falling numbers in Iowa (now loosing by 7 points) to blow up in the establishments face. Oh, and classic, did you read Hillary is now calling Bernie the establishment figure because according to her, he has been in politics longer. You can’t make this stuff up. Give us more Hillary, the more the public see of her, the more they hate her.
Funny you should mention gin-n-tonics. I had two last night. I ordered singles but they tasted like doubles and today… well, Fred is not firing on all his pistons.
I’ve never understood why this email thing gained any traction. I see it as such a non issue, and not because it’s her. If Trump or Cruz did something similar I wouldn’t think much of it either. Clearly she broke the rules, and in a way that seems a bit unnecessary, but did she really jeopardize national security?
Mick you seem to really be against Hillary on this one so I’m curious, why? What is it about what she did that bothers you so much? What do you think her wrongdoing says about her ability to govern? You’re treating her like she’s guilty of treason or something. Do you really believe there was significant harm done by her?
) or Sanders over a Jeb Bush or Clinton. With Hillary, I think she remains far too polarizing to win. The Blairs are despised on the left and the right in the UK (I liked their foreign policy but little else), and I see Hillary trending that way with large swathes of Democrats and Republicans despising the arriviste Clintons. 
I see it as an uphill battle for her to position herself to take advantage of this trend.