Newly Published WikiLeaks Emails Show Clinton Campaign Communicated With State Department (go.com) 454
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: A State Department official appeared to coordinate with Hillary Clinton's nascent presidential campaign hours before the former secretary of state's exclusive use of private emails was first detailed in a news account last year, newly released hacked emails show. Emails from the files of Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta show that the department official provided Clinton aides with the agency's official response to a New York Times reporter in advance of the newspaper's March 2015 report that Clinton had used a private email account to conduct all of her work-related business as secretary. The stolen emails were released Wednesday by WikiLeaks, part of a massive trove of emails released by the document-leaking group on a daily basis since last month. WikiLeaks has indicated it intends to leak emails stolen from Podesta's account every day through the election. In a March 1, 2015 email, State Department press aide Lauren Hickey told Clinton's spokesman Nick Merrill and two other advisers that then-State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki had "just cleared" a reply to the Times. Hickey provided the agency's response to the Clinton aides and also appeared to agree to a change requested by the campaign, saying: "Yes on your point re records -- done below." It is not clear what specific change was requested and made. State Department spokesman John Kirby said Wednesday that the department would not comment on alleged leaked documents. But he said the department's effort to "provide accurate information to the media" about Clinton's tenure at the agency has "at times required communicating with her representatives to ensure accuracy."
No Shit (Score:4, Insightful)
We didn't need another leak to let us know how corrupt the Clintons are.
Re:No Shit (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No Shit (Score:4, Informative)
What proof do you have for this? The Jane Doe case was originally thrown out for being improperly filed. It was then refiled in another state by an IP lawyer who had spoken to his client once via Skype. Todays planned press conference was cancelled.
Bill Clinton is documented to have flown on Epstein's private jet more frequently than Trump and there's plenty of rumors about Hillary taking that flight too.
Re:No Shit (Score:5, Informative)
That bogus rape accusation against Trump was a smear job by Norm Lubow, a known instigator and agitator who used to work for the Jerry Springer show. No doubt one of the mentally ill people that the DNC has hired to do their dirty work.
Almost everything the DNC and Clintons have been accusing their opposition of, they are guilty of themselves:
Colluding with a foreign nation against the interests of America (Saudi Arabia/Qatar)
Lying
Warmongering
Money Laundering
Rape
and if the current rumblings from the NYPD are true: Paedophilia
It's the most raging case of projection I've ever witnessed.
Re: No Shit (Score:3)
No, but the woman who consistently stands by his side and defends him is. It shows her (lack of) character.
Re:No Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
> There's a man who rapes children and there's a woman who had people run a private mail server for her.
The rape thing is so ridiculous that even Jezebel doesn't buy it, let alone others. Suggested reading from people who are definitely not in favor of Trump:
http://jezebel.com/the-source-... [jezebel.com]
https://popehat.com/2016/10/31... [popehat.com]
The "email server" thing goes way deeper than you realize. There have been far too many things in there for me to summarize. I suggest here as a starting place to look into this, but /r/wikileaks has been analyzing it continuously: http://www.mostdamagingwikilea... [mostdamagi...ileaks.com]
The prosecution of this is weird as hell. Here's Congress trying to understand the FBI's initial lack of prosecution due to "lack of intent" -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
And finally, of all the child rapist claims, the one we're best able to substantiate is Bill Clinton's flights on the "Lolita Express" with a convicted pedophile (Epstein) without the Secret Service present. Now there's no proof of what he did and didn't do and a lot of people, including hundreds of famous people, were on that same flight with the same guy, including Trump on one occasion long before his pedophilia was publicly known. So it's kinda ironic that you're more worried about a sham lawsuit based on anonymous witnesses by an ex-Jerry Springer producer known for starting wild lawsuits that went nowhere who hates Trump.
There was also the Todd & Claire scam against Julian Assange recently as well and that's been pretty well proven to be utter BS. The whole site was fake, the UN "partnership" was nonsense (you just have to claim to agree to certain principles) and got revoked, the entire site was completely fake and made with ripped off, mirrored images (to avoid reverse image search--you can see backwards text in some) and all around sketchy as hell.
FWIW, I'm not terribly inclined to believe any of these, but if I had to put money on one panning out, I'd say there's some low chance of Clinton's trips with Epstein being real dirt. He has a lot of ties with them and the Clinton Foundation, though I haven't seen any clear evidence tying them to his pedo ways just yet. Yes, FBI Anon has been right in the past, but we should demand more proof before believing something like this about anyone.
Re:No Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, yes, but that's because they handed out immunity to everyone involved in destroying evidence, did not convene a grand jury, and let the one person they had all the evidence for wrongdoing on off the hook because she "lacked intent." A standard that does not exist in the statute, when there are plenty of false exculpatory statements that can be used to establish intent and a pervasive scheme that lasted for years that also demonstrates intent. The only thing left is the Obama pardon, though I think that will only come if Trump wins.
But yeah, nothing to see here, just Hillary cheating again, like on the debate, or when inciting violence or when shafting Bernie (and blaming said violence on him...).
Re: No Shit (Score:4, Informative)
She was given some of the questions before the debate. It's all over mainstream media. CNN fires one of their own for doing it.
Re:No Shit (Score:5, Informative)
You miss the part where Donna Brazile was the person [dailycaller.com] who fed Clinton at least two questions [nytimes.com], right down to the information [breitbart.com] on the person who was going to be asking the question? [dailymail.co.uk] Guess so. It's only been all over the media for the last week, and only picked up steam after CNN canned her and the boss of CNN publicly came out to blast her.
Re:No Shit (Score:4, Insightful)
Most serious politicians commit their policies and talking points to memory, and then prepare extensively for these debates. You are basically saying that Trump's lack of preparation, poor memory and off-the-cuff style makes her professionalism seem suspicious to you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yea, that'll work. Speaking of rapists, who the fuck is that stupid bitch married to again? Bill Clinton? You stupid fuck.
There's more to come... (Score:5, Informative)
So much crap is going down right now.... where to even start.
There's a straw donor program [cbsnews.com] that just got busted as well as a voter fraud ring in Indiana [nbcchicago.com].
We have the DOJ giving the heads up which you can read here [wikileaks.org]. This was forwarded by one Peter Kadzik [justice.gov], who you might remember as being put in charge of the reopened investigation. Conflict of interest much? Podesta says he's a "Fantastic lawyer. Kept me out of jail. [wikileaks.org]" His son wants to help Hillary's campaign [wikileaks.org]. Plenty of other emails of them having lunch, parties, etc. together too, incidentally.
An African-American church was burned down and people are raising money to repair it [youcaring.com].
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:There's more to come... (Score:4, Informative)
Talk about straw. You're wording implies this voter fraud "ring" has been "busted", but the referenced article title even says it's an 'investigation' into voter registration fraud. Seems like a big difference between swaths of people trying to vote multiple times, and a pre-election group trying to get voters registered, and possibly individuals getting sloppy or even malicious. If the current argument is that voter fraud actually happens so infrequently that major changes to laws are too heavy-handed because it actually disenfranchises large groups of people, then this particular incident of possible voter registration fraud still doesn't have an effect on the big picture.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You might as well argue with a brick wall, dude. Anything wrong that isn't directly tied to Trump is Clinton's fault in the eyes of Trump supporters while anything wrong that is directly tied to Trump is immediately disregarded as unsubstantiated hearsay, misrepresentation, quotes taken out of context or part of a conspiracy. Trump could rape their mothers and they'd swear on a bible that mom was asking for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Only one candidate is the subject of TWO simultaneous FBI investigations, and it ain't the Republican... These investigations are under a DEMOCRAT administration, so its pretty hard to blame an imaginary "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy".
This all could have been avoided if Hillary had deigned to use a state.gov email address - I'm pretty sure hillary2016@state.gov was available.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Correcting the Record is working extra hard in the final days. Do they pay you overtime ?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:There's more to come... (Score:5, Informative)
a voter fraud ring in Indiana.
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/09/23/whos-behind-group-police-say-submitted-fraudulent-voter-registration-forms/90778006/ [indystar.com]
"the group has submitted about 40,000 registration forms" ... "at least 10 of the group's voter registration forms from Marion and Hendricks counties contained fraudulent information. Local election officials said some of the group's forms were missing key information, such as Social Security numbers and birth dates."
So, 10 out of 40000 had missing info.
I am underwhelmed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We don't know much about that police investigation yet and there's a lot going on so I will say I haven't looked too deeply into that one yet. One concern is that we do have certain people on video saying they've been busing groups in for 50 years and how that works is that they get voter registrations with fake credentials and bus people around to vote in all the places they're registered.
That said, your source was interesting and you could very well be right.
There's so much going on it's hard to keep tra
Re:There's more to come... (Score:5, Informative)
Where to start? Perhaps you could start by reading the articles you've linked, or maybe even going to the actual sources of those stories? Allow me to help:
1) The Thornton Law firm (straw donor program) -- The Boston Globe reports that at least 21 politicians nationwide, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, have agreed to give back or give-away over $600,000 received from the law firm. [bostonglobe.com] Given that no charges have yet been brought, nor have federal authorities even begun investigating the case, it looks to me like the Democrats who received donations from the Thornton firm are being about as above-board regarding this unfortunate incident as you could reasonably ask them to be.
2) Patriot Majority USA (voter fraud ring) -- As other posters in this thread have noted, the investigation is for alleged voter registration issues [nbcchicago.com], not voting fraud. However, a total of 10 suspicious registration forms, out of the 40,000 the group claims to have submitted, certainly isn't going to move the election one iota in either direction, and this incident seems a far cry from the kind of fraud you appear to be alleging.
3) Peter Kadzik email on May 19th, 2015 -- As CNN points out in a recent article, the filing referred to in the email had already been made public a day before Mr. Kadzik sent his email. [cnn.com] However, aside from that point, I'd agree it does look like Mr. Kadzik intended to tip-off the Clinton campaign, and I would also agree that even the appearance of impropriety in a Justice Department official should be investigated.
4) Peter Kadzik supposedly in charge of reopened investigation -- Again, as CNN reported in the article linked above, Peter Kadzik is not involved in any known Justice Department investigations regarding the Clinton family. Obviously, if Mr. Kadzik isn't involved the investigations, there is no conflict of interest, making his relationship with John Podesta, or his son's relationship with Podesta for that matter, wholly immaterial. Even Republican Senator Trey Gowdy, who chaired the House Select Committee on Benghazi, admits Mr. Kadzik isn't a decision-maker [foxnews.com] at the Department of Justice.
5) Hopewell Baptist Church fire -- Unfortunately, your YOUCARING link appears dead, but several sources confirm that the Hopewell church was likely set on fire Tuesday night, with the message 'Vote Trump' spray-painted around the same time. [slashdot.org] As the article points out, there's likely no way to know for sure if Trump supporters started the fire, but it's certainly troubling. However, I have no doubt that the community of Greenville will pull together and rebuild the damage, and I imagine some of that help will likely come from Republicans, including those supporting Trump in the election.
Re: (Score:2)
Except, in many states it is illegal to pay workers per voter registration as we learned during the investigation into ACORN
Re: No Shit (Score:2, Insightful)
Today's WL revelation about DOJ coordination ("heads up") with the Clinton machine is more concerning.
Seems ordinary. (Score:2, Informative)
Not really clear that there's anything here. A news organization always checks with the subject of an article before running the article-- this is standard procedure, and it's also standard procedure to correct errors of fact that are pointed out-- it is desirable to do this BEFORE an article runs.
I think they're stretching on this.
Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really clear that there's anything here. A news organization always checks with the subject of an article before running the article-- this is standard procedure, and it's also standard procedure to correct errors of fact that are pointed out-- it is desirable to do this BEFORE an article runs.
I think they're stretching on this.
While that's certainly true, it's also misdirection. A news organization checking the subject of an article isn't the point.
It's that the government agency fielding the request gave the campaign a heads up, and took direction from the campaign about the response.
That's collusion between government and the Clinton campaign.
Are you comfortable with government agencies checking with a campaign (of their choosing) during an election?
I'm not.
With no privilege (Score:5, Informative)
Not really clear that there's anything here. A news organization always checks with the subject of an article before running the article-- this is standard procedure, and it's also standard procedure to correct errors of fact that are pointed out-- it is desirable to do this BEFORE an article runs.
I think they're stretching on this.
While that's certainly true, it's also misdirection. A news organization checking the subject of an article isn't the point.
It's that the government agency fielding the request gave the campaign a heads up, and took direction from the campaign about the response.
That's collusion between government and the Clinton campaign.
Are you comfortable with government agencies checking with a campaign (of their choosing) during an election?
I'm not.
And just to be clear, according to the Wikileaks [twitter.com] document, this happened *after* she had left the state department and was running her campaign.
She was, at the time, a citizen with no government authority or privilege.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
While that's certainly true, it's also misdirection. A news organization checking the subject of an article isn't the point.
It's that the government agency fielding the request gave the campaign a heads up, and took direction from the campaign about the response.
That's collusion between government and the Clinton campaign.
No, that's coordination between two groups, which happens all the time. This kind of behaviour is run of the mill with just about any news story that includes both private and public sectors. They each need to know what the other is saying in order to avoid contradiction and confusion. And the fact that someone's taken input from someone else doesn't imply anything; it's neither positive nor negative.
Are you comfortable with government agencies checking with a campaign (of their choosing) during an election?
I'm not.
Then you are sorely, sorely mistaken about how communications between organisations and the media happens. A
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
They each need to know what the other is saying in order to avoid contradiction and confusion.
If both parties tell the truth, then there is no contradiction or confusion.
"What color are you going to tell the New York Times the sky is?"
"I am going to say 'green'."
"Ok, I'll say 'green' too, so there is no contradiction or confusion."
Then you are sorely, sorely mistaken about how communications between organisations and the media happens.
This was communications between the US State Department and the Hillary Clinton political campaign. Neither are "media".
And it's not a government agency checking with a campaign; it's a government agency coordinating with the ex-director about whom the media is asking questions.
Neither John Podesta nor Nick Merrill were ex-directors of the State Department.
Seriously, the efforts people on one side are going to in order to excuse criminal behaviour is shameful.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a measure of decline of Slashdot that this kind of illogical bullshit gets modded up.
The idea that it's a crime for the State department to discuss it's response to questions from the media with a former Secretary (or her people!) should never have made it past the first neuron in charge of filtering stupid ideas.
"I am going to say 'green'."
"Ok, I'll say 'green' too, so there is no contradiction or confusion."
That's all in your head. If they actually had agreed to lie about something, the story would have been about State and Clinton agreeing to lie about something.
Re:Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea that it's a crime
And you're getting modded up for trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say "crime", you did.
If they actually had agreed to lie about something,
It's called "an example of what kind of thing could have happened", not factual evidence that the State Department wanted to know what color to say the sky is.
The fine summary tells us that nobody has figured out what was changed by the State Department at the campaign's request.
The fact is, it is unethical for a political campaign to be vetting information that the State Department sends to the NYT, both for the NYT to allow it and the State Department to do it. No, it wasn't state confabbing with the ex-director -- John Podesta and Nick Merrill haven't been directors ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Except neither organization in this email exchange is, you know, a "news organization"
Really? That's called conspiracy when criminals do it... Why do they need to know what each other is saying? Can't they just tell the truth, rather than what they agree is the version of
Re: (Score:2)
From what I'm seeing, the State Dept forwarded their official response to the Clinton campaign. That doesn't exactly sound sinister to me. The Dept was asked to comment on a particular story about the previous secretary, which they did, and also forwarded her a copy of their response. Should they have not done one of those things since the former secretary was running for office? Should they have said they were going to wait until after the election to comment? It's not like there's some random governm
Re: (Score:2)
*Former official, not formal. Damn subconscious autocorrect.
Re: (Score:3)
The Dept was asked to comment on a particular story about the previous secretary, which they did, and also forwarded her a copy of their response.
They must have provided the copy to the campaign before they sent it to NYT, because they couldn't have corrected it based on campaign staff suggestions otherwise. That's where the problem comes in, not that they would send a copy after the fact to the campaign.
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is the State Department forwarding information to a non-governmental person before they release it to the public? You don't see anything wrong with that? Even worse that this person is a poltical candidate, and the State Department is not supposed to engage in political activity.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really clear that there's anything here. A news organization always checks with the subject of an article before running the article-- this is standard procedure, and it's also standard procedure to correct errors of fact that are pointed out-- it is desirable to do this BEFORE an article runs.
I think they're stretching on this.
It doesn't matter, all the article needs is "Clinton" and "emails" and it creates the vague scent of corruption.
I'll agree the emails dumps are fascinating as they reveal a lot about how campaigns really operate and how politics works. But the middle of an election campaign isn't the best time to run this through the media grinder, every interesting tidbit end sup looking like a fresh scandal.
Re: (Score:2)
But the middle of an election campaign isn't the best time to run this through the media grinder, every interesting tidbit end sup looking like a fresh scandal.
Best time for who? It seems like exactly the best time for the media. All this stuff is only exciting with an election looming.
Re:Seems ordinary. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you were the subject of a criminal investigation by a government entity, do you see it as ok for them to secretly communicate positions and statements to you before they are released to the public. Do you rally think its ok for an investigator to do this with the subject of the investigation?
Re: (Score:3)
McFly? The State Department doesn't have the power to conduct criminal investigations. They certainly were engaged in an investigation. The biggest problem with your statement is that the information was passed to the Clinton campaign not only by hacks at State, but by Peter Kadzik who is an Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice
"Separately, assistant attorney general Peter Kadzik wrote to Podesta in May 2015 to offer a "heads up" that a Justice Department official would be testifying
just like the Family Feud (Score:2)
The DOJ did as well (Score:5, Informative)
- The DOJ warned her ahead of interviews
- The DOJ has obstructed the FBI at every turn in its investigations
- The State Department massaged the messages to the media in collaboration with Clinton's help
- The State Department made deals with the FBI to declassify classified Clinton emails
- CNN provided Clinton with the primary debate questions ahead of time (but not Bernie, of course)
- The DNC favored Clinton to the detriment of Bernie at every opportunity, including paying consultants to cause violence at Trump rallies but put the blame on Bernie supporters.
Yes, these are all proven facts.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not think HRC is a fucking idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Say that sinister new term 'Alt-Right' and you can instantly discredit anything. It's like magic powder. Back in the day, politicians used the word 'Commie' the same way.
Re: (Score:2)
courts operate on laws and facts
Elections aren't criminal trials; completely different evidence standard. The emails are domain key signed and the Clintonistas — with the exception of the incoherent Donna Brazile — aren't denying their validity. So all that's left is you and your cognitive dissonance, voting for your corrupt statists.
Re: (Score:3)
> If not 100% buying into info obtained illegally with no means of detecting which emails (in entirety) might have been planted maybe.
You can perform DKIM validation on the emails. Erratasec will give you a bitcoin if you can spoof them [erratasec.com]. The simplest way to settle this is to show me a link to the blockchain transaction when you win.
Re:The DOJ did as well (Score:5, Insightful)
You might want to read some of the FOIA dumps coming out of the FBI.
This video gives a pretty good rundown of all the ways this prosecution was weird as hell [youtube.com]. This is Congress grilling the FBI about their handling of the case.
Re: (Score:2)
- The State Department made deals with the FBI to declassify classified Clinton emails
I thought the State Department merely ATTEMPTED to make deals with the FBI and the FBI responded by telling them to fuck off. So the State Department then refused to sign off on various FBI things in retaliation.
Rather an FBI and a State Dept official discussed an unrelated FBI request during the same phone call where a State Dept official made a failed attempt to have the classification rating on an email modified (it's not know who brought up the unrelated request).
So EITHER the State Department OR the FBI created a situation WHERE SOMEONE MIGHT HAVE ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A DEAL.
Or, more likely, the FBI official simply wasn't thinking about the conflict of interest. So while he had the State Dept official on the line
Clinton Crime Family is above the law (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's about time that someone broke that Tradition. More important than ever, considering we have a Media that covers for like minded politicians.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true. The republicans and democrats may fight over elections, but they are absolutely on the same side when it comes to insulating politicians of both affiliations from criminal prosecution. This is why none of the Bush administration was ever prosecuted under the Obama administration. Trump is breaking from tradition in calling for Hillary to be jailed.
For what would members of the Bush administration have been prosecuted for? As a reminder, making a statement that is later proven wrong isn't "lying".
I'll just go and leave this (Score:2, Insightful)
Call me a troll all you want, but my God, if this is the worst we can dig up on Hillary after 20 years of non-stop character assassination then she's practically Christ (Obama gets to be God, since we haven't found jack on him).
Re: (Score:3)
How did that press conference go?
Re: (Score:2)
> if this is the worst we can dig up on Hillary after 20 years of non-stop character assassination
You're confusing *worst with *latest. This isn't the worst, it's just part of a pattern since Bill was governor and issues were perennially raised.
I don't think it's character assassination when the corruption is so blatant. Trump is a moron. Again, not character assassination, imo. He hasn't even had the opportunity to be politically corrupt yet.
Re: (Score:2)
She pulled out of the conference out of fear... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] http://losangeles.cbslocal.com... [cbslocal.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
drip drip drip (Score:2)
Ding! Dong! The witch is dead! (Score:2)
FBI Sources Believe Clinton Foundation Case Moving Towards "Likely an Indictment" [realclearpolitics.com]
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Wow, turns out the alt-right doesn't like "leftists." What a helpful comment.
Re:Leftism as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
The 'alt-right' people ain't the only ones who have problems w/ Leftists
The term 'alt-right' is ambiguous right now. Is alt-right a bunch of fringe internet whackos? Or is it the 1/3rd or so of America who's on the right, but feels entirely disenfranchised by the GOP (to the point that voting for Trump seems the best alternative)?
'Alt-right' means different (if overlapping) groups depending on who you talk to, and how much they live on the internet.
There's a fairly large crowd that has a problem with "Leftists", but I would say "yes, and that's the alt-right - which is now more mainstream than the GOP".
Alt Right Definition (Score:2)
Handy Alt Right Definition:
http://www.amerika.org/politic... [amerika.org]
You can also go to the source:
http://alternative-right.blogs... [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Which still leaves out standpoints on abortion and gay marriage, which in most European countries are well agreed upon by the "regular" right and left. Only religious conservative parties are really against it. So these are not typical "left is pro" and "right is contra" topics. Both left and right are pro
Re: (Score:3)
Defining Hilary by European standards is ridiculous when she's a player in the US political system. Here, she was Leftist long before Bernie surfaced. In 1992, when Bill Clinton was batting for the Democrat Leadership Council in trying to move the party more to the center, she was one leader of the Left leaning faction of the party, and focused on bringing Single Payer Healthcare when the party had not just the WH, but also both houses of Congress. So that was when Hilary was unplugged and a free agent,
Re: (Score:3)
The alt-right is whatever the left defines it as.
Actually, the term "alt-right" comes from ... the alt-right [wikipedia.org]. It is a term of self-identification, not something imposed by "the left".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Leftism as usual (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe, just maybe, we should stop basing politics on feelings/desires and focus on what works. But then we would be Rightist.
Not necessarily, Sweden works pretty well and I'm not sure many Americans would call them rightists.
I live in a Western country friendly to the US. The Governing party here is pretty right-wing by our standards, but would be considered dangerously communist in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
People will always say this stuff, regardless of whether it's true. It may or may not be true here -- probably not because "dangerously communist" is absurdly hyperbolic -- but it's completely unsubstantiated by fact or argument.
Re: (Score:2)
1. What country do you live in?
2. What do you mean by "right-wing?"
3. If Sweden is so good why do they have so many fewer immigrants than the U.S.?
Re:Leftism as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmm. Sweden. Low federal and corporate income taxes. No estate tax. Liberal and free trade policy. A lot of the reforms they have instituted in the last several decades have paid huge dividends. Maybe we should try to emulate them more.
Re: (Score:2)
And all of that might work in a tiny, insulated country of like-minded people with minute immigration, lack of having to defend themselves, and without certain Constitutionally protected rights.
I get so tired of hearing people try to compare small European countries to the USA as if they are something we could just emulate or should even aspire to become. Our problems tend to be far, far more complex and expensive.
1) Get real
2) No thanks
Re: Leftism as usual (Score:2)
I think you mistake my position. I'm saying it's the free market and liberal (not progressive) reforms that have made Sweden what it is today. Not socialism.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I probably jumped a bit too quickly. But I think you know what I mean when I say there are just so many postings about how wonderful this or that country is in Europe and how just doing XXXX here would solve all our problems. And those suggestions really do tend to be overwhelmingly "left".
(I do so hate the terms "left" and "right" as if all positions can be defined by them on a single line spectrum... it is beyond silly and doesn't match reality at all. It would be like defining a plane as traveling
Re:Leftism as usual (Score:5, Informative)
You and I have differnet definitions of the term "low":
Sweden's "low" income taxes: no taxes on first 413,200 SEK ($46,376US), 20% tax up to 591,600 SEK ($66,399US), and 25% tax on all income above 591,600 SEK ($66,399US)
Sweden's "low" investment tax is 30%
Sweden's "low" corporate taxes are 22%
Source: https://sweden.se/society/why-... [sweden.se]
SEK to US Dollar conversion tool: http://www.likeforex.com/curre... [likeforex.com]
Re: (Score:3)
American Cap gains rate: 15%
American Corp tax rate 35%
Effective tax rate for corporate investors = 1 - ((1-CapGains)*(1-CorpTax))
Swedish effective tax to corporate investors: 45.4%
American effective tax to corporate investors: 44.75%
Re: (Score:3)
Here is a thought, Taxes are not the right of government.
It is almost like you are arguing that taxes at 45% is "fair". I call it criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
I've noticed that it seems to carry over into the candidates most people are absolutely for one candidate or another.
There does not seem to be any well I'm voting for candidate A because I most agree with them even though I like candidate B's policies on "insert controversial issues here"
Here the response is almost always similar to this I'm voting for candidate A because candidate B will destroy our country and ALL of candidate B's policies are bad.
It seems like people are picking single issues to base the
Re: (Score:3)
>"I hate a lot of the current candidates policies I like some of them but not one closely reflects my views. This is the best we could do?"
With a first-past-the-poll voting system and the electoral college, yes, that is the best we can do. It has been in the making for a long time. The only way to get real choice is to get rid of the EC and institute SOME type of instant runoff voting. Alas, it will likely never happen at this point. So we are trapped.
http://fairvote.org/ [fairvote.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No I know they don't believe 100% (or at least I hope they don't) but they say they do.
IME its pretty much impossible to find two people that don't disagree on something.
Being able to say that you don't actually like either choice but you're still going to vote for one of them and not pretending that there isn't anything you like about the candidate you hate (or vice versa) puts you in a very very small minority here.
i'm intentionally not naming any candidate names because that tends to convert the conversa
political buffets vs package deals (Score:3)
Here in the US, most political positions are package deals. If you're for universal healthcare, you're also for amnesty and vice versa. God forbid we accept one and reject the other.
This is why Trump is pretty important. He's rejecting certain traditional positions and accepting others.
This!!! Absolutely this! While I'm generally on the Right (forget neocon/alt-right/whatever other brand there is), there are some Democrat positions that I'm willing to not just consider, but also support. Like on Trade Deals, I'm w/ Trump, but his policy was anathema to the GOP until last year - only Pat Buchanan ever had that position. On abortion, I'm for it being legal in the first trimester, no questions asked (as long as both parents approve) but it being outlawed in the third. While that violat
Shhhh (Score:3)
You are going to blow the narrative!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Please name one right wing government that currently exists that works for the people. Just one.
For values of people:
Some number of people benefit from every government's activities, although it is not necessarily a majority of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, not really State Department issues, so much as SecState issues. The issue being that she violated security in serious ways (ways that would have gotten me put in jail back when I was in the military)....
Kristian Saucier in prison now, didn't send at all (Score:5, Informative)
Navy machinist Kristian Saucier took some selfies aboard ship and is in prison for it right now. Saucier didn't send the pictures to anyone. Having the classified information (pictures of the interior of the ship) on a non-secure device is a crime, and Saucier is in prison for that crime.
Clinton instructed her staff on how to send classified information "remove markings and send insecure". She intentionally instructed staff to do what Saucier did (have info on an unsecured device) AND more- also Clinton had it sent over the public internet.
Re: Kristian Saucier in prison now, didn't send at (Score:2, Informative)
Know a Radio Room officer who went to jail when a TS document found its way into a trash can instead of the burn bag.
HE didn't even handle the damn document. He was just the officer in charge of the space.
So, yes. The rules are quite different depending on who your friends are, who you are and how much financial influence you can wave around.
Folks go to jail for far less than what Hillary has pulled which is the biggest problem with the whole damn thing.
Why the fuck is she treated any different than anyon
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why the fuck is she treated any different than anyone else ?
Because she's better than your sorry asses in every way and is having the FEMA camps prepped and is distributing those hundreds of millions of rounds of hollow-point ammo the Feds have been buying up to DHS and other domestic security forces even as we speak. Keep running your mouths against Clinton and you won't make it to the camps alive. Think of your families and STFU.
Re:Hard to believe (Score:5, Informative)
The relevant law is: 18 U.S. Code 1924
Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material (18 USC 1924) is something that Hillary would likely have been charged with if she had not been protected by her cronies. The fact is, they allowed her claim that she didn't know what she was doing was illegal to stand in as absence of a clear motive. I find it really hard to believe that someone who has spent 30 years in the Federal Government has no knowledge of Section 18 of the criminal code! David Petraeus plead guilty to that charge and got a little probation and a $100,000 fine. For one count. However, Hillary (and others on her staff) might be guilty lots and lots of instances.
She and some staffers may also be guilty of 18 USC 1623, False Declarations Before a grand jury or court--which carries up to 5 years--for lying under oath about said intent to commit the crime of removing classified documents and storing them. There is also 18 USC 1001, Fraud and False Statements which might come into play if she lied. Really, I think it's quite embarrassing as a citizen to live in a country that claims to practice justice in the court, but clearly does not. When you get passed all the political spin and commentary and drill down to the actual criminal code, it is hard to imagine a reality in which Hillary and her staff did not get convicted of SOMETHING. Let alone not even indicted! It just goes to show how deep the corruption goes.
Here's TFL (the fucking law)
18 USC 1924 [gpo.gov]
18 USC 1623 [gpo.gov]
18 USC 1001 [gpo.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
And here's a great video to go along with your reading of that law. The FBI Director is on the stand here, under oath, being grilled about their handling of this case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:Hard to believe (Score:4, Informative)
I hope if you ever find yourself under criminal investigation while running for office, that the investigating agency provides you with inside information advantageous to your campaign as well. Totally normal stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe you've taken a very close look at what's been revealed. Building personal fortunes of $ and power out of access to, and abuse of, strategic controls of OUR government is at the core of Clinton Inc. This is not a new thing for any of us old enough to remember when Bill was Gov of Arkansas. "Slick Willy" goes waaay back.
The FBI director's conclusion was that there was insufficient evidence of intent, not that there was no intent. That infuriated enough of the lower ranks involved that the We
Re: (Score:2)
If Trump wins,
Seriously, if Trump wins, do you really think he's gunna stick to it? Once he sees he can't just bully and bluster his way to get shit done in our political system, I bet money he resigns and let's Pence deal with it. Even if he doesn't publicly resign, behind the curtails, Pence will be running this show. Trump has no clue how to work in government.
Like I said, I don't care. If Trump wins, it'll definitely be as entertaining as this entire election as been.
Re: (Score:2)
With what? Food stamps?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You sound like the spoiled (and uneducated) brat. Trump isn't a politician, which is part of his attraction by many Americans who are sick of politicians. Pull your head out of your bum.