SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Anyone who follows American politics will have heard of Hillary Clinton's email server. Rather than using an official State Department address, she chose to use a private server for her official email. Federal law requires all official email to be archived on government servers. Armchair lawyers have pointed out that it doesn't require the use of government servers to send and receive the email, but the archival requirement is clear. This requirement was clearly violated in this case: in response to a subpoena, Hillary Clinton's private staff extracted emails from her private server and turned them over to the government. The contents of the server itself were never made available to the government, and now she has had the server erased:
Hillary Clinton wiped “clean” the private server housing emails from her tenure as secretary of state, the chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi said Friday.
“While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, said in a statement.
As Popehat tweeted:
@Popehat
I ask you, who among us hasn't wiped a server clean after its contents were requested by subpoena?
I naively wonder why she isn't in jail, but that's just me. Comments and views from those interested in American politics?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 30 2015, @09:49AM
I subscribe to every conspiracy theory revolving around Clinton. I don't BELIEVE them all, but I believe that many are true. From Watergate to Whitewater, to the killing of Vince Foster, right on up to the Benghazi scandal. Hillary Clinton will sacrifice anyone and everyone to make her dream come true - that of being the first woman to be president.
I truly despise that woman. She is pure evil.
Liberals, I ask you: Can you not find ANY OTHER WOMAN who is more qualified to lead, than this bitch? I would nominate my wife, my mother, my sister before I put Clinton in line. I might even nominate one of our dogs. If you need a female, there are many of them more qualified than Shrillary.
No - I've not contributed anything to the subject of this discussion. But, I feel better for having expressed my contempt for this bitch.
(Score: -1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @10:04AM
So you hate her gender and her voice, both physical attributes. That's some excellent superficial prejudice you have there.
Let's see, I dislike your username and your age which I infer from your username. Fuck off and die, old geezer.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Ryuugami on Monday March 30 2015, @01:38PM
He didn't say he hates her gender, if anything, it sounded like total opposite. He said he despises her, but that she's not a good representative of said gender.
As for the voice, I don't know. In the ideal world, it wouldn't matter, but in this one it seems like an important physical attribute for a politician. Especially for a president, since you'll have to listen to them quite a lot :)
If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @03:42PM
> He said he despises her, but that she's not a good representative of said gender.
When it comes from someone with a clear agenda saying, "X is important but you are doing X wrong" is called concern trolling.
Since it was clear to you that he despises her, his agenda is pretty clear.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 30 2015, @02:29PM
WTF? Where do you get that I dislike her gender and her voice? I said, very specifically, that if it's time for a female to run this nation, there are many women who are more qualified. Are you literate? Or, do you just read whatever your psychosis dictates into a post?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday March 30 2015, @02:38PM
Give up, this AC is a paid astroturfer. Notice the other AC below agreeing with him? Same dude.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @03:34PM
I said, very specifically, that if it's time for a female to run this nation, there are many women who are more qualified.
Name some that you would vote for.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 30 2015, @04:19PM
"Some" - Palin come readily to mind. She ain't real bright, IMHO, but her positions are positions that I can live with.
Bachman seems maybe a little less bright than Palin, but again, her policies are policies I can live with.
Rice, from Bush's administraion, is really to much of a warmonger for my taste, but even so, she is infinitely more qualified that Hillary.
You will note that I'm naming conservative women. I hope that three are enough for you, I can find more.
Hmmmm. Google "potential female presidential candidates". There are some that I hadn't thought of, some that I despise less than I despise Clinton, but none that I really admire. Well - no surprise there, really. We haven't had a male candidate that I could admire in just about forever.
As for genuine QUALIFICATIONS, Rice beats them all, male or female, hands down.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 30 2015, @09:06PM
Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman are the best examples you can think of? That's sad. Margaret Thatcher would do you proud; I would vote for her. But there is no woman on the Republican side of the aisle in America who is her equal, or who even approaches half her stature.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @02:29PM
Come on now. Maggie was an old broad when I was still a young man - and that's been a long time. Is she an octogenarian yet? Sorry, I would have voted for her 30 years ago, but not today.
(Score: 1) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday April 01 2015, @03:33PM
She's dead [wikipedia.org] and received a state funeral in the UK nearly two years ago.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 01 2015, @03:43PM
Well - I might vote for her after all if her name comes up on the ballot. Deceased representatives probably can't do any worse than some of the ones who still breathe.
Pardon me for the brain fart. I was aware of her death, somehow I forgot that she had died.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday April 01 2015, @04:54PM
True :)
And don't mind the brain fart, you weren't the only one and people in general are likely to keep continuing to make the mistake for years.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday March 31 2015, @01:11AM
As my daughter would say, now name some that you trust!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday March 30 2015, @02:37PM
I hate her because she is a Republican (warmonger, surveillor, Wall Street tool).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @10:29AM
I agree with you completely, and I don't for a moment see what her gender or vocal sounds have to do with why she is the pure evil that she is. I also don't see even a spec of anything to suggest otherwise in your post.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @10:37AM
Why did Obama have to start the idiotic trend that the president must be the flavor of the decade? Black male, white female, who's next, gay male?
Anyone care about the potential candidates' policies? Anyone? Anyone?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday March 30 2015, @12:15PM
For the most part, the reason Obama was elected was that unlike Hillary Clinton and John McCain, he opposed the complete idiocy that was the Iraq War. His community organizing roots also got him a lot of support from the left-wing base because he did the same kind of thing in Chicago that they'd been doing in other places.
So yes, it was about more than just "he's a black guy", and at least partially about his actual policies. Remember, his toughest election battle by far was against Hillary Clinton, who would have been the first female president (at least in name - I suspect Bill will be important if she ends up winning this time). Indeed, there's a fair amount of evidence that he was elected and reelected despite his blackness, not because of it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 30 2015, @02:32PM
Bingo. My vote was cast for the candidate whom I felt LEAST LIKELY to start another war in which my sons might be killed. I didn't like anyone's policies very much, so I fell back on "Which one of these clowns is most and least likely to start a new war?" I did NOT vote for or against a black man, or a white man, or even a white woman. The policies dictated my choice among several poor candidates.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday March 30 2015, @03:21PM
And that seems to have been a wise choice, based on your motivations: A lot of people who wanted to become POTUS would have already sent your sons to fight in Iran.
Although I suspect Dennis Kucinich, had he been any sort of factor and not just an also-ran, would have also kept your sons safe - his campaigns were defined by his opposition to the Iraq War and an attempt to impeach Cheney and Bush for starting it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:37AM
Dennis Kucinich, isn't he actually left wing with libertarian tendencies? Totally un-electable. http://politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2008.png [politicalcompass.org]
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday March 31 2015, @11:38AM
He's very left-wing, but frequently found himself on the same side of an issue as Ron Paul for entirely different reasons. I lived in what used to be his district for quite a while, have met the man and heard him speak, and his basic vision of America looks something like this:
1. Equal rights for all adults, and reasonable protections for children. That also means punishing those with power who break the law.
2. A very strong social safety net that ensures that nobody starves or is homeless or dies because they can't pay for health care.
3. Strong unions and workplace protections. A much higher minimum wage.
4. A military that is dramatically smaller than it is now. US foreign policy focused on peaceful dealings with foreign governments rather than threatening them with war.
5. If cuts to the military are not sufficient to cover the strong social safety net, tax the rich to get the money.
6. Government programs can and should compete with private corporations in providing services, because citizens can often get better service and pricing from the government entity.
Points 1 and 4 are very compatible with libertarianism. Points 2, 3, 5, and 6 are decidedly not.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GlennC on Monday March 30 2015, @03:02PM
... unlike Hillary Clinton and John McCain, he appeared to oppose the complete idiocy that was the Iraq War
FTFY
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @12:27PM
> Why did Obama have to start the idiotic trend that the president must be the flavor of the decade?
What an empty criticism. The obvious corollary to that is the previous idiotic trend that the president must be one the flavor of the millenium.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by negrace on Monday March 30 2015, @01:13PM
It does not matter what the candidate's policies are. They are _promises_ that are promptly abandoned. Until the campaign promises are made legally binding or something like that, the whole system does not make much sense.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Monday March 30 2015, @06:16PM
Hell, awhile ago [maybe 15 years ago?longer?] the Liberal party put out "The Red Book", a book that they promoted during their election campaign about all the things they would do as soon as they were elected. They get elected, then it was "Oh, now that we're in charge, we realize we can't actually do ANYTHING that we promised [the primary thing was they were going to cancel the national GST [a sales tax].
Course, we re-elected them the following election as well.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:41AM
Considering the choices.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @07:56PM
The bureaucratic machinery that surrounds the president seems to quickly convince new presidents that there is no bridge between the current state of affairs and the state of affairs envisioned in their campaign promises. People underestimate the monstrous political inertia that stymies the people nominally in charge of the government.
Generally the President can start new things, to an extent, but stopping something already in motion is more difficult.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday March 30 2015, @01:58PM
who's next, gay male?
Would an "in the closet" neoconservative republican count, or only if he's busted in an airport restroom before the election, not after?
It might be their only chance to ever win again, for various demographic reasons.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 30 2015, @02:46PM
But here you're getting to the heart of the matter: "flavor of the decade" is in fact part of the strategy of the Deep State. They figure by giving the rubes a President from the flavor du jour they're buying themselves more time to cheat, steal, & murder in 8 yr increments. It's because what a candidate says are his or her policies are totally irrelevant to what the Deep State ensures will happen. Bush Jr promised "compassionate conservatism." What we got was the Total Information Awareness program. Obama promised transparent government. What we got was the most secretive government in history.
It's obvious to the regular citizen who's paying attention to the news (ie., not news about celebrities) that there's an unbroken continuity in policy between Republican and Democratic administrations. In the last 15 years we have literally switched back and forth from total Republican control of the federal government in the US to total Democratic control of the federal government, and nothing has substantially changed in terms of policy outcomes. There remain some extreme denialists and shills who will argue up and down that "elections matter," but 99% of the rest of us trust our lying eyes and ears and know that they don't.
The conclusion is obvious, though timorous souls will shrink from it: in the United States democracy 1.0 has failed; it has been totally captured and subverted by nefarious forces. It must be broken down and re-made.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday March 30 2015, @05:34PM
the president is basically just a figurehead anyway. all they can do is give suggestions to congress, have the option to veto any extremely bad laws, and appoint some federal judges (if the seats are empty), thats about it. he can send out some of the military but that mostly falls to congress too. treaties are supposed to be a presidential thing but i think congress has mostly been taking care of that lately as well. executive orders are an option but can't congress easily veto or override those?
so presidential powers - appointments and suggestions, and limited warfare options. did i miss anything? the president is who matters the least and is more of a "check and balance" than anyone with power.
people who want to affect change in the US need to worry about their congressmen and not the president. congress has been bought pretty much in its entirety too, but thats because the same idiots keep getting re-elected (and now that its already been bought, swapping in new people probably won't change that).
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 30 2015, @09:11PM
You know, tathra, I worked for a President of the United States. The top of the hierarchy under him was not, the "Know how to do stuff and get stuff done" department, but the press department. That is, they don't know how to actually do anything, nor do they know anyone who knows how to do anything. What they think constitutes "doing something" is talking about stuff, and getting the press to talk about the stuff you want them to. That's it, and that's all.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:51AM
You should come up to Canada if you want to see a secretive government. At least you know Hillary uses email, our government doesn't write anything down, little well use email in such a way that we'd know that they deleted stuff.
Things have got so bad that even America looks better.
(Score: 2) by glyph on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:16AM
Representation isn't exactly a trend. It's an old idea as old as democracy that's just been a bit slow to get going.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Nuke on Monday March 30 2015, @11:54AM
Can you not find ANY OTHER WOMAN who is more qualified to lead, than this bitch? I would nominate my wife, my mother, my sister .... I might even nominate one of our dogs.
If female, the dog would be a bitch.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 30 2015, @02:35PM
For purposes of this "discussion", yes, it would have to be a female dog. It seems that libs are determined that "It's time" for a female president. And, I can go along with that. Just pick a decent candidate. That is the core of my diatribe. Damned near every town and village in America can claim at least one better candidate than Hillary Clinton.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @06:04PM
Unlike conservatives, us liberals and moderates don't give a flying fuck about the president's skin color or gender, all that we care about the president is that they represent us, which means we definitely don't want that bitch Hilary. Some talking heads may have "decided" that the next president should be a woman, but the non-conservatives of this country certainly haven't.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday March 30 2015, @06:29PM
Can we borrow Margaret Thatcher? At least that way she'd have a brain.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday April 01 2015, @03:43PM
Link to the other comment [soylentnews.org] explaining why that's not possible.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday April 01 2015, @06:17PM
I know, but even in the dug-up state, she'd still have more brain than ... my nightmare ticket, Feinstein and Boxer. I might even take Hilary over that!
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @12:12PM
Your knee-jerk opposition to anyone who self-labels as non-Wrong Wing simply demonstrates that your father beat you excessively when you were a child.
I can't stand Hillary either.
To "Liberal" voters, I say if you want a Republican, vote for a self-labeled Republican.
Why support a warmongering Neoliberal Blue-Dog Republican-Lite?
Why choose someone with no respect for government transparency laws?
Alternatives?
Elizabeth Warren is a first-term senator.
(Declared Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz is also a first-term senator.)
Warren has a governmental philosophy of "The most good for the most people".
I see a great future ahead of her.
Cruz, OTOH, is a demagogue--a notorious liar and manipulative clown with ambition beyond his abilities.
I don't think either of those 2 is electable to the top job this cycle.
Warren appears to know that; Cruz doesn't care.
Among those with viable credentials and an interest in the job, Senator Bernie Sanders (Independent) of Vermont is currently closest to what the Democrats and the country need.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @01:43PM
Alternatives?
Elizabeth Warren is a first-term senator.
Except she's not running.
But Martin O'Malley [vox.com] is.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @10:30PM
-1 Redundant
I already indicated that Warren knows she doesn't yet have the gravitas and the organization required to win at the national level.
+1 Informative
Yes, former Maryland governor O'Malley supports several New Deal ideas.
-1 Offtopic
No, he hasn't declared his candidacy.
No Democrat has declared as a presidential candidate thus far.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 30 2015, @02:38PM
Warren is slightly better than Clinton. With Clinton, they are literally scraping the bottom of the barrel. Warren floats in the muck a couple inches off the bottom of the same barrel.
I don't expect that either party will nominate the best of all possible women (or men) in America. Politics are politics, and the best people stay the hell out of politics. The people most qualified to rule or lead are just about the least likely to want the job!
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday March 31 2015, @02:41AM
Principle of the least-bad option: If it's a choice between a warmongering neo-liberal beholden to an anti-war party base and a warmongering neo-conservative beholden to a pro-war party base, you want the one who's at least going to have some internal opposition.
Strategically, though, my rule is always to vote for the least-bad option in a close election between least-bad and absolutely-terrible, and vote for the candidate I really want that has no chance of winning in non-close elections. That's one reason in my state the Green Party candidate for governor polled higher than that party ever has before in that state.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @01:16PM
Liberals, I ask you: Can you not find ANY OTHER WOMAN who is more qualified to lead, than this bitch?
But you at least you respect Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Eric Holder, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Al Gore, even though you mostly disagree with their policies, right?
Oh, I guess you don't.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 30 2015, @02:43PM
Obama ranks several points ahead of Clinton. Biden a point or two over Obama. Holder? He's one racist son of a bitch. Kerry? A self professed war criminal. Pelosi? Like Warren, she floats in the much a couple inches above the very bottom of the barrel. Reid? I don't have much use for him, but he still ranks above Clinton, Warren, and Pelosi.
Al Gore? Isn't it obvious to everyone yet that he is a self-serving con artist? He tells all of us how we need to sacrifice to prevent "global warming", while he makes money off of his scam, and squanders enough energy to serve ten wasteful families. Wow - how did HE get into this discussion? Is he running again?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @01:47PM
I can think of only one Democratic female that would come close to Hillary's qualifications, name recognition, and electability: Elizabeth Warren. Contrast Hillary Clinton with the right's female stars, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman. Clinton is orders of magnitude more qualified.
Deleting the emails may be part of Hillary's big evil plan. She brings Benghazi back to the forefront and Republicans talk about it 7 x 24 and can't focus on anything else. The election becomes the prosecution of Benghazi and repeal Obamacare versus equality, environment, economy, etc. Republicans lose.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @06:10PM
Being more qualified than batshit crazy doesn't mean much.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 30 2015, @02:32PM
Chris Ruddy, the CEO of NewsMax, founded that theory and pushed it heavily. He is now Bill Clinton's best pal; I've sat in meetings with the two of them. I've also seen Bill Clinton meeting with Rupert Murdoch. Truly, the Republicans vs. Democrats, Left vs. Right divide in America is all for the rubes. The Clintons, Bushes, Soroses, Murdochs of the world are on the same side.
I don't identify as a "liberal," in the "bleeding heart liberal" sense of the word, but as a "progressive" in the Teddy Roosevelt sense of the word, but I'll take the question. Elizabeth Warren should be the first woman President of the United States. She keeps kicking Wall Street hard in the nuts. Nobody else in the federal government is doing that. I would vote for a Republican who did that over Hillary Clinton, any day, but none of them do. I want to see Wall Street banks destroyed the way Andersen Consulting was, and all of their top- and middle- executives perp-walked in handcuffs to a SuperMax near you.
I agree 100%. If she is elected President I will emigrate. No place on Earth is safe from an evil President of the United States in this era, but perhaps my kids will get enough time to come of age before civilization comes crashing down.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by linuxrocks123 on Monday March 30 2015, @03:44PM
perhaps my kids will get enough time to come of age before civilization comes crashing down.
See, stuff like this is just pure wing-nuttery. Both parties in the US are pretty centrist, although the Republicans do have a large far-right contingent that the establishment tries to keep mostly under control. Hillary Clinton has no interest in and will not intentionally cause the downfall of civilization. She's not the Antichrist, and it's not in her interest to do that. She's also an intelligent human being who would have a pretty good understanding of what actions would and would not be likely to cause the downfall of civilization, and, again, in her own self-interest if for no other reasons, she would choose not to engage in actions likely to cause the downfall of civilization.
It's fine not to like Obama, either Clinton, McCain, Bush, etc. But they're people, not demons. Get it together.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 30 2015, @04:01PM
OK, do you know these people personally? Have you interacted with them? I have. I have sat in meetings with them, I have been in their inner sanctums. They are not honorable people, they do not care one jot for you or anyone else. They are as alien to the experience of the average American as an actual alien. To put it in American terms, they are like the Palins, but with better PR success. That is, they are grifters.
I do know the difference between normal people, and normal people with the ability to screw things up for a great many more people than themselves. The Clintons are the latter. They should not be let anywhere near the levers of power again, however symbolic those levers of power have become.
So do not stand up in defense of politicans you do not know, unless you are a paid shill. It calls you out, and renders your words moot.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @09:12PM
OK, do you know these people personally? Have you interacted with them? I have. I have sat in meetings with them, I have been in their inner sanctums.
You are so fucking delusional. There is no way you've ever "sat in a meeting" with Obama, the Clintons, McCain, or any Bush. Not a chance. Maybe you attended one of the tens of inauguration balls held after every election, and they made a perfunctory appearance before moving on to the next one. But even that's a stretch.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 31 2015, @09:49PM
This part makes me think he's telling the truth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 01 2015, @09:08PM
How can you be so sure? First you need to read more carefully, he never claimed to have been in a meeting with Obama, Bush or McCain, he was talking specifically about the Clintons.
In another comment he claimed to have worked for a PoTUS, and in a different comment he stated he had sat in a meeting with Bill Clinton and Chris Ruddy. Taken together this implies he worked for Bill Clinton while he was president, that being the case it is plausible he would also have met Hilary Clinton.
We may not be able to verify Phoenix666's claims, but they are at least coherent and plausible.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @06:08PM
Both parties in the US are pretty centrist
Centrist? compared to themselves, maybe. Compared to every other industrialized nation on the planet both parties are right wing. The Republican party is slightly more right wing and its "base" (crazy minority) is totalitarian. E.g., socialized, single payer health care is a centrist idea with the humans on the rest of the planet. It's considered a left wing conspiracy in the U.S.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @06:16PM
No, even the "left" in the US is pretty far to the right. The US has two parties - the right and the bat-shit-crazy insanely-far right. Even a centrist position would get you mocked as a "communist" in the US. That what we call "communist" isn't even a position to the left, being "totalitarian state capitalism" and all, doesn't help.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday March 30 2015, @07:34PM
I'll agree that both parties in the US are pretty similar, but I'd call them rather far towards the authoritarian wing of the authoritarian-anarchist axis, and not very near the center at all. I *do* think that the center is the only sane type of government, but that's not what you get when you have government run by those who worship power.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:01AM
Look at the 2008 contenders politics, http://politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2008.png [politicalcompass.org] , 2 contenders to the left and 3 contenders towards the libertarian philosophy. The rest are right wing authoritarians to one degree or another with the most extreme being red.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:40AM
I've never heard of that site. Why do you think it is persuasive?
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday April 05 2015, @05:52PM
Read their introduction at http://politicalcompass.org/ [politicalcompass.org] and perhaps check out their test. It's not perfect but compared to the idiots who call Obama socialist or communist because he gave a huge giveaway to the insurance companies...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Monday March 30 2015, @02:52PM
And the difference between what she did and what Cheney did in 06 is....what exactly? I look forward to seeing how many of the right wingers here aren't hypocrites and believe likewise that Cheney and Bush should be brought up on charges, Cheney for the same email bit and Bush of course pushed known bad intel as legit to get a way started which cost millions of lives.
Of course I bet like with most USA partisan hacks that will be 100% okay because the person had the R beside their name, just as those that screamed about Bush wiretaps had no problem with Obama expanding the program. Meet the new hypocrite, same as the old hypocrite.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 30 2015, @04:28PM
No, Hairy, I argued long and loud against the invasion of Iraq. I am perfectly aware that Bush knowingly pushed a Crusade on the American people under false pretenses. And, Cheney is pretty much evil incarnate, based on his twisted legal logic and his endorsement of torture as much as anything else.
But - this discussion wasn't about the evil SOB Cheney, it's about the evil bitch Hillary.
You can, of course, begin a discussion of the evils done by the Bush administration. I don't give anyone a pass because they have an R or a D beside their names. Evil is evil.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @06:30PM
Normally I would agree that bringing up somebody else would count as an attempted misdirection, (ie, whenever somebody talks shit about the GOP, somebody always chimes in with "The Democrats are just as bad!" to change the subject), but this is a solid, concrete example of somebody who did the same thing that Hillary did, yet nobody is rallying for anyone except Hillary to hang; this isn't just a "Somebody else is just as bad!" attempt at misdirection, this is "If its a crime, then everyone who did it should be punished".
Now, maybe this is my bias showing and I'm just arguing semantics, I'll admit that's possible, but the difference is generalization vs. concrete example. Evil is evil, yes, and evil should be punished evenly and not just the side that doesn't agree with a certain group, which is what we're seeing. Everyone clamoring for Hillary to be locked up should be clamoring for Chaney to be locked up as well. Nobody except "liberals" seems to want Bush and Chaney prosecuted as the war criminals that they are, yet the right wants what are tiny mistakes in comparison to be executed on the spot while giving "their side" a total pass.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Monday March 30 2015, @06:35PM
So basically your argument is that all the denizens of the White House for the last 15 years are evil incarnate.
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday March 30 2015, @07:01PM
It wasn't just GWB and Cheney who rabidly pushing for war -- Hillary Clinton was also an Iraq Debacle Cheerleader -- her ONLY beef with GWB, is that she didn't think it was a good time to cut taxes. See here from about 11 minutes for a couple minutes -- Hillary Clinton says it's our duty to get Saddam even if the would isn't totally lined up with us, just like it was our duty to do Bosnia, but that cutting taxes puts "homeland" security at risk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtK9AzcU42g [youtube.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Monday March 30 2015, @07:26PM
First of all calling her a bitch doesn't help your argument as it sounds like you only care about her sex, evil is enough before her name. Second while I think she'll be a shitty president...she WILL be president, if for no other reason than the Republicans have gone and been taken over by the Ayn randiates that take delight in stomping poor and blowing the rich. Hell look at who they ran last time, Mittens had so many Thurston Howell moments the other side needed only to run clips of his own rich cluelessness to win easily. Look at the pack running now...Paul (no chance), Cruz (another big mouth, no chance), Fiorina? Too much baggage, no chance, I mean things are soooo bad over there they are praying for Jeb to run, and I got better odds of winning the lotto than another Bush in the White House!
This is why I've said for years we need to get rid of the barriers that keep us from having viable third parties, because until the right gets rid of the teabaggers and Randiates they have better odds of bringing Reagan back from the dead than they do getting the big chair.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1) by beernutz on Monday March 30 2015, @03:33PM
I nominate Elizabeth Warren. We need about 100 more of her.
(Score: 2) by TLA on Monday March 30 2015, @04:52PM
somebody commented once that they could have done with five more of me. I took that as such a grievous insult, I actually walked out of a job because of it. Frankly, I could have done with five assistants to deal with the drudge work while I dealt with the important stuff like analysis. You don't need five geniuses, what you need is five robots to deal with the repetitive boring shit and let the genius shine.
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 3, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 30 2015, @09:14PM
You are a rare animal, a person with integrity. Might I suggest the Freemasons? They put integrity above all else.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @05:36PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2015, @04:10PM
> I subscribe to every conspiracy theory revolving around Clinton. I don't BELIEVE them all,
Unless there is some magazine of clinton conspiracy theories, you have a unique definition of "subscribe."
(Score: 2) by K_benzoate on Monday March 30 2015, @07:00PM
Liberals, I ask you: Can you not find ANY OTHER WOMAN who is more qualified to lead, than this bitch?
Yes, easily. Elizabeth Warren (D-Ma) and Jill Stein (Green Party) are both real liberals and both far more suited for the office. They also have no chance of winning (Warren isn't even going to run). Hillary is no liberal, she's just a Democrat; just like you can be a Republican without really being a conservative.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 30 2015, @09:03PM
Well, what does "democrat" really mean anymore? Both parties are on the take. People who think electing one over the other makes a categorical difference aren't paying attention at all. "Regulatory capture" is only one term for the reality that is the futility of elections in today's America.
The two-party system has failed to deliver the systemic flexibility and adaptability the Founding Fathers hoped for. The checks & balances they built in have failed to prevent systemic subversion. The only remedy that remains is the right to keep & bear arms. I'm generally not a gun-toting sort, but if hundreds of millions of average Americans have and can aim firearms, even single-shot hunting rifles, it gives the Masters of the Universe pause. That's a good thing.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @01:20AM
The definition in practice is "Anyone who doesn't watch Fox News and/or doesn't argue in favor of/agree with the GOP and their talking points". Seriously, have you seen around this site even? Simply disagree with people like The Mighty Buzzard and you'll be called "Liberal" and "Democrat" (yet he claims he's not a conservative lol). Factually, the Democrat party is everyone who isn't part of the GOP.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:00PM
I think a more accurate statement is that GOP members classify anyone who doesn't agree with their current Republican flavour of crazy as a communist libtard, no matter how those others actually identify themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:14AM
they never expect it!