Clinton Support Drops - Sanders Supporters Surge

[cabri]

Reference?

Probably not.

Guidelines for Federal contracts exists and unless the company is on an approved list; they can not get Federal $$.

Any contractor has to provide a list of people being paid on a given contract.

The contracting officer can exclude an employee or a company if deemed not qualified.

If you have ever worked with Federal contracting, this would be clearly understood.

Go chase the GSA website and Federal Contracting requirements if you want specifics.

 

[Jhhnn]

Guidelines for Federal contracts exists and unless the company is on an approved list; they can not get Federal $$.

Any contractor has to provide a list of people being paid on a given contract.

The contracting officer can exclude an employee or a company if deemed not qualified.

If you have ever worked with Federal contracting, this would be clearly understood.

Go chase the GSA website and Federal Contracting requirements if you want specifics.

As I said- mere assertion on your part.

It's not like boomerang is painting it, in any case. He can't be forced to testify anywhere w/o a grant of immunity & Repubs get more innuendo & speculation out of it the way it is.

You realize that's the whole point, I hope. As with anything right wing, the truth is immaterial. It's all about the framing.

 

[cabri]

As I said- mere assertion on your part.

It's not like boomerang is painting it, in any case. He can't be forced to testify anywhere w/o a grant of immunity & Repubs get more innuendo & speculation out of it the way it is.

You realize that's the whole point, I hope. As with anything right wing, the truth is immaterial. It's all about the framing.

Link


Starting point for you to understand GSA contracts :colbert;

 

[Brian Stirling]

But she's a DINO, isn't she, according to the right wing concern trolls?

And if she's more like Repubs than many liberals would like, why would righties call her supporters fanatics?

Hey, neither the right nor the left have to be correct on this. Yes, righties will label a righty Democrat like Hillary because, well she has to be right! And lefties will defend her no matter how much her actual policy actions resemble those of the right.

It's not a question of one side being right while the other is wrong -- they can't both be right but the can both be wrong!


Brian

 

[Jhhnn]

Hey, neither the right nor the left have to be correct on this. Yes, righties will label a righty Democrat like Hillary because, well she has to be right! And lefties will defend her no matter how much her actual policy actions resemble those of the right.

It's not a question of one side being right while the other is wrong -- they can't both be right but the can both be wrong!


Brian

I'm not defending Hillary because she's Hillary although it's quite obvious that's the underlying rationale for the attack. I'm defending the integrity of the office of SoS & the rest of the cabinet regardless of who's in power.

They are compelled by law to use a private server for some communications under the Hatch Act. So if they allegedly use govt servers for govt business & a private one for everything else they have complete discretion as to releasing anything from the private server. They don't really have to hold to that much at all because using govt servers part of the time gives them plausible deniability. Anybody who thinks there is no leakage across that barrier is a fool, of course. Anybody who thinks that none of it might be classified after the fact is also a fool. We'll never know for sure, of course, because it'll never be released.

It accomplishes the same end as Hillary's deletions.

There's no reason to think that one method is any more trustworthy than the other. In either case, I'm willing to grant any SoS the respect to do so honestly.

This whole business of making it just about Hillary is extremely dishonest & just another example of the FUD campaign waged against the Clintons for more than 20 years.

They're far from perfect but they're easily as trustworthy as the opposition, all things considered. I don't think they'll lead us to war on false pretenses, for example, turn back women's rights or that they'd turn their back on the greatest Wall St looting spree in the history of finance, but YMMV, of course.

 

[nickqt]

Hey, neither the right nor the left have to be correct on this. Yes, righties will label a righty Democrat like Hillary because, well she has to be right! And lefties will defend her no matter how much her actual policy actions resemble those of the right.

It's not a question of one side being right while the other is wrong -- they can't both be right but the can both be wrong!


Brian

Whats more interesting is that Clinton is a center-right candidate compared to the rest of the civilized world, but will be painted by the right as a socialist communist - you name it - because that's all they got.

Their policy positions are losers, so it's all about demonizing whomever they run against, while claiming (projecting) it's the libruuls dividing the 'murrican people.

Or, to put it another way, what did HRC do that Colin Powell didn't do as SoS? But no problems there for the right. Which shows just how much of a nothingburger this is.

It's nothing. Just like Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS, Birth Certificates, and every other bumper-sticker policy-alternative the Republicans run on, it's nothing, and no one cares except them, and the media they claim (project) is libruul.

That's what is interesting.

You can get caught up in the weeds and miss the forest for the trees, or, you can take a step back and see just how utterly useless one whole political party is, as it literally has no policies that the public wants implemented, but still manages to garner 45% of the popular vote. Tribalism is alive and well, and it still works like a charm.

A case study in an Empire that is no longer on the ascent, and is instead plateauing and on the decline. Which is just fine for the people who own and operate everything, because while everyone watches horserace coverage that the media profits from, they're busy stealing everything that isn't bolted to the floor.

It's hilarious. Tragic, but hilarious. And very interesting.

 

[cabri]

Sanders is ahead of Clinton in NH now.

 

[Genx87]

This is about the only way Trump wins. What a shitshow 2016 would be if it were Trump vs Sanders.

 

[PliotronX]

 

[nickqt]

Polls conducted 14 months out are very predictive of what is going to happen.

Just ask President Giuliani!

 

[Charmonium]

This is about the only way Trump wins. What a shitshow 2016 would be if it were Trump vs Sanders.

That's looking more and more likely. I think the right has had it up to the gills with typical politicians that play both sides against the middle. They like that Trump has basically said 'fuck the Latino vote, this is what I believe.' He may say some dumbass shit but he doesn't back down and there are a lot of people who admire that.

The problem with Bernie is that he's the opposite end of the spectrum. He also says what he believes but I think a lot of his views are too left wing to appeal to huge middle-of-the-road crowd who will decide the election. I think he would still win against Trump just because he's so much sharper. I don't think Trump stands a chance against him in a debate. But the way voters normally compensate for having 2 shitty choices is that they split their tickets. So they vote Dem for president but then Rep for everything else.

Biden is actually starting to look like a viable choice. He's personable and despite his frequent gaffs, people like him. Really the best choice for the Dems though would have been Elizabeth Warren. She's smarter than anyone else on either side, has a strong background in consumer protection and could w/o a doubt run circles around everyone else. But for whatever reason, she doesn't seem to want the job. I can only hope that the as the dismal choices we have become clearer that she'll change her mind.

 

[Jhhnn]

Link


Starting point for you to understand GSA contracts :colbert;

Copy/paste/quote works on that site, so quote the pertinent passages & reference the section if you know so much about it.

And perhaps you'd care to explain the mechanism & the rationale the State Dept might use to hinder his career now that he no longer works there. It's not like he'll ever be convicted of anything.

 

[Bowfinger]

In a new poll in Iowa, Sanders is now tied with Clinton: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/qpoll-iowa-213462

Apparently the "socialist" boogeyman isn't as scary as it used to be, not even in Iowa.

 

[NoStateofMind]

 

[werepossum]

I'm not defending Hillary because she's Hillary although it's quite obvious that's the underlying rationale for the attack. I'm defending the integrity of the office of SoS & the rest of the cabinet regardless of who's in power.

They are compelled by law to use a private server for some communications under the Hatch Act. So if they allegedly use govt servers for govt business & a private one for everything else they have complete discretion as to releasing anything from the private server. They don't really have to hold to that much at all because using govt servers part of the time gives them plausible deniability. Anybody who thinks there is no leakage across that barrier is a fool, of course. Anybody who thinks that none of it might be classified after the fact is also a fool. We'll never know for sure, of course, because it'll never be released.

It accomplishes the same end as Hillary's deletions.

There's no reason to think that one method is any more trustworthy than the other. In either case, I'm willing to grant any SoS the respect to do so honestly.

This whole business of making it just about Hillary is extremely dishonest & just another example of the FUD campaign waged against the Clintons for more than 20 years.

They're far from perfect but they're easily as trustworthy as the opposition, all things considered. I don't think they'll lead us to war on false pretenses, for example, turn back women's rights or that they'd turn their back on the greatest Wall St looting spree in the history of finance, but YMMV, of course.

Dude, you should really break that up into several posts so people don't literally die laughing at the stupid. We need breaks to breathe, damn it! "I'm defending the integrity of the office of SoS & the rest of the cabinet regardless of who's in power" qualifies as a weapon of mass destruction all by itself.

 

[werepossum]

That's looking more and more likely. I think the right has had it up to the gills with typical politicians that play both sides against the middle. They like that Trump has basically said 'fuck the Latino vote, this is what I believe.' He may say some dumbass shit but he doesn't back down and there are a lot of people who admire that.

The problem with Bernie is that he's the opposite end of the spectrum. He also says what he believes but I think a lot of his views are too left wing to appeal to huge middle-of-the-road crowd who will decide the election. I think he would still win against Trump just because he's so much sharper. I don't think Trump stands a chance against him in a debate. But the way voters normally compensate for having 2 shitty choices is that they split their tickets. So they vote Dem for president but then Rep for everything else.

Biden is actually starting to look like a viable choice. He's personable and despite his frequent gaffs, people like him. Really the best choice for the Dems though would have been Elizabeth Warren. She's smarter than anyone else on either side, has a strong background in consumer protection and could w/o a doubt run circles around everyone else. But for whatever reason, she doesn't seem to want the job. I can only hope that the as the dismal choices we have become clearer that she'll change her mind.

Pick everything you hate about D.C. Then realize that 90% of that is going to happen no matter which capital letter is embroidered on the White House towels. Divided government is the very best possible result, because even though they agree on 90%, they at least get tangled up fighting over that 10%.

 

[Charmonium]

Pick everything you hate about D.C. Then realize that 90% of that is going to happen no matter which capital letter is embroidered on the White House towels. Divided government is the very best possible result, because even though they agree on 90%, they at least get tangled up fighting over that 10%.

Who happens to be president is less important than who's in Congress. If you can't get a super majority in the Senate, there's only so much a president can do. But the importance of an election is that it's an opportunity to change the composition of Congress. Mid-term elections have a fraction of the turnout that presidential elections do and since most people vote a straight ticket, getting a president elected from your party generally means that you win seats in Congress as well. It doesn't always work out that way and although I haven't seen stats on it, my impression is that for the past couple of decades, people have been much more willing to split their ticket.

I think that this time though, people on the more conservative side of the spectrum are disgusted enough with our completely ineffectual Congress that they're willing to cross party lines. The gerrymandering done as a result of the 2010 census still make that very difficult, but even with gerrymandering things tend to revert to the mean and I hope we see that this election.

 

[Jhhnn]

Dude, you should really break that up into several posts so people don't literally die laughing at the stupid. We need breaks to breathe, damn it! "I'm defending the integrity of the office of SoS & the rest of the cabinet regardless of who's in power" qualifies as a weapon of mass destruction all by itself.

Mere derision isn't any sort of argument. It's what you usually resort to when you can't address the points made.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Thing I like about right now is all the candidates with big donors backing them are all doing not so great. Imagine if it ended up being Sanders vs Trump. Sanders has thrived on small donations and doing a lot of speaking, Trump does have money but he's not spending it he's getting a free air time. I also like how neither Trump or Sanders does the usual go away to a resort to speak to big donors or clown around serving hot dogs at some stupid fair.
Imagine if the big money guys spend their combined 4 billion and don't have a candidate.

I know I'm dreaming but its fun

 

[Jhhnn]

Pick everything you hate about D.C. Then realize that 90% of that is going to happen no matter which capital letter is embroidered on the White House towels. Divided government is the very best possible result, because even though they agree on 90%, they at least get tangled up fighting over that 10%.

Glorifying obstructionism to prevent proper functioning of the Govt.

When in power, Repubs are incompetent. When out of power, they're very good at gumming up the works. If they can't run it (into the ground) they'll be damned if they'll let anybody else do any better.

 

[hal2kilo]

Thing I like about right now is all the candidates with big donors backing them are all doing not so great. Imagine if it ended up being Sanders vs Trump. Sanders has thrived on small donations and doing a lot of speaking, Trump does have money but he's not spending it he's getting a free air time. I also like how neither Trump or Sanders does the usual go away to a resort to speak to big donors or clown around serving hot dogs at some stupid fair.
Imagine if the big money guys spend their combined 4 billion and don't have a candidate.

I know I'm dreaming but its fun

It's almost as if the "citizens" are rejecting the SCOTUSs decision on Citizens United.

 

[Charmonium]

It's almost as if the "citizens" are rejecting the SCOTUSs decision on Citizens United.

I think SCOTUS vastly underestimated the role that social media and the internet now plays in US politics. All of the conservative members grew up in at time when money=victory in a political campaign. And while money is still important for things like name recognition, it doesn't buy hearts and minds the same way that ideas do.

Plus, it's now so much easier for the average person to donate $10 or $20 dollars to a candidate. You can just text a code on your phone or make a quick paypal payment. So getting a few bucks from millions of people is even easier than trying to suck the ass of billionaire donors.

 

[unokitty]

Pick everything you hate about D.C. Then realize that 90% of that is going to happen no matter which capital letter is embroidered on the White House towels. Divided government is the very best possible result, because even though they agree on 90%, they at least get tangled up fighting over that 10%.

++
When you strip away the political rhetoric and look at how the country has evolved over the last few decades, it becomes clear that changing the president and changing the political party that controls congress doesn't have much impact. Lets look at two significant issues.

Over time, for all major racial and ethnic groups, the number of people in the middle class is declining.

Over time, the wealth gap between whites, blacks, and Hispanics is growing.


My experience is that a Democratic Politician has much much more in common with a Republican Politician than I have in common with either. And the more time that they spend screwing with each other, the less time they have to screw with me.

Uno

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I think SCOTUS vastly underestimated the role that social media and the internet now plays in US politics. All of the conservative members grew up in at time when money=victory in a political campaign. And while money is still important for things like name recognition, it doesn't buy hearts and minds the same way that ideas do.

Plus, it's now so much easier for the average person to donate $10 or $20 dollars to a candidate. You can just text a code on your phone or make a quick paypal payment. So getting a few bucks from millions of people is even easier than trying to suck the ass of billionaire donors.

I don't think they cared about social media.
Citizens United is still a shit ruling.

 

[Genx87]

It's almost as if the "citizens" are rejecting the SCOTUSs decision on Citizens United.

It is almost like all the alarmists about Citizens United were wrong, as usual. The narrative that corporations and billionaires will buy a president isnt panning out like they predicted. Quite the opposite.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/citizens-united-2016-121739#.Vd3GKyVViko