HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Bill USA » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 ... 145 Next »

Bill USA

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 04:25 PM
Number of posts: 6,271

About Me

Quotes I like: "Prediction is very difficult, especially concerning the future." "There are some things so serious that you have to laugh at them.” __ Niels Bohr Given his contribution to the establishment of quantum mechanics, I guess it's not surprising he had such a quirky of sense of humor. ......................."Deliberate misinterpretation and misrepresentation of another's position is a basic technique of (dis)information processing" __ I said that

Journal Archives

Clinton tells cheering union members that Trump is ‘urgent threat to our rights’


Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke in Las Vegas on Thursday, mounting a fierce attack against Donald Trump and calling the GOP candidate and billionaire businessman an “urgent threat to our rights.”

Clinton’s speech was delivered at the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union conference at The Mirage. Her visit came as Trump amassed enough delegates to clinch the GOP presidential nomination.

“... there has never been more at stake for working families in America than there is right now,” Clinton told the group of several hundred cheering union members.

Specifically, Clinton blasted Trump for signing a contract with a “union-busting” firm and discouraging efforts to unionize at Trump International in Las Vegas. She complimented those workers for organizing, which they have done through the Culinary Union.


Like unions that organize, Clinton said, all Americans must stand together if they want to defeat Trump.


Mark Manna, a UFCW area director from Buffalo, N.Y., said supporting Clinton is an easy choice. As a New York state resident, he said, he saw her work as a U.S. senator. Clinton is the only choice for a working American who wants to make a good living, he said, comparing her to Trump.

IG Report on Clinton Email Concludes With...Nothing New - Mother Jones


The State Department's inspector general has finally issued his report on email preservation and retention practices within the department, and he's not impressed:

OIG identified multiple email and other electronic records management issues during the course of this evaluation....Insufficient Oversight of the Recordkeeping Process....Print and File Requirements Not Enforced....Limited Ability To Retrieve Email Records....No Inventory of Archived Electronic Files....Unavailable or Inaccessible Electronic Files....Failure To Transfer Email Records to IPS....Failure To Follow Department Separation Processes....Failure To Notify NARA of Loss of Records

OIG discovered anecdotal examples suggesting that Department staff have used personal email accounts to conduct official business....OIG identified more than 90 Department employees who periodically used personal email accounts to conduct official business....OIG also reviewed an S/ES-IRM report prepared in 2010 showing that more than 9,200 emails were sent within one week from S/ES servers to 16 web-based email domains, including gmail.com, hotmail.com, and att.net....A former Director of Policy Planning wrote: “State’s technology is so antiquated that NO ONE uses a State-issued laptop and even high officials routinely end up using their home email accounts to be able to get their work done quickly and effectively.”

Yikes! But no one cares about this. We care about Hillary Clinton. Are you ready? Here's the IG's blistering report:

Sending emails from a personal account to other employees at their Department accounts is not an appropriate method of preserving any such emails that would constitute a Federal record. Therefore, Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary. At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.

NARA agrees with the foregoing assessment but told OIG that Secretary Clinton’s production of 55,000 pages of emails mitigated her failure to properly preserve emails that qualified as Federal records during her tenure and to surrender such records upon her departure. OIG concurs with NARA but also notes that Secretary Clinton’s production was incomplete. For example, the Department and OIG both determined that the production included no email covering the first few months of Secretary Clinton’s tenure.


Will Bernie give back delegates to conform to Washington primary vote totals? Clinton 54%


Washington voters delivered a bit of bad news for Bernie Sanders’s political revolution on Tuesday. Hillary Clinton won the state’s Democratic primary, symbolically reversing the outcome of the state’s Democratic caucus in March where Sanders prevailed as the victor. The primary result won’t count for much since delegates have already been awarded based on the caucus. (Sanders won 74 delegates, while Clinton won only 27.) But Clinton’s victory nevertheless puts Sanders in an awkward position.

Sanders has styled himself as a populist candidate intent on giving a voice to voters in a political system in which, as he describes it, party elites and wealthy special-interest groups exert too much control. As the primary election nears its end, Sanders has railed against Democratic leaders for unfairly intervening in the process, a claim he made in the aftermath of the contentious Nevada Democratic convention earlier this month. He has also criticized superdelegates—elected officials and party leaders who can support whichever candidate they chose—for effectively coronating Clinton.

As Sanders makes those arguments, he runs up against a few inconvenient realities. He trails Clinton in the popular-vote count and has performed well in caucuses, which consistently witness depressed voter turnout relative to primary elections. What happened in Washington is a painful reminder of this for the campaign: Far more voters took part in Washington’s Democratic primary than its state caucus, preliminary counts indicate. Roughly 230,000 people participated in the Democratic caucus, The Stranger reported in March. In contrast, more than 660,000 Democratic votes had been tallied in the primary as of Tuesday, according to The Seattle Times. That lopsided reality makes it more difficult for Sanders to argue that his candidacy represents the will of the people.

But based on Washington caucuses, Bernie was awarded 74 delegates and Clinton 27. But if you go by the Washington primary popular vote Clinton won 54% to Bernie's 46%. So if you go by the primary popular vote the delegates should be awarded, Clinton: 55, Sanders: 46.

So, will Bernie bow to the voters and give Clinton the delegates she should get based on the vote of the people of Washington?


The Shocking Truth: Colin Powell’s Emails Don’t Matter


The shocking truth about the last two Republican secretaries of state has finally come out: Colin Powell and aides to Condoleezza Rice trafficked in classified information on their personal email accounts. This is an enormous scandal!

Oh, wait. No, it’s not.


In addition to the classified email system used in SCIFs, there are personal email accounts. Prior to 2013, these could be accounts inside the relatively unsecure State Department system or private email accounts. If they are private—running through a commercial or personal server—they have to follow some rules set up in the Federal Register. There are no guards, no red-black procedures, no construction rules, no special rooms, no TEMPEST, no TSCM. And most important: Until 2013, there was no rule against using them. In fact, the rules specifically allowed for them. Check out the relevant section in the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Chapter XII, Subchapter B, section 1236.22b) for the rules regarding the use of personal email accounts by any State Department official.

To give an idea of how insecure these communications could be, Powell’s personal email is an AOL account, and he used it on a laptop when he communicated with foreign officials and ambassadors, unless the information qualified for a SCIF. (Clinton sent only one email to a foreign dignitary through her personal account, and her communications with ambassadors were, for the most part, by phone.)

So did Powell and the aides to Rice violate rules governing classified information, since the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) staff has recently determined that some of their years-old personal emails contain top-secret material? No. The rules regarding the handling of classified information apply to communications designated as secret at that time . If documents that aren’t deemed classified, and aren’t handled through a SCIF when they are created or initially transmitted, are later, in retrospect, deemed secret, the classification is new—and however the record was handled in the past is irrelevant.

As I have pointed out before, email accounts with commerical email service providers are subject to examination by large staffs of cyber security personell employed by the email service providers. These security staffers jobs are to protect their systems from attack by hackers and various kinds of malware. IN ORDER TO DO THEIR JOBS THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO EXAMINE ANY AND ALL EMAILS AND ASSOCIATED ATTACHMENTS. THEREFOR, COMMERCIAL EMAILS ACCOUNTS ARE BY THEIR VERY NATURE UNSECURE, AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR SENDING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

DoS IG report sharply criticizes Clinton’s email practices, "particularly critical" of Powell's too

"It was particularly critical of former secretary of state Colin Powell — who has acknowledged publicly that he used a personal email account to conduct business — concluding that he too failed to follow department policy designed to comply with public-record laws."


The State Department’s independent watchdog has issued a highly critical analysis of Hillary Clinton’s email practices while running the department, concluding that she failed to seek legal approval for her use of a private email server and that department staff would not have given its blessing because of the “security risks in doing so.”

The inspector general, in a long awaited review obtained Wednesday by The Washington Post in advance of its publication, found that Clinton’s use of private email for public business was “not an appropriate method” of preserving documents and that her practices failed to comply with department policies meant to ensure that federal record laws are followed.

The report says Clinton, who is the Democratic presidential front-runner, should have printed and saved her emails during her four years in office or surrendered her work-related correspondence immediately upon stepping down in February 2013. Instead, Clinton provided those records in December 2014, nearly two years after leaving office.


Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said in a statement that Clinton’s use of email was consistent with that of other secretaries and top officials at State and warned that “political opponents of Hillary Clinton are sure to misrepresent this report” for partisan purposes. “The report shows that problems with the State Department's electronic record-keeping systems were long-standing,” he said, adding that “she took steps that went much further than others to appropriately preserve and release her records.”

The 83-page report reviews email practices by five secretaries of state and generally concludes that record keeping has been spotty for years.

It was particularly critical of former secretary of state Colin Powell — who has acknowledged publicly that he used a personal email account to conduct business — concluding that he too failed to follow department policy designed to comply with public-record laws.

Bernie Loses His Halo Even progressives are criticizing him now - Politico

Last month Drum said Sanders was “basically running a con … we were never going to get a revolution, and Bernie knew it all along.”


Is the left turning on its darling, Bernie Sanders? On Friday, Netroots titan Markos Moulitsas, namesake of the liberal Daily Kos, dropped a rhetorical bomb on the Bern, blaming the candidate for doing too little to denounce death threats received by the Nevada Democratic Party after Sanders’ state convention delegates complained they had received unfair treatment. “The problem isn't Bernie Sanders' supporters,” Moulitsas wrote. “It's Bernie Sanders himself … refuses to forcefully and unambiguously reject that violence, instead rationalizing and explaining it away with a mix of grievances and outright conspiracy theory.”

Actually, Sanders hasn’t lost much support among his most avid supporters—who do not include Moulitsas, a sometime critic. What we are seeing, however, is that it’s no longer taboo in liberal circles to attack Sanders as he drags out the nomination process at a time when many are itching to turn their fire on Donald Trump. And if his reputation in the party is being damaged outside his base, that will make it harder for him to extract concessions from Clinton regarding the platform and party nomination rules at the convention.

Through much of the campaign, Sanders wore a progressive halo, making it tricky for Clinton to play classic hardball politics (not that she didn’t try). Even if Democratic voters didn’t believe he was the practical choice, his platform still spoke to the ideological aspirations of many in the party. His supporters heard, “I like Bernie, but…” so much that they turned it into a website providing information designed to assuage unsure voters.


This week another prominent figure in the online progressive community, Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall, also blamed Sanders directly for the increased animosity, saying: “The 'burn it down' attitude, the upping the ante … seems to be coming from Sanders himself. Right from the top.” Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum said more in sorrow than in anger this week, “It's sort of painful to see a good person like Bernie turned into such a sullen and resentful man.”

Still, neither Marshall nor Drum, like Moulitsas, had been an active Sanders supporter.

Two months ago, Moulitsas declared the primaries effectively over and banned from his site “malicious attacks on our presumptive presidential nominee or our presidential efforts.” {Wow, now that would pretty much eliminate everthing the Bernie Fans had to say! BAD, BAD!!_Bill USA} Last month Drum said Sanders was “basically running a con … we were never going to get a revolution, and Bernie knew it all along.” Marshall has been neutral, but has shown flashes of Sanders skepticism, such as when he characterized his economic critique as a “somewhat one-dimensional diagnosis.”

Hillary on Trump: "How can anybody lose money running a casino?"


"What little we know of his economic policies would be running up our debt, starting trade wars, letting Wall Street run wild, all of that could cause another crash and devastate working families and our country,"
the Democratic candidate told an audience at the Service Employees International Union's annual convention in Detroit. "Trump economics is a recipe for lower wages, fewer jobs, more debt. He could bankrupt America like he's bankrupted his companies. I mean, ask yourself, how can anybody lose money running a casino? Really. "

Clinton remarked that she hears from families "every day" about what a Trump presidency would mean for immigrants living and working in the United States, particularly those in mixed-status families where children were born in the country but parents are perhaps undocumented. "We're talking about real people," Clinton said.

“He’s talking about sending a deportation force to schools, workplaces and homes to round up moms, dads, grandparents, even children. When he talks about ending birthright citizenship, he’s talking about kicking children who are born here out of the only country they know," she said, referring to Trump's remarks in an interview with MSNBC's "Morning Joe" last November.

I would like to point out and praise a Bernie supporter for a positive appeal for his candidate

I just read a remarkable post and I would like to compliment praise the author for posting a positive appeal for support of Bernie Sanders devoid of any of the McCarthyist anti-Hillary innuendo and baseless charges of nefarious activities by Hillary Clinton that we have come to expect on this forum.

Here is the post: Here's why I still think Bernie Sanders should be the nominee

I applaud your positive appeal for Bernie's candidacy, devoid of McCarthyist character assassination of Clinton.

I would like to point out one problem with the case you are making for Sanders. That is that Clinton has a much larger popular vote than Sanders. Real Clear Politics has the popular vote totals for the primaries at

12,989,134 for Clinton and 9,957,889 for Sanders. there are those who argue Bernie did better in caucus states. But even if you convert those caucus %s to popular votes, Clinton still comes out way ahead.

you said that Clinton -
"has struggled against a no-name, independent, democratic socialist mostly because he is being honest and unapologetic about fielding a platform that pretty much defines progressive goals."

I think you have discounted the effect of the two to three decade disinformation war on both Clintons - especially, the 8 Benghazi Political show trials of Hillary - for programming the thoughts and impressions of those who either can't or won't think critically for themselves. Unfortunately, this McCarthyist campaign against Clinton has been quite successful with the impressionable and easily lead. I think it's very obvious, that this campaign of innuendo and false claims of multitudinous nefarious activities (always implied never proven) has hurt Clinton. All this makes me wonder if Democracy can survive a Republican party totally opposed to government of, by and for the people when their is much money (and ersatz status) to be made from being whores for Corporate Feudalist system they are working to achieve . .. and with such large numbers of people who are so easily bamboozled.

But again, it is certainly a breath of fresh air to see a positive appeal for Bernie that is not based on character assassinations of Clinton and charges of hypothetical crimes she is supposed to have committed.

I applaud you for that!

Study: Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, gets the most negative media coverage - VOX.com


The biggest news outlets published more negative stories about Hillary Clinton than any other presidential candidate — including Donald Trump — from January 2015 to April 2016, according to an analysis of hundreds of thousands of online stories.

Clinton has not only been hammered by the most negative coverage but the media also wrote the smallest proportion of positive stories about her, reports Crimson Hexagon, a social media software analytics company based out of Boston.

Data from Crimson Hexagon; graphic by Vox's Javier Zarracina

An analysis from Crimson Hexagon shows Hillary Clinton getting the most negative coverage of the presidential candidates. The data is based on hundreds of thousands of online news stories published since January 1, 2015.

Of course, these numbers are just one way of looking at media bias in the presidential campaign. For instance, while the press has hit Clinton more frequently, Crimson Hexagon also found that it's paid much more attention to her than to Bernie Sanders. And, by design, this kind of analysis may overlook other ways the press can hurt a candidate — like Sanders — by downplaying or dismissing his or her chances.

Still, Sanders's supporters have widely accused the media of being in the tank for Clinton. And these numbers suggest that perception may not square with reality.

Congressional Republicans reject robust response to Zika threat - Maddow Blog - Steve Benen

.. Same old, same old: Republicans showing what irresponsible jackasses they are.


The more serious the public health threat posed by the Zika virus, the less serious congressional Republicans are about addressing it.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a Republican-backed bill Wednesday night to combat the Zika virus that the White House has already threatened to veto as inadequate.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Kentucky, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, would provide $622 million to fight the virus – less than a third of what President Barack Obama asked for three months ago.

A Senate bill, which is already inadequate, plans to invest $1.1 billion, well short of the $1.9 billion the administration and public-health experts believe is necessary.

Because the House and Senate passed a very different bill, there will now be a conference committee to work out the differences. By some accounts, it may be “well into the summer, or even longer” before Congress approves a final bill.

I’m sure the virus will do us all a favor and wait while Republicans try to get their act together.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 ... 145 Next »