Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.
It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote. Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.
He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression
But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.
No: he said we are looking at the emails. He didn't say if she's done anything wrong. At the time the DoJ was resisting him getting a warrant to even look.
It changed the whole tenor of the campaign at the height of early voting. For nothing.
Doesn't it make you a little uneasy?
Absolutely yes, and not a little. The "no smoke without fire" defence of Comey's behaviour is suggests that it's OK to meddle with the customary rendering of US Democracy.
It was Hillary who left emails on Weiner's server not Comey. No complaints from Hillary supporters either when gropegate dominated the headlines
I'm curious. Is there a law that says her Maj cannot tell us how to vote? Or is it custom?
No law, but the convention is it isn't done because the Commons is a counterweight to the Crown and should be allowed to express itself.
A King did once campaign against the re-election of a Parliament he had fallen out with and dissolved. It was in 1640 and didn't exactly end well for the King in question.
Thank you for that answer. It may also be that Comey broke no law. But...
I don't think he's King though. He is a servant of the law, which required him to investigate.
For his sake, I hope he doesn't have the fate of King Charles either, although if Clinton had won...
Political wire notes that republicans are only one state legislature away from being able to modify the constitution. Tough to pull off... But can imagine them trying changing 14th amendment to say those born in us are citizens...
Wouldn't it have to be ratified by three quarters of the states (38)?
My understanding is that the ratification process can be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures. Currently Republicans control 37.
Thx - not up to date with state legislatures so very surprised republicans control so many when Trump only won 30 states. Democrats should probably get their thoughts towards changing the numbers.
TBH the media in this country seemed to be indicating that the GOP was on its last legs under incessant Democrat attack and demographic chnages. Reports of their demise seem greatly exaggerated.
Democrats are less likely to turnout in the mid terms.
The practice of using private email servers is widespread in government as government issued IT systems are so clumsy and unreliable, particularly in the 2000's. In my own limited experience working in gov't (albeit in a very different situation) everyone was doing it on some level. The charges were always ridiculous for this reason
She was the bloody Secretary of State, not the person in charge of the bin collection at your local council.
So why were the Republicans and FBI silent when a Republican White House did something similar?
Political wire notes that republicans are only one state legislature away from being able to modify the constitution. Tough to pull off... But can imagine them trying changing 14th amendment to say those born in us are citizens...
Wouldn't it have to be ratified by three quarters of the states (38)?
My understanding is that the ratification process can be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures. Currently Republicans control 37.
Thx - not up to date with state legislatures so very surprised republicans control so many when Trump only won 30 states. Democrats should probably get their thoughts towards changing the numbers.
TBH the media in this country seemed to be indicating that the GOP was on its last legs under incessant Democrat attack and demographic chnages. Reports of their demise seem greatly exaggerated.
Democrats are less likely to turnout in the mid terms.
Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.
It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote. Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.
He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression
But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.
No: he said we are looking at the emails. He didn't say if she's done anything wrong. At the time the DoJ was resisting him getting a warrant to even look.
It changed the whole tenor of the campaign at the height of early voting. For nothing.
Doesn't it make you a little uneasy?
Absolutely yes, and not a little. The "no smoke without fire" defence of Comey's behaviour is suggests that it's OK to meddle with the customary rendering of US Democracy.
It was Hillary who left emails on Weiner's server not Comey. No complaints from Hillary supporters either when gropegate dominated the headlines
I'm curious. Is there a law that says her Maj cannot tell us how to vote? Or is it custom?
No law, but the convention is it isn't done because the Commons is a counterweight to the Crown and should be allowed to express itself.
A King did once campaign against the re-election of a Parliament he had fallen out with and dissolved. It was in 1640 and didn't exactly end well for the King in question.
Thank you for that answer. It may also be that Comey broke no law. But...
I don't think he's King though. He is a servant of the law, which required him to investigate.
For his sake, I hope he doesn't have the fate of King Charles either, although if Clinton had won...
There does not seem to be the same electoral purdah as we have.
Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.
It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote. Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.
He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression
But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.
No: he said we are looking at the emails. He didn't say if she's done anything wrong. At the time the DoJ was resisting him getting a warrant to even look.
It changed the whole tenor of the campaign at the height of early voting. For nothing.
Doesn't it make you a little uneasy?
Absolutely yes, and not a little. The "no smoke without fire" defence of Comey's behaviour is suggests that it's OK to meddle with the customary rendering of US Democracy.
It was Hillary who left emails on Weiner's server not Comey. No complaints from Hillary supporters either when gropegate dominated the headlines
I'm curious. Is there a law that says her Maj cannot tell us how to vote? Or is it custom?
No law, but the convention is it isn't done because the Commons is a counterweight to the Crown and should be allowed to express itself.
A King did once campaign against the re-election of a Parliament he had fallen out with and dissolved. It was in 1640 and didn't exactly end well for the King in question.
Thank you for that answer. It may also be that Comey broke no law. But...
I don't think he's King though. He is a servant of the law, which required him to investigate.
For his sake, I hope he doesn't have the fate of King Charles either, although if Clinton had won...
There does not seem to be the same electoral purdah as we have.
I'm not sure I saw a whole heap of Clinton policies masterminded by the US civil service to be honest
Let it not be forgotten that the only reasons he was involved at all were that Hilary had potentially breached both the amended Federal Records Act and theEspionage Act, and the husband of one of her aides had been accused of a child sex offence.
I thought that this was quite telling.
In a September 2015 interview with the FBI, a former agent who worked on the security details of both former secretaries of state Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton complained of a “stark difference” between Rice and Clinton in terms of their adherence to security and diplomatic protocols.
According to newly released documents by the FBI related to its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary, the former agent said that while Rice “observed strict adherence to State Department security and diplomatic protocols,” Clinton “frequently and ‘blatantly’ disregarded them.”
The key point is that after Powell's time the law was changed to ensure government business was properly sent on government servers so it could be secured, interrogated and archived properly.
Clinton apparently knew this, yet she deliberately ignored it. As Ghandi said in a somewhat different context, if you break a law you must be prepared to suffer the penalty.
In her case, she was fortunate that what she did did not meet the evidential threshold for prosecution. It has however ruined her career and wrecked her party. I think it's fair to say that's a considerable punishment on its own.
The practice of using private email servers is widespread in government as government issued IT systems are so clumsy and unreliable, particularly in the 2000's. In my own limited experience working in gov't (albeit in a very different situation) everyone was doing it on some level. The charges were always ridiculous for this reason
Michael Gove did it for that reason and, in my view rightly, got a lot of flak for it. I would also judge him to have been in material breach of the OSA. But he was never prosecuted or considered for prosecution (sadly).
The key difference, aside from the different wording of the relevant laws, is that there is no information at the DfES that could conceivably harm or injure anyone (with the possible exception of the ministers and civil servants, who are not important). With Clinton, however...
The practice of using private email servers is widespread in government as government issued IT systems are so clumsy and unreliable, particularly in the 2000's. In my own limited experience working in gov't (albeit in a very different situation) everyone was doing it on some level. The charges were always ridiculous for this reason
She was the bloody Secretary of State, not the person in charge of the bin collection at your local council.
So why were the Republicans and FBI silent when a Republican White House did something similar?
Because the law has changed since, partly as a result of that scandal. It is now an offence to store emails off site, for example, which it wasn't under the original act.
As Maria Sharapova found out, it is very necessary to be aware of minor changes to laws as they can have major impacts.
Also, if they didn't change how would we keep you guys occupied?
The key difference, aside from the different wording of the relevant laws, is that there is no information at the DfES that could conceivably harm or injure anyone (with the possible exception of the ministers and civil servants, who are not important). With Clinton, however...
If the NY Post is correct her housemaid (not cleared for handling anything classified) regularly collected faxes from the secure fax at Clinton's home. It looks like Clinton never really bothered to comply with any security rules, and has now paid for it. It serves her right.
I thought good cartoonists are suppose to caricature and exaggerate their subjects' grotesquery, not polish them into Adonises? Or is the bloke under the umbrella supposed to be Brad Pitt?
The bloke under the umbrella is not the subject of the cartoon...
Beautiful, slim, chisel-jawed, heroic Donald is certainly the object of it. Hints of fawning Soviet heroic realism...
The key difference, aside from the different wording of the relevant laws, is that there is no information at the DfES that could conceivably harm or injure anyone (with the possible exception of the ministers and civil servants, who are not important). With Clinton, however...
If the NY Post is correct her housemaid (not cleared for handling anything classified) regularly collected faxes from the secure fax at Clinton's home. It looks like Clinton never really bothered to comply with any security rules, and has now paid for it. It serves her right.
I still think there is value in both candidates serving time within 12 months of the election. And if that bet did come off, it couldn't happen to a more deserving couple!
Political wire notes that republicans are only one state legislature away from being able to modify the constitution. Tough to pull off... But can imagine them trying changing 14th amendment to say those born in us are citizens...
Wouldn't it have to be ratified by three quarters of the states (38)?
My understanding is that the ratification process can be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures. Currently Republicans control 37.
Thx - not up to date with state legislatures so very surprised republicans control so many when Trump only won 30 states. Democrats should probably get their thoughts towards changing the numbers.
TBH the media in this country seemed to be indicating that the GOP was on its last legs under incessant Democrat attack and demographic chnages. Reports of their demise seem greatly exaggerated.
Mostly wishful thinking masquerading as political analysis.
Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.
It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote. Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.
He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression
But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.
No: he said we are looking at the emails. He didn't say if she's done anything wrong. At the time the DoJ was resisting him getting a warrant to even look.
It changed the whole tenor of the campaign at the height of early voting. For nothing.
Doesn't it make you a little uneasy?
Did you chat to HL about the NHS and did you see my comment?
No. What was it?
You were discussing the NHS.. have a look back to this am , its the NHS way to (not) treat my sister unless she has two strokes..
Corbyn might need to check his appearance tomorrow morning, as he appears to have forgotten how to fasten a collar and tie his tie at Festival of Remembrance.
Corbyn might need to check his appearance tomorrow morning, as he appears to have forgotten how to fasten a collar and tie his tie at Festival of Remembrance.
He's become (or returned to being) an irrelevance.
TBH, who cares what Labour's leader does? If it wasn't Corbyn, we would - but it is Corbyn, so we don't.
I still think there is value in both candidates serving time within 12 months of the election. And if that bet did come off, it couldn't happen to a more deserving couple!
With that, goodnight to all.
I was more in favour of that when I thought it would lead to President Kaine, Pence might actually be worse than The Donald.
Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.
It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote. Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.
He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression
But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.
No: he said we are looking at the emails. He didn't say if she's done anything wrong. At the time the DoJ was resisting him getting a warrant to even look.
It changed the whole tenor of the campaign at the height of early voting. For nothing.
Doesn't it make you a little uneasy?
Absolutely yes, and not a little. The "no smoke without fire" defence of Comey's behaviour is suggests that it's OK to meddle with the customary rendering of US Democracy.
It was Hillary who left emails on Weiner's server not Comey. No complaints from Hillary supporters either when gropegate dominated the headlines
I'm curious. Is there a law that says her Maj cannot tell us how to vote? Or is it custom?
No law, but the convention is it isn't done because the Commons is a counterweight to the Crown and should be allowed to express itself.
A King did once campaign against the re-election of a Parliament he had fallen out with and dissolved. It was in 1640 and didn't exactly end well for the King in question.
Thank you for that answer. It may also be that Comey broke no law. But...
Surely Obama will sack Comey before the month's out. His intervention certainly did have an effect on suppressing turnout for Clinton.
I'm sure if this was Germans protesting about immigration it would be 'significant', but since it's just LA Luvvie Liberals, THEY SHOULD JUST DEAL WITH IT!
I thought good cartoonists are suppose to caricature and exaggerate their subjects' grotesquery, not polish them into Adonises? Or is the bloke under the umbrella Brad Pitt?
Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.
It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote. Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.
He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression
But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.
No: he said we are looking at the emails. He didn't say if she's done anything wrong. At the time the DoJ was resisting him getting a warrant to even look.
It changed the whole tenor of the campaign at the height of early voting. For nothing.
Doesn't it make you a little uneasy?
Did you chat to HL about the NHS and did you see my comment?
No. What was it?
You were discussing the NHS.. have a look back to this am , its the NHS way to (not) treat my sister unless she has two strokes..
Rougbly what time?
11.46am
Sorry, I cannot get before 1230 via my phone. Can you cut andpaste?
Political wire notes that republicans are only one state legislature away from being able to modify the constitution. Tough to pull off... But can imagine them trying changing 14th amendment to say those born in us are citizens...
Wouldn't it have to be ratified by three quarters of the states (38)?
My understanding is that the ratification process can be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures. Currently Republicans control 37.
Thx - not up to date with state legislatures so very surprised republicans control so many when Trump only won 30 states. Democrats should probably get their thoughts towards changing the numbers.
TBH the media in this country seemed to be indicating that the GOP was on its last legs under incessant Democrat attack and demographic chnages. Reports of their demise seem greatly exaggerated.
A lot of gerrymandering went into those GOP states (and ironically, there are some Republicans who think they have overdone it and let the tea party in). The British media are mainly concerned with the presidency and maybe California and New York.
I'm sure if this was Germans protesting about immigration it would be 'significant', but since it's just LA Luvvie Liberals, THEY SHOULD JUST DEAL WITH IT!
Only a third of UK voters support Brexit unconditionally, according to a poll that suggests a widespread wish for the government to share the terms of the UK’s departure from Europe before it embarks on the process.
The findings of the ICM poll will please the growing number of MPs and peers calling for the government to clarify the terms of the exit – a demand that puts them on a collision course with Theresa May, who has made it clear that she is determined to begin the departure process in March.
Last week, Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, said his eight MPs and more than 100 peers would oppose Brexit unless the terms of the final deal were put to a second referendum. A small number of Labour MPs have said they share Farron’s concerns.
“Article 50 would proceed, but only if there is a referendum on the terms of the deal. And if the British people are not respected then, yes, that is a red line and we would vote against the government,” Farron said.
The new poll – for online campaign group Avaaz – finds that 33% of voters support Brexit unconditionally. Almost a quarter (23%) oppose it unconditionally, 32% say it depends on the terms of the deal and 12% are undecided.
Liberal - "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas"
Democrat - "an advocate or supporter of democracy"
Huh.
It is you who is the idiot and undemocratic . You believe that the 52% who voted Brexit deserve the votes of every single MP and the 48% who voted Remain should not have their views represented .
I believe that MPs should be bound by the results in their constituency - call them EU College Voters
Why should that be a rule all of a sudden? I didn't hear you saying that MPs who won at the General Election with less than 50% of the votes in their constituency should respect the fact that most of their constituents didn't want them.
SquareRoot - there may be clots already built up in the lungs - difficult to dissolve if some age perhaps, might need to give it time - not easy choices unless a choice is forced on you.
I'm sure if this was Germans protesting about immigration it would be 'significant', but since it's just LA Luvvie Liberals, THEY SHOULD JUST DEAL WITH IT!
LAPD say ~8k people.
I don't think Scotland has realised how much of a bargaining chip they've become on immigration for the UK thanks to the SNP.
I'm sure if this was Germans protesting about immigration it would be 'significant', but since it's just LA Luvvie Liberals, THEY SHOULD JUST DEAL WITH IT!
If fairly certain that's not LA but Caracas Venezuela.
I'm sure if this was Germans protesting about immigration it would be 'significant', but since it's just LA Luvvie Liberals, THEY SHOULD JUST DEAL WITH IT!
If fairly certain that's not LA but Caracas Venezuela.
I'm sure if this was Germans protesting about immigration it would be 'significant', but since it's just LA Luvvie Liberals, THEY SHOULD JUST DEAL WITH IT!
If fairly certain that's not LA but Caracas Venezuela.
Its 100% not LA.
I was being polite rather than calling him a dipstick.
I'm sure if this was Germans protesting about immigration it would be 'significant', but since it's just LA Luvvie Liberals, THEY SHOULD JUST DEAL WITH IT!
If fairly certain that's not LA but Caracas Venezuela.
Its 100% not LA.
I was being polite rather than calling him a dipstick.
Lol...I was being polite when I posted the protest numbers...that picture shows 100k+ & a quick Google of la protects show it looked nothing like that...before you get into the street, signage & environment.
I'm sure if this was Germans protesting about immigration it would be 'significant', but since it's just LA Luvvie Liberals, THEY SHOULD JUST DEAL WITH IT!
That's the anti Maduro protest in Venezuela. Swing and a miss.
Lol...I was being polite when I posted the protest numbers...that picture shows 100k+ & a quick Google of la protects show it looked nothing like that...before you get into the street, signage & environment.
The flags and headscarf are a bit of a clue as well, and I'd seen videos of that protest before.
Political wire notes that republicans are only one state legislature away from being able to modify the constitution. Tough to pull off... But can imagine them trying changing 14th amendment to say those born in us are citizens...
Wouldn't it have to be ratified by three quarters of the states (38)?
My understanding is that the ratification process can be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures. Currently Republicans control 37.
Thx - not up to date with state legislatures so very surprised republicans control so many when Trump only won 30 states. Democrats should probably get their thoughts towards changing the numbers.
TBH the media in this country seemed to be indicating that the GOP was on its last legs under incessant Democrat attack and demographic chnages. Reports of their demise seem greatly exaggerated.
Democrats are less likely to turnout in the mid terms.
Seems to be catching to the General as well
The problem the Ds have is that their vote is much less well distributed than the Rs with heavy concentrations in the cities. For example, in New York state there are 18 Ds and 9 Rs in congress. The most D district in the Bronx is D43. The most R district nr Buffalo is R+8
Lol...I was being polite when I posted the protest numbers...that picture shows 100k+ & a quick Google of la protects show it looked nothing like that...before you get into the street, signage & environment.
The flags and headscarf are a bit of a clue as well, and I'd seen videos of that protest before.
Well and the fact that LA doesn't look anything like that. But since it's on twatter it must be true.
Political wire notes that republicans are only one state legislature away from being able to modify the constitution. Tough to pull off... But can imagine them trying changing 14th amendment to say those born in us are citizens...
Wouldn't it have to be ratified by three quarters of the states (38)?
My understanding is that the ratification process can be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures. Currently Republicans control 37.
Thx - not up to date with state legislatures so very surprised republicans control so many when Trump only won 30 states. Democrats should probably get their thoughts towards changing the numbers.
TBH the media in this country seemed to be indicating that the GOP was on its last legs under incessant Democrat attack and demographic chnages. Reports of their demise seem greatly exaggerated.
Democrats are less likely to turnout in the mid terms.
Seems to be catching to the General as well
The problem the Ds have is that their vote is much less well distributed than the Rs with heavy concentrations in the cities. For example, in New York state there are 18 Ds and 9 Rs in congress. The most D district in the Bronx is D43. The most R district nr Buffalo is R+8
Is there not scope for the Democrats to gerrymander CA and NY - or if they have already to a greater extent?
The maps of both CA and NY both look fairly "sensible" - ie doesn't look as if any, or at least not much, gerrymandering.
I appreciate NY might be very difficult with most of the population in a tight corner but I would have thought there would be more scope in CA at least.
Political wire notes that republicans are only one state legislature away from being able to modify the constitution. Tough to pull off... But can imagine them trying changing 14th amendment to say those born in us are citizens...
Wouldn't it have to be ratified by three quarters of the states (38)?
My understanding is that the ratification process can be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures. Currently Republicans control 37.
wouldn't that require some individual supermajaorities and/or not gubernatorial veto?
Not an expert- but I don't think so... wikipedia just says 3/4 of state legislatures... looks like Congress would decide the exact rules.
I'm sure if this was Germans protesting about immigration it would be 'significant', but since it's just LA Luvvie Liberals, THEY SHOULD JUST DEAL WITH IT!
If fairly certain that's not LA but Caracas Venezuela.
Its 100% not LA.
I was being polite rather than calling him a dipstick.
Lol...I was being polite when I posted the protest numbers...that picture shows 100k+ & a quick Google of la protects show it looked nothing like that...before you get into the street, signage & environment.
Oops.
Thanks for your politeness in posting the NYPD numbers when you knew that wasn't the LA protest.
Political wire notes that republicans are only one state legislature away from being able to modify the constitution. Tough to pull off... But can imagine them trying changing 14th amendment to say those born in us are citizens...
Wouldn't it have to be ratified by three quarters of the states (38)?
My understanding is that the ratification process can be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures. Currently Republicans control 37.
Thx - not up to date with state legislatures so very surprised republicans control so many when Trump only won 30 states. Democrats should probably get their thoughts towards changing the numbers.
TBH the media in this country seemed to be indicating that the GOP was on its last legs under incessant Democrat attack and demographic chnages. Reports of their demise seem greatly exaggerated.
Democrats are less likely to turnout in the mid terms.
Seems to be catching to the General as well
The problem the Ds have is that their vote is much less well distributed than the Rs with heavy concentrations in the cities. For example, in New York state there are 18 Ds and 9 Rs in congress. The most D district in the Bronx is D43. The most R district nr Buffalo is R+8
Is there not scope for the Democrats to gerrymander CA and NY - or if they have already to a greater extent?
The maps of both CA and NY both look fairly "sensible" - ie doesn't look as if any, or at least not much, gerrymandering.
I appreciate NY might be very difficult with most of the population in a tight corner but I would have thought there would be more scope in CA at least.
California has a non-partisan committee very much like our own boundary commission.
Political wire notes that republicans are only one state legislature away from being able to modify the constitution. Tough to pull off... But can imagine them trying changing 14th amendment to say those born in us are citizens...
Wouldn't it have to be ratified by three quarters of the states (38)?
My understanding is that the ratification process can be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures. Currently Republicans control 37.
Thx - not up to date with state legislatures so very surprised republicans control so many when Trump only won 30 states. Democrats should probably get their thoughts towards changing the numbers.
TBH the media in this country seemed to be indicating that the GOP was on its last legs under incessant Democrat attack and demographic chnages. Reports of their demise seem greatly exaggerated.
Democrats are less likely to turnout in the mid terms.
Seems to be catching to the General as well
The problem the Ds have is that their vote is much less well distributed than the Rs with heavy concentrations in the cities. For example, in New York state there are 18 Ds and 9 Rs in congress. The most D district in the Bronx is D43. The most R district nr Buffalo is R+8
Is there not scope for the Democrats to gerrymander CA and NY - or if they have already to a greater extent?
The maps of both CA and NY both look fairly "sensible" - ie doesn't look as if any, or at least not much, gerrymandering.
I appreciate NY might be very difficult with most of the population in a tight corner but I would have thought there would be more scope in CA at least.
California has a non-partisan committee very much like our own boundary commission.
Ah OK - thanks.
That's obviously very worthy but it begs the question - if Republicans controlling other large states are going to gerrymander then should the Democrats running CA get rid of that committee and take it into their own hands.
Having said that I checked the map of FL and the gerrymandering there looks much less bad than I think it used to be. One or two funny districts just north of Miami but the vast majority of the state looks reasonable.
That's the anti Maduro protest in Venezuela. Swing and a miss.
But currently 1,770 have retweeted it as proof that Trump is literally Hitler.
Post truth politics works for the alt.left as well as the alt.right.
Or perhaps doesn't work for either.
So far its succeeded in Theuniondivvie getting laughed at.
I'm rather reminded about how SeanT went into ecstasies re ISIS having the best propaganda since Goebbels. But its not saved them from military defeat. For that matter Goebbels's propaganda didn't save Germany from military defeat either.
' Former Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania also said he had encouraged campaign aides at Mrs. Clinton’s Brooklyn headquarters to spread their vast resources outside Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and focus on rural white pockets of the state. “We had the resources to do both,” Mr. Rendell said Wednesday. “The campaign — and this was coming from Brooklyn — didn’t want to do it.” (Mr. Trump won Pennsylvania by one percentage point.) '
I 'think' this real, unless it's Libtard propaganda trying to besmirch gold plated Donald's 'man of the people' schtick. It's certainly an image to which no one could be indifferent.
I'm sure if this was Germans protesting about immigration it would be 'significant', but since it's just LA Luvvie Liberals, THEY SHOULD JUST DEAL WITH IT!
I'm sure if this was Germans protesting about immigration it would be 'significant', but since it's just LA Luvvie Liberals, THEY SHOULD JUST DEAL WITH IT!
Let it not be forgotten that the only reasons he was involved at all were that Hilary had potentially breached both the amended Federal Records Act and theEspionage Act, and the husband of one of her aides had been accused of a child sex offence.
I thought that this was quite telling.
In a September 2015 interview with the FBI, a former agent who worked on the security details of both former secretaries of state Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton complained of a “stark difference” between Rice and Clinton in terms of their adherence to security and diplomatic protocols.
According to newly released documents by the FBI related to its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary, the former agent said that while Rice “observed strict adherence to State Department security and diplomatic protocols,” Clinton “frequently and ‘blatantly’ disregarded them.”
The key point is that after Powell's time the law was changed to ensure government business was properly sent on government servers so it could be secured, interrogated and archived properly.
Clinton apparently knew this, yet she deliberately ignored it. As Ghandi said in a somewhat different context, if you break a law you must be prepared to suffer the penalty.
In her case, she was fortunate that what she did did not meet the evidential threshold for prosecution. It has however ruined her career and wrecked her party. I think it's fair to say that's a considerable punishment on its own.
The practice of using private email servers is widespread in government as government issued IT systems are so clumsy and unreliable, particularly in the 2000's. In my own limited experience working in gov't (albeit in a very different situation) everyone was doing it on some level. The charges were always ridiculous for this reason
Charges are not ridiculous just because lots of people abuse the system.
I know of a person in the private sector who was sacked for sending work files from own e mail account rather than the protected company account.
Some might feel commercial secrets less important than matters of state.
Political wire notes that republicans are only one state legislature away from being able to modify the constitution. Tough to pull off... But can imagine them trying changing 14th amendment to say those born in us are citizens...
Wouldn't it have to be ratified by three quarters of the states (38)?
My understanding is that the ratification process can be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures. Currently Republicans control 37.
It also requires two-thirds of both houses of Congress. That would be 290 Representatives and 67 Senators. They'd need 43 more Representatives and 13 more Senators.
The practice of using private email servers is widespread in government as government issued IT systems are so clumsy and unreliable, particularly in the 2000's. In my own limited experience working in gov't (albeit in a very different situation) everyone was doing it on some level. The charges were always ridiculous for this reason
She was the bloody Secretary of State, not the person in charge of the bin collection at your local council.
So why were the Republicans and FBI silent when a Republican White House did something similar?
Political wire notes that republicans are only one state legislature away from being able to modify the constitution. Tough to pull off... But can imagine them trying changing 14th amendment to say those born in us are citizens...
Wouldn't it have to be ratified by three quarters of the states (38)?
My understanding is that the ratification process can be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures. Currently Republicans control 37.
It also requires two-thirds of both houses of Congress. That would be 290 Representatives and 67 Senators. They'd need 43 more Representatives and 13 more Senators.
I don't think that's correct? I think those wishing to amend the constitution can either try for those supermajorities you mention OR go via state legislatures...
Political wire notes that republicans are only one state legislature away from being able to modify the constitution. Tough to pull off... But can imagine them trying changing 14th amendment to say those born in us are citizens...
Wouldn't it have to be ratified by three quarters of the states (38)?
My understanding is that the ratification process can be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures. Currently Republicans control 37.
It also requires two-thirds of both houses of Congress. That would be 290 Representatives and 67 Senators. They'd need 43 more Representatives and 13 more Senators.
I don't think that's correct? I think those wishing to amend the constitution can either try for those supermajorities you mention OR go via state legislatures...
Interesting that all 27 amendments to the constitution have come via the Congress route rather than via a constitutional convention of two-thirds of state legislatures. I'm assuming that the GOP's domination of the latter is almost unprecedented.
Comments
For his sake, I hope he doesn't have the fate of King Charles either, although if Clinton had won...
The key difference, aside from the different wording of the relevant laws, is that there is no information at the DfES that could conceivably harm or injure anyone (with the possible exception of the ministers and civil servants, who are not important). With Clinton, however...
Nigel Farage becomes first UK politician to meet Donald Trump
http://news.sky.com/story/nigel-farage-pm-must-mend-fences-after-rude-trump-comments-10654947
As Maria Sharapova found out, it is very necessary to be aware of minor changes to laws as they can have major impacts.
Also, if they didn't change how would we keep you guys occupied?
https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/796408594929516544
With that, goodnight to all.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/12/the-pendulum-swings-leftward-for-the-democrats-and-thats-good-news-for-donald-trump/
(Yes it is Breitbart, but interesting as you could say the same has happened with labour post 2015)
TBH, who cares what Labour's leader does? If it wasn't Corbyn, we would - but it is Corbyn, so we don't.
https://twitter.com/scissormecharli/status/797549977115295745
I'm sure if this was Germans protesting about immigration it would be 'significant', but since it's just LA Luvvie Liberals, THEY SHOULD JUST DEAL WITH IT!
The maps of both CA and NY both look fairly "sensible" - ie doesn't look as if any, or at least not much, gerrymandering.
I appreciate NY might be very difficult with most of the population in a tight corner but I would have thought there would be more scope in CA at least.
Thanks for your politeness in posting the NYPD numbers when you knew that wasn't the LA protest.
That's obviously very worthy but it begs the question - if Republicans controlling other large states are going to gerrymander then should the Democrats running CA get rid of that committee and take it into their own hands.
Having said that I checked the map of FL and the gerrymandering there looks much less bad than I think it used to be. One or two funny districts just north of Miami but the vast majority of the state looks reasonable.
So far its succeeded in Theuniondivvie getting laughed at.
I'm rather reminded about how SeanT went into ecstasies re ISIS having the best propaganda since Goebbels. But its not saved them from military defeat. For that matter Goebbels's propaganda didn't save Germany from military defeat either.
LOL.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/us/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign.html?_r=0
Clinton couldn't even be bothered to pretend she was interested in people different to herself.
https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/797585606385733636
But, yes it was funny.
Forwards to the revolution comrades!
I know of a person in the private sector who was sacked for sending work files from own e mail account rather than the protected company account.
Some might feel commercial secrets less important than matters of state.
I'm keeping wikipedia updated with the latest
It's okay if you're a Republican. A handy acronym for the next 4 years.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution