Reality Check - Working people would be fired and prosecuted for using a Hillary server. And...

[whereisjustice]

I assure you they give a damn.

They give a damn that Eric Holder let rich Wall Street CEOs walk away from the global disaster caused by criminal fraud.

They give a damn about corporate profiteering from endless wars and State Dept. disasters in Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Honduras.

They give a damn about Wall Street CEO billionaires profiteering by charging non-rich working families outrageous health care and education fees.

They give a damn about wages, virtually unchanged since the late 1970s.

They give a damn about someone who lies about being "dead broke", lies about being an "outsider", lies about being under "sniper fire".

They give a damn about politicians using a public Government office as their own private corporation.

And they DO give a damn about electing a President who is honest, ethical and willing to fight for the 300 million unrepresented people in this nation who cannot afford to pay-to-play.

Hillary is the WRONG candidate for the Democratic Party. She WILL lose the general election. In one of the most cynical political moves in recent History, the DNC is making sure the non-rich keep getting screwed by appointing an unlikable, self-serving, neo-conservative Wall Street shill as the Democratic Party's role model.

We must do what we believe is right to protest the injustice spreading like cancer over every part of our Government.

Protest is mandatory.

[leftofcool]

1. Thank you for this anti-Hillary hit piece.

On edit what exactly is a "Hillary Server" Sounds like a brand name like Windows or something. Where can I buy one?

[whereisjustice]

3. Hillary Server - a crash prone system, developed by Wall Street, bought by DNC, you can pick one up

cheap after the general election.

[angel123]

24. supporters like you

it is supporters like you that causes me to not support senator sanders. if he is the nominee, I assure you that I would be reluctant to vote for him. I cannot believe that you are a democrat. this hatred that you have for Hillary is unhealthy. please seek help.

[whereisjustice]

26. "supporters like you" lololol - you know what and who is unhealthy for America?

Hillary.

[Bill USA]

118. you warm the cold hearts of the GOP McCarthy campaigners. Innuendo and implied accusations you

take for evidence.

"unhealthy for America"? check it out: Republican presidential candidates still cling to (the failed) trickle-down economics

and... House OKs GOP bill blocking Planned Parenthood payments

and...Republicans Ready For December Shutdown As Boehner Exits

and... How Republicans Sabotaged the Recovery, The economy didn't jump. It was pushed.

. and...5 Ways Republicans Have Sabotaged Job Growth

and... Finding the truth in 935 lies - told by Bush Admin officials to rush us into - war with Iraq - The Center for Public Integrity

[Krytan11c]

43. If a snarky joke from a supporter

would make you hesitate to vote for a nominee then you were already hesitating.

[cherokeeprogressive]

73. Vote for him or not, but let me say this:

Anyone who votes for, or doesn't vote for a candidate based on the behavior of that candidates supporters should have their voting license revoked.

[awoke_in_2003]

55. "what exactly is a "Hillary Server" "

A new phrase that makes me miss the days of the unrec button.

[whereisjustice]

84. aka someone who serves a subpoena to a public official to release US State Dept communications

that should NEVER be managed from a Comcast internet account.

[randys1]

101. The BASHing that goes on here is amazing.

[orpupilofnature57]

127. In the store of Entitlement , Marie Antoinette would of had one, and when asked why, it would have

been more offensive, but her answer wouldn't have been as convoluted or ambiguous .

[Fred Sanders]

2. The RW water you carry has already been long debunked. A civil servant would not be fired. Link?*

And prosecuted? Not even worthy of comment.

I remember when "Get Clinton" used to be only a RW cry!

*no RW sites or opinions/speculation by the usual suspects, please. Like I said, long ago laid to rest.

Anything from Media Matters, Mother Jones, Think Progress, or Daily Kos, for example?

[whereisjustice]

4. If I ran my corporate email on my home server I would be fired and prosecuted, but I am not rich

like Hillary. I agree that a CEO would not be prosecuted.

Corporate email is protected under the law. I cannot store it anywhere or send it to anyone I want.

I would be arrested, charged and prosecuted.

You won't make this go away by saying the rich are entitled to exemptions from justice that few people in this world are allowed.

[jberryhill]

10. "Corporate email is protected under the law."

To what law are you referring here?

[Fred Sanders]

38. There is a reason law school is three years long and hard to get into, as many are not aware.

[randys1]

102. If DU is a sign of anything in the larger public, President Cruz is gonna have fun

with his hate agenda.

[Hortensis]

19. HRC was a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State. She had

the authority to make this decision. Plain and simple.

[bettyellen]

62. Lol, I used corporate email on my phone, my friends computer and my personal laptop all the time.

And thanks for trying to pretend we're the same as republicans while carrying water for them. Lol.

[upaloopa]

107. There are a these weird comparisons

FBI and State Dept said Hillary broke no laws.
But you know better because your company would do what the hell ever.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

9. Link: I have a network and data security job in corporate America.

END.

[Fred Sanders]

36. What difference does that make? One can be all things on the Internet, that is why it was invented.

[Fred Sanders]

40. You misunderstand. I want to talk LAW! What law was broken worthy of dismissal and prosecution?

There must be one if the OP speculation is worth debating.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

42. I think this is a big non-story that is nonetheless in the news cycles.

It may end up hurting Hillary more than it has; it may not. It's largely Republican game-playing. Go dig through my posts if you want to. I don't say much about Hillary's email issue, but I do on occasion address the technical points. This case isn't even a technical point--it's more of a corporate governance and policy thing. But yes, I'm dead certain that people like me would be fired six ways from Sunday if we were to run a rogue corporate email server. That's what I addressed, and I meant it.

Now, to give you shaky benefit of the doubt, I'm going to go remove the observation that you accused me of lying, since you're telling me that's not what you meant. It looked like what you meant, but I'm going with detente this once.

[nichomachus]

50. So, if you criticize Hillary, you're "carrying water" for the right wing?

The technical term for that idea is "bullshit."

[Fred Sanders]

56. Non sequitur.

[JoePhilly]

5. That's some serious crazy right there.

[whereisjustice]

6. Even you can see Hillary as a candidate for any political party except her own is indeed crazy.

[JoePhilly]

7. I love nonsensical ranting on a Saturday morning.

It tells me some one had a few too many on Friday night. Which is the correct night to have too many.

[whereisjustice]

11. Hillary says she is an "outsider", indeed nonsensical - are you saying she drunk tweeted that?

I don't have any evidence that she has a drinking problem. Do you?

[BlueWaveDem]

17. She is a woman who currently holds no political office.

Compared to the other Democratic candidates she is an outsider. Except Lessig, who never held political office.

[pinebox]

33. Hillary's no outsider lol

That is just completely insane to say that Hillary is an outsider. If you want an outsider, go look at Green & Libertarian candidates. Sanders is seen as an outsider because he's an Indy and has criticized both parties for their ability to play stupid games and win stupid prizes.

[BlueWaveDem]

34. The term "outsider" can't be used for career politicians.

My post referred to Democratic candidates. But yes, Green candidates would most likely be considered outsiders as they hold no public office either.

[pinebox]

37. Both Sanders and Trump are seen as outsiders

And this will explain why.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/the-trump-card-why-outsiders-are-winning-the-us-presidential-race-20150827-gj9nta.html

[BlueWaveDem]

41. Bernie is great, but he is definitely not an outsider.

Anyone trying to spin it that way is disingenuous. It doesn't get much more insider than a career politician. Not that being a career politician is necessarily a bad thing, it's not, as evidenced by some of the good that Bernie has accomplished. This outsider/insider thing isn't really something anyone cares about, people will be voting the issues and who they feel can lead.

[pinebox]

45. I'll disagree

Because I think anybody who is an Indy and not a member of the 2 parties is just that, an outsider.
Actually people do care a lot about the insider/outsider thing and it's a massive things this election cycle. Look at Trump's rise to fame and it's because he's not seen as a Washington insider. People are sick of politicians and people are sick of both parties. That decent has grown exponentially in the last 4 years.

[MADem]

53. He has been getting a local or federal government paycheck for nearly a third of a century.

He's not an outsider--he's the ultimate insider, eating at the government trough for decades, now. I don't know if he ever had any 'regular' paychecks other than the ones he got from the government.

Mayor of Burlington, VT: 1981 - 1989

House of Representatives: 1991 - 2007

Senate: 2007 - present

He's a sitting member of the 100 Club. That's not the resume of an "outsider."

[pinebox]

60. Yes while true

He is also not a dem or a republican. I posted the link up above as to why he's considered as such. He isn't seen as an insider by any means. Check this http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Bernie+Sanders+outsider

The outsider: how Bernie Sanders is winning over Democratic voters

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/11/the-outsider-how-bernie-sanders-is-winning-over-democrat-voters

Have a read of that.

[MADem]

69. You said it, not me. I'll take a ten foot pole when getting into those kinds of discussions.

People here are saying he IS a Dem, now, since he's plainly not running for the REPUBLICAN nomination....so, I'll just leave it at that.

Outsiders don't rely on government paychecks for 32 years. They just don't. He has gotten the benefits of caucusing with Democrats for all but eight of those 32 years, to include desirable committee assignments, positional seniority, all the perks--with none of the DUTIES, like having to fill peer staff positions, whipping, organizing, etc. He's not an outsider. Some would go so far to say he's a parasite. The host party, mind you, certainly does get some benefit from the parasite when they need his number to put them in the majority, but right now, he's not even providing that benefit.

A British paper could call him an eggplant if they'd like--it doesn't make him one, nor does it make their assessment of him as an "outsider" especially valid. And one premise of the article--that the wingnuts, libertarians and Tea Partiers are somehow going to flock to him over the GOP standard bearer, whoever that may be--is a whole lot of wishing-and-hoping.

The danger is, the longer his contingent dog-whistles to the likes of those people, the less likely he'll ever be of winning over minority voters, who aren't stupid and have long memories.

[pinebox]

86. Bernie is seen as an outsider

No matter how you look at it, Bernie is seen as an outsider from the general American public.
He's an indy, you can't say "he's been in politics for 32 years" and then say "he's now a Dem" and not nod to the fact for those 32 years, minus 4 months, he's been an indy.
Bernie is NOT part of the establishment nor has he ever been!

Let me help you out.
Notice anything? On and on it goes. He's an outsider and as such, he's also seen as one


http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/11/the-outsider-how-bernie-sanders-is-winning-over-democrat-voters
http://www.juancole.com/2015/07/establishment-outsiders-sanders.html
http://www.rt.com/usa/315790-bernie-sanders-occupy-wall-street/
http://observer.com/2015/05/how-bernie-sanders-points-the-way-for-new-yorks-outsider-candidates/
http://studentsforberniesanders.com/politicsandthenewmedia
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/left-wing-outsider-bernie-sanders-beating-hillary-clinton-in-new-hampshire-primary-poll-10451330.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/11/don-t-lump-sanders-with-trump-and-carson.html

[Uncle Joe]

78. Bernie is an outsider against the "Deep State" of which Hillary is intricately tied to.

Everyone knows about the military-industrial complex, which, in his farewell address, President Eisenhower warned had the potential to “endanger our liberties or democratic process” but have you heard of the “Deep State?”

Mike Lofgren, a former GOP congressional staff member with the powerful House and Senate Budget Committees, joins Bill to talk about what he calls the Deep State, a hybrid of corporate America and the national security state, which is “out of control” and “unconstrained.” In it, Lofgren says, elected and unelected figures collude to protect and serve powerful vested interests. “It is … the red thread that runs through the history of the last three decades. It is how we had deregulation, financialization of the economy, the Wall Street bust, the erosion or our civil liberties and perpetual war,” Lofgren tells Bill.

Lofgren says the Deep State’s heart lies in Washington, DC, but its tentacles reach out to Wall Street, which Lofgren describes as “the ultimate backstop to the whole operation,” Silicon Valley and over 400,000 contractors, private citizens who have top-secret security clearances. Like any other bureaucracy, it’s groupthink that drives the Deep State.

In conjunction with this week’s show, Mike Lofgren has written an exclusive essay, “Anatomy of the Deep State.”

http://billmoyers.com/episode/the-deep-state-hiding-in-plain-sight/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016132673

The transcript and video of the Moyer's interview are on the link.

[MADem]

88. Lockheed Martin? F-35? Sandia Labs? Looks like he's IN that club. nt

[Uncle Joe]

90. Certainly not to the extent that Hillary is, Bernie's funding is from the people not the mega-rich

and super-pacs.

His message is taking Wall Street, Big-Pharma, for profit health insurance corps, for profit prisons, the mega-banks, Citizens United and the less than 1% head on.

There simply isn't any comparison.

[MADem]

91. So, just putting a toe in is OK? Hmmm. OK. nt

[Uncle Joe]

92. I would rather have a President with a stinky toe than one swimming in shit and proud of it. n/t

[MADem]

97. The truth is, that once they put a toe in, they usually want to go for a swim.

His old Liberty Union Party has considered him "turned" for some time, now: http://www.libertyunionparty.org/?page_id=363

[Uncle Joe]

98. Until the time comes that Bernie does go for a swim, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. n/t

[MADem]

100. He's wading--you just don't see it because it doesn't suit your hopes and desires for him as a

candidate.

His relationship with Lockheed Martin has morphed, in record time, from vitriolic to cozy. He's on the list of congressmen who have engaged in nepotism. His hands aren't clean. He's certainly not the only one by a long shot, but trying to paint him as a white knight on a unicorn is just not realistic.

Should a miracle happen and the DNC let him have the nomination, and if by a lighting strike miracle he is able to beat the GOP candidate (who will likely accuse him of all measures of malfeasance and perversion--and those charges will muddy the waters decisively), I can guarantee that you and probably half of his most earnest supporters here will be calling him "Traitor!" and "Sell-out!" before he passes the six month mark.

For some, the perfect IS the enemy of the good--and they like it like that. I can't figure out the "why" of it, but there it is.

[Uncle Joe]

103. It's all relative and by your own admission Bernie' has only put a toe in.

"So, just putting a toe in is OK? Hmmm. OK. nt"

Time will tell as to whether Bernie wins the nomination, wins the election, how he will govern and how his supporters will react, until then all you have is speculation.

As I posted earlier Bernie is running aggressively against a multitude of mega-corporate and oligarch interests.

Should he win the election, Bernie and the people will clearly know what propelled him to that position, there is no gray area, it will be a crystal clear mandate and I believe he will do his utmost best to stay fixated on his North Star which has created so much energy and excitement with a long, hungry American Electorate.

The same can't be said for Hillary's lukewarm, milquetoast stances on the issues, based more on political calculation than anything else, HRC could much more easily switch issue positions should she come to power.

[MADem]

104. Please don't regard my "toe" comment as a measure of his involvement. That was posited as a

question to you, not a declaration, to inquire as to how much corruption and involvement with the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Corporate complex you were willing to tolerate.

My declaration is that he is wading, and he has been for years.

If lightning strikes and he ends up in the White House, he will have a mandate to fail. Congress won't help him. Republicans will be in Full Snarl mode, and Democrats will be keeping their powder dry and combing the ranks for an attractive, charismatic, soaring orator with the requisite amount of "youth and vigor" to challenge him. Jimmy Carter's reception to DC (which was stony, cold, and bordered on rude) will be favorably compared to Sanders'--though I don't think he'll win, in any event.


If he gets the nomination, say a horrified hello to President (Insert Name of GOP Nominee Here). I'd put money on it. I don't see a path to the White House for him.

[Uncle Joe]

105. My declaration is in agreement with your posed question and if you read the transcript or viewed the

video on my "Deep State" link you would know it's much more than just the F-35 or even military industrial complex.

(snip)

BILL MOYERS: This is a difficult subject to talk about. It would be easier if it were a conspiracy you were describing. But that's not the case, is it?

MIKE LOFGREN: No. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. This is not some cabal that was hatched in the dark of night. This is something that hides in plain sight. It's something we know about, but we can't connect the dots, or most people don't connect the dots. It's kind of a natural evolution when so much money and political control is at stake in the most powerful country in the world. This has evolved over time.

BILL MOYERS: And you call it the real power in the country.

MIKE LOFGREN: Correct. It is a hybrid of corporate America and the national security state. Everyone knows what the military-industrial complex is, since Eisenhower talked about it in his farewell address.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER: We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence whether sought or unsought by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.

MIKE LOFGREN: Everyone knows Wall Street and its depredations. Everyone knows how corporate America acts. They're both about the same thing. They're both about money, sucking as much money out of the country as they can. And they're about control, corporate control and political control.

BILL MOYERS: You said this, in your judgment, is the big story of our time.

MIKE LOFGREN: It is the big story of our time. It is, I would say, the red thread that runs through the history of the last three decades. It's how we had deregulation, financialization of the economy, the Wall Street bust, the erosion of our civil liberties, and perpetual war.

BILL MOYERS: You write that the “secret and unaccountable Deep State floats freely above the gridlock between both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue is the paradox of American government in the 21st century.”

MIKE LOFGREN: Well, that's just the thing. The common narrative of the last five years, and on a superficial level it's right, is that government is broken. It's dysfunctional. It's gridlocked. Well, that's true. And that is the visible the government, the constitutional government we learn about in Civics 101. And it is gridlocked.

But somehow, Obama can go into Libya. He can assassinate US citizens. He can collect all our phone records without a buy or a leave from anyone. He can even bring down a jet carrying a president of a sovereign country without asking anyone's permission. And no one seems to connect the two, the failure of our visible constitutional state and this other government that operates according to no constitutional rules or any constraint by the governed.

BILL MOYERS: You go on to say, though, that it's not just the executive branch that is the heart of this, that it's just one of the several constituencies that make up what you call the Deep State.

MIKE LOFGREN: Well, it's all the national security functions of the government. It's the Pentagon. It's Homeland Security. It's the State Department. It's also Treasury because they have a kind of symbiotic relationship with Wall Street.

BILL MOYERS: For one thing, they control the flow of money.

MIKE LOFGREN: Absolutely. That's why there's such a flow not only of money, but of personnel between Wall Street and the Treasury Department. There's other aspects of government. There's a portion of the judiciary-- a small portion of the judiciary, the so-called Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts. Most of Congress doesn't even know how they operate.

BILL MOYERS: Talk a little more about the nexus, the connection, between the national security state and Wall Street. Because this is a theme that runs through your essay.

MIKE LOFGREN: Do you know that about 30 blocks north of here there is a restaurant that will sell you a truffle for $95,000. Also in New York, Christie's sold at auction a painting by Francis Bacon for $142 million. Now a parallel situation with the national security state. The NSA spent $1.7 billion to build a facility in Utah that will collect one yottabyte of information. That's as much information as has ever been written in the history of the world.

It costs $400 by the time the Pentagon finishes paying contractors to haul one gallon of gasoline into Afghanistan. That’s a real extravagant amount of money. In both cases of the national security state and the corporate state, they are sucking money out of the economy.

As our infrastructure collapses, we have a Tinkertoy power grid that goes out every time there's inclement weather. Tens of millions of people are on food stamps. We incarcerate more people than China, an authoritarian state with four times our population. Does anyone see the disparity between this extravagance for the Deep State and the penury that is being forced on the rest of the country? That isn't a natural evolution. Something made it happen.

We're having a situation where the Deep State is essentially out of control, it’s unconstrained. Since 9/11 we have built the equivalent of three Pentagons around the DC metropolitan area, holding defense contractors, intelligence contractors, and government civilians involved in the military-industrial complex. There are over 400,000 contractors, private citizens, who have top-secret security clearances.

(snip)

http://billmoyers.com/episode/the-deep-state-hiding-in-plain-sight/

There is still much more on the transcipt.

Furthermore if Bernie succeeds at being elected to the White House, it can only come about because of a revolutionary, grassroots movement and such a powerful political dynamic will create long and strong coat tails, a future Congress would be reshaped as a result and will not resemble what's in power now.

Bernie knows how to use the bully pulpit and if any Democratic Congressman bucked such a crystal clear mandate, the political repercussions against them would be especially severe in 2018.

The writing is on the wall, the only question being how many of them will have the good sense to read it and change their course or be voted out of office?

I believe there will be fundamental shift from the days of Reagan for the better.

[MADem]

106. If he were so good at using the "bully pulpit" don't you think he would have so done before now?

I mean, come on--what took him so long?

He's DIFFERENT. Like Donald Trump is different. He appears to be unfiltered and he doesn't fit a typical mold. That appeals to a subset of people who like "boutique" or unique stuff, be it home goods or candidates.

You overstate both his abilities, and his appeal, I'm afraid.

You do realize it takes forever to change out the Senate? They serve six year terms, and they are "the cooling saucer" as I believe Jefferson said, that smooths out the rambunctious enthusiasms of the more frequently elected House members. By the time Sanders could generate any enthusiasm for "reshaping Congress" he'd be packing the car and leaving the White House--and that's assuming that the freak scenario of his election actually took place.

The only writing on the wall is that Sanders won't be the next POTUS. I do think he will play a key role in shaping the debate.

[Uncle Joe]

108. The "bully pulpit" is a Presidential platform not so much that of a Congressperson or Senator.

A bully pulpit is a sufficiently conspicuous position that provides an opportunity to speak out and be listened to.

This term was coined by President Theodore Roosevelt, who referred to the White House as a "bully pulpit", by which he meant a terrific platform from which to advocate an agenda. Roosevelt used the word bully as an adjective meaning "superb" or "wonderful", a more common usage in his time than it is today. Another expression which survives from this era is "bully for you", synonymous with "good for you".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bully_pulpit

A Congressperson no matter how dedicated and wise is only 1 of 535 and simply doesn't have the same reach nor authority of a President which is sent to office with tens of millions of votes.

Your "boutique" and "unique stuff" pejorative comments are totally at odds with the mainstream majority of the American People which agree with Bernie Sanders on the issues.

You state the opposite of everything that Bernie has been most frank about, to the contrary he doesn't overstate his abilities, nor do I, he has repeatedly said that "he can't do it alone" we have to create a movement and I'm in agreement with that.

The Senate doesn't have to entirely flip in 2016 to alter the political dynamic, they will be astute enough to be able to tell which way the American People are turning should Bernie and the movement succeed, and for those that aren't 2018 will remind them.

[MADem]

109. Ted Kennedy used it all the time. Elizabeth Warren uses it routinely.

Paul Wellstone never hesitated, either. Charlie Rangel, when he was running Ways and Means, was like E.F. Hutton. Kucinich used to run for POTUS just to get one of those swell bully pulpits, it was a career with him. All the focus on Veteran's Affairs has given Sanders an ideal opportunity to speak and be heard. And anyone who runs for POTUS gets one, too, it's not like that isn't a "conspicuous" position--why didn't he run before now?


My comments are not pejorative--they are accurate. Sanders is NOT LIKE other candidates. He IS different. So's Trump, for that matter.

It often is not the message when it comes to how the electorate views these things--it's the MESSENGER. Bush-Gore shouldn't have been close at all. Gore had the better message. Gore was stiff, though, and Bush acted like a hardy-har-har "regular guy" who appealed to putzes who liked to regard themselves as manly. Way too many people preferred the faux-easy nature of the frat boy idiot to the stiff, wonky, smart guy.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if the election was stolen, because if we're weighing messages, eighty percent of America should have voted for Gore, or Kerry four years later. It's obvious who was the better candidate in both contests --why didn't they run away with it? The answer is that whole "Who would you rather have a beer with?" question. The reason the pollsters ask it is because it DOES often predict who the public will go for--especially if the numbers are tight.

The Senate -- or the House-- isn't going to screw themselves by voting against their--and their states' -- interests. There's a reason why the pork is so well spread out....to include the Lockheed Martin/Sandia Labs pork in tiny and sparsly populated VT. You forget that All Politics Is LOCAL--and if you start cutting defense contracts and thousands of people living in LIBERAL Massachusetts get laid off from their jobs at RAYTHEON and OTIS and HANSCOM and NATICK LABS, you can be sure Elizabeth Warren (who has visited all those places and given pep talks to the workers) would get an earful. She'd get thrown under the DU bus so fast after she got her HAWK on that heads would spin.

It's not as simple as you are making it--and shooting the messenger isn't helpful, either.

[Uncle Joe]

110. None of the people that you cited were President and their voices didn't and don't carry the same

weight as a President doing the same. None of them can travel the nation, get the same turnout and press coverage as a President at the very least in a local market. None of them can call a press conference and get the kind of coverage that a President can, none of them can speak in front of a joint session of Congress during the State of the Union and get the same attention and symbolism that a President can.

You missed the point of the "Deep State" in regards to the corporate media, their preferences, performance, propaganda power and impact on shaping American perceptions. The corporate media will always prefer the Republican candidate and if they can't get that, an establishment Democrat is their fall back position. This has been the case since the days of Reagan and it has been largely successful but thanks to the Internet coming into its' own, times are changing.

All politics are local and Bernie's actions and message most definitely carry a local impact in addition to a national one.

Your attempts at tying Sanders to Trump just because they're "different" is pejorative, both are speaking to anger in the electorate but Trump is misdirecting his followers to vent their rage at the weak and disenfranchised, Bernie is speaking truth to power and for this reason Bernie's stands the best of damaging Trump specifically and the Republicans' hold on power in general.

[MADem]

111. Oh, really?

Nobody heard Teddy Kennedy? That's where you're going to plant your flag? If Teddy called a presser, no one showed up? Please.

Have you seen the ratings for the State of the Union? Just because a POTUS is required to address the Congress every year (and it is a requirement) does not mean that people watch--OR listen. The Vine Generation can't sit still for that long. And this is a POPULAR president. I can imagine what those numbers would look like for a schmuck.

I didn't "miss the point" -- I'm just not buying it.

And speaking of "missing the point," your attempt at pretending to be missing the point I was making about "different" candidates is PATHETIC. One has to be devoid of very basic reasoning skills to insinuate that I was comparing them in terms of their respective dogmas. Give me a break. My comparison had to do with the fact--and it is a fact--that both candidates do not adhere to the PARADIGM of a typical candidate for their respective parties. It's rather ironic that you disparage me for making the comparison, and then follow up by VALIDATING it with your "spekaing to anger in the electorate" remarks.

This is not rocket science. Obvious "distinct individuality" is obvious.

There's just no point in continuing if you're going to play like that. You don't want a discussion, you want a one-way conversation where you talk and everyone else nods approvingly.

[Uncle Joe]

112. I never said that nobody ever heard Ted Kennedy, Elizabeth Warren nor any of the other people that

you listed, what I am stating is that even those peoples' messages would've been greatly expanded had they been President.

From your own link even at the lowest level to view a State of the Union since 2000, 31.7 million people did see Obama's speech and of course that doesn't include views whether in whole or part after the fact.

Nearly 32 million Americans watched President Barack Obama's 2015 State of the Union address on television, the lowest turnout since President Bill Clinton's final State of the Union address in 2000, according to newly released Nielsen ratings.
Obama attracted 31.7 million viewers. Viewership for Obama's State of the Union addresses has been in decline since 2009, when he drew 52.4 million television viewers. Subsequently, 48.0 million watched on television in 2010, 42.8 million in 2011, 37.8 million in 2012, 33.5 million in 2013 and 33.3 million in 2014. This year's speech replaces last year's as the second-lowest rated since Nielsen began recording viewership in 1993.

Nielsen's totals are based off viewership for ABC, Al Jazeera America, Azteca, CBS, CNN, Fox, Fox Business Network, Fox News Channel, Galavision, MSNBC, MundoFox, NBC and Univision. They do not include digital livestreams.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/01/record-low-ratings-for-state-of-the-union-201400#ixzz3n8maCoZm

Now how many people do you believe ever viewed one of the people's speeches or interviews that you listed?

The numbers aren't even close and certainly not on a regular basis.

Having said that the State of the Union is only one example of how Presidents can use the Bully Pulpit which I listed from my previous post, you ignored the others.

None of the people that you cited were President and their voices didn't and don't carry the same weight as a President doing the same. None of them can travel the nation, get the same turnout and press coverage as a President at the very least in a local market. None of them can call a press conference and get the kind of coverage that a President can, none of them can speak in front of a joint session of Congress during the State of the Union and get the same attention and symbolism that a President can.

From your previous post #105.

He's DIFFERENT. Like Donald Trump is different. He appears to be unfiltered and he doesn't fit a typical mold. That appeals to a subset of people who like "boutique" or unique stuff, be it home goods or candidates.

You spoke of Bernie as being "unfiltered" "doesn't fit a typical mold" "boutique" "unique stuff" that Bernie and Trump were alike whether in fact or implied by being different and just for that reason without giving any substantive credence as to Bernie's message which is resonating with the people and how that differs from Trump's hate, racism, misogyny or xenophobia.

Furthermore you cast aspersions against the people supporting Bernie, whether intended or not because they were backing him for the most shallow of reasons, just because he's "different."

[MADem]

113. Just stop it.

You are trying WAY too hard with your "aspersions" accusations. Anyone with basic reading skills can perceive my meaning. I reiterated it, and you're STILL whinging? Your complaints are not credible.

As for impact speeches, a SOTU is a one-off. It gets covered, and it gets forgotten. It is history within a 24 hour news cycle. An item or two from the effort might "take off" and become a thing, but that's not always the case.

If a Kennedy (RIP), or a Warren, though, gives a major policy speech, there might not be more than ten million eyes on it during the news coverage, but the commentary will resonate in newspaper articles, opinion pieces, the Sunday talkers (to include appearances on all of them by the speech - giver...POTUS doesn't generally make those rounds) and magazines for WEEKS if not months. The points made will--even if you can't admit it--percolate into the public consciousness.

But you're moving the goalposts, in any event. You're insisting that high visiblity politicians don't have a bully pulpit, but they do. You are just incorrect on that score.

If you don't believe me, google Ellizabeth Warren Black Lives Matter. She gave that speech on Sunday and people are STILL talking about it--and they'll be talking about it for a long while to come, too. It will probably be one of the more significant commentaries by a white person on the issue of civil rights, police brutality and the social justice disconnect in this country that we'll hear during this election season, and it will shape the debate.

Count on it.

[Uncle Joe]

114. I'm not moving the goalposts, the first sentence from my post# 108

The "bully pulpit" is a Presidential platform not so much that of a Congressperson or Senator.

That doesn't mean that Senators or Congresspeople can't get attention by speaking out or giving speeches but that mega-phone is amplified when they become President.

Bernie sent shock waves through the evangelical community with his speech at Liberty University and I agree with you on one point Elizabeth Warren did give a great speech on civil rights, police brutality and social justice but if she were President, it would've been even more powerful

State of the Unions aren't a one off, if not in whole definitely in part they get replayed relentlessly on television and the Internet.

Of course you still haven't addressed the other aspects of a Presidential Bully Pulpit which I raised.

None of the people that you cited were President and their voices didn't and don't carry the same weight as a President doing the same. None of them can travel the nation, get the same turnout and press coverage as a President at the very least in a local market. None of them can call a press conference and get the kind of coverage that a President can, none of them can speak in front of a joint session of Congress during the State of the Union and get the same attention and symbolism that a President can.

[MADem]

115. Ha--now you're moving 'em BACK again!!!

Do you seriously think that Senators don't have a travel budget? You know how big it is? It's as big as they want it to be. They can go whereever they'd like. They have to fly commercial, unless they can get a military hop, but they can "travel the nation" without any trouble. The fact that I have to TELL you this lets me appreciate your level of understanding.

And they can get PLENTY of turnout--you're telling me you wouldn't show up to hear Warren speak if she were in your neighborhood? Please. Anywhere she goes, they'd be banging down the doors to get in--she's like EF Hutton.

And if Warren calls a press conference, I can guarantee you that EVERY national media outlet will send a rep, and CNN/MSNBC and FAUX, along with the DC affiliates, would have cameras at the ready. The cable newsers would call it BREAKING NEWS and stop what they were doing to cover it--as they have done, many times in the past, for other Senate leaders (and you do know that Warren, for example HAS a leadership position in the Senate?).

POTUS is not the only "leader" in town. On the other side of the aisle, even BONEHEAD can -- until he resigns -- command his bully pulpit.

Senate leaders, like our Harry Reid and GOP's Mitch McConnell, also have one and can use it at will, as do, say, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, James Clyburn, and others in the House.

[Uncle Joe]

116. I will type this slowly and highlight the bolded parts for your re-reading pleasure

None of the people that you cited were President and their voices didn't and don't carry the same weight as a President doing the same. None of them can travel the nation, get the same turnout and press coverage as a President at the very least in a local market. None of them can call a press conference and get the kind of coverage that a President can, none of them can speak in front of a joint session of Congress during the State of the Union and get the same attention and symbolism that a President can.

If you believe that a Senator or Congressperson captures greater media attention than a President with the exception of campaign season and a lame duck President, not running for re-election, you're seriously deluding your self.

When a President comes to town, that's major news in and of itself.

[MADem]

117. Typing slowly may help your spelling and grammar, but all you're doing is delaying your response.

I've covered the things you keep bolding.


I can't help it if you are having trouble reading what I have written to this point.


One more time: The "right" leader -- not POTUS -- calling a Press Conference can pack 'em in, and get press coverage to beat the band.

You keep crying about the 'Joint Session of Congress' but I'll bet you can't tell me--without the google--what Obama said at the last one if you tried. I'll bet if you pulled a Jaywalking and asked people on the street, you'd get a lot of blank stares.

Now you're putting in CAVEATS?

with the exception of campaign season and a lame duck President

Pretty big "exception" wouldn't you say?

You're just too funny!

[Uncle Joe]

120. No you haven't and I bet if you pulled a "Jaywalking" and asked the people

on the street who the President is and who a Senator or Congressperson is, the President will win hands down and you know it.

The candidates do get more coverage during campaign season, that's logical but that doesn't change a President's otherwise overwhelming advantage in using the bully pulpit if he or she chooses to do so.

You might consider 1 year out 8 a big exception but I'm betting on the 7.

P.S. I remember two things about Obama's last State of the Union that climate change was undeniable and he put a zinger on the Republicans when he stated that he wasn't running of reelection and after the Republicans cheered he it was because he had won both his elections and the Democrats cheered.

[MADem]

121. Yes, I have, and you're embarrassing yourself now. You're playing nanny nanny boo boo

at this point in time, and it's pointless and tiresome.

You just moved the goalposts again--I didn't say "ask who the President IS." You made that up. Or you didn't read (which seems to be your problem--you like to transmit, but taking in a response is a challenge).

I was talking about WHAT HE SAID AT THE LAST SOTU--which you would have known...if you'd bothered to READ--and plainly, based on your most recent post, you DID NOT do that:

You keep crying about the 'Joint Session of Congress' but I'll bet you can't tell me--without the google--what Obama said at the last one if you tried. I'll bet if you pulled a Jaywalking and asked people on the street, you'd get a lot of blank stares.

And, FWIW, "election season" kicked off last January. It doesn't END until Nov 2016. That's closer to two years than one--and...since apparently you're unclear on our election law, we hold those POTUS elections every FOUR years, not every eight.

As for your hastily added PS....Google was your friend, I see, and obviously you did at last READ, and figure out that I wasn't talking about who the President IS, but what he SAID ...



I think we need to memorialize this post, though:

Uncle Joe
120. No you haven't and I bet if you pulled a "Jaywalking" and asked the people
View profile
on the street who the President is and who a Senator or Congressperson is, the President will win hands down and you know it.

The candidates do get more coverage during campaign season, that's logical but that doesn't change a President's otherwise overwhelming advantage in using the bully pulpit if he or she chooses to do so.

You might consider 1 year out 8 a big exception but I'm betting on the 7.

P.S. I remember two things about Obama's last State of the Union that climate change was undeniable and he put a zinger on the Republicans when he stated that he wasn't running of reelection and after the Republicans cheered he it was because he had won both his elections and the Democrats cheered.

[Uncle Joe]

123. Name recognition gives an advantage in sparking attention, that's just logic.

A President isn't a lame duck every four years, we've had one four year President since Jimmy Carter 1976-1980, every one of them since except for Bush the Lesser have been two term Presidents and Presidents almost always run for their second term unopposed within their own party.

And whether you believe me or not, I didn't Goggle squat.

[MADem]

124. Aren't you exhausted? You've hauled those goalposts all over the field, now! nt

[Uncle Joe]

126. The goalposts haven't been moved except within your own imagination.

The President has the most powerful bully pulpit if he or she chooses to use it, you can deny that until the cows come home but it won't change reality.

No other politician, Senator or Congressperson has the resources, national authority, and name recognition to match it, you can deny this as well but it doesn't make that fact any less real.

I'm not exhausted if you wish we can do this all night.

[MADem]

133. Your posts are not invisible. Anyone can read them and see where

you've dragged them across the field and back again.

[Uncle Joe]

135. Congratulations on that keen observation and as for "goalposts?" Your first post #53

stated that Bernie wasn't an outsider, I made the point that Bernie was an outsider against the "Deep State of which Hillary is intricately tied to.

From posts #88 to #98 we debated Bernie's outsider status with me contending that Bernie was certainly more of an outsider than Hillary.

Beginning at post #100 you moved the goal posts or changed the subject by bringing Bernie's electability into play while also casting aspersions against me and half of Bernie's supporters

"Should a miracle happen and the DNC let him have the nomination, and if by a lighting strike miracle he is able to beat the GOP candidate (who will likely accuse him of all measures of malfeasance and perversion--and those charges will muddy the waters decisively), I can guarantee that you and probably half of his most earnest supporters here will be calling him "Traitor!" and "Sell-out!" before he passes the six month mark.

For some, the perfect IS the enemy of the good--and they like it like that. I can't figure out the "why" of it, but there it is."

When I on post# 103 rebutted your insulting assertion that time will tell whether Bernie wins and how his supporters react along with making the point that Bernie would have a clear mandate and Hillary wouldn't because of her cynical political calculation you moved the goal post again on post #104 stating that Congress wouldn't help him.

"If lightning strikes and he ends up in the White House, he will have a mandate to fail. Congress won't help him. Republicans will be in Full Snarl mode, and Democrats will be keeping their powder dry and combing the ranks for an attractive, charismatic, soaring orator with the requisite amount of "youth and vigor" to challenge him. Jimmy Carter's reception to DC (which was stony, cold, and bordered on rude) will be favorably compared to Sanders'--though I don't think he'll win, in any event."

On post #105 I made the point that should Bernie be elected it can only come about from a revolutionary grass roots movement, a crystal clear mandate, that Bernie would have long and strong coat tails and this would politically alter the next Congress for the better from what it is today.

I also stated that "Bernie knows how to use the "bully pulpit," to reach the people, of course he's doing this now as a candidate.

On post 106 you again cast aspersions against Bernie by comparing him to Trump without making any distinction between their messages and slammed Bernie's supporters for backing him for the most shallow of reasons.

"He's DIFFERENT. Like Donald Trump is different. He appears to be unfiltered and he doesn't fit a typical mold. That appeals to a subset of people who like "boutique" or unique stuff, be it home goods or candidates."

You also mist-interpreted or attempted to cloud up the meaning of "bully pulpit."

A bully pulpit is a sufficiently conspicuous position that provides an opportunity to speak out and be listened to.

This term was coined by President Theodore Roosevelt, who referred to the White House as a "bully pulpit", by which he meant a terrific platform from which to advocate an agenda. Roosevelt used the word bully as an adjective meaning "superb" or "wonderful", a more common usage in his time than it is today. Another expression which survives from this era is "bully for you", synonymous with "good for you".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bully_pulpit

From post 106 to the present that has been the subject, my contention has consistently been that a President has more ability in using the bully pulpit than a Senator or Congressperson.

That's not to say that Senators, Congresspeople or other social leaders can't use the bully pulpit but a President most definitely has inherent advantages.

You have no logical argument against that, so you use smilies to make your case.

[MADem]

137. Sorry pal--you were leading this little dance, not me. And gish galloping doesn't work with me,

either. Particularly when you repeat the same quotes you've posted before.

You were all over the road with your "bully pulpit," and you still can't seem to make up your mind.

Here, have a look at how a senator (not a President) with a leadership position in the Senate uses her bully pulpit:

[Uncle Joe]

138. My position on the bully pulpit hasn't changed at any point on this thread, except in

your imagination.

That was a good speech by "a Senator (not a President)" and here's another earth shaking speech by a "Senator (not a President)"with a leadership position in the Senate using the Bully Pulpit.

None of this changes my point that a President has the most inherent advantages in using the Bully Pulpit in reaching the greatest mass of the American People.

[MADem]

139. Not sure what your point is, there. An outsider running for POTUS can have a bully pulpit.

What you are "proving" is that it's not a presidential perogative--it's available to ANYONE who is a NEWSMAKER who catches the media eye.

[Uncle Joe]

140. From my very post on the subject of the Bully Pulpit #105

Furthermore if Bernie succeeds at being elected to the White House, it can only come about because of a revolutionary, grassroots movement and such a powerful political dynamic will create long and strong coat tails, a future Congress would be reshaped as a result and will not resemble what's in power now.

Bernie knows how to use the bully pulpit and if any Democratic Congressman bucked such a crystal clear mandate, the political repercussions against them would be especially severe in 2018.

He has used it (past tense) adeptly as a Senator and Presidential Candidate, should he be elected to the White House, his Bully Pulpit power will increase all the more and the same would hold true for Elizabeth Warren if she were President.

[MADem]

142. Yeah, and then you picked up those goalposts and said this....

108. The "bully pulpit" is a Presidential platform not so much that of a Congressperson or Senator.

This is getting tiresome. It's like you just want to argue about nothing.

[Uncle Joe]

143. I suppose "not as much" would've been a better phrase but I also added this to the same post.

A bully pulpit is a sufficiently conspicuous position that provides an opportunity to speak out and be listened to.

This term was coined by President Theodore Roosevelt, who referred to the White House as a "bully pulpit", by which he meant a terrific platform from which to advocate an agenda. Roosevelt used the word bully as an adjective meaning "superb" or "wonderful", a more common usage in his time than it is today. Another expression which survives from this era is "bully for you", synonymous with "good for you".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bully_pulpit

A Congressperson no matter how dedicated and wise is only 1 of 535 and simply doesn't have the same reach nor authority of a President which is sent to office with tens of millions of votes.

[MADem]

144. Stop with the 1 of 535 stuff. We all KNOW that some Senators and Reps have higher profiles than

others. You are acting like they are all sharing the same percentage of "clout" and they aren't. That remark is apropos of absolutely nothing.

Everyone knows who Elizabeth Warren is. Everybody knows who John McCain is. They need no introduction and they can gather a crowd with ease. If they say something important or dramatic, it will be covered and repeated for days and weeks.

A "bully pulpit" only works if the President is POPULAR. Otherwise, his crowds have to be hand picked so no one will boo him, and sometimes, doubled up in the photoshopped pictures, to make it APPEAR that he has more support than he actually does.



And even if a President is popular, his reach is limited to those who like his message. People who are predisposed to hate him are going to reject what he says. Further, familiarity breeds contempt. Bush had that problem, and a lack of popularity problem, in the latter years of his 2nd term.

[Uncle Joe]

145. I hate to pop your bubble but everyone doesn't know who Elizabeth Warren is anymore than they know

who Bernie Sanders is, that has been Bernie's biggest challenge, name recognition.

One way we know Warren isn’t the 2008 Obama is the thermometer test. It’s a good way to test a relatively unknown potential candidate’s likability. It asks people (not counting those who don’t yet have an opinion) on a scale from 0 to 100 how they feel about a person. Warren’s average temperature among Democrats nationally was 63.9 in a Quinnipiac University survey conducted in March; that’s behind Clinton’s 78.7. Among all voters, Warren was at 48.6.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/elizabeth-warren-wouldnt-be-2016s-obama-but-she-could-be-its-john-edwards/

Number one today is U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, at 48.6 degrees, but 46 percent of American voters don't know enough about her to form an opinion.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2028

TREND: I'd like to get your feelings toward some of our political leaders and other people who have been in the news. I'll read the name of a person and I'd like you to rate that person using something called the feeling thermometer. You can choose any number between 0 and 100. The higher the number, the warmer or more favorable you feel toward that person, the lower the number, the colder or less favorable. If we come to a person who you haven't heard enough about to form an opinion, you don't need to rate the person. Just tell me and we'll move on to the next one. (Split sample, names were rotated, Trend listed if previously asked) How do you feel about --- ?

6r.(Split sample) How do you feel about - Elizabeth Warren?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

0-20 14% 23% 8% 13% 14% 15%
21-40 5 8 4 5 6 5
41-60 15 15 16 17 16 15
61-80 8 - 11 10 7 9
81-100 9 1 21 5 7 11
DK 46 51 39 48 49 43
RF 1 3 1 1 2 1

<50 21% 31% 12% 20% 20% 21%
50 9 9 6 10 10 7
>50 23 6 41 20 19 27

Mean 48.6 28.5 63.9 47.0 45.4 51.1

TREND: How do you feel about Elizabeth Warren?
Apr 03 Jan 09 Aug 05
2014 2014 2013

0-20 14 13 12
21-40 5 8 6
41-60 15 12 11
61-80 8 11 9
81-100 9 9 8
DK 46 46 51
RF 1 1 2

<50 21 21 19
50 9 7 7
>50 23 25 21

I agree with this paragraph.

"A "bully pulpit" only works if the President is POPULAR. Otherwise, his crowds have to be hand picked so no one will boo him, and sometimes, doubled up in the photoshopped pictures, to make it APPEAR that he has more support than he actually does."

And that's precisely why Bernie Sanders would be so effective in using the White House bully pulpit, the majority of the American People agree with him on the most critical issues affecting their lives.

He could barnstorm the nation as President, use the White House and magnify grassroots movements to put political pressure on the Congress and Bernie wouldn't photo shopped propaganda to make his case.

[MADem]

146. Yeah, that's why 'no one' is talking about them...not.

You overstate the potential popularity of a putative President Sanders. I think he'd face Carteresque levels of pushback, and he'd be done well before 2020. Kanye would get his shot....

[Uncle Joe]

147. Now you're moving the goal posts, going from "everyone knows" to "no one" is talking about them..not

My post never stated nor implied that "no one" knows them or is talking about them.

If Bernie Sanders goes on to win the election after directly attacking the billionaires buying of our democracy (such as it is) not wanting their money and forgoing super-pac support, while financing his campaign from small donors, over a million donations as of today, the political message will be unmistakable to the status quo, golden calf worshipers in power.

A victory against such odds will send a crystal clear message of mandate, and any politician bucking against that rolling tide will surely be swept under if not in 2016, then 2018 or 2020.

This is why I'm convinced Bernie will have long and strong coat tails bringing like believers to power as well.

[MADem]

148. Sarcasm, apparently, escapes you.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=not

[Uncle Joe]

149. I know what "not" means in that context and I know what your post was stating after I

rebutted your obvious error of "everybody knows" with a name recognition poll which proved otherwise, you tried to deflect that with a sarcastic statement of "that's why no one is talking about them..not."

[MADem]

150. Are you sure of that? Didn't seem that way to me. nt

[Uncle Joe]

151. Everyone doesn't know.

Everyone knows who Elizabeth Warren is. Everybody knows who John McCain is. They need no introduction and they can gather a crowd with ease. If they say something important or dramatic, it will be covered and repeated for days and weeks.

That's not stating that many don't know them but I would wager, that far more people know who President Obama is.

[MADem]

152. Everyone capable of being influenced does. Anyone else doesn't give a shit. nt

[Uncle Joe]

153. That's a false statement. n/t

[MADem]

154. No, it's not. nt

[Uncle Joe]

155. Yes it is "everyone capable of being influenced" knows them is absolutist bullshit. n/t

[MADem]

156. Ah, yes indeed.....

[Uncle Joe]

157. That's a good response for someone that has none. n/t

[MADem]

158. Aw, now you're just fuming. nt

[Uncle Joe]

159. "Fuming" I couldn't be happier.

[MADem]

160. Whatever you say! nt

[Uncle Joe]

161. Thank you, peace to you, MADem.

[zappaman]

59. That's true. Sanders is the outsider as proved by the fact

He can't get ONE person in Congress to endorse him.

[pinebox]

61. Which is fine

Because nobody in America endorses congress. KAPOW!

[MADem]

72. Ummm. No.

Aside from the fact that everyone likes THEIR Congressmen/Senators...it's just "the rest of those bums" who are the problem, endorsements do matter. In a big (kapow) way.

Every single one of those endorsements is a super delegate vote at the Democratic National Convention.

This isn't direct democracy, here--there's more to getting elected than cheering crowds. You've got to get lots of votes in the right states, and if you don't have enough votes to win the nomination, you'd better hope those super delegates will throw their votes in to support you.

Without endorsements, that becomes less likely. ENORMOUSLY less likely.

[pinebox]

76. Actually

Not really. Besides Gore (and we all know wtf happened there) you have to go all the way back to the 1800s to find a candidate who won the popular vote but lost the election.

[MADem]

77. You are confusing the general election electors with super delegates at the nominating convention.

I am not talking about electors who cast their vote after America has voted. I am not talking about the "popular vote."

I am talking about super delegates who, along with state delegations, PICK THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE.

These are current and former office holders, and they can cast a vote for who-so-ever they choose...and so far, they are all choosing Hillary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

[pinebox]

85. Keep in mind

This isn't officially part of the US electoral system. This is just the Democratic Party's electoral system. They can scrap it tomorrow if they want, as they are a private organization. Until the 1970s, they just did this all at the convention behind closed doors with no public input and came out with a candidate. Now they let us have this media dog and pony show with voting.

Generally speaking, super delegates follow who the people want too. Right now that momentum is certainly swinging in Bernie's favor and will only grow once the debates begin, if they ever do.

[MADem]

89. Sorry--it is part of the Partys protocols, and pigs will fly before they "scrap" it.

The GOP is doing this too, for the same reason--and the reason is this: they don't want a fringe element of their party to overwhelm the process and nominate a loser who will not appeal to the larger general election voting public.

People who are of a certain age remember this bumper sticker:




That came out not long after the election, when the electoral map looked like this:



The super-delegates are there to make sure a map like that never happens again. People can like it, or not like it, but that's how it is. The people who have contributed to the party over a long period of time get the opportunity to serve as super delegates, and they will be "helping" to make the decision as to who is our standard bearer.

[pinebox]

93. Anddddd

That says it all about our system doesn't it? Another reason why I stand by Sanders. Bought and sold over and over again. The system works against the average person, sadly.

[MADem]

94. If you don't like the system, you are free to reject it wholesale.

You can associate yourself with a crew that does things differently, but up to now they haven't had much success.

What it says about the system is that you can either allow one set of bullies (the early bandwagoners who jump in well ahead of the pack) to pick your candidate, and lose...or have another set of bullies--the masses and the people who have worked for the party for many years-- pick your candidate--and you'll have a chance of winning.

In the first case, you have idealists demanding nothing short of lockstep adherence and doctrinal perfection, in the latter case, you have woefully imperfect pragmatists with a wide range of Big Tent views making "accommodations" to gain a few yards instead of trying for a spectacular touchdown and getting sacked to shit.

What it says about our system is that, like it or not, hyperbole notwithstanding, it doesn't move by "revolution"--it moves by inches. It took a revolution to design a system that works likes this. The end result is that everybody gets a little something, no one is totally happy, but life does go on.

[BlueWaveDem]

8. What is this nonsense?

We should all be focused on eliminating republicans at all levels of government. Definitely not tearing down pathways for any one of our candidates to take the white house. The only group that Democratic infighting helps is republicans.

[whereisjustice]

13. oh, so protesting when a group of harmful Wall Street shills takes control of primary process

is helping Republicans? In case you haven't noticed, they're just as pissed at establishment, status quo, candidates as ever one else.

You want to win against Republicans?

DON'T RUN A NEO-CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE WHOSE BAD HABITS PUT THE PARTY AT RISK.

[BlueWaveDem]

21. Protesting the primary process is the one thing your post didn't seem to mention.

And republicans have every right to hate their establishment, their establishment has been a major failure at basic governing.

[DanTex]

12. Only Republicans and Hillary haters care about the email server. Period.

And, no, nobody would be prosecuted because that would require a law to be broken, which none were.

The reason Hillary has more support than Bernie from working class people is precisely because they care about what actually happens in the country and to their wages and healthcare, and aren't obsessed with trying to find some scandal to take her down with.

[whereisjustice]

15. Nonsense - I work with Democrats and we are disgusted. But we are workers and non-rich.

[DanTex]

16. The only thing to be disgusted about here is people claiming to be Democrats pushing right-wing

faux-scandals.

[whereisjustice]

18. So you believe good government is anti-Democrat?

[DanTex]

20. Non sequitur.

[whereisjustice]

25. Non answer.

[uponit7771]

14. What is a "Hillary Server" regards

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. The rich and connected live by different rules. K&R

[whereisjustice]

23. Hillary supporters better grow up because your candidate is going to get shit from anyone

who understands what a corrupt, rigged cesspool our political system has become. Hillary, like Bush, is a giant part of the problem. You decided to throw your weight behind a conservative insider. Hillary is a pro-establishment candidate at the worst possible time. Today, we are living with the consequences of Hillary's word view - war, economic fraud, prisons filled with the poor, jobs to Mexico and Asia, communities in ruin.

And don't make the mistake of assuming you are doing something right if you are getting shit from left and right. You're not. It just means we all agree that Hillary is exactly what this country doesn't need more of.

You might as well stand on top of the the Wall Street bull and yell

"Rich of the World Unite! Fuck the poor! Fuck justice! Fuck the Middle Class! Hillary is Wall Street! I am Wall Street!"

So now you need to deal with the consequences of your slavish devotion to a candidate who has spent her career making things better for herself and her rich sponsors and worse for us. She's not that different from a Wall Street CEO hiding their taxes overseas except that a Wall Street CEO doesn't have the same entitled, elite access to government bureaucracy to advance their personal ambitions.


If the DNC doesn't like voter suppression tactics of the Republicans which keep millions of voters away from the polls, then why did they run someone as unlikable as Hillary?

[leftofcool]

29. You mad?

If so, why aren't you out campaigning for your chosen candidate instead of tearing down a Democrat?

[whereisjustice]

32. You monosyllabic?

[toddwv]

27. Private email servers are pretty much the norm for most companies.

I used to run them. So I'm not sure how "Working people would be fired and prosecuted for using a Hillary server" would work out.

[whereisjustice]

28. What company lets an individual employee run a private email server for their

proprietary, confidential and work related communications?

Stumped?

That's because it is a trick question.

None.

[leftofcool]

30. My husband's for one. We have a private server. Never been hacked in 15 years.

And believe me, some of the best have tried.

[whereisjustice]

31. hahahahahah - go tell that to IBM, HP, Dell, MSFT, Google, INTL and any fortune 500

company worth a damn.

Oh, wait - you are right! I found a company that does it just like you say!

Dear Employees:

In these competitive times, email and internet usage has never been more secure.

After carefully reviewing the success of Hillary Clinton and her innovative use of private email, we have decided to let all employees conduct company business on any server of their own choosing. There will be no oversight, however, at such time as deemed necessary, we may ask you to turn over any communications that relate to our company's business. Don't worry, we'll let you decide what you can give us and give you plenty of time to prepare it.

In addition, if you decide not to run a basement server from your Time Warner internet account, we've arranged for a 15% discount on Go Daddy and Name Cheap servers to help you manage your own domain and subdomain.

For example, now you can have a cool internet domain address like:

"ibm.slimjim.com"

So, join me in celebrating our new benefit by sending me a note at my new email address below!

Regards,

Ginni Rometty, CEO, IBM
[e-mail]

p.s. Oh, we kindly ask that you run some sort of anti-virus thingy and please do not send email related to our most advanced computer designs to Chinese intelligence agencies. Thanks!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

47. Donny, you are out of your element.

You and/or your husband not subject to audit (internal, federal, 3rd party), compliance, federal regulatory oversight, or risk management. Do you and your husband run IPS? Do you run it on a firewall blade, or is it server-based, or both? What kind of daily and weekly scanning that yields the latest CVE's do you and your husband run? How long is the lead time on your remediation schedule for vulnerabilities? What's your strategy for zero-day exploits? Do you run an Exchange farm, or are you possibly using a Linux-based email server? What's your strategy for mitigating DOS attacks? Better yet, what kind of agreement do you have with your upstreams to mitigate distributed DOS? Speaking of upstreams, how many providers do you peer with? Just one? Not enough for basic resilliency. Two? That's much better. But of course you have your own ASN and peer BGP with both upstreams, right? Because, as you know, you'll need your own portable IP space if you want that server to be reachable from the outside on both circuits. But I don't need to tell you that, of course. And how do you know you haven't been hacked? What tools are you using for forensics?

If your husband ever applies at a place that takes data security seriously, he'd be fired for running a server at home. That's not an opinion.

[liberal_at_heart]

44. My husband worked as an engineer for a telecom company and regularly had to sign

confidentiality agreements. They even had code words for some projects. If he had ever user used private email to discuss those projects he would have been immediately terminated.

[pinebox]

35. I agree 100%

and many dems who support Hillary have their heads completely in the flippin' sand and when they're asked "why" they support her, they're literally unable to answer things. When they are shown that she's a bought and paid for corporate tool, they can't answer. Embroiled in controversy, they fail to realize that her winning the primary would ensure a loss for Dems in the general because every stinking loon in the Republican party would show up at the polls to vote against her. If she was by some slim margin of chance, elected, we'd see absolutely nothing get done for many years. They would completely do everything they can in their power to make sure shit doesn't get done. You think it's bad with Obama? They hate Hillary 100x more.

People need to think about things because right now, many aren't. She is conservative on many issues and far to the right of Sanders in a whole host of things. She's not a leader, she's a follower. She hasn't put forth anything progressive that hasn't been done by Sanders ages ago. Unless of course you count working for Monsanto and Walmart because you know, that's progressive isn't it? lol

Give me a break. Enough with the DINO blue dog bullshit.

[Juicy_Bellows]

67. Well said - I think there is a heap of truth in your reply and the OP.

Shame people don't want to acknowledge it or they want to spin it centrifuge style.

Cheers.

[riversedge]

46. Do your homework. DOJ has cleared Hillary of any wrongdoing. The RW would

love your post though.

[Dawson Leery]

48. The professional left has turned to

Fox "News", Hannity, Drudge, and Breitbart for propaganda to which they can assault Hillary with.

[riversedge]

52. That is so obvious just by looking

at GD-P

[MADem]

128. To their dismay, the more they pile on with bullshit and spurious accusations,

the more her favorables rise. It's the Rick Lazio effect!

You'd think these people would start to figure out that No One Likes A Bully!

LOL @ Matthews--"He looked like a process server!"

[Fred Sanders]

57. So painfully obvious it pains us all to have keep pointing it out.

[pinebox]

63. Drudge

is basically a news aggregator these days. There's news from left and right leaning sites, not to mention a very healthy dose of MSM on both sides. It's not the RW place it once was.

[MADem]

125. Utter nonsense--Drudge still sucks. Today's headline: "Putin Outsmarts Obama."

News aggregator, my ass!

Put "Right Wing" in front of that, and you're getting warm.

[pinebox]

129. Utter nonsense?

You want left only leaning news?
Now let's take a look at some other headlines shall we?
S DAKOTA TRIBE TO OPEN NATION'S 1ST MARIJUANA RESORT...
Ya that's RW all right lol

[MADem]

130. See? You're admitting it.

And sorry, pal--look at the rest of the headlines--particularly the ones that are front and center (pro tip--don't ask people to do shit you really don't want them to do--you out yourself when you do that among people who are not dullards):

Trump Prays with Religious Leaders in Trump Tower...

WAR: Rand Paul Declares Ted Cruz 'Pretty Much Done For' in Senate...

WASH TIMES: Huma's Bill Clinton secret... Developing...

MAG: Mystery of Hillary's Missing Millions... (gee, this one found its way to LBN here at DU--wonder how THAT happened?)

Member of Clinton's 'Secret Spy Network' Worked for CBSNEWS...

Michelle O and Colbert laugh at Bill Clinton's philandering past...

Lewinsky launches anti-bullying campaign...
REPORT: Donors put Jeb on notice...

You cherry pick one headline that you think can "pass" as "liberal" but you're dead wrong. Are you that obtuse that you don't think Republicans smoke weed? Grow up--that hasn't been "their" issue in twenty years. There's MONEY to be made with legalization, too--and those wingnuts want it.

Drudge became FAMOUS by getting in on the ground floor re: Lewinsky. He is a right wing pervert--lock up your refrigerator, particularly the egg drawer, if he is around--who is nonetheless the darling of the wingnut set.

You need serious schooling. Read Blinded By The Right and maybe you'll start to grab a clue. Your library should have it. If you're still "unclear" maybe you were looking for some other political website, and not this one. Your POV doesn't seem to click very well with the left of center agenda, when you so blithely tout shit like Drudge.

[pinebox]

131. Jeez who cares

I'm sorry you're unable to understand what a news aggregation site is (pro tip, it carries news from many different sources) you may wish to look into that. If you noticed, the article in question goes to where? The AP.

I'm not cherry picking. I realize that there's left and right wing new story's on there, it's not hard.

Like you know....

Man accused of stealing $5 in snacks died in jail as he waited for space at mental hospital...

Terror group expands into Maldives...

Ralph Lauren steps down as CEO of fashion empire...

Yes I know the history of Drudge, thanks. I also know that the site has changed a great deal and no longer is hard rw news only. If you happen to look, you'll see a lot of LW news on there along with MSM.

I need schooling? No you need to put on glasses and realize it's not 2007 any more.
My POV doesn't click very well with the left? LOL! Maybe your POV is rooted in DINO blue?
You want to know who I am and what I am about?
Have a read and let me know when you're done please.

This is what I believe in and what I stand for.
*Healthcare for all
*Immigration reform
*Everyone who works full time needs to have a livingwage
*Equality
*Education should be free
*Ending student loan debt. Completely.
*Holding Wall Street and big banks responsible
*We should help those who need it, the sick, the needy, the homeless, the poor, the elderly
*A nation that takes care of the homeless by providing housing, education, job training and community gardens in empty buildings like hospitals. Convert them all over.
*Ending tax loopholes and tax breaks for the 1% and big corporations. Fine companies who move jobs overseas
*More renewable energy. Every gas station in America should have alternative fuels and charging stations.
*End fracking. Now.
*More funding & expansion for our national Parks, refuges, wilderness areas and monuments
*Ending the hunting of Wolves and better protection for endangered species
*Art, music & PE should be in every school across America. Required.
*Equal pay.
*End any and all forms of discrimination against gays
*We have a minimum wage. It’s time we have a maximum wage!
*Holding people like Beck and Limbaugh accountable for their hate
*Broadband internet for all, everywhere. It’s a utility.
*Beefing up and expanding things like social security and medicare/medicaid
*Housing for all.
*Fairness in credit and reporting.
*Legalization of pot
*Ending for profit private prisons
*Less jail time for non-violent offenders and better life counseling for addicts
*Ending the death penalty except in the very most extreme cases
*Gun reform. Better background checks. Ending easy access to firearms. Only gun stores allowed to sell guns.
*Freedom of religion, ending bigotry and hate for others based on beliefs.
*Contraception for all, freely provided
*GMO’s gotta go. Now.
*Ending wars & closing down military bases…cutting defense
*Ending making it harder to vote.
*Wind energy, expanding it

Now what? Before you go on attacking someone's character whom you know nothing about, I highly suggest you do your research first on who it is you're exactly talking to first. Maybe if you bothered to click the link to my twitter and read a little bit, you'd understand.

Good day.

[MADem]

132. You are gish galloping and it's not working. Drudge has been aggregating since the nineties.

Stop acting like you're schooling me. You are the only one here who doesn't have a clue about this guy. He is a right wing NUT JOB and Google can teach you that in less time than I can.

He hasn't changed his format hardly at all in twenty years --he uses a little color now, but you go on and check the WAYBACK MACHINE and you'll see. You do know what that is, don't you?

What are you, in high school or college? Only someone young and clueless doesn't know what Drudge is all about. If you're older, you are playing a game.

Do your homework.

[pinebox]

134. You're still going on?

Seriously? Dude go get some fresh air or something lol Really, do it. It sounds like you could use some. Yadda yadda yadda, he's that, he's this, yadda yadda yadda....dude we all know who he is. Hey MSNBC used to have Pat Buchanan too! CNN has Glen Beck! They're evil too you know lol

Oh cute now you attack someone's age too? What's next? Ethnicity? Gender? Perhaps color? Sexual identity? It would be a good time for you to become a missing person XD

I did my homework, I passed with an A+. Sorry dude I'm done playing your stupid game to win stupid prizes.

[MADem]

136. You're still flinging right-wing Drudge as a credible news source?

Seriously? Dude go get some fresh air or something lol Really, do it. It sounds like you could use some. Yadda yadda yadda, he's that, he's this, yadda yadda yadda....dude we all know who he is. Hey MSNBC used to have Pat Buchanan too! CNN has Glen Beck! They're evil too you know lol


I am not "attacking your age." I am noting your immature words. That's a distinction and a difference..."dude."

In DU University, when you bring wingnut sources--and Drudge has been one, probably for longer than you've been alive-- and have the moxie to tout them, you get an F. And that's what playing a "stupid game" gets you. Don't be "sorry"--get correct.

[leftofcool]

64. Don't forget to include Ann Coulter and Red States.

[HereSince1628]

49. The unscandal has gone meta...it's not just about email, it's not just about the server

It may be true that if common people ignored the bosses rules about how to handle company documents they'd be fired.

But, we are now in the phase where it's also about how she has and continues to respond to the unscandal itself.

[nichomachus]

51. When the Hillary Gang whines that her email problem is nothing

It reminds me of when Republicans were saying that Watergate was "just a third-rate burglary."

[Fred Sanders]

58. Non sequitur.

[whereisjustice]

82. Yes, good point.

[NCTraveler]

54. You are lying. That simple.

This is working against progressives in the worst way one could possibly go about it. By lying. There was a point in time when this place didn't allow crap like this.

[leftofcool]

65. Yea, but that ship has sailed

Anything against Hillary is now allowed in DU. Bernie, not so much.

[Jim Lane]

79. Some people think it's crap like your post that shouldn't be allowed.

I went back and forth in my mind, and finally voted to Leave It. It turned out the other jurors split so I was the swing vote, and I was torn. IOW, you came as close to a hide as one can without being hidden.

Incidentally, as Juror #2, I want to register my disagreement with Juror #3's reasoning. Many Clinton supporters have engaged in excessive whining about jury results and have inaccurately stated or implied that it's all in one direction. It seems that this cacophony is having the effect of working the refs, although that probably wasn't intended. I believe that each post should be judged on its merits, considered in the context of the particular thread but not considered with a view toward either placating or disdaining any particular group of DUers.



On Sun Sep 27, 2015, 08:25 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

You are lying. That simple.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=624873

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

I don't see where the OP lied. The OP gave his/her opinion. There's nothing that directly addresses accusing someone of lying in the TOS. But this is what the Community Standards page says: "Members should refrain from posting messages on DU that are disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate."

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Sep 27, 2015, 08:38 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I completely agree with the alerter that the OP did not lie, but rather expressed an opinion. The alerted post, however, is also expressing an opinion. It is doing so in an unnecessarily confrontational tone, and certainly at least borders on being "rude" (per the Community Standards passage cited by the alerter). It's a close call, but I come down on the side of concluding that the substance is directed at the substance of the OP and was approximately matching the OP's level of venom.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While I tend to agree more with the original poster than with NCTraveler's response, and while I believe that accusing someone of lying is a serious offense, I'm going to err on the side of soothing Hillary Clinton's supporters' feelings and allow this one to stay. I don't want to be accused of being one of those biased Sanders supporters who misuse the jury system. However, I want to emphasize that I don't think this was a frivolous alert.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Accusing a DUer of lying is OTT, a personal attack. Agree with alerter.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: List the lies don't throw generalities around.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[whereisjustice]

83. Bull. What lie? DNC knew that when they used Soviet style primary process to front a polarizing

Wall Street engineered candidate - millions of voters are going to stay home in disgust, you get what you deserve.

Trump has the Wall Street vote. Bush has the Wall Street vote. We don't need Clinton throwing her hat into the ring.

Democratic Party gets what they deserve for such a highly engineered fuck up destined to make mid-terms look like a huge victory in comparison.

And as far as lies? You only wish it were so.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. Can you please point me to the state or federal statute that prohibits Hillary Servers for...

Can you please point me to the state or federal statute that prohibits Hillary Servers for private citizens?

Thank you in advance.

[NCTraveler]

68. Marissa Johnson was protesting multiple items on your list.

And has been called a racist by Sanders supporters here. You put out the list of what you have determined is most important to everybody, followed by some shots at Hillary, ending with righteous indignation and a call to protest. Yet people can protest for the exact reasons you have listed but if it isn't in direct support for Sanders it's dismissed as racist, bad timing, stupid, etc....

It's about the man. Not the list you are saying is most important to everyone.

[Dems to Win]

70. Fired yes, prosecuted no.

People in workplaces all across America have to keep their personal email separate from their professional email, and have to use their company's server and security protocols. If not, out the door.

It's why Hillary's email troubles do resonate with lots of Americans, as unfair as it may be, considering the email practices of Jeb et al.

[PowerToThePeople]

71. Revolution is mandatory.

We are slaves. They are kings.

Time for some justice, prompt, severe, and inflexible.

[delrem]

74. Yes. These are issues.

They are HISTORY.

[whereisjustice]

75. Here is the official IBM press release supporting Hillary Clinton's open email initiative

I guess when a company like IBM gets on-board, it pretty much vindicates Hillary as the tech innovator she truly is.


SAN FRANCISCO - 24 Sep 2015: IBM (NYSE: IBM) today announced a revolutionary new email policy that allows employees to utilize their own email servers for sensitive corporate communications. The change, disclosed in a formerly confidential company-wide email, is considered a major political victory for internet privacy advocate Hillary Clinton, who has made email reform the centerpiece of her presidential campaign.

Clinton supporters were quick to cheer the new rules. “This is a huge relief. For years, I’ve had to run my company's email through a server I’ve kept hidden in my bedroom closet. I’m pretty good about Windows updates, so it’s totally safe, perfectly normal,” said a long time Clinton supporter and IBM employee who requested anonymity.

The memo credits the high level of security afforded by today’s internet technology for the relaxed email rules. While not mentioning Clinton's open email initiative by name, the presidential contender has long argued that internet safety has made burdensome email regulations obsolete.

In order to help employees adjust to the new policy, IBM has partnered with GoDaddy.com to provide discounted internet domain and email hosting support to anyone who signs up to store IBM email on their servers.

Tech industry analysts point out that IBM is just following a government sponsored trend of relaxed workplace rules. “It makes perfect sense for IBM to offer their employees the same benefits enjoyed by US Government employees,” according to CNET industry analyst Richard Headthunker. Headthunker believes other companies will quickly follow suit in order to attract and retain high demand tech workers in a competitive labor market.

Formerly Not for Outside Distribution

Dear valued employee,

In these competitive times, email and internet usage has never been more secure.

After carefully reviewing the success of Hillary Clinton and her innovative use of private email, we have decided to let all employees conduct company business on any server of their own choosing. There will be no oversight; however, at such time as deemed necessary, we may ask you to turn over any communications that relate to our company's business. Don't worry, we'll let you decide what you should give us and we’ll give you as much time as you need to prepare it all.

In addition, if you decide not to run a basement server from your Time Warner internet account, we've arranged for a 15% discount on Go Daddy and Name Cheap servers to help you manage your own domain and subdomain.

For example, now you can have a cool internet domain address like:

"ibm.slimjim.com"

I hope you'll join me in celebrating our new benefits! As always we value your opinion. Fee free to get in touch at my new email address below.

Regards,

Ginni Rometty, CEO, IBM
[e-mail]

p.s. We kindly ask that you run some sort of anti-virus thingy and please do not send email related to our most advanced computer designs to any Chinese intelligence agencies.

Link here

[Jim Lane]

80. Some people will read only your headline and get the impression you're serious.

But, since you seem to have a fair amount of technical knowledge, can you recommend a good anti-virus thingy?

[Darb]

99. Soooo very weak. A link to your post?

Talk about a circle jerk.

[Wilms]

81. Yup. n/t

[jwirr]

87. It is interesting that a SOS can use a personal computer but

a social worker cannot even take work home even if it is not related to a client.

[lib87]

95. We're Allowed to in My State. Thankfully.

Perhaps your state is different due to the field, state laws, regulations and all of that fun stuff.

[jwirr]

96. I live in MN and we do it because of confidentiality.

[zappaman]

119. "I assure you they give a damn."

[Bill USA]

122. but 'average' people aren't all pigeons for McCarthyist tactics of indictment by innuendo & implied

accusations. Plenty of us 'common folk' have good reason to not 'run into the arms' of the GOP because we do notice current actions and remember recent actions of the oh so trustworthy GOP ROFL.....


such as:

Republican presidential candidates still cling to (the failed) trickle-down economics

and... House OKs GOP bill blocking Planned Parenthood payments

and...Republicans Ready For December Shutdown As Boehner Exits

and... How Republicans Sabotaged the Recovery, The economy didn't jump. It was pushed.


and... Finding the truth in 935 lies - told by Bush Admin officials to rush us into - war with Iraq - The Center for Public Integrity

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

141. The firm I work for has fired lawyers for this

One was keeping client data on personal devices, on her own personal dropbox account and random USB sticks, she was using a personal [e-mail] email address administered by her son for work and forwarding all sorts of office email to that address and using a free audio conferencing service to host conference calls. She was warned over and over again that this was inappropriate and told those who complained that they were interfering with her "personal brand" and to mind their own fucking business.

I have a very hard time believing this went unnoticed within the State Department at the time and that the issue wasn't raised, likely repeatedly.