• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 380 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
Very good question.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/16/the-susan-rice-smear-wheres-the-apology/

So where is the apology for Susan Rice from McCain, Graham, and the 97 Rs who signed that letter to Obama opposing her nomination to State? I'm sure it'll be any day now.

Still, looks like she may have the last laugh.

Awesome.
Kind of like Ron Burgundy, eh? Rice will read whatever's on the TelePrompTer.

She's certainly loyal. I'll give you that. Not real inquisitive or curious though, is she?

So, she's promoted. Good for her. Who told her to go out on the Sunday talk shows with the obvious falsehood of a offensive YouTube video?
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Please don't deny that there is much political theater surrounding this. I mean, someone cast aspersions on someone's asparagus...that sh*t is serious...

BTW, that guy Louie Gohmert is an absolute f**king idiot.
I won't deny that there is theatrics going on here. FFS, they are politicians.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
And if there were any lingering doubts as to what the Benghazi hearings are all about, well, doesn't get much more blatant than this.



Get-Hillary-before-2016. Shocking too that it's written by the truly insane John "Benghazi flu" Bolton.
The bottom line?

Hillary was where the buck stopped. Hillary. So if there were mistakes made, which at the very least appears to be the case, she should own them.

She won't, which gives you a very good idea of what her presidency will look like.

TFF said earlier, 'we get the govt we deserve.' That's about right.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/the-real-benghazi-scandal/275950/

...if Rs and Issa were actually interested in trying to avoid future Benghazi's, these are the questions they would've been asking. But a circus is SO much more fun.

er, because they know that Hillary's going to kick their *** in 2016 and this is their only chance to try and score some political points by smearing her? Even if they have to falsify emails to do it.

EDIT: but there's another reason too: it distracts attention away from the embarrassing fact that Rs don't actually have any policies of their own to run on.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/17/scandals-are-no-substitute-for-an-agenda/

Hillary won't be affected much by Benghazi. She was in charge. Mistakes were made. It wasn't her fault. We are all only human. Or something like that.

Plus, low information voters don't care about stuff like that. So, yeah, Hillary will crush everybody and we will have a defacto third Obama term.

Awesome.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Hillary won't be affected much by Benghazi. She was in charge. Mistakes were made. It wasn't her fault. We are all only human. Or something like that.

Plus, low information voters don't care about stuff like that. So, yeah, Hillary will crush everybody and we will have a defacto third Obama term.

Awesome.
Well, the problem with Benghazi is - from a purely political/PR perspective - that it's not close enough to the elections. By the time the elections are in full swing, this story will have been milked to the bone and no one, besides from the people who don't like her already, could be bothered. (Or at least bothered in the sense that it would make them change their vote). She has been vetted so many times, and if Benghazi is the only dirt they can dig up, there is not much dirt to stop her. Perhaps a good candidate on the GOP side could work wonders. I wouldn't rely on Benghazi in 2016. *

*if she runs
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
Bala Verde said:
As I said, I was asking you a question in all seriousness, but as an internet warrior that probably didn't get through your thick skull.
Internet warrior? I hear you.

I answered in that reply post and also in the post that replied to chewi.

Ok.

Thanks for the name calling. :rolleyes:
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
Bala Verde said:
Well, the problem with Benghazi is - from a purely political/PR perspective - that it's not close enough to the elections. By the time the elections are in full swing, this story will have been milked to the bone and no one, besides from the people who don't like her already, could be bothered. (Or at least bothered in the sense that it would make them change their vote). She has been vetted so many times, and if Benghazi is the only dirt they can dig up, there is not much dirt to stop her. Perhaps a good candidate on the GOP side could work wonders. I wouldn't rely on Benghazi in 2016. *

*if she runs
So the only reason Benghazi was brought up was because the republicans are trying to shut Clinton out of the presidential bid?

If that is true then the republicans stand no chance in 2016 the same as the last two elections.

Maybe they can find a good candidate for 2016 but I doubt it. Not the guys they have now not for me anyhow.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
So the only reason Benghazi was brought up was because the republicans are trying to shut Clinton out of the presidential bid?

If that is true then the republicans stand no chance in 2016 the same as the last two elections.

Maybe they can find a good candidate for 2016 but I doubt it. Not the guys they have now not for me anyhow.
Isn't it interesting?

If the R's had not had committee chairs and oversight in the House the Benghazi 'story' would have been exactly what Susan Rice said it was. The MSM was certainly satisfied.

So when the D's take back the House in 2014 BO will finally be able to implement whatever legislation he wants setting up Hillary nicely for his third term in 2016.

And the press will continue to feed us whatever the current admin wants us to know.

I'm cool with that.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Seems fair...

More than 8,000 French households' tax bills topped 100 percent of their income last year, the business newspaper Les Echos reported on Saturday, citing Finance Ministry data.

The newspaper said that the exceptionally high level of taxation was due to a one-off levy last year on 2011 incomes for households with assets of more than 1.3 million euros ($1.67 million).
I guess just 100% of income wasn't quite their fair share.

Velo, since you are looking for a more fair and just society with loads of safety nets and public healthcare... may I suggest you take a close look at France.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/18/us-france-tax-idUSBRE94H0AX20130518
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
So the only reason Benghazi was brought up was because the republicans are trying to shut Clinton out of the presidential bid?

If that is true then the republicans stand no chance in 2016 the same as the last two elections.

Maybe they can find a good candidate for 2016 but I doubt it. Not the guys they have now not for me anyhow.
I don't think they necessarily brought it up to cause a Clinton controversy. I think some of them actually brought it up for legitimate reasons, an ambassador and diplomatic staff/security officers died during a siege on a US facility; however, it has taken on a life of its own inside the beltway. It's somewhat of an economic bubble; there seems to be an inflated expectation of large 'political' rewards, with little justification.

Members of congress are milking it as much as possible, for their own personal gain, to show their constituents how they have spent their time and to position themselves for the next elections, i.e. the government is bad, see here Benghazi. Darell Issa has been looking for a scandal since he became chairman of the Committee on Oversight. Any detraction from governing is a win for the opposition, so he will want to keep it front and center no matter what. I do see him shift from Benghazi to the IRS issue, which is new, and will most likely gain more traction. The Obama administration realizes the IRS scandal has more significant political ramifications, and has gone into damage control mode. They have already tried to allay certain concerns with the firing of the IRS chief.

Only recently have I heard the connection with a potential Clinton presidential candidacy. The problem with that is that IMO it's too far out to have any discernible effect. From a GOP campaign strategy perspective, I wouldn't bank on it to bring down Clinton. Also don;t forget that Clinton was one of the most popular members of the Obama cabinet.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Ok. Why don't we know what this reason is? It's been eight months.



Reasonable. Probably the reason.



Again, reasonable. Who were the people making the decisions? What were the legitimate reasons? If legit, why not just say what happened? If not Hillary, then who? Where was Obama? We know he was aware of what was going on, then he checks out and doesn't resurface for 7 hours. Where was he? Wouldn't that be a reasonable question to ask?
The problem is that the answers to the questions are irrelevant to the Republicans pursuing this situation. It wouldn't matter why they made the decisions they made because no matter what they are, the Republicans harping on them would criticize them. This is political theater. Issa isn't actually looking for answers, he is looking to paint whatever decisions were made as negatively as possible for political purposes.

This is politics. That's how the game is played. Don't pretend Republicans actually care what the answers are, they care about the public perception and public opinion they can create from questioning. Answers are for losers.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Maureen Dowd, lol.

The onetime messiah seems like a sad sack, trying to bounce back from a blistering array of sins that are not even his fault. He went to Baltimore on Friday to talk about jobs. But no one was listening. Everybody in the country who hates the I.R.S. — so, then, everybody — was listening to the lugubrious acting I.R.S. commissioner who had been ousted, Steven Miller, tell a House committee that he didn’t know who was to blame for the scheme to unfairly scrutinize conservative groups with words like “Tea Party” and “Patriot” in their titles.

“Is this still America?” demanded Congressman Kevin Brady, a Republican from Texas.

It turns out that Treasury officials knew during the 2012 campaign that an investigation into the targeting was going on. But, enhancing his image as a stranger in a strange land, the president said he learned about it from news reports on May 10. Then he waited three days to descend from the mountain and express outrage.
Obama would never pull what Hillary pulled with her longtime aide Huma Abedin. Abedin was allowed, after the birth of her and Anthony Weiner’s son, to work part time as a top adviser in the State Department for $135,000 while also working as a consultant for private clients, some of whom had to be interested in her influence in the government.

As Politico reported, the arrangement was similar to the way many of Hillary’s aides were paid while she was a senator: “They were compensated partly through work on her government staff, and partly through her political action committee.” And others would later land lucrative gigs at Clinton-friendly organizations.

Hillary has a blind spot on ethics, not minding if things look terrible if they’re technically legit. And she has a tight grip on money, so she didn’t choose to simply shift Huma to her personal payroll.

But Americans have already priced in the imperfections of the Clintons.

Who knows? If Washington keeps imploding, Hillary may run in 2016 on restoring honor to the White House.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/opinion/sunday/dowd-irs-investigation-means-more-taxing-times-for-obama.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
The problem is that the answers to the questions are irrelevant to the Republicans pursuing this situation. It wouldn't matter why they made the decisions they made because no matter what they are, the Republicans harping on them would criticize them. This is political theater. Issa isn't actually looking for answers, he is looking to paint whatever decisions were made as negatively as possible for political purposes.

This is politics. That's how the game is played. Don't pretend Republicans actually care what the answers are, they care about the public perception and public opinion they can create from questioning. Answers are for losers.
Which is why they will never get straight ones from the Obama admin, IRS, DOJ, NLRB or any other public agency.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Which is why they will never get straight ones from the Obama admin, IRS, DOJ, NLRB or any other public agency.
Fine, but lets not pretend that standing on the bodies of those people who died in Benghazi for purposes of political theater is not an odious undertaking all shined up as legitimate discourse.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Nice cherry pick, but I like this quote best
"The president should try candid; wistful and petulant aren’t getting him anywhere. The Republicans who are putting partisan gain above solving the country’s problems deserve a smackdown."
They do indeed. When your whole "Obama is going to turn this country into a socialist ghetto and we will never recover from this recession ever ever ever ever ever under him because only our untested, theoretical economic plan (that is dying like a wounded duck in Europe) can save the day like John Wayne" is shown to be the utter bullsh*t we always knew it to be, I guess you have to resort to scandal to get some movement forward. Too bad he turned the economy around, right?
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Fine, but lets not pretend that standing on the bodies of those people who died in Benghazi for purposes of political theater is not an odious undertaking all shined up as legitimate discourse.
Yep. Finding out what happened and what could be done to prevent it in the future is on a strict need-to-know basis.

That there is grandstanding is a given considering what we elect on both sides, isn't it?
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Nice cherry pick, but I like this quote best

They do indeed. When your whole "Obama is going to turn this country into a socialist ghetto and we will never recover from this recession ever ever ever ever ever under him because only our untested, theoretical economic plan (that is dying like a wounded duck in Europe) can save the day like John Wayne" is shown to be the utter bullsh*t we always knew it to be, I guess you have to resort to scandal to get some movement forward. Too bad he turned the economy around, right?
When did that happen?
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Which is why they will never get straight ones from the Obama admin, IRS, DOJ, NLRB or any other public agency.
We did get straight answers from the Obama admin, right from the start. The Rs had to doctor emails to make it look like they were lying - that's the ONLY reason the Benghazi "scandal" is even still going, and now it's turning out that the real scandal is which R doctored those emails. Even Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan admitted over the weekend that there was no cover up - yet just last week Ryan was insisting that there was "no doubt" about a cover up. So why the softening on Benghazi all of a sudden? I would imagine its because now R leadership really, really, really want Benghazi to go away before the focus becomes the doctored emails and it turns on Rs.

As far as any "scandal" with Benghazi, it's over dude. As dead as Solyndra. It shouldn't be, though - it would be very interesting to find out who doctored those emails, eh? But Issa and his fellow thugs have no intention of finding that out.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Try as the Rs might to smear him, it's having little effect except among Rs. Obama's approval rating is holding steady and even increasing in some polls over the past week.
But dig into the internals of the poll and you find something striking. In the case of the IRS and Benghazi stories, the lurid and nefarious view of Obama’s involvement in them being peddled by the right is held only by Republicans — big majorities of them — while most moderates and independents, i.e. the middle of the country, believe the White House’s arguments. These two stories are presidential scandals only in the minds of majorities of Republicans.
That's what happens when you live in an echo chamber.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/20/the-morning-plum-presidential-scandals-only-in-the-minds-of-republicans/
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
We did get straight answers from the Obama admin, right from the start. The Rs had to doctor emails to make it look like they were lying - that's the ONLY reason the Benghazi "scandal" is even still going, and now it's turning out that the real scandal is which R doctored those emails. Even Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan admitted over the weekend that there was no cover up - yet just last week Ryan was insisting that there was "no doubt" about a cover up. So why the softening on Benghazi all of a sudden? I would imagine its because now R leadership really, really, really want Benghazi to go away before the focus becomes the doctored emails and it turns on Rs.

As far as any "scandal" with Benghazi, it's over dude. As dead as Solyndra. It shouldn't be, though - it would be very interesting to find out who doctored those emails, eh? But Issa and his fellow thugs have no intention of finding that out.
Oh. So it was a youtube vid that sparked the whole gig. Got it.

So why the softening on Benghazi all of a sudden? I would imagine its because now R leadership really, really, really want Benghazi to go away before the focus becomes the doctored emails and it turns on Rs.
I've said all along... we'll see.

Again, surprisingly Maureen Dowd nails it.

The administration’s behavior before and during the attack in Benghazi, in which four Americans died, was unworthy of the greatest power on earth.

After his Libyan intervention, President Obama knew he was sending diplomats and their protectors into a country that was no longer a country, a land rife with fighters affiliated with Al Qaeda.

Yet in this hottest of hot spots, the State Department’s minimum security requirements were not met, requests for more security were rejected, and contingency plans were not drawn up, despite the portentous date of 9/11 and cascading warnings from the C.I.A., which had more personnel in Benghazi than State did and vetted the feckless Libyan Praetorian Guard. When the Pentagon called an elite Special Forces team three hours into the attack, it was training in Croatia — decidedly not a hot spot.

Hillary Clinton and Ambassador Chris Stevens were rushing to make the flimsy Benghazi post permanent as a sign of good faith with Libyans, even as it sat ringed by enemies.

The hierarchies at State and Defense had a plodding response, failing to make any superhuman effort as the siege waxed and waned over eight hours.

In an emotional Senate hearing on Wednesday, Stevens’s second-in-command, Gregory Hicks, who was frantically trying to help from 600 miles away in Tripoli, described how his pleas were denied by military brass, who said they could not scramble planes and who gave a “stand-down” order to four Special Forces officers in Tripoli who were eager to race to Benghazi.

“My reaction was that, O.K., we’re on our own,” Hicks said quietly. He said the commander of that Special Forces team told him, “This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more” chutzpah “than someone in the military.”

The defense secretary at the time, Leon Panetta, insisted, “We quickly responded.” But they responded that they would not respond. As Emma Roller and David Weigel wrote in Slate: “The die was cast long before the attack, by the weak security at the consulate, and commanders may have decided to cut their losses rather than risking more casualties. And that isn’t a story anyone prefers to tell.”

Truth is the first casualty here when competing fiefs protect their mythologies. Some unhinged ideologues on the right cling to the mythology that Barry and Hillary are out to destroy America.

In the midst of a re-election campaign, Obama aides wanted to promote the mythology that the president who killed Osama was vanquishing terror. So they deemed it problematic to mention any possible Qaeda involvement in the Benghazi attack.

Looking ahead to 2016, Hillaryland needed to shore up the mythology that Clinton was a stellar secretary of state. Prepared talking points about the attack included mentions of Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, a Libyan militant group, but the State Department got those references struck. Foggy Bottom’s spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, a former Cheney aide, quashed a we-told-you-so paragraph written by the C.I.A. that said the spy agency had “produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to Al Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya,” and had warned about five other attacks “against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British ambassador’s convoy.”

Nuland fretted about “my building leadership,” and with backing from Ben Rhodes, a top White House aide, lobbied to remove those reminders from the talking points because they “could be abused by members” of Congress “to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?”

Since the narrative needs to be how awesome Hillary is/was it's no wonder this needed to be swept under the rug.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
Been going on for a while now. You might want to stop living in denial.
Really? How's the U-6? Poverty Rate? Rate use of SNAP? Home ownership? Household income? Labor participation rate?

How's the general job market these days?
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Yep. Finding out what happened and what could be done to prevent it in the future is on a strict need-to-know basis.

That there is grandstanding is a given considering what we elect on both sides, isn't it?
That's not what they are doing.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
When did that happen?
Whistling in the dark I see.

We are in economic growth. I know Republicans hate that fact, but there is no way around it. You guys can keep pretending, so lets face it, you have to right?
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
Try as the Rs might to smear him, it's having little effect except among Rs. Obama's approval rating is holding steady and even increasing in some polls over the past week.
That's what happens when you live in an echo chamber.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/20/the-morning-plum-presidential-scandals-only-in-the-minds-of-republicans/
The white house is arguing that Obama gets his info the same way we all do.

THAT, is what moderates and independents believe... that this clown is so disconnected that nobody knows anything.

Hell, even Jon Stewart gets it.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS