Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »

MeatSandwich

Profile Information

Member since: Sat May 17, 2014, 11:38 PM
Number of posts: 12,178

Journal Archives

No arrests today. What happened?

Making The Case For 2020 Hillary Clinton

Okay, before I go any further, let me state unequivocally for the record that I believe Hillary Clinton ran one of the worst campaigns in modern political history. Her management was inept, her messaging misguided, and her character terribly flawed. Let’s put this into proper perspective: she lost to Donald Trump, for fuck’s sake! A colossal joke of a candidate who by all accounts should’ve lost to a chair. As the saying goes, the election was Clinton’s to lose... and she lost it. So why on Earth would I want her to run again in 2020?

The answer is rather simple: I remain committed to the belief that Clinton would be an incredible president. And I believe she not only will run again, as her recent and outspoken re-launch onto the public stage indicates, but that she will also win. No, I’m not crazy. I just believe that history repeats itself. And for that we simply need to look to Richard Nixon.

It was 1960. The first televised presidential debate. Nixon refused make-up. John F. Kennedy, well, he was JFK. The battle pitted the young, charismatic Democratic upstart with the movie-star looks against the nervous, sweaty, 5 o’clock-shadowed, beady-eyed, prematurely-aged Republican. The rest is history. As is Nixon’s startling comeback eight years later to win not one but two presidential elections. Times change. Situations change. People change. Can Hillary? My money’s on yes.

Clinton is perhaps the most qualified candidate in history. A prestigious legal career, eight years as First Lady, another eight as U.S. Senator from New York and four years as Secretary of State. A die-hard progressive who voted 93 percent of the time with Sen. Bernie Sanders when both served together. And, she’s a woman... and it’s fucking time America is led by a woman.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/making-the-case-for-2020-hillary-clinton_us_5900f9ace4b00acb75f18443

The bolded actually made me laugh out loud.

This is beyond funny.


Activist critical of police undergoes use of force scenarios

Every person on this site who says that the police are *never* justified in shooting an unarmed person need to watch this video, then leave a comment.


Classification markings (specifically paragraph (portion) markings))

WAIVERS INVOLVING MARKING OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. Only the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office ( ISOO) may grant waivers to the marking requirements specified by References (d) and (f) for classified information. Any portion marking waiver approved will be temporary and will have specific expiration dates. Administrative burden alone will ordinarily not be viewed as sufficient grounds to support a waiver.

1. MARKING REQUIREMENT
All classified information shall be identified clearly by marking, designation, or electronic labeling. If physical marking of the medium containing classified information is not possible, then identification must be accomplished by other means. The term “marking” includes other concepts of identifying the classification of the information. Markings, designations, and electronic labeling shall be conspicuous and immediately apparent


Just for clarification, Hillary Clinton was an Original Classification Authority (OCA) for documents originated within the Department of State. As such, she was REQUIRED to receive training on classification methods and marking. See below for a letter that describes this required training. This letter (Memorandum) has three portion markings One (U) unclassified and two classified at the Secret (S) level. I'm positive that ANYONE reading this will understand which paragraphs are classified at what level.

"I don't remember, or I thought those referred to paragraph numbering" is an outright LIE.


To indicate the appropriate classification level, the symbols ‘‘(TS)’’ for Top Secret, ‘‘(S)’’ for Secret, and ‘‘(C)’’ for Confidential shall be used (see Figure 2). Portions which do not meet the standards for classification shall be marked with “(U)” for Unclassified.

MEMORANDUM FOR XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX
SUBJECT: (U) Delegation of SECRET Original Classification Authority (OCA)

(U) You are hereby delegated authority to classify information up to SECRET for
information under your area of responsibility in accordance with Executive Order 13526,
“Classified National Security Information” (the Order).

(S//REL) As an OCA you are required to receive training in original classification as
provided by the Order and implementing directives prior to you exercising this authority.
Your Security Manager will facilitate this training.

(S//REL) The Order also provides that OCAs shall prepare classification guides to
facilitate the proper uniform derivative classification of information. Request that you
provide a copy of your guide(s) to this office by December 31, 2009.

OCA Signature block

Classified By: OCA Name and Position Title
Reason: 1.4(c)
Downgrade To: CONFIDENTIAL on 20121231
Declassify On: 20171231

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/520001_vol2.pdf
Posted by MeatSandwich | Fri Sep 9, 2016, 11:01 PM (0 replies)

Melania Trump sues Daily Mail over reports that she worked for escort service;

Daily Mail issues retraction

I love the last part. It reminds me of Dan Rather's untrue, but accurate. Sure, Dan.

Melania Trump is suing the Daily Mail and Maryland-based blog Tarpley for $150 million, claiming defamation related to reports that she once worked for an escort service.

Trump, represented by Hulk Hogan’s former lawyer Charles Harder, threatened last week to sue several news organizations over the reports. The first to publish the allegation was Slovenian outlet Suzy magazine, which the Daily Mail cited.

Harder’s statement reads: "These defendants made several statements about Mrs. Trump that are 100% false and tremendously damaging to her personal and professional reputation.”

Tarpley retracted its report last week after being threatened with the lawsuit. After Trump filed her lawsuit Thursday, The Daily Mail retracted its original report, saying, "The Daily Mail newspaper article stated that there was no support for the allegations ... The point of the article was that these allegations could impact the U.S. presidential election even if they are untrue."
Posted by MeatSandwich | Thu Sep 1, 2016, 10:35 PM (9 replies)

Assange to Megyn Kelly: "Significant" Leak Coming Before Election

KELLY: Do you -- you know, right now according to the average of all polls, she's beating Donald Trump by 5.5 points nationwide, she's way ahead of him in most of the swing states, not all, do you believe the information in your possession could be a game-changer in the U.S. election?

ASSANGE: I think it's significant. You know, it depends on how it catches fire in the public and in the media.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/25/assange_to_megyn_kelly_significant_leak_coming_before_election.html

Hillary made mistake over emails:Bill Clinton

They just can't stop LYING. Her predecessors and successor did NOT do the same. She had a PRIVATE SERVER, none of the others mentioned did. I guess if you're a Clinton, you can just lie your ass off and get away with it.

Bill Clinton has said it was a mistake for Hillary Clinton to use a personal email server while secretary of state even though her predecessors and her successor did the same.

The former president says his wife should have known different rules would apply to her if she ever ran for the White House.

Bill Clinton has said it was a mistake for Hillary Clinton to use a personal email server while secretary of state even though her predecessors and her successor did the same.

The former president said his wife should have known she would be subjected to different rules if she ever ran for the White House.

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2016/08/14/hillary-made--mistake--over-emails--clinton.html#sthash.TjSAFIPu.dpuf

75 Percent Positive Response to Donald Trump Speech — So CNN Trashes Its Own Poll

But CNN’s report is flawed: the 56 percent number was actually the lower of two numbers. The instant poll actually showed that 75 percent of Americans had a positive view of the speech, and that 56 percent would be more likely to vote for him following the speech.

CNN apparently thinks so little of its own instant polling service that it buries the results in the bottom paragraphs of a tedious article citing the newspapers in Spain.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/22/75-percent-positive-response-to-donald-trump-speech-so-cnn-trashes-its-own-poll/

Cleared but no clean bill of health: Email issue to linger with Clinton until election day

From the LA Times no less.

Comey was unsparing in his criticism of Clinton, and the language that he used to describe her handling of classified materials— in particular the words “extremely careless” — are certain to resurface in an unending Republican playback loop between now and November.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-clinton-email-politics-analysis-20160705-snap-story.html
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »