Yes, but remember you have that in combination with 'identity politics' - which has become so toxic it is driving even the level-minded person away; and some of these SJW's rhetoric border ironically on things that mirror values that were seen as rather unsavory. Again, at least there are SOME on the democratic side that get it - I just fear that the corporate goons will pull out all the stops.


Secular Talk - Jim Webb: The Democratic Party Has 'Moved Very Far To The Left' or tl;dw - identity politics is what caused the dems to lose, and the mainstream establishment dems refuse to recognise this, and are still condescending.

-edit

Now also this: Secular Talk - Hillary Staffer: Anti-Trump Protesters Don't Want Progressive Policies

About that, I am now even disappointed in Bill Maher - he is definitely not helping things: Secular Talk - Bill Maher Rips Trump For Sounding Like Noam Chomsky? - if you saw the entire episode though, Piers Morgan is the most sane person there. I am sorely disappointed in Bill Maher.

My final, I hope, post on this thread. I was an ARMY NCO at Combat Arms for 23 years. One thing hammered into us constantly was track your people, take care of your men. Always. The republican party RECENTLY seems to take care only of themselves. It is the Democratic party that seems to seek solutions that take care of everyone. I do not agree with all of the people or platform, but if I must choose only ONE then the Republican party has disqualified itself.

As for the Donald: I did not vote for him but was willing to give him a chance once elected. He has proven to be terribly ill equipped to run a country, he cannot even run the White House. I keep hoping he will improve, but I am not seeing to so far. I am now looking forward to the day someone (ANYONE) replaces him.

I do not agree partially with your statement regarding the dems. The way they lost this election and their philosophy and refusal to recognise how and why they failed prove them to be as bad as the republicans, and within the DNC it is clear that there are those that would do anything to be the head and ignore any sort of legitimate criticism either by deflecting or outright ignoring their own shortcomings - so for that if they keep on this path, then I do not see HOW they plan to come back in 2020, period.

It does look like he has no idea what he is doing, but sorry that I keep bringing this up but neither does Hillary. Of all those years of experience and the blatant mishandling of government information - or maybe she knew what she was doing but was clearly reckless.

Again the only reason the Don won is because he was not the establishment - only way the dems have a chance is if the party is taken over - so if you are a dem you better hope that does happen - maybe look into the Justice Democrats - because the people that are being floated around in the current party, well sorry but may as well prepare for 8 years of Trump - period.

If you make a distinction between policy and procedure, I agree with most of the Democratic policy. The Democratic procedures need a MAJOR tweak! I do not call someone wrong because they do not win, and that is what I derive from your post. The Democrats seem more CORRECT to me, but they are weak at getting voters to the polls.
The difference is that the Republicans are weak on BOTH policy and procedure! The Donald could not have successfully entered the race otherwise.
Much of the rest of what you posted I take no exception. I am not sure you are right, but I have insufficient evidence to support a different view. I wish others who lack evidence would stop making conflicting and clearly false claims until they know what they are talking about. The level of misinformation in the election was stunning, and it has not gone DOWN! I have NEVER seen so many lies come so fast!

Well from my view the Dems need to clean house and clearly rebrand. I neither consider myself a democrat or republican, I like somethings from the Republican side and some things from the Democrat side - but the problem right now I have the most is the Democrats - the fact that they now think that they hold the moral high ground because they support a certain issue, and outright 'shaming' those who do not hold the same values, sounds like they took that from the Republicans. Coming from a commie state, it is easier for me to feel that someone is outright telling you, how to vote, and how to think - at least to me that is how the Dems came across particularly this last election.

Would I ever vote dem , perhaps but only if I am not going to be lectured to and most importantly vote for anyone who is not tied to Obama or worse yet Clinton. I agree that there were gross misinformation this last election, but also gross shenanigans on the dems side - they practically adopted Republican tactics for within their own party - voter suppression of Bernie voters, vote shaming of Bernie voter, they are somehow 'sexist'. Seriously I can just go on and on, but I'll spare you on that.

The main point is, and I stated earlier if there is no purge of the old guard from the Democratic Party - then I do hope that the Justice Democrats take over. I am on the fence about actually giving me, because I never gave money to either party - but again I will be following the progress of the Justice Dems, and if the old establishment manage to screw them over with the same tricks, well then - give me a reason to ever vote democrat ever again, because I can't think of one.

One might note that you seldom see any of the leadership shaming anyone or directly attacking the other party. When you do it is clear and NOT on 'facebook' for other social media. The most NASTY attacks seem to come form those who have the LEAST inside information. I am not sure what the goal is, other than to spread hatred. Luckily, there are voices of reason on both sides. If only someone were listening to them.

Well Clinton's quip of Trump voters being a 'basket of deplorables' did not help - I would have gathered that statement probably drove those on the fence of supporting Clinton to Trump.

As for the leadership of the party, they ALL need to be purged, every single one of them - OUT. So, in that sense I do have a lot of hope of the Justice Democrats successfully executing a hostile take over, because honestly the party is just going to try the same tactics - same rhetoric - same corporate bought goons - because seriously, do you want Clinton again? What kind of party is this, a dynastic party? Or anyone that has ties to Obama? Well I sure as hell don't - screw this 'party' - I hope the Justice Democrats are successful. Thats all I got to say.

As for the Secretary of State's mis-handling of emails ... "Mme. Secretary has staff, with the proper security clearances, for that sort of thing." This office handles diplomatic negotiations of the highest sensitivity, and I feel that the Secretary is entitled to assume that her communications are at all times properly secured ... without obliging her to think about such details herself. I think it entirely reasonable to think that she assumed, and that she had every right to assume, that her communications were somehow secure.

And, let's face it: if you don't understand the priceless value of secrecy, you don't get to become Secretary of State!

Obviously, there are a great many leaks in the Federal Government's information security. For instance, how in the hell did Edward Snowden, a two-bit government contractor, get access to all that stuff? (Quite obviously, it was supplied to him – but, by whom?)

Likewise, Soldier Manning, in a war zone, for chrissakes! Not exactly the place where you would expect to find a DVD stuffed with top-secret information. And, once again, how did an insignificant soldier in a battlefield get access to all this stuff? (Once again: it was supplied. But, by whom?)

I hope that someone in the proper place in Government is investigating these egregious felonies. Of course, I understand that I must never hear about them, but I sincerely hope that they are taking place anyway.

She still did not follow proper protocol when it came to emails - using a private server for gov. business. I very much doubt there were more than just 'Yoga' emails that were deleted.

Well maybe they need to be a little more stringent on how they vet such candidates who want to become Secretary of State.

Who knows, but if he did have help - I commend that person - same way I commend Russia for exposing the lies of the Democratic Party - whether or not anyone here or where ever else condemns my view, I don't care - I still stand that the end justifies the means.

If details are correct, he had no help and was able to smuggle out information through blank recordable CDs. I have already posted articles also on how the effects of Manning's actions had no significant effect negatively or positively affecting the soldiers there - it did obviously negatively affect the US gov - rightfully so, a well deserved slap in their face.

I on the other hand would support the opposite - Manning and Snowden deserve praise - and I would prefer the prosecution of those who lead us to pointless and unjust wars to begin with.

A lot of focus now is on one of Trump's picks resigning due to calls he made to Russia before his inauguration - though it is determined that there were no security holes, but again probably not proper protocol - he shouldn't have been talking to the Russians anyways - stupid move on his part.

Still again, the 'stench' of Russia isn't so passed along from the Clintons:

H.A. Goodman - NEW YORK TIMES: Bill Clinton Earned $500,000 From Russian Bank Speech. Flynn Resigned for Phone Call
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...pany.html?_r=1

"Dude, obviously(!) this is not a matter of media!" The obvious question is ... how the information came to be available, in the first place, in order to have been "recorded on CDs" in the first place. It does not seem to me at-all plausible that such information should have been available to "a soldier in a battlefield," period.

Basically: to me, there is a breadth to this purportedly-leaked information that just does not make sense. To me, it far exceeds the "need to know" of its purported "leaker." Therefore, I simply cannot accept that "every single one of our colleagues who decided to accept a Government job" were, in fact, "so utterly asleep at the switch."

No, I'm afraid that I must conclude – in both cases – that "a person who never should have had access to any such information" ... somehow did.

And I'm sufficiently suspicious of "somehow ..." to openly challenge it as bunk. I'll take for granted that "our anonymous, security-cleared colleagues" know what the hell they are doing, and that they take their responsibilities seriously. Therefore, I also conclude that "there must be rats" among them. I don't know who the rats are, but I know they're present. (And, I'll exonerate(!) my anonymous colleagues for whatever they have done.)

That is fine, since I think we are obviously focusing too much on the details. I again do not care - if it was an inside job - I will then continue to praise that anonymous person. I will reiterate that the US gov. actions far outweigh these leaks morally and we needed to know - for our own sake. If things have been say different, then I would change my view obviously, but they are not - so for me, the leaker(s) are justified.

Don't worry though - things will change - the Republicans like the whistle blowers that exposed Clinton - Democrats obviously hate that, but now the Democrats are desperate for leakers to disseminate any information on Trump - and when that happens (it is not a question of if, but when) - then all out hatred of Julian Assange and wikileaks by Trump and Trump's supporters.

However I, have always liked wikileaks - because they are so indiscriminate and does not care who is in power - that is a good thing.

But there is an obvious danger to it – simply "leak" something, even a false something, and it will be perceived as undeniable truth.

Nevertheless, I don't consider the complete disclosure of confidential let alone top-secret information to be a pardonable act of civil disobedience: I consider it to be treason.

"Knowledge is power." And, as the old World War II posters say, "Because Somebody Talked!" On the one hand, this stuff is being made with taxpayer money. But, on the other hand, there are reasons why this stuff is secret.

Obviously the Federal Government has a very serious information-security problem. Not too surprising, considering the number of people who now have security clearances, and because the granting process has been outsourced(!!) Gigabytes of data are winding up in impossible places (like battlefields).

There's a fine book on the subject, written a number of years ago, called Senseless Secrets. It's pretty much Harry Potter's "Room of Requirement."

Well clearly this argument will just go back and forth between us - but maybe in a compromise - those responsible for dastardly deeds in our government should also face punishment - but if those who also leaked should face something much less than treason though. I still stand that those that send off our own husbands, daughters and sons off to die in a military campaign on false pretenses should be the ones who face the worst punishments, whereas then the leakers should face a very short prison sentence then.

Also, we are prosecuting whistle blowers don't worry - but what about those at the top and behind the scenes that are responsible for the lies that constantly get us into these types of messes in the first place?

I'll look for that book though.