U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Spectral]

Ok, apparently they've "reached an accord" with Sebelius. She went to ethics training, the money was reimbursed, and they're considering it closed. Goddamnit, why do both political parties make me hate them so?

Right, absolutely no consequences for her. When they say, "the money was reimbursed", they mean the Obama campaign covered it, not that she paid it out of her pocket. That actually makes it seem even worse - while acting in her official capacity, she was actually campaigning for Obama, which they've admitted by covering the cost; pretending after the fact that she wasn't acting as Secretary of the HHS is a copout. Additionally, the ethics training part is a joke; she's well aware of what the rules are. Everyone that works for the HHS is, as they get spammed with E-mails that are signed by Sebelius regarding the rules of the Hatch act.

I'm not sure what about this story makes you hate a political party though. This is a problem with Sebelius, not with Democrats as a whole.

[Grizzly Willy]

Ok, apparently they've "reached an accord" with Sebelius. She went to ethics training, the money was reimbursed, and they're considering it closed. Goddamnit, why do both political parties make me hate them so?

Which party do I make you hate? Am I doing something wrong?

[Wells]

Oh ffs she said a single thing out of line. Its not a big fucking deal. She wasn't "out campaigning" she made a single remark saying that Obama should be reelected.

[Grizzly Willy]

The problem is consistency. Are people suspended or not for such a small issue?

[Spectral]

Oh ffs she said a single thing out of line. Its not a big fucking deal. She wasn't "out campaigning" she made a single remark saying that Obama should be reelected.

Would this be the "come on... come on" defense employed by Peter Griffin? Sure, other people are routinely punished in a fashion that costs them money and may damage their career for the same level of offense, but... come on.

Personally, I'd rather hold agency heads to a higher standard. Apparently we differ on this. That's fine, but pretending that my concern is completely invalid because you personally see it as not a big fucking deal is pretty shitty.

[belfpala]

I had never even heard of the Hatch Act until a couple days ago, and I'm usually well aware of that kind of thing.

I guess that's how little it matters to me.

Spectral? Do you have any examples of people being suspended/fired for, literally, a few words? Agency heads are invited to, and expected to, attend and speak at such events. Lower level employees are not. We all make a slip here and there.

[Spectral]

Spectral? Do you have any examples of people being suspended/fired for, literally, a few words? Agency heads are invited to, and expected to, attend and speak at such events. Lower level employees are not. We all make a slip here and there.

I was told, in this thread, that the typical response to Hatch Act violations is suspension. I know that the E-mails we receive indicate that termination is an option. I attend and speak at events (granted, science events, not political ones), and manage to not run my face about politics while representing the agency I work for. Plain and simply, it is not that fucking hard. Ever get yourself in the mode of a certain self censoring? That's effectively what we're doing when acting as representatives of government agencies, and it's not hard to stick to. I don't think "oops I slipped" is sufficient explanation for blatantly violating something that everyone is aware of. While this might be obscure outside of the government, it's surely not obscure for government employees that communicate as part of their profession. It's roughly the equivalent of "Don't gamble on baseball" being posted in every clubhouse; sure, people that aren't in baseball clubhouses might not know that, but all the players do.

[belfpala]

Right, I understand it's a thing. I just hadn't heard of it until this week.

Was really just curious if you knew of any examples of it being used (whether anecdotal or reported in the news) to suspend or fire anyone.

[Wells]

The problem is consistency. Are people suspended or not for such a small issue?

Sometimes they are sometimes they aren't at the discretion of the agency in charge of dealing with these things.

Would this be the "come on... come on" defense employed by Peter Griffin? Sure, other people are routinely punished in a fashion that costs them money and may damage their career for the same level of offense, but... come on.

No its the "you're blowing this stupidly out of proportion" defense. Because you are. What happened to her was not outside the normal range of punishment. So if you think she got off easy because of her position that's on you. Its not like she was running around asking for donations or handing out pamphlets. She said a single line that violated the act.

I was told, in this thread, that the typical response to Hatch Act violations is suspension.

Most common but by no means only. Given how little she actually said I don't see it unlikely she didn't warrant a suspension.

But if your complaint is that she gets better treatment than schmucks at the bottom of the ladder I can only say welcome to the real world.

[oblivionx]

The problem is consistency. Are people suspended or not for such a small issue?

When it's the do as I say not as I do party, typically not.

[smelltheglove]

When it's the do as I say not as I do party, typically not.

oh, so you mean when either of the 2 main parties do it?

[Bobdoletoo]

I was told, in this thread, that the typical response to Hatch Act violations is suspension. I know that the E-mails we receive indicate that termination is an option. I attend and speak at events (granted, science events, not political ones), and manage to not run my face about politics while representing the agency I work for. Plain and simply, it is not that fucking hard. Ever get yourself in the mode of a certain self censoring? That's effectively what we're doing when acting as representatives of government agencies, and it's not hard to stick to. I don't think "oops I slipped" is sufficient explanation for blatantly violating something that everyone is aware of. While this might be obscure outside of the government, it's surely not obscure for government employees that communicate as part of their profession. It's roughly the equivalent of "Don't gamble on baseball" being posted in every clubhouse; sure, people that aren't in baseball clubhouses might not know that, but all the players do.

What you fail to realize, is that there are defenders on this board who do not care what democrats do, they defend them no matter what. It doesn't matter that a law as broken, they fixed it afterwards, that is good enough for someone who only defends. The end result is usually a suspension because they have a board that usually downgrades from terminations, not always. This board has nothing to do with her because she is senate appointed, therefore any type of punishment is made by obama only. No board, no downgrade, obama only. And even though a law was broken, we went back and changed it so it was not, and the DNC repaid that money. It's complete bullshit. If this was any regular government employee, they would not get this preferential treatment. They would be suspended at a minimum. She gets nothing because obama gives her nothing as a punishment.

And no matter what "little" she did, she broke the law. They went in after the fact and changed it. YOU may think this is no big deal, but to people with morals and principles, it is a big deal. If i break a law, nobody is going to go in afterwards and change it where I did not break the law.

[belfpala]

Again, I want to know about other violations of the Hatch Act.

The law has been around for a long time, apparently. I never heard about it until this week.

So... "defenders" is it? What about "attackers"?

Edit: And I think you mean ethics, Mr. Dole. And the law is not applied in many situations. It's called prosecutor's discretion. Happens a lot.

[Sunseeker]

What you fail to realize, is that there are defenders on this board who do not care what democrats do, they defend them no matter what. It doesn't matter that a law as broken, they fixed it afterwards, that is good enough for someone who only defends. The end result is usually a suspension because they have a board that usually downgrades from terminations, not always. This board has nothing to do with her because she is senate appointed, therefore any type of punishment is made by obama only. No board, no downgrade, obama only. And even though a law was broken, we went back and changed it so it was not, and the DNC repaid that money. It's complete bullshit. If this was any regular government employee, they would not get this preferential treatment. They would be suspended at a minimum. She gets nothing because obama gives her nothing as a punishment.

And no matter what "little" she did, she broke the law. They went in after the fact and changed it. YOU may think this is no big deal, but to people with morals and principles, it is a big deal. If i break a law, nobody is going to go in afterwards and change it where I did not break the law.

But the question is: how big of a deal is this, really? The reason the Hatch Act exists is simply so we, the taxpayer, are not paying for their politics. Since they changed it afterward and paid for the trip themselves, what exactly is the problem? The people didn't pay for their politics.

A Judge might not go back and say "well, you didn't really break the law." But a judge might also say: "Your violation of the law was relatively minor and I'm not going to press further charges."

Which is basically what people are pointing out here, the guys who look into this stuff have a number of options before them, suspension, termination, fines and penalties, and of course: nothing at all.

I personally don't really give a shit about this. There are much bigger problems in this country and if we're going to start worrying about morals now, i'm kinda wondering where our heads have been the last 100 or so years.

[Bobdoletoo]

But the question is: how big of a deal is this, really? The reason the Hatch Act exists is simply so we, the taxpayer, are not paying for their politics. Since they changed it afterward and paid for the trip themselves, what exactly is the problem? The people didn't pay for their politics.

A Judge might not go back and say "well, you didn't really break the law." But a judge might also say: "Your violation of the law was relatively minor and I'm not going to press further charges."

Which is basically what people are pointing out here, the guys who look into this stuff have a number of options before them, suspension, termination, fines and penalties, and of course: nothing at all.

I personally don't really give a shit about this. There are much bigger problems in this country and if we're going to start worrying about morals now, i'm kinda wondering where our heads have been the last 100 or so years.

It is a big enough deal that they made a law against it. There must have been problems if there is a law against it. I do not understand that you do not care if laws were broken. She gets special treatment for breaking a law. I know you don't care that if it was anyone who is not appointed by the senate committed, it is a MINIMUM 30 day suspension. Guess you do not care about that too.

---------- Post added 2012-09-16 at 12:38 AM ----------

Again, I want to know about other violations of the Hatch Act.

The law has been around for a long time, apparently. I never heard about it until this week.

So... "defenders" is it? What about "attackers"?

Edit: And I think you mean ethics, Mr. Dole. And the law is not applied in many situations. It's called prosecutor's discretion. Happens a lot.

http://www.osc.gov/pressHA.htm

Here is a link of press releases about people who were investigated/suspended /terminated involving the hatch act. There were a few terminated in in 2011, but mostly different levels of suspension.

[Wells]

You're still on about this? Listen man, they acknowledged that she fucked up, they paid the expenses, they forwarded the issue to the relevant authorities who made their finding.

Look at the people who received suspensions. One of them was coordinating volunteer efforts on the clock. Compare it to what Sibelius did. Its a non issue. If you act honestly in the debate and compare what the relevant authories penalize people with based on what they did the punishment here was right in line with standard.

---------- Post added 2012-09-16 at 06:46 AM ----------

And even though a law was broken, we went back and changed it so it was not

Would be cool if you stopped repeating nonsense like this. They acknowledged she fucked up. They didn't change the law, they changed the meeting to political so the record would be accurate and so they would have to pay for the expenses. They very clearly weren't trying to avoid anything.

[Bobdoletoo]

You're still on about this? Listen man, they acknowledged that she fucked up, they paid the expenses, they forwarded the issue to the relevant authorities who made their finding.

Look at the people who received suspensions. One of them was coordinating volunteer efforts on the clock. Compare it to what Sibelius did. Its a non issue. If you act honestly in the debate and compare what the relevant authories penalize people with based on what they did the punishment here was right in line with standard.

---------- Post added 2012-09-16 at 06:46 AM ----------


Would be cool if you stopped repeating nonsense like this. They acknowledged she fucked up. They didn't change the law, they changed the meeting to political so the record would be accurate and so they would have to pay for the expenses. They very clearly weren't trying to avoid anything.

We get it, you don't care that she broke the law and they changed everything about what she did so that she did not break the law. We get that you do not care that she is getting preferential treatment,whereas anyone else would at least get a suspension, she gets nothing. We get that you do not care what she does and what law she breaks, you are fine with it. We get that you do not think it is unethical to change facts of a meeting so that she does not break a law. They did not change it to be accurate, they changed it so it would reflect her not breaking the law. If they knew she was going to be doing this, it would have been political in the first place, not changed afterwards. She broke the law and now they want to rewrite it so she did not. Other people are not okay with people breaking the law and then changing facts to make it where they did not.

People are talking about it, so I can talk about it, don't try to censor me by saying what I am typing is nonsense. We can discuss this, feel free not to participate.

[Wells]

We get it, you don't care that she broke the law and they changed everything about what she did so that she did not break the law

I don't care about the issue because they took the appropriate actions.

We get that you do not care that she is getting preferential treatment,whereas anyone else would at least get a suspension, she gets nothing

Would it be too hard for you to actually address the things I say? If you actually look at the link you provided you'll see that suspensions are all given for far more severe penalties.

. We get that you do not think it is unethical to change facts of a meeting so that she does not break a law.

This is not what happened. Meetings are categorized as either campaign or governmental with regard to the hatch act and for record keeping. When the meeting became political its designation was appropriately changed. Its good record keeping, stop blowing it out of proportion.

. They did not change it to be accurate, they changed it so it would reflect her not breaking the law

That's pretty strange given how they've publicly acknowledged she did.

Would be really cool if you actually responded to things people write when you want to discuss an issue rather than acting like this. I've given you very clear arguments why your claims are inaccurate and/or wrong and you have yet to actually respond to them in. All you do is go on about how biased and horrible I am. This isn't the first time you've done this and you're not the only one on this board who does it but its really dumb.

---------- Post added 2012-09-16 at 07:19 AM ----------

Let's compare actual violations and punishments.

Here's what Sebelius said that got her in trouble:
""One of the imperatives is to make sure that we not only come together here in Charlotte to present the nomination to the president, but we make sure that in November, he continues to be president for another four years"

Action taken? Federal government reimbursed and she met with ethics officials to discuss the issue.

Now lets look at the first suspension in your link:

The other employee, a contracting officer for the General Services Administration, will serve a 30-
day suspension without pay for inviting-- from her government office and while on duty -- 23 people to an
Obama fundraiser during the 2007-2008 campaign cycle. She also distributed Obama campaign material in
the workplace and sent an e-mail from her government e-mail account supporting his Presidential
campaign.

So yeah, I don't think your complaint isn't so much that she got special treatment, but that she didn't get harsher treatment than would be logical.

[Bobdoletoo]

Let's compare the 2 then. The normal every day government official gets 30 day suspension. The secretary of HHS gets nothing. Any official gets a minimum 30 day suspension which is brought before a board. SHE GETS NOTHING. She doesn't have to go before a board, she only has to go before obama, so of course, she gets nothing. So the man who wants to level the field economically doesn't treat government workers the same. They admit she broke the law, but she gets no punishment. None. And you are okay with that, because she broke the law, and any official gets at least a suspension, but because they changed it after the fact, not during, not the next day, but later and the DNC gave back tax payer money, well...then it's okay for her to get no punishment...because, even though you admit the administration says she broke the law, she doesn't have to be punished like a common government official. She's above that. The great uniter, who wants to make all things equal for everyone, says she gets no punishment.

I am putting you back on ignore. Your fusedmass' level of democratic party love has pushed too far. If this were a republican you would be all over it. I know you won't admit that. It's like your crazy defense of going after Romeny's taxes. You raised so much hell over him not releasing tax forms, but when someone breaks the law, you defend them not being punished as if your life depends on it.

[Wells]

Why are you ignoring the huge difference in what they did? Someone who committed a huge ongoing violation got 30 days. Sibelius said a single sentence.

and any official gets at least a suspension

This isn't true. I've shown you several times now that they don't always issue suspensions.

Also I'd appreciate it if you could stay focused instead of going off on random political attacks.