U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Ausr]

http://news.yahoo.com/paul-ryan-hits...-politics.html

Found that hilarious since Obama and the DNC pretty much stole the strong national defense line from the Republicans this year.

[Spectral]

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.

If we're going to cherry pick examples, in this one, an employee basically forwarded some E-mails around and was suspended without pay for two weeks. I'd consider that either equivalent to, or less than, of a violation than the head of the HHS campaigning publicly on an official trip. Here's an example of someone being outright fired for forwarding some E-mails.

To be clear though, the OSC isn't who to be mad at; they have no power to do anything in this case other than pass their findings along to Obama and Congress. Clearly, if the OSC did have power, they consider even minor violations to be worth punishing. Once more, the problem is that everyone is very well aware of what these rules are, and Sebelius just flagrantly ignored them, and will face no consequence at all.

As a side note, you could stop with the "this is so tiresome" routine. You're surely not required to reply, and if you genuinely found it so tiresome, you probably wouldn't be replying. I get that you think nothing happened and that it's entirely trivial. Just understand that not everyone thinks her actions were entirely trivial and irrelevant, and that for some of us it has absolutely nothing to do with her party.

---------- Post added 2012-09-16 at 10:25 AM ----------

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.

This is not how government travel/speaking engagements generally work. You don't get to just turn something into a political engagement that was an appearance in your official capacity, then later change it. If that were how it worked, it would be impossible to violate the Hatch Act as a speaker, as you'd just reclassify any meeting in which you decided to speak in a politically partisan fashion.

---------- Post added 2012-09-16 at 10:31 AM ----------

http://news.yahoo.com/paul-ryan-hits...-politics.html

Found that hilarious since Obama and the DNC pretty much stole the strong national defense line from the Republicans this year.

What a lying little shit. There's no one that actually believes that minor cuts to the "defense" budget leave the US in a position of weakness.

[belfpala]

This is not how government travel/speaking engagements generally work.

This is what kind of confuses me about the whole thing, especially for a high ranking official. If she goes to a political rally on her own time and dollar to speak, she'll be announced as the head of her department. To anyone watching, that's the head of a department speaking, period.

Anyway, I know it's a touchy subject for you.

By the way, what ever happened with this? All I can find is from last year.

[Spectral]

This is what kind of confuses me about the whole thing, especially for a high ranking official. If she goes to a political rally on her own time and dollar to speak, she'll be announced as the head of her department. To anyone watching, that's the head of a department speaking, period.

Generally, if you're giving a talk in which your views do not represent the official views of the agency that you work for, you make it very clear that it's your personal views and not an official position. This is represented with disclaimers up front. Using one's official title in a private capacity would even be pushing awfully close to the line of what you really should be doing.

Really, the best advised move is to not engage in political activity if you're a high ranking official working for a putatively non-partisan agency. While it's not technically illegal, it's just generally a bad idea.

Anyway, I know it's a touchy subject for you.

Perhaps more than it should be. I can't stand the way Sebelius acts (she was the first HHS executive to ever overrule an FDA regulatory committees recommendations, when she did so with Plan B, which is even more galling with her complete lack of science background), and I think she's a transparently political hack. This particular story is just another example of something that's pretty obvious to anyone that pays attention to her.

By the way, what ever happened with this? All I can find is from last year.

Wow, I wasn't aware of that Office even existing. Fucking amazing, some of the things we waste government money on.

[Grizzly Willy]

By the way, what ever happened with this? All I can find is from last year.

Guess we can stop with the "You're only saying this because she's a Democrat" remarks now. Well, assuming people don't like to be hypocrites.

[Spectral]

Guess we can stop with the "You're only saying this because she's a Democrat" remarks now. Well, assuming people don't like to be hypocrites.

That I've been one of the stronger voices taking issue with the actions of Sebelius should have already dispensed with that idea. It didn't...

[Grizzly Willy]

One person being unbiased doesn't instantly make all others unbiased.

[belfpala]

Ehh, there were bias arguments from some, but after that the argument quickly went to the severity of the violation.

Driving around with a break light out is illegal. I've been pulled over twice for it, and only got fix-it tickets. Not saying it's an exactly comparable situation, but there are times where police or prosecutors can use their discretion in handling violations.

[Sunseeker]

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.

No, I really &^%*^ don't! And I don't know why you're wasting pages and pages on this pathetic issue.

[Grizzly Willy]

Ehh, there were bias arguments from some, but after that the argument quickly went to the severity of the violation.

Driving around with a break light out is illegal. I've been pulled over twice for it, and only got fix-it tickets. Not saying it's an exactly comparable situation, but there are times where police or prosecutors can use their discretion in handling violations.

My point wasn't that people were biased, just that one person not being biased in their assessment doesn't mean that others aren't.

[Bobdoletoo]

“What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video,” claimed Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice. “People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent. … Those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya, and that then spun out of control,” she insisted on Fox News Sunday.

She made the same pitch on four Sunday news shows.

“The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous,” Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif told the liberal National Public Radio network. “We firmly believe that this was a pre-calculated, pre-planned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. Consulate,” el-Megarif said.

The administration has decided not to take questions about this because they have passed the buck to the FBI so that the state department will not have to say anything else. The question is, who do we believe? The Libyan President saying it was calculated move, or the United States ambassador saying people did this attack over a video?

[belfpala]

The question is, who do we believe? The Libyan President saying it was calculated move, or the United States ambassador saying people did this attack over a video?

I happen to be engaging in self-torture right now, and I'm watching Michele Bachmann on my television, courtesy of Fox News.

She says this is a plan that's been ongoing since 2005.

She's on the House intelligence committee.

So there.

[Wells]

Actually I'm not sure I see how the two statements contradict each other necessarily. The first one she's saying that protests got out of hand and that certain people took advantage of that. So unless the Libyan President is saying that the entire protest from all levels was planned I'm not sure where the difference is.

[Bobdoletoo]

This is what kind of confuses me about the whole thing, especially for a high ranking official. If she goes to a political rally on her own time and dollar to speak, she'll be announced as the head of her department. To anyone watching, that's the head of a department speaking, period.

Anyway, I know it's a touchy subject for you.

By the way, what ever happened with this? All I can find is from last year.

It says the main reason for it to be brought to light was Bloch, but he resigned in 2008, why did it take 3 years to find this malfeasance?

I did find the article amusing in the aspect that : "The long-awaited report was released just a few days after the Obama White House announced that it plans to shutter its administration’s Office of Political Affairs and move some of the staffers there to the payrolls of the Democratic National Committee and a still-to-be-formed presidential re-election committee in Chicago."

I think that makes it seem like every white house used that office for such things.

---------- Post added 2012-09-17 at 01:27 AM ----------

Actually I'm not sure I see how the two statements contradict each other necessarily. The first one she's saying that protests got out of hand and that certain people took advantage of that. So unless the Libyan President is saying that the entire protest from all levels was planned I'm not sure where the difference is.

More Susan Rice: "“First of all, let’s be clear about what transpired here,” Rice said. “What happened this week in Cairo, in Benghazi, in many other parts of the region was a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated that the U.S. government had nothing to do with, which we have made clear that it’s reprehensible and disgusting. We also have been very clear in saying that there’s no excuse for violence. We have condemned it in the strongest possible terms. We have said that there’s no excuse for violence.”

That doesn't sound like she means a calculated attack. And the first quote when she says " Those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya, and that then spun out of control,” You really think that means the same as el-Megarif saying "The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous". Please explain how those do not contradict each other. The Libyan President is certainly saying that the entire protest was planned. Explain how he is not saying that?

[belfpala]

I think that makes it seem like every white house used that office for such things.

You think? It explicitly says so.

“The aspects of OPA that came in conflict with the Hatch Act during the Bush II administration have apparently existed for decades,” the report says.

[Bobdoletoo]

You think? It explicitly says so.

I saw that but did not want to exactly accuse everyone of doing it. Some people here are touchy if you keep jabbing their affiliation.

[belfpala]

I saw that but did not want to exactly accuse everyone of doing it. Some people here are touchy if you keep jabbing their affiliation.

I'm not sure what "decades" means. 2010's, 2000's, 1990's, 1980's, 1970's... that seems like "decades". Republicans have had the presidency for most of that.

Just saying.

[Lenonis]

One person being unbiased doesn't instantly make all others unbiased.

And one person being biased doesn't instantly make all others biased.

Which pretty much everyone on this board seems to forget.

[Grizzly Willy]

And one person being biased doesn't instantly make all others biased.

Which pretty much everyone on this board seems to forget.

Right. One isn't a sufficient sample size, unless the population you're looking at is made up of one person.

[belfpala]

Right. One isn't a sufficient sample size, unless the population you're looking at is made up of one person.

Confirmation bias. When we think a certain group has a certain trait, we tend to ignore all the times that trait isn't expressed, then latch on to the few times it is expressed.