What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?

[Northwestie]

If you truly believe half of America are crooks and thieves and bigots, I am sorry for you.

If you think the GOP is not trying to deliberately suppress minority voters I have a Sparkle the Pony I can sell you with two unicorns.

Repeating something over and over in frantic hyperbolic fashion doesn't make it more true.

Exactly my point regarding voter fraud - it is a made up issue by the GOP to try and block minority voters.  Duh - the data shows this-but what the heck- those are only facts:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801448484/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/why-voter-id-laws-arent-really-about-fraud/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/federal-judge-in-wisconsin-looks-for-voter-fraud-finds-none/361403/

Analysis of the resulting comprehensive News21 election fraud database turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.

Brennan Center For Justice: Allegations Of Widespread Voter Fraud "Simply Do Not Pan Out." The New York University School of Law's Brennan Center has repeatedly explained that in-person voter fraud is not a justification for strict voter ID laws, because voter impersonation is "more rare than getting struck by lightning," and allegations of widespread fraud typically "amount to a great deal of smoke without much fire" and "simply do not pan out." [Brennan Center For Justice, 2007]

Loyola University Professor: Only 31 Out Of 1 Billion Ballots Subject To In-Person Voter Fraud. Loyola University Law School professor Justin Levitt, who investigated "any specific, credible allegation" of voter impersonation fraud, found a total of "about 31 different incidents" since 2000 of in-person voter fraud out of over 1 billion ballots cast. [The Washington Post, Wonkblog, 8/6/14]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/09/7-papers-4-government-inquiries-2-news-investigations-and-1-court-ruling-proving-voter-fraud-is-mostly-a-myth/

The response I got to this was that "....but some voters believe there is fraud.."  Yea - as a scientist I'm prone to looking at data and not make faith-based decisions

So yea -- make-believe land seems to be the argument.  Angels, unicorns, and fairies next up followed by Creationism and the hoax of climate change.   

----And by the way, Hobby Lobby also opposes IUDs (it was in their SCOTUS brief) which is birth control

[Jeremy E.]

Prior presidents being asshats does not excuse current candidates for being asshats. Just because someone else has a problem, it doesn't make it okay for a new person to have that problem. Hillary president = NSA continues, we continue getting into foreign affairs we don't belong in, continue to increase our debt to GDP ratio (with our debt already being higher than our GDP), etc.

With Gary Johnson, he plans on getting rid of the NSA, not meddling where we don't belong, not sign bills that unnecessarily increase spending, etc.

[EMP]

If you truly believe half of America are crooks and thieves and bigots, I am sorry for you.

If you think the GOP is not trying to deliberately suppress minority voters I have a Sparkle the Pony I can sell you with two unicorns.

Repeating something over and over in frantic hyperbolic fashion doesn't make it more true.

As far as I can tell the GOP believes in personal autonomy for white males, Viagra covered by prescription, Duggar's wonderful wholesome role models, etc. while denying personal autonomy for women and people of color. Ex. Hobby Lobby not having to pay for birth control, allowing Catholic hospitals their appalling treatment of women, Welfare Queens and Baby Daddies shameful and on and on and on.

Hobby Lobby did not want to provide four very specific birth control options which they believe are effectively causing abortions - two morning after pills and two types of IUDs. Everything else is 100% covered by Hobby Lobby as far as birth control goes.

I realize it's easier to use the hyperbolic and factually incorrect "hobby lobby doesn't want to provide birth control" mantra when supporting the "GOP hates women" attitude, but it factually isn't the case.

They don't want to provide the most widely used and effective forms of birth control that are most likely to be used by women most at risk of unintended/unwanted pregnancy. Of course, leaving out those kinds of facts is worse than hyperbolic, it's dishonest.

[MrMoogle]

If you truly believe half of America are crooks and thieves and bigots, I am sorry for you.

If you think the GOP is not trying to deliberately suppress minority voters I have a Sparkle the Pony I can sell you with two unicorns.

Repeating something over and over in frantic hyperbolic fashion doesn't make it more true.

Exactly my point regarding voter fraud - it is a made up issue by the GOP to try and block minority voters.  Duh - the data shows this-but what the heck- those are only facts:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801448484/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/why-voter-id-laws-arent-really-about-fraud/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/federal-judge-in-wisconsin-looks-for-voter-fraud-finds-none/361403/

Analysis of the resulting comprehensive News21 election fraud database turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.

Brennan Center For Justice: Allegations Of Widespread Voter Fraud "Simply Do Not Pan Out." The New York University School of Law's Brennan Center has repeatedly explained that in-person voter fraud is not a justification for strict voter ID laws, because voter impersonation is "more rare than getting struck by lightning," and allegations of widespread fraud typically "amount to a great deal of smoke without much fire" and "simply do not pan out." [Brennan Center For Justice, 2007]

Loyola University Professor: Only 31 Out Of 1 Billion Ballots Subject To In-Person Voter Fraud. Loyola University Law School professor Justin Levitt, who investigated "any specific, credible allegation" of voter impersonation fraud, found a total of "about 31 different incidents" since 2000 of in-person voter fraud out of over 1 billion ballots cast. [The Washington Post, Wonkblog, 8/6/14]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/09/7-papers-4-government-inquiries-2-news-investigations-and-1-court-ruling-proving-voter-fraud-is-mostly-a-myth/

The response I got to this was that "....but some voters believe there is fraud.."  Yea - as a scientist I'm prone to looking at data and not make faith-based decisions

So yea -- make-believe land seems to be the argument.  Angels, unicorns, and fairies next up followed by Creationism and the hoax of climate change.   

----And by the way, Hobby Lobby also opposes IUDs (it was in their SCOTUS brief) which is birth control

Evidently, some Democrats believe this myth too:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/29/1554022/-Election-Justice-USA-Study-Finds-that-Without-Election-Fraud-Sanders-Would-Have-Won-by-Landslide

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438754/james-okeefe-voter-fraud-videos-prove-voter-ID-laws-needed

A separate Pew survey in 2012 found that one out of eight voter registrations is inaccurate, out-of-date, or a duplicate. Some 2.8 million people are registered in two or more states, and 1.8 million registered voters are dead.

In 2014, political scientists Jesse Richman and David Earnest, writing in the Washington Post, summarized their finding, based on their examination of thousands of voter interviews from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study: “Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008, and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Anyway, how does one prove whether or not voter fraud exists if there is no ID check?
Also, I haven't been able to find, how many people are actually affected by these laws?  As in, cannot vote because they did not get ID, but tried to vote?  I couldn't find that anywhere.
As an engineer, I love lots of data :)

[Cyaphas]

Anyway, how does one prove whether or not voter fraud exists if there is no ID check?
Also, I haven't been able to find, how many people are actually affected by these laws?  As in, cannot vote because they did not get ID, but tried to vote?  I couldn't find that anywhere.
As an engineer, I love lots of data :)

I ran into this when I tried to vote for Kerry in the Bush/Kerry election. They refused to let me vote because I didn't have my ID. I don't remember much about it, I just remember making a bit of a scene.

[Shane]

Corporations, Central banks and the wealthy have become too powerful and I think everyone is waking up to it.

I agree with the first part of your statement, but I'm pretty sure "everyone" hasn't woken up to anything yet. Most people are too busy arguing about whether the San Francisco 49ers QB should be fired for refusing to stand up during the national anthem or looking at cute cat videos on FB to care that the 1%'s real agenda is to suck even more of the middle class's wealth out of their pockets.

When I read about people flaming one party, I can't help but chuckle, they're both the same party. They both push tyranny, slavery and pollution through globalism, corpratism, fiat currency, taxes, debt, war and "Terrorism." Mean while, they try to appear as adversaries using BS "agendas," while they destroy what's left of the peoples wealth and freedom.

I pretty much agree with this part as well. There's not really that much difference between the Democrats and Republicans. However, I think the Democrats are less evil, so they continue to get my votes. If we could get some sort of proportional representation system in the U.S., I'd definitely consider voting for alternative parties that seemed like they might have a reasonable chance of influencing a coalition government in a direction I liked. I just don't like throwing my votes away...

[Northwestie]

Anyway, how does one prove whether or not voter fraud exists if there is no ID check?
Also, I haven't been able to find, how many people are actually affected by these laws?  As in, cannot vote because they did not get ID, but tried to vote?  I couldn't find that anywhere.
As an engineer, I love lots of data :)

I ran into this when I tried to vote for Kerry in the Bush/Kerry election. They refused to let me vote because I didn't have my ID. I don't remember much about it, I just remember making a bit of a scene.

Actually - there are quite a few good studies - done in a statistical matter, that have reported on.  These are all done by non-partisan researchers.   The GOP has been very thoughtful about this process.

http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/research-and-publications-voter-id

[Northwestie]

When I read about people flaming one party, I can't help but chuckle, they're both the same party. They both push tyranny, slavery and pollution through globalism, corpratism, fiat currency, taxes, debt, war and "Terrorism." Mean while, they try to appear as adversaries using BS "agendas," while they destroy what's left of the peoples wealth and freedom.

I pretty much agree with this part as well. There's not really that much difference between the Democrats and Republicans. However, I think the Democrats are less evil, so they continue to get my votes. If we could get some sort of proportional representation system in the U.S., I'd definitely consider voting for alternative parties that seemed like they might have a reasonable chance of influencing a coalition government in a direction I liked. I just don't like throwing my votes away...
[/quote]

I tend to think this way - in general.  But there are some specifics that do make me lean towards the dems because of the GOP traits: climate change and general science denial, anti-women's right to choose, suppression of voter access, anti-federal lands and pro-resource extraction on public land, and pro-upper income tax breaks.   In a nutshell.

[Shane]

You're right. There are many specific policies of the Republican Party that are absolutely worse than those of the Democrats.

Above, somebody said the Democrats and Republicans both "equally" wanted people to be free, or something like that. I laughed, because that's so patently false. The Republican Party does NOT want gay people to be able to be happy and free. It does not want them to be able to marry, adopt children, etc. The Republican Party does NOT want people to be able to be free to smoke marijuana, neither as a medicine nor recreationally. The Republican Party does, however, want white men to be able to be free to own whatever fucking crazy arsenal of guns they feel like they need to "defend" themselves against all the non-white masses they seem to believe are coming to steal their precious white American dream.

Not too long ago I met a woman and her 8 kids. During the first 5 minutes of our conversation, the woman proudly announced to me that she was a Christian and a Republican. She went on to tell me all about her church and how their number one priority for the year was to defeat our Democratic governor's attempt to legalize same-sex marriage and to try to make it illegal for gay people to adopt children. I laughed in her face and said, "So, in other words you're not really a Christian, then, right? I thought Christians were people who tried to live their lives in a Christ-like way. If Christ were here, today, he would have compassion and show love for these people you and your fellow church members are trying to block from having equal access to the same happiness you and your family enjoy."

Needless to say, the conversation just went downhill from there. The woman told me that I was right that if Jesus were here, "he would show compassion for gay people, but he would also tell them that what they were doing was "wrong" and that they should change and ask forgiveness for their sins." Eventually, I had to just walk away because the conversation was starting to make me feel sick.

It never ceases to mystify me how anyone can rationalize voting for candidates with such backward social policies. It's 2016, not 1916...

[davisgang90]

I can't for the life of me see how someone can be a citizen of the US and interact in society without a government issued ID. 

[Kris]

I can't for the life of me see how someone can be a citizen of the US and interact in society without a government issued ID.

And therein lies part of the problem. Those of us who are solidly middle class and entrenched in the system have very little idea what it is like not to live like that.

[arebelspy]

I can't for the life of me see how someone can be a citizen of the US and interact in society without a government issued ID.

And therein lies part of the problem. Those of us who are solidly middle class and entrenched in the system have very little idea what it is like not to live like that.

Indeed.  Heck, there's 10MM households, according to the FDIC who are unbanked or underbanked.

Plenty of people not only have no ID, they have no credit, no bank account, nothing. 

[davisgang90]

Sorry, don't buy it.  You can't apply for state benefits without a state id. You can't get medicaid or medicare without a state id.  You can't pick up a prescription, buy cigarettes or alcohol without an id.  You can't cash a check, get a hotel room or rent a car without them.  Even the poorest of the poor in the US need an id for any assistance from the state or federal government.

[Midwest]

I can't for the life of me see how someone can be a citizen of the US and interact in society without a government issued ID.

And therein lies part of the problem. Those of us who are solidly middle class and entrenched in the system have very little idea what it is like not to live like that.

Indeed.  Heck, there's 10MM households, according to the FDIC who are unbanked or underbanked.

Plenty of people not only have no ID, they have no credit, no bank account, nothing.

Does the 10M quoted by the FDIC include those here illegally? 

[Shane]

I know 3 people, personally, in their late 50's and early 60's who have no IDs. They are all white, American citizens, who were born and raised in the US, and speak fluent English. Two of the three work jobs full time. The third person is self employed.

The 2 who work at jobs are brothers. I found out that they had no IDs when they asked me for a ride to the supermarket to cash their pay checks one day. I offered to take them to their bank instead, so that they could deposit their checks, and they just gave me a blank stare, like duhhhhhh. Finally, one of them explained that they didn't have bank accounts. I was like, how can you not have at least a checking account to pay your bills? They explained to me that all of their bills: rent, utilities, etc., were paid for them by their employer. They said that they paid for everything else in cash. They explained to me that their only ID was a check cashing card from a local supermarket, where they went every week to cash their paychecks.

The other guy I know, the self-employed one, I was with him at WalMart when he tried to apply to get a cell phone from ATT or Verizon, I forget which one. The cell phone provider guy asked him for ID, and he told him he didn't have any. The guy was like, oh, ok, just give me your name and address, and he said he could run a credit check on him. My friend gave the guy the information he asked for, and we waited. Eventually the cell phone guy said something like, "Wow, this is really strange, NOTHING is coming up about you in our system. You have no history at all. I can't find anything..." My friend decided to abandon his plan to get a cell phone, because he "didn't want to get into the Man's system if he wasn't in there already..." :)

I wouldn't have believed it, either, if I hadn't actually met people, who in most ways seem normal, but have no ID. It's bizarre, but true.

[Kris]

Sorry, don't buy it.  You can't apply for state benefits without a state id. You can't get medicaid or medicare without a state id.  You can't pick up a prescription, buy cigarettes or alcohol without an id.  You can't cash a check, get a hotel room or rent a car without them.  Even the poorest of the poor in the US need an id for any assistance from the state or federal government.

Here is an explanation for just one of our states, Alabama:

http://www.naacpldf.org/files/case_issue/Greater%20Birmingham%20Ministries%20v.%20Alabama%20FAQ.pdf

Here's an article from the Washington Post that will explain in greater detail.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html

[fa]

Sorry, don't buy it.  You can't apply for state benefits without a state id. You can't get medicaid or medicare without a state id.  You can't pick up a prescription, buy cigarettes or alcohol without an id.  You can't cash a check, get a hotel room or rent a car without them.  Even the poorest of the poor in the US need an id for any assistance from the state or federal government.

Here is an explanation for just one of our states, Alabama:

http://www.naacpldf.org/files/case_issue/Greater%20Birmingham%20Ministries%20v.%20Alabama%20FAQ.pdf

Here's an article from the Washington Post that will explain in greater detail.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html

What I understand this to mean is that the integrity of the voting process should not be guaranteed through positive ID of the voter, because of financial and logistical burdens on the poor to obtain a government ID.

Most of the developed world requires a government ID to vote, because it is in the public interest to preserve the integrity of the polls.  This is the case in all European countries, without anyone crying foul.  So why not come up with some creative ways for the government to help their citizens obtain this ID?  Maybe a fee reduction or elimination for the poor, or maybe a government ID office on wheels that visits more remote counties or communities.  Surely solutions like these and others can be accomplished.  I don't understand that the solution to this issue always seems to be elimination of an ID requirement to vote, rather than finding ways to solve the problem to obtain an ID in the first place.  Poor people need IDs for other reasons as well, such as applying for benefits, cashing checks, etc.  So requiring an ID to vote while at the same time facilitating this process to obtain an ID is a win for everybody, especially the poor.

[nereo]

Sorry, don't buy it.  You can't apply for state benefits without a state id. You can't get medicaid or medicare without a state id.  You can't pick up a prescription, buy cigarettes or alcohol without an id.  You can't cash a check, get a hotel room or rent a car without them.  Even the poorest of the poor in the US need an id for any assistance from the state or federal government.

I'm not sure why you think many of these things.  Company issued pay-cheques can be cashed at many banks without an ID by proving a fingerprint; that's how many migrant and seasonal workers get paid.  Worse, those "Check-cashing" places will give the same service with less oversight and huge fees.
There's no need for an ID for alcohol or cigarettes (assuming you drink/smoke) if you are old enough, and teenagers everywhere can tell you the places that don't card. Budget motels will take cash deposits. Hospitals will treat any acute malady without any ID, even when the staff knows you are a boomerang patient and are almost certainly providing a fake name (some homeless people wind up in the hospital dozens of times each year).  Prescriptions can be picked up at the hospital's pharmacy if you have the cash to pay for them. There's a whole line of NGOs that help the poor and undocumented get state and federal services in every state.

As Kris pointed out in the articles she linked, for some obtaining an ID is impossible or is a financial burden.  Others, like my uncle, have such a deep distrust of the government that they live a cash-only, quasi-off-the-grid existence. Still never try to get one because the (sometimes substantial hassle) isn't worth the benefits if they don't own a car and don't make enough to be extended credit.  Literally millions of undocumented ("illegal") immigrants live decades with no ID.  I'm not commenting on whether they should be allowed to vote, but merely pointing out that it's not too difficult for people to live in the US with no identification whatsoever.

[Gin1984]

Sorry, don't buy it.  You can't apply for state benefits without a state id. You can't get medicaid or medicare without a state id.  You can't pick up a prescription, buy cigarettes or alcohol without an id.  You can't cash a check, get a hotel room or rent a car without them.  Even the poorest of the poor in the US need an id for any assistance from the state or federal government.

I've never shown an ID to pick up my prescriptions, in three different systems.  What places card for prescriptions?

[Shane]

Sorry, don't buy it.  You can't apply for state benefits without a state id. You can't get medicaid or medicare without a state id.  You can't pick up a prescription, buy cigarettes or alcohol without an id.  You can't cash a check, get a hotel room or rent a car without them.  Even the poorest of the poor in the US need an id for any assistance from the state or federal government.

Here is an explanation for just one of our states, Alabama:

http://www.naacpldf.org/files/case_issue/Greater%20Birmingham%20Ministries%20v.%20Alabama%20FAQ.pdf

Here's an article from the Washington Post that will explain in greater detail.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html

What I understand this to mean is that the integrity of the voting process should not be guaranteed through positive ID of the voter, because of financial and logistical burdens on the poor to obtain a government ID.

Most of the developed world requires a government ID to vote, because it is in the public interest to preserve the integrity of the polls.  This is the case in all European countries, without anyone crying foul.  So why not come up with some creative ways for the government to help their citizens obtain this ID?  Maybe a fee reduction or elimination for the poor, or maybe a government ID office on wheels that visits more remote counties or communities.  Surely solutions like these and others can be accomplished.  I don't understand that the solution to this issue always seems to be elimination of an ID requirement to vote, rather than finding ways to solve the problem to obtain an ID in the first place.  Poor people need IDs for other reasons as well, such as applying for benefits, cashing checks, etc.  So requiring an ID to vote while at the same time facilitating this process to obtain an ID is a win for everybody, especially the poor.

I agree that increasing poor people's access to IDs would be a good thing, and I would support any program that did that, as I think it could benefit them in multiple ways. The problem is when the political tides turn and Republicans control Congress and the White House, one of the first programs they'll cut will be the one that is attempting to get free IDs to people who need them. You have to understand that the Republicans don't want poor people to vote. That's why they're always pushing for requiring voters to show a photo ID at the polls. The ID requirement has nothing to do with preventing in-person voter fraud and everything to do with preventing registered Democrats from voting.

[shenlong55]

Just thought this was relevant to the whole Clinton Foundation discussion...

That Clinton Foundation Scandal the Press Wants Exists, But they Won’t Report it Because it’s Actually About the Trump Foundation.

[MoneyCat]

I'm against Hillary Clinton because she would bring back economic prosperity to ordinary people in the United States. That would make it harder for me to mock them and lord it over them. Down with Hillary Clinton!

[madmax]

I've never shown an ID to pick up my prescriptions, in three different systems.  What places card for prescriptions?

In my town, Kaiser won't let you see a doc or pick up a prescription without an ID. I guess if they don't ID what's stopping people from sharing each other's health insurance when someone is sick?

[nereo]

I've never shown an ID to pick up my prescriptions, in three different systems.  What places card for prescriptions?

In my town, Kaiser won't let you see a doc or pick up a prescription without an ID. I guess if they don't ID what's stopping people from sharing each other's health insurance when someone is sick?

I asked my dad, who's been a physician for 40 years, htis same question. 
His answer:  The fact that your doctor takes a detailed history and with e-records it's pretty hard now for multiple people to share the same name when going to the doctor unless you are basically similar size, weight, gender, age, and physical appearance. Only one script can be written and filled for a prescription. So, if your doctor writes you a prescription and someone else picks it up you are now without your meds.

In other words, the system basically polices itself without further ID requirements.

[Gin1984]

I've never shown an ID to pick up my prescriptions, in three different systems.  What places card for prescriptions?

In my town, Kaiser won't let you see a doc or pick up a prescription without an ID. I guess if they don't ID what's stopping people from sharing each other's health insurance when someone is sick?

One of the places I was referencing was kaiser in San Jose (granted it was six years ago) and I never once handed over my ID for care.

[nereo]

I've never shown an ID to pick up my prescriptions, in three different systems.  What places card for prescriptions?

In my town, Kaiser won't let you see a doc or pick up a prescription without an ID. I guess if they don't ID what's stopping people from sharing each other's health insurance when someone is sick?

One of the places I was referencing was kaiser in San Jose (granted it was six years ago) and I never once handed over my ID for care.

Yeah, I had Kaiser before switching to PAMF in 2013.  Never had to show more than my insurance card, which I got through work. 

[Northwestie]

While criticism of the email-server thing is valid - the hog-wash about the Clinton Foundation is groundless:  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html

[hoping2retire35]

I know 3 people, personally, in their late 50's and early 60's who have no IDs. They are all white, American citizens, who were born and raised in the US, and speak fluent English. Two of the three work jobs full time. The third person is self employed.

The 2 who work at jobs are brothers. I found out that they had no IDs when they asked me for a ride to the supermarket to cash their pay checks one day. I offered to take them to their bank instead, so that they could deposit their checks, and they just gave me a blank stare, like duhhhhhh. Finally, one of them explained that they didn't have bank accounts. I was like, how can you not have at least a checking account to pay your bills? They explained to me that all of their bills: rent, utilities, etc., were paid for them by their employer. They said that they paid for everything else in cash. They explained to me that their only ID was a check cashing card from a local supermarket, where they went every week to cash their paychecks.

The other guy I know, the self-employed one, I was with him at WalMart when he tried to apply to get a cell phone from ATT or Verizon, I forget which one. The cell phone provider guy asked him for ID, and he told him he didn't have any. The guy was like, oh, ok, just give me your name and address, and he said he could run a credit check on him. My friend gave the guy the information he asked for, and we waited. Eventually the cell phone guy said something like, "Wow, this is really strange, NOTHING is coming up about you in our system. You have no history at all. I can't find anything..." My friend decided to abandon his plan to get a cell phone, because he "didn't want to get into the Man's system if he wasn't in there already..." :)

I wouldn't have believed it, either, if I hadn't actually met people, who in most ways seem normal, but have no ID. It's bizarre, but true.

This is who I want to be.

[Northwestie]

It might keep the number of solicitor calls down.

But seriously - I think most of us don't really come into contact with this population much.  I volunteer at two public schools and you would be surprised at the lack of financial resources and skills of some of the families. 

[Shane]

It might keep the number of solicitor calls down.

But seriously - I think most of us don't really come into contact with this population much.  I volunteer at two public schools and you would be surprised at the lack of financial resources and skills of some of the families.

I'm pretty sure we're the unusual ones. They're in the majority. :(

[MrMoogle]

I use three government issued IDs every day for work, so it can be hard for me to imagine not having one too. 

I use a controlled substance for medication, and they say they require my driver's license, not for other meds though.  I'll have to ask them next time what would happen if I didn't have one. 

[Radagast]

Jumping in late having not read the whole thread:
Nothing. She is an amalgam of the key policies of George W. Bush and Barrack H. Obama. She supported NSA surveillance of US citizens, RomneyCare, and the Iraq war, so it is hard to call her liberal. But she also supports policies favoring LGBT, women, the poor, and minorities (in some cases out of political necessity rather than deeply held belief in my opinion) so she can't be conservative. If you liked the last 16 years (24 years?), you will get a lot more of it with Clinton II.

Uniquely bad: like George W. Bush, she is (probably) individually unqualified to be president, and is only a candidate because of a close relationship with a former president. But thanks to W. that is not really unique.

[Shane]

Uniquely bad: like George W. Bush, she is (probably) individually unqualified to be president, and is only a candidate because of a close relationship with a former president. But thanks to W. that is not really unique.

If 8 years as First Lady, 8 years as a U.S. Senator, 4 years as Secretary of State, and decades of earlier public service is not enough to qualify HRC to be president, what, in your opinion, would make a candidate qualified? You have to be kidding, right? :)

[Little Aussie Battler]

im not an American so have no view on Hillary, but I'm always sceptical when someone uses titles or positions as evidence that a person is suitable for some other position.

[vern]

She's a stooge for Wall Street.

[radram]

im not an American so have no view on Hillary, but I'm always sceptical when someone uses titles or positions as evidence that a person is suitable for some other position.

In the USA isn't that how virtually EVERY job is obtained?  Agreed that once you GET the job, none of that really matters and your performance is everything, but your qualifications (past work history, degrees and certifications obtained, etc.) are what get you in the door.

How are jobs obtained where you live?

[Little Aussie Battler]

In the USA isn't that how virtually EVERY job is obtained?  Agreed that once you GET the job, none of that really matters and your performance is everything, but your qualifications (past work history, degrees and certifications obtained, etc.) are what get you in the door.

How are jobs obtained where you live?

I can't speak for every employer - we look at achievements, not titles.

[radram]

In the USA isn't that how virtually EVERY job is obtained?  Agreed that once you GET the job, none of that really matters and your performance is everything, but your qualifications (past work history, degrees and certifications obtained, etc.) are what get you in the door.

How are jobs obtained where you live?

I can't speak for every employer - we look at achievements, not titles.

Aren't titles merely a way to summarize achievements? 

[ender]

In the USA isn't that how virtually EVERY job is obtained?  Agreed that once you GET the job, none of that really matters and your performance is everything, but your qualifications (past work history, degrees and certifications obtained, etc.) are what get you in the door.

How are jobs obtained where you live?

I can't speak for every employer - we look at achievements, not titles.

Aren't titles merely a way to summarize achievements?

... no. I mean, in theory sure. But titles aren't standardized at all.

Just go look at the puffed up titles people have in LinkedIn. And compare to what the descriptions actually are.

[radram]

In the USA isn't that how virtually EVERY job is obtained?  Agreed that once you GET the job, none of that really matters and your performance is everything, but your qualifications (past work history, degrees and certifications obtained, etc.) are what get you in the door.

How are jobs obtained where you live?

I can't speak for every employer - we look at achievements, not titles.

Aren't titles merely a way to summarize achievements?

... no. I mean, in theory sure. But titles aren't standardized at all.

Just go look at the puffed up titles people have in LinkedIn. And compare to what the descriptions actually are.

Do you mean puffed up titles like US Senator and Secretary of State for the US?  I believe the roll of First Lady can also holds a tremendous advantage as a qualification for POTUS, but I can also see how someone might also see it as nothing more than a puffed title.  It would entirely be dependent on how much was shared by your spouse, and what things you tried to accomplish in the roll.  Only some of those qualifications would be available for the public to see.  This is pure speculation, but I would be surprised if Bill shared nothing regarding day to day presidential matters while in office.  That insight would be very valuable to a future POTUS.

[Radagast]

Uniquely bad: like George W. Bush, she is (probably) individually unqualified to be president, and is only a candidate because of a close relationship with a former president. But thanks to W. that is not really unique.

If 8 years as First Lady, 8 years as a U.S. Senator, 4 years as Secretary of State, and decades of earlier public service is not enough to qualify HRC to be president, what, in your opinion, would make a candidate qualified? You have to be kidding, right? :)

Nope. How many of the important sounding ones would have been possible without the first? It does not necessarily take skill to be a political appointee. And tens of millions of Americans have decades of public service.

[MrMoogle]

I think it's more of the combination of things that make her unique. 
Her large political profile over the last 20 years
Her perceived desire for political power
The fact that she was almost president before
That she may very well be president soon
That the Republicans really haven't had a good option since Bush (who was generally liked by Republicans), after Bush they didn't like her, but it wasn't nearly as unique as it is now
That because she's a woman, many liberals argue that Republicans are sexist if they don't like her, making them like her even less

From the Republican perspective, over the last 20 years:
She stood by her cheating husband, which yeah, you're not supposed to get a divorce, but it's Bill Clinton, and at the time, Republican's #1 enemy,  you shouldn't stand by him.
How she became a Senator, she basically used a loophole, which is fine if you're using it on your tax codes, but not to represent a state you never lived in.
Then they got to hate on her 8 years ago, when she ran for president, and the fact that she basically got rewarded for losing, with the Secretary of State position.

[cliffhanger]

Here are two issues with Clinton I find troubling.

There was a disconnect between the motives of the Benghazi attack. The narrative that this was initiated by an offensive video was pushed to the public before all the facts were out, while the administration was saying it was a planned attack internally and to other country's leaders. Whether this was intentionally misleading or not is not the issue. I have a problem with the government developing a narrative around flimsy information and then pushing it even after contradictory evidence is discovered.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) questions Hillary Clinton (C-SPAN): https://youtu.be/N2PLNngNtQc
Benghazi Timeline: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/


Secondly, here's her quote from a recent speech:

We’ll invest in the next frontier of military engagement, protecting U.S. interests in outer space and cyberspace. You’ve seen reports. Russia’s hacked into a lot of things. China’s hacked into a lot of things. Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election systems. So, we’ve got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us.

As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses. And we’re going to invest in protecting our governmental networks and our national infrastructure. I want us to lead the world in setting the rules of cyberspace.

I find this absolutely crazy. To say that we will escalate to use of military force due to cyberattacks!? When we consider this with the false Benghazi narrative, we're leading ourselves into another Iraq War.

[nereo]

Secondly, here's her quote from a recent speech:

We’ll invest in the next frontier of military engagement, protecting U.S. interests in outer space and cyberspace. You’ve seen reports. Russia’s hacked into a lot of things. China’s hacked into a lot of things. Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election systems. So, we’ve got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us.

As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses. And we’re going to invest in protecting our governmental networks and our national infrastructure. I want us to lead the world in setting the rules of cyberspace.

I find this absolutely crazy. To say that we will escalate to use of military force due to cyberattacks!? When we consider this with the false Benghazi narrative, we're leading ourselves into another Iraq War.

I don't find this crazy at all.  In fact, I think cyberattacks are one area where many politicians have an incredible blind spot.  This isn't just hacking into online bank accounts (though it could be) - the US government has information shared and funneled through the same private networks that we access every day.  All future battles will involve trying to disrupt the enemy's ability to communicate and defend. Terrorists could cause very real distruction and loss of life by disrupting some of the systems we depend on daily.

Consider the first gulf war.  Iraq had sophisticated anti-aircraft defenses throughout the country and knew all about the coalition military buildup yet we completely routed them with a brief air compaign and 100 hour ground offensive.  The underlying reason why we lost so few aircraft and had essentially no resistance on the ground was because we were able to completely dismantle numerous cyber 'nodes' critical for their defense.  They had the hardware to wage an effective defense, but as soon as the US-led forces attacked the Iraqi command literally lost the ability to communicate with their own forces, detect our troop movements or mount an effective defense.

With cyberwarfare, everything we can do they can do right back to us.
Now consider that everything from our air-traffic control grid to hydroelectric dams to our financial system to the 9-1-1 network is a potential target in cyber-warfare.

[Kris]

Secondly, here's her quote from a recent speech:

We’ll invest in the next frontier of military engagement, protecting U.S. interests in outer space and cyberspace. You’ve seen reports. Russia’s hacked into a lot of things. China’s hacked into a lot of things. Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election systems. So, we’ve got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us.

As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses. And we’re going to invest in protecting our governmental networks and our national infrastructure. I want us to lead the world in setting the rules of cyberspace.

I find this absolutely crazy. To say that we will escalate to use of military force due to cyberattacks!? When we consider this with the false Benghazi narrative, we're leading ourselves into another Iraq War.

I don't find this crazy at all.  In fact, I think cyberattacks are one area where many politicians have an incredible blind spot.  This isn't just hacking into online bank accounts (though it could be) - the US government has information shared and funneled through the same private networks that we access every day.  All future battles will involve trying to disrupt the enemy's ability to communicate and defend. Terrorists could cause very real distruction and loss of life by disrupting some of the systems we depend on daily.

Consider the first gulf war.  Iraq had sophisticated anti-aircraft defenses throughout the country and knew all about the coalition military buildup yet we completely routed them with a brief air compaign and 100 hour ground offensive.  The underlying reason why we lost so few aircraft and had essentially no resistance on the ground was because we were able to completely dismantle numerous cyber 'nodes' critical for their defense.  They had the hardware to wage an effective defense, but as soon as the US-led forces attacked the Iraqi command literally lost the ability to communicate with their own forces, detect our troop movements or mount an effective defense.

With cyberwarfare, everything we can do they can do right back to us.
Now consider that everything from our air-traffic control grid to hydroelectric dams to our financial system to the 9-1-1 network is a potential target in cyber-warfare.

I agree. I'm pretty sure we are woefully, frighteningly behind the curve in cybersecurity.

[tonysemail]

I read a pretty good book which compared stuxnet as the first cyber-warhead.
i.e. similar to the first nuclear bomb and certain parallels with the cold war

It's not over-stating things to consider cyberattacks with a military bent.
every super power is arming itself with cyber weapons and we'd be fools to fall behind.

ironically, the most worrisome part about clinton is her warhawk nature =/

[cliffhanger]

Secondly, here's her quote from a recent speech:

We’ll invest in the next frontier of military engagement, protecting U.S. interests in outer space and cyberspace. You’ve seen reports. Russia’s hacked into a lot of things. China’s hacked into a lot of things. Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election systems. So, we’ve got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us.

As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses. And we’re going to invest in protecting our governmental networks and our national infrastructure. I want us to lead the world in setting the rules of cyberspace.

I find this absolutely crazy. To say that we will escalate to use of military force due to cyberattacks!? When we consider this with the false Benghazi narrative, we're leading ourselves into another Iraq War.

I don't find this crazy at all.  In fact, I think cyberattacks are one area where many politicians have an incredible blind spot.  This isn't just hacking into online bank accounts (though it could be) - the US government has information shared and funneled through the same private networks that we access every day.  All future battles will involve trying to disrupt the enemy's ability to communicate and defend. Terrorists could cause very real distruction and loss of life by disrupting some of the systems we depend on daily.

Consider the first gulf war.  Iraq had sophisticated anti-aircraft defenses throughout the country and knew all about the coalition military buildup yet we completely routed them with a brief air compaign and 100 hour ground offensive.  The underlying reason why we lost so few aircraft and had essentially no resistance on the ground was because we were able to completely dismantle numerous cyber 'nodes' critical for their defense.  They had the hardware to wage an effective defense, but as soon as the US-led forces attacked the Iraqi command literally lost the ability to communicate with their own forces, detect our troop movements or mount an effective defense.

With cyberwarfare, everything we can do they can do right back to us.
Now consider that everything from our air-traffic control grid to hydroelectric dams to our financial system to the 9-1-1 network is a potential target in cyber-warfare.

Hey, thanks for that. That's an interesting point concerning the Gulf War I didn't know about. Nothing you said I disagree with.

I suppose I'm thrown off by the context surrounding Mrs. Clinton's remarks. It comes off as 'well, since the Russians hacked into the DNC and read some emails, I might take military action.' I would probably agree with her and anyone else who would talk about serious consequences of cyberattacks such as the ones you brought up. We can't really come to a conclusion of what she meant besides reading her statement, and it seems to me that she is too willing to go to war.

[nereo]

Secondly, here's her quote from a recent speech:

We’ll invest in the next frontier of military engagement, protecting U.S. interests in outer space and cyberspace. You’ve seen reports. Russia’s hacked into a lot of things. China’s hacked into a lot of things. Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election systems. So, we’ve got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us.

As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses. And we’re going to invest in protecting our governmental networks and our national infrastructure. I want us to lead the world in setting the rules of cyberspace.

I find this absolutely crazy. To say that we will escalate to use of military force due to cyberattacks!? When we consider this with the false Benghazi narrative, we're leading ourselves into another Iraq War.

I don't find this crazy at all.  In fact, I think cyberattacks are one area where many politicians have an incredible blind spot.  This isn't just hacking into online bank accounts (though it could be) - the US government has information shared and funneled through the same private networks that we access every day.  All future battles will involve trying to disrupt the enemy's ability to communicate and defend. Terrorists could cause very real distruction and loss of life by disrupting some of the systems we depend on daily.

Consider the first gulf war.  Iraq had sophisticated anti-aircraft defenses throughout the country and knew all about the coalition military buildup yet we completely routed them with a brief air compaign and 100 hour ground offensive.  The underlying reason why we lost so few aircraft and had essentially no resistance on the ground was because we were able to completely dismantle numerous cyber 'nodes' critical for their defense.  They had the hardware to wage an effective defense, but as soon as the US-led forces attacked the Iraqi command literally lost the ability to communicate with their own forces, detect our troop movements or mount an effective defense.

With cyberwarfare, everything we can do they can do right back to us.
Now consider that everything from our air-traffic control grid to hydroelectric dams to our financial system to the 9-1-1 network is a potential target in cyber-warfare.

Hey, thanks for that. That's an interesting point concerning the Gulf War I didn't know about. Nothing you said I disagree with.

I suppose I'm thrown off by the context surrounding Mrs. Clinton's remarks. It comes off as 'well, since the Russians hacked into the DNC and read some emails, I might take military action.' I would probably agree with her and anyone else who would talk about serious consequences of cyberattacks such as the ones you brought up. We can't really come to a conclusion of what she meant besides reading her statement, and it seems to me that she is too willing to go to war.

I agree that the US is too quick to use military force to solve its problems, and that both major candidates want to increase our military boot-print.  In truth, this is the area where I am most critical of HRC, and I would go apesh*! if we launched an bombing offensive over hacked emails. IMO that would be even worse than the "preemptive strike" BS that W. used as partial justification against Iraq in the 2nd gulf war.

But what happens if a stuxnet-like attack by a foreign power causes a hydrodam to breach destroying a few towns, killing a few thousand people and disrupting our electric grid? My understanding is that we'd treat that the same as if the offending nation had deliberately dropped a bomb from one of their bombers on the dam... which is to say, yet more war.
Of course with cyberwarfare it's a bit harder to decisively say this country is behind the attack.

[MrMoogle]

Secondly, here's her quote from a recent speech:

We’ll invest in the next frontier of military engagement, protecting U.S. interests in outer space and cyberspace. You’ve seen reports. Russia’s hacked into a lot of things. China’s hacked into a lot of things. Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election systems. So, we’ve got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us.

As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses. And we’re going to invest in protecting our governmental networks and our national infrastructure. I want us to lead the world in setting the rules of cyberspace.

I find this absolutely crazy. To say that we will escalate to use of military force due to cyberattacks!? When we consider this with the false Benghazi narrative, we're leading ourselves into another Iraq War.

I don't find this crazy at all.  In fact, I think cyberattacks are one area where many politicians have an incredible blind spot.  This isn't just hacking into online bank accounts (though it could be) - the US government has information shared and funneled through the same private networks that we access every day.  All future battles will involve trying to disrupt the enemy's ability to communicate and defend. Terrorists could cause very real distruction and loss of life by disrupting some of the systems we depend on daily.

Consider the first gulf war.  Iraq had sophisticated anti-aircraft defenses throughout the country and knew all about the coalition military buildup yet we completely routed them with a brief air compaign and 100 hour ground offensive.  The underlying reason why we lost so few aircraft and had essentially no resistance on the ground was because we were able to completely dismantle numerous cyber 'nodes' critical for their defense.  They had the hardware to wage an effective defense, but as soon as the US-led forces attacked the Iraqi command literally lost the ability to communicate with their own forces, detect our troop movements or mount an effective defense.

With cyberwarfare, everything we can do they can do right back to us.
Now consider that everything from our air-traffic control grid to hydroelectric dams to our financial system to the 9-1-1 network is a potential target in cyber-warfare.

Hey, thanks for that. That's an interesting point concerning the Gulf War I didn't know about. Nothing you said I disagree with.

I suppose I'm thrown off by the context surrounding Mrs. Clinton's remarks. It comes off as 'well, since the Russians hacked into the DNC and read some emails, I might take military action.' I would probably agree with her and anyone else who would talk about serious consequences of cyberattacks such as the ones you brought up. We can't really come to a conclusion of what she meant besides reading her statement, and it seems to me that she is too willing to go to war.

I agree that the US is too quick to use military force to solve its problems, and that both major candidates want to increase our military boot-print.  In truth, this is the area where I am most critical of HRC, and I would go apesh*! if we launched an bombing offensive over hacked emails. IMO that would be even worse than the "preemptive strike" BS that W. used as partial justification against Iraq in the 2nd gulf war.

But what happens if a stuxnet-like attack by a foreign power causes a hydrodam to breach destroying a few towns, killing a few thousand people and disrupting our electric grid? My understanding is that we'd treat that the same as if the offending nation had deliberately dropped a bomb from one of their bombers on the dam... which is to say, yet more war.
Of course with cyberwarfare it's a bit harder to decisively say this country is behind the attack.

Or even saying it is a country, and not a group of hackers. 

[GuitarStv]

Since when do facts stand in the way of US military actions?  :P