RoadWarriorFromLP

The US does (or at least did) an excellent job of creating infrastructure ahead of the curve.

The US does a horrendous job of upgrading that infrastructure.

I'm sure that many of our civilian government computer systems pretty much suck.

One thing to consider is that the email was probably more secure when operated privately: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...44e_story.html

It's really odd that a bunch of folks who want to privatize everything can't see that.

zargof

Surely the fact that the example you cited is viewed as a controversy would mean that someone thinking of doing something similar may decide it was a bad idea. Again it doesn't reflect well.

FlaviusAetius

It seems pretty clear to me that she used her own email server rather than the government server so that she could control the flow of information regarding her tenure at State.

It also seems pretty clear that the actual impetus behind the disclosure, the FBI investigation (using the Petraeus "A" Team), and the constant leaking of information is the White House. The initial story appeared in the NYT, a virtual mouthpiece for the Obama Administration.

That is why I think we'll hear a lot more about Joe jumping into the race. Unlike Hillary, he's a guy everyone loves (even the Rs) and he has the sympathy factor of his son's recent death that should help him further. Plus, he would definitely continue Obama's legacy, unlike Hillary, who is more centrist than Obama and who would want to create her own legacy.

We're watching a battle royal on the Dem side. Reminds me, though, of the comment that the Conservative Party (was it them?) leadership was determined by an intricate series of cuts, thrusts and slashes carried out in complete darkness.

Steerpike

Being a republican on this forum is a bit like being a republican in the Bay Area, or NYC - you are simply outnumbered by people of a different persuasion, and you are going to face an uphill struggle getting acceptance of your views. I got that same sense (as a liberal/Democrat) when I spent 5 years in Scottsdale, AZ - I was completely surrounded by people who were gun-nuts, anti-immigrant, anti-tax, pro-war, anti-choice, etc. I was honestly shocked and it was difficult for me as everyone I knew was from work; I had to bite my tongue and nod/smile while I heard a constant flow of distasteful nonsense (I wasn't ready to jeopardize my career at that time, being that it was 2009 ... right after the crash).

It seems only logical that a 'British Expats' forum would tend towards a 'left' view, don't you think? But if you enjoy the debate, what's the problem?

Personally, I do think the Republicans have a current near-monopoly on stupid, and are on the wrong side of so many social issues. The unions / labor laws issue may be the one area of clear weakness for the Dems; my Republican friends are having a field day on the whole 'Uber' situation in California for example (California Labor Ruling Deals A Blow To Uber's Strategy For Denying Drivers Benefits | ThinkProgress and Judge In California Delivers Uber's Worst Nightmare | ThinkProgress ). Seems rather silly to go after Uber on this one.

By all accounts, I should be a shoe-in for a Republican vote ... I work hard, make lots of money, live in a white, middle-class suburb, etc. But I can't vote for a party that denies global warming, fights women's rights to an abortion, won't agree to any gun restriction no matter how common-sense, vilifies immigrants even though I am one myself (and the nation was founded on immigration), wants to teach 'creationism' as science in schools, and so on. (Besides that, I just flat out don't mind paying taxes, as long as the taxes go to welfare and not warfare...). So honestly, how CAN you think of voting for a party that advocates all these things?!

FlaviusAetius

Actually, Steerpike, I have no illusions about getting acceptance of my views here. They were formed by parents who were Tories, a college experience that involved a major in economics and a study of modern history and comparative government taught by refugees from Communism in Eastern Europe; as well as several years in an Army Intelligence unit in Germany during the Cold War. Those kinds of factors may not be shared by most members in BE.

What I have been hoping to see on a British Ex-pats site is some neutral critical thinking and evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of both Republican and Democratic candidates for "Leader of the Free World." Leslie is one who is meeting that standard, but people like her seem to be thin on the ground here.

To answer your question about how I can vote for the party that advocates social measures you find offensive, I can assure you that I also find them offensive. However, those social nostrums are irrelevant because the laws and the Supreme Court have rendered them nothing but ear candy for the social conservatives and fodder for Democrats to keep women, gays and various minorities in their camp.

My votes are driven by my economic training that convinces me that Democratic economic measures are generally harmful to the economy and their national security initiatives are disastrous. Republicans make mistakes in both areas, but the thinking behind the mistakes (everyone makes them) is more sound, in my opinion. So...I hold my nose and vote R. I vote Realpolitik, not for gauzy and meaningless platitudes of "hope and change." [As a voter you filled in your own belief as to what "hope and change" meant]

scrubbedexpat091

Joe Biden wonders if he has 'emotional energy' to run for president - World - CBC News

FlaviusAetius

Trump is simply a vacuous blowhard. He doesn't fit my criterion on national security, for sure. Fiorina was also interviewed, she was better.

Trump fumbles Hewitt question on terror leaders

sir_eccles

Glad to see you're finally seeing the light :-)

Steerpike

A fair answer.

My general opinion on the economy, formed over 30+ years of living here, is that the US economy does well despite the government, and thus, I look to the govt. to take care of social policy and foreign policy. That theory was blown in 2008/9 by the crash, which I largely blame on the republicans (too little regulation on the financial markets). As for foreign policy, I think the Iraq war was a travesty, and demonstrated just how wrong the republicans can be on foreign policy also.

I hold very little hope that the Democrats will do much better; I simply hope they won't f**ck things up as much. If we can get through the next 10 years without invading another middle-eastern country I'll be happy.

ETA: I do strongly believe that we (the US) are creating enemies in the middle east and that Obama's efforts to be less of a bully do represent progress in that area. Invading Iraq was a massive recruiting exercise for Al Quaida and ISIS and the like.

FlaviusAetius

Thanks.

We'll have to ask the Hungarians and Czechs how things are working out with our middle-east policy of leading from behind...or from somewhere...I think we're leading, but I'm not sure. Are we leading - anywhere?

I think it's time for the rich and powerful Euros to finally step up to the plate and show us how it is supposed to be done; or was done back in the day. Maybe we could even persuade the Turks to reinstate the Empire. Things were a lot quieter when the Ottomans ran things.

zargof

I wonder if you can expand on which Democratic economic measures you feel have harmed the economy and why? Because at a basic level it seems the economy tends to do better under a Democratic President.

sir_eccles

I don't know, what's the thinking behind this mistake?

Florida Governor Refuses to Admit That His Own Investigators Have Cleared Planned Parenthood | Mother Jones

Republicans just come across as lying, deceitful, in it for themselves idiots.

FlaviusAetius

This Planned Parenthood brohaha is getting kinda old.

Didn't read the article, but I do have a query: If all the public monies that are currently going to Planned Parenthood were, instead, diverted to other entities that provide the same health services to women that are supposed to be provided by PP with those public monies, would there still be a controversy? In other words, is PP some sort of sacred cow? Is the issue PP, or is the issue the provision of health services?

Steve_

Are you actually all seriously discussing this issue?

I have to say the juxtaposition of Hillary Clinton and Trump spouting off nonsense compared to watching the Federal election here is quite interesting.

It kinds of reminds me of when I was a child watching cartoons and then my father came home and switched the TV over to the news.

Look, what Clinton was doing was clearly wrong and probably illegal because saying it "wasn't classified" is bullshit, how can it have been classified when she was sending it through her own server! They can't classify something they aren't aware of.

And as for Trump and God knows who else, waiting for them to demonstrate the faintest clue of what they're talking about looks like it will be a long wait because Trump keeps leading them around by the nose.

Steve_

And therein lies the whole flaw in the US "democratic" system, only two parties of any consequence. In Canada we have five, although only three would be likely to form a government, but five parties had seats in the House of Commons.

You can't generalize that "Republicans" this or "Democrats" that, they're just duopoly organizations along the lines of Visa and Mastercard, and their industry is getting people elected.

And there is zero chance of there ever being a real third contender because unlike Canada (and pretty much every other democratic country) there are insane amounts of money involved that no-one now could ever hope to match.

There's one issue the Democrats and the Republicans always agree on - that there should be no other credible party. Look at all the laws around elections at the Federal and State level, etc., it's all set up for two parties only.

They actually use computer modelling now to gerrymander Congressional districts! Well all of that would go out the window if there was a third party, wouldn't it.

Clinton is actually talking about a constitutional amendment to give Congress the power to regulate the money that goes into political speech, well goodie, but I think it needs to go a teensy weensy bit further than that, e.g. anti-gerrymandering provisions, truly independent election commissions at the State level and Federal term limits.

The Republicans and Democrats aren't really political parties at this point imo, they're more akin to gangs, who can control the most turf.

It's just completely insane in a country with nine times the population of Canada that there are only two options on the ballot paper!

And as for the "leader of the free world", the Presidency is largely smoke and mirrors on the domestic side as has been conclusively proven over the last six years. The real power is in Congress. If in fact they ever decide to do anything.