“Here, for the record, is Clinton saying, on March 10, 2015, “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.””
I’m particularly offended by this oligarchy-outcome because Clinton is guilty of doing what she persecutes American hero Ed Snowden for doing – “mishandling classified information”. Yet he lives in exile in Russia, and she’ll run the whole darn United States of America. Snowden tried to do the right thing and tell Americans of secret crimes against them, and Clinton tried to do the wrong thing (hide her emails from public scrutiny while she was supposed to be a transparent public servant). She’s rich and powerful, and he was with no influence; The Rule of Law is not well in the USA.
By ignoring the damning information uncovered by the FBI — that Clinton’s elaborate system for avoiding the requirement that public servants should make their official correspondence available in public archives had exposed dozens of messages containing secret information to potential interception — the candidate clearly hoped to put the matter behind her.
While that satisfied many of her supporters — and predictably angered most of her detractors — treating the FBI director’s conclusion of “not criminal” as a seal of approval seemed to leave many Americans feeling queasy, and others wondering if the laws on mishandling classified information just do not apply to those in power.
Clinton = #FBImWithHer
Does that mean Trump is better? Heck no. I don’t envy American voters who can’t fight their corrupt media/government/justice systems. They are desperate, with good reason, to stop Trump. Sanders so far hasn’t made a big deal of Clinton’s email scandal, he dismissed it during a debate, in an apparent effort to prevent it from becoming a sideshow that could hurt the Democrats he at that time hoped still to lead.
Brexit: It’s a term I first heard months ago on Twitter in relation to people mostly angry with immigration in the UK. It means “British Exit from the European Union”. The country narrowly voted to leave the EU, and the economy/currency Pound Sterling soon crashed from the uncertainty of the Prime Minister resigning, the opposition leader being turfed by MPs, and the Brexit Leave leaders having no effing plan. One of the Brexit leaders is the former mayor of London, and the other is the leader of the UK Independence Party, a sort of extreme Reform Party hell bent on blocking Muslim immigrants much how Trump has envisioned for the United States.
A great British comic in the US, John Oliver, says there are no do-overs for the Brexit referendum vote. I tend to disagree on this point, even though the rest of his analysis is fine and funny.
There are do-overs, because we have elections every few years or if the loss of confidence in the ruling government takes place. It’s pretty obvious Britons have no confidence in the current government or the choice to Leave. Therefore it’s not anti-democratic to take another vote to determine public opinion following the initial consequences of their earlier vote last week. After all, if people are still satisfied with all of the Brexit results, they’ll again vote for it, correct? It might keep the UK united, otherwise Scotland is set to leave so they’ll stay with the EU, as is Ireland which may unite with Northern Ireland.
Keep in mind I’m no expert on British politics, so if you’ve a correction to make to this summary, please leave it in the comments.
I basically stopped writing about the Saskatchewan election on my blog following the hair pulling, anti-democratic decision by CBC and its consortium of TV broadcasters to block most party leaders from debating with Wall and Broten. So we’ll go another 4 years not knowing how those two shouty leaders behave when there are adults in the room with different political views and preferred methods of governing.
@jayfish82@JohnKleinRegina No, you do not have to bring your voter information card. It makes this faster, but it is not required.
Richard Nixon was not a good man. The people around him weren’t good either. They intentionally lied about the harm of hard drugs (and ‘soft’ drugs too), in order to concoct a reason for law enforcement officers to harass and jail African Americans and anti-war protesters.
“We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
So if you wonder why laws regarding pot differ so much from cigarettes that cause far more health harm, you have Nixon to partially thank for that lunacy.
Last Saskatchewan election, this happened instead thanks to our lackluster media ignoring the Greens who fielded a full slate of 58 candidates.
A snooze fest of a debate took place, and CBC couldn’t find anyone not involved in the broadcast who watched it. Basically it had the viewership my blog has on a Sunday morning.
I made some effort to fix the problem by showing the broadcasters there was public opposition to their method. Even newspaper columnists who usually have a rosy view of the world were disappointed in the prospects of the following four years.
12. Wall's praised @votelau, and CBC featured Swenson, both in the past month. Obviously newsworthy people. Media gatekeepers know best?
With Sona destined to sit in jail, and Finely in a grave, it all seems a little bit of an academic discussion now, except the Con’s supporters are now clamouring for a referendum to salvage (savage?) our electoral system.