Clinton Lied But No Consequence. It’s Like It’s the 1990s Still

“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.

Leave Or Remain In? The Former UK Chooses Out And About Does Itself In

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.

ADDED:

#RoboCon: Revisiting the 2008 Election Fraud

In light of this news from Elizabeth May, it may be worth re-reading these blog entries from 2012  and 2009. Duffy’s trial raised some damning information about the first infamous robocalls used to steal an election for the Conservatives in B.C.

And read Alison’s more recent recap. I certainly think that Duffy’s testimony should be taken seriously by investigators and charges should be pursued.

It’s Saskatchewan’s Election Day

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.

The campaign will not be memorable, as the media’s skewing of coverage can be summed up this way:

You could say the conservative media got what they set out to preserve. I hope they enjoy the next 4 years of more scandals and little positive change.

Saskatchewan Politicians Excusing Drunk Driving #SKdrunks

Darcy Moen, involved in a business solution to decrease drunk driving, sent me the following criticism of Wall and Broten:

As long as politicians think DUI’s are nothing more than parking tickets…….yes, attitudes need to change, and both Brad Wall and Cam Broten need to reconsider their support of the indefensible.

Sure, people faced the music, went to court, and paid their debt to society. But, we don’t allow people who were convicted of fraud become finance minister. Should we let those who are proven and convicted of poor judgement be put into a position where they can make the rules that they chose to ignore?
Everyone deserves a second chance? Tell that to the widows, widowers, parents and orphans that are the victims of drunk drivers, where is their second chance to come back to life taken from them?

Drunk driving is a decision, a very WRONG decision.

Brad Wall’s government is attempting to make alcohol sales and distribution easier, and is profiting from the sale and increased sale and accessibility, yet he has not made any plans to offset those gains with more responsible use of alcohol, nor has he plans to reduce the already way to high incidents of drunk driving that is sure to occur with more availability (and consumption). Why not move some of those profits into reducing drunk driving?

Mr Brad Wall, and if elected, Cam Broten, both need to take a hard look at this problem, and work to find solutions. Mr Wall is currently the man at the wheel, and his administration and crowns he controls have not been fair to the companies like Zero 8 that are also working hard to provide services to take drunk drivers off the road. SGI and the Minister responsible for SGI have been making and placing the majority of public service ads promoting bus rides, friends, and taxis as a means to a safe ride home, and very few ads include designated driver companies like Zero 8. When the Minister (June) was asked why she could not include designated driver companies like Zero 8 Designated Drivers, she said a crown corporation could not promote for profit enterprises. What the heck is a taxi service? Its a FOR PROFIT Enterprise! The problem and complete misunderstanding and attitude reaches from the bottom, to the very top.

On a side note, the coverage of other registered parties with full slates in this election has been so pitiful. The revelation of how many convicted drunk drivers there are in both the Sask Party and NDP, prompted the media to attempt to be fair by asking the other parties if they too had convicted criminals in their ranks.

Saskatchewan Democracy’s Unsolved Problem Didn’t Fix Itself

Please show you support democracy in Saskatchewan.

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.