Tomorrow's the big day.

First of all, I want to let those who I've disagreed with, that I did so sincerely. However, I often let my emotions get in the way of having an intelligent interaction with many of you. For that, I do apologize.

I may not change my allegiance going forward but my approach will be much different. No more sniping or sarcasm. I plan to conduct myself according to this site's TOS. If I disagree, I will say so but not in any offensive manner.

In hindsight, we all know very few people at DU changed their outlook or opinions based on what others in the opposition said or linked to. But often it seemed like an opportunity to attack if one disagreed. That unfortunately is human nature when one feels so invested in the topic or subject at hand.

I hope that those who primarily post in protected groups will come out of their safe zone and talk with everyone. As a Sanders supporter, I spent very little time in that group, because I want interaction with everyone (unless I had no option but to ignore 10 or so people).

I hope to read and learn different perspectives. I may not agree but that's okay. Let's hope we can all accept that.

Has anyone posted the ABC News report about Raj Fernando, in a quid pro quo assignment?

I wouldn't want to rehash news from 6/10 when the Orlando mass shootings were being covered. Just curious.

The Intercept is not a right wing publication.

As a presidential candidate, Clinton has made her foreign policy experience a centerpiece of her campaign. Under scrutiny, however, Clinton’s acumen has been consistently called into question — from her vote, as a U.S. senator, for the Iraq War (which led to the collapse of that country into near failed-state status) to her relentless push to intervene in Libya (which led to the collapse of that country into near failed-state status); not to mention her handling of the Russian “reset,” the so-called pivot to Asia, and the Arab Spring, among other issues.

Until now, however, there has been little of mention of Clinton’s handling of South Sudan. With strong U.S. support, South Sudan became an independent country while she was secretary of state — and soon spiraled into a disastrous civil war that involved large numbers of child soldiers. The CSPA waivers and the broader panoply of military and diplomatic support that was extended to South Sudan and the government of its president, Salva Kiir, failed to prevent a descent into violence that has cost more than 50,000 lives and forced more than 2.4 million people to flee their homes.

http://interc.pt/1TZs2Fl

Update: The link listed today's news and the article about the PAC isn't my focus. That is old news.

I am referring to the article entitled, NEW NATION, LONG WAR by Nick Turse, located further down the page. It addresses Clinton's State Department approving Rebel forces in southern Sudan using child soldiers long before seceding from Sudan in 2011. The United States, on the other hand, passed a law in 2008 that banned providing military assistance to nations that use child soldiers.

Obama's Endorsement Undercuts Clinton FBI investigation.

Yesterday Josh Ernest admitted the FBI is conducting a "criminal investigation" regarding Clinton's emails. You can find it on C-Span.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/fox-news-obama-hillary-clinton-fbi-224143

Have a great evening everyone.

TESADYFOCS

Is this the first time in history where both presumptive nominees had 57% unfavorable ratings?

The baiting has really increased in intensity and volume. Having a backup to protect them has

brought the wild ones out of the cellar. Beware Sanders people.

Yikes! Carol Costello in attack mode against Simone Sanders on CNN now.

First she uses to super delegates to say Hillary needs about 23 delegates and Bernie has no chance. Simone accurately explained those super-Ds don't vote until July. So from a pledged delegate count, the race is still undetermined. Then Carol shows a fake concern for young voters being disengaged when Bernie loses.

Here's a thought; stay the fuck away from Costello and her Clinton talking points.

Clinton Likely Committed "Biggest Violation of Federal Records Act in History

It's as if the act was written to protect their own. But does this mean just because the skirted (please, no sexist replies) the law by resigning her position, she should be excused? PLEASE DON'T REPLY UNLESS YOU READ THE ARTICLE.

"Yet there are absolutely no penalties provided by law for this misconduct. The FRA, if violated, does provide a basis for some action being taken against an employee — but only a personnel-type administrative action that simply does not work if the employee is “long gone.”


http://lawnewz.com/politics/hillary-clinton-absolutely-violated-the-federal-records-act-heres-why-she-cant-be-punished/

Poor polls, scandal, a cussed rival … how it’s all going wrong for Hillary Clinton

Some Democrats, such as progressive champion Elizabeth Warren, show signs of trying to rally around their beleaguered team captain, yet the ongoing FBI investigation also complicates the ability of the party’s most influential cheerleader to come to the rescue. At a press conference in Japan, the normally loquacious Barack Obama flat out refused to take a question from a journalist asking whether the email scandal undermined Clinton’s “trustworthiness”.


http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/28/hillary-clinton-us-presidential-electiond-democrats